White Supremacists In Supporter Section
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
The events in the USA of the last week or two as shown some real troubling signs.
Whilst white supremacy has also had a voice, its been ramped up a few notches since Donald Trump became President.
As an outsider looking in, its quite sad to me to see what the USA has become.
Whilst white supremacy has also had a voice, its been ramped up a few notches since Donald Trump became President.
As an outsider looking in, its quite sad to me to see what the USA has become.
Actually, it is. I don’t condone it, I don’t support it, I don’t want it. But it’s protected. This was decided decades ago in the Skokie case.
EDIT- just to be clear, i’m only referring to speech, not physical action or agression.
Last edited:
By the government. The government can't prosecute free speech. NYCFC isn't the government, they're a private company. And they can ban whoever they damn well please.
I don't think it's a matter of legality so much as principle.
I'm pretty frustrated with the team for not appearing to do anything about this issue.
Listen, they can't keep someone from buying tickets, but they should keep someone like this from having supporters' section privileges, including being allowed on a free fan bus to a road game. That's an embarrassment.
We can't treat nazis as if they're just giving another political opinion. They are not on the level, and should be shunned by society.
Haha there's a free fan bus? I mean maybe that one off Hartford game? Most away buses are not free.
I think the principle I'm talking about (can't speak for everyone) is that if you drive things underground they can become more dangerous.
How is allowing Nazis in the stand going to make them go away?
On NYCFC's culture:
One of the responsibilities of leadership in any organization is the creation of culture. Either leaders own this responsibility or they abdicate. Look at your workplace or any group setting. When any of these places lack clear authority figures taking responsibility and actively cultivating a positive culture it is very often (not always) the worst, most negative forces that have the greatest influence on the culture of the group.
For 4 years NYCFC has mostly abdicated this responsibility in regard to the puto chant and white supremacist activities. As a result those elements have gained greater footholds. The problem with a toxic culture is that once it takes hold it is much harder to eradicate than it is to build a positive culture in the first place. Many people who would promote the positive culture will have left by the time they are needed.
So by abdicating NYCFC is running the risk that they have created a tolerant space for those whose words, signs and actions signal intolerance or hate and a hostile place for those who take offense at those words, symbols and actions.
On freedom of speech and slippery slopes:
There is an inherent flaw in the slippery slope argument. Specifically, people use this as a tautology, that because something is a slippery slope it therefore can't be managed and must not be considered.
This is just plain false. NYCFC is already on that slippery slope. They decree what speech is acceptable and what isn't. You can't go into Yankee Stadium and yell n****r. You just can't. Not allowed. No questions. And no one complains about a slippery slope.
The question isn't whether or not it's a slippery slope - it is. The question isn't should NYCFC draw a line - they already do. The question is where should the line be drawn?
I personally would like NYCFC to take action to make YS feel safer for a wider range of people. Currently I feel embarrassed inviting friends to the game and explaining to them what the puto chant is. For that reason I don't invite clients to games at all.
NYCFCs actions are going to encourage certain people to come to games and certain people not. They are already on the slippery slope and they are already creating culture, even if passively. Count me among those who feel they are going down the wrong road for both moral reasons and business purposes.
One of the responsibilities of leadership in any organization is the creation of culture. Either leaders own this responsibility or they abdicate. Look at your workplace or any group setting. When any of these places lack clear authority figures taking responsibility and actively cultivating a positive culture it is very often (not always) the worst, most negative forces that have the greatest influence on the culture of the group.
For 4 years NYCFC has mostly abdicated this responsibility in regard to the puto chant and white supremacist activities. As a result those elements have gained greater footholds. The problem with a toxic culture is that once it takes hold it is much harder to eradicate than it is to build a positive culture in the first place. Many people who would promote the positive culture will have left by the time they are needed.
So by abdicating NYCFC is running the risk that they have created a tolerant space for those whose words, signs and actions signal intolerance or hate and a hostile place for those who take offense at those words, symbols and actions.
On freedom of speech and slippery slopes:
There is an inherent flaw in the slippery slope argument. Specifically, people use this as a tautology, that because something is a slippery slope it therefore can't be managed and must not be considered.
