It's always amusing when ESPN gets involved with politics. They gave Bruce Jenner an award for courage for wearing a dress, and the way they handled Curt Schilling has been well covered here on LwC. But this right here, this takes the cross-dressing, perpetually-offended-at-everything cake.

What makes this particularly perfect is that when I originally wrote about the Redskins poll in question, I quipped about how it didn't matter if Native Americans weren't offended, because all of the privileged, white liberals were. When I said it, it was a joke. But as we've seen this week, sometimes the jokes that write themselves... aren't really jokes. Because ESPN is like, super serious.

Let's just say you go 9%, 10% of native Americans find it offensive and 21% or more kind it disturbing. That's enough for me. Okay? It could just be that others don't know the history of it and therefore aren't offended. There's so much history there. Maybe even native Americans don't know the history. But there are enough that do know the history of that word and find it offensive.

You want to avoid the tyranny of the majority. That's something that the framers of the constitution instituted into our democracy. And I think that's something that should apply here, even if the majority is within the particular group that we're talking about. If they say they are not offended by the nickname of the team or by the terms. What about those who are? And that's the bottom line.

I can write a trilogy of novels over the line demanding that we ban something just because a small minority find something offensive. But this comment so perfectly illustrates the left's complete lack of Constitutional comprehension. Yes, the Constitution was framed to protect the rights of the minority from being infringed upon by the will of the majority. 100% true. That's why the United States is a Constitutional Republic. Because "Democracy" as liberals want it, is simply mob rule. You know what liberals are missing?

"Not being offended" is NOT A RIGHT.

People are offended by Amy Schumer stealing people's jokes, yet no one is calling for her to be banned. Why? Because the people who don't like her jokes tend to be more right-wing, and right-wingers just aren't all that big on mandated censorship. Problem solved. Plenty of people are "offended" by ESPN's programming being aimed squarely at those with room temperature IQ's. Yet no one is calling for them to be banned. Why? See Amy Schumer example above.

Let me spell this out. The Constitution and our Republic was designed to protect the minority's rights to freedom. In other words, people shouldn't be able to vote to take away their First or Second Amendment rights. Or, Bernie voters shouldn't simply be allowed to vote to take stuff from people who make more than them. Nowhere is it even implied in the Constitution, that people are to be forbidden from making other people feel "triggered." How is this hard?

But the part about Native Americans not understanding the history of the word 'redskin?' Maybe it's less that and more a quote that was unironically shared in this tweet:

Good call. You know the best way to actually take care of them? How about starting with The Constitution? Oh wait, they have something to say about exactly this kind of situation...