Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Chelsea 3-1 Sunderland


Jase
 Share
Followers 0

Man of the Match  

66 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is your Man of the Match?

    • Courtois
      0
    • Ivanovic
      0
    • Zouma
      0
    • Terry
      0
    • Azpilicueta
    • Matic
      0
    • Fabregas
      0
    • Oscar
    • Willian
    • Pedro
    • Costa
      0
    • Mikel (sub)
    • Remy (sub)
      0
    • Ramires (sub)
      0


Recommended Posts

During World War One, a lof of German officers were jews. Germany's defeat was a big problem for the German people because the were bred to the notion that Germans were the strongest people etc..., that is, they were the superior race. Since they were the strongest, how could they lose against those frog-eaters and tea-drinkers ? Two options : either because the 'German myth' was not true ; or they were non-German 'traitors' within the ranks. Since it was rather problematic for people that had presumed for many year that their country and race was the best, it was more convenient to opt for the second option, that is the non-German traitors.

For this purpose, jews were designated as these non-German traitors as they suited the role pretty finely. They were deemed as not 'fully Germans'. And because of that, they neither were strong enough (they were piano players, no conquerors—that is, they were 'pussies') and nor did they care enough to not let down Germany. So that's it, they were the culprits. It had to be them because it was impossible for the German race to lose against French or British (and these filfy slaves).

We are today in the same situation. You have people that label some of our players as 'rats', 'snakes' and 'traitors'. They do so because it is too difficult for them to accept the fact that the myth—i.e. the myth that Mourinho can do no wrong, that he is the best, that he is Chelsea and that he was here to create a dynastie—they believed in for the past three years is naught but a myth. Because it is too difficult to accept that what they dreamed to be true is no longer there, they come up with easy-made excuses : if it did no work, it has to be because of external elements, that is, non-Chels' traitors. And that's how people elaborate stupid theories such as 'Fabregas the snake'—a theory that is proven wrong a few hours after by Mourinho himself.

By the way, before anyone uses the 'offended' posture (i.e. 'you compare us with Nazi ?!!'), I am not implying that these people will end-up killing jews like Nazis. I am just comparing two tribal and primal reactions that make no sens at the exception of hiding one's desilusion. To be honest, this whole affair is pretty stupid and appealing..

Brilliantly put.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

During World War One, a lof of German officers were jews. Germany's defeat was a big problem for the German people because the were bred to the notion that Germans were the strongest people etc..., that is, they were the superior race. Since they were the strongest, how could they lose against those frog-eaters and tea-drinkers ? Two options : either because the 'German myth' was not true ; or they were non-German 'traitors' within the ranks. Since it was rather problematic for people that had presumed for many year that their country and race was the best, it was more convenient to opt for the second option, that is the non-German traitors.

For this purpose, jews were designated as these non-German traitors as they suited the role pretty finely. They were deemed as not 'fully Germans'. And because of that, they neither were strong enough (they were piano players, no conquerors—that is, they were 'pussies') and nor did they care enough to not let down Germany. So that's it, they were the culprits. It had to be them because it was impossible for the German race to lose against French or British (and these filfy slaves).

We are today in the same situation. You have people that label some of our players as 'rats', 'snakes' and 'traitors'. They do so because it is too difficult for them to accept the fact that the myth—i.e. the myth that Mourinho can do no wrong, that he is the best, that he is Chelsea and that he was here to create a dynastie—they believed in for the past three years is naught but a myth. Because it is too difficult to accept that what they dreamed to be true is no longer there, they come up with easy-made excuses : if it did no work, it has to be because of external elements, that is, non-Chels' traitors. And that's how people elaborate stupid theories such as 'Fabregas the snake'—a theory that is proven wrong a few hours after by Mourinho himself.

By the way, before anyone uses the 'offended' posture (i.e. 'you compare us with Nazi ?!!'), I am not implying that these people will end-up killing jews like Nazis. I am just comparing two tribal and primal reactions that make no sens at the exception of hiding one's desilusion. To be honest, this whole affair is pretty stupid and appealing..

Little bit extreme. There is obviously a middle ground that many were to blame but now we're in a position where we're listless and have no identity as a club. But it's easier for people to take extreme sides and use nazi analogies to make their point.

It did indeed but whould Chelsea have played the same football with Mourinho in charge? Me thinks not.

Which raises an interesting point that if Steve Holland could institute such a change in such a small period of time then why isn't he getting much support to be interim coach?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliantly put.

