White Supremacists In Supporter Section

[Ulrich]

“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.

There’s a huge difference between a group of people protesting and a group of people physically beating others up. One was a verbal protest (protected under the 1st amendment) while the other was a physical beat-down by a group of many against a few known as aggravated assault. Me writing that there’s a difference between the two events isn’t passing judgement one way or another, it’s showing a distinction - so please don’t make an assumption of what I’m thinking, you’ve been wrong each time.

You may also want to read up on what actually happened rather than taking Carlson at his word for the events that he wasn’t home for, because he’s made a career out of embellishment of the facts. Read this from a reporter who was there along with 4 legal observers.

https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-...se-heres-what-actually-happened-665c2dc0cb67/

Now back to the thread.....

 

[SanBartG]

There’s a huge difference between a group of people protesting and a group of people physically beating others up. One was a verbal protest (protected under the 1st amendment) while the other was a physical beat-down by a group of many against a few known as aggravated assault. Me writing that there’s a difference between the two events isn’t passing judgement one way or another, it’s showing a distinction - so please don’t make an assumption of what I’m thinking, you’ve been wrong each time.

You may also want to read up on what actually happened rather than taking Carlson at his word for the events that he wasn’t home for, because he’s made a career out of embellishment of the facts. Read this from a reporter who was there along with 4 legal observers.

https://thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-...se-heres-what-actually-happened-665c2dc0cb67/

Now back to the thread.....

I saw the video. The threats were obvious enough. “We will fight. We know where you sleep at night.” Mention of a pipe bomb. All on tape.

Beating on the door was not on the tape so I can’t say it absolutely happened but was reported by more than tucker Carlson.

That’s not verbal protest. It’s an obvious threat. And while it’s obviously not as egregious as physical assault, it’s still inexcusable. Or would you be ok if proud boys stood outside maddow’s house and said the exact same thing? I sincerely doubt it.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

DC is not our club. Are you just going to use this thread to post any antileft newstory that has nothing to do with our club? It's a pathetic grasping at straws.

 

[SanBartG]

DC is not our club. Are you just going to use this thread to post any antileft newstory that has nothing to do with our club? It's a pathetic grasping at straws.

If you’re going to argue that people should be excluded from the stadium based solely on membership of a group, and antifa is a violent political group, and they attend our games (there is an antifa NYCFC Twitter group), then then my argument is relevant to the club. It’s just not convenient to your agenda.

If you’re going to argue that only specific identified violent people shouldn’t be allowed in our stadium, then that’s fine. But then you’re forced to accept a lot of other violent fascists that you haven’t identified yet. I don’t think that’s what you, Ulrich and others are advocating for because several people explicitly stated that membership to a fascist group alone is grounds to be banned. In fact, it’s not clear to me that your intent is to only ban VIOLENT fascists.

Beyond that, some people here clearly don’t know the difference between an American conservative, European conservative, libertarian, objectivist, fascist, white supremecisit, racist and the definition of apologist.

They aren’t interchangeable even if some people overlap between groups but if some people here get their way, a lot of decent people would excluded from the club based solely on rational disagreements about policy positions. That’s bullshit.

 

[SanBartG]

DC is not our club. Are you just going to use this thread to post any antileft newstory that has nothing to do with our club? It's a pathetic grasping at straws.

PS. I’m not antileft. I’m anti “antifa”, anti racist, anti- fascist, etc.

The fact that you don’t distinguish between antifa (the group) and the “left” generally is concerning.

 

[Ulrich]

If you’re going to argue that people should be excluded from the stadium based solely on membership of a group, and antifa is a violent political group, and they attend our games (there is an antifa NYCFC Twitter group), then then my argument is relevant to the club. It’s just not convenient to your agenda.

If you’re going to argue that only specific identified violent people shouldn’t be allowed in our stadium, then that’s fine. But then you’re forced to accept a lot of other violent fascists that you haven’t identified yet. I don’t think that’s what you, Ulrich and others are advocating for because several people explicitly stated that membership to a fascist group alone is grounds to be banned. In fact, it’s not clear to me that your intent is to only ban VIOLENT fascists.

Beyond that, some people here clearly don’t know the difference between an American conservative, European conservative, libertarian, objectivist, fascist, white supremecisit, racist and the definition of apologist.

