Smear campaign against Baddiel

NEVILLEB · Oct 9, 2013

I am suprised this has come up because we've sang it for so long and it seems mild.

However, I'm not Jewish and I can't really judge whether or not it causes offence.

If it does then I'll happily drop it because it's just a football chant.

Famine, Cancer, Aids...these are issues worth worrying about!

NEVILLEB · Oct 9, 2013

0-Tibsy-0 said:
Again you have just proved that the meaning of a word is and whether it is offensive or not is produced by it's context.

What I'm saying is the word has an emotional meaning in the mind of some Jewish people that transcends any context we may have intended it to have.

That's life. Sometimes, even if you don't agree or understand, you need to give people some slack and just respect their wishes.

eddiev14 · Oct 9, 2013

NEVILLEB said:
What I'm saying is the word has an emotional meaning in the mind of some Jewish people that transcends any context we may have intended it to have.

That's life. Sometimes, even if you don't agree or understand, you need to give people some slack and just respect their wishes.

Or, choosing to ignore the context, they can just be offended.

http://www.videobash.com/video_show/steve-hughes-what-s-wrong-with-being-offended-693507

0-Tibsy-0 · Oct 9, 2013

NEVILLEB said:
What I'm saying is the word has an emotional meaning in the mind of some Jewish people that transcends any context we may have intended it to have.

That's life. Sometimes, even if you don't agree or understand, you need to give people some slack and just respect their wishes.

But there are many things that I find offensive, and others on here... they shouldnt be banned though. I saw something that quite upset me just today, but it wasn't illegal and it certainly wasn't an action that was meant to cause me to feel like that. It shouln't be banned and I don't want to limit someone elses actions because of my sensitivities if they aren't actually being offensive.

spud · Oct 9, 2013

NEVILLEB said:
I am suprised this has come up because we've sang it for so long and it seems mild.

You shouldn't be. It will continue to be raised until society's moral guardians - those who always know what is best for other people - ensure that it is banned.

NEVILLEB · Oct 9, 2013

eddiev14 said:
Or, choosing to ignore the context, they can just be offended.

http://www.videobash.com/video_show/steve-hughes-what-s-wrong-with-being-offended-693507

When it's a subject like racism then people do react in emotional ways. Logic can go out the window.

NEVILLEB · Oct 9, 2013

0-Tibsy-0 said:
But there are many things that I find offensive, and others on here... they shouldnt be banned though. I saw something that quite upset me just today, but it wasn't illegal and it certainly wasn't an action that was meant to cause me to feel like that. It shouln't be banned and I don't want to limit someone elses actions because of my sensitivities if they aren't actually being offensive.

Do you think it's ok to use the 'N' word?

eddiev14 · Oct 9, 2013

NEVILLEB said:
When it's a subject like racism then people do react in emotional ways. Logic can go out the window.

Ok, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't...

spud · Oct 9, 2013

NEVILLEB said:
When it's a subject like racism then people do react in emotional ways. Logic can go out the window.

If somebody reacts emotionally then it should be his or her problem and nobody else's.

It's ultimately not about logic. It's about achieving a balance in society whereby the freedom of everybody is respected while not allowing it to impinge on the rights of others, be they moral or legal rights. As far as I am aware, nobody has either the legal or moral right to curtail somebody else's free speech simply because thay may be upset by what he or she has said.

As far as I can tell, there is no argument of any substance compelling enough to criminalise a Spurs fan for chanting a single word in the context in which it is used. All of the arguments to the contrary either attempt to construe that use as racist or anti-semitic (often by spuriously equating 'yid' with 'nigger'), or justify its criminality on the grounds that some may be, or are, offended by it. Both positions are specious.

As with so many such 'issues' in society this is ultimately about control and the feelings of a few trampling on the rights of many: I don't like it, so you shouldn't do it. It's bullshit steeped in sociological psycho-babble and doesn't deserve anything like the media coverage that it has gained. Baddiel is the worst offender, seeking to increase his own comfort at Stamford Bridge without having the balls to address the real anti-semitic presence in his own club's supporters. His cowardly and hypocritical stance should have been ridiculed as such instead of being given the credence of serious discussion. The police are little better, pandering to a small but vocal few and arresting a Spurs fan where there appear to be absolutely no legal grounds for doing so, instead of just dismissing those who call for them to act as misinformed busybodies and publicity-seekers.

