Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Jews Don’t Count 

Good job you didn't say Jews Do Count. 

 

 

Cunt of a letter, cunt of a paper anyway but I wouldn't be surprised if Vytautas didn't exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dockers_strike said:

Ive got guests. Are you supporting the guardian's comments or not?

Are they operating on your brain? 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

See. 

 

Invoking that time nearly 30 years ago when David Baddiel did an impression of a black footballer in poor taste is one of the ways in which they attempt to invalidate his important work in highlighting anti-Jewish racism. Over and over and over again. It's so unbelievably transparent, as if everything he says or does today can just be thrown out and ignored because he blacked up and mocked someone's hair once.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

as if everything he says or does today can just be thrown out and ignored because he blacked up and mocked someone's hair once.

At least he didn't lay a wreath.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Invoking that time nearly 30 years ago when David Baddiel did an impression of a black footballer in poor taste is one of the ways in which they attempt to invalidate his important work in highlighting anti-Jewish racism. Over and over and over again. It's so unbelievably transparent, as if everything he says or does today can just be thrown out and ignored because he blacked up and mocked someone's hair once.

"they" who are "they" Strontz? 

 

Nobody is invalidating the genuine things he says about anti-semitism. At all. Highlighting that he's a racist twat isn't invalidating anti-semitism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is ignoring what he says. But, it's valid to point out that Baddiel is a massive hypocrite. And a racist. An apologetic racist is still a racist. An apology that coincided with his move away from edgy "comedy" into a role in society which required him to be taken more seriously. And, he apologised to the Daily Telegraph. Things may have changed since, but as of 30 June 2020, he had never apologised directly to the subject of his racism - Jason Lee. 

 

But, those who seek to champion Baddiel and his claims of a hierarchy of racism, seem happy to downplay his own blatant racism as just a bit of fun and that. 

 

Revealing... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

"they" who are "they" Strontz? 

 

Nobody is invalidating the genuine things he says about anti-semitism. At all. Highlighting that he's a racist twat isn't invalidating anti-semitism. 

 

He's not a "racist twat" though, is he. And yes, of course it's an attempt to invalidate him, and your bizarre insertion and underlining of the word "genuine"... well.

 

David Baddiel - Wikipedia

 

Quote

In his 2021 book Jews Don't Count, Baddiel addressed the controversy again. He called his performance "racist" but also wrote, "What the apologies make no difference to is the recurring presence of that photo on my Twitter timeline. Particularly since I started speaking out publicly about antisemitism. In fact, it can seem that what the people demanding apologies from me want is not apologies. What they seem to want, really, is silence." He also wrote that figures like Malcolm X, who had made antisemitic statements during his life, are not considered unqualified to speak about the racism that they themselves experience as African-Americans, but that Baddiel as a Jew is considered unqualified to speak about antisemitism owing to past racist incidents of his own. He claims that this indicates a "hierarchy of racisms" where antisemitism is perceived as being "less important and less serious" than other forms of prejudice against ethnic groups.

 

It's funny, because in this thread we have people saying that Azeem Rafiq's past racist comments don't invalidate the racism he himself experienced, but apparently something racist Baddiel did needs to be mentioned every single time he crops up, apparently to invalidate the things he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

Good job you didn't say Jews Do Count. 

 

 

Cunt of a letter, cunt of a paper anyway but I wouldn't be surprised if Vytautas didn't exist. 

Wouldnt surprise me. I mean racism cannot be practiced by a minority. When used by the minority it is prejudice. FFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

He's not a "racist twat" though, is he. And yes, of course it's an attempt to invalidate him, and your bizarre insertion and underlining of the word "genuine"... well.

 

David Baddiel - Wikipedia

 

 

It's funny, because in this thread we have people saying that Azeem Rafiq's past racist comments don't invalidate the racism he himself experienced, but apparently something racist Baddiel did needs to be mentioned every single time he crops up, apparently to invalidate the things he says.

Why have you ignored my question? Who are "they" Strontz? 

 

Also, how is it being invalidated? He is a dishonest prick (hence me underlining genuine - see his dishonesty about leaflets at a Labour meeting) who happens to also (rightly) highlight instances of anti-semitism. 

 

Why isn't he a racist twat?

 

Why is blacking up to directly mock a black man on national television "apparently racist"? 

 

 

I look forward to you avoiding my questions as usual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Why have you ignored my question? Who are "they" Strontz? 

 

Also, how is it being invalidated? He is a dishonest prick (hence me underlining genuine - see his dishonesty about leaflets at a Labour meeting) who happens to also (rightly) highlight instances of anti-semitism. 

 

Why isn't he a racist twat?

 

Why is blacking up to directly mock a black man on national television "apparently racist"? 

 

I look forward to you avoiding my questions as usual. 

 

"They" are, quite clearly, apologists for anti-Jewish racism.

 

I think the whole world by now is aware that David Baddiel did a series of poor impressions of dozens of footballers in the early 1990s, one of which involved darkening his skin and wearing a pineapple on his head, for which he has apologised on many occasions since.

 

If it was a pattern of behaviour over a period of time, then that would point to someone being a racist, but you're talking about one thing nearly three decades ago.

 

The question has to be, why does this thing have to be mentioned EVERY SINGLE TIME he's brought up? It's like a reflex action. There's only one reason it keeps being brought up, and we all know what that reason is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

"They" are, quite clearly, apologists for anti-Jewish racism.

 

I think the whole world by now is aware that David Baddiel did a series of poor impressions of dozens of footballers in the early 1990s, one of which involved darkening his skin and wearing a pineapple on his head, for which he has apologised on many occasions since.

 

If it was a pattern of behaviour over a period of time, then that would point to someone being a racist, but you're talking about one thing nearly three decades ago.

 

The question has to be, why does this thing have to be mentioned EVERY SINGLE TIME he's brought up? It's like a reflex action. There's only one reason it keeps being brought up, and we all know what that reason is.

Just an impression. He said "sowwy."

 

You keep up that downplaying. You're not the only one who can draw inferences from another's words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

"They" are, quite clearly, apologists for anti-Jewish racism.

 

I think the whole world by now is aware that David Baddiel did a series of poor impressions of dozens of footballers in the early 1990s, one of which involved darkening his skin and wearing a pineapple on his head, for which he has apologised on many occasions since.

 

If it was a pattern of behaviour over a period of time, then that would point to someone being a racist, but you're talking about one thing nearly three decades ago.

 

The question has to be, why does this thing have to be mentioned EVERY SINGLE TIME he's brought up? It's like a reflex action. There's only one reason it keeps being brought up, and we all know what that reason is.

So you are implying that anybody who mentions his blatant racism in the 90's is an apologist for anti-Jewish racism? 

 

You waffle and defence of him after that is you doing everything but admitting what he did was racist. Almost as if you're being apologetic for racism. 

 

It's not being 'invalidated' at all. His hypocrisy is being highlighted.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×