Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How dare you point out a wrong when you don’t point out other wrongs!
That’s the OP in a nutshell.
Would that really send a stronger message, though? Even if individual players boycott the event, other players would take their place. Visually, the tournament would still seem like business as usual.
It would also mean deplatforming themselves, so it would probably be counterproductive.
I think what's "useful" depends on the goal. I also don't think it's really a matter of prioritizing Qatar over anywhere else, though I do think that Qatar's treatment of LGBTQ people is much worse than, say, the UK's.
In fact, I think the English team - and people generally - going to Qatar with an implicit message of "we as a nation are a people who stand up for LGBTQ rights" can, in the long run, help to improve things for LGBTQ people in England.
Even if they're falling short of that mark now, the next time some issue affecting LGBTQ rights is dealt with, this connection between LGBTQ rights and the English national identity that these sorts of gestures try to foster will push at least some people to protect LGBTQ rights as an expression of their nationality. Basically, they're hyping themselves up, which will push some people to try to live up to the hype.
It depends: some people feel antagonized by both, some accept one more than the other, and some just don't care either way. But the difference between wearing an armband and broadcasting a more detailed argument is that an armband is much more likely to come across as a brief act of pushing a message,...
...whereas a detailed argument goes further into logic and leaves more room for others to respond and for you to engage them in a persuasive manner.
Think of it like this: are you more likely to listen to an organized, culture-specific lecture about any given religion or a short advertisement where a preacher just throws out a few lines and catchphrases without adding any other detail—all against the backdrop of criticizing you and your way of life?
If a bigot considers that to be an act of pushing a message then from experience I would say it is the right thing to do.
Let me elaborate: Here in Brazil, up to this day, there are still people saying that whenever an homosexual relationship appears on a soap opera (a lot of people watch them), the media is pushing their agenda.
Do you know what happened the last couple of decades? Homosexual relationships became more and more socially acceptable. It looks like pushing an agenda actually works...
That presumes the anti-LGBT stance is grounded on arguments that could be refuted. But not's how it works. It has nothing to do with arguments per se. It revolves around calling homosexuality a sin or yucky, and therefore it must be banned, that is it.
The fact you are comparing wearing that armband and taking a knee with 'criticizing you and your way of life' shows where the problem resides.
It is not about the bigot's way of life. It is about the people getting sent to jail because of their own way of life.
I have two arguments with the view expressed in this post:Two players in the English national soccer team took the knee after FIFA strictly warned players not to wear a "OneLove" armband in their first World Cup game. Taking the knee has been an anti-racism gesture the team has adopted for a long time, but the Football Supporters' Association had the following to say:
England players take the knee vs Iran after Harry Kane ditches OneLove armband
As someone who lived in Saudi Arabia for 19 years, including two as an atheist, and experienced the terrible human rights situation and lack of freedom first-hand, I find this extremely shallow, inconsistent, sanctimonious, and tone-deaf. The UK has a litany of human rights abuses on its hands overseas and has yet to even pay any substantial reparations to some of the countries it helped to destroy like Iraq, yet we're supposed to see a rainbow armband—worn by players who haven't publicly criticized their own country's human rights record—as a progressive gesture when wearing it won't even achieve anything beyond antagonizing the host nation for 28 days only to be forgotten later.
Also, the next World Cup will be jointly held in the US, Canada, and Mexico. I wonder whether we will see similar statements from British soccer associations about LGBT or reproductive rights in the US, or cartel violence and government corruption in Mexico. Right now same-sex marriage is at risk of following Roe v. Wade to the reversal grave by a theocratically minded SCOTUS majority.
History shows that this is not how social and cultural changes happen. I don't believe such changes in countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will come from wealthy, protected foreign athletes wearing colored armbands during a 28-day tournament or posting moralizing tweets without any concrete activism; the change will have to come from within these countries and be led by progressive natives thereof like Raif Badawi, Loujain al-Hathloul, and Samar Badawi.
Why can’t we just agree to condemn a wrong? Why must we analyze the “optics” and alleged inconsistencies?I've addressed this in a few posts:
England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar
England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar
England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar
It's not really about "other wrongs"; more like "wrongs that affect the optics of the message and make the messenger look inconsistent and overly selective."
As someone who lived in Saudi Arabia for 19 years, including two as an atheist, and experienced the terrible human rights situation and lack of freedom first-hand, I find this extremely shallow, inconsistent, sanctimonious, and tone-deaf. The UK has a litany of human rights abuses on its hands overseas and has yet to even pay any substantial reparations to some of the countries it helped to destroy like Iraq, yet we're supposed to see a rainbow armband—worn by players who haven't publicly criticized their own country's human rights record—as a progressive gesture when wearing it won't even achieve anything beyond antagonizing the host nation for 28 days only to be forgotten later.
