NationStates

Soviet-mongol wrote:France just like England in the match before did not beat Croatia fair and square. They have had help from the biased refs, corrupt Fifa and international Football mafia. Every neutral observer who understand football rules unilateraly agrees Croatia is robbed. France may won on paper but it was cheating

France most definitely deserved to WIN – just as Croatia most definitely deserved to LOSE. It’s a sign of new, more hopeful times - to the horror of all reactionaries.

Croatia’s (just like Poland's – and Russia's) team is entirely made up of white players, most of whom make their living playing for the country’s domestic league. The Top-Tier World Cup teams are not only ethnically diverse, but are stocked with players who ply their trade outside their home countries, in the world’s most watched, most-competitive and highest-paying leagues: the English Premier League, Spain’s La Liga, and Germany’s Bundesliga.

As for some poster here saying all Slavs were cheering for Croatia – well, I guess they (the poster) know better, being Slav themselves. To support white-only team over multi-ethnic one – exactly this kind of nativist behavior one might expect from them.

Purpelia wrote:

Sharania wrote:World Cup 2018: The Moral Clarity of Pussy Riot’s Protest

If by moral clarity they mean clearly morally abhorrent than yes. Interrupting an event such as this for the purposes of political activism is nothing short of sacrilegious and disrespectfully and I hope they throw the book at them. Politics has no place in entertainment just as entertainment has no place in politics.

What was "morally abhorrent" there?

I'm a bit confused about you. I thought a Right-Winger like you is a proper Christian of one type or another. But you called this interruption of the soccer game... "scrilegious"? Are you worshipping false idols here?

Sharania wrote:Croatia’s team (just like Polish – and Russian) is entirely made up of white players, most of whom make their living playing for the country’s domestic league

Literally 2 out of 23 players in the Croatian squad play in the Prva HNL, and every single other one plays club football outside of the country in some of the world's top leagues. Only 4 of the 23 selected Polish players play in the Ekstraklasa, while 21 of the 23 players in the Russian squad play in the Russian Premier League.

The only squad at the World Cup with every player playing in their domestic league last season was England, which also happens to be a highly ethnically diverse squad.

Kindly get at least some of your facts right before your quasi-racist rant.

It's racism if you say that a multi-etnic team like France or Belgium should not win because they are multi-etnic.

It's not racism if you support Croatia when they play against France if you do so because you like their playing stile more...

According to your logic, Luxemburg would have deserved the world cup if only they had selected 22 players with roots from all around the globe?

If you want to cancel out racism, just do that and cancel it out. Reverse racism doesn't make things any better.

Sharania wrote:

Purpelia wrote:If by moral clarity they mean clearly morally abhorrent than yes. Interrupting an event such as this for the purposes of political activism is nothing short of sacrilegious and disrespectfully and I hope they throw the book at them. Politics has no place in entertainment just as entertainment has no place in politics.

What was "morally abhorrent" there?

I'm a bit confused about you. I thought a Right-Winger like you is a proper Christian of one type or another. But you called this interruption of the soccer game... "scrilegious"? Are you worshipping false idols here?

That's because I am not a right winger. I just happen to also not be one of the modern lunatic left wing.

Riemstagrad wrote:snip.

Strawman. How typical. That was not what I was saying. But it's hard to argue with the results of who won this year's cup... yet some try to do just that.

Purpelia wrote:That's because I am not a right winger. I just happen to also not be one of the modern lunatic left wing.

Oh! So for you there is just some "Right wing", but when talking about any "left" it must be a "lunatic". I see!

Sharania wrote:

Purpelia wrote:That's because I am not a right winger. I just happen to also not be one of the modern lunatic left wing.

Oh! So for you there is just some "Right wing", but when talking about any "left" it must be a "lunatic". I see!

I call them lunatics because I used to consider my self a moderate left winger before they moved the definition of left so far that Trotsky is turning over in his grave laughing for joy. The left used to be about the rights of the workers to be protected from predatory oligarchs. Now it's about pitting minorities against one another in a campaign of divide and conquer.

