News: Saturday, April 21 , 2018

What’s the point of having Jaylin Lindsey on the bench if he’s not brought in sometime during the 2nd half when the game is already decided?

 

1st sub - Lobato - hasn’t had many good performances yet this year, good game to bring him in to get some confidence up. It worked, he scored a goal

2nd sub - Rubio - kind of the same story, needed some time in a low pressure game to build confidence after some mediocre performances so far this year.

3rd sub - Gutierrez - possibly SKC’s best player, has been out injured the prior two games, needed to get back in and get some minutes to shake off some rust.

Vermes is always going to do what he thinks is best for Sporting Kansas City, and he obviously felt that for the team, those three guys needed minutes more than Lindsey right now.

 

Sad but inevitable news about Wynne.

If he had been two inches taller I think he would have been an outstanding centerback.

 

You know how you prevent that? Stop committing stupid fouls in the box. Literally all I've seen about this game so far is this comment so I went and watched the highlights on MLSSoccer.com of the 3 PK calls. Got no problem with any of them. What are you complaining about?

 

Well, the referee is a globalist liberal hell bent on the destruction of soccer and, hence, his job.

 

The way you use those words, it's like you don't even know what they mean. Or is that someone else I'm thinking of/laughing at today? I need to go listen to a podcast to line up tomorrow's outrage.

 

Pretty sure that was a joke referring to a discussion a couple of days ago about Fiosfan's sig line.

 

Yeah, I know. I was actually talking about him when I made those comments, not TB. Now that you know that, read them again.

Nice work by the Mods by removing his sig.
1) I come here to escape morons that measure everything via their political beliefs
2) This isn't blocking Free Speech. We have a political forum, he never posts there
3) If he would post there, he would quickly realize how stupid his sig made him look.

 

BakedSpeak:
[0] Promoting Ideas I Like: Good. Promoting Ideas I Don't Like: Bad. That, comrades, is all the Free Speech that we Mod fans know you need to know.
[1] So I have come here to escape myself? Awesome Baked Zen right there.
[2] This isn't blocking Free Speech. We have a little cell, let's call it Room 101, where BBS wants you to speak freely. The rest of BBS? It's Oceania, and we're watching ya buddy.
[3] If but he would come to Room 101 he would quickly realize how stupid it is to conjecture that 2+2=4, when the settled science will tell you it's 5. Smart thoughts are our thoughts...capisce?

 

"By the way, that replacement for Fiosfan's sig? It's a lie. Where in the sig did Fiosfan indulge in "Anti-semitic rhetoric"? It's one thing to be a plain ol' thug who doesn't wish others to have the right to their thought, it's another level of thuggish thing to lie about what that person thought as part of your justification for suppressing that thought.
Whoever on BS did that, shame on you. It's perfectly ok for you to slander posters, and they don't even have a right to the truth? Whichever moderators have done this, you are pathetic.

And in case someone tries to hide having so lied, this is what it says at 2:33 pm, EST today.
"{Signature with anti-Semitic rhetoric removed by moderators}"

[Yes, the odds are not in my favor of this post existing once the "Mods" and their Baked Alaskan agitpropists spy a thought not to their liking. Because "that's what's Bakin' on BS dude."]

 

That was me TOAzer, to let the people on the site who wondered why we left it there so long when it was clearly anti-Semitic - intentional or not - know it was handled. I will remove the comment in as much time as we worked with the poster to have it changed, rather than just doing it initially. For which, I will add, I caught plenty of gruff for leaving it in the first place, especially in the three days (four now) since people started reporting it.

Moderating is almost always a no-win sort of activity, and I accept that. Mostly what I hope for is that people recognize the need to try and balance all sorts of concerns in a forum that attempts to be a community. Where I draw the line most firmly is with people who don't seem to give a damn about how their words and their actions impact others, and to contend that people who have been shit on by other people for most of their history should be okay with slurs repeated by a newer generation - just accept that they should see it when they log into/onto the MLS forums - I am not okay with that.

(By any other means, this is me saying I am no more ashamed of adding that note than I am with trying to work compatibly with the poster instead of going straight to a red card or an edit. Both are problematic decisions on what most view as a black or white issue.)

 

That's exactly what I was thinking.
Unless I don't properly understand the definition of 'anti-semitic', I am curious as to the real reason for its removal.

And by the way, I'm a drug loser, so I feel offended by BakedAlaskan's sig that I am, therefore, a user!

 

The irony of someone gaslighting while including a note intended to avoid being gaslit is delicious.