Thanks. And at the end of the day, we don't need to elaborate theories that we would label in French 'à dormir debout'. Had Mourinho built a dinasty over 10 years while winning trophies and playing good football adn creating the so sought-after 'stability', everyone would have been happy. But that's no the case and it was not going to happen. We have players that have their qualities and their limitations just as Mourinho has his own qualities and limitations. It happens that Mourinho has not 'long-term' within his range of qualities, and that his qualities did not work any longer with our squad and project, leaving only his limitations to be expressed. So yeah, that's life—it was not working any longer regardless of people interest or good-will or passion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. And at the end of the day, we don't need to elaborate theories that we would label in French 'à dormir debout'. Had Mourinho built a dinasty over 10 years while winning trophies and playing good football adn creating the so sought-after 'stability', everyone would have been happy. But that's no the case and it was not going to happen. We have players that have their qualities and their limitations just as Mourinho has his own qualities and limitations. It happens that Mourinho has not 'long-term' within his range of qualities, and that his qualities did not work any longer with our squad and project, leaving only his limitations to be expressed. So yeah, that's life—it was not working any longer regardless of people interest or good-will or passion.

Now dont fuck off for months Peace ..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. And at the end of the day, we don't need to elaborate theories that we would label in French 'à dormir debout'. Had Mourinho built a dinasty over 10 years while winning trophies and playing good football adn creating the so sought-after 'stability', everyone would have been happy. But that's no the case and it was not going to happen. We have players that have their qualities and their limitations just as Mourinho has his own qualities and limitations. It happens that Mourinho has not 'long-term' within his range of qualities, and that his qualities did not work any longer with our squad and project, leaving only his limitations to be expressed. So yeah, that's life—it was not working any longer regardless of people interest or good-will or passion.

Ultimately, that is the truth.

Mourinho is not a long-term manager and he never will be. His entire style of management is predicated on the short-term and getting the absolute maximum by any means necessary. This is the same thing many people accuse of our board i.e. too short-term, no plan, winging it etc...Mourinho is the embodiment of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit extreme. There is obviously a middle ground that many were to blame but now we're in a position where we're listless and have no identity as a club. But it's easier for people to take extreme sides and use nazi analogies to make their point.

I have already answered to these 'extreme accusations' in my last paragraph. Germans did what they did and we did what we did. I was not comparing us to what they did. I was merely comparing two process that led two groups of people to hate two other groups of people in extreme proportions. In that, the comparisons stand to be relevant and are not extreme. In the first case (Germany), the collision between reality and myth led a group of people to extreme absurdity. That's what is important to extract from what I wrote. In other words, when one refuses to confront to reality his own beliefs, he might be led to absurdity. That's the case here ; the refusal to acknowledge that the love story was not working anymore gives birth to theories—more cringeworthy than harmful—based upon nothing concrete but only upon ready-made arguments (such as 'he is not a chels', 'he does not care', 'he is a mercenary', etc..). At the end, the comparison was not upon the 'extreme' but the 'absurd'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already answered to these 'extreme accusations' in my last paragraph. Germans did what they did and we did what we did. I was not comparing us to what they did. I was merely comparing two process that led two groups of people to hate two other groups of people in extreme proportions. In that, the comparisons stand to be relevant and are not extreme. In the first case (Germany), the collision between reality and myth led a group of people to extreme absurdity. That's what is important to extract from what I wrote. In other words, when one refuses to confront to reality his own beliefs, he might be led to absurdity. That's the case here ; the refusal to acknowledge that the love story was not working anymore gives birth to theories—more cringeworthy than harmful—based upon nothing concrete but only upon ready-made arguments (such as 'he is not a chels', 'he does not care', 'he is a mercenary', etc..). At the end, the comparison was not upon the 'extreme' but the 'absurd'

Sorry but when you invoke Nazis, it really had better be for a decent reason. Otherwise it comes across as shock and awe for the sake of it. That type of hatred your describing just doesn't exist in this situation.

That's just my view though. I think you're criticising the extremes whilst also contributing to them when the whole situation is much more nuanced than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already answered to these 'extreme accusations' in my last paragraph. Germans did what they did and we did what we did. I was not comparing us to what they did. I was merely comparing two process that led two groups of people to hate two other groups of people in extreme proportions. In that, the comparisons stand to be relevant and are not extreme. In the first case (Germany), the collision between reality and myth led a group of people to extreme absurdity. That's what is important to extract from what I wrote. In other words, when one refuses to confront to reality his own beliefs, he might be led to absurdity. That's the case here ; the refusal to acknowledge that the love story was not working anymore gives birth to theories—more cringeworthy than harmful—based upon nothing concrete but only upon ready-made arguments (such as 'he is not a chels', 'he does not care', 'he is a mercenary', etc..). At the end, the comparison was not upon the 'extreme' but the 'absurd'

Don't explain yourself again, he is being purposely obtuse.

