mke717spotter wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Clearly no WC should go to a country that never qualified for a WC...

Well, in 1988 the US was selected to host the 1994 event and that was before they had qualified for 1990. Prior to that they hadn't featured in a World Cup since 1950. In fact, the US didn't even have a professional league at the time.

In another sense, ‘qualified’ could mean achieving at least a modicum of human rights and cultural parity beyond shiny glass and glitzy landscaping designed to shoehorn those who judge on appearance only.

Shamefully pathetic, despite the views of one here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63710435

An ex-Wales footballer has described being asked to remove her "rainbow wall" bucket hat as she entered a World Cup stadium in Qatar.

Laura McAllister, a gay woman and past Fifa Council candidate, said she was told to remove her hat before the start of Wales' opener against the USA.

Ms McAllister said she then smuggled the hat into the stadium.

Fifa - world football's governing body, which is responsible for the tournament - has been asked to comment.

scbriml wrote:

Shamefully pathetic, despite the views of one here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63710435

An ex-Wales footballer has described being asked to remove her "rainbow wall" bucket hat as she entered a World Cup stadium in Qatar.

Laura McAllister, a gay woman and past Fifa Council candidate, said she was told to remove her hat before the start of Wales' opener against the USA.

Ms McAllister said she then smuggled the hat into the stadium.

Fifa - world football's governing body, which is responsible for the tournament - has been asked to comment.

I presume that's me . I haven't been following it closely tbh, but what I'm taking from this rainbow-hued brouhaha is that this World Cup seems to have morphed into more of an LGBTQ+ rights issue than anything else, so I can understand why the Qataris are cracking-down hard. That seems to have now exploded in their faces, which is probably making them more determined to ban anything that smacks of symbolism. If those LGBTQ+ activists were really true to their beliefs, they wouldn't have gone to Qatar in the first place.

Braybuddy wrote:

If those LGBTQ+ activists were really true to their beliefs, they wouldn't have gone to Qatar in the first place.

And therefore give in to Qatar's inherent homophobia?

This is not how it works. What you are saying is that some members of the community should not be allowed to attend the football World Cup.
Qatar invited the World to its World Cup and wanted all of the spotlights turned on itself.
It guaranteed a safe space for all football fans travelling there, and as it happens, many of these are part of the LGBTQ+ community.

It is now proving that it intends it remain the beacon of intolerance that it has always been and their hypocrisy merits to be underlined by actions like these. No one forced Qatar to host the World Cup and trying to forcibly quash a movement that underlines their intolerance is only going to amplify it.

To want the movement quieted is to tacitly acknowledge and side by Qatar's view on the subject.

Braybuddy wrote:

I presume that's me .

You made your position abundantly clear, so not sure why you're surprised it was mentioned.

Braybuddy wrote:

I haven't been following it closely tbh, but what I'm taking from this rainbow-hued brouhaha is that this World Cup seems to have morphed into more of an LGBTQ+ rights issue than anything else, so I can understand why the Qataris are cracking-down hard. That seems to have now exploded in their faces, which is probably making them more determined to ban anything that smacks of symbolism. If those LGBTQ+ activists were really true to their beliefs, they wouldn't have gone to Qatar in the first place.

I don't think the average football supporter who wants to show support for the LGBTQ+ community in Qatar should be classified as "activists".

It's just the latest example of Qatar/FIFA rowing back on how "open" they claimed the WC would be.

Francoflier wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

If those LGBTQ+ activists were really true to their beliefs, they wouldn't have gone to Qatar in the first place.

And therefore give in to Qatar's inherent homophobia?

This is not how it works. What you are saying is that some members of the community should not be allowed to attend the football World Cup.
Qatar invited the World to its World Cup and wanted all of the spotlights turned on itself.
It guaranteed a safe space for all football fans travelling there, and as it happens, many of these are part of the LGBTQ+ community.

It is now proving that it intends it remain the beacon of intolerance that it has always been and their hypocrisy merits to be underlined by actions like these. No one forced Qatar to host the World Cup and trying to forcibly quash a movement that underlines their intolerance is only going to amplify it.

To want the movement quieted is to tacitly acknowledge and side by Qatar's view on the subject.

