I've been avoiding this topic, but things are just getting ridiculous now and I wanted to give a very quick take on it.
Yesterday was the deadline for Zozulya to "return" to Rayo. Now, there have been a lot of disagreeements. Rayo fans don't want him in the team. Tebas and Presa are willing to charge fans who drove Zozulya out. And the Agrupación de Peñas del Rayo, or la Plataforma ADRV, has called for an assembly in the Rayo locker room to resolve the situation, whether that means Zozulya plays at Rayo or somewhere else.
But among all the chaos, what was most striking was Toño's recent interview, where he said something very simple but very important. "We must also consider that if he comes we will have to accept it in the best possible way and if he can contribute by scoring goals we must treat him as part of the team, regardless of ideological thoughts."
If the left loves one thing, it is the idea of free speech and safe spaces where anyone can speak their mind. But is there a line between free speech and consequence-free speech? Maybe, but some might argue that all speech has a consequence - that it is being heard. More contentiously, what is the line between opinions that are contentious and opinions that are harmful?
For example, Milo Yiannopoulos lost his book deal when he stated opinions in favor of pedophilia. The questions arises - is that the line? Does bullying transgenders count as free speech?
The hypocrisy of some on the left, sometimes called the "regressive left", is that while they seek to say "don't look at people as a monolith", they treat everyone who disagrees with them as a monolith. But then the question becomes, what is the line between understanding an opposing point of view and accepting it? In the Zozulya case, fans are currently saying that someone who supports a far-right group is not welcome. Is that hypocritical coming from a community that arose from immigrants and whose central message is that everyone is welcome?
There are too many questions, a lot of finger-pointing and very few answers. But the interview by Toño is amazing - he was looking at a sporting aspect and giving an answer on sporting terms but basically gave an answer to a very difficult political question on political terms.
He said that any player who contributes to the team, and any one who contributes to a community, is welcome. Regardless of ideological thoughts.
Maybe Toño was just trying to diffuse a tricky situation. In another way, maybe he is more radical than the fans.
And maybe he is right.
A post-thought: I love looking at things from the other side. What I find scary is not that some fans think that Zozulya is extreme, but that Zozulya most probably things that the fans are being extreme.
And even scarier is the thought that Zozulya might be more justified.
Yesterday was the deadline for Zozulya to "return" to Rayo. Now, there have been a lot of disagreeements. Rayo fans don't want him in the team. Tebas and Presa are willing to charge fans who drove Zozulya out. And the Agrupación de Peñas del Rayo, or la Plataforma ADRV, has called for an assembly in the Rayo locker room to resolve the situation, whether that means Zozulya plays at Rayo or somewhere else.
But among all the chaos, what was most striking was Toño's recent interview, where he said something very simple but very important. "We must also consider that if he comes we will have to accept it in the best possible way and if he can contribute by scoring goals we must treat him as part of the team, regardless of ideological thoughts."
If the left loves one thing, it is the idea of free speech and safe spaces where anyone can speak their mind. But is there a line between free speech and consequence-free speech? Maybe, but some might argue that all speech has a consequence - that it is being heard. More contentiously, what is the line between opinions that are contentious and opinions that are harmful?
For example, Milo Yiannopoulos lost his book deal when he stated opinions in favor of pedophilia. The questions arises - is that the line? Does bullying transgenders count as free speech?
The hypocrisy of some on the left, sometimes called the "regressive left", is that while they seek to say "don't look at people as a monolith", they treat everyone who disagrees with them as a monolith. But then the question becomes, what is the line between understanding an opposing point of view and accepting it? In the Zozulya case, fans are currently saying that someone who supports a far-right group is not welcome. Is that hypocritical coming from a community that arose from immigrants and whose central message is that everyone is welcome?
There are too many questions, a lot of finger-pointing and very few answers. But the interview by Toño is amazing - he was looking at a sporting aspect and giving an answer on sporting terms but basically gave an answer to a very difficult political question on political terms.
He said that any player who contributes to the team, and any one who contributes to a community, is welcome. Regardless of ideological thoughts.
Maybe Toño was just trying to diffuse a tricky situation. In another way, maybe he is more radical than the fans.
And maybe he is right.
A post-thought: I love looking at things from the other side. What I find scary is not that some fans think that Zozulya is extreme, but that Zozulya most probably things that the fans are being extreme.
And even scarier is the thought that Zozulya might be more justified.
Comments
Post a Comment