White Supremacists In Supporter Section
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
Fair except that I don’t think he was actually serious about Alex Baldwin. He sort of picked the extreme example to make a simple point. It worked.
Nobody defended it *yet*
Not sure why you had to point out you’re jewish but okay lol
An question that is no longer relevant to this discussion because we now know that they are in the stands and their public association with the Proud Boys means they are not in fact keeping their opinions to themselves.
I am so sick of saying this, but intolerance of intolerance is not actually intolerant. People who assert that you can't be intolerant of intolerance are generally intolerant assholes that tolerant assholes that enjoy sophistry more than actual discussion.
Karl Popper -- smart guy:
Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (in note 4 to Chapter 7).[1]
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, 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. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
That is definitely a reasonable interpretation of my post by someone interested in a good faith discussion of the subject of this thread.
Seems legit to me.
Was reading an article in the NYT about freedom of speech as a bit of a palate cleanser : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/...ant-right-when-if-ever-can-it-be-limited.html
The operative part to me was this:
The part about maintaining a peaceful society struck a chord as a way to distinguish between how we might treat different types of speech, and seems to resonate with the idea of maintaining tolerance.
Also feel like if the club is open to making a public statement, or trying to shape the culture as
FootyLovin suggests, then this seems like a solid starting point.
Last edited:
Putting Alec Baldwin aside for the moment (cause as Dan said, it is different).
It’s an entirely reasonable interpretation unless you’re willing to do the following:
1. Denounce violence by any group as a means to advance an agenda and decide that membership in such groups is grounds to ban them from the stadium, including nazis, antifa etc.
2. Do not ban anyone solely on the basis of membership in a group but do so when warranted by their behavior in the stadium, at club events, etc.
If you agree with either of these, then just say so. If not, then yeah, my interpretation is valid because you aren’t willing to denounce violence by at least one group that is not labeled a hate group.
I prefer the second but beyond all, I think the standard needs to be consistently applied.
Stepping away from the hypotheticals, the fact is that someone who was attending nycfc games attended a proud boys rally and was arrested and charged with assault for violence committed afterwards. In response to that, the club has said absolutely nothing. If they’ve done anything, we wouldn’t know because they’ve said nothing. It would’ve been an absolute fucking sitter to come out and condemn hate and violence, state that they were investigating the incident reported in the media, and they could even say they would not further discuss the specifics of a banning order against an individual supporter. That they couldn’t take a break from the corporate partnerships and happy clapping that dominates their communications to address this tells me what I need to know.
SanBartG you seem to either - Genuinely want a logical, soundly defensible (either legally or morally or both) policy OR
- Want to obfuscate because you don't want a policy that excludes Proud Boys and similar from YS
As for me, I don't need a policy today that stands up to every rigorous debate that might come in the future. I'd like NYCFC to establish a culture of intolerance for hateful speech and action. I'd like that to include clear actions against the puto chant, just as I'd want them to take clear action against a chant of kike or polack (both epithets at my own people) or (insert favorite epithet here).
I'd be happy for NYCFC to say that people who they believe pose a risk to the game day experience will be banned. That could start with people with a known track record of participating in or inciting through speech violent acts toward protected groups. That would include Proud Boys.
I'd be perfectly content if NYCFC said that others would be considered on a case by case basis in the future.
And finally, I'd by more than happy if that meant that we didn't need to settle the specifics of whether or not to ban Antifa today. You see, that debate today seems to be taking the form of, "since we can't figure out the final logical plan, we shouldn't do anything now." And that's what could lead someone to believe #2 above.
So I'm ready to be done with my side of this, no matter how many future decisions it leaves unsolved today. Once we have a specific example of an Antifa person inciting violence and then coming to YS, I'll be more than happy to reengage.
Spot on Footy. Though you mention a lot of the responsibilities the club should take on.
I think if you (and others) go back and reread this thread you'd see that either of those is a reasonable conclusion to draw. I'm going to choose to believe the former while recognizing that the style of argument leaves the latter as a viable alternative.
- Genuinely want a logical, soundly defensible (either legally or morally or both) policy OR
- Want to obfuscate because you don't want a policy that excludes Proud Boys and similar from YS
As for me, I don't need a policy today that stands up to every rigorous debate that might come in the future. I'd like NYCFC to establish a culture of intolerance for hateful speech and action. I'd like that to include clear actions against the puto chant, just as I'd want them to take clear action against a chant of kike or polack (both epithets at my own people) or (insert favorite epithet here).
I'd be happy for NYCFC to say that people who they believe pose a risk to the game day experience will be banned. That could start with people with a known track record of participating in or inciting through speech violent acts toward protected groups. That would include Proud Boys.
I'd be perfectly content if NYCFC said that others would be considered on a case by case basis in the future.
And finally, I'd by more than happy if that meant that we didn't need to settle the specifics of whether or not to ban Antifa today. You see, that debate today seems to be taking the form of, "since we can't figure out the final logical plan, we shouldn't do anything now." And that's what could lead someone to believe #2 above.
So I'm ready to be done with my side of this, no matter how many future decisions it leaves unsolved today. Once we have a specific example of an Antifa person inciting violence and then coming to YS, I'll be more than happy to reengage.
While I don’t disagree with you at all on the responsibilities the club has, the supporters groups have quite a lot of responsibility in this as well.
I agree with the above -- I'm very troubled that the team has said nothing about this. They need to say something. Anything. Because it's frustrating to me, and I'm 100% positive it will turn off some fans if they say nothing.
But more than that, it's the right thing to do. Nick Chavez claimed a statement was coming days a go. It hasn't yet, and that's disappointing. This should be a layup.
But more than that, it's the right thing to do. Nick Chavez claimed a statement was coming days a go. It hasn't yet, and that's disappointing. This should be a layup.
I think if you (and others) go back and reread this thread you'd see that either of those is a reasonable conclusion to draw. I'm going to choose to believe the former while recognizing that the style of argument leaves the latter as a viable alternative.
- Genuinely want a logical, soundly defensible (either legally or morally or both) policy OR
- Want to obfuscate because you don't want a policy that excludes Proud Boys and similar from YS
As for me, I don't need a policy today that stands up to every rigorous debate that might come in the future. I'd like NYCFC to establish a culture of intolerance for hateful speech and action. I'd like that to include clear actions against the puto chant, just as I'd want them to take clear action against a chant of kike or polack (both epithets at my own people) or (insert favorite epithet here).
I'd be happy for NYCFC to say that people who they believe pose a risk to the game day experience will be banned. That could start with people with a known track record of participating in or inciting through speech violent acts toward protected groups. That would include Proud Boys.
I'd be perfectly content if NYCFC said that others would be considered on a case by case basis in the future.
And finally, I'd by more than happy if that meant that we didn't need to settle the specifics of whether or not to ban Antifa today. You see, that debate today seems to be taking the form of, "since we can't figure out the final logical plan, we shouldn't do anything now." And that's what could lead someone to believe #2 above.
So I'm ready to be done with my side of this, no matter how many future decisions it leaves unsolved today. Once we have a specific example of an Antifa person inciting violence and then coming to YS, I'll be more than happy to reengage.
I can only repeat it so many times- I don’t want violent groups INCLUDING proud boys to be affiliated with the club in any way. I made it clear how I think this should be accomplished but reasonable people can disagree about that. But on principle, specifically with proud boys, nazis, etc... I agree.
I disagree with people that want to limit the clubs action only to proud boys and like- minded groups. I think all violent groups regardless of political affiliation or ideaology should be treated the same way. Some people here don’t feel that way. That’s fine. I just wish they would be honest about it.
I don’t want to obfuscate anything. I do want consistency. Maybe you don’t want a clearly articulated policy now, but I do. While the proudly boys are the impetus for this debate, now is a perfectly good time for the club to set down the rules for everybody, period. It’s not an unreasonable request especially because this isn’t the first time we had this debate. We had the exact same debate months ago (maybe last year) when antifa showed up in the stadium.
if a militant wing of pastafarians showed up, i’d Want the same policy to apply to them. If a totally apolitical/nonideaological bunch of hooligans showed up, i’d Want it to apply to them as well.
I cannot understand what’s so controversial about this.
ETA- and I agree about the morons that shout the punta chant or use racially derogatory terms IN the stadium. Kick them out. Period.
Last edited:
I don’t see why it’s difficult for the club to handle these things on a case by case basis.
If it was me committing these acts and my workplace found out about it due to news coverage I would be fired because they wouldn’t want to be affiliated with me. We see that all the time, especially now with racist/homophobic speech caught on video.
The news reports said person works for Walmart and they lose their job. Why? Because of the impact of that speech on everyone else in the workplace. It’s zero tolerance everywhere, why not in a stadium?
I wouldn’t ask the club to investigate every case of violence/hate speech in the city to figure out if those committing it go to the games. I would however demand that if it’s made public that a member of an SG or a season ticket holder committed one of these offenses they take action and ensure the safety of the populous.
I think as far as the Puto chant is concerned the club needs to reprimand the supporter groups. They need to issue a statement, private or public, to the groups that draws a line and demand they put a stop to it.
They’ve done this in the past when the groups were first established with smoke bombs. I think that was more due to the Yankees. To me the club is taking an approach of no harm no foul.
If it was me committing these acts and my workplace found out about it due to news coverage I would be fired because they wouldn’t want to be affiliated with me. We see that all the time, especially now with racist/homophobic speech caught on video.
The news reports said person works for Walmart and they lose their job. Why? Because of the impact of that speech on everyone else in the workplace. It’s zero tolerance everywhere, why not in a stadium?
I wouldn’t ask the club to investigate every case of violence/hate speech in the city to figure out if those committing it go to the games. I would however demand that if it’s made public that a member of an SG or a season ticket holder committed one of these offenses they take action and ensure the safety of the populous.
I think as far as the Puto chant is concerned the club needs to reprimand the supporter groups. They need to issue a statement, private or public, to the groups that draws a line and demand they put a stop to it.
They’ve done this in the past when the groups were first established with smoke bombs. I think that was more due to the Yankees. To me the club is taking an approach of no harm no foul.
It’s frustrating to me to have to answer to questions from family, friends, and fans of other clubs about this whole mess.
Especially being one whose tickets are in the supporters section. Especially since this appears to be an issue with NYCSC, but the rest of the league thinks this is a Third Rail problem. Especially since on the face, it appears as NYCSC is laughing or shrugging this off (they very well be doing more, but I haven’t seen anything as such. And why isn’t their leadership information public?)
I think the club has seen what's happened in Chicago and with some other teams, and is petrified of angering the supporters' groups. Which, frankly, they're not wrong about that with how frustrated fans are with stuff, but they need to step up and be leaders here. Inaction is unacceptable.
You made some great points here and I’m 100 percent okay with a case by case basis as long as it applies to everyone for all kinds of incidents, and not picking and choosing.
As far as the puto chant it’s been getting brought up here a lot and it’s been getting associated with supporter groups but I haven’t heard the puto chant in the supporters section in over a year. I have however been told by people who sit elsewhere that it’s going on in other sections.
I was there and didn’t hear it once. 234 however has a very similar sounding chant that doesn’t say puto
Similar threads
