site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30407 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

People being outraged that teams were prevented from wearing the OneLove armbands (to show solidarity with LBGTQ rights amid the backdrop of Qatari views on homosexuality) are ignorant, arrogant, and dogmatic. This is part of what other regions of the world mean when they say the west forces our values onto other people. You don't get to go into another region of the world for a sport as global as soccer and then shit on them for not sharing the same views as you. Not everything needs to be about activism. I don't have the stats, but I have to imagine most people are not in favor of gay marriage in the middle east and, as much as i am in favor of gay marriage, you have to respect that. I mean it wasn't even codified legally in the US until fairly recently. If you want to interact with other countries, you have to accept that they see things differently than you and have different values. This strikes me as being a strong instance of 'i am so open minded that i am close minded'.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-21/european-teams-won-t-wear-pro-lgbt-armbands-at-world-cup?cmpid=BBD112122_MKT

There's shitting on them and then there's accepting the shit on our face just because something something good guests. The West should not have come to Qatar for that event and let Qatar be worse off for it.

Separating out the activism itself, which is pretty dumb, activism only works when it's backed by power, etc - what's wrong in a general sense with "having an issue with the values of other countries", or even "forcing your values on other countries"? E.g. let's say Qatar was instead the babylon bee's caricature of progressives - they banned teams with >40% white people, everyone had to wear a trans flag on their uniforms, etc.

You don't get to go into another region of the world for a sport as global as soccer and then shit on them for not sharing the same views as you

What if the views are important? If Qatar's banning homosexuality is awful, 'giving them shit for imprisoning gay people' is probably fine. Why does it have to be 'respected'? This seems to be an issue with a specific kind of activism, rather than the general principle of 'protesting other countries'. What about protesting migrant worker deaths (which are probably overstated, didn't check). I'm not making an angry moral point here - maybe banning homosexuality is good, that's an orthogonal issue.

It is understated. The 6500 dead workers come from the embassies of 4 countries for the period up to 2021. It is a hard number, not an estimate, and it doesn't include deaths in 2022 and dead workers from other countries.

What if they said no wearing any crosses or anything else indicating religious beliefs? What if they were in China, which I have no doubt would prohibit any pro-Uyghur or pro-Tibet sentiments? What if they were in Russia (assuming Russia ever gets to hold a world event again) which I am sure would prohibit Ukrainian flag armbands?

I agree that we cannot enforce our values on other countries, but fuck countries that host world events and then tell the people of the world what they're allowed to say while there.

All of these examples are unacceptable. This is sport not politics, and the more you make it about one the less it is about the other, thus compromising the whole point of the exercise. Even, ironically, it's political point of bringing people together under a common activity.

Shut up and kick the ball. I don't give a shit what you were told to think about world politics.

Athletes are more than just sports players though. Like you, I'm assuming you're not in charge of creating federal policy, so should I just tell you to shut up and do your job? This ideology is wildly antidemocratic and definitionally authoritarian.

antidemocratic

Of course, democracy is the worst of political regimes.

authoritarian

Of course not, the levels of control enacted by informal propagandists and democrats has always been insanely higher than that of any formal autocracy.

Has it not occurred to you that conscription, an edict which was considered to be one of the most inconceivably tyrannical things a government could ever do, has been enacted, justified and normalized by and for democracy? Shall we look at comparative tax rates perhaps? Size of administrations? Wherever you look but in the realms of ideology, there is no justification to oppose democracy and authoritarianism, they marry themselves at every turn.

I submit to you that you are, in supporting the rule of anyone at large, the extreme authoritarian and that I am merely, in the grand scheme of things, a sensible centrist for wishing the realms of power to remain separate from literally all of society. I'm against totalitarianism, if you will.

I agree that we cannot enforce our values on other countries, but fuck countries that host world events and then tell the people of the world what they're allowed to say while there.

Do you think Holocaust denial laws paused in Germany during the World Cup?

Do you think Holocaust denial laws paused in Germany during the World Cup?

No, but I'd be very surprised to learn that athletes have been wearing Holocaust denial armbands elsewhere.

Presumably, this would be against the FIFA's own rules (just as I'm sure most professional sporting leagues would not allow an athlete to wear a swastika).