 

I thank you for your response....but, bear with me Ismitje, there is a point to this but... there was nothing "anti-semitic" about his signature line. I am quite happy to discuss this with you "off-line", yet it's important to be honest here. You adding that line above, the bolded one, even with peculiar hesitation implied in "intentional or not", is slander. It is objectively false, and it stigmatizes Fiosfan in an actionable way. There was not one word in his signature that is "anti-semitic". Honesty matters, to me at least, and so tell you honestly that I've read the passages between some moderators and Fiosfan as to those elements of his signature which were stated as grounds for "anti-semitism", and I will tell you that it's as if I'm reading some strange late night parody as to "Orwell does the Sports Show". By that sort of "logic" then Ayn Rand to Milton Friedman to John Paul II to Olaf Palme, and a thousand others who I dare you to label as anti-semitic, are guilty of being "anti-semitic" because they held Communism in deep disrespect. Because, ya know, Karl Marx was born into Judaism....so, duh, antisemitism.
To speak honestly to those here on BS, the argument for why Fiosfan's signature "had to go" was not based on something we might have understood "Hey, it has political content. Let's keep our signatures non-political" . As long as all were equal under that law, then fair enough. But instead it seems to have centered on him using the word "Global" [globalist, globalism, whatever form it took]. Now whether you are for or against globalism in its various manifestations and forms, say starting with something not too long ago, say Woodrow Wilson's ambitions for the League of Nation, all the way up to whatever the fine folk who hash things out in Davos are hashing out each year, and it is certainly a part of contemporary reality which affects MLS and the sport in this country, it has absolutely nothing to do with "anti-semitism" to be a critic of globalism. Are there critics of globalism who are anti-semitic? Sure, and given the size and variety of this earth probably a bunch of them. Are there proponents of globalism who are anti-semitic? Sure, and given the size and variety of this earth probably a bunch of them. Perhaps even among those who play important roles in the effort. Israel is rich in discussion and worry on exactly what the globalist movement implies for the existence of Israel. Are you going to then conclude that Israelites are anti-semitic?
I've seen more than enough absurdity in this life, on both sides of the Atlantic [and Pacific for that matter, but the Atlantic is more relevant, eh?]. And sometimes absurdity is aimed at someone in a way that smacks of slander. I wish "you"-moderators- had just left it at "hey, let the signatures be a breathing space from politics". To add that charge of anti-semitism, and then to reiterate it in your explanatory post I'm replying to, based on nothing but the use of the word "global" is ....well, it's Orwellian.

 

lol

 

I'm just going to jump in and make one point. There's no such thing as a "free speech" argument on a private site. The "free speech" that is traditionally referred to when that cry goes up is the 1st Amendment, which specifically states that the government shall make no laws preventing free speech (and even that isn't absolute, the whole shouting fire in a crowded theater thing). BigSoccer is not the government and has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable speech on these forums.

 

I was going to ignore this but, since you most likely are recovering from always having a full party calendar, I assume you a lot of free time today so I'll play

******** you. His signature was offensive and was intended for nothing but trolling. He was looking for a reaction and he got one. Very much like yourself. You're welcome.

Guilty. Every single post I've ever made on Big Soccer is motivated by my personal political beliefs even though I've been politically independant for over 30 years. You, sir, are a jenius.

I agree. Selective forums suck and moderators are stupidfaces. Let's put all conversations by soccer fans in one thread so we won't have this problem again. We could call it a chat dwelling.

He doesn't venture there. He only leaves ignorant and insulting comments in his sig that he doesn't answer to. His first version of this sig said Libtards instead of Liberals.

If he would post there, his political stance wouldn't change at all, but he would most likely think more about his next sig instead of just parroting right wing propaganda without backing it up.

 

Not unlike officiating a soccer game ...

 

That's a fair critique of what you quoted in my post. It wasn't obvious to me; I took it as an insult to/of people like me who like such things as trade deals and integration to stop wars. And to be fair to others, there have long been complaints that his entire signature needed to go because it introduced an element of politics into a more-or-less apolitical place - and it was designed to insult, of that there is no question.

What became very obvious to me is that the combination of globalist, enemy of the nation, and must be stopped means something very specific to many Jewish members on our site. The reason we waited a few days to act on the complaints was to communicate with the user to explain where, why, and how the users interpreted it as offensive, and ask him to change it. That didn't go well. Which brings us to this point.

 

As a Jew, there is zero doubt in my mind that the signature was antisemitic.

And the presence of that signature on BigSoccer was quite chilling for me.

While I am still bothered that it appeared here, I am extremely thankful that it has been removed

 

Are we going to have people look at everyone's signatures and ban anything deemed political?
Signatures like "Bastard's not gonna get four years..."
or "Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights,even if you don't know what your rights are, or who the person is you're talking to. Then on the way out, slam the door."

Anyone could say those are political and raise a stink and demand they get removed.

Getting rid of all signatures would be better than selectively banning some over others.

 

That's a straw man. We can make distinctions between hate speech and ordinary political signatures quite easily.