Pretty good Neyer piece today

[motherscratcher]

1933-45 primary logo:

Jeesus. What did they do? Have a contest amongst local 2nd graders?

[peeker643]

Nice to see the racist bastards back in the early 1900's finally gave way to the enlightened folks who came later. Those C's back in the teens were offensive. What were those, Helvetica?

Fucking Swiss.

No offense to any of Swiss dudes out there.

[skatingtripods]

1933-45 primary logo:

Jeesus. What did they do? Have a contest amongst local 2nd graders?

I'm offended by both your misspelling of Jesus and the context in which you're using it.

[Rat_Tail]

I have it on good authority that Chief Wahoo is no more offensive than Super Mario.

You can't really argue it mo. Unless you're cool with double standards.

Why don't the Indians just do this?
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/12/the-pirates-are-going-to-fan-source-a-new-logo/

I wonder if any real pirates find their current logo offensive?

[Larvell Blanks]

I have it on good authority that Chief Wahoo is no more offensive than Super Mario.

You can't really argue it mo. Unless you're cool with double standards.

Why don't the Indians just do this?
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/12/the-pirates-are-going-to-fan-source-a-new-logo/
I wonder if any real pirates find their current logo offensive?

Why would the Tribe brass have fans design a pirate logo? That's just silly and doesn't tie in with the club whatsoever. Sheesh

[7foot3]

When you bring it to the level of stereotyping someone while assuming you know them, you might get away with it once. I dropped it up above, but now you are repeating yourself. You made your point without the personal attacks.

What did you drop? You still are stereotyping anyone who objects to the logo as just concerned with thinking well of themselves.

And it's no personal attack to point out that white males living a comfortable suburban lifestyle have priorities ahead of racism, and don't want to have to think about it. That should be followed by "no shit".

If anything is a personal attack, its the bullshit about "many who say the right things often are caught up or exposed for doing the wrong things" being thrown into this conversation. That is not a response to any argument I've made - that Chief Wahoo should follow Little Black Sambo into nonexistence - and is setting the table for ad hominem attacks.

[danwismar]

7foot3...you might want to watch out for trying to make one poster accountable for things said by three or more different people here...just sayin.

And while I'm not saying it's a personal attack to make assumptions about who is white, suburban or comfortable...or what that makes certain about their attitudes on race...

...neither is it a personal attack for someone (not me) to observe that in one's experience sometimes the loudest sanctimony seems to come people who turn out to be the biggest hypocrites.

Further, I would submit that all of us...white, suburban, comfortable or otherwise...have "priorities ahead of racism",....even to include those who may feel victimized by it. If you don't...well, my sympathies.

As for me...when I do concern myself with racism...and choose to expend some of my finite supply of righteous outrage about it...I guarantee you it has nothing to do with sports team logos.

[dmiles]

1950 seems to be a game-changer. For some reason they dropped the large headdress with many feathers and went down to the single feather.

[aclayman]

Just in regards to the argument that sports team logos should be ignored because "there are more important issues in the world".... The same logic would dictate that we're all assholes for watching baseball in the first place, since there are roughly 8 million activities more beneficial to the universe than seeing how Carlos Carrasco is looking in Spring Training. The "more important things" argument only works if somebody on this message board is literally giving their entire life over to the cause of eliminating Chief Wahoo, which I am fairly certain nobody here-- or anywhere else for that matter-- is doing. Opinions have only been stated because someone introduced the Wahoo topic on a site largely about the Cleveland Indians. If the preferred consequence is for no one to reply to that post because we all have better things to do... well, I guess you're right. That would be preferable.

As for the "most PC people are hypocrites" thing. Well... Sports Illustrated hasn't provided us with a convenient poll on that yet. But again, why is it relevant to the discussion? If it turns out that every white person who claims to be opposed to minstrel shows also secretly performs in black face every weekend, does that mean minstrel shows are really okay after all? You should form an opinion based on how you personally feel about the issue yourself, not on whether other people with an opinion are full of shit or not.

[7foot3]

7foot3...you might want to watch out for trying to make one poster accountable for things said by three or more different people here...just sayin.

And while I'm not saying it's a personal attack to make assumptions about who is white, suburban or comfortable...or what that makes certain about their attitudes on race...

...neither is it a personal attack for someone (not me) to observe that in one's experience sometimes the loudest sanctimony seems to come people who turn out to be the biggest hypocrites.

