Toggle sidebar

lol: when wokeness collides with capitalism (sports related)

18IsTheMan

18IsTheMan

Heisman
Oct 1, 2014
20,811
17,702
113
The Washington Commanders have gone to exceedingly great lengths to distance themselves from the allegedly racist Redskins nickname and logo. Statements of condemnation, regret, apologies, etc. (insert sound of screeching brakes)

Buuuuuuuuuut it turns out they REALLY don't want to lose control over their racist trademarks. As such, they are selling t-shirts to commemorate 3 former players. The shirts will have the racist logo and nickname on them.


It's a real Catch 22. They have to market racism to prevent someone else from getting control over the nickname and logo and marketing raciam.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 92Pony
P

Piscis

All-Conference
Nov 30, 2001
25,806
3,398
113
"It's racist and we are ashamed of it, but it's our racism and only we can make money off of it".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 18IsTheMan
D

DannyTree1

Sophomore
Jun 4, 2026
401
179
43
They are in a difficult position. but this seems perfectly reasonable. Plus, the name isn't coming back anyway.

If they don't engage with the former name at all, they lose control of it and then the name can be used on anything and everything.

This is also on a very small number of items at their team store. Certainly, doesn't seem to be a big money-maker.
 
C

ctgarric

Joined Nov 18, 2005
Nov 18, 2005
284
598
93
DannyTree1 said:
They are in a difficult position. but this seems perfectly reasonable. Plus, the name isn't coming back anyway.

If they don't engage with the former name at all, they lose control of it and then the name can be used on anything and everything.

This is also on a very small number of items at their team store. Certainly, doesn't seem to be a big money-maker.
Click to expand...
If its racist and wrong, why do they care if they maintain control over it. Its not their team's logo anymore. There isn't any way to confuse a 3rd party use of the old logo and name with the current team.

It seems to be a very unprincipled position that you are brushing off here. So if a company had a small number of items with, lets say, The Battle Flag of the Northern Virginia, then there isn't any issue, right?

Or to keep it corporate, what about the Aunt Jemima logo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker123
Lurker123

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,991
5,750
113
ctgarric said:
If its racist and wrong, why do they care if they maintain control over it. Its not their team's logo anymore. There isn't any way to confuse a 3rd party use of the old logo and name with the current team.

It seems to be a very unprincipled position that you are brushing off here. So if a company had a small number of items with, lets say, The Battle Flag of the Northern Virginia, then there isn't any issue, right?

Or to keep it corporate, what about the Aunt Jemima logo?
Click to expand...

If liberals didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psycock
18IsTheMan

18IsTheMan

Heisman
Oct 1, 2014
20,811
17,702
113
DannyTree1 said:
They are in a difficult position. but this seems perfectly reasonable. Plus, the name isn't coming back anyway.

If they don't engage with the former name at all, they lose control of it and then the name can be used on anything and everything.

This is also on a very small number of items at their team store. Certainly, doesn't seem to be a big money-maker.
Click to expand...
So a little bit of racism is OK?

Who determines exactly what amount of racism is OK?
 
  • Like
Reactions: I4CtheFuture and Lurker123
A

adcoop

All-Conference
Jan 10, 2004
1,909
1,829
113
You don't have to try to make money off of something you trademark. Just trademark it to keep someone else from using it. Given that it was theirs, they have a right to control it and put a lock on it if they want. If they are trying to sell the merchandise, then that it is hypocritical. However, do the people calling that out get anything? I don't think so. The United States is becoming the land of pointless arguments.
 
I4CtheFuture

I4CtheFuture

All-Conference
Oct 5, 2024
1,520
1,540
113
Lurker123 said:
If liberals didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
Click to expand...
Arrow Emoji GIF by Salesforce
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psycock, Forkcock and Lurker123
Lurker123

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,991
5,750
113
adcoop said:
If they are trying to sell the merchandise, then that it is hypocritical.
Click to expand...


I agree. And if you read the OP and the article liked in it, you'll see that they are doing just that.
 
Last edited:
D

DannyTree1

Sophomore
Jun 4, 2026
401
179
43
ctgarric said:
If its racist and wrong, why do they care if they maintain control over it. Its not their team's logo anymore. There isn't any way to confuse a 3rd party use of the old logo and name with the current team.
Click to expand...
My guess is that they don't want another company coming along and putting former player's names on merchandise and team products with the former name on it and make it seem like it's the organization doing it. In practice, a company could then pretend to be the team and put the old name on all sorts of things.

This way they can satisfy the legal requirements to control the name by making a few items available in their team store
 
D

DannyTree1

Sophomore
Jun 4, 2026
401
179
43
18IsTheMan said:
So a little bit of racism is OK?

Who determines exactly what amount of racism is OK?
Click to expand...
As I've told my kids when they were young, sometimes in a tough deal, it's a matter of "what's worse"

if they don't use it at all- they lose total control of it and it proliferates and spreads and becomes more abundant. Sometimes you have to make the less bad decision.
 