Well, now wearing a "love" armband is against FIFA's rules.

I'm sorry, this just seems like a side-step: if someone were to do it, Germany would enforce its norms regardless of cosmopolitanism and "welcoming the world". And, if necessary, they would prevail on FIFA or some other body to help.

Well, now wearing a "love" armband is against FIFA's rules.

Did FIFA actually make it against the rules everywhere, or only for the World Cup in Qatar?

Your gotcha is not clever because you're well aware of the material differences. No one is claiming universal free speech is an entitlement to everyone everywhere or that countries can't impose their own laws on visitors. For example, Qatar also has rules against immodest dress and behavior, and I don't think anyone has argued that World Cup athletes should be allowed to walk around in bikinis or engage in public make-out sessions.

The principle I am arguing is that censorious regimes who want to enforce censorship even to the extent of forbidding athletes to wear political expressions they don't like during world events they are hosting should receive pushback, and the point I am making is that people defending the precious sovereignty of Qatar would normally be in favor of this pushback if the censorship didn't happen to be directed, this time, at their enemies.

It actually is against the rules in general. No political or religious speech on the uniforms. The “expected” sanction is apparently a fine, which Wales at least claimed to accept...but they drew the line at yellow cards. Not clear on whether that’s happened before or if this was one of those gentlemen’s agreements where FIFA reserved the right.

I agree with you that FIFA shouldn’t have escalated, especially not on behalf of the host.

Your gotcha is not clever because you're well aware of the material differences. No one is claiming universal free speech is an entitlement to everyone everywhere or that countries can't impose their own laws on visitors. For example, Qatar also has rules against immodest dress and behavior, and I don't think anyone has argued that World Cup athletes should be allowed to walk around in bikinis or engage in public make-out sessions.

What makes you think that Qataris find public immodesty bad but not public advocating for immodesty and immorality?

I mean, I agree that banning public immodesty feels more reasonable to me than banning "OneLove" but then, I swim in the same waters as you do and I don't think I can actually debunk that view without digging into axioms.

The principle I am arguing is that censorious regimes who want to enforce censorship even to the extent of forbidding athletes to wear political expressions they don't like during world events they are hosting should receive pushback, and the point I am making is that people defending the precious sovereignty of Qatar would normally be in favor of this pushback if the censorship didn't happen to be directed, this time, at their enemies.

I personally don't care if people "push back" at Qatar. Seems like there were plenty of avenues to do that more effectively (e.g. boycott) but nobody wanted to sacrifice. Well, here we are.

I've already stated that I have less problem with "Qatar is just wrong and we're right" so long as it's not couched in terms of welcoming the world or whatever.

I just don't think there's any actual universalizable standard of hospitality that can be pulled out from this* . It's just about who has power to determine what's considered "normal" and "reasonable".

* Well...except don't lie and salami-tactic your way into a World Cup. That is the most obvious sin here. It looks different if they announce all this on Day 1.

Have you seen the ridiculous speech Infantino gave? Apparently he knows what it is like to be a gay disabled migrant worker because he's a ginger (or was, when he still had hair) and was bullied for it as a kid.

It's no secret FIFA is corrupt to the marrow of its bones and cares only about money, and the only reason Qatar got to host the World Cup was that it out-bribed everyone else. I think the PR campaigns about kick racism out of football and LGBT+ rights and BLM kneeling and rainbow laces and all the rest of it is simply performative virtue signalling, and if a Muslim player doesn't want to wear a rainbow jersey for his club match then his rights should be respected too, but this is just pulling away even the fig leaf that FIFA cares. As pointed out, they'd happily bully a Western country about not having a Pride flag waving in every stadium, but Qatar can get away with human rights abuses because money money money.

I do think that Qatar does have the right to say "our country, our rules, no rainbow flags in the stadium" but it's not like FIFA have any actual principles about any of this, and the clubs/teams from Western countries are doing as much PR signalling as they are genuinely caring about the topic.

What if they said no wearing any crosses or anything else indicating religious beliefs?

Then the French government would happily back them up, because laïcité. The most recent fights around this have involved Islam, but it started off applied to Catholicism.

