MOO

[titeye]

I said "If I was a100% Indian" I would consider it a compliment.

You completely high-jumped/ignored/side-stepped/hurdled, the democracy question.

 

[theinsuranceman]

You completely high-jumped/ignored/side-stepped/hurdled, the democracy question.

I would not agree with enslaving the minority of a population. Would you?

 

[titeye]

I would not agree with enslaving the minority of a population. Would you?

Absolutely not. Thanks for clarifying your position.

 

[theinsuranceman]

How do you know?

I know myself pretty well.

 

[theinsuranceman]

Absolutely not. Thanks for clarifying your position.

I'm surprised you even asked such a question. But this is a democracy right?

 

[titeye]

I'm surprised you even asked such a question. But this is a democracy right?

Why are you surprised I asked that question? It was a follow up question to get clarification of your own words. If you go back and read your post, you wrote, "In a democracy the majority rules. So be it." The least I could do was give you an opportunity to retract or clarify your statement.

 

[FETalk]

Once again, you missed the point. I never said there was anything right or wrong with their native american logo, an african american logo, or anything other logo. Had you read the article, you would have understood their perspective on why they are now changing the logo. Instead, your instinctive reaction was that "they caved...." The point I was making is, why do you have a strong opinion about how another company decides to run it's business? My initial question to you was, "...what other business decision or change has this company made in the history of its existence that bothers you as much as this does? The answer could have been a simple, "None"; or, you could have provided another instance when you were just a outspoken. Instead of providing another instance when you were just as outspoken, your response was that, "it really doesn't bother me."
I also followed up with 2 additional questions that were never answered either:
1. "What are we afraid of losing by giving them the benefit of the doubt and accepting it at face value?
2. "What is more important, trying to right what appears to be a wrong or your own personal political agenda?"
None of those questions were answered. I assumed that would be the case, although I was hoping I was wrong.

Quite the contrary, I think it is you that keeps missing the point.

First of all, going back to my original post, let me reiterate, I wasn't really focusing on MOO's decision to change their logo, but rather it was more so, a short and sad commentary of all of the "political correctness" that's running a muck across the country (and World, for that matter), and the small groups/organizations responsible for the upheaval.

Me, mentioning that I felt they were "caving" was just a "side note", and not the main point of my post.

Also, if it was just MOO and few other companies "here and there" that were making these kind of changes then I would tend to agree with you, and give them the benefit of the doubt. But, unfortunately, that's not what I believe is going on.

MOO is just one of the many companies/media outlets/politicians/entertainers etc. that we see succumbing to the pressure that's being exerted by these tyrannical and totalitarian style groups.

Their decision to change their logo, in my opinion, has nothing to do with them "trying to right what appears to be a wrong" (as you put it). And, if you believe that, then "I have a bridge that I want to sell you in Brooklyn"!

The groups and individuals responsible for all of this disruption, are merely using "political correctness", "righting pass wrongs", and the call for "social justice", as a political ploy.

Secondly, regarding my other post that you quoted in which I said "Let me ask you this, what's so wrong about having a picture of a native american, African american...".

One, you took it completely out of context and conflated two different aspects or nuances of the same discussion, and two I was simply "playing devil's advocate" by indicating that even if what the poster was saying was true,about "not know MOO's motives", it shouldn't matter if nothing wrong was done in the first place!

Lastly, regarding the "two questions that you said that I never answered". I didn't answer them because I disagreed with your premise, and I felt that my first response should have clarified what my initial statement/commentary was about. But, apparently, after at least two attempts, you still don't get.

 

[WinoBlues]

I did not know that. See, we all can learn something new everyday.

I grew up in a vey poor diverse small area. A lot of Dust Bowl refugees, Mexican immigrants, Native Americans, Indians back then, and a few Negro (back then) families. We did not understand racism until later. Fortunately, I learned that the racist, of all stripes, are the lowest common denominators.

I started working in the fields like most of us in that area. Then in construction in my teens With a lot of Indian guys. Before and after the military. So I drank with a lot of them as well. Dated a couple Mono girls and have current friends that are Chuckchansis. Clovis CA had/has the biggest Rodeo in the area if not the state. A lot of Cowboy and Indian interaction back then.

 

[titeye]

Quite the contrary, I think it is you that keeps missing the point.

First of all, going back to my original post, let me reiterate, I wasn't focusing on MOO's decision to change their logo, but rather, it was just a short and sad commentary of all of the "political correctness" that's running a muck across the country (and World, for that matter), and the small groups/organizations responsible for the upheaval.

Me, mentioning that I felt they were "caving" was just a "side note", and not the main point of my post.

Also, if it was just MOO and few other companies "here and there" that were making these kind of changes then I would tend to agree with you, and give them the benefit of the doubt. But, unfortunately, that's not what I believe is going on.

MOO is just one of the many companies/media outlets/politicians/entertainers etc. that we see succumbing to the pressure that's being exerted by these tyrannical and totalitarian style groups.

Their decision to change their logo, in my opinion, has nothing to do with them "trying to right what appears to be a wrong" (as you put it). And, if you believe that, then "I have a bridge that I want to sell you in Brooklyn"!

These organizations that are responsible for all of this upheaval, are merely using "political correctness", "righting pass wrongs", and the call for "social justice", as a political ploy.

Secondly, regarding my other post that you quoted in which I said "Let me ask you this, what's so wrong about having a picture of a native american, African american...".

One, you took it completely out of context and conflated two different aspects or nuances of the same discussion, and two I was simply "playing devil's advocate" by indicating that even if what the poster was saying was true, about "not know MOO's motives", it shouldn't matter if nothing wrong was done in the first place!

Lastly, regarding the "two questions that you said that I never answered". I never answered them because I disagreed with your premise, and I felt that my first response would have clarified what my initial statement/commentary was about. But, apparently, after at least two responses, you still don't get.

Obviously, you don't! You highly criticized a business decision made by an entity which its feels is best for THEM. Your criticisms has nothing to do with business. It is apparent that you took their business decision personal. Duh!!!!

 

[WinoBlues]

I know myself pretty well.

You know the self that did not grow up Indian.

I could not tell you what I would think if I had grown up White, Black, or a Penguin.