Last edited:
Lurker123

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,991
5,750
113
DannyTree1 said:
As I've told my kids when they were young, sometimes in a tough deal, t's a matter of "what's worse"

if they don't use it at all- they lose total control of it and it proliferates and spreads and becomes more abundant. Sometimes you have to make the less bad decision.
Click to expand...

So, you didn't answer. Who determines exactly what amount of racism is OK?

I mean, at least we clarified that you're okay with racism.
 
1vagamecock

1vagamecock

All-Conference
Jan 19, 2022
1,876
1,396
113
Truth is it never was racist but they reside in (or close proximity too) a district that is 95% liberal.
My wife was a Redskins fan her whole life, won't even watch them on TV anymore.
She is not the only one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skuddy, I4CtheFuture and Lurker123
18IsTheMan

18IsTheMan

Heisman
Oct 1, 2014
20,811
17,702
113
adcoop said:
However, do the people calling that out get anything?
Click to expand...

They opened themselves up to the criticism b/c of all the virtue signaling. If they just changed their mascot for some other reason and kept their mouth shut, fine. But we were subjected to all the racism nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker123
18IsTheMan

18IsTheMan

Heisman
Oct 1, 2014
20,811
17,702
113
DannyTree1 said:
As I've told my kids when they were young, sometimes in a tough deal, it's a matter of "what's worse"

if they don't use it at all- they lose total control of it and it proliferates and spreads and becomes more abundant. Sometimes you have to make the less bad decision.
Click to expand...
Except we have been told in no uncertain terms that no amount of racism is ok. In any circumstance. Any.

Besides. what do they care if they lost their trademark and others started using it? They aren't the Redskins any longer. They went to great lengths to not just change their name but to distance themselves as much as possible from the name. Now they're afraid someone else might use it?

Doesn't pass the sniff test.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Forkcock and Lurker123
D

DannyTree1

Sophomore
Jun 4, 2026
401
179
43
18IsTheMan said:
Except we have been told in no uncertain terms that no amount of racism is ok. In any circumstance. Any.

Besides. what do they care if they lost their trademark and others started using it? They aren't the Redskins any longer. They went to great lengths to not just change their name but to distance themselves as much as possible from the name. Now they're afraid someone else might use it?

Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...

I don't think speeding and breaking traffic laws is ok. But I also know if I am driving in the left lane to pass someone and someone comes up behind me going 88 mph and is 6 inches from my bumper, I might speed up and go well over the speed limit in order to pass and get back into the right lane as fast as possible and then slow back down. I think most people would do the same.

People make decisions sometimes based on what is "less bad" at the moment.

Now, I realize you don't think their name was hurtful. But after studying the issue and talking to various Native American groups, they made the decision that it was hurtful. So they made the decision to change it. They make the decision and have stuck by it and no matter how much some whine about it, they've stuck to it and aren't going back. Good for them having backbone and refusing to reverse themselves.

I also can understand they are in a difficult situation with the way the trademark works and I think the great majority of people understand why they want to control the trademark and not have it proliferate with groups that don't care if the name hurts someone or not.

They also realize the former players played for the team under the previous name and the organization has made sort of a compromise on the issue that isn't ideal but is the best under the circumstances. The groups they are concerned about, for the most part, seem to understand that and that's all that counts.

The rest of the whiners won't be happy either way. Such is life and sports.
 
Lurker123

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,991
5,750
113
DannyTree1 said:
I don't think speeding and breaking traffic laws is ok. But I also know if I am driving in the left lane to pass someone and someone comes up behind me going 88 mph and is 6 inches from my bumper, I might speed up and go well over the speed limit in order to pass and get back into the right lane as fast as possible and then slow back down. I think most people would do the same.

People make decisions sometimes based on what is "less bad" at the moment.

Now, I realize you don't think their name was hurtful. But after studying the issue and talking to various Native American groups, they made the decision that it was hurtful. So they made the decision to change it. They make the decision and have stuck by it and no matter how much some whine about it, they've stuck to it and aren't going back. Good for them having backbone and refusing to reverse themselves.

I also can understand they are in a difficult situation with the way the trademark works and I think the great majority of people understand why they want to control the trademark and not have it proliferate with groups that don't care if the name hurts someone or not.

They also realize the former players played for the team under the previous name and the organization has made sort of a compromise on the issue that isn't ideal but is the best under the circumstances. The groups they are concerned about, for the most part, seem to understand that and that's all that counts.

The rest of the whiners won't be happy either way. Such is life and sports.
Click to expand...

So, long winded post just to say that you support racism.

Thanks
 
18IsTheMan

18IsTheMan

Heisman
Oct 1, 2014
20,811
17,702
113
Lurker123 said:
So, long winded post just to say that you support racism.

Thanks
Click to expand...

It is true that they do have to market/sell the logo in order to retain trademark rights, but the question is WHY do they need retain the trademark rights? The notion that they are performing a necessary evil by selling a racist logo on a small scale just to prevent someone else from selling the racist logo on a large scale, simply doesn't pass the sniff test as I said above.