And I'm sure you could find people in America who would enthuse about rainbow flags in the classroom if a teacher wanted to put one up, but would be equally adamant about "no way" if a teacher wanted to wear a visible cross.

Apparently he knows what it is like to be a gay disabled migrant worker because he's a ginger (or was, when he still had hair) and was bullied for it as a kid.

Bullying is serious enough that this is not absurd (aside from the absurdity of being disabled and a migrant worker at the same time; migrant worker jobs are not generally ones that can be done by disabled people.)

I don't GAF about FIFA or the World Cup, honestly, and I know 90% of the LGBT+ stuff is virtue-signaling. I don't expect any integrity from sports organizations, but it's not wrong to call them (and Qatar) out on it.

I am unswayed by the argument that we should respect Qatar culture and their right to exercise their sovereignty over what visiting soccer players wear. I don't think anyone outside Qatar actually cares about these things. But I tire of the pettiness of defending literally anyone and anything just so long as what's being defended is that they're pissing off your outgroup.

You say that as if the only reason anyone is attacking isn't that someone pissed on their ingroup.

Mashallah. Even ignoring the specifics (yes FIFA sucks balls, and their growing a spine against political meddling in the last few days doesn't counter that) the West needs another few dozen similar bitch slaps across the face to realise that much as they like to say it, their values are not "Universal Human Values That All Good Thinking Persons Should Hold" and that billions of people are very pissed off whenever they try to present them as such.

An example: exacting vengeance is far more of a universal human value than allowing public displays of affection. There is a reason getting your revenge on those who have wronged you feels so sweet biologically (I recommend people try it sometime if they've never done it before, it's a fundamental human emotion no different to love, euphoria and the sense of fellowship with your bretheren).

And yet because of Christianity (with it's "vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord") the former is seen by Westerners as bad while because of Protestant Christianity (with it's there is no central authority, you have to decide for yourself if things are good attitude which gave rise to modern Progressivism) the second is seen as being completely fine...

Is it really growing a spine to do something if-and-only-if your wealthy benefactors express disapproval? This is just folding to the other side of political pressure. I would bet dollars to donuts FIFA will be back to slaps on the wrist once the Cup is in a Western country.

Yup. They'll happily bully Hungary again, or whatever.

The hypocrisy of it all kind of makes the outrage justified, no matter which side of the issue you are on.

my values enforced > your values enforced equally > your values enforced unequally

Mashallah. Even ignoring the specifics (yes FIFA sucks balls, and their growing a spine against political meddling in the last few days doesn't counter that) the West needs another few dozen similar bitch slaps across the face to realise that much as they like to say it, their values are not "Universal Human Values That All Good Thinking Persons Should Hold" and that billions of people are very pissed off whenever they try to present them as such.

Oh, my sweet summer child! If this was true, I'd instantly convert to Islam, but I'm afraid the "global governance" ghouls will get their way. My country used to be (well, still is) often portrayed as a primitive backwater, but I recently discovered our Zoomers are more or less in lockstep with their Western counterparts. My bets are it will happen to you too.

Similar experience on my side. I'm from the backwaters as well and the zoomers are much more similar to zoomers in the west than even millenials in their own country.

I disagree. If you invite the whole world to your country by voluntarily hosting the World Cup, you should expect the world to show up. If you do not want people in your country who do not conform to the rigid social taboos of your culture, you shouldn't host the World Cup.

Wearing an armband is not shitting on anyone's culture or forcing anything on anyone. Being annoyed when your invited guests wear innocuous armbands that are perfectly fine in their culture is rude.

Let's not be coy and pretend those armbands are "innocuous". They clearly were meant as a political statement and a huge "fuck you" to the conservative culture of Qatar. Now, I don't really value too much the culture of Qatar, so for me saying "fuck you" to them is all in good fun, but let's not pretend it's not what happened - or what was about to happen, until it turned out the power is not on the side of the activists and they got squashed like bugs.

Simple solution: If you are so quick to offense that you cannot tolerate armbands with rainbows, you shouldn't host the World Cup.

