Cleveland Indians changing name

[Mr Janny]

I never figured you for a radical ancap/libertarian.

I think you are kind of missing the point, however, by just repeating "that is capitalism for you."

The question is not if the New York Times can fire a reporter, undoubtedly an at-will employee, but if they should simply because of some heterodox views that challenge those in power.

It is using economic relationships to try and control thoughts and speech.

I also think "cancel culture" is a neutral term, sort of like "cultural appropriation." It is not inherently in itself good or bad. It is just a process. I consider cancelling the "Redskins" and the "Indians" because those are slurs/insensitive a positive development. The issue is where is the line -- and it is always going to be fuzzy in a complex world.

"Can" and "should" don't matter. The money does. Apple, for example, has many business practices that lots of people feel fall into the category of "shouldn't", but until the market forces their hand, in the form of affecting their bottom dollar, they aren't going to change. It's really that simple.

 

[JP4CY]

On one hand we have a political mindset that's against cancel culture and for free and unregulated commerce

Then when businesses make a business decision to distance themselves from a controversial idea it's a bad thing?

The tomahawk chop is frankly embarrassing. The Chiefs and Braves should expect some businesses to rethink their relationships

I do believe the Chiefs were named for the mayor of KC?

There is HyVee branding all over KC, a zillion Mahomes commercials, KC branding on HyVee's semi's, etc. Whatever that contract is has to be substantial.

 

[CloniesForLife]

I never figured you for a radical ancap/libertarian.

I think you are kind of missing the point, however, by just repeating "that is capitalism for you."

The question is not if the New York Times can fire a reporter, undoubtedly an at-will employee, but if they should simply because of some heterodox views that challenge those in power.

It is using economic relationships to try and control thoughts and speech.

I also think "cancel culture" is a neutral term, sort of like "cultural appropriation." It is not inherently in itself good or bad. It is just a process. I consider cancelling the "Redskins" and the "Indians" because those are slurs/insensitive a positive development. The issue is where is the line -- and it is always going to be fuzzy in a complex world.

What do you mean by this sentence? Who is having their thoughts and speech controlled? The team isn't going to make this decision lightly. I am sure they put a lot of thought into this and this is the best route in the long term for the team.

 

[3TrueFans]

What do you mean by this sentence? Who is having their thoughts and speech controlled? The team isn't going to make this decision lightly. I am sure they put a lot of thought into this and this is the best route in the long term for the team.

He just types a lot and hopes some of it lands near the point.

 

[Sigmapolis]

The line isn't at getting rid of chief wahoo. There really isn't anything fuzzy about that.

Yeah, not going to miss that, like I said -- Redskins and Indians needed to go.

I just don't think "well a private business did it so there's nothing else to talk about" is quite right, either.

 

[BCClone]

Click on Fox News and it'll make more sense

Ok, obviously a political jab. I did do that and found none of that so I will just walk away since it has a political slant to the comments. I avoid cave stuff.

 

[Sigmapolis]

He just types a lot and hopes some of it lands near the point.

Sorry, I'll keep post lengths to those appropriate for grade schoolers' pop quizzes for you.

What do you mean by this sentence? Who is having their thoughts and speech controlled? The team isn't going to make this decision lightly. I am sure they put a lot of thought into this and this is the best route in the long term for the team.

We know less of what happened in Cleveland, so I'll use Washington as the example.

Dan Snyder for years, decades even, was dead set on "we are not changing the name." Then two of his most important sponsors in FedEx and Nike pulled out, and all the sudden they "reconsidered."

Snyder thus had his speech impacted by an economic relationship. This can be a good or a bad thing... and I consider this a good one... but you have to recognize $$$s being thrown around to control speech.

 

[Mr Janny]

Yeah, not going to miss that, like I said -- Redskins and Indians needed to go.

I just don't think "well a private business did it so there's nothing else to talk about" is quite right, either.

So, what else is there to talk about? What do you propose to do about "cancel culture"?

Should we make it illegal for people to contact advertisers to express their opinion on how a company operates?
What is your remedy?

 

[CloniesForLife]

Sorry, I'll keep post lengths to those appropriate for grade schoolers' pop quizzes for you.



We know less of what happened in Cleveland, so I'll use Washington as the example.

