• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Society of Black Lawyers...

ArcspacE said:
Yes, we have - it was a completely different discussion alltogether - not related to that thread per se (which is porbably where your confusion comes in)
Click to expand...

You know what, I think I do remember what you're talking about now actually. It was a similar kind of discussion to this one and you, in the same way, brought up my avatar as something you found confrontational right? I believe you called Malcolm X a racist who incited violence or something along those lines?

As I said, I have absolutely no problems having this discussion with you either on this thread or via pm.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Baddiel isn't stupid.
Click to expand...
In this case i would contest that. Why is he pointing at Spurs. Spurs will never change anything at Chelsea. If his feelings are so strong against racism, and his bond to his religion and its emotive heritage a big part of his make-up then surely the place to start would be a little closer to home.

Does he still go to Chelsea games? If yes, then his argument starts to fall apart. They are the worst culprits in this. Does he make a stand against them? No because he is spineless. To sit in that ground (or away end) and listen to that bile while holding the views he does is weak at best. Perhaps they will abuse him if he kicks up. 'Normal service resumed' is what i say.
Click to expand...

Baddiel is a special case. He doesn't distinguish between the hissing noises and yiddo chants, an example of the worst form of perverted moral relativity. He also can't make the distinction between cause and effect or context. Anti-Semitic chants led to the yiddo chant and he blames the yiddo chant for the continuing racism. The thing that happened later caused the earlier event so lets blame that.

Although in his defence, he calls himself a comedian. Unlike many people, he doesn't connect actually being funny (the cause of making people laugh) with the effect (people actually laughing). Hence the need for empty publicity.
 
jts1882 said:
Baddiel is a special case. He doesn't distinguish between the hissing noises and yiddo chants, an example of the worst form of perverted moral relativity. He also can't make the distinction between cause and effect or context. Anti-Semitic chants led to the yiddo chant and he blames the yiddo chant for the continuing racism. The thing that happened later caused the earlier event so lets blame that.

Although in his defence, he calls himself a comedian. Unlike many people, he doesn't connect actually being funny (the cause of making people laugh) with the effect (people actually laughing). Hence the need for empty publicity.
Click to expand...
Which roughly equates to blaming black bastards* for provoking people into calling them black bastards.

*Other colours of bastard are available but black bastard fitted the context of the discussion. The greatest racist neutral line I ever heard was from Rory Breaker "Is this some white cant's joke that black cants don't get?"
 
Last edited:
jts1882 said:
Baddiel is a special case. He doesn't distinguish between the hissing noises and yiddo chants, an example of the worst form of perverted moral relativity. He also can't make the distinction between cause and effect or context. Anti-Semitic chants led to the yiddo chant and he blames the yiddo chant for the continuing racism. The thing that happened later caused the earlier event so lets blame that.

Although in his defence, he calls himself a comedian. Unlike many people, he doesn't connect actually being funny (the cause of making people laugh) with the effect (people actually laughing). Hence the need for empty publicity.
Click to expand...

Actually, he very much DOES make that distinction.

His whole argument - both in that campaign last year and also while getting a piggy back from the SBL in the past few days - is based on the premise that Spurs fans chanting "yid" and "yiddo" incites anti semitism from other clubs' fans. He's not saying that what we do is anti semitic. He's saying that what we do, however good the intention, attracts and incites anti semitism from others.

I just happen to think that he is quite wrong about that. The tiny number of other clubs' fans who do indulge in anti semitic behaviour would do so regardless of whether or not Spurs fans chant the word "yid". That's because they are anti semites. Not because they have been provoked by Spurs fans into anti semitic behaviour.

I also happen to think that he is quite wrong about Spurs fans - Jews and gentiles - having no right to claim the word "yid" for themselves. We do have that right. We have it because we single handedly all but eradicated anti semitism from England's football stadiums. It is because of us that anti semitism within football is now, mercifully, a rarity on a very small scale. The authorities did absolutely nothing to counter anti semitism. We did. And we succeeded. That gives us the right.

The word now has a meaning that is altogether different from its other, pejorative meaning. And I believe that our meaning is now more prevalent than the other. The majority of people under the age of thirty who know the word at all, have no concept of it as a term of abuse for Jews. They simply know it within the context of Spurs. And, to them, it just means Spurs fan, player or club as a whole.

That is the English language in action. And we effected that action.

Yids and proud.
 
jimmyb said:
Actually, he very much DOES make that distinction.

His whole argument - both in that campaign last year and also while getting a piggy back from the SBL in the past few days - is based on the premise that Spurs fans chanting "yid" and "yiddo" incites anti semitism from other clubs' fans. He's not saying that what we do is anti semitic. He's saying that what we do, however good the intention, attracts and incites anti semitism from others.

I just happen to think that he is quite wrong about that. The tiny number of other clubs' fans who do indulge in anti semitic behaviour would do so regardless of whether or not Spurs fans chant the word "yid". That's because they are anti semites. Not because they have been provoked by Spurs fans into anti semitic behaviour.

I also happen to think that he is quite wrong about Spurs fans - Jews and gentiles - having no right to claim the word "yid" for themselves. We do have that right. We have it because we single handedly all but eradicated anti semitism from England's football stadiums. It is because of us that anti semitism within football is now, mercifully, a rarity on a very small scale. The authorities did absolutely nothing to counter anti semitism. We did. And we succeeded. That gives us the right.

