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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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
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.
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.
I would assume that anything controversial would fall under this umbrella.
Yeah, it would be nice if sports was just about sports, and not just another stage for the activists to pull their stunts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.)
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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 options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is not, I'm afraid, relevant to Fruck's (accurate) judgement.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
Just checking. I think both cases would be bad. The bands are for the sole purpose of pissing the other guy off.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link