Smear campaign against Baddiel

[0-Tibsy-0]

The fact you even asked the question shows you up. As if an English qualification has anything to do with it.

I'm guessing from your response you didn't get an A so naa naaa!

It was me who asked, and in GCSE and A level English language you study about the etymology of words and how language/words evolve and different definitions vary from region to region and evolve over time...A concept people aren't grasping in this debate

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

If someone had been raped I would be chanting the word rape around them.

You are thick! Please stop talking about rape.

This is about racism. It's a separate issue, particularly with Jewish people who have had a terrible history with it.

Stop changing the discussion and add something relevant.

I understand where his example is coming from as you were speaking about words that are the trigger of emotional distress.

 

[NEVILLEB]

It was me who asked, and in GCSE and A level English language you study about the etymology of words and how language/words evolve and different definitions vary from region to region and evolve over time...A concept people aren't grasping in this debate

We all know it has multiple meanings for different people. You don't need any qualifications to figure that out. It's why this thread exists in the first place!

So in trying to prove your knowledge you actually showed your ignorance.

The argument is, if a term causes great distress to a minority of people, should it be banned despite its popularity amongst the majority of the population.

My view is yes, it should be banned. Because the term is pretty irrelevant to Tottenham Hotspur and I don't want to upset people who may have suffered at the hands of racists.

 

[NEVILLEB]

I understand where his example is coming from as you were speaking about words that are the trigger of emotional distress.

But there's a difference between words which are used as racial slurs and words which describe terrible actions.

Otherwise people would be calling for us to ban the use of the word 'rape', which they quite clearly aren't.

The emotional context was used in reference to terms which could be seen as racist by some people.

This topic is about racism. Changing the subject is a total waste of time and just confuses the issue.


If we started shouting 'Rape' then I think we'd quickly attract some negative reactions.

Keep to the argument

 

[cheeseman]

The fact you even asked the question shows you up. As if an English qualification has anything to do with it.

I'm guessing from your response you didn't get an A so naa naaa!

The fact you even asked the question shows you up. As if an English qualification has anything to do with it.

I'm guessing from your response you didn't get an A so naa naaa!

Yeah, it shows me up...because...??????

The grade has nothing to do with it except for the fact that I would expect someone who got an A to be able to read a couple of short simple sentences and not fabricate some totally different meaning from them. You totally failed to grasp that I used the word "rape" to illustrate a word which causes offence. You were talking about not using words that cause offence in a previous post. Somehow, you came to the conclusion that I was off-topic because "rape" isn't a racially insulting term. Then you said, "You are effectively shouting 'Jews!' 'Jews!' at a football match. I don't recall commenting on this either way.

Not to mention the change of tune ofter SpursSince 57's post. "Oh, so we sing it in support, do we?" Jesus Christ!

And I got a C. That's my excuse

 

[spud]

Can't you understand that racist words are taboo because the world is trying to stamp out racism?

Racist words are used to devalue and discriminate against innocent, normal people.

So your argument stands or falls on the assertion that 'yid' is a racist word. You ignore all meanings of the word and all context because the word, in and of itself, is 'racist'. Somewhat simplistic and, self-evidently, wrong.

Your argument also seems to be that if the use of so-called racist words are banned then racism itself will cease. If so, then your naivity is staggering. Needless to say, this argument is also, self-evidently, wrong. It is probably a better strategy in any attempt to end racism to allow the use of the words in order to establish - by the context in which they are used - who the racists are. At which point the appropriate action (education, punishment, etc.) can occur.

This is why the coward Baddiel and his cohorts are misguided. By aiming a campaign at the wrong target and lobbying for the prohibition of a word does less than treating a symptom. Banning the use of it by those who use it 'offensively' would at least do that. It certainly has absolutely no impact in treating the disease.

 

[cheeseman]

If someone had been raped I wouldn't be chanting the word rape around them.

You are thick! Please stop talking about rape.

This is about racism. It's a separate issue, particularly with Jewish people who have had a terrible history with it.

Stop changing the discussion and add something relevant.

We're talking about words people find offensive and used rape as an example (other people have used the N word as an example) (as I keep telling you - penny might drop soon). And it's not just about racism; it's about what people find offensive.