The word now has a meaning that is altogether different from its other, pejorative meaning. And I believe that our meaning is now more prevalent than the other. The majority of people under the age of thirty who know the word at all, have no concept of it as a term of abuse for Jews. They simply know it within the context of Spurs. And, to them, it just means Spurs fan, player or club as a whole.

That is the English language in action. And we effected that action.

Yids and proud.
Click to expand...


In short, it's better to appease than protest. That's the message I get from yer man. Thankfully we weren't relying on him and Chamberlain when I were a nipper. He wouldn't have a voice nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Gordinho said:
Which roughly equates to blaming black bastards* for provoking people into calling them black bastards.
Click to expand...

Or blaming women wearing short skirts for getting raped. Let's stop trying to find excuses for dingdongheads who do racist things and trying to deflect blame on to the victims.

Baddiel is a ****. Bet he hisses with the rest of his mates and hides his star of David necklace under his shirt when he goes to home games.
 
jimmyb said:
Actually, he very much DOES make that distinction.

His whole argument - both in that campaign last year and also while getting a piggy back from the SBL in the past few days - is based on the premise that Spurs fans chanting "yid" and "yiddo" incites anti semitism from other clubs' fans. He's not saying that what we do is anti semitic. He's saying that what we do, however good the intention, attracts and incites anti semitism from others.

I just happen to think that he is quite wrong about that. The tiny number of other clubs' fans who do indulge in anti semitic behaviour would do so regardless of whether or not Spurs fans chant the word "yid". That's because they are anti semites. Not because they have been provoked by Spurs fans into anti semitic behaviour.

I also happen to think that he is quite wrong about Spurs fans - Jews and gentiles - having no right to claim the word "yid" for themselves. We do have that right. We have it because we single handedly all but eradicated anti semitism from England's football stadiums. It is because of us that anti semitism within football is now, mercifully, a rarity on a very small scale. The authorities did absolutely nothing to counter anti semitism. We did. And we succeeded. That gives us the right.

The word now has a meaning that is altogether different from its other, pejorative meaning. And I believe that our meaning is now more prevalent than the other. The majority of people under the age of thirty who know the word at all, have no concept of it as a term of abuse for Jews. They simply know it within the context of Spurs. And, to them, it just means Spurs fan, player or club as a whole.

That is the English language in action. And we effected that action.

Yids and proud.
Click to expand...
Wow, extravagant claims. Would be fantastic if someone could put research-based evidence together to back them up.
 
Kingdawson said:
What a joke of a comment.
Click to expand...


Agreed.
How anyone could find Malcolm X 'confrontational' is beyond belief. What does it 'confront'? At the same time, I have to say that anyone who thinks Peter Herbert is acting out of some philanthropic societal need to help eradicate racism in society is, in my opinion, naive.he is an opportunist, and this entire angle of debate he has chosen to go public with is an opportunity to place himself fairly and squarely in the limelight.
 
To simplify it for Baddiel.........

You're saying 'if you don't say it, then we won't say it'

how about you don't say it

and everything will be alright
 
You would think if Baddiel had any fudgein minerals whatsoever he would not be using Spurs "Yids" chant to excuse his Chelsea fans making hissing noises... The blokes a double standard ****
 
jimmyb said:
Actually, he very much DOES make that distinction.
Click to expand...

OK, he does distinguish between the two as two different behaviours, but he refuses to judge one worse than the other which is the second part of my sentence. He is refusing to distinguish between them in their contribution to anti-semitism. You could argue that its worse than moral relativism as he goes further and singles out the Spurs fans chant as the current cause of the Chelsea hissing, which ignores history and common sense. You can't blame the effect of something for the cause, its a reversal of cause and effect..

His point that if the Spurs fans stopped, the Chelsea fans could have some merit as a contribution to a well-thought out campaign. He should focus his attention on his own fans. The case would be much stronger of he, as a Chelsea fan, criticised the Chelsea fans first and then got people like Ledley and Lineker to contribute the point about spurs fans as something that would help. The way Baddiel presents it, all the coverage focuses on the Spurs fans. The poor Chelsea fans are a Pavlovian afterthought, helplessly responding to the behaviour of the mean Spurs fans.

A Chelsea fan blaming Spurs fans for the anti-semitic behaviour of Chelsea fans is a bit like Louise Mensch criticising Nadine Dorries for abandoning her constituents (comedy gold).


P.S. I never use yid or yiddo to describe Spurs or Spurs fans myself and never have done. I only use the terms in threads like this.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20276933


Van Seggelen says FIFPro would not be able to exist if black players formed their own unions.
He said: "If you have to protect the rights of 60,000 professional players, you cannot make a difference between a black player or a white player, or a Muslim or a Catholic, or a rich player or a poor player.

"We can only represent the players worldwide when everyone accepts that every player is equal. I am 100% against it.
"Our philosophy is equal rights for players and on a global level that is not easy."

PFA chairman Clarke Carlisle said last month: "A new body has the potential to be divisive because when you establish a black players' union it would instantly define 'us and them' and that's something we really need to work against.

"We don't need to separate the players when the whole focus and goal of anti-racism is to campaign for unity."




Yet this is different for Lawyers?... Interesting..
 
I think Carlisle, who always comes across and an intelligent and thoughtful person, is genuinely interested in finding solutions that reduce racism. I'd guess the same of Van Seggelen. They are not going to get rich and famous from their jobs.

Based on the behaviour, the Society for a Black Lawyer has different motivation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back