Yes, I do. Conservative societies do their thing and I disagree with it. They can call it tradition but it’s discriminatory and inappropriate for a world tournament where spectators are expected. I can counter with a conservative “they’re heretics and should all die in flames” but that’s equally wrong and bigoted. But lots and lots of people have these kinds of views. They should be left to themselves.
The crux of the issue is that it that the west is adamant their way of thinking, their lifestyle and changes to social dynamics is the benchmark of morality for the rest of the world. If a country or a group of people do not agree with a concept, then they are labelled backwards, barbaric and "problematic".
This is a very very narrow way of thinking as morality is not set and owned by the western sphere. Certainly influential but ultimately there is no compulsion in anyone adopting subjective morality.
E.g We see dogs as pets. Some east Asian countries in rural areas see it as food. Who is right and who is wrong? Would it be fair to call them evil and in need of reformation? Why should they? The life they lead is according to their standards. They are certainly in no need of ideological colonisation.
Even the charter for international civil rights is a subjective document of morality which can be changed at will as "morality" changes (for better or for worse). A country not abiding by your social concept of "rights" does not make it immoral nor wrong.
You rights and wrongs have been derived from your family, your education and society. But combining these together in no way shape or form gives authority to dictate morality to people in other societies. Why can't they say the same thing about you?
(I know people will absolutely detest what I am going to say, but hear my thoughts).
The only way objective morality that can be set is by the one who created mankind. (Yes I am talking about theology). This is a rational viewpoint to hold. On a (limited) human level, the manufacturer has full competency and understanding of their products. Rights and wrongs. Do's and don'ts.
This is the morality that humans should submit themselves to. Not at the whims and desires of self, individuals and societies.
Define problematic. According to who and what authority? And follow up question, why should we submit to that authority?
(This is not an attack on you, just a conversation starter)
What conversation are you trying to start exactly?
That there is some god who is the only one who can judge if something is right or wrong? And that whole countries can hide behind this?
It’s pretty clear what “problematic” is, no? The mistreatment of whole subgroups based on their gender or sexuality in Quatar is objectively wrong, or as you would like it defined: Problematic.
Where did you get this notion that Qatar is objectively wrong? That is what I am trying to find. People say X is wrong. Ok cool but why is that the case? Why does yourself or your society have authority to decide that this is wrong?
A few decades ago it was wrong in western society. Now it is morally correct. So is the morality and understanding of the world pinned to the Anglo-sphere?
If you need to be convinced that mistreating people is wrong there is no point arguing.
The fact that decades ago something was considered wrong, and since has been accepted, makes it no excuse for it to be considered wrong today.
And no, the morality and understanding of the world should not be pinned to the Anglo-sphere, but the west just happens to be the most progressive in terms of human rights at this moment in history. If Quatar wants to take the lead and ask all other countries to follow, by all means.
The article being discussed here is about a Qatari official judging Western standards immoral, not the other way. This is particularly problematic because he is in charge of organising an event that is likely to attract primarily visitors from the very countries he is criticising.
There is a disconnect here. FIFA, as an organisation mostly funded from those countries where accepting homosexuality has become a moral standard, has been under pressure for decades to be more inclusive of homosexuals. In that context they made a mistake to award the world cup to Qatar. The same goes with women: they can't pretend that they care about making stadiums more welcoming of women and organise their main event in a country where organisers take the opposite view.
Racism, unjustified violence and murder is wrong because under divine law, it is wrong. The line in the sand is determined by "God", not us humans because theologically it is rational to understand that the best law maker is the creator of humans. Knows what is best for us and what can harm us.
In Nazi Germany, most people agreed to persecute Jews. Over the previous years, it unfortunately became the societal norm and morally correct for that time and place. Just because a majority of people over time agree on something does not magically make it objective truth and right.
Yes I know religion irks people. From a discussion point of view, it offers objective guidance rather than conjuring up morality from thin air based on whims and desires.
> The line in the sand is determined by "God", not us humans because theologically it is rational to understand that the best law maker is the creator of humans.
ah, but which objective morality should I choose? Talmudic? Sharia? Christian? Karma? Mormon? there's so many standards, I can't make up my mind! should I follow the golden rule? is pork okay? can I have sister wives? what castes can I interact with?
>"Racism, unjustified violence and murder is wrong because under divine law, it is wrong. The line in the sand is determined by "God", not us humans because theologically it is rational to understand that the best law maker is the creator of humans. Knows what is best for us and what can harm us."
A difficult proposal to defend. Even if we skip the enormous problems of proving the existence of a "[creator of] mankind", which deity did you have in mind?
I see this opinion so frequently it is a meme, saying that there is some kind of cultural symmetry, everything is relativly equal from opposing perspectives, and that the west holds a superiority complex...
Its a fun thought, but it simply is not true. Due to lots of luck, time, death, war and famine western society has developed to be one of the most comfortable, liberal and happiest in the world. This is something to protected, fosterd and spread.