Further, I would submit that all of us...white, suburban, comfortable or otherwise...have "priorities ahead of racism",....even to include those who may feel victimized by it. If you don't...well, my sympathies.

As for me...when I do concern myself with racism...and choose to expend some of my finite supply of righteous outrage about it...I guarantee you it has nothing to do with sports team logos.

I'm not holding you accountable for anything anyone else said. We all know who said what, I'm demonstrating what making it personal actually looks like.

And it sure as shit is a personal attack to respond with that statement in your third paragraph. That is no response to an actual argument, but an intent on attacking the character of the speaker instead. It is intentionally vague by using words like "sometimes" so that the writer can sneak around actually being tied down to an accusation, he can always say "well I wasn't talking about [specific person/event]" but the goal is very clear: people shouldn't concern themselves with my side of the argument, but that the other guy might be shady (but don't hold me to that if the other guy isn't actually shady).

[motherscratcher]

Just in regards to the argument that sports team logos should be ignored because "there are more important issues in the world".... The same logic would dictate that we're all assholes for watching baseball in the first place, since there are roughly 8 million activities more beneficial to the universe than seeing how Carlos Carrasco is looking in Spring Training. The "more important things" argument only works if somebody on this message board is literally giving their entire life over to the cause of eliminating Chief Wahoo, which I am fairly certain nobody here-- or anywhere else for that matter-- is doing. Opinions have only been stated because someone introduced the Wahoo topic on a site largely about the Cleveland Indians. If the preferred consequence is for no one to reply to that post because we all have better things to do... well, I guess you're right. That would be preferable.

As for the "most PC people are hypocrites" thing. Well... Sports Illustrated hasn't provided us with a convenient poll on that yet. But again, why is it relevant to the discussion? If it turns out that every white person who claims to be opposed to minstrel shows also secretly performs in black face every weekend, does that mean minstrel shows are really okay after all? You should form an opinion based on how you personally feel about the issue yourself, not on whether other people with an opinion are full of shit or not.

[peeker643]

7foot3...you might want to watch out for trying to make one poster accountable for things said by three or more different people here...just sayin.

And while I'm not saying it's a personal attack to make assumptions about who is white, suburban or comfortable...or what that makes certain about their attitudes on race...

...neither is it a personal attack for someone (not me) to observe that in one's experience sometimes the loudest sanctimony seems to come people who turn out to be the biggest hypocrites.

Further, I would submit that all of us...white, suburban, comfortable or otherwise...have "priorities ahead of racism",....even to include those who may feel victimized by it. If you don't...well, my sympathies.

As for me...when I do concern myself with racism...and choose to expend some of my finite supply of righteous outrage about it...I guarantee you it has nothing to do with sports team logos.

I'm not holding you accountable for anything anyone else said. We all know who said what, I'm demonstrating what making it personal actually looks like.

And it sure as shit is a personal attack to respond with that statement in your third paragraph. That is no response to an actual argument, but an intent on attacking the character of the speaker instead. It is intentionally vague by using words like "sometimes" so that the writer can sneak around actually being tied down to an accusation, he can always say "well I wasn't talking about [specific person/event]" but the goal is very clear: people shouldn't concern themselves with my side of the argument, but that the other guy might be shady (but don't hold me to that if the other guy isn't actually shady).

Restrict your whining to logos. I'm not talking about any given individual. I'm talking in general. From televangelists to politicians to celebrities.

Christ, take the lazy way out and 'google' it if you're that GD naive.

You can't fall down without landing on one.

I wouldn't know you if you walked into my living room. You're simply more noise from a source I know nothing about, good or bad.

Shake yourself. It may sting, but none of THAT was about YOU. This was.

[danwismar]

Just in regards to the argument that sports team logos should be ignored because "there are more important issues in the world".... The same logic would dictate that we're all assholes for watching baseball in the first place, since there are roughly 8 million activities more beneficial to the universe than seeing how Carlos Carrasco is looking in Spring Training. The "more important things" argument only works if somebody on this message board is literally giving their entire life over to the cause of eliminating Chief Wahoo, which I am fairly certain nobody here-- or anywhere else for that matter-- is doing. Opinions have only been stated because someone introduced the Wahoo topic on a site largely about the Cleveland Indians. If the preferred consequence is for no one to reply to that post because we all have better things to do... well, I guess you're right. That would be preferable.