Dan Snyder for years, decades even, was dead set on "we are not changing the name." Then two of his most important sponsors in FedEx and Nike pulled out, and all the sudden they "reconsidered."

Snyder thus had his speech impacted by an economic relationship. This can be a good or a bad thing... and I consider this a good one... but you have to recognize $$$s being thrown around to control speech.

FedEx and Nike did that because being associated with the Redskins was bad for their brand. I am still confused on how this is controlling speech. Companies make decisions to align with what consumers want all the time. Can you give an example of how this could be bad?

 

[Sigmapolis]

So, what else is there to talk about? What do you propose to do about "cancel culture"?

Should we make it illegal for people to contact advertisers to express their opinion on how a company operates?
What is your remedy?

I never described cancel culture as strictly a problem. Indeed, I am happy it got rid of the "Redskins" for us.

Just because I do not describe a phenomenon as a "problem" or have a "solution" to it does not mean it does not exist. Neither of us can do anything about the sun rising in the east, but we can describe it.

If I have a "solution," and it is a very soft one, is people need to allow themselves a much wider margin of acceptable opinion for those around them *and* recognize if a view is irrelevant to the economic relationship you have (or even potentially beneficial, in the case of heterodox academicians and journalists), then leave it aside.

 

[BCClone]

FedEx and Nike did that because being associated with the Redskins was bad for their brand. I am still confused on how this is controlling speech. Companies make decisions to align with what consumers want all the time. Can you give an example of how this could be bad?

The Carson (whatever his last name is) who raised all the money for the children's hospital. AB was going to donate a years supply to him, but when some old tweets came out and AB received some backlash, they decided to pull their gift to Carson. A guy raised a substantial amount of money to a fantastic cause and originally gave a company some great PR but then folded due to a dumb situation.

 

[Sigmapolis]

FedEx and Nike did that because being associated with the Redskins was bad for their brand. I am still confused on how this is controlling speech. Companies make decisions to align with what consumers want all the time. Can you give an example of how this could be bad?

You do not know a lot of history (or even present, if you want to glance over at China and others) if you do not think that a consortium of big businesses and an activist government that supports and enables them cannot together have a pretty chilling effect on a freedom of speech. What worth is it if you can never use it?

Not saying that ditching "Redskins" or "Indians" is equivalent to that -- far from it. But the worst-case downsides of using economic pressure to bend opinions, the media, and entertainment are obviously.

How about we say a media outlet spreads a news story worldwide unflattering to a totalitarian regime. The regime is mad about this, and instructs its subsidiaries (directly or indirectly related) to pull ad dollars from the outlet, and they threaten to kick out any multinationals providing any sort of support for that outlet from their market. The outlet caves rather than go out of business without ad money. "It's just business" is an insufficient description of that.

If you want a softer version of it, companies can use this power to whitewash and airbrush their own history, too. Disney has been working for decades to make Song of the South unavailable. Is that on net a good thing to let them scrub their history like that? Certainly removing past associations with racism and antisemitism are valuable to the House of Mouse and its stockholders today, but are we all served by being unaware of that history?

CC that gets rid of racial slurs is fine by me. CC that protects past or present evil... is not.

 

[Mr Janny]

I never described cancel culture as strictly a problem. Indeed, I am happy it got rid of the "Redskins" for us.

Just because I do not describe a phenomenon as a "problem" or have a "solution" to it does not mean it does not exist. Neither of us can do anything about the sun rising in the east, but we can describe it.

If I have a "solution," and it is a very soft one, is people need to allow themselves a much wider margin of acceptable opinion for those around them *and* recognize if a view is irrelevant to the economic relationship you have (or even potentially beneficial, in the case of heterodox academicians and journalists), then leave it aside.

Was "heterodox" on your word of the day calendar today? You've really been trying to shoehorn it in there. Good for you.

As I suspected, you just want to sit on the fence and crow. Please continue.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Was "heterodox" on your word of the day calendar today? You've really been trying to shoehorn it in there. Good for you.

As I suspected, you just want to sit on the fence and crow. Please continue.

So you went from "it does not exist" to "it exists but it's just business so who cares" to "your accurate description of this phenomenon, even if you do not recognize it as strictly negative, is just stupid crowing."