Used to be it was "workers of the world unite" and not "workers of the world split into a million identity groups and fight whilst the fat cats laugh"

In other words its to distinguish the legitimate left wing from SJW. The later being the "lunatic" left. Sort of how the nazis are the "lunatic" right.


On this particular issue my stance is rather simple. I hold that all societies provide their citizens with legitimate means of participating in politics. Examples include but are not limited to founding and participating in political parties, voting etc. And the one and only way for you to achieve anything in politics legitimately is to use those means and those means alone. And if you can not achieve anything because you can not convince enough people than you need to shut up and accept the fact you lost.

Resorting to means outside of those provided is only permissible in the sole case where none are. So if you are a slave or you live in a dictatorship that won't let anyone vote or some such. And outbursts such as this one are a prime example of a group that can not achieve legitimate support acting out in an effort to shock people into being on their side. Therefore they are illegitimate.

Purpelia wrote:I call them lunatics because I used to consider my self a moderate left winger before they moved the definition of left so far that Trotsky is turning over in his grave laughing for joy. The left used to be about the rights of the workers to be protected from predatory oligarchs. Now it's about pitting minorities against one another in a campaign of divide and conquer.

Used to be it was "workers of the world unite" and not "workers of the world split into a million identity groups and fight whilst the fat cats laugh"

On this particular issue my stance is rather simple. I hold that all societies provide their citizens with legitimate means of participating in politics. Examples include but are not limited to founding and participating in political parties, voting etc. And the one and only way for you to achieve anything in politics legitimately is to use those means and those means alone. And if you can not achieve anything because you can not convince enough people than you need to shut up and accept the fact you lost.

Resorting to means outside of those provided is only permissible in the sole case where none are. So if you are a slave or you live in a dictatorship that won't let anyone vote or some such. And outbursts such as this one are a prime example of a group that can not achieve legitimate support acting out in an effort to shock people into being on their side. Therefore they are illegitimate.

Russia is a dictatorship.

Sharania wrote:

Soviet-mongol wrote:France just like England in the match before did not beat Croatia fair and square. They have had help from the biased refs, corrupt Fifa and international Football mafia. Every neutral observer who understand football rules unilateraly agrees Croatia is robbed. France may won on paper but it was cheating

France most definitely deserved to WIN – just as Croatia most definitely deserved to LOSE. It’s a sign of new, more hopeful times - to the horror of all reactionaries.

Croatia’s team (just like Polish – and Russian) is entirely made up of white players, most of whom make their living playing for the country’s domestic league. The Top-Tier World Cup teams are not only ethnically diverse, but are stocked with players who ply their trade outside their home countries, in the world’s most watched, most-competitive and highest-paying leagues: the English Premier League, Spain’s La Liga, and Germany’s Bundesliga.

As for some poster here saying all Slavs were cheering for Croatia – well, I guess they (the poster) know better, being Slav themselves. To support white-only team over multi-ethnic one – exactly this kind of nativist behavior one might expect from them.

Let's stop with the racial debates as they are just not relevant.

As I said in a previous post, Russia's team is actually quite diverse anyway. I don't know if it is obvious but ethnic Croatians are white, God help them for that. In a country where about 9/10ths of the population are ethnically Croatian I don't know what you expect (at a guess - some black players would automatically make it diverse). The Croatian team has Corluka who was born in Bosnia, Lovren born in Bosnia but fled to Germany as a refugee and was raised there. He speaks German better than he does Croatian, Mandžukić was also a refugee and moved to Germany. Rakitic was born in Switzerland to parents of Šokci origin coming from Bosnia. Kovačić - born in Austria to Bosnian Croats. Literally just got that with a quick glance at Wikipedia and there could be more. So there is some diversity if that appeases you. Keep in mind, diversity is not automatically a good or bad thing and in a football team chosen for their playing ability and not their race, both encouraging and discouraging diversity is the antithesis of what the sport should be about - you choose the best players, end of.

