There are no whites that are gay?

 

Yes. As long as you are gay the WH can tolerate you. Just plain white, you are hated

 

Before I post this article, I wanna know why Dirty Harry Screed only screeched against "Reskins" as offensive terms. We're told not to use the terms "negro" or "colored people" because they're offensive. Why has he never advocated for a name change of "The United Negro College Fund" or "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"?

http://www.providencejournal.Xom/article/20150912/OPINION/150919735/13831
(For real link, change X to c in .com. No stinkin' linkin' for me.)

The Providence Journal had some GREAT op-eds today.


So much to be offended by

Autumn, season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, also is the time for The Washington Post and other sensitivity auditors to get back on -- if they will pardon the expression -- the warpath against the name of the Washington Redskins.

The niceness police at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have won court approval of their decision that the team's name "may disparage" Native Americans. We have a new national passion for moral and historical hygiene, a determination to scrub away remembrances of unpleasant things, such as the name Oklahoma, which is a compound of two Choctaw words meaning "red" and "people."

Connecticut's state Democratic Party has leapt into the vanguard of this movement, vowing to sin no more: Never again will it have a Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. Connecticut Democrats shall still dine to celebrate their party's pedigree but shall not sully the occasions by mentioning the names of two slave owners. That has prompted an entertaining scramble by states' parties -- Georgia's, Missouri's, Iowa's, New Hampshire's, and Maine's already have taken penitential actions -- to escape guilt by association with the third and seventh presidents.

The Post should join this campaign for sanitized names. The newspaper bears the name of the nation's capital, which is named for a slave owner who also was -- trigger warning -- a tobacco farmer. Washington, D.C., needs a new name. Perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt, D.C. She had nothing to do with her husband's World War II internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were native-born American citizens.

Meanwhile, the name of Washington and Lee University is no mere micro-aggression, it is compounded hate speech: Robert E. Lee probably saluted the Confederate flag. Speaking of which: During the Senate debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, when Virginia's Willis Robertson waved a small Confederate flag on the Senate floor, Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey, liberal hero and architect of the legislation, called this flag a symbol of "bravery and courage and conviction." So, the University of Minnesota should seek a less tainted name for its Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Princeton University can make amends for its Woodrow Wilson School, named after the native Virginian who aggressively re-segregated the federal workforce.

Jacksonville, Fla.-- a state where Andrew Jackson honed his skill at tormenting Native Americans -- Jefferson City, Mo., Madison, Wis., and other places must be renamed for people more saintly. And speaking of saints:

Even secularists have feelings. And the Supreme Court says the First Amendment's proscription of the "establishment of religion" forbids nondenominational prayers at high school graduations. What, then, of the names of St. Louis, San Diego, San Antonio and numerous other places named for religious figures? Including San Francisco, the Vatican, so to speak, of American liberalism. Let the renaming begin, perhaps for liberal saints: Gore City, Sharpton City. Tony Bennett can sing, "I left my heart in Pelosi City."
---------------------


Considering how the name of Oklahoma came about, Fauxcahontas should be ashamed of herself saying she's an "Okie from Muskogee"! Shame on you, Liz.

 

The Washington Post

By Charles Krauthammer October 17, 2013

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s "I Have a Dream" speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination...

The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone...

You would stop not because of the language police...But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

---------

The accepted term now is "African American." What should we call them in Africa? "African African?" What should we call them when "African American" develops derogatory connotations?

It probably will. People with low IQ's used to be called "feeble minded." When that was considered derogatory the accepted term was "mentally retarded." When that was considered derogatory the accepted term was "developmentally challenged." I think the term we are supposed to used now is "different ability."

 

That's fucked up. Wake up America or USA.

 

I don't have a link to it yet. Just heard on local news city of Waco ordered an air line company to remove a sign, U.S.flag and a Baylor flag flying from it.
Clams sign and flags voliate their lease with city.

 

Supreme Court sides with The Slants, rules ban on offensive names is unconstitutional

6/19/17

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal trademark law banning offensive names is unconstitutional, siding with a rock band whose name had been deemed racially disparaging by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In an 8-0 ruling, the court determined the law’s so-called “disparagement clause” violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

The case centered on Oregon-based, Asian-American band The Slants, which was denied a trademark because its name was considered offensive. The band countered that the 70-year-old law at issue violates free-speech rights -- and Justice Samuel Alito, in the court’s opinion, agreed.

“The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates. If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social ‘volatility,’ free speech would be endangered,” he wrote.





The victory for the band could have broader implications and be welcome news for the Washington Redskins, embroiled in its own legal fight over the team’s name. The trademark office canceled the football team’s lucrative trademarks in 2014 after finding the word “Redskins” is disparaging to Native Americans.

At issue in The Slants’ case was a law that prohibits registration of trademarks that “may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.”

A trademark confers certain legal benefits, including the power to sue competitors that infringe upon the trademark.

Slants founder Simon Tam said his goal was to reclaim a derisive slur and transform it into a badge of ethnic pride. But the trademark office said a term can be disparaging even when used in a positive light. A federal appeals court had sided with the band, ruling that the law violates the First Amendment.

Alito cautioned in his opinion that the government still “has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend.”

But he suggested the clause in question was too sweeping: “The clause reaches any trademark that disparages any person, group, or institution. It applies to trademarks like the following: ‘Down with racists,’ ‘Down with sexists,’ ‘Down with homophobes.’ It is not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause. In this way, it goes much further than is necessary to serve the interest asserted.”

Lee Rowland, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union which had supported the band, called the ruling a “major victory for the First Amendment.”

 

I would suggest that anyone who found this offensive to write the City Hall of Reno and express your outrage. That's the only way it will change. These fucking idiots need to learn that Americans respect our flag!

 

Well I hope everyone wrote to City Hall when this thread was posted two years ago. Why it's resurfaced now I don't know.

 

I was just reading a story of a school here in Edmonton that was putting on some sort of a pride event including decorations and sidewalk chalk painting and they were made to remove the decorations and had to wash the chalk off the entranceway and the excuse that the school gave is that "it was tracking chalk into the school" BUT that didn't explain the decorations ???

In another school someone climbed the flag pole and cut down a pride flag and as much as I do not agree with what they did, you do not fuck with the Canadian flag and alter or cover it to suit your purpose and I don't give a fiddlers fuck who or what you think you are ...

 

.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/controversy-flies-over-philadelphia-s-new-pride-flag-n772821

 

Wow. Those poor blacks. They're discriminated against even in the LGBT community.

 

.

 

.

 

An LGBT flag has no business being flown on municipal property. The residents should have burned it then put the American flag back.

 

As to M4M's post, at left the Washington Redskins will get to keep their name now.