Isn't that how activism works though? Don't we regularly hear calls for "boycott this" or "boycott that" when a person, company or even country does something contentious? The most devastating thing for Qatar would be to have empty stadiums for their showpiece event.

scbriml wrote:

I don't think the average football supporter who wants to show support for the LGBTQ+ community in Qatar should be classified as "activists".

Well, as the caption to that BBC video says: "Laura McAllister said it was important to confront a lack of tolerance." That's fine, if you want to, but don't then complain when you get pushback.

Why, exactly shouldn’t one complain about
that?

Braybuddy wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

If those LGBTQ+ activists were really true to their beliefs, they wouldn't have gone to Qatar in the first place.

And therefore give in to Qatar's inherent homophobia?

This is not how it works. What you are saying is that some members of the community should not be allowed to attend the football World Cup.
Qatar invited the World to its World Cup and wanted all of the spotlights turned on itself.
It guaranteed a safe space for all football fans travelling there, and as it happens, many of these are part of the LGBTQ+ community.

It is now proving that it intends it remain the beacon of intolerance that it has always been and their hypocrisy merits to be underlined by actions like these. No one forced Qatar to host the World Cup and trying to forcibly quash a movement that underlines their intolerance is only going to amplify it.

To want the movement quieted is to tacitly acknowledge and side by Qatar's view on the subject.

Isn't that how activism works though? Don't we regularly hear calls for "boycott this" or "boycott that" when a person, company or even country does something contentious? The most devastating thing for Qatar would be to have empty stadiums for their showpiece event.

scbriml wrote:

I don't think the average football supporter who wants to show support for the LGBTQ+ community in Qatar should be classified as "activists".

Well, as the caption to that BBC video says: "Laura McAllister said it was important to confront a lack of tolerance." That's fine, if you want to, but don't then complain when you get pushback.

M564038 wrote:

Why, exactly shouldn’t one complain about
that?

It's a bit like kicking a dog and then complaining about being bitten, IMHO.

It is absolutely nothing like that at all.

Braybuddy wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Why, exactly shouldn’t one complain about
that?

It's a bit like kicking a dog and then complaining about being bitten, IMHO.

M564038 wrote:

It is absolutely nothing like that at all.

Why not? You're a guest: you antagonise your host, and he retaliates. Same difference.

Braybuddy wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Why, exactly shouldn’t one complain about
that?

It's a bit like kicking a dog and then complaining about being bitten, IMHO.

Except when you kick a dog the dog gets hurt…

Punishing a human for behaving like a human is more like punishing a dog for behaving like a dog.

Qatar are kicking dogs right now…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Why, exactly shouldn’t one complain about
that?

Qatar are kicking dogs right now…

Oops! Be careful with your metaphors or you'll have the LGBTQ+ police after you! We're a hypersensitive bunch, you know

Braybuddy wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Qatar are kicking dogs right now…

Oops! Be careful with your metaphors or you'll have the LGBTQ+ police after you! We're a hypersensitive bunch, you know

And you can be as angry as you want with whoever you want for whatever you want and I’m happy with that but the moment you reduce someone’s freedoms because of their opinions instead of their actions then you are effectively punishing a thought crime and that is a step too far.

I think the fact that people believe in sky daddies is quite frankly ridiculous and particularly damaging to society but do I think you should punish people for choosing to believe nonsense? No.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

They are the ones that bid for the games, and FIFA agreed to terms and corruption that have come up far short. Make no mistake ,. i had no intention of going to Qatar for these games, but their lack of diversity deserves to be scrutinized.

What about the family and friends of those involved in the matches? Should they hide who they are because the hosts don't agree with them? This is their one shot to see their family member perform on world stage.
Make no mistake of it. Qatar and FIFA need to be embarrassed and shamed for their lack of diversity and lack of transparency.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

I'm not sure you understand this whole diversity idea as much as you think you do. Oppression as a cultural difference we need to tolerate is the excuse the Chinese Communist Party likes to use.

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

I'm not sure you understand this whole diversity idea as much as you think you do. Oppression as a cultural difference we need to tolerate is the excuse the Chinese Communist Party likes to use.