Literally the only times I have seen anyone talk about race on this thread is people who want to praise teams for being diverse and condemn any that are apparently not. I don't see anyone who complains about teams being too diverse here, you guys are arguing with a non-existent opponent. The insinuation that anyone supporting Croatia must be a racist is not appreciated.

Sharania wrote:

Purpelia wrote:I call them lunatics because I used to consider my self a moderate left winger before they moved the definition of left so far that Trotsky is turning over in his grave laughing for joy. The left used to be about the rights of the workers to be protected from predatory oligarchs. Now it's about pitting minorities against one another in a campaign of divide and conquer.

Used to be it was "workers of the world unite" and not "workers of the world split into a million identity groups and fight whilst the fat cats laugh"

On this particular issue my stance is rather simple. I hold that all societies provide their citizens with legitimate means of participating in politics. Examples include but are not limited to founding and participating in political parties, voting etc. And the one and only way for you to achieve anything in politics legitimately is to use those means and those means alone. And if you can not achieve anything because you can not convince enough people than you need to shut up and accept the fact you lost.

Resorting to means outside of those provided is only permissible in the sole case where none are. So if you are a slave or you live in a dictatorship that won't let anyone vote or some such. And outbursts such as this one are a prime example of a group that can not achieve legitimate support acting out in an effort to shock people into being on their side. Therefore they are illegitimate.

Russia is a dictatorship.

Spoken like someone that has newer seen an actual dictatorship.
The people of Russia have voting, political parties, free access to the internet and other means of communication. The fact they keep voting for Putin because he is a good demagog does not change those facts. If it did america would have ceased being a democracy when you elected Trump, or hell even Obama who basically got into office playing the race card.

And sure they have propaganda but so do all western countries too. Just look at how selective the news coverage of terrorism is in the EU and how american news networks are basically propaganda outlets for one party or the other.

And sure they have intelligence agencies spying on them but so does the rest of the world. And I bet you Putin does not have as many people reading your emails as the NSA.


Bottom line is they have a democracy that is by modern day standards perfectly acceptable. Because if they weren't not only would outbursts such as this not happen but the girls and their families would have long been murdered and buried in an unmarked grave. Because that is what dictatorships do.

Sharania wrote:

Soviet-mongol wrote:France just like England in the match before did not beat Croatia fair and square. They have had help from the biased refs, corrupt Fifa and international Football mafia. Every neutral observer who understand football rules unilateraly agrees Croatia is robbed. France may won on paper but it was cheating

France most definitely deserved to WIN – just as Croatia most definitely deserved to LOSE. It’s a sign of new, more hopeful times - to the horror of all reactionaries.

Croatia’s (just like Poland's – and Russia's) team is entirely made up of white players, most of whom make their living playing for the country’s domestic league. The Top-Tier World Cup teams are not only ethnically diverse, but are stocked with players who ply their trade outside their home countries, in the world’s most watched, most-competitive and highest-paying leagues: the English Premier League, Spain’s La Liga, and Germany’s Bundesliga.

As for some poster here saying all Slavs were cheering for Croatia – well, I guess they (the poster) know better, being Slav themselves. To support white-only team over multi-ethnic one – exactly this kind of nativist behavior one might expect from them.

Except the French team is not ethnically diverse, it basically is non-French in that regard. I struggle to understand how France's team is ethnically diverse - that would be the case if some 6 players were white and 5 were not, or some 12 of the 23.

Given that Giroud and Griezmann are half French and there's only Pavard and Thauvin, your comment (which doesn't have anything to do with the topic in the first place) is rather out of touch, and it's like listening to San Lumen. The French national team is not remotely ethnically diverse, the total of ethnically French players in the team is two, and the total of white players is four. That is not diversity.

I bet you're the kind of person to look at Detroit and Tower Hamlets and say it's 'diverse' because it's a blob of near unanimous ethnic minority population among a sea of white.

Purpelia wrote:

Sharania wrote:
Oh! So for you there is just some "Right wing", but when talking about any "left" it must be a "lunatic". I see!