I ask everyone to read your last 9 or 10 posts in this thread, then tell me who the thick one is. Anyone who got an A would know I'm not talking about rape; I'm talking about the word "rape". You dumb fuck!

 

[NEVILLEB]

Yeah, it shows me up...because...??????

The grade has nothing to do with it except for the fact that I would expect someone who got an A to be able to read a couple of short simple sentences and not fabricate some totally different meaning from them. You totally failed to grasp that I used the word "rape" to illustrate a word which causes offence. You were talking about not using words that cause offence in a previous post. Somehow, you came to the conclusion that I was off-topic because "rape" isn't a racially insulting term. Then you said, "You are effectively shouting 'Jews!' 'Jews!' at a football match. I don't recall commenting on this either way.

Not to mention the change of tune ofter SpursSince 57's post. "Oh, so we sing it in support, do we?" Jesus Christ!

And I got a C. That's my excuse.

Would you be happy chanting Rape?

It's a silly argument to make.

 

[cheeseman]

I never said I was happy chanting "Yid" never mind "rape" (second time I've told you that now - this is pretty pointless). It's about what people find offensive - racist or not (about the eighth time I've told you THAT one).

 

[NEVILLEB]

We're talking about words people find offensive and used rape as an example (other people have used the N word as an example) (as I keep telling you - penny might drop soon). And it's not just about racism; it's about what people find offensive.

I ask everyone to read your last 9 or 10 posts in this thread, then tell me who the thick one is. Anyone who got an A would know I'm not talking about rape; I'm talking about the word "rape". You dumb fuck!

Oh dear. Lost your temper.

So your argument is that we shouldn't ban the word 'Yids' from being chanted at football grounds because there are words like 'Rape' which cause offence to people who are raped.....

Hmmm...you are a genius.

Except we aren't supposed to chant 'Rape' at football grounds either. Or lots of other offensive terms.

But basically you don't understand the difference between a racist slur and an offensive word. Which is probably why you don't understand the argument.

 

[cheeseman]

Oh dear. Lost your temper.

So your argument is that we shouldn't ban the word 'Yids' from being chanted at football grounds because there are words like 'Rape' which cause offence to people who are raped.....

Hmmm...you are a genius.

Except we aren't supposed to chant 'Rape' at football grounds either. Or lots of other offensive terms.

But basically you don't understand the difference between a racist slur and an offensive word. Which is probably why you don't understand the argument.

1. No. An exclamation mark doesn't prove I've lost my temper. But you probably learned that on the way to that A.
2. No.
3. Certainly not.
4. Irrelevant. I was challenging your original point about people finding words offensive.
5. Sure I do. I keep explaining this one.
6. Goodbye.

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

The funny thing about all this; YIDDO isn't even a regcognised word in any context outside of Tottenham Hotspur. How can that have been put under the microscope and deemed offensive...

 

[NEVILLEB]

1. No. An exclamation mark doesn't prove I've lost my temper. But you probably learned that on the way to that A.
2. No.
3. Certainly not.
4. Irrelevant. I was challenging your original point about people finding words offensive.
5. Sure I do. I keep explaining this one.
6. Goodbye.

Goodbye Cheeseman

 

[Stavrogin]

I think the main problem is evidenced in this thread, with everyone saying "y word and n word". It's yid and nigger. You are allowed to say the words, they are in the dictionary.

banning words under any circumstances is orwellian, and only a small step up from burning books.

But, like most things, it's a power play, so...

 

[Stavrogin]

We are essentially chanting 'Jews'...'Jews'

Does that seem right? Or even mean anything to most fans.

It is tradition and its fun to chant but it doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it.

Etymology ≠ meaning

 

[NEVILLEB]

Etymology ≠ meaning

The origin of the word, isn't as important, in this argument, as the effect it has in the present moment.

To some Jewish people, it's an offensive, racial term.

I respect their point of view. The term has little true meaning to me as a Tottenham Hotspur fan.

You can try to intellectualise racism but it's a very emotional subject.

 

[NEVILLEB]

BTW I don't agree that we should be prosecuted for singing it.

But I do think we should be willing to let it go if it upsets some Jewish people. Baddiel is trying to get the word banned in ALL of football, not just at Tottenham.