I'd agree with that with one condition - if the armband-wearing folks start applying the approach "if you are so quick to offense that you cannot tolerate X, you shouldn't Y" to themselves. Somehow, I doubt they'd agree to do that. With the rainbow-armband squad, it always works only to one side - you should tolerate what we do, but we get to demand that you change your behavior if it offends us. They got hoist on their own petard - because it's all about power. They overestimated their power, that's all there is. I'd like to have the rules where it's not about power, but only for real, not pretend that it's not about power when it's convenient, and then lean into the power when it helps getting their way.

why?, it's in their code of ethics the banning of political stunts and respecting the dignity of host countries. Hosting the worldcup isn't to opening the doors to political activism, it's about foot ball.

14 Duty of neutrality

1.

In dealings with government institutions, national and international

organisations, associations and groupings, persons bound by this Code shall,

in addition to observing the basic rules of art. 13, remain politically neutral, in

accordance with the principles and objectives of FIFA, the confederations,

associations, leagues and clubs, and generally act in a manner compatible with

their function and integrity

22 Discrimination and defamation

1.

Persons bound by this Code shall not offend the dignity or integrity of

a country, private person or group of people through contemptuous,

discriminatory or denigratory words or actions on account of race, skin colour,

ethnicity, nationality, social origin, gender, disability, language, religion,

political opinion or any other opinion, wealth, birth or any other status, sexual

orientation or any other reason.

I can see the argument for why clause 14 is applicable. (But precedent would be nice. Where is the line drawn for what is and isn't a political statement?) Per this clause the players should stop wearing armbands. (The Qatari behavior towards the rainbow-clothed fans is still rude.)

Clause 22 is clearly unrelated: rainbow armbands are not contemptuous, discriminatory or denigratory, nor do they offend the dignity or integrity of anyone.

Clause 22 is clearly unrelated: rainbow armbands are not contemptuous, discriminatory or denigratory, nor do they offend the dignity or integrity of anyone.

Showing with those armbands in a country clearly opposed to what they represent is showing contempt for the customs and culture of the host nation, specially when to do that you have to violate art 14 too.

(But precedent would be nice. Where is the line drawn for what is and isn't a political statement?)

I would assume that anything controversial would fall under this umbrella.

Per this clause the players should stop wearing armbands.

Yeah, it would be nice if sports was just about sports, and not just another stage for the activists to pull their stunts.

Would you say the same for them not tolerating armbands with swastikas, which after all are an Indian symbol of the day and symbolise good luck (plenty of people have swastikas on the front door of their house in India)?

(And no, the standard swastika in Hinduism isn't the mirror image of the Nazi version, that is the sawvastika which represents nights and symbolises the destructive goddess Kali, hence is pretty rarely used).

Yes. If some Indian person wants to have swastikas on their clothing that's perfectly fine. Like, this is basic liberalism: are you surprised by this answer?

I disagree. If you invite the whole world to your country by voluntarily hosting the World Cup, you should expect the world to show up. If you do not want people in your country who do not conform to the rigid social taboos of your culture, you shouldn't host the World Cup.

Does that apply equally to homophobes?

Do the Western countries that win bids for these competitions support the free expression of homophobes and racists en masse in their country during these events?

Obviously the answer I'm angling for is "no". And there may be good reasons for this (some people may just be right and others may just be wrong)

But you can't exactly frame it as tolerance of "the world" when what are likely the world's majority views are not really supported by other hosts.

The obvious answer is yes? When Germany hosted the World Cup in 2006, it would have been perfectly fine for a Qatari to show up with armbands that say "God made marriage between man and women" or something like that.

If you do not want people in your country who do not conform to the rigid social taboos of your culture, you shouldn't host the World Cup.

On the contrary, FIFA - owners of the world cup - disagree with you.

Qatar was always clear about what they want - no gays, jews, beer drinkers or other (to them) degeneracy. They asked FIFA for this and FIFA voluntarily gave it to them. They made the rules to visit them quite clear. So really, if you don't agree with the values of Qatar/FIFA, you shouldn't go to the world cup.

An equivalent might be showing up to a global sporting event in the US - say an NBA game - wearing a "1488 SS :swastika:" armband or the Islamic "death to Jews" equivalent. Or perhaps even something utterly innocuous elsewhere in the world, such as the word "nigger". If America and the NBA invited the world, this should be totally cool, right?