Howdy! Let me begin by noting that I generally agree with you and find this World Cup to be terrible.

My question is how do we deal with folks who feel oppressed by gay folks? I know it’s ridiculous and repugnant but that doesn’t mean we can get folks like this to understand.

No. Tolerating intolerance is intolerance, not tolerance.
You’ve got it backwards..

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

flipdewaf wrote:

And you can be as angry as you want with whoever you want for whatever you want and I’m happy with that but the moment you reduce someone’s freedoms because of their opinions instead of their actions then you are effectively punishing a thought crime and that is a step too far.

I think the fact that people believe in sky daddies is quite frankly ridiculous and particularly damaging to society but do I think you should punish people for choosing to believe nonsense? No

Agree 100 per cent on the last point, but if I'm not mistaken, being homosexual is not a crime in Qatar, but homosexuality is. I don't believe thought crimes are either, and that would be a very difficult thing to prove anyway. From what I've read, if you're gay in Qatar, you won't have a problem once you keep your head down. It's not difficult for men to pick-up other men either: you can even use Grindr with a VPN, apparently. You just don't advertise it. That's their culture. That's not to say that I approve of it, it's just the way things are. Every country has it's own culture, and you need to respect that. I've been travelling for over 50 years and never had any trouble anywhere because of my sexuality, and I've been to some of the most repressive regimes in the world. I don't advertise it, but I don't hide it either. I remember having some interesting discussions in Iran with (presumably straight) men who were completely oblivious to the execution of two gay teenagers recently hanged by the regime. One even denied the existence of lesbians in the country . The last thing I would do is wave a rainbow flag in another country (I wouldn't even do it in my own, come to think of it), but I like to think I may have prised open a few closed minds, even a little bit, by gentle persuasion.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

That's the conundrum at the heart of the LGBTQ+ community: we're all for diversity, and tolerance, but not towards people who disagree with us.

M564038 wrote:

No. Tolerating intolerance is intolerance, not tolerance.
You’ve got it backwards..

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

That’s just saying I’ll only except my ethics, your’s are, by definition, intolerant and wrong. Guess what, many millions do not accept your idea on ethics, including Muslims. What differing ethics on the LGBTQ ethic would you accept?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

That’s just saying I’ll only except my ethics, your’s are, by definition, intolerant and wrong. Guess what, many millions do not accept your idea on ethics, including Muslims. What differing ethics on the LGBTQ ethic would you accept?

You know, I bet if my system of ethics was "GalaxyFlyer shouldn't be legally permitted to exist," you'd have a pretty hard time accepting it.

I should have posted “only accept” my ethics. It’s their country, after all. I don’t, for a minute, believe their ethics would be acceptable in the West, just as they don’t embrace ours—it’s diversity.

Still the world is wondrous large,—seven seas from marge to marge—
And it holds a vast of various kinds of man;
And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Khatmandhu
And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban.

Here's my wisdom for your use, as I learned it when the moose
And the reindeer roamed where Paris roars to-night:—
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And—every—single—one—of—them—is—right!"

Kipling In the Neolithic Age

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

That’s just saying I’ll only except my ethics, your’s are, by definition, intolerant and wrong. Guess what, many millions do not accept your idea on ethics, including Muslims. What differing ethics on the LGBTQ ethic would you accept?

You know, I bet if my system of ethics was "GalaxyFlyer shouldn't be legally permitted to exist," you'd have a pretty hard time accepting it.

I would leave where your system of ethics existed and never return. Nice thing, a world with many choices to be. If you win the lottery, you’re born in America, perhaps the “West” in the late 20th C. I don’t think Qatar is killing anyone, but Saudi might well be doing so on LGBT grounds. Visit at your peril.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

On whom are they imposing their beliefs? They are stating an opinion. Having and demonstrating a belief != imposing a belief. are you suggesting we should allow countries to limit freedoms based on thoughts and not actions that affect others? Sounds like thought crimes again. And should an organisation like FIFA stand up and recognise a mistake or accept that they accept this as a regime?

Are you saying that the western pacific tribe who rape children should be left to get in with their self governing ways? Their culture, their circus.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I would leave where your system of ethics existed and never return.