That's my view.

 

[roosh]

How about the fact that the word now has an entirely new meaning - namely, "Spurs fan" - and that that meaning is now the most common usage of the word in the UK?

that's why we should start a campaign to have the dictionary reflect his

 

[weststandvoice]

BTW I don't agree that we should be prosecuted for singing it.

But I do think we should be willing to let it go if it upsets some Jewish people. Baddiel is trying to get the word banned in ALL of football, not just at Tottenham.

That's my view.

It's unfortunate that (perhaps through frustration) you're obviously finding it increasingly difficult to argue your point without denigrating the viewpoint of those you're debating. And have rather over dramatically decided that if the N word won't shock and awe your opponents into submission, then the R word will.

Your standpoint is close/nigh on identical to the of Baddiel's. Do you want to know how I worked that out? Well it wasn't be reading your every word on the subject. It was by noticing what you refused to include in your own reasoning of the matter that revealed you.

I find it sad that you are dismissive of the role etymology evidently plays here as it is evidently key; but first we'll deal with the more obvious issue of context.

In New York City, "Der Yid" is a Jewish publication with ultra Orthodox editorial leanings which has a circulation north of 300,000 pcm. Which numbers wise, isn't a bad yardstick for us in this debate, as that's a wholly Jewish readership who are 10 times the size of our average home support who are maybe less than what, 4% Jewish?

"Der Yid" was founded in 1953. That's a long time for a hell of a lot of Jews to have suffered such blatant racism. Except of course, it isn't. Because the context is not one where a word is being applied with a "faith hate" bent to it.

The point was made a couple of posts up that banning words doesn't solve a problem. This is incredibly true. In this particular instance it is a dangerous approach because you are directly saying that any person using the word Yid has empowered themselves by using a word as a trigger to express faith hate.

So you and Baddiel remove the word (let's say from "the entire planet"). Is the problem solved? No. Of course not. To suggest so would be at best, woefully naive. Proof is the video footage of West Ham fans chanting "You've got a big nose" on Sunday. They sang this to basically say, "You're still Jews and we still want you to feel bad about that."

By removing the word, you're simply giving in to hatemongers. What do you remove next in order to sate the appetite of these people? Remove bagels from sale, ask anyone Jewish to "respectfully not look too Jewy" when attending games as it may set the thugs off?

We moan a little about the lack of songs at The Lane, but if you speak to anyone with a cursory grasp of linguistics, they will tell you how important etymology is. Without seeking to patronise you at all, if this is an area you're not"informed about" then now is great time to become familiar with it. It's fascinating. And football matches - or rather the songs sung at them - are pretty much the last vestiges of what was our forefathers sat around campfires, sing stories and telling tales.

Your argument and that of Baddiel's is simple, because you have both made it simple to avoid the grey areas of context, intent and of course etymology. The fact that "some" people are offended by this word is essentially how you define your viewpoint. This is horribly flawed on so many levels, some of which I've touched on here.

If you feel that strongly about faith hate, why do you casually say that Chelsea and West Ham mustn't use the the word Yod either? In all my years putting up with their shit, I can't recall hardly hearing them use it at all. "***** Jew", Jew *****" hissing, songs about Auschwitz, yes.

Stephen Fry said:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”

And as far as this specious debate goes, boy did he ever have a point.

 

[roosh]

Just finished reading the thread; apologies, I didn't take too much notice of who, specifically, was making what point, but I would agree with whoever said there needs to be an informed discussion on the meaning of the word, it's origins, it's etymology, and it's current use.

I'm not sure "the 'Y' word" is exactly like "the 'N' word" in that it's origins don't appear to be racist, while "the 'N' word", to my knowledge - I may be showing my ignorance - appears to have developed as a term solely for the purpose of racial abuse. "the 'Y' word" seems to have been misappropriated for anti-semitic abuse but then adopted, by us, to try to diffuse that abuse. We now, seem, to use it in a manner completely dissociated from religion to refer to players and supporters of THFC. There is no desire or intent to cause offense, quite the opposite in fact! For that reason, and given that the term doesn't appear to have purely racist origins, I think attempt to punish us for using it is misdirected.