This is just plain false. NYCFC is already on that slippery slope. They decree what speech is acceptable and what isn't. You can't go into Yankee Stadium and yell n****r. You just can't. Not allowed. No questions. And no one complains about a slippery slope.
The question isn't whether or not it's a slippery slope - it is. The question isn't should NYCFC draw a line - they already do. The question is where should the line be drawn?
I personally would like NYCFC to take action to make YS feel safer for a wider range of people. Currently I feel embarrassed inviting friends to the game and explaining to them what the puto chant is. For that reason I don't invite clients to games at all.
NYCFCs actions are going to encourage certain people to come to games and certain people not. They are already on the slippery slope and they are already creating culture, even if passively. Count me among those who feel they are going down the wrong road for both moral reasons and business purposes.
That’s something different than what I was responding to. An assertion was made that it’s not protected speech (with no mention of the government, Yankees or anyone else.).
Also- while the Yankees are a private company, they still cannot categorically deny people entrance based solely on their political views regardless of how abhorrent they are. They have a different standard than the government to be sure... but there is still a standard.... particularly if they received any sort of public funding or subsidy.
Last edited:
While I agree with how you feel about Nazi’s for obvious reasons, I disagree about banning them unless they are inciting violence (in which case you’re regulating behavior and not belief).
There are people on this forum that think i’m a nazi because I don’t share their idealogy. Are you going to ban me? How about a guy wearing a MAGA hat? You may make a dinstinction between nazis, me and trump supporters but a lot of other people don’t. (For the record, i’m not a trump supporter but often get lumped in anyway).
If they buy a ticket but haven’t said or done anything political or aggressive in the stadium do you stili forbid them to attend because you somehow know or have learned they are a nazi... or a trump supporter... or me?
I admire your intent and understand what you want to do.... I just think it’s impossible to be consistent or even fair in the application.
But even in your example, you’re regulating some sort of action- the yelling of something offensive IN the stadium.
I think some people here MAY be advocating for banning people not because of what they say or do IN the stadium but because of their affiliations OUT of the stadium... and that is a different slope and one the club needs to avoid.
EDIT- my prior comments regarding protected speech wasn’t specifically about what is said in the stadium. It was a comment about protected speech generally.
I’m calling bullshit on this. He didn’t say anything even remotely approaching what you described in your reply. in fact, he was making the point that shouldn’t ban people for what they do or say OUT of the stadium which is entirely different than what you suggest he’s saying. Plus- he agrees that you should kick people out of the stadium for stepping out of line.
Calling him a nazi sympathizer isn’t only logically fallacious, it’s ignorant.
I agree with your points here, but there are perhaps other considerations that need to be taken considering sanctioned supporters groups and providing privileges.
It does appear in at least one instance where the club allowed one of these guys to travel to a road game and not provide all of the information required for all other traveling supporters. That to me raises lots of questions.
Some of these guys also have a history of actual violence outside the stadium and that is definitely something that should be considered, even though it occurred outside the stadium. Especially when they are placed within a supporters group and that environment and allowed to travel to away games.
Nobody should be denied entry to a nycfc game because of their viewpoints, but I take no issue with actions being taken on individuals when they have had an actual history of violence outside the stadium. And on the face of it, that appears to apply somewhat in this scenario.
That’s fine by me- but if that’s the standard, the club should vet every member to ensure they don’t have a violent record. You can’t pick and choose what violent morons you like and which you don’t. Proud boy, antifa and the asshole that beats his wife should not be allowed in the groups. I’m not being facetious. I’m being totally serious.
THe problem is that’s not the standard being proposed and that’s what I disagree with.
This goes back to what I posted before that’s a staple in the legal world..... it’s what you know and when you know it.
The club doesn’t have to vet every fan, but when there is evidence presented, the moment of action becomes immediate, not kicked down the road for another day.
That’s a totally fair point. However, the standard some (and only some) here want to apply isn’t based on a known history of violence But affiliation with a group out of the stadium that’s not relevant to their known behavior in the stadium.
But I do get your point and I agree with you now. So let’s say the same standard should apply to all criminally violent people regardless of their motivation. If the club learns of it, you’re gone. Period. Doesn’t matter what your politics is or if you’re an apolitical moron who can’t resolve differences without using your hands cause you have the emotional IQ of a toddler.
Similar threads