Hope your employer hasn't yanked your passport! That's a thing that happens in Qatar too. Look. It shouldn't come down to mere chance - a "lottery win" of birth, as you put it - to simply be allowed to be GalaxyFlyer. Or black, or white, or heterosexual, or LGBT. Qatar bought this World Cup - that's saying "we want the whole world to come in here and do some soccer." If they didn't want the world, with all its messy diversity, to see their system of ethics, as you so charitably call it, in action - well, maybe they should have let some other country have it.

Braybuddy wrote:

That's the conundrum at the heart of the LGBTQ+ community: we're all for diversity, and tolerance, but not towards people who disagree with us.

Acceptance of removal of ability to demonstrate a belief != tolerance of another’s belief. One is an action limiting another’s freedom, the other is practicing a personal freedom, which doesn’t affect another’s personal freedom.

Just like we shouldn’t kick dogs and expect not to be bitten, FIFA should not have got in to bed with QATAR and not expected there to be no issues on this.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Arcceptance of removal of ability to demonstrate a belief != tolerance of another’s belief. One is an action limiting another’s freedom, the other is practicing a personal freedom, which doesn’t affect another’s personal freedom.

There is a difference: you have a right to believe what you want, but that is not the same as telling someone what you may, or may not do. You are quite entitled to be homophobic if you want, but that doesn't give you the right to physically harm me, or tell me what to do in my private life.

As for FIFA and Qatar gertting into bed together (pun intended), I'd say there are a lot of regrets all round.

Not really familiar with the Paradox of Tolerance then, eh?

flipdewaf wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

That's the conundrum at the heart of the LGBTQ+ community: we're all for diversity, and tolerance, but not towards people who disagree with us.

Acceptance of removal of ability to demonstrate a belief != tolerance of another’s belief. One is an action limiting another’s freedom, the other is practicing a personal freedom, which doesn’t affect another’s personal freedom.

Just like we shouldn’t kick dogs and expect not to be bitten, FIFA should not have got in to bed with QATAR and not expected there to be no issues on this.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

They are the ones that bid for the games, and FIFA agreed to terms and corruption that have come up far short. Make no mistake ,. i had no intention of going to Qatar for these games, but their lack of diversity deserves to be scrutinized.

What about the family and friends of those involved in the matches? Should they hide who they are because the hosts don't agree with them? This is their one shot to see their family member perform on world stage.
Make no mistake of it. Qatar and FIFA need to be embarrassed and shamed for their lack of diversity and lack of transparency.

Why should the west force diversity (which IMO is a failed concept in the west except when it comes to bashing non western countries) upon others. When the US held the world cup they didn't lower the drinking age to accommodate fans who came from countries with a more sensible drinking age did they???

Kiwirob wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

They are the ones that bid for the games, and FIFA agreed to terms and corruption that have come up far short. Make no mistake ,. i had no intention of going to Qatar for these games, but their lack of diversity deserves to be scrutinized.

What about the family and friends of those involved in the matches? Should they hide who they are because the hosts don't agree with them? This is their one shot to see their family member perform on world stage.
Make no mistake of it. Qatar and FIFA need to be embarrassed and shamed for their lack of diversity and lack of transparency.

Why should the west force diversity (which IMO is a failed concept in the west except when it comes to bashing non western countries) upon others. When the US held the world cup they didn't lower the drinking age to accommodate fans who came from countries with a more sensible drinking age did they???

But that's not the same at all. It is accepted that there is a drinking age but did the US authorites (and FIFA) ban folks who publicly stated that it should be different (without the specific action that broke the law).

You break laws by action and most certainly not by highlighting that you think a law is wrong.

Fred

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

They are the ones that bid for the games, and FIFA agreed to terms and corruption that have come up far short. Make no mistake ,. i had no intention of going to Qatar for these games, but their lack of diversity deserves to be scrutinized.

What about the family and friends of those involved in the matches? Should they hide who they are because the hosts don't agree with them? This is their one shot to see their family member perform on world stage.
Make no mistake of it. Qatar and FIFA need to be embarrassed and shamed for their lack of diversity and lack of transparency.

