I think the difference is 30,000 fans chanting the word, rather than explaining the definition of it. You're arguing for context, but in this context, the application is likely to cause offense.
So why does the Oxford Dictionary's definition cite it as an offensive term ? http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Yid?q=yid Don't tell me, your Oxford Dictionary supports your opinion ?
Total speculation and opinion, in complete contrast with years of this happening without a single arrest for it. More speculation in the face of the evidence, which shows the complete opposite to be the case. If the chants are objectively offensive, then why the hell are there multiple Israeli flags and Stars of David flown at every Spurs home game? It's clearly subjective and a matter of opinion and context.
Are you saying that you think it's acceptable to chant a racially derogatory word, if someone doesn't mean it to be such, regardless of the potential for offence that it might cause ?
Let's explore this idea a bit further. It is okay for non black people to shout '******' - remember not all spurs fans are Jewish - in an attempt to 'claim' the word ?
Yid /derog. 0jɪd; neutral (among Yiddish-speakers) 0ji:d/ noun. slang (chiefly derog. & offensive). L19. [ORIGIN Yiddish from Middle High German Jude, Jüde ult. from Latin Judaeus Jew noun.] A Jew. There it is AGAIN note the words neutral and offensive between the two pronunciations which incidently you have already conceded when you were arguing that I had it the wrong around. Which of course I had not. You are wumming PISKIE.
The word Yid isn't exclusively a racially derogatory word, though. It's literally the Yiddish word for Jew and I assume that you're not going to claim that word's universally offensive, right? I'm not just saying that it's an acceptable word to use in the context that it's being used, but that a number of those using it are the ones that are supposed to be offended. The whole thing is a show of solidarity with those singled out for abuse by others, who apparently aren't being subjected to such scrutiny. One might even suggest that there are shades of anti-Semitism behind the whole claim that it's offensive. I'd love to see an attempt to prosecute one of our Jewish fans for using it.
Stop being silly Spurf. You asked me for a definition, which I gave you from Wikipedia. It cited thus: and asserts that the intonation 'Yeed' is the non offensive term and 'Yid' is the offensive term. I think you are misreading the pronunciation terms ? Even so, regardless of this, both terms - according to your definition are offensive to non Yiddish speakers. Do you think that everyone in the ground at WHL is Jewish ? Could it therefore be reasonably assumed that some people find it offensive ? You then, disregarding this definition, ask me for an Oxford dictionary definition which is thus: And you again ignore the word OFFENSIVE and you're accusing me of wumming Right, I'm off to watch some football, I may shout racially motivated words at the players and their fans, but it doesn't matter because I don't really mean it
Sounds like the world, in this case the UK, gone PC mad. If you really can't tell the difference between what is said offensively, and what is not, then you really have no perception. Peskie -go and play somewhere else!...
It's not an exclusively derogatory term. Here's a nice picture of Obama with Jay Z, who rewrote one of his songs for the President's re-election campaign. please log in to view this image You know, the same Jay Z that wrote and performed songs like Nigga What, Nigga Who and Niggas in Paris.
The word is deemed offensive when used by non Yiddish speakers. Are you claiming that everybody who chants it at WHL is of Yiddish origin ? If not, then can you see where it could be construed as being offensive to some people who may hear it ?
Sorry to sound like a broken record but I find it amazing that Spurs fans have been singing these songs / chanting these chants for at least 30 years and we're only now hearing that people find them offensive. I'll happily dismiss David Baddiel's opinon as, no offence to Chelsea fans, for a Jew to have supported Chelsea for 40 years to say he finds this offensive whilst never pontificating on "Spurs are on their way to Auschiwitz", 1 Adolf hitler etc. is beneath contempt. Are these people coming out of the woodwrok now the ones who tried to push charges agaisnt the late Jimmy Savile and realised they'd never ever met him so are now looking for another avenue of litigation? It's ridiculous - as a non spurs fan I actually think all football fans (aside from the Jews who are genuinely offended by it) should hope they win this one because if they don't Lord alone knows where it will lead. Example - people like to sing chants to the tune of well known hymns - what happens if someone decides that christians are offended that their hymns are being comandeered by footie fans?
Stop being so dense. This issue is being raised as a point of debate, the point being that a racially derogatory word could be construed as offensive, regardless of the intent behind it. Especially given that Spurs are not exclusively a Jewish club and have no official alignment with that religion. And that it's likely that plenty of Jewish people in the area couldn't give a hoot about Spurs and that their 'claiming' of the word for themselves may been seen as quite offensive - a misappropriation of the word; Especially when it's being chanted by thirty thousand people and aired on TV, radio and internet. Personally, I'm not offended by it. But it's dangerous to assume that nobody is, that because Spurs fans have somehow tried to 'appropriate' it, that it doesn't offend Jewish people elsewhere. It's extremely naive at best, and simply offensive at worst. In no other arena would you find people trying to justify the mass chanting off an racially offensive word, and it's perfectly reasonable to call it into question here.
In exactly the same number as using the word in the presence of Jay Z, who uses it routinely in songs. It's clearly acceptable in some circumstances, isn't it? As I said before when someone insulted you Piskie, such behaviour is not acceptable on this board.
Not according to Spurf's definition is isn't Note the terms 'derog'. and 'derog & offensive' unless among Yiddish speakers. Or would you like to use my definitions, wiki and the oxford dictionary, where it is deemed to be an OFFENSIVE word. ?
People were using the terms '******' 'Paki' and 'Queer' for more than 3O years before society finally woke up to the fact that it was unacceptable.
Fair enough but as said before if people in the Jewish community really found it offensive there'd have been compalints aplenty for years - and I don't believe there have been.
I'll use the Merriam-Webster version, which says that it's usually offensive or the Yiddish word itself, which simply means Jew. Clearly neither version suggests that it's exclusively an offensive word, so you're generalising. And now ******, or variations on that word and queer aren't exclusively offensive.