As for the "most PC people are hypocrites" thing. Well... Sports Illustrated hasn't provided us with a convenient poll on that yet. But again, why is it relevant to the discussion? If it turns out that every white person who claims to be opposed to minstrel shows also secretly performs in black face every weekend, does that mean minstrel shows are really okay after all? You should form an opinion based on how you personally feel about the issue yourself, not on whether other people with an opinion are full of shit or not.

Don't object to anything you say here Andrew...except maybe quotations marks around things nobody said.

[YahooFanChicago]

Introducing your 2014 Cleveland Caucasians... has a nice ring to it.

They could give the mascot a goofy smile, pastey complexion, redish hair and a knife.

I'm white, I won't be offended.

[dmiles]

Introducing your 2014 Cleveland Caucasians... has a nice ring to it.

They could give the mascot a goofy smile, pastey complexion, redish hair and a knife.

I'm white, I won't be offended.

Whereas Gingers would offend a large segment of the population.

[e0y2e3]

Yeah, but EVERYONE hates Gingers.

[jb]

I bet myself a bear claw this would be 3 pages when I posted it.

Longest thread here even with the most exciting off season since we signed Black Jack of Stickfigure fame.

[jb]

Only 2 ways to go:

The Cleveland Crackers

New logo:





This also helps draw well from the east side of Akron and Portage County helping the regional base.

Or

The Cleveland Crazies

New logo:



Dollar Prozac Nights celebrating our recent bi-polar seasons.

[googleeph2]

I bet myself a bear claw this would be 3 pages when I posted it.

Longest thread here even with the most exciting off season since we signed Black Jack of Stickfigure fame.

All due respect to you, jb, but you are the only one who would have taken your bet.

[jb]

I bet myself a bear claw this would be 3 pages when I posted it.

Longest thread here even with the most exciting off season since we signed Black Jack of Stickfigure fame.

All due respect to you, jb, but you are the only one who would have taken your bet.

Not true.

EVERYONE like bear claws!!!!

I hear they even make Chris Perez smile.

[googleeph2]

You can maximize your pastry fun by pronouncing it "beer clah", like in the movie "Fargo".

[jb]

You can maximize your pastry fun by pronouncing it "beer clah", like in the movie "Fargo".

Yahhh!

[Gradysmanldy]

Introducing your 2014 Cleveland Caucasians... has a nice ring to it.

They could give the mascot a goofy smile, pastey complexion, redish hair and a knife.

I'm white, I won't be offended.

I actually own this shirt:



...and you know what? People tell me that it's f***Ing racist. We just live in a hypersensitive society. A girl 10 feet away from my wife (who is a redhead) got mad at me for saying the word "ginger" last year.

If you're not concerned with the racial sensitivity of your own race (even "comfortable white suburbinites") then someone is standing by to let you know that you should be.

No one gives a f*** about chief wahoo. Just change the stupid mascot and be done with it already.

I'd trade Wahoo to the Marlins for Giancarlo Stanton, even if it meant we had to take the rainbow fish mascot in return. It's a stupid argument.

[7foot3]

Restrict your whining to logos. I'm not talking about any given individual. I'm talking in general. From televangelists to politicians to celebrities.

Christ, take the lazy way out and 'google' it if you're that GD naive.

You can't fall down without landing on one.

I wouldn't know you if you walked into my living room. You're simply more noise from a source I know nothing about, good or bad.

Shake yourself. It may sting, but none of THAT was about YOU. This was.

When I said:

he can always say "well I wasn't talking about [specific person/event]" but the goal is very clear: people shouldn't concern themselves with my side of the argument, but that the other guy might be shady

You could have just said "yeah, you're right"

[peeker643]

Restrict your whining to logos. I'm not talking about any given individual. I'm talking in general. From televangelists to politicians to celebrities.

Christ, take the lazy way out and 'google' it if you're that GD naive.

You can't fall down without landing on one.

I wouldn't know you if you walked into my living room. You're simply more noise from a source I know nothing about, good or bad.

Shake yourself. It may sting, but none of THAT was about YOU. This was.

When I said:

he can always say "well I wasn't talking about [specific person/event]" but the goal is very clear: people shouldn't concern themselves with my side of the argument, but that the other guy might be shady

You could have just said "yeah, you're right"

[danwismar]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -redskins/

House Dems introduce bill to strong-arm Redskins into changing name...

...apparently because Congress can't find any other problems in the country that require their attention.