> Define problematic...
This question alone is problematic because it lacks context, socially problematisch? Morally problematic?
According to Amnesty International, the death penalty is a “most fundamental” violation of human rights. [0] Should countries guilty of such serious human rights violations be allowed to host the World Cup? That would mean taking it off Qatar - but off the US too. (Canada and Mexico would still be okay.)
The US, despite its imperfections, is no where near equal to the country in question. Past countries that caused similar international complaints included china and Russia. The US is not comparable.
Examples of civil rights Issues in the US include policing of minorities that turn deadly. That’s a a pattern but it’s still uncommon and not actually legal. Being gay in Qatar will land you a different and worse experience. Being a woman in the US may mean a salary imbalance but it’s nothing compared to the theocratic policing of women in Qatar.
The US has a death penalty, but only a handful of people actually are unfortunate enough to experience it, in stark contrast to other nations that happily exterminate problematic groups.
It’s simply bad faith to argue that the US is a comparison to these countries, and a disservice to the goal of expanding humanity’s civil rights.
It's embarrassing that FIFA created this situation, but it's far more embarrassing that a few countries didn't get together years ago and reject the whole idea of a World Cup in Qatar. It would only have taken a few top nations from Europe and South America.
Threaten to withdraw from FIFA if the tournament doesn't get cancelled. There's nothing magical about FIFA, it's defined entirely by its membership. It could have been done, and it just wasn't even tried.
Yup. Protesting that has no risk to you nor costs you anything is posturing. Posturing's pretty much pointless, especially if it shows how painless it all is. Players could have gotten "hurt", teams could have walked.
Exactly, especially given that even the most die-hard soccer fans don't hold a high opinion of FIFA at all.
Just a few teams of the caliber of Brazil and Argentina pulling out would essentially make the world cup "illegitimate" in the eyes of the fans, and wouldn't hurt the popularity/public opinion of those teams at all. If anything, it would only boost their popularity, so it is a win-win all around for them.
It's like Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, and Redbull all boycotting an F1 race. They are the reason most people even watch F1. De facto, they are F1 for most people. F1 without them is F1 only in the name.
The F1 example actually happened once. The Indy 500 had a problem one year where the tires provided were not up to the task. Many groups pulled out of the race, but the organizer had debts basically collateralized by the race and race proceeds, so he pulled in some random cars and racers from other events and basically had them do laps. The farce and fallout and drama may have contributed to the near death of Open Wheel racing here in the US.
This is a summary, check it out, it's an interesting story.
Honestly, I have no problem with this guy holding his views, even though I think it isn't right. But, then, why host westerners when you know you're not compatible with their ideas?
Qatar would have continued being a rich, oil-funded state without hosting the World Cup and continue to live in peace with their culture and views on morality. I can see where he's coming from (even though I'm not in agreement)...he doesn't want westerners to enforce their views on Qataris, but why try to enforce yours on them?
>But, then, why host westerners when you know you're not compatible with their ideas?
because they get their cake and get to eat it, too? They're making money while continuing to espouse the rhetoric they want , unabashed.
They're being paid to be a part of international society at large while continuing to spread the message that they're happy to spread; what's the problem as far as they're concerned?
If the opinion upsets then the actionable parties to protest would be the ones that facilitate such world events going to places that have ideals and ethics that are out of step with the participants, not the country or its' leaders itself.
Do people actually make money from hosting the world cup? I assumed it was like the Olympics, especially for a country with basically no existing sport infrastructure: a loss making project.
Because it’s in Qatar? It makes sense, the westerners are in Qatar. They’re asking you to abide by their mores in their country. It’s not even all that hard, just don’t do public displays of affection.
They can have their rules on public displays of affection (if applied equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples), but I don't get why they care what consenting adults do in private.
Most of the non-western world regards homosexuality as somewhere between an unpleasant vice and an abomination [0].
Asking a Qatari official his opinion on the subject is either going to solicit a non-answer or negative one. Even if he personally doesn't believe it. So why ask him? What purpose does it serve?
37 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 84.9 ms ] threadThis is a very very narrow way of thinking as morality is not set and owned by the western sphere. Certainly influential but ultimately there is no compulsion in anyone adopting subjective morality.
E.g We see dogs as pets. Some east Asian countries in rural areas see it as food. Who is right and who is wrong? Would it be fair to call them evil and in need of reformation? Why should they? The life they lead is according to their standards. They are certainly in no need of ideological colonisation.
Even the charter for international civil rights is a subjective document of morality which can be changed at will as "morality" changes (for better or for worse). A country not abiding by your social concept of "rights" does not make it immoral nor wrong.
You rights and wrongs have been derived from your family, your education and society. But combining these together in no way shape or form gives authority to dictate morality to people in other societies. Why can't they say the same thing about you?