The only place to be is back with a vengeance :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we not have a discussion about Chelsea without invoking the nazis or throwing insults at one another? It makes Rhinos Skin's point about the difference between match going fans and the Internet mob quite well and it's tedious.

Also Styles, I don't know if you got offended at me calling you a wum so Ill apologise. But whoever you think I am, I'm not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we not have a discussion about Chelsea without invoking the nazis or throwing insults at one another? It makes Rhinos Skin's point about the difference between match going fans and the Internet mob quite well and it's tedious.

Also Styles, I don't know if you got offended at me calling you a wum so Ill apologise. But whoever you think I am, I'm not.

Not offended at all.

I just don't understand why you're being purposely obtuse when Peace clarified his entire post perfectly. There was no need for you to pounce on that and try to take the moral high ground. Peace made a great point, there was nothing even remotely offensive about what he said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not offended at all.

I just don't understand why you're being purposely obtuse when Peace clarified his entire post perfectly. There was no need for you to pounce on that and try to take the moral high ground. Peace made a great point, there was nothing even remotely offensive about what he said.

I didn't say it was offensive. I said it was extreme and a little bit hilarious to use as an example. If you're on a footy forum talking to your mates and invoke the nazis for the flimsiest of reasons then it's probably time to take a break. The Bizarre tangent this discussion of a football match took probably hasn't got the legs to go much longer and still be worthwhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was offensive. I said it was extreme and a little bit hilarious to use as an example. If you're on a footy forum talking to your mates and invoke the nazis for the flimsiest of reasons then it's probably time to take a break. The Bizarre tangent this discussion of a football match took probably hasn't got the legs to go much longer and still be worthwhile.

I guess we have different sensibilities. I understood the point being made without finding it extreme, hilarious, offensive etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Godwin's Law.

Godwin's law doesn't apply if the comparison is a sensible one.

I don't know about the rest of you people but i understood the point "Peace" was making without thinking he was accusing people of being Nazi's.

Peace probably put it best himself : I was not comparing us to what they did. I was merely comparing two process that led two groups of people to hate two other groups of people in extreme proportions. In that, the comparisons stand to be relevant and are not extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Godwin's law doesn't apply if the comparison is a sensible one.

I don't know about the rest of you people but i understood the point "Peace" was making without thinking he was accusing people of being Nazi's.

Peace probably put it best himself : I was not comparing us to what they did. I was merely comparing two process that led two groups of people to hate two other groups of people in extreme proportions. In that, the comparisons stand to be relevant and are not extreme.

Godwins law is only that the longer a discussion goes on the probability that a comparison to Hitler or the nazis goes up. Sense has nothing to do with it really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

End of the day everyone's going to have a different opinion especially on something like this.Fans are pissed off some at Jose for his part and some at the players for their performance and attitude.Doesn't make anyone less of a fan/care less/not support the club etc.

Chance to let feelings know and that's how they chose to.I can't see it lasting more then a few games especially if performances improve and players show they are capable of performing

Same, it will improve in a month if we are doing good and winning games.

Terry said the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Godwins law is only that the longer a discussion goes on the probability that a comparison to Hitler or the nazis goes up. Sense has nothing to do with it really.

Indeed. I should have phrased it differently. Problem for me is nowadays Godwins law gets misused by a lot of people.

For some reason people seem to add the " if you compare someone or something with Nazi's or Hitler you lose the argument" to Godwins law.

I jumped to the conclusion that that was what you meant. My apologies for that.

Plus hatred really doesn't come into it. Once again, if you're applying these terms or these analogies to this situation then close the laptop, put on a coat and take a wander to your local. You're in too deep. You've blown it.

The terms and analogies Peace used aren't as extreme as you're making them out to be.

Like Peace already said himself:

I was not comparing us to what they did. I was merely comparing two process that led two groups of people to hate two other groups of people in extreme proportions. In that, the comparisons stand to be relevant and are not extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. I should have phrased it differently. Problem for me is nowadays Godwins law gets misused by a lot of people.

For some reason people seem to add the " if you compare someone or something with Nazi's or Hitler you lose the argument" to Godwins law.

I jumped to the conclusion that that was what you meant. My apologies for that.

The terms and analogies Peace used aren't as extreme as you're making them out to be.

Like Peace already said himself:

I was not comparing us to what they did. I was merely comparing two process that led two groups of people to hate two other groups of people in extreme proportions. In that, the comparisons stand to be relevant and are not extreme.

Sorry, no, using the term Nazi is provocative, it's automatically negative connotations and much less offensive examples can be used, and usually used to guilt people into packing in their argument so they do't get labelled or grouped to bad things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...