Good chance team name gets changed per report.

[kbso83432]

The boycott needs to go to florio, king, Nike, wapo, and fedex. They’re the root of the problem.

The more I've had a chance to really think about this I go with this helmet, the uniforms that go with it, change the name to Warriors, tell anyone who has a problem with it to call the Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Florida St. and pound sand.

 

[chillerdab]

Just proves my point.

Chooci…slur
Karen…slur

Nope. According to your own definition, its only a slur if I meant it as a slur.

I did not. Your not entitled to your own interpretation according to your own definition.

That’s how stupid your line of thinking is. That also wasnr meant as a slur I meant it as a compliment, because you didnt challenge anybody to a fight, so you demonstrated restraint.

I’m so glad that - according to you - I can dictate to you how you should feel aboht what I say.

Thanks for that.

 

[skinsdad62]

 

[skinsdad62]

 

[gkekoa]

Nope. According to your own definition, its only a slur if I meant it as a slur.

I did not. Your not entitled to your own interpretation according to your own definition.

That’s how stupid your line of thinking is. That also wasnr meant as a slur I meant it as a compliment, because you didnt challenge anybody to a fight, so you demonstrated restraint.

I’m so glad that - according to you - I can dictate to you how you should feel aboht what I say.

Thanks for that.

Exactly. You used both Chooci and Karen in a derogatory fashion. That was the context you used it.

Here is the problem with your thoughts…we all know what you meant by those terms. Just because you claim afterwards they were not derogatory, that just means you are a liar.

 

[skinsdad62]

guy to be watch In preseason.

 

[skinsdad62]

choochi
has the following definition + add your definition
p*ssy
p*ssy is used in Slang
The word choochi is used in Slang meaning p*ssy​

 

[chillerdab]

Urban Dictionary: Choochi

Hindi for breasts

www.urbandictionary.com

Exactly. You used both Chooci and Karen in a derogatory fashion. That was the context you used it.

Here is the problem with your thoughts…we all know what you meant by those terms. Just because you claim afterwards they were not derogatory, that just means you are a liar.

You never really know what I meant when I posted what I posted. You arent allowed to come to the correct interpretation because you dont know of my intent.

Again, you are not following your own logic. You cant know what I mean because I didnt tell you my context.

I’m sorry (not sorry really, but maybe a “feel bad for you” kind of sorry) that you cant follow your own line of reasoning.

 

[chillerdab]

Learn Italian Slang with the Sopranos

If you want to speak Italian more naturally you must check out these slang words and phrases taken straight out of the hit show The Sopranos.

lingopie.com

Just trying to lead you out of the woods of your own echo chamber skinsdad.

You’re welcome .

 

[skinsdad62]

Learn Italian Slang with the Sopranos

If you want to speak Italian more naturally you must check out these slang words and phrases taken straight out of the hit show The Sopranos.

lingopie.com

Just trying to lead you out of the woods of your own echo chamber skinsdad.

You’re welcome .

Well apparently it has more then one definition, go figure , never seen that before on any word anywhere ( sarcasm) but don’t worry I can lead you out of the wilderness of your own echo chamber

 

[gkekoa]

Urban Dictionary: Choochi

Hindi for breasts

www.urbandictionary.com

You never really know what I meant when I posted what I posted. You arent allowed to come to the correct interpretation because you dont know of my intent.

Again, you are not following your own logic. You cant know what I mean because I didnt tell you my context.

I’m sorry (not sorry really, but maybe a “feel bad for you” kind of sorry) that you cant follow your own line of reasoning.

We know your intent. That is the difference. Nobody believes the Washington Redskins were named such as a slur. Nobody.

When communicating, there is a giver and receiver of the message. Yes, the giver delivers the intent and the receiver should understand the intent or the communication is ineffective.

I have never claimed the deliverer of a message can state their intent is positive when it was obviously negative. You fail to understand the logic, either by ignorance or by intent. Considering I do not believe you to be ignorant, I can only assume you are being a complete asshole.

 

[skinsdad62]

 

[chillerdab]

We know your intent. That is the difference. Nobody believes the Washington Redskins were named such as a slur. Nobody.

When communicating, there is a giver and receiver of the message. Yes, the giver delivers the intent and the receiver should understand the intent or the communication is ineffective.