(To Purpelia)

Liar. You are the lunatic here. You have posts where you openly advocate for genocides.
Anyone can look up your postings, so stop acting dumber than you already are.

As for an alleged "frightening lunatic left", you just made this bs up.
There's simply nothing unusual with the today's left.

And this is a Sports thread ffs.

Odosa wrote:
And this is a Sports thread ffs.

So let's return to the topic!

What is your favourite goal?

For me it's the 3-2 in Belgium - Japan. The goal is on the account of Nacer Chadli but it's the complete deadly counter that made this one so good: in only 10 seconds from Courtois, who grabbed the ball on a Japanese corner, all the way to Chadli pushing in an impossible to miss goal. With De Bruyne's clear sight, Meuniers perfect last pass and Romelu Lukaku first luring away 2 Japanese defenders, then his dummy to leave the ball to Chadli. And all that only 13 seconds before the end of extra time. And after being at 0-2 in minute 60...

Some other great goals:

Ronaldo vs Spain,
Lingard vs Tunisia
Trippier vs Croatia
Kroos vs Sweden

Riemstagrad wrote:
So let's return to the topic!

What is your favourite goal?

Mine was Mandzukic's one in the final match against France.
You know, the second goal, when France's goalkeeper made the stupid mistake
of not shooting the ball in time and Mandzukic could easily take it away
and make a goal.
It's also cool because that one compensated his autogoal in the beginning.

Riemstagrad wrote:So let's return to the topic!

What is your favourite goal?

For me it's the 3-2 in Belgium - Japan. The goal is on the account of Nacer Chadli but it's the complete deadly counter that made this one so good: in only 10 seconds from Courtois, who grabbed the ball on a Japanese corner, all the way to Chadli pushing in an impossible to miss goal. With De Bruyne's clear sight, Meuniers perfect last pass and Romelu Lukaku first luring away 2 Japanese defenders, then his dummy to leave the ball to Chadli. And all that only 13 seconds before the end of extra time. And after being at 0-2 in minute 60...

Some other great goals:

Ronaldo vs Spain,
Lingard vs Tunisia
Trippier vs Croatia
Kroos vs Sweden

Cavani’s first vs Portugal. A perfect cross by Cavani to Suárez and a perfect return ball.

Yaana Noore wrote:

Soviet-mongol wrote:That is because of rapant racism in France. The discriminated youth of color protests the french government. Interestingly there was no riots in Croatia not even the burning of cars or similar shit

Why does it feel like every post you make you are just itching for a political debate or one on race rather than talking football?

I am not the one who mentioned riots in France which are not part of the actual World cup

The Archregimancy wrote:

Soviet-mongol wrote:France just like England in the match before did not beat Croatia fair and square.

Well, I suppose it's fair to note that England definitely didn't beat Croatia fair and square.

Largely because England lost.

Yeah I was not clear enough. The refs were also in favor of England. That was my point

Yaana Noore wrote:
Literally the only times I have seen anyone talk about race on this thread is people who want to praise teams for being diverse and condemn any that are apparently not. I don't see anyone who complains about teams being too diverse here, you guys are arguing with a non-existent opponent. The insinuation that anyone supporting Croatia must be a racist is not appreciated.

Oh, no? Really?

Trumptonium1 wrote:
Except the French team is not ethnically diverse, it basically is non-French in that regard. I struggle to understand how France's team is ethnically diverse - that would be the case if some 6 players were white and 5 were not, or some 12 of the 23.

Given that Giroud and Griezmann are half French and there's only Pavard and Thauvin, your comment (which doesn't have anything to do with the topic in the first place) is rather out of touch, and it's like listening to San Lumen. The French national team is not remotely ethnically diverse, the total of ethnically French players in the team is two, and the total of white players is four. That is not diversity.

I bet you're the kind of person to look at Detroit and Tower Hamlets and say it's 'diverse' because it's a blob of near unanimous ethnic minority population among a sea of white.