(Note that even this forum considers "1488" to be too horrible to allow. I originally started posting here using the handle "bigdickpepe1488" but was told by the mods that I need to change it, hence my current handle.)

It’s not too horrible to allow. It’s too much of a drive-by.

Consider a public auditorium which nevertheless bans soliciting. If you want to argue something, you’ll have to put in some effort rather than just broadcasting a slogan.

It’s not too horrible to allow. It’s too much of a drive-by.

And yet the mods don't seem to have much problem with my current handle. It's just as much a drive by, but from the opposite direction.

If you want to argue something,

I don't. I just chose the handle because I was amused by the contrast between bigdickpepe1488 and the actual discussions I'm likely to have here (which you can find if you look up the handle, it wasn't deleted).

Alright, after some mod discussion, we've decided we're going to ask you to change your nickname. Note that you can do this on the Settings page (kinda near the bottom, weirdly) and don't need to make a new account.

We're already seeing some moderate red flags here, and I'd request that you not pick another trolly/obnoxious name. We can and will ban you if this keeps being an issue, so, seriously, knock it off, yo.

And yet the mods don't seem to have much problem with my current handle. It's just as much a drive by, but from the opposite direction.

Actually, it's kind of trollish (yes, we get you're being ironic, hah hah, very droll) and I do have a problem with it, but we're not going to reflexively ban every obnoxious handle unless it passes a threshold that can be very precisely defined as "When we've had enough."

no gays, jews, beer drinkers or other (to them) degeneracy

FIFA did not agree to this. There were many agreements about allowing alcohol, not persecuting gays or public displays of affection, and accommodating Jews. But once it got close enough to the WC that FIFA would look too stupid cancelling it, Qatar simply reneged on all of their promises.

I don't see the contradiction. The Qatari government is bad for expecting their guest to conform to their rigid social norms. FIFA is bad for allowing Qatar to host the World Cup. People should not go to the World Cup. Three true statement, no contradiction.

Is the NBA and the USA bad for expecting their guests to conform to rigid American social norms? Or are you merely appealing to American cultural imperialism, "gays good islam bad"?

There are several Muslim players in the NBA. don't understand you point. (Also, the NBA is a national affair.)

The progressives see '1488 SS :swastika:' and 'a gay flag' as different! Just as you might see e.g. a US flag vs a shirt with a photo of black trans porn as different. I wouldn't care about any of those shirts if I saw them, but that's not an opinion anyone else holds.

And Qataris see "gay" rainbows and rainbows with a leprechaun and a pot of gold at the end of them as different. If people wanted to wear an armband with the latter on them I don't think there would have been an issue.

That's a... very American way of thinking.

I'm European.

Also, OPs argument seems more American to me. "My house, my rules" and similar mindsets are very American and signals that famous rugged individualism. We in the old country are more graceful hosts IMO.

Like you know how brides bans certain colors for the guest clothes, or makes all their bridesmaids wear the same dress? A very American thing IMO.

In my experience Euro tolerance generally demands a baseline of tolerance and respect for the home culture, but within that anything is ok. But if you wandered in to Holland and went "Lol look at those fucking stupid wooden shoes, have you guys even heard of leather?" or France going "Hon hon hon, where's some slimy creatures I can pop in my mouth?" most people would be upset. Islam - particularly Arabic Islam - has seen homophilia as American imperialism for decades.

Yes, it would be rude for a guests in Qatar to walk around in drag and chant "Are there any men here ready to fuck!?". But that's pretty far from wearing an armband with a rainbow on.

You are going into a country which steadfastly refuses to tolerate homosexuality - which considers tolerance of homosexuality a deliberate attempt to diffuse their culture into western homogeneity - and displaying your contempt and disrespect for their culture on every arm.

A rainbow armband is not an expression of contempt and disrespect for Qatari culture. And once again: If Qatar doesn't want any rainbows anywhere, they can just not host the World Cup. Inviting people and then policing details in their dress is rude.