They aren’t interchangeable even if some people overlap between groups but if some people here get their way, a lot of decent people would excluded from the club based solely on rational disagreements about policy positions. That’s bullshit.

That’s a whole lot of spaghetti writing of circular logic and hypothetical leaps that haven’t been collectively put forth. If you’re gonna tag me into your treatise, at least read what I’ve posted and get it right, because until then your rants are less than drivel.

 

[SanBartG]

That’s a whole lot of spaghetti writing of circular logic and hypothetical leaps that haven’t been collectively put forth. If you’re gonna tag me into your treatise, at least read what I’ve posted and get it right, because until then your rants are less than drivel.

You did say that only those specific people known to have been violent should be excluded. So yes, I was wrong to include you in that. I realized it after I posted it and I’ll completely own the mistake now.

Aside from that, everything I said is true:

1. Some here specifically advocated for banning all fascists without making a distinction as to whether or not they are violent themselves or members of a violent group. Maybe I misunderstood them. I sincerely don’t think so.

2. Some people here, in my opinion, don’t know the difference between the subgroups on the “right.” Again, maybe i’m Wrong. I doubt it based on what i’ve Read.

3. Antifa is a violent group at advocates violence. I raised the issue outside tucker cerlson’s House only to show that people here claim to be opposed to violence and threats but really, that’s not true. They only seem to be opposed when it comes from people whom they disagree with. It’s not an episode directly related to the club, I agree. But it’s a pertinent example to hash out the motive of some people here. As a counter example to the logic of their argument, it’s fair to use it.

4. Putting Carlson aside, antifa advocates and uses violence. They say so themselves.

5. Antifa attends our games. This is a known fact and they advertise their support and attendance on Twitter.

6. I think if membership of a violent group is grounds for banning them, then ban all members of proud boys and anti-fa. I wouldn’t ban people based membership of a group but would if they misbehave in the stadium regardless of their politics.

7. If you specifically are advocating only to ban identified individuals that are violent, then you’re making a different argument than some others. However, i’m not sure you would ban identified member of antifa that attends our games and was caught making threats or attacking someone. If you won’t denounce in DC, why would you denounce it in NY? See the connection now? Or do I need to find specific examples of when antifa did something similar in NY cause it probably wouldn’t be that hard. If i’m Wrong, you can just say “yes I would ban those members of antifa if they are nycfc supporters/attendees” and i’ll Admit i’m wrong and apologize. Otherwise, you’re choosing to be deliberately vague in which case i’ll staand by what I said.

If you can’t follow this, it’s not drivel. It just means you don’t follow it.


ETA. I made some edits about one minute after the original post for clairty

 

[SoupInNYC]

You did say that only those specific people known to have been violent should be excluded. So yes, I was wrong to include you in that. I realized it after I posted it and I’ll completely own the mistake now.

Aside from that, everything I said is true:

1. Some here specifically advocated for banning all fascists without making a distinction as to whether or not they are violent themselves or members of a violent group. Maybe I misunderstood them. I sincerely don’t think so.

2. Some people here, in my opinion, don’t know the difference between the subgroups on the “right.” Again, maybe i’m Wrong. I doubt it based on what i’ve Read.

3. Antifa is a violent group at advocates violence. I raised the issue outside tucker cerlson’s House only to show that people here claim to be opposed to violence and threats but really, that’s not true. They only seem to be opposed when it comes from people whom they disagree with. It’s not an episode directly related to the club, I agree. But it’s a pertinent example to hash out the motive of some people here. As a counter example to the logic of their argument, it’s fair to use it.

4. Putting Carlson aside, antifa advocates and uses violence. They say so themselves.

5. Antifa attends our games. This is a known fact and they advertise their support and attendance on Twitter.

6. I think if membership of a violent group is grounds for banning them, then ban all members of proud boys and anti-fa. I wouldn’t ban people based membership of a group but would if they misbehave in the stadium regardless of their politics.

7. If you specifically are advocating only to ban identified individuals that are violent, then you’re making a different argument than some others. However, i’m not sure you would ban identified member of antifa that attends our games and was caught making threats or attacking someone. If you won’t denounce in DC, why would you denounce it in NY? See the connection now? Or do I need to find specific examples of when antifa did something similar in NY cause it probably wouldn’t be that hard. If i’m Wrong, you can just say “yes I would ban those members of antifa if they are nycfc supporters/attendees” and i’ll Admit i’m wrong and apologize. Otherwise, you’re choosing to be deliberately vague in which case i’ll staand by what I said.

If you can’t follow this, it’s not drivel. It just means you don’t follow it.


ETA. I made some edits about one minute after the original post for clairty

This is well put.

I know in this particular case, there is some sufficient photographic and social media evidence that shows how involved some of these guys are in these groups, as well as that directly ties them to violent activities outside of NYCFC games, and related to NYCFC games. That combination should be enough for the club to take some action, but moreso, the supporters groups that they belong in to take some action. It's a bit disappointing that that doesn't appear to be the case. Especially from NYCSC.

The discussion here mostly has been about these guys, because that is what has been brought up. I'm sure I would feel similar if I had seen social media posts from NYCFC supporters belonging to antifa that were beating up people both at events related to and unrelated to NYCFC games, but I have not yet. I don't say that to say it doesn't exist, it very well might, I just haven't seen it yet.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Screaming puto doesnt make someone racist or a biggot: its a sign of a demographic that doesnt care about how these overpaid underworked dare i say yuppies think of them. I know i dont. Silencing the puto is silencing the hispanic working class demographic and whitewashing the present culture; its racist and classist. Truthfully it is. Wanting to replace puto (de mexico) with you fat bastard (of england) is anglosizing and racist.

Sorry, I'm failing to understand how trying to get rid of a homophobic chant is racist.

I also don't see what this has to do with the hispanic working class. I've been to a game at Estadio Azteca where this was being shouted by many people who were not in the working class. It was also an issue at the World Cup in Russia, where I'm assuming (and perhaps I shouldn't assume), that the Mexicans that were traveling there were not from the working class.

 

[Ulrich]

Just gonna leave this here for digestion....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1064573546440073217

 

[BxLio91]

Just gonna leave this here for digestion....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1064573546440073217

But but Antifa, Hillary's emails, Soros, Pizzagate and black on black crime!

 

[SanBartG]

But but Antifa, Hillary's emails, Soros, Pizzagate and black on black crime!

Once again... distorting the arguments of others. Nobody, including me, argued that proud boys are not a hate group. yet somehow agreeing on this point makes me an apologist? Ridiculous

 

[SanBartG]

Just gonna leave this here for digestion....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1064573546440073217

Duh.

 

[SanBartG]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

Extremists suck.

ETA: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235

 

[Christopher Jee]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

Extremists suck.

ETA: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235

I'm curious what this means in concrete terms. Does it mean they are being watched? Followed? On the Internet? In real life?

 

[SanBartG]

I'm curious what this means in concrete terms. Does it mean they are being watched? Followed? On the Internet? In real life?

Good question. Possibly all of the above. For the purposes of this conversation, i’m only pointing out that both groups are considered extremists by federal agencies. I’m not arguing they are equally bad as proud boys are clearly a hate group and antifa isn’t (at least not in the traditional sense of the term). But I think both clearly cross the threshold of acceptable and if we’re going to ban members of extremist groups that advocate the use of violence, we should ban them both.

 

[413Blue]

I'm curious what this means in concrete terms. Does it mean they are being watched? Followed? On the Internet? In real life?

My guess is certain resources (such as specific federal law enforcement specialists, surveillance capabilities, money to local and state authorities etc) can now be dedicated to the group. It may even provide legal cover to deny the group access to certain public spaces.

 

[BxLio91]

Once again... distorting the arguments of others. Nobody, including me, argued that proud boys are not a hate group. yet somehow agreeing on this point makes me an apologist? Ridiculous

And right after you went "WHAT ABOUT ANTIFA?"
Like clockwork.

 

[SanBartG]

And right after you went "WHAT ABOUT ANTIFA?"
Like clockwork.

Antifa attends our games. Clinton and Soros
Don’t. Plus i’ve said repeatedly that whatever policy the club adopts should apply to non political organizations too.

If the Hells Angels started coming to our games, I’d use them as an example too. But they don’t come to our games so i’m not.

You’re accusing me of something i’m not doing.

PS- stop apologizing for a domestic terrorist group. (See, I can to do it too. Bullshit right?)

 

[413Blue]

And right after you went "WHAT ABOUT ANTIFA?"
Like clockwork.

Grow up child