(I know people will absolutely detest what I am going to say, but hear my thoughts).
The only way objective morality that can be set is by the one who created mankind. (Yes I am talking about theology). This is a rational viewpoint to hold. On a (limited) human level, the manufacturer has full competency and understanding of their products. Rights and wrongs. Do's and don'ts.
This is the morality that humans should submit themselves to. Not at the whims and desires of self, individuals and societies.
Define problematic. According to who and what authority? And follow up question, why should we submit to that authority?
(This is not an attack on you, just a conversation starter)
That there is some god who is the only one who can judge if something is right or wrong? And that whole countries can hide behind this?
It’s pretty clear what “problematic” is, no? The mistreatment of whole subgroups based on their gender or sexuality in Quatar is objectively wrong, or as you would like it defined: Problematic.
A few decades ago it was wrong in western society. Now it is morally correct. So is the morality and understanding of the world pinned to the Anglo-sphere?
The fact that decades ago something was considered wrong, and since has been accepted, makes it no excuse for it to be considered wrong today.
And no, the morality and understanding of the world should not be pinned to the Anglo-sphere, but the west just happens to be the most progressive in terms of human rights at this moment in history. If Quatar wants to take the lead and ask all other countries to follow, by all means.
There is a disconnect here. FIFA, as an organisation mostly funded from those countries where accepting homosexuality has become a moral standard, has been under pressure for decades to be more inclusive of homosexuals. In that context they made a mistake to award the world cup to Qatar. The same goes with women: they can't pretend that they care about making stadiums more welcoming of women and organise their main event in a country where organisers take the opposite view.
No because they are obviously not justifyable.
Yes, I agree at some point each person basically draws their own line in the sand when it comes to wrong or right.
But I think most people (not just in the west) have agreed in the last few decades to draw their line to exclude making homosexuality illegal.
Are you saying it's justified because of religion and circumstance?
In Nazi Germany, most people agreed to persecute Jews. Over the previous years, it unfortunately became the societal norm and morally correct for that time and place. Just because a majority of people over time agree on something does not magically make it objective truth and right.
Yes I know religion irks people. From a discussion point of view, it offers objective guidance rather than conjuring up morality from thin air based on whims and desires.
You are espousing divine command theory - something to which many religious believers object - for example, the ultra-conservative Catholic philosopher Edward Feser - https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-morality-depen...
Are you being serious?
Its a fun thought, but it simply is not true. Due to lots of luck, time, death, war and famine western society has developed to be one of the most comfortable, liberal and happiest in the world. This is something to protected, fosterd and spread.
> Define problematic...
This question alone is problematic because it lacks context, socially problematisch? Morally problematic?
The next World Cup will be in the US and Mexico and Canada. Some would say some of those countries fit your criteria.
[0] https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/the-deat...
Examples of civil rights Issues in the US include policing of minorities that turn deadly. That’s a a pattern but it’s still uncommon and not actually legal. Being gay in Qatar will land you a different and worse experience. Being a woman in the US may mean a salary imbalance but it’s nothing compared to the theocratic policing of women in Qatar.
The US has a death penalty, but only a handful of people actually are unfortunate enough to experience it, in stark contrast to other nations that happily exterminate problematic groups.
It’s simply bad faith to argue that the US is a comparison to these countries, and a disservice to the goal of expanding humanity’s civil rights.
Threaten to withdraw from FIFA if the tournament doesn't get cancelled. There's nothing magical about FIFA, it's defined entirely by its membership. It could have been done, and it just wasn't even tried.
Just a few teams of the caliber of Brazil and Argentina pulling out would essentially make the world cup "illegitimate" in the eyes of the fans, and wouldn't hurt the popularity/public opinion of those teams at all. If anything, it would only boost their popularity, so it is a win-win all around for them.
It's like Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, and Redbull all boycotting an F1 race. They are the reason most people even watch F1. De facto, they are F1 for most people. F1 without them is F1 only in the name.
This is a summary, check it out, it's an interesting story.
Qatar would have continued being a rich, oil-funded state without hosting the World Cup and continue to live in peace with their culture and views on morality. I can see where he's coming from (even though I'm not in agreement)...he doesn't want westerners to enforce their views on Qataris, but why try to enforce yours on them?
because they get their cake and get to eat it, too? They're making money while continuing to espouse the rhetoric they want , unabashed.
They're being paid to be a part of international society at large while continuing to spread the message that they're happy to spread; what's the problem as far as they're concerned?
If the opinion upsets then the actionable parties to protest would be the ones that facilitate such world events going to places that have ideals and ethics that are out of step with the participants, not the country or its' leaders itself.
* wants to show the world how modern and open it's society is
* is not at all modern or open
Asking a Qatari official his opinion on the subject is either going to solicit a non-answer or negative one. Even if he personally doesn't believe it. So why ask him? What purpose does it serve?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homo...
Sometimes it's publicity. Or trying to influence someone.