I'm not AI, but I can easily imagine that many of the AI mascots would be offensive to AIs. Of course they're not meant to be derogatory, but they're so cartoonish and stereotyped, I can see where someone would think their cultural history is being turned into a caricature. People who believe that should petition schools, be active in disseminating their opinions, etc. But this Redskins deal is a runaway train loaded with idiots. The basic facts are these:
Poll data consistently show that a strong majority of AIs don't find it offensive. These polls are not perfect, but the numbers are huge with typically 9 of 10 finding the term inoffensiveAdvocates including the Oneida and Suzan Harjo have been on a PR campaign for literally decades, and the story that they tell is that "redskins" is profane because it originally meant scalps of AIs. They've been saying this for decades to anyone who will listen, so you can imagine the impact it's had.However, a SMithsonian linguist traced teh actual history of the word, and tells a very different story. It was just a simple racial descriptor coined by AIs to distinguish red skins from white skins. It was then popularized by James Fennimore Cooper in his fiction. In neither case was it used as derogatory term. In other words, the scalp story is patently false. Despite knowing the actual etymology of the term, anti-Redskin advocates continue to propagate the false history they've been selling for decades.To an extent, things mean what we interpret them to mean. If a huge number of AIs are offended by the term, it's offensive, de facto, and it doesn't matter if this offense stems from a lie told to them by someone with an agenda. The offended parties can and should pressure the Redskins and NFL to change the name. That makes sense. It's a little troubling that history can just be rewritten in teh public eye so easily, but it still makes sense.
BUT, people are now petitioning the FCC to ban the term from being used on air and punish those who use it. In other words, they want to limit free speech. Their rationale, that the term is profane--that it is offensive to a large enough number of people. I have a big problem with this. Based on the actual facts that we have--poll data and a peer reviewed linguistic study--very few AIs actually find it offensive, and those who do likely do so based on a fabrication and some disingenuous PR. That's insane to me.
I can understand the trademark being stripped to a degree, because that's undoing a special distinction afforded by legislation. But the FCC thing would be taking away a constitutional right. I understand and would even get behind a movement to get rid of generic AI mascots, but fabricating historical linguistics, using that information to influence opinion, and then leveraging that support to limit free speech verges on criminal to me.
What does everyone think about this?
Poll data consistently show that a strong majority of AIs don't find it offensive. These polls are not perfect, but the numbers are huge with typically 9 of 10 finding the term inoffensiveAdvocates including the Oneida and Suzan Harjo have been on a PR campaign for literally decades, and the story that they tell is that "redskins" is profane because it originally meant scalps of AIs. They've been saying this for decades to anyone who will listen, so you can imagine the impact it's had.However, a SMithsonian linguist traced teh actual history of the word, and tells a very different story. It was just a simple racial descriptor coined by AIs to distinguish red skins from white skins. It was then popularized by James Fennimore Cooper in his fiction. In neither case was it used as derogatory term. In other words, the scalp story is patently false. Despite knowing the actual etymology of the term, anti-Redskin advocates continue to propagate the false history they've been selling for decades.To an extent, things mean what we interpret them to mean. If a huge number of AIs are offended by the term, it's offensive, de facto, and it doesn't matter if this offense stems from a lie told to them by someone with an agenda. The offended parties can and should pressure the Redskins and NFL to change the name. That makes sense. It's a little troubling that history can just be rewritten in teh public eye so easily, but it still makes sense.
BUT, people are now petitioning the FCC to ban the term from being used on air and punish those who use it. In other words, they want to limit free speech. Their rationale, that the term is profane--that it is offensive to a large enough number of people. I have a big problem with this. Based on the actual facts that we have--poll data and a peer reviewed linguistic study--very few AIs actually find it offensive, and those who do likely do so based on a fabrication and some disingenuous PR. That's insane to me.
I can understand the trademark being stripped to a degree, because that's undoing a special distinction afforded by legislation. But the FCC thing would be taking away a constitutional right. I understand and would even get behind a movement to get rid of generic AI mascots, but fabricating historical linguistics, using that information to influence opinion, and then leveraging that support to limit free speech verges on criminal to me.
What does everyone think about this?
