Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Techdirt

from the and-the-winner-is... dept

Sun, Feb 6th 2011 12:00pm — Mike Masnick
Once again this week, it looks like one comment took home the gold medal in both categories. And it wasn't even close, even if it was on a story that was just published late Friday morning. So step right up Dark Helmet and claim your prize for both most insightful and funniest according to folks here, on your comment about Redskins owner Dan Snyder and his complaint that a photograph of him with scribbled devil markings on it was somehow "anti-semitic":
Ah, I see. Dan Snyder objects to the to squigly lines drawing devil horns and a goatee (by cracky) on his image because they're anti-Semetic. Dan Snyder, you see, is against images and depictions of racist and culturally insensitive nature.

Hey, fuckhead. You own an NFL football team based in the nation's capital called the REDSKINS! Are you kidding me? It's an insensitive term with a stereotypical logo of an American Indian, the gall of which is only supplanted by the fact that the team is located in the home city of the governing body that raped and pillaged their people? Who the hell are you crappin'?

How about some Irish immigrant owning a football team called the New York Porchmonkeys (I'm just bringing it back)? Or that Saratoga Slants? Maybe the Talahassee Towelheads? Portland Pollocks? Ooooh, the Memphis Micks (that one is close to my heart)?

Way to be a hypocritical polesmoker there, D-bag....
I almost feel like we shouldn't even bother looking at other comments after that one, but just to satisfy everyone's curiosity, the next two on the most insightful list were both short and sweet, so I'll include them both. The first was a comment on Egypt's decision to shut down the internet, where an anonymous commenter made a simple point:
If your government shuts down the internet, shut down your government.
And, in discussing the study financed by NBC Universal that showed that the amount of "piracy" online was driven, in large part, by their own failure to provide legitimate alternatives, Marcus Carab pointed out a key point that is so frustrating to so many of us. In responding to another interesting comment about the amount of data in the Library of Congress, Marcus stated the unfortunate truth:
That quote highlights another thing worth noting here: we now live in and age where it's technologically trivial to have the entire library of congress in your room, and yet thanks to copyright, none of us do.
Over on the "funny" side was a rather wry comment from anonymous user, poking a bit of fun at the people who believe that kicking people off the internet will lead to increased music sales. So, when Egypt shut off its internet access, that commenter asked:
I wonder how much music sales went up during this period.
And in third place, thublihnk responded to Feargal Sharkey's complaint that thinking about increasing fair use in the UK was nothing more than "intellectual masturbation" by putting it into the appropriate context:
I know sometimes when I'm alone in my apartment I like to turn the lights down low, maybe light some incense and just think about the proper way to treat intellectual property in relation to content creation and distribution in the interconnected age of today.
Thanks for another week of fantastic commentary.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: comments, funny, insightful

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2011 @ 11:35am

    I don't see how that is correct logic. Indians are very proud of that so-called "stereotypical" image, and are seen taking on that attire often to honor their culture and their warrior spirit, which is what the point of the team being called the Redskins and using that logo to begin with. It's not the same at all as the other examples you gave.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jay (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 12:30pm

      Re:

      Try calling an Iroquis a Redskin...

      Or an Apache...

      I'm sure the results will be quite interesting.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2011 @ 12:50pm

      Re:

      Discover the boundaries of your suppositions putting them to practice :)

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jesse, 6 Feb 2011 @ 10:59pm

      Re:

      First of all, Indians are from India. Columbus made a mistake hundreds of years ago and now there is an entire nation propagating that mistake. Geographically, culturally and genetically speaking, it would be as if I were to confuse white Americans with Chinese.

      Second of all, Red Skins has become a slur, if it wasn't always. Even if some black people have chosen to reclaim the word "nigger" or gay people choose to reclaim the word "queer," it doesn't make it acceptable for non-members to toss it around carelessly.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 12:33pm

    Re: re:

    Or just ask them what they think of the team using that name/image. Hint: hey hate it....