That post comes both after I made my post and after you guys started the argument on race in the first place.

Trumptonium1 wrote:

Sharania wrote:
France most definitely deserved to WIN – just as Croatia most definitely deserved to LOSE. It’s a sign of new, more hopeful times - to the horror of all reactionaries.

Croatia’s (just like Poland's – and Russia's) team is entirely made up of white players, most of whom make their living playing for the country’s domestic league. The Top-Tier World Cup teams are not only ethnically diverse, but are stocked with players who ply their trade outside their home countries, in the world’s most watched, most-competitive and highest-paying leagues: the English Premier League, Spain’s La Liga, and Germany’s Bundesliga.

As for some poster here saying all Slavs were cheering for Croatia – well, I guess they (the poster) know better, being Slav themselves. To support white-only team over multi-ethnic one – exactly this kind of nativist behavior one might expect from them.

Except the French team is not ethnically diverse, it basically is non-French in that regard. I struggle to understand how France's team is ethnically diverse - that would be the case if some 6 players were white and 5 were not, or some 12 of the 23.

Given that Giroud and Griezmann are half French and there's only Pavard and Thauvin, your comment (which doesn't have anything to do with the topic in the first place) is rather out of touch, and it's like listening to San Lumen. The French national team is not remotely ethnically diverse, the total of ethnically French players in the team is two, and the total of white players is four. That is not diversity.

I bet you're the kind of person to look at Detroit and Tower Hamlets and say it's 'diverse' because it's a blob of near unanimous ethnic minority population among a sea of white.

An ethnic Frenchman does not exist and never has existed. In the same way American and British etnicity does not exist

Yaana Noore wrote:That post comes both after I made my post and after you guys started the argument on race in the first place.

Yeah, like Trumptonium1 and their posting tactics were any different before that.

Sharania wrote:

Yaana Noore wrote:
Literally the only times I have seen anyone talk about race on this thread is people who want to praise teams for being diverse and condemn any that are apparently not. I don't see anyone who complains about teams being too diverse here, you guys are arguing with a non-existent opponent. The insinuation that anyone supporting Croatia must be a racist is not appreciated.

Oh, no? Really?

Trumptonium1 wrote:
Except the French team is not ethnically diverse, it basically is non-French in that regard. I struggle to understand how France's team is ethnically diverse - that would be the case if some 6 players were white and 5 were not, or some 12 of the 23.

Given that Giroud and Griezmann are half French and there's only Pavard and Thauvin, your comment (which doesn't have anything to do with the topic in the first place) is rather out of touch, and it's like listening to San Lumen. The French national team is not remotely ethnically diverse, the total of ethnically French players in the team is two, and the total of white players is four. That is not diversity.

I bet you're the kind of person to look at Detroit and Tower Hamlets and say it's 'diverse' because it's a blob of near unanimous ethnic minority population among a sea of white.

His post is still correct, nobody here is complaining that the French team is too diverse, I for one could not give a shit, I am merely mentioning that it in fact is not "ethnically diverse" in any way shape or manner.

Sharania wrote:

Yaana Noore wrote:That post comes both after I made my post and after you guys started the argument on race in the first place.

Yeah, like Trumptonium1 and their posting tactics were any different before that.

Correct, this was my first post regarding diversity in this topic which has nothing to do with it at all.

Soviet-mongol wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Well, I suppose it's fair to note that England definitely didn't beat Croatia fair and square.

Largely because England lost.

Yeah I was not clear enough. The refs were also in favor of England. That was my point

And you base this accusation on what?

Vassenor wrote:

Soviet-mongol wrote:Yeah I was not clear enough. The refs were also in favor of England. That was my point

And you base this accusation on what?

Because Cakir tolerated Anglos comitting fauls whereas he always sanctioned croatian ones. I remember he refused to use VAR on England at the end of first half. I stand by my assertion that England is an average and mediocre team and that Russia would easily defeat them.

Also Henry Kane got the Golden Bot aware which is a joke. Half of his scored goals comes from the penalties