Dear Mr. American,

Your country is ripping itself apart at the seams. It's a mess. Perhaps expecting all other countries to adapt your ideas isn't that appealing? Just maybe? Get your own house in order first. Considering recent events, it might just be more dangerous to be part of the LGBT community in the USA than it is in Qatar.

Redd wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

They are the ones that bid for the games, and FIFA agreed to terms and corruption that have come up far short. Make no mistake ,. i had no intention of going to Qatar for these games, but their lack of diversity deserves to be scrutinized.

What about the family and friends of those involved in the matches? Should they hide who they are because the hosts don't agree with them? This is their one shot to see their family member perform on world stage.
Make no mistake of it. Qatar and FIFA need to be embarrassed and shamed for their lack of diversity and lack of transparency.

Dear Mr. American,

Your country is ripping itself apart at the seams. It's a mess. Perhaps expecting all other countries to adapt your ideas isn't that appealing? Just maybe? Get your own house in order first. Considering recent events, it might just be more dangerous to be part of the LGBT community in the USA than it is in Qatar.

What a stupid thing to say. Even taking into account “recent events,” if I kiss my boyfriend in public in the US the odds of anything negative whatsoever happening are infinitesimal. In Qatar however that would mean a fine, jail time, and (if Muslim) potentially execution. Tired of this ridiculous whataboutism.

flipdewaf wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

On whom are they imposing their beliefs? They are stating an opinion. Having and demonstrating a belief != imposing a belief. are you suggesting we should allow countries to limit freedoms based on thoughts and not actions that affect others? Sounds like thought crimes again. And should an organisation like FIFA stand up and recognise a mistake or accept that they accept this as a regime?

Are you saying that the western pacific tribe who rape children should be left to get in with their self governing ways? Their culture, their circus.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Demonstrating a belief is fine, IF it’s acceptable in that country. I don’t believe Qatar has a right to protest for foreigners. Accept their rules.

As FIFA, as all of these international sporting groups, are just corrupt members exploiting the players and the fans. Put money on the table and corruption results. I hate just about spectator sports as expensive “bread and circuses”. In the US, it’s the National Felons League where players are constantly in the dock for crimes and domestic assault. The NFL is basically Rick old white guys trading young, vulnerable blacks led by other rich white huys. A disgrace, as is the NBA. MLB had years of drug scandals and occasional criminal acts by players and owners. Don’t know much about pro soccer, but don’t see it as likely to be much different. Like sport, take up golf, shooting, amateur ball games. Greatest thing about cost target shooting—there’s hardly a dime in it. I can shot in a competition with the best in the world and we’ll each get along fine. I shot with the B. Gfiner of target shooting and she picked up my coat I left behind.

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I would leave where your system of ethics existed and never return.

Hope your employer hasn't yanked your passport! That's a thing that happens in Qatar too. Look. It shouldn't come down to mere chance - a "lottery win" of birth, as you put it - to simply be allowed to be GalaxyFlyer. Or black, or white, or heterosexual, or LGBT. Qatar bought this World Cup - that's saying "we want the whole world to come in here and do some soccer." If they didn't want the world, with all its messy diversity, to see their system of ethics, as you so charitably call it, in action - well, maybe they should have let some other country have it.

But, birth is a lottery that none of us has control over, always has been.

Kiwirob wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

They are the ones that bid for the games, and FIFA agreed to terms and corruption that have come up far short. Make no mistake ,. i had no intention of going to Qatar for these games, but their lack of diversity deserves to be scrutinized.

What about the family and friends of those involved in the matches? Should they hide who they are because the hosts don't agree with them? This is their one shot to see their family member perform on world stage.
Make no mistake of it. Qatar and FIFA need to be embarrassed and shamed for their lack of diversity and lack of transparency.

Why should the west force diversity (which IMO is a failed concept in the west except when it comes to bashing non western countries) upon others. When the US held the world cup they didn't lower the drinking age to accommodate fans who came from countries with a more sensible drinking age did they???

It isn't a matter of the West forcing diversity. This is about FIFA corrupting instelf for money and sacrificing it's own rules for money. FIFA wants to pretend to be a word wide organziation, then they need to step up when awarding the games to a country based on "FIFA" bidding rules. So far there has been much renigging on promises by QATAR. The west doesn't need to force it's views on Qatar, but neither should we sacrifice western values for money.