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Kevin (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 12:50pm

      Re: Re: re:

      *They

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greg G (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 1:31pm

      Re: Re: re:

      I really don't care if they hate the name. I'm just sick of people claiming to be "offended" by every little thing.

      Indians don't like the use of the name "Redskins!" Waaah, get over it.

      Pacifists didn't like the name of the Washington Bullets, so they caved and became the Washington Wizards.

      Who else has an Indian name? Chicago Blackhawks. Or the Atlanta Braves. Or the Florida Seminoles. I'm sure some are offended by that. Come on, let's change the team name to appease the minority that hates the name.

      What about the Colorado Avalanche? How insensitive to all the people/towns ever buried in one. Change the name of the team now! And I'm sure there are trees out there that hate the name of the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Oak trees feel left out.

      Hypocrisy is one thing, and I agree that the 'skins owner is a douche because of it, but get a grip, people. Get over the over-sensitivity and "everything offends me" mindset.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        kyle clements (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 1:59pm

        Re: Re: Re: re:

        And I'm sure there are trees out there that hate the name of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

        It's not just other trees. The "Leafs" also offend fans of proper English pluralisation.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2011 @ 3:02pm

        Re: Re: Re: re:

        I'm just sick of people claiming to be "offended" by every little thing.

        So, you are offended by people claiming to be offended?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          vivaelamor (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 4:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: Re: re:

          "So, you are offended by people claiming to be offended?"

          They're offended by people claiming to be offended by people claiming to be offended.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2011 @ 5:53pm

        Re: Re: Re: re:

        Whoever named the Toronto Maple Leafs should have grabbed a dictionary and looked up the plural of "leaf".

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2011 @ 3:32am

        Re: Re: Re: re:

        How about a team named 9/11-Glory days or 9/11-Killers or 9/11-Mohamed, it has to be something that reminds some people of really bad times, or Discovery-Boom, would you be ok with those kind of names that bring back such horrible memories, the same is for pejoratives when people destroyed others culture.

        How about celebrating something truly horrible that happened to Americans with a cute name?

        You see I agree some people are sensitive and there a lot of BS going on, but c'mom if it was something that offended most Americans you would see changes, but today we just don't go out and kill people to do those changes or violence is necessary to show how serious someone is like religious fanatics of today like Islamic fundamentalists?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Matt Jones (profile), 7 Feb 2011 @ 5:08am

        Re: Re: Re: re:

        I agree that people get overly-offended by team names in general, but Blackhawks and Seminoles are specific tribe names and Braves are warriors. "Redskin" is just an old, general expression for all Native Americans that is considered insensitive. Like how lots of old people use "coloreds."

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        FarmerBob (profile), 7 Feb 2011 @ 8:10am

        Re: Re: Re: re:

        The Avs use to be called the Rockies. But now our baseball team is called the Rockies. So they did change their name once already. What about the Pittsburgh Penguins? Those poor birds having to put up with that new crap logo, when the old one was far more sophisticated and less cartoony. So more PC (Politically Coorect) and more comical is the trick?

        Anyway, I though this was a "technical" forum? Not a "political" one.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 1:19pm

    Yeah, ipads don't play well with tech dirt...

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Robert Ketterer, 6 Feb 2011 @ 1:53pm

    Snopes.com Scam? or worse?

    Internet is flying with stories that Snopes.com is a scam financed directly or indirectly by the evil one(you know, George). Can you debunk this charge? Have you crossed swords with Snopes? Do you have any inside scoop? This may be a bit are afield but copyright, gov't intervention and such is getting too scary and a short change of topic would be appreciated.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    cc (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 2:05pm

    Rofl, I missed that last comment in the original thread! Absolutely hilarious!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2011 @ 3:23pm

    Techdirt, hooking a new fanboy every Sunday.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 3:46pm

    In awe, just in awe!

    That I should be so perceptive! WTG folks! :-)

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    duffmeister (profile), 7 Feb 2011 @ 8:48am

    That comment about the redskins has won the internet! I think a whole case of win needs to be delivered.

