No, the guy he was defending, "Irving," was in Charlottesville.
https://theathletic.com/627781/2018...a-violent-far-right-fringe-attending-matches/
White Supremacists In Supporter Section
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
No, the guy he was defending, "Irving," was in Charlottesville.
https://theathletic.com/627781/2018...a-violent-far-right-fringe-attending-matches/
Majority of Latino-Americans identify as a white by the way. Racial definitions in America are really off as opposed to other countries.
I agree about eliminating the homophobic chant. But who are the oppressors at the stadium you’re referring to?
I think what he means is, the people who are saying /doing the things that the ones on the receiving end are complaining about don't get to say whether or not it's sexist /racist/whatever.
Doubtless the name of the publication may put some of you off, but I came across this and figured I might learn something by adding it to this discussion:
https://communemag.com/alt-right-new-york/
https://communemag.com/alt-right-new-york/
I think every agreed the Proud Boys suck and nobody wants them in the stadium (including me). The only real disagreement is whether their actions out of the stadium are grounds to ban someone (anyone) and if any policy will apply only to them and like-minded groups?
I wonder if any of the thugs outside Tucker Carlson’s house attend DC united games...
A- that’s whataboutism
B- the people protesting outside of Tucker Carlson’s house haven’t beaten anybody up & they aren’t calling for the enaction of draconian policies towards a specific ethnic group(s) - they’re protesting a race-baiting commentator who incites division through false narratives & outright lies.
I don't think it's super constructive to dismiss every counterexample as "whataboutism" without discussing its ramifications critically.
I think there is something to what FredMertz posted about Karl Popper and the paradox of tolerance. I'm also unsure where the line should be drawn between bannable offence and non-bannable offence. But something that this article drew my attention to is just how organized some of those groups appear to be. And this part really resonated with me: "if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them". The article makes it seem like law enforcement is somewhat complicit with the groups mentioned, but I have definitely noticed a larger security and police presence at matches lately. Perhaps being prepared to defend is as far as it should go.
The complement to defense is dialogue, and I don't really get exposed to a lot of the alt-right perspective, so the dialogue doesn't take place, as far as I can tell.
When the thread is explicitly about a Nazi issue at Yankee Stadium, it is whataboutism to bring up a group that hasn’t even been associated as ticket holders at DCUnited matches.
and the stadium thread is only about the stadium (whataboutism)
No, your comment is offbase, and I think you know it but are still trying to make a snarky case that’s not congruent or valid.
The stadium goes off on non-related tangents that aren’t intended as a justification or counter-justification to a particular stadium position - that’s wholeheartedly different than whataboutism.
I think a lot of this discussion has been a fair argument surrounding what actions to take/not to take about what people believe in, etc.
The only issue is that in reading what has been put together online, it appears as though the guys that continue coming to games not only have a history of violence outside of the stadium at non-team events, but also have a history of violence related to NYCFC games.
The below is from the twitter thread that got this started back up and it's quite clear that those that are identified here were 1) involved in violence outside the stadium and 2) are members of a group that have taken credit for violence at NYCFC games. It's amazing how individuals put this much information out on the internet about themselves.
https://yankees161.wordpress.com/
1. Yes it is. And it was deliberate.
2. This response proves my point. Antifa is violent and they theatres his family. You can disagree with his draconian policies but physically beating on his door and making terrorist threats isn’t acceptable.
Your intellectual dishonest and/ or outright hypocrisy is appalling.
ETA- the “whataboutism” is actually misapplied. I’m not justifying proud boys actions by pointing to antifa. Aside from that, I’m trying to expose the obvious double standards some people here apply. Some of you turn a blind eye to the inexcusable because you agree with a groups’ politics. Intellectually and morally repulsive.
A- the politics of antifa were never mentioned in my post, so don’t imply I agree or don’t agree with their beliefs. You’re changing the subject and falsely framing what I posted.
B- pray tell how I’m hypocritical and intellectually dishonest? Your claim is a stretch beyond being able to be backed up - I claimed whataboutism that you just admitted to. End of discussion. If you want to discuss antifa/Carlson, go start a separate thread, but trying to compare it to contempt of a bunch of Nazis at YS is disingenuous.
You didn’t use the word antifa but Your original point B mentioned the people outside carlson’s House who were antifa. You also made obvious attempt to excuse their actions because they don’t support draconian policies.
I’m not trying the change the subject from Nazis. I agree about them. I just don’t understand why people like you refuse to state what should be morally obvious- using or threatening to use violence to advance pilitical agendas is NOT acceptable and one policy should apply to all of them as it relates
To the club.
You’re again putting words in my mouth and drawing your own conclusions on what you think I meant rather than what I wrote.
You’re also stumbling over your own words because your original post posits a hypothetical connection between the protestors & DCunited, and yet your last post tries to tie the Carlson protestors “to the club” via “one policy should apply to all of them.” The thread is about NYCFC/YS/Nazis ticket holders, and that has zero to do with protestors outside of Carlson’s house or DCUnited.
“The people haven’t beaten anyone up and aren’t calling for draconian policies... they’re protesting.”
If you aren’t excusing it with these words, what’ are you doing?
And i’m Raising them as an example to expose your obvious hypocrisy. That’s pertinent enough for me.
Similar threads