The most reasonable take I've heard, and the most likely explanation, is that they want to retain the Redskins name/logo for possibly bringing it back in the future. The current marketing plan is likely them just dipping their toe in the water to see how much backlash they'd get. This is a test case. Start small, see if people really care. At some point they'll reach an acceptable level of backlash and bring it back.

There really is no other reason for them to retain the trademark. What do they care if some other entity starts selling Redskins t-shirts in a few years?
 
PrestonyteParrot

PrestonyteParrot

All-Conference
May 28, 2024
3,227
3,195
113
18IsTheMan said:
It is true that they do have to market/sell the logo in order to retain trademark rights, but the question is WHY do they need retain the trademark rights? The notion that they are performing a necessary evil by selling a racist logo on a small scale just to prevent someone else from selling the racist logo on a large scale, simply doesn't pass the sniff test as I said above.

The most reasonable take I've heard, and the most likely explanation, is that they want to retain the Redskins name/logo for possibly bringing it back in the future. The current marketing plan is likely them just dipping their toe in the water to see how much backlash they'd get. This is a test case. Start small, see if people really care. At some point they'll reach an acceptable level of backlash and bring it back.

There really is no other reason for them to retain the trademark. What do they care if some other entity starts selling Redskins t-shirts in a few years?
Click to expand...
Let's ask Darlene and see if we get an answer.🤷‍♂️
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 18IsTheMan
Lurker123

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,991
5,750
113
18IsTheMan said:
It is true that they do have to market/sell the logo in order to retain trademark rights, but the question is WHY do they need retain the trademark rights? The notion that they are performing a necessary evil by selling a racist logo on a small scale just to prevent someone else from selling the racist logo on a large scale, simply doesn't pass the sniff test as I said above.

The most reasonable take I've heard, and the most likely explanation, is that they want to retain the Redskins name/logo for possibly bringing it back in the future. The current marketing plan is likely them just dipping their toe in the water to see how much backlash they'd get. This is a test case. Start small, see if people really care. At some point they'll reach an acceptable level of backlash and bring it back.

There really is no other reason for them to retain the trademark. What do they care if some other entity starts selling Redskins t-shirts in a few years?
Click to expand...

Agreed. The scenario of testing the waters makes a LOT more sense than "we're going to sell racists shirts so that other people dont sell racist shirts".

If the protection of the patent were really the case, they'd just be admitting that they want the money from the sales rather than let someone else have it. Showing again, its really about the money.
 
Lurker123

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,991
5,750
113
PrestonyteParrot said:
Obviously a lot of people missed it and the result is sad for S.C. and the country.:sleep: Sleeping voters will regret it when reality hits.
Click to expand...

Wait, if you mean something political, then its Darlene "im a senator based off nothing but my last name" Graham?

If so, what does she have to do with Trannytree?

:)
 
PrestonyteParrot

PrestonyteParrot

All-Conference
May 28, 2024
3,227
3,195
113
Lurker123 said:
Wait, if you mean something political, then its Darlene "im a senator based off nothing but my last name" Graham?

If so, what does she have to do with Trannytree?

:)
Click to expand...
In response to 18's question about why they care if someone sells Redskin shirts in a few years, my mind went to Lynyrd Skynyrd "ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies'' and Darlene
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker123
U

USCEE82

Senior
Feb 17, 2024
991
769
93
The DC NFL team could've kept the logo but changed the team name to a tribe that lived in the area. Not sure how anyone would be offended by that. Has anyone lobbied for FSU to switch from Seminoles? I don't understand why Indians and Braves are offensive to some. There was an overreaction in that time period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skuddy and Lurker123
18IsTheMan

18IsTheMan

Heisman
Oct 1, 2014
20,811
17,702
113
USCEE82 said:
The DC NFL team could've kept the logo but changed the team name to a tribe that lived in the area. Not sure how anyone would be offended by that. Has anyone lobbied for FSU to switch from Seminoles? I don't understand why Indians and Braves are offensive to some. There was an overreaction in that time period.
Click to expand...
I believe the Seminole tribe supports FSU's mascot.

One wonders why the Cleveland Indians had to change their name. I mean, "Indian" is about as generic as you can get. Yet the Braves get to keep theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forkcock
You must log in or register to reply here.
GamecockCentral

Latest

  1. 01 TheBigSpur Football South Carolina vs. Kentucky | Saturday Six Pack
  2. 02 TheBigSpur Carolina Gameday I Saturday morning speed read | 24 Kentucky
  3. 03 GamecockCentral Football Carolina Confidential: Final thoughts on South Carolina vs. Kentucky
  4. 04 GamecockCentral Womens Basketball Recruiting South Carolina women's basketball: October recruiting notebook
  5. 05 GamecockCentral Womens Basketball Coming off recent South Carolina visit, it's commitment day for top-20 national Gamecock target
Top Bottom