    I would seriously buy that commenter a beer or 6 if I met them.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2011 @ 9:22am

    People just don't get it. It's a tribute to the Indians that we did wrong. In fact, one of the stories regarding the origin of the name is a direct tribute to an Indian coach who commonly donned the headdress for motivation. The original comment in the story is from someone who simply doesn't understand basic logic, and the examples they gave as equivalents were not even close to the same thing. And, to one above poster, not all Indians are offended. If you look at the articles, it's a small group of Indians, and there were also many that thought the name was a tribute. This sentiment is repeated many times: "Interestingly, most of the people who sizzle with outrage over Indian team names and mascots are not Indians. American Indians can be found vigorously arguing on both sides." So, I'm sure it was some white kid who doesn't even watch football that made the ridiculous comment that techdirt loved so much. Maybe think about it next time and use a little logic.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Feb 2011 @ 9:52am

      Re:

      "So, I'm sure it was some white kid who doesn't even watch football that made the ridiculous comment that techdirt loved so much."

      White? Check.

      Doesn't watch football? Yeah, right. I'm a huge Bears fan and a member of a state with a state school involved in a ridiculous controversy for YEARS about an American Indian mascot, so much so that I've heard a TON of the debate on the topic (Chief Illiniwik).

      You want to swap football know how as proof? The relative successes of the 4-3 defense in the modern era vs. the transformative 3-4? The defensive philosophy of the Cover/Tampa Two defense and the role of both safeties as deep covermen? Timing based offenses like Mike Martz's compared with the "see it, throw it" formula favored by the West Coast offense? Emergin football metrics and their uselessness relative to baseball statistics? The silliness of relying on QB efficieny ratings as any kind of a metric for performance? The most effective run it / throw it ratio for a modern era quarterback? Which position is the cornerstone of an O-line, or the importance in different schemes of a 3-technique tackle on the D-Line?

      C'mon, friend, which football topic would you like to rap about?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        rockapotamus, 7 Feb 2011 @ 11:53am

        Re: Re:

        Funny story... you're exactly like the people who want to take 'nigger' out of Huck Finn. Or the people who get offended by the crows in Dumbo. When these things were published they were actually progressive views. And at this point, it's considered offensive, but why is it that big of a deal? Ninety-one percent of American Indians don't find the name offensive (there was a poll for that in 2004). And how many people honestly call American Indians redskins anymore? It's pointless to get so worked up about it.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Sneeje (profile), 7 Feb 2011 @ 10:23am

      Re:

      Sorry, you're not getting it. It is irrelevant whether the name redskins is offensive. The point is that if you are going to complain that someone did something racially insensitive to you, it is the height of hypocrisy when you are at the center of a dispute about racial insensitivity yourself.

      Native Americans have sued repeatedly to get the Redskins to change the name, so their opinion of the name is clear.

      If Mr. Snyder wants to be the victim he needs to treat others as he wishes to be treated.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2011 @ 9:29am

    Yeah, let's start picking apart every single thing that might be offensive to someone, especially when it's an obvious tribute to a proud people and their spirit. This story and the comment are ludicrous and just based on false assumptions, failed logic, and no research.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2011 @ 8:39pm

    Yes, as shown in the articles during brief research, only 9% of American Indians found the name offensive. Many even were proud of the team's name. If it doesn't bother the Native Americans, it shouldn't be a big "political correctness" debate amongst the people with no stakes in the game. So, the statement that we know how the Native Americans feel because a few have sued, is incorrect. A small group can be offended by anything, but that doesn't make it universally wrong. Especially when it's obvious to those with common sense that it is a tribute to the Native Americans.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2011 @ 8:42pm

    Good post I saw somewhere:

    I wouldn't think an Indian would be abhhored to hear 50,000 Redskin fans cheering for their team that they fondly call the Redskins. No one uses the term Redskin offensively, or to perpetrate bigotry. Quite unlike your two examples, n*****s and q****r. Maybe we should even rename Indiana?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.