Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by truth_hurts, Nov 10, 2019.
Haven't touched coke or alcohol since 4th August!
Started talking again with the girl I kind of like
Got some fresh ideas for the next chapter of the novel I'm writing
Dreamt that Emery got sacked
I didn't get run over today
Now I’m really confused. My stance against prejudice and hateful language deserves laughing faces?
The next Prime Minister will bring a German owenership model to football, giving supporters influence over how their club is run. Hopefully if Arsenal supporters had a say, their behaviour would improve and they wouldn't bully players like Xhaka.
Kroenke's still alive!
Look in the mirror. You’re staring at an anti-Semitic troll. You must be proud, representing the worst element of Arsenal supporters from the distant past.
'Yids' or 'Yiddo's' is a weird one tbh. It seems like it's allowed now... Not even sure how it's anti-semitic? Why does a harmless slang term for someone from a specific background, have to be offensive? It doesn't appear to have any derogatory connotations. It can be as offensive as it can a term of endearment--all depends where it's coming from and the context.
From what I understand, the Jewish community would prefer it not to be used, but they fully understand context is very important. E.g. 'You ****ing yid scum' = bad. 'Oh, sh!t, the yids won again' = ok. 'We are the yids' = Absolutely fine.
Your perception of the term’s meaning is not in question. The term’s history is clear. The only people who could “reclaim” it are Jewish people. If I’m not Jewish I don’t get to tell Jews what terms they should like and not like.
For that guy to trash talk another Arsenal fan by suggesting he support Spuds, using a term that’s got a clear history is foolish.
I asked him for clarification, suggesting his intent didn’t seem ugly, but also suggesting he refrain from using it. He laughed at me. Seems clear he’s not willing to think critically about the words he uses. It’s sad.
I think it's acceptable to use it in a football context and, as I say, the Jewish community accept that it's more important how it's used. Personally I'm not comfortable with the 'reclaiming' or owning of words or terms in the language. What's far more important is that we all understand whether there is malice intended or not.
Yes, fair enough. My disagreement is with intent.
For example, if a White American uses the “n-word,” it’s very unacceptable mostly due to the horrid historical connotation it brings with it-not the intent of the user. The only difference is: if one uses it playfully it’s a faux pas (albeit a pretty ****ing big one, as it should be) but if someone uses it hatefully it’s the third rail of discourse (as it ****ing should be).
My point being, one’s intent is kind of relevant, but the nomenclature is still unacceptable regardless of intent.
***and my original question to the post was in hopes of establishing his intent. He never answered.
All said, though, if someone is offended by the word for whatever reason, there are other words we can use to avoid trouble!
That's why I call it football on here!
Autumn if my favourite season.
In South Africa the worst racist term you could use for a black person is "Kaffir".. But anybody who knows the world well enough (or is Muslim) will know that this word is actually a term from Islam to describe a non-believer and has bugger all to do with ethnicity.
Pathetically it was brought down by dutch settlers who clearly didn't understand the term when they started using it for the local people here.
I thought we already had a Life after Emery thread?
Ignorance is pervasive in humanity.
But this is the all things positive thread, so I'm glad some of us care enough to investigate the origins of words and why that matters.
Watch Arsenal Live Streams With StreamFootball.tv