I'm bored with it and by the ridiculous pseudo-intellectual bollocks that I have seen written about it. If I ever see one more thread about it on this fine site then it will be one too many.

jyoshinmonchris · Oct 9, 2013

NEVILLEB said:
What I'm saying is the word has an emotional meaning in the mind of some Jewish people that transcends any context we may have intended it to have.

That's life. Sometimes, even if you don't agree or understand, you need to give people some slack and just respect their wishes.

But what if some Spurs fans are offended by being told that we can't chant Yid because they have lived their lives calling themselves Yids and it now has an emotional meaning to them? Should the police then not tell us to stop as we might be offended?

Also, thanks to everyone in this thread for some enlightening debate. I was really on the fence regarding the word Yid prior to this debate as it's it means something to us, but on the other hand I really don't want to purposely offend people. Reading this thread and Baddiel's comments have swayed me all over the place and while I'm still not 100% sure where I stand, I do feel that I at least have the arguments in my mind to make my own informed decision rather than just guessing.

FITZ · Oct 9, 2013

He's coming for us
He's coming for us
David baddiel
He's coming for us!

;-)

NEVILLEB · Oct 9, 2013

jyoshinmonchris said:
But what if some Spurs fans are offended by being told that we can't chant Yid because they have lived their lives calling themselves Yids and it now has an emotional meaning to them? Should the police then not tell us to stop as we might be offended?

Also, thanks to everyone in this thread for some enlightening debate. I was really on the fence regarding the word Yid prior to this debate as it's it means something to us, but on the other hand I really don't want to purposely offend people. Reading this thread and Baddiel's comments have swayed me all over the place and while I'm still not 100% sure where I stand, I do feel that I at least have the arguments in my mind to make my own informed decision rather than just guessing.

For some Jewish people the word that stirs up feelings about centuries of persecution around the world including the holocaust.

In which case, as a Spurs fan, I'll be happy to chant a different word. It really doesn't mean much more than 'Spurs!' to me anyway but I understand it's tradition.

It is a complicated issue but I'm happy to play devil's advocate on this forum.

Good healthy debate.

cheeseman · Oct 9, 2013

NEVILLEB said:
The word has an negative emotional meaning for some Jewish people completely independent from any context you meant it to have.

So, out of respect for the sensitive subject of the discrimination against the Jews, couldn't you just chant something else. Is it really that important to you?

What about the word "rape"? Off the top of my head I can remember the comedian Jimmy Carr joking about rape on TV; Family Guy contains regular rape jokes; Facebook Rape (chortle). Surely every time the word "rape" is used it has a "negative emotional meaning for" people who have been the victim of rape. Are we banning the word "rape" from being used on TV now? Are we banning it from every day use?

Sort it out, pal.

SpurSince57 · Oct 9, 2013

Shea said:
You don't have to tell me about the use of the N word in popular culture - I grew up listening to 90s hip hop where it was freely used, 90% of my friends are black and my girlfriend is half black, I am more than aware of the notion of reclaiming the word and evolution of it.

Reclaiming of the N word by putting an A on the end of it is an entirely different debate (there was an interesting show on Channel four with Asher D about this)- but it is very much not considered acceptable for non black people to use the term and would 100% be lambasted if used in the same environment

Once again you have missed my point - I am not talking about the evolution of language. I am talking about the fact that unlike Cameron's statement that suggested intent and context is all that matters when it comes to being offensive there are certain words that would be considered offensive regardless of the context and the N word currently would be highly unacceptable in a football stadium chant whether or not the intention for it was to be positive/supportive whatever

So that means the Yid debate is larger and more complex than saying it is acceptable simple and plain because of the context - in as far as it would need to also be determined based on the history of the word and its current standing in society if it is offensive regardless of context - don't mistake that as me saying it is, I am simply highlighting there is reason for the debate to be larger than saying SPurs use it in a positive context therefore its ok

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, and well into the 20th, 'nigger' was applied to anyone dark-skinned—people from the Indian subcontinent as well as Africa (obviously that includes descendants of Africans in the Caribbean and US, and in Europe). It was similar to 'Paki' now, which is applied to Indians, Sri Lankans, Afghans—anyone dark-skinned who isn't actually black.

