Smear campaign against Baddiel

[0-Tibsy-0]

Of course the analogy is useful because it illustrates the potential for a word to offensive even without intent or being used in an offensive context and this provides room for discussion as to whether the meaning and the history of the word itself can be considered fundamentally unacceptable to be chanted at a football stadium - as opposed to Cameron's dismissal that a word must have initial offence behind it to be considered offensive (if the N word was being chanted regardless of intention it would be considered offensive)

So this analogy shows that the debate can't just be dismissed in the style David Cameron's statement does - but in fact the history and meaning of the word needs to be established to determine whether or not it is acceptable

There is also reason for debate because the wider public, media outlets and non Spurs fans do seem to often be of the opinion that our use of the word is unacceptable and we shouldn't be doing it and I have seen plenty of papers and such writing articles suggestion we are propitiating negative or antisemetic behaviour with the chant and as such tarnishing the image of our club/fans

We may be having this debate on here and yes it is pretty much meaningless but then its not making its way to the larger public and is not included in any of the negative story lines in the papers about our Yid chants.

If a debate were to be held where by the notion could be official dismissed as inoffensive after acceptance that the history of the word is not in itself offensive or connected to dehumanisation which lead to acts such as the Haulocaust and it did require intentional offensive context to become unacceptable this could then quash arguments from the likes of Baddiel and end questions raised in the media as to whether or not we should be allowed to sing it and we could go back to singing Yid in support of our club in pride without any negatiivity or indeed potential for action from the police (as was the case on Sunday when a Spurs fan was arrested)

Its all well and good saying you don't need a debate to be held to know what you know - but that doesn't stop the fact that already Spurs fans have been ejected and had police action placed upon them for the use of the word and therefore there exists potential for this to become a wider issue if the police/media/whatever began to pile pressure on the club to stamp down on the use of the word in the stadium

What if the club ended up taking a stance where anyone chanting the word was ejected? or banned from games? or the police continue to arrest fans etc etc?

If such a debate could be held on a higher profile format with in put from historians regarding the word and the Jewish community for its perception on our use of the word then the end result could be a definitive answer to the question as to whether it is acceptable for us to use the term and once it was deemed acceptable for us to do so it would no longer be an issue for the press or the police to consider, it could all be put to bed and moved on from hence why I feel the need for a debate to take place, not for me to know if the term is acceptable but for the wider public and to crush the constant questions and debates in the media about it.

Wrong. Because there are large amounts of people who use this word amongst themselves, mainly younger black people but also white as well. As well as mainstream music. It's not a word I would use, but there are those claiming the word back/ Who is to say in 50 years that it isn't an excepted term in a positive context. LANGUAGE EVOLVES.

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

Jambreck- I would like to congratulate you on your continuous logical posts that addresses all issues/contexts involved in this debate and managing to see past the newspaper headlines and the use of the word by the Blackshirts. It involves history, language evolution, social construct, Yiddish language, context. When people have the knowledge of these points in regards to this debate then they will not be claiming the use of Yid by Tottenham to be wrong. I've lost patience explaining it over and over.

 

[Shea]

Wrong. Because there are large amounts of people who use this word amongst themselves, mainly younger black people but also white as well. As well as mainstream music. It's not a word I would use, but there are those claiming the word back/ Who is to say in 50 years that it isn't an excepted term in a positive context. LANGUAGE EVOLVES.

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

 

[spud]

I see post upon post banging on about the offensive nature of 'yid army' or other 'yid' chants. Whether or not some people are 'offended' by it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is whether Spurs fans can be compelled to stop saying the word or prosecuted if they do.

I am offended by much of the self-righteous clap-trap that I have seen posted here. Will those 'offenders' stop posting to protect my feelings? I doubt it. The crux is whether the term 'yid' is racist, not whether it is offensive. The word 'fuck' is, generally, offensive. The word '****' is almost always offensive. Are people prosecuted for their use? I don't think so. An offence (of the criminal type) is determined by the intent (context) in which a word is used. Spurs fans do not use 'yid' in a racist or anti-semitic way.

That is all that there is to it. All of the pontificating about hurt feelings is completely irrelevant. Somebody will always be 'offended' by almost everything that anybody else says. Proscription of speech should not be imposed simply because somebody claims to be upset by it.

 

[Shea]

I see post upon post banging on about the offensive nature of 'yid army' or other 'yid' chants. Whether or not some people are 'offended' by it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is whether Spurs fans can be compelled to stop saying the word or prosecuted if they do.

I am offended by much of the self-righteous clap-trap that I have seen posted here. Will those 'offenders' stop posting to protect my feelings? I doubt it. The crux is whether the term 'yid' is racist, not whether it is offensive. The word 'fuck' is, generally, offensive. The word '****' is almost always offensive. Are people prosecuted for their use? I don't think so. An offence (of the criminal type) is determined by the intent (context) in which a word is used. Spurs fans do not use 'yid' in a racist or anti-semitic way.

That is all that there is to it. All of the pontificating about hurt feelings is completely irrelevant. Somebody will always be 'offended' by almost everything that anybody else says. Proscription of speech should not be imposed simply because somebody claims to be upset by it.

You're correct - its all about whether the term Yid can be considered racist(creedist whatever) and as such transcend context. If as seems to be the case it is not then there really shouldn't be a debate about the subject at all - much less situations where Spurs fans are being arrested over it

But because there is media raised questions on the subject I would like there to be a debate or definitive statement of some sort to put this issue to rest and end the notion that we are being offensive so there will be no more press campaign, police action or good forbid potential sanctions in the future

 

[spud]

You're correct - its all about whether the term Yid can be considered racist(creedist whatever) and as such transcend context. If as seems to be the case it is not then there really shouldn't be a debate about the subject at all - much less situations where Spurs fans are being arrested over it

No it isn't, and that isn't what I said. It's not about 'transcending context', it's about context (intent). As Jambreck (I think) so eloquently put on more than one occasion in this thread, 'yid' is just a sound. It's the meaning - the intent - that we give it that counts.