Why are you pretending you think this is about clothing? That it is simply a multicoloured strip of fabric signifying nothing? Or that your issue is their fashion policing being rude? You aren't stripping away ephemera to get down to the essence of the debate, you are stripping away the essence of the debate so you can get down to the ephemera.

More comments

This is not, I'm afraid, relevant to Fruck's (accurate) judgement.

Like you know how brides bans certain colors for the guest clothes, or makes all their bridesmaids wear the same dress? A very American thing IMO.

Maybe it's American, but even in America that's frowned upon. The first one at least, the second one is given more leeway. But anyone who tries to tell guests what not to wear to a wedding is in instant bridezilla territory.

It's usually not spoken, but theres a pretty well established ban on non brides wearing white to weddings.

Yeah but the bride also isn't demanding people do that, it's simply the general custom.

I'm European.

So... an American vassal?

What do you think this adds to the conversation? At best, it is vapid and obnoxious; at worst, it is actively antagonistic.

And to be clear--you're certainly free to claim that Europe is essentially a vassal state of the United States, particularly in the context of a discussion about cultural hegemony etc. But you have to actually talk about it! It is not sufficient to function as, essentially, a drive-by peanut gallery, making easy jokes in place of effortful discussion. Don't do this.

You could write exactly the same comment about the reverse case, where USA is hosting and the Qatari team wears armbands that say "marriage is between a man and a woman". Would you stand by it?

Yes, that would be totally fine with me. I mean, this is TheMotte, would anyone here want to ban something like that? I'm pro armband freedom for everyone everywhere.

Your comment reminds me of the classic https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-political-spectrum-quiz/

I'm more in the "no goddamn armbands for anyone, anywhere, except maybe one of your players or famous former player or associated with the club has died so black armband as mark of respect" camp.

Just checking. I think both cases would be bad. The bands are for the sole purpose of pissing the other guy off.

People being outraged at people being outraged that teams were prevented from doing whatever may or may not be ignorant, but are certainly arrogant and dogmatic.

Going to a foreign country and making impolite statements is rude. It still shouldn’t be suppressed by third parties.

Qatari Muslims ought to be tough enough to handle a dissenting view without their society crumbling. Understanding that they disagree doesn’t be preclude arguing against them—especially not with a token gesture. The fact that FIFA has bent over backwards at the last minute to stifle their speech suggests that this bit of cultural sensitivity is purely financial.

Qatari Muslims are very well aware that plenty of people disagree with them. And, frankly, the western fixation with insisting on absolutely everyone everywhere agreeing with them is extremely irritating.

Qatari Muslims ought to be tough enough to handle a dissenting view without their society crumbling.

Why? Why get punched in the face to prove you're tough? Why tolerate things you consider degeneracy to prove you're tough?

Proving it to who? Other people you consider degenerates (i.e. liberals)?

Qatari Muslims can look to the West and see the fruits of "let's discuss [what is to them] degeneracy". All those conservatives praising themselves on being willing to have tough discussions...what did that do besides open a crack in the door for endless degeneracy [as they see it]?

Even worse: those very same people who were begging for forbearance then turn around and demand fealty. The French government hounded Idrissa Gueye for merely not playing on a day when they mandated pro-LGBT shirts. Not even saying anti-LGBT stuff - he never gave any reason publicly, he just didn't play on that day twice in the same span of years. Just that alone was enough to cause an uproar.

Look at this from an outside perspective and, not only does this sort of "dissenting view" seem to open the door to plenty of things a median Qatari may not like, even worse, you can't even trust the dissenters to be principled and return the favor when they're on top.

That is the real clincher: one could argue that it is honorable to abandon a false set of beliefs. If you cannot trust that your opponents will not suddenly become intolerant themselves, you have no incentive to be "honorable" because they won't abandon their false beliefs if it came to that. (Insofar as it's obvious that the West doesn't ever concern itself with this possibility, it just highlights the fundamental arrogance and imperialism at the root of this discourse, which can't help make it attractive to Qataris)

Why? Why get punched in the face to prove you're tough

Because a shirt or a slogan isn't getting punched in the face? I can read anarchist and nazi literature without getting bruised, and come away smarter, knowing what deep and powerful truths and severe, evil errors both made (no commentary intended on the relative amounts in either direction)

Obviously the context here is america's military, economic, and cultural power, making it not quite the same as a book, but honestly this particular issue is very minor either way.