Redd wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The diversity idea requires one to accept other people’s/nation’s diversity—it’s their country, their circus. Accept or stay away, don’t try to impose your beliefs elsewhere.

They are the ones that bid for the games, and FIFA agreed to terms and corruption that have come up far short. Make no mistake ,. i had no intention of going to Qatar for these games, but their lack of diversity deserves to be scrutinized.

What about the family and friends of those involved in the matches? Should they hide who they are because the hosts don't agree with them? This is their one shot to see their family member perform on world stage.
Make no mistake of it. Qatar and FIFA need to be embarrassed and shamed for their lack of diversity and lack of transparency.

Dear Mr. American,

Your country is ripping itself apart at the seams. It's a mess. Perhaps expecting all other countries to adapt your ideas isn't that appealing? Just maybe? Get your own house in order first. Considering recent events, it might just be more dangerous to be part of the LGBT community in the USA than it is in Qatar.

Really? Ripped apart at the seams? No it is not, and it is a false equivelence as this is a world wide sport with a Bidding process that involves accomodations for fans.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Demonstrating a belief is fine, IF it’s acceptable in that country. I don’t believe Qatar has a right to protest for foreigners. Accept their rules.

I'd be very surprised if there's any law in Qatar banning the wearing of a rainbow hat or armband.

The limit of tolerance is to not tolerate intolerance.

Braybuddy wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Not really familiar with the Paradox of Tolerance then, eh?

If you're going to put limits on tolerance, where do you stop, and crucially, who gets to decide? We have our our limits in the west, which are constantly changing. Other societies have theirs. Who is right?

Kiwirob wrote:

I was talking to my gay aunt about this recently, she believes that the world had become far more accepting of the LGB community in the late 90's to early 2000's. She believes the issues LGB people faced were largely overcome and were being normalised, then along came the trans community and all the other rainbow people that don't know what they are and it's back to square one. It's 2 communities not one inclusive community. 20 year ago the trans community was Chas Bono and Thai lady boys.

I see this happening more and more with gay people of my generation. The younger LGBTQs are idealistic, the older tend to be more realistic.

The sad thing about all this, is that the flag-waving could actually make it worse for gays living in Qatar:

"It's not all suffering," said a 30-year-old gay Arab man who has lived and worked in Doha for nearly 10 years.

In fact, the four expressed worries about the wave of international criticism about gay rights in Qatar brought by the World Cup, fearing they could lose the freedoms they do enjoy should the opprobrium lead to a public backlash against the LGBT+ community once global attention moves on.

"What about us, who have lived in Doha for years and made Doha queer?" the Arab man said. "What happens when the World Cup is over? Does the focus on the rights stop?"

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 022-11-19/

flyguy89 wrote:

What a stupid thing to say. Even taking into account “recent events,” if I kiss my boyfriend in public in the US the odds of anything negative whatsoever happening are infinitesimal. In Qatar however that would mean a fine, jail time, and (if Muslim) potentially execution. Tired of this ridiculous whataboutism.

I don't think it's a stupid thing to say at all. America has some huge issues at home, and certain type of Americans need to stop lecturing other countries on how they need to conduct themselves, especially considering the number of problems you have at home. If Americans really had the answer, the US would be a much better place than it is now. You're literally the modern version of the guy who used to say "We saved your ass in WWII"

M564038 wrote:

The limit of tolerance is to not tolerate intolerance.

A classic oxymoron.

Redd wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

What a stupid thing to say. Even taking into account “recent events,” if I kiss my boyfriend in public in the US the odds of anything negative whatsoever happening are infinitesimal. In Qatar however that would mean a fine, jail time, and (if Muslim) potentially execution. Tired of this ridiculous whataboutism.

I don't think it's a stupid thing to say at all. America has some huge issues at home, and certain type of Americans need to stop lecturing other countries on how they need to conduct themselves, especially considering the number of problems you have at home. If Americans really had the answer, the US would be a much better place than it is now. You're literally the modern version of the guy who used to say "We saved your ass in WWII"

I mean, using your logic the whole of the Western world should have kept its trap shut about Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan and stayed out of the war altogether. Just an incredibly dumb line of thought.