But you are right in that there should be no debate regarding its use by Spurs fans. Baddiel's spurious argument blames the 'victim' for the 'crime'. The banning of words because they might upset somebody is the same twisted logic that says you can't teach about Christmas in schools because it might offend the sensibilities of non-christians. It breeds separatism and resentment and - possibly more relevant here - deals with the symptom and not the disease of racism or anti-semitism.

 

[NEVILLEB]

IT'S NOT RACIST IN THIS CONTEXT AND THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF THIS WORD BEFORE IT HAD RACIST CONNOTATIONS.

If the context is that important why don't you try calling a black man the 'N' word and then explaining you meant no offence.

Good luck!

 

[Shea]

No it isn't, and that isn't what I said. It's not about 'transcending context', it's about context (intent). As Jambreck (I think) so eloquently put on more than one occasion in this thread, 'yid' is just a sound. It's the meaning - the intent - that we give it that counts.

But you are right in that there should be no debate regarding its use by Spurs fans. Baddiel's spurious argument blames the 'victim' for the 'crime'. The banning of words because they might upset somebody is the same twisted logic that says you can't teach about Christmas in schools because it might offend the sensibilities of non-christians. It breeds separatism and resentment and - possibly more relevant here - deals with the symptom and not the disease of racism or anti-semitism.

It is about transcending context because a racist word would do so - as in if a 30k football crowd were screaming the N word there would be outrage regardless of the context.

If the word Yid transcending context in the same way the N word currently does it would be offensive and unacceptable for a football crowd to be mass chanting it regardless of context

Seeing as as far as I am aware Yid is not a racist word unto itself and does require context to become offensive it is not the same as the N word and we should be able to sing it

 

[spud]

If the context is that important why don't you try calling a black man the 'N' word and then explaining you meant no offence.

Good luck!

The answer is almost too obvious to have to explain, but you seem to require it. The only context in which the word 'nigger' sometimes isn't perjorative is when (young) black men address each other.

Not that difficult is it?

 

[spud]

It is about transcending context because a racist word would do so - as in if a 30k football crowd were screaming the N word there would be outrage regardless of the context.

No it isn't. See my above reply to NEVILLEB.

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

If the context is that important why don't you try calling a black man the 'N' word and then explaining you meant no offence.

Good luck!

We have already said that Nigger and Yid arent completely comparable. And i am not calling random Jewish people Yid, I am using it to identify as a Tottenham fan-meaning context is important. You have missed the basis of the debate if you even think you are even making a point with that stupid sentence.

 

[Shea]

No it isn't. See my above reply to NEVILLEB.

This is now semantics for the same answer

You're saying the N word is all about context because the only context in which it is deemed acceptable is when used by black people - I am saying the word transcends context when used by non black people in as far as meaning it doesn't matter if it is intended to be offensive it is deemed unacceptable even if not intended to cause offence

So I am saying if the word Yid was the same it wouldn't matter what context a non Jewish football fan intended it, whether it was intended to be supportive or positive it would still be labelled offensive and unacceptable in the same way it would be unacceptable for us to use the N word to show support to Defoe following his Lazio abuse.

Yid is not offensive in our context because unlike the N word it does require intent to be abusive or at least offensive but had it had a similar history/meaning to the N word it wouldn't matter what context our fans were chanting it it would still be unacceptable

 

[NEVILLEB]

The answer is almost too obvious to have to explain, but you seem to require it. The only context in which the word 'nigger' sometimes isn't perjorative is when (young) black men address each other.

Not that difficult is it?

A lot of black people don't like being called the 'N' word by anyone, even other black people.

If you are desperate to shout 'Yid' then carry on. We don't want to upset you do we.

 

[NEVILLEB]

We have already said that Nigger and Yid arent completely comparable. And i am not calling random Jewish people Yid, I am using it to identify as a Tottenham fan-meaning context is important. You have missed the basis of the debate if you even think you are even making a point with that stupid sentence.

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?

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

I don't think it's even desperation to shout Yid, it is about being criminalised for using a word that has evolved in this context to mean Tottenham fan, a word that hasn't got racist connotations in all uses, a word that when used by Tottenham fans is a unifying word for all people of all backgrounds, race, colour, class bought together through Tottenham. If anyone understands the use by Tottenham fans, they may not like the word still but they certainly can't deem Spurs fans as racist or offensive.

 

[easley91]

If people don't like hearing the 'N' word then don't play GTA V..

 

[Shea]

I think the ironic thing is being told not to chant the word is only going to make the fans shout it more - I just hope the police/media/FA don't pressure the club into banning the term and or taking action on those who use it

We've already seen an arrest - don't want to see supporters being banned from matches or God forbid action being taken against the club

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

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?

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?

In Yiddish, the word is completely acceptable (Hasidic, ashkenazi)- Just out of interest should this be banned; such as the publication titled Der Yid because if heard or seen it could be deemed offensive?

 

[NEVILLEB]

In Yiddish, the word is completely acceptable (Hasidic, ashkenazi)- Just out of interest should this be banned; such as the publication titled Der Yid because if heard or seen it could be deemed offensive?

So between Jewish people, the word is acceptable....right?

But not all Spurs fans are Jewish...so maybe we shouldn't be shouting it.

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

So between Jewish people, the word is acceptable....right?

But not all Spurs fans are Jewish...so maybe we shouldn't be shouting it.

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. And are you saying Jewish Tottenham fans should be able to chant it? But not the rest of us? Logical point mate.....