I learned "heterodox" and "heterodoxy" studying the early history of the Christian church and theology in Europe, for the record. Part of that wonderful, vocabulary-expanding education I received from Iowa State. The term has a long history of describing opinion or doctrine in opposition to official or orthodox positions.

I think it is pretty obvious who is the one changing opinions on a dime and crowing here.

 

[Mr Janny]

So you want from "it does not exist" to "it exists but it's just business so who cares" to "your accurate description of this phenomenon, even if you do not recognize it as strictly negative, is just stupid crowing."

I think it is pretty obvious who is the one changing opinions on a dime and crowing here.

I'm not changing my opinion at all. Public perception and reaction are legitimate market forces. Always have been. Companies are free to respond to them as they see fit. That's been my opinion from the beginning. People giving it a scary name like "cancel culture" and talking about it like it's some kind of new phenomenon is ridiculous.

 

[CYEATHAWK]

I never figured you for a radical ancap/libertarian.

I think you are kind of missing the point, however, by just repeating "that is capitalism for you."

The question is not if the New York Times can fire a reporter, undoubtedly an at-will employee, but if they should simply because of some heterodox views that challenge those in power.

It is using economic relationships to try and control thoughts and speech.

I also think "cancel culture" is a neutral term, sort of like "cultural appropriation." It is not inherently in itself good or bad. It is just a process. I consider cancelling the "Redskins" and the "Indians" because those are slurs/insensitive. The issue is where is the line -- and it is always going to be fuzzy in a complex world.

1. I create a product, get some advertisement spots get my license to operate and start my business. Some people like it but those who don't just walk by. Thus be it a crappy product, poor advertisement or both......there is not enough business to generate the needed revenue to keep me going in the long run forcing me change my product or take the risk of going out of business.

2. I create a product, get some advertisement spots, my license to operate and start my business. Some people like it but those who don't threaten to boycott and have my license pulled along with anyone who advertises with me unless I comply with what THEY say needs to be sold.

One is capitalism........one is not. One is happening in Cleveland.......one is not. Because the one that's not was never considered because they were having no problem selling their product for 106 years. Well, outside of years they were no good. But then that goes back to changing their brand to be good so people won't just walk by.

Personally.....I really don't care what they do. Make it the original name "Lake Shores". It's all to do about nothing IMO. People feel the need to be outraged about something in this day and age. And more than likely if they were to change their name to the Cleveland Lake Shores, those same people would be outraged because it would be said with that name the team is discriminating against the waves on the lake. I was going to say white caps but then you know what that would make me..........

 

[3TrueFans]

I'm not changing my opinion at all. Public perception and reaction are legitimate market forces. Always have been. Companies are free to respond to them as they see fit. That's been my opinion from the beginning. People giving it a scary name like "cancel culture" and talking about it like it's some kind of new phenomenon is ridiculous.

It was all over once cancel culture got to New Coke.

 

[abcguyks]

The tomahawk chop is frankly embarrassing. The Chiefs and Braves should expect some businesses to rethink their relationships

I do believe the Chiefs were named for the mayor of KC?

The Chiefs were indeed named for the mayor of Kansas City in the 50s (H. Roe Bartle) who carried "The Chief" as his nickname, According to Wikipedia, he was given the nickname after he became a blood brother with Lone Bear, a chief in the Arapaho tribe. Chief Lone Bear gave his brother the name Lone Bear as well. Bartle spent a great deal of time working with native Americans in Wyoming early in his career.

The Chiefs have already publicly disavowed the use of the tomahawk chop by fans at games. I believe that was in 2019.

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

Some of y'all get so worked up about nothing. This has been a long time coming for the Indians. The removal of Chief Wahoo a few years back set this in motion.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I'm not changing my opinion at all. Public perception and reaction are legitimate market forces. Always have been. Companies are free to respond to them as they see fit. That's been my opinion from the beginning. People giving it a scary name like "cancel culture" and talking about it like it's some kind of new phenomenon is ridiculous.

Companies don't just react to market forces and changing consumer preferences, though.

Some are so large and dominant that they have market power -- so they can indulge their whims.

Companies can also be self-interested or beholden to the interests of governmental overlords.

I think you are bright enough to recognize that everything every company ever does is not consumer-driven.