I don’t know if you are joking or if you were home from school the day the rest of your class learnt about tolerance.

The idea is that tolerance works works pretty much like positive and negative numbers.

Tolerating tolerance = +
Intolerance towards intolerance = +
Tolarating intolerance = -
Not tolerating tolerance = -

It’s not drawing the line or very fluctuating. It’s like math.

Many cultures and traditions has variations of this logic going back in ancient times, but it is often refered to as the paradox of tolerance or Popper’s paradox after Karl Popper which formulated it a certain way in a 40’s philosophical work.

Oh. And the paradox is often less popular in religious and extremist circles.

Braybuddy wrote:

M564038 wrote:

The limit of tolerance is to not tolerate intolerance.

A classic oxymoron.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Can we try to stop being quite so negative on this ? Yes, the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar was corrupt, but it is what it is. The absence of beer is not a disaster and few would claim a human right to drink alcohol.... when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
There were far worse abuses of human rights in the USSR in the 1970s, but the world did not end when Moscow hosted the 1980 summer Olympics.
AFAIK, the boycott of the Moscow Olympics was because of the invasion of Afghanistan.... human rights in the USSR was not given as a reason for the boycott by the USA.

Seems you missed the whole point of the issue. Everyone knows that booze and Allah do not mix. That said, assurances were given that booze...namely beer, WOULD be allowed, hence Budweiser stepping up. To renege on a contract in the last hours leading to the possible sales and enjoyment of the fans is dishonorable and disrespectful of your guests. I was always led to believe that the Arabic and Muslim traditions were to accommodate visitors. So much for my belief about that. As for FIFA, they got played...

M564038 wrote:

I don’t know if you are joking or if you were home from school the day the rest of your class learnt about tolerance.

If you want to quote your 20th century philosophers go ahead, but the other 20th century philosopher John Rawls believed we should allow intolerance as a right, or freedom, as long as it doesn't go against the right and freedom of others. That's what I was talking about.

scbriml wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Demonstrating a belief is fine, IF it’s acceptable in that country. I don’t believe Qatar has a right to protest for foreigners. Accept their rules.

I'd be very surprised if there's any law in Qatar banning the wearing of a rainbow hat or armband.

Do you really think freedom of speech and display is a right in Qatar, as we do in the quaintly named “West”?

bhill wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Can we try to stop being quite so negative on this ? Yes, the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar was corrupt, but it is what it is. The absence of beer is not a disaster and few would claim a human right to drink alcohol.... when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
There were far worse abuses of human rights in the USSR in the 1970s, but the world did not end when Moscow hosted the 1980 summer Olympics.
AFAIK, the boycott of the Moscow Olympics was because of the invasion of Afghanistan.... human rights in the USSR was not given as a reason for the boycott by the USA.

Seems you missed the whole point of the issue. Everyone knows that booze and Allah do not mix. That said, assurances were given that booze...namely beer, WOULD be allowed, hence Budweiser stepping up. To renege on a contract in the last hours leading to the possible sales and enjoyment of the fans is dishonorable and disrespectful of your guests. I was always led to believe that the Arabic and Muslim traditions were to accommodate visitors. So much for my belief about that. As for FIFA, they got played...

I doubt FIFA think they were played, they just don't give a shit about fans, so long as they got their kickbacks, after all they awarded this most unsuitable state a World Cup to host. Clue being in the name, you are going to get many people from all over the world there.
The regime hold the cards, hence the last minute changes, FIFA might not like that but not because of the fans, just that they are used to getting their way, having all sorts of exemptions from laws, tax etc.
But it's not a big thing for them really, a bit of very short term bad PR.

GDB wrote:

bhill wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Can we try to stop being quite so negative on this ? Yes, the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar was corrupt, but it is what it is. The absence of beer is not a disaster and few would claim a human right to drink alcohol.... when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
There were far worse abuses of human rights in the USSR in the 1970s, but the world did not end when Moscow hosted the 1980 summer Olympics.
AFAIK, the boycott of the Moscow Olympics was because of the invasion of Afghanistan.... human rights in the USSR was not given as a reason for the boycott by the USA.

Seems you missed the whole point of the issue. Everyone knows that booze and Allah do not mix. That said, assurances were given that booze...namely beer, WOULD be allowed, hence Budweiser stepping up. To renege on a contract in the last hours leading to the possible sales and enjoyment of the fans is dishonorable and disrespectful of your guests. I was always led to believe that the Arabic and Muslim traditions were to accommodate visitors. So much for my belief about that. As for FIFA, they got played...

I doubt FIFA think they were played, they just don't give a shit about fans, so long as they got their kickbacks, after all they awarded this most unsuitable state a World Cup to host. Clue being in the name, you are going to get many people from all over the world there.
The regime hold the cards, hence the last minute changes, FIFA might not like that but not because of the fans, just that they are used to getting their way, having all sorts of exemptions from laws, tax etc.
But it's not a big thing for them really, a bit of very short term bad PR.

Which sums up why international sports, especially IOC and FIFA,mare corrupt and should be ignored if not shut down.

Redd wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

What a stupid thing to say. Even taking into account “recent events,” if I kiss my boyfriend in public in the US the odds of anything negative whatsoever happening are infinitesimal. In Qatar however that would mean a fine, jail time, and (if Muslim) potentially execution. Tired of this ridiculous whataboutism.

I don't think it's a stupid thing to say at all. America has some huge issues at home, and certain type of Americans need to stop lecturing other countries on how they need to conduct themselves, especially considering the number of problems you have at home. If Americans really had the answer, the US would be a much better place than it is now. You're literally the modern version of the guy who used to say "We saved your ass in WWII"

Not all Americans are cut from the same cloth. Some of us are even well-traveled and deeply experienced with living abroad and adapting to other cultures. And that level of experience is certainly not required to opine on what’s stupid and what’s reasonable in parts of the world that are claiming they’re modern when they’re not.

Kiwirob wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Why should the west force diversity (which IMO is a failed concept in the west except when it comes to bashing non western countries) upon others. When the US held the world cup they didn't lower the drinking age to accommodate fans who came from countries with a more sensible drinking age did they???

It isn't a matter of the West forcing diversity. This is about FIFA corrupting instelf for money and sacrificing its own rules for money. FIFA wants to pretend to be a word wide organziation, then they need to step up when awarding the games to a country based on "FIFA" bidding rules. So far there has been much renigging on promises by QATAR. The west doesn't need to force its views on Qatar, but neither should we sacrifice western values for money.

Western values? money is the paramount western value, that’s what the west is all about, maximising profits and returns to investors.

That is captialism. Not values. Profits always suffer where people's rights are comprimised.

Redd wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

What a stupid thing to say. Even taking into account “recent events,” if I kiss my boyfriend in public in the US the odds of anything negative whatsoever happening are infinitesimal. In Qatar however that would mean a fine, jail time, and (if Muslim) potentially execution. Tired of this ridiculous whataboutism.

I don't think it's a stupid thing to say at all. America has some huge issues at home, and certain type of Americans need to stop lecturing other countries on how they need to conduct themselves, especially considering the number of problems you have at home. If Americans really had the answer, the US would be a much better place than it is now. You're literally the modern version of the guy who used to say "We saved your ass in WWII"

Just because we don't have "the answer" for everything, doesn't mean we have the wrong answer on tolerance....

Revelation wrote:

Redd wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

What a stupid thing to say. Even taking into account “recent events,” if I kiss my boyfriend in public in the US the odds of anything negative whatsoever happening are infinitesimal. In Qatar however that would mean a fine, jail time, and (if Muslim) potentially execution. Tired of this ridiculous whataboutism.

I don't think it's a stupid thing to say at all. America has some huge issues at home, and certain type of Americans need to stop lecturing other countries on how they need to conduct themselves, especially considering the number of problems you have at home. If Americans really had the answer, the US would be a much better place than it is now. You're literally the modern version of the guy who used to say "We saved your ass in WWII"

Just because we don't have "the answer" for everything, doesn't mean we have the wrong answer on tolerance....

And while voters in some individual states do their darndest to move otherwise, we also have a pretty good system for keeping religious traditions out of state policy.