I'm not a Qatari Muslim, but I think I can take a stab at how they'd reply -

"And here it is - the Americans start with shaming as always, implying it is a lack of fortitude which drives us to enforce our beliefs, when it is in fact our fortitude which compels us to do so. You call it a token gesture now because you want to make it look minor, but you know as well as I that it would chink our armour, provide a small gap in the defence of our culture and society through which your CIA can push American cultural values on our youth - and slowly shape us into another den of sin and degradation the way you have done everywhere that doesn't resist. Those currently scoffing at our suspicion of this 'token gesture' would then sing a different tune, one celebrating how they destroyed our culture in the name of 'love' (read perversity). Fifa caved because we will not be moved on this issue, and we will not be moved on this issue because we will not let our culture disappear into the melange of US cultural imperialism. What happened to the Americans who understood this? I'm sure there used to be some, I think they were called democrats?"

You call it a token gesture now because you want to make it look minor, but you know as well as I that it would chink our armour, provide a small gap in the defence of our culture and society through which your CIA can push American cultural values on our youth - and slowly shape us into another den of sin and degradation

There's literally already a conservative meme about this in America:

[Dreher's] Law of Merited Impossibility, which states: “It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”

Qataris get internet too.

Are you refuting my point or supporting it with an alternative but complimentary point? Because it reads like the former, but I don't know what you are refuting.

Oh, I was agreeing.

The main issue is that FIFA threatened to penalise this with actual bookings, not just fines as per usual for uniform violations. This — like the last minute U-turn on beer sales — seems like a case of FIFA making additional effort to accommodate local norms. And of course it adds further weight to the claim that the tournament shouldn’t have been awarded in the first place to a country whose cultural standards are at odds with those of the leading footballing nations.

Because let’s be honest here — the Arab world is shit at football, as is most of the world outside of Europe and Latin America (though honourable mentions for some West African teams, the USA, South Korea, and Japan). The only way hundreds of millions of fans are going to tune in to watch Qatar play anyone is under the auspices of a FIFA tournament featuring the big teams, all of whom come from nations where homosexuality is legal and by and large culturally accepted. This makes it all the more baffling to me that FIFA would award the tournament to a country which is shit at football, hot as fuck, corrupt as fuck, and whose cultural norms are so at odds with those of football’s heartland. At least, it would be baffling if FIFA weren’t itself one of the most odious and corrupt sporting bodies in the world.

the Arab world is shit at football,

This didn't age well, see recent match between Saudi Arabia and Argentina (yes, yes, N = 1 and all that, but it's funny)...

Because let’s be honest here — the Arab world is shit at football

They are absolutely not shit at funding football, however, which is also an important consideration. Notwithstanding football's self-perception as a game of poverty, it needs massive amounts of money to exist at the scale and in the way it currently does. The oil sheikhdoms have supplied a truly stonking amount of that money (e.g. Man City, PSG, Newcastle, Aston Villa, Sheffield...plus all the Etihad, Emirates, and Qatar Airways sponsorship deals...et. al.) and as such certainly have a stake in the footballing world, even if its not backed up by their national play on the pitch.

The oil sheikhdoms have supplied a truly stonking amount of that money

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of football fans see this as a massive negative. And would argue that the main impact of all of these oil sheik owners has been major transfer fee and wage inflation. There was more than enough money to go around pre-2010

That’s true, but if and when sporting bodies kowtow to whoever has the most money and not to the interests of fans, the big players, and the wider footballing community, then they should expect (and deserve) a backlash.

It's a complicated dance, though! Because the arab countries are fans, and fans who are paying much higher "prices" than just the punters at the gate.

I seem to remember the Qatar drama centering on laughable amounts of graft. Or maybe it was worker conditions for the infrastructure. There were a lot of reasons people complained before any comments about Current Thing.

The point is that it’s an omnishambles, and Qatar’s unsuitability for the tournament is massively overdetermined. It’s not people grasping at straws, it’s people pointing to yet another fucking thing.

Amen.

They believe they have the mandate of heaven and that's why they win.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats