Fiosfan Banned for his Personal Opinion

What drew me to the BigSoccer community was the lively discussion that my fellow USMNT fans had when Peter Prendergast thought Greg Berhalter’s head was an arm and called a hand ball in a WCQ against Costa Rica. That’s the BigSoccer I know.

BigSoccer has changed in ways that are both good and less than good, but in the final analysis, I appreciate that a continual effort is being made to maintain a community that has mutual respect for all, regardless of what part of the political spectrum you occupy. I see the ToS agreement as a means to ensure this.

Unless you ask me, my political views are the business of no one and frankly, I don’t care one whit what yours are while I’m in the space of BigSoccer. The 80’s ushered in the advent of wearing one’s views on a T-shirt and now we think it’s our God-given right to proclaim to all what our views are. I don’t care if you hate conservatives or love them, I only care to discuss whether you think they would line up in a 4-4-2, a 4-3-3, or a 4-2-3-1.

When I enter the space of the BigSoccer community, I check my political views at the door because the beautiful game shouldn’t be affected by them.

Finally, Fiosfan’s inability to take what is dished out is matched by a consistent disrespect towards others. I’m not sorry to see someone ushered out of the community that has no respect for others. I support the ban.

 

Speaking of how the meaning of words change...there's a bunch of people from the 1890s thinking, no, not THAT kind of gay.

And I don't begrudge this of gay people, but Deck the Halls isn't the same anymore.

NOTE TO SELF: Start T-shirt Company espousing the merits of various tactical set ups.

"4-4-2 forever!"
"4-3-3: It's the Way of the Orange"
"3-5-2 Ain't nuthin' to ******** with!"

 

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? It's a dog whistle. To most people, "globalist" is innocuous, and when used in the proper context, it's completely inoffensive. But to those who are aware of its usage in certain contexts, it's offensive and anti-Semitic. I didn't see the offending signature, but based on what other people have posted, it seems pretty obvious to me that it was not exactly written in the inoffensive context.

 

I can't wait to see what the slogan is for the 3-6-1...

 

"3-6-1 For Life and Other Temporary Tactics"

 

I understand the angst... good on ya!

 

This is what I wanted to say, but Neubill said it very well for me. Not only do we have moderators who help keep the ugliness of the internet at bay, but they are here explaining their decision in a transparent way. I am grateful.

 

"2-3-5: OG"

 

I disagree.

1 There's a poster in this thread whose avatar calls for the election of a political candidate. He's also a moderator. I don't think the fix is to make SoccerNutter change his avatar. But Fiosfan shouldn't be labeled a Nazi and banned simply because he states political views that many people would disagree with.

2 It's really absurd to let the meaning of the word globalists be determined for BigSoccer by Nazis on Stormfront. The word has a standard meaning. If you go to dictionary.com and look it up, there's no reference to antisemitism.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/globalist?s=t

3 It's hard to deny that there is a strand of liberalism that wants very much to silence dissent from political correctness. It's not about making their case more effectively, it's about shouting down people they disagree with. This action seems in that tradition. That's unfortunate.

Edit to make clear that I think SoccerNutter's avatar is fine. Presumably he thinks his candidate would make things better for the citizens she represents. That's not something we should condemn or ban.

 

The economist is right wing on economics* and lefty on social issues, that is why I am a subscriber.


*They are European (English) so to an American some of their economic positions like healthcare may look lefty, I can definitely see that.

 

We had a class in college where we all subscribed to the Christian Science monitor.

The opinions are definitely conservative (they are religious after all) but over all, it was a very good source of news.

 

So I guess I am double banned. I lived in Yorkshire for three months in 1990.

 

I wouldn't have your patience.

 

1. A political view that many people would disagree with that doesn't deserve banning might be "I think the federal government should completely do away with Social Security". A political view that many people would disagree with that does deserve banning is "I think that a particular group of people are enemies of the state and must be stopped". There are very few acceptable values that you can put into that sentence that wouldn't lead to complaints.

2. You really should read the links provided earlier in the thread by @soccernutter. Even just a Google search for "globalist" has a majority of the results on the first page tying the use of the phrase to anti-Semitism.

3. I find it a bit ironic that you're making that point in defense of someone who was calling people whose political views he disagreed with "enemies" who "must be stopped".

 

I can think of a few.

 

Your first thought is mostly correct. In the US, the Right is the ultra-capitalist, anti-union, war-mongering party and the Left is the ultra-capitalist, anti-union, war-mongering party that is okay with dudes kissing.

It's important to note that 5 (4 as of 1st qtr 2018, really) companies own the total of US broadcast media and none of them, to my knowledge, are operated as a non-profit. So what people call a left-wing bias in mainstream media is mostly social issues or something as innocuous as being reminded to recycle plastic, because none of the private conglomerates that run the television shows most people get their news from (CNN, MSNBC and Fox News) are actual doing them as a public service. The US lacks strong, independent / publicly-supported news sources in the mainsteam.

 

It was not ambiguous in the slightest.

 

You've gotta be a certain vintage to think that 3-6-1 jokes are the pinnacle of American soccer humor.

I am of that vintage.

 

I get what you are saying, and yes, they can be used to describe (Wall St vs. Main St. or talking about 'Hollywood Elites", for instance).
But, it is really important to understand how its used in an attack. Saying stuff about 'controlling' the banks or what is sent out on the TV, very easily gets into the antisemitic realm. 'The greedy bankers', 'the filmmakers' (and quickly go to Speilberg and/or Wienstein for instance is sending a subtext as to who is to blame. And again, taken how history has title, chapter and verse how this type of language was/is used to point at a group (In Europe in the past it was the Jews, and it still is until this day, though Muslim is the new Jew).

I don't know anything about you, your age, where you are from, your education, but these subtleties are important. Its like inflection when speaking.

Now, if you are a complete hick, living among your people and know not much about the outside world, it is possible to make an error and/or not know you made an error. I lived the first half my life in the NYC area. One of my friends married a woman from Saskatchewan. One night we are all out at a diner after a night of bar hopping and she uses the term "Jew him down." I'm a big boy, I can handle it, but even as the only Jewish one at the table (of mostly Catholics) froze. We pointed out to her that she may not want to use such slang when in our 'hood.

As for Fiosfan, he's in the NYC area, he knows, what and how he is using such terms. And more than once. He knew what he was doing.

 

I'm not that familiar with Fiosfan's posting history, but I've seen others with this mentality and they're the first to run screaming to the mods when somebody responds to their behavior in kind. Especially when it turns out that the other poster is more effective at it than them.

 

Since @Yoshou reminded us to come to this thread:

No, @Knave, I'm not the final arbiter of "well-known." 10 gave a reliable indicator of whether they knew it was a slur before this FiosFan stuff happened; 5 said no, 5 said yes.

I went through and did the same exercise on this thread. Counting reliable indicators, I see 13 who didn't know, and 7 who did know. 3 of the 4 mods posting here admitted they didn't know it was a slur before the discussion. Allowing in people with slightly more questionable indications (e.g. they say that Fios should be banned without indication they knew ahead of time they knew, or they argued against "censorship" without arguing they didn't know it was a slur), 16 didn't know, and 12 did know.

Just as I am not a reliable indicator of "well-known" neither are you. I certainly wouldn't consider something known by less than 50% of a population to be "well established".

(Incidentally, @JasonMa chooses his words carefully - he managed to participate in both threads without me being able to ascertain whether he knew it was a slur before the discussion)

 

I didn't know, but if I had something in my sig that could be deemed offensive and it was brought to my attention, I would tend to change it.

 

Nazis? communist? Texans?




I kid, I kid about the commies.