I find Baddiel smug, supercilious and annoying, and nowhere near as funny as he thinks he is (which is why he's failed as a comedian), although he's rather a good novelist. He's also a Chelsea supporter. That said, he's a Jew, many of his family were murdered by the Nazis, and if our use of the word 'Yid' offends him, we—particularly non-Jewish Spurs fans—must give his views some respect. Several Jewish Spurs fans have engaged him in debate, or at least tried to, and I'd say leave it to them.

rich75 · Oct 10, 2013

MattyP said:
And yet we were threatened with arrest in the week leading up to the game against West Ham, or being cautioned for using the word yid.

But, you've been arguing for the complete abolition of the use of the word, saying that context is irrelevant, whilst quoting a copper who says that context is relevant : )

Not really.

I agree the police position is somewhat confused. On the one hand they're saying "arrest everyone who says yid" and on the other " it's only serious if it's used abusively".

But that's kind of my point. If we give the police and opposing fans context ( ie that us saying yid is a positive thing ), then it blurs the issue and makes it nigh on impossible for anyone to act on it being used abusively.

rich75 · Oct 10, 2013

I can't be arsed to trawl through the rest of the last three pages of this thread but just on reading this last one..

It's depressing how yet again this has been pulled round to whether it's offensive for us to say yid. That's never been the point of anything Baddiel has said. It's about what us saying it empowers others to do and about how you police the usage of the word if you have to exempt one section of people.

It genuinely baffles me how people refuse to see the point being made and continually drag it down to one that isn't there.

jj87 · Oct 10, 2013

rich75 said:
But that's kind of my point. If we give the police and opposing fans context ( ie that us saying yid is a positive thing ), then it blurs the issue and makes it nigh on impossible for anyone to act on it being used abusively.

To be honest I have had anti-semitic abuse from a whole range of people, at various different times and places, some really fucking vile things, used to have punch-ups at school, you name it I have experienced it. The one thing I have NEVER been called when being insulted about being a Jew is a Yid. Not once.

rich75 · Oct 10, 2013

jj87 said:
To be honest I have had anti-semitic abuse from a whole range of people, at various different times and places, some really fucking vile things, used to have punch-ups at school, you name it I have experienced it. The one thing I have NEVER been called when being insulted about being a Jew is a Yid. Not once.

Which is totally irrelevant

captinbeefhart · Oct 10, 2013

jambreck said:
Words don't have owners.

Can we tell the French not to use the word "le weekend"? Can they tell us not to use the word "cul-de-sac"?

Of course not. The idea is preposterous.

Spurs fans have as much right to use the word "yid" as anyone else. Like any other word, it is just a noise that is formed in our vocal cords and shaped in and expelled from our mouths. Or it is a collection of symbols in a specific order that is displayed on a page, another surface or computer screen.

That is all.

There is no copyright on it. It can't be banked for safe keeping from others. It is just a word.

It was never "reclaimed" by Spurs fans, as is often erroneously imagined. It was adopted. Or donned like a new suit.

Adopted and donned for a very good reason - to show solidarity; to draw the sting from the taunts of anti-semites. And it fucking well worked.*

The word subsequently came to mean something else altogether. Just as many other words have done in the past and, undoubtedly, will do in the future.

What is sad is that the word was originally a Jewish word but Baddiel and other similarly ignorant commentators on this matter don't want to return it to Jewish people. Oh no..........they insist that the only owners of the word should be anti-semites. Why, for crying out loud? It's an utterly brainless notion.

There is so much that is wrong about Baddiel's Guardian article that I barely know where to start. So I will restrict myself to pointing out that the entire premise of his argument is flawed. The word "yid" is no more a race hate word than the word "Jew". They mean one and the same. Context is everything. Everything.

As I said, a word is just a noise or a collection of symbols. It only has meaning within a context.

And anyone who wilfully ignores context is, by definition, wilfully ignorant.

Over to you, Baddiel and Herbert.

* At least, it did until two bob Baddiel and ulterior motive Herbert started sticking their unwanted oars in.

This 100%

spud · Oct 10, 2013

rich75 said:
It's depressing how yet again this has been pulled round to whether it's offensive for us to say yid. That's never been the point of anything Baddiel has said. It's about what us saying it empowers others to do and about how you police the usage of the word if you have to exempt one section of people.

It genuinely baffles me how people refuse to see the point being made and continually drag it down to one that isn't there.

Thanks for enlightening us. I was wondering why the Spurs fan was arrested on sunday; now I know that it was for using empowering language.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

Smear campaign against Baddiel

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads