White Supremacists In Supporter Section
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
well registered people and people in supporter sections are two different things, i mean there are members in other sections too. i very much disagree on the away travel stuff, at least on my experiences. thats not to say there are no TR members at away games but its either splits or less than SC ( im bunching all the groups that i remember fall in that umbrella ) granted my experiences have been away at portland, denver, montreal.
closer games like philly and RB is different since its much closer for everyone
When you say "slippery slope" - are you saying that
Kangaroo Jack 's example is all the way at the bottom of the slope? When you say "straw man" - are you saying that he's creating a false version of the argument that he's arguing against?
I just want to be clear. "shooting up a tailgate" may be an extreme version of what could happen, but I generally agree that repression can have adverse effects. I'd rather my natural enemies be out in the open making it clear where they stand. Sunshine is the best disinfectant etc.
I think it's really hard to have a reasonable back and forth when people are just dismissing other people's arguments as bad faith / straw man / slippery slope. This is a pretty small forum and we talk amicably about a lot of things (including Ben Sweat) - I don't see why we can't be a little more generous in our interpretations towards one another.
So you are saying more tickets are scanned for NYC SC than Third Rail members? What's your source on that?
I think there are a good amount of Third Rail members who don't sit in the Supporters' Section.
How do you define supporting? I support the team in my own way which could be more supporting that fans in the Supporters' Section based on one's view.
No I’m not saying that. Im saying im not sure who has more overall members on paper or even at games. I’m saying that based on my eye test there are more SC people in the supporters section and at away games than there are people from third rail. If not it’s reaaaaallly close as far as supporters section goes. As far as away support goes I think SC has more traveling supporters. Especially when it comes to the smaller games. That’s literally all I’m saying. It doesn’t matter either way but I just feel like people in this forum are severely underestimating the amount of members SC actually has.
Welcome to the forums, Ray. Has the Third Rail made a statement about these issues yet? Is any response planned?
I think that's just because NYC SC people wear their own gear more than Third Rail people do. I don't see Third Rail people wearing Third Rail merchandise to games except for say scarves. Whereas the Templados wear their orange shirts to matches.
AFAICT only in the private FB group. I think I asked why it wasn't public at the time.
When you say "slippery slope" - are you saying that
When you say "straw man" - are you saying that he's creating a false version of the argument that he's arguing against?
I just want to be clear. "shooting up a tailgate" may be an extreme version of what could happen, but I generally agree that repression can have adverse effects. I'd rather my natural enemies be out in the open making it clear where they stand. Sunshine is the best disinfectant etc.
I think it's really hard to have a reasonable back and forth when people are just dismissing other people's arguments as bad faith / straw man / slippery slope. This is a pretty small forum and we talk amicably about a lot of things (including Ben Sweat) - I don't see why we can't be a little more generous in our interpretations towards one another.
Here is a definition of a slippery slope argument, you tell me if it fits:
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
The straw man is moderate in this argument, but it is the most popular form of crap arguing on this board and has been done in this thread over and over and over again by a small number of posters:
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
You can not have a reasonable back and forth with someone who does this in real life -- it's even harder on a message board when you can't respond in real time.
We have had so many reasonable arguments on here where rational people express different opinions (especially in the stadium thread) that it's a waste of time to try and engage bad faith arguers.
God i hate logical fallacy arguments so much. Specifically how people try to use them and feel a sense of superiority and intelligence over the person theyre trying to claim them against. I can find a logical fallacy in almost any statement in this thread or other thread if i really wanted to, including this one. The problem is that youre specifically looking for a logical fallacy because youve already assumed whatever im going to say is wrong because youve made up your mind on the subject and you arent going into it with an open mind to have a good faith discussion with me. I post something, you see my name and youve basically already discounted what i have to say. Should i take it from the top though sure why not.
The amount of ad hominem attacks on me on this thread is beyond absurd but i havent seen any of you take issue with any of them. Your response in and of itself is a form of an ad hominem attack that trys to attack me and the way i debate rather than attacking the point itself, but ill carry on.
Your response about how i brought up the example of the parking lot was a strawman attack as you completely misrepresented the point i was trying to make by using that as an example of something that while maybe not likely could have been a possibility, as of course it was a completely hypothetical example and if these people are as dangerous as some of you claim not that far fetched and out of the ordinary for something one of them might do. My position has been completely mischaracterized more times in this thread than i can even count.
The appeal to ignorance. " Just because they havent done anything yet doesnt mean they arent going to do anything" which is one of the main arguments most of you have. but i havent called a logical fallacy on any of you because im still willing to have the discussion because fuck logical fallacies.
False Dilemma has been used countless times to argue against me. This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Basically by saying that if i dont full agree with banning them based on their beliefs that i believe i want them to stay in the stadium and that i support them being there. When in fact that couldnt be farther from the truth.
Now we get to your favorite the slippery slope. There are many examples of it being used but seeing as ive already written a novel ill just stick to one "If NYCFC doesnt ban them theyll start chanting racist things at people in the stands, and then once that happens a fight might break out. If a fight breaks out people will get hurt."
The circular argument. Well just look at this thread in general were 32 pages deep and everyone is just repeating the same points and coming to their same old conclusions but meanwhile many different points have been presented many different ways for and against.
Hasty generalizations. youve already assumed that anything i say is incorrect and have told me that you wont even engage with me because you believe everything i say is a logical fallacy. therefore you have no reason to enter a discussion with me
Red Herring... well were talking about logical fallacies instead of the matter at hand now arent we?
The Casual fallacy another big one in here. Since i know people that are part of SC i must be a sympathizer. Since theyre part of an alt right group they must be banned because theyll shout racist things in the stadium. in the same category we have the post hoc fallacy. "because they were at the march in charlotsville theyre going to do bad things here.
Appeal to Autority. Well it was written in Huffpost so it must all be true.
I can honestly keep going but i think ive made my point. Bottom line is, if you want to have a discussion with me then just have it. Stop judging me beforehand and stop resorting to these cheap tactics to try and make me look unintelligent and degrade me all the while being condescending. You dont have to agree with me but i respect all of your responses and opinions. I honestly feel like most of you responding to me cant say the same.
You have managed to almost understand every argument made in response to your commentary.
Yahoo article mentions "right wing" fans being a problem. So conservatives are just dangerous people now and should be weeded out? That's a bunch of bull shit. They say extremists a few times, but that's not the language or tone I'm seeing there or here. So this is like someone wearing a MAGA hat being chastised as a racist. Being denied service or attacked verbally or physically. It's happening every other week. I'm sure most of the sentiment isn't even about the extreme, it's anyone supporting the right. Cause the narrative is that the right is evil racists now. Yet the extreme left is just as dangerous and it's oppressing nature towards difference in a opinion is applauding through many outlets. Leave it to Huff Post and other outlets to turn this into conservativism is evil mantra and must be stomped out. Manufactured hysteria. Like Jussie, like the kid in DC, like all the fake racist notes on food receipts, etc. That's the way I take it. It's modern day nazism without the violence. There's only one tolerated view and that's the left. There hasn't been "right wing" violence at the games. I've been going since day one. I've sat all over the stadium. This seems like another witch hunt to further tarnish law abiding white conservative men. If the team or the fans want to turn this into another MAGA crusade, I have no problem walking away. I'll never apologize for being a white conservative male. My conviction comes before some guys kicking a ball on a baseball field.
Rant over and IDGAF who I offended.
Rant over and IDGAF who I offended.
Going to need those of you understandably defending your friends to splain this for me since I don't know what the fuck is going on. I don't know what to make of all this.
I know the difference, but a majority don't. So when Yahoo starts cleverly using the phrasing "right wing" without FAR or EXTREMISTS it is irresponsible. It makes people associate neo-nazis in YS as a right wing issue. That is what I said in my other post. So everyone disagreeing with me must think it's ok to associate the right wing as nazis. Same as saying all Muslims are terrorists. The hypocrisy in this forum is palpable. You all keep preaching tolerance through intolerance.
for what its worth i thought the yahoo article was pretty fair.
Similar threads