I have never claimed the deliverer of a message can state their intent is positive when it was obviously negative. You fail to understand the logic, either by ignorance or by intent. Considering I do not believe you to be ignorant, I can only assume you are being a complete asshole.

1. You cant know my intent, and you dont know my intent. Just because you say “we know your intent,” doesnt make it so.
For example, sometimes I disagree with you because I feel like disagreeing with a board malcontent. Sometimes I totally agree with what you post. Sometimes I dont agree but pretend I do, because it’s exhausting to argue with somebody who never admits when they are wrong, ever. And finally, yes, sometimes I post to be a complete asshole.

Truthfully, it takes a complete asshole to say the stupid shit you posted earlier about how other people arent allowed to be offended if they dont know the first person’s intent.

The difference between our posts is that I’m doing it on purpose, and you are not. You actually believe the bullshit you posted.

2. Obviously there were people who believed that Redskins were a slur. Saying “nobody thought Redskins was a slur” is either being ignorant or you being an asshole. If nobody had an issue with the name, then sponsors wouldnt have pulled out. Common sense dictates that there were some people who thought the name was offensive.

3. Your last paragraph on intent of the giver is a lovely example of pretzel logic that is not related in the slightest to YOUR original message. It’s you attempting to save face after getting called out for your own line of thinking.

For reference, you wrote the following:
“I don’t need to see it through their perspective. They are not seeing it from any other person’s perspective.”

This is astounding arrogant. The Indigenous people who were offended by term Redskins should consider somebody else’s opinion ither than their own? Just astounding.
Like I said earlier, takes one to know one.

 

[Breed]

Give me Washington Warthogs. Pleaaaaase!

That's ridiculous.

 

[Ojb81]

That's ridiculous.

Warthogs? Or that logo?

 

[Breed]

Warthogs? Or that logo?

Heh. Both.

 

[gkekoa]

1. You cant know my intent, and you dont know my intent. Just because you say “we know your intent,” doesnt make it so.
For example, sometimes I disagree with you because I feel like disagreeing with a board malcontent. Sometimes I totally agree with what you post. Sometimes I dont agree but pretend I do, because it’s exhausting to argue with somebody who never admits when they are wrong, ever. And finally, yes, sometimes I post to be a complete asshole.

Truthfully, it takes a complete asshole to say the stupid shit you posted earlier about how other people arent allowed to be offended if they dont know the first person’s intent.

The difference between our posts is that I’m doing it on purpose, and you are not. You actually believe the bullshit you posted.

2. Obviously there were people who believed that Redskins were a slur. Saying “nobody thought Redskins was a slur” is either being ignorant or you being an asshole. If nobody had an issue with the name, then sponsors wouldnt have pulled out. Common sense dictates that there were some people who thought the name was offensive.

3. Your last paragraph on intent of the giver is a lovely example of pretzel logic that is not related in the slightest to YOUR original message. It’s you attempting to save face after getting called out for your own line of thinking.

For reference, you wrote the following:
“I don’t need to see it through their perspective. They are not seeing it from any other person’s perspective.”

This is astounding arrogant. The Indigenous people who were offended by term Redskins should consider somebody else’s opinion ither than their own? Just astounding.
Like I said earlier, takes one to know one.

1- I did not say they were not allowed to be offended…I said they are not offended.

2- I never claimed there are people who believe the word Redskin is a slur. I stated the word Redskin itself is not a slur. The intent of the word has to be used as such for it to be an actual slur.

3- So you believe because a person is an American Indian…they are not indigenous...they are correct without looking at the actual facts…such as a majority of American Indians are not offended by the word? Like I said, the deliverer of a message determines if something is used as a slur. That does not mean you ask if they meant it as a slur. It means you look at the context in which they used the word to determine if they meant it as such. If somebody says, “I love the Redskins,“ then it was not used as a slur. If they say “I hate those lazy redskins,” then they are using it as a slur.


As for me being the malcontent, make a poll and learn the truth.

 

[Ojb81]

Warthogs? Or that logo?

Lol, yeah, maybe the logo is a bit "looney tunes-ish", but Warthogs would be such a badass moniker, it would easily shoot to the top 5 as far as NFL nicknames are concernd

 

[skinsdad62]

 

[countryroads316]

I think bringing back the logo and naming them the Warriors makes the most sense