Even to wear an armband or kneel is "viewed as disrespectful"?Raises awareness in whom, though? It has generated antagonism and been viewed as disrespectful by many Arabs so far. On the other hand, those who already support LGBT rights are likely aware of Qatar's atrocious laws in that area, so there's nothing new.
Why can’t we just agree to condemn a wrong? Why must we analyze the “optics” and alleged inconsistencies?
It's not about apologetic references; rattling off a list of unflattering historical facts about the UK just to appear consistent would seem cliché and forced, if anything. But when a public figure's opinions over many years show no signs of any self-examination and then they pick their battle against a distant overseas country, the optics just become weird and overly selective. Optics matter when the goal is to convince as many people as possible of a message or cause.
Imagine if I smoked two packs a day but then decided to run an anti-smoking campaign. Logically, my own actions would have no bearing on the validity of what I said about smoking: to argue that they did would be a tu quoque. But in the eyes of many among the audience, I would definitely look insincere and damage my own credibility, thereby reducing my potential to persuade others of my message.
Even to wear an armband or kneel is "viewed as disrespectful"?
People who oppose civil & peaceful protest on that basis
should not be catered to with silence. Sure, sure, those laws
are nothing new. Tis all the more reason to protest them.
This thread has some fascinating opposing perspectives...
1) Expecting individuals to behave as the group they belong to.
And if one's group has sins, then "Sit down & shut up!".
2) Allowing individuals the freedom to have views not of their
group. Let each express views with civility & conviction.
I prefer a big steaming pile of #2.
Don't abuse protesting players for a peaceful message
to inspire change....just because their country has its
own problems. Let each say as each believes.
You see the armbands as antagonistic?The message behind them is literally just that LGBTQ rights should be respected.People usually hold beliefs for much more complicated reasons than that. Sure, the beliefs themselves are bigoted, but when someone is brought up in a specific culture where LGBT rights are widely reviled, what do you expect? They couldn't just push a button and be convinced the ethical thing to do is to support equality. Human psychology doesn't work that way.
I grew up in Saudi Arabia and was extremely homophobic up until a year or so after I joined this forum and got to talk to LGBT people. Many others with a similar background don't have the luxury of knowing English or never have that exposure in a way that would be particularly conducive to change. Antagonism is not an especially useful feeling to engender if you're looking to increase understanding and awareness.
I don't know enough about Brazil to give an educated response here, but I will say that generally, multiple factors give rise to such shifts in social attitudes. Do you think the soap operas were the main reason for the increased acceptability of same-sex relationshils in Brazil?
No, it doesn't presume that; it just presumes that a lot of people will change logically ungrounded beliefs they grew up with or absorbed from society when confronted with sound arguments and evidence. This absolutely doesn't work with everyone, and I agree that many just won't accept anything but what they believe in. But if even a subset of anti-LGBT people change their attitudes as a result of campaigns, then that's still a win for human rights. Large-scale cultural changes often come in increments; you won't find any country that suddenly achieved equality for LGBT people or any other persecuted minority.
This is your view and mine, which I believe is the only ethical and logical way to view LGBT rights. As I said earlier, however, you can't look only through your perspective if you want to give persuasive messaging. Since any campaign for LGBT rights has to tackle anti-LGBT bigotry at one point or another, knowing how it works and the various cultural factors that contribute to it can be immensely useful.
You see the armbands as antagonistic?The message behind them is literally just that LGBTQ rights should be respected.
What wouldn't be seen as antagonistic?
There are many alternatives to kneeling and wearing armbands in the manner that has happened so far that don't necessitate silence. Social media and off-pitch interviews exist, as do widely circulated press conferences. To choose a method of protest that is possibly the most likely to generate hostility may be emotionally fulfilling (even to me at times) but ultimately counterproductive if you want to promote specific cultural shifts in views.
It doesn't have to work by itself. I'm absolutely certain wearing an armband will do nothing to change the position of the Qatari state or correct the bigoted opinions of people who would find the message "aggressive" or "disrespectful". I'm also certain that staying quiet won't help either.I understand the feeling, but I don't see it as conducive to the desired cultural change in this case. I wish it were effective at achieving that, but it demonstrably just doesn't work by itself.
When we look at beliefs as an emergent property of multiple socioeconomic and political factors (including religion), it seems to me that it makes a lot more sense that many otherwise decent people end up holding terrible beliefs. There are ways to change cultures, but it's usually a long, arduous process that takes many years or even decades.
Where is the evidence those alternatives would be seen as less antagonizing and be more productive?
I don't know of any systematic evidence such as a study, nor do I think the Arab world's current social and political issues would make those easy to conduct reliably. But I think various reactions whether in different media can provide at least a general overview. For example:
"My Daughter Noura Is Now My Son Nour," Says Hesham Selim As He Comes Out In Support Of His Son's Transition | NileFM | EGYPT'S#1 FOR HIT MUSIC
This actor was widely respected in Egypt and lived here until he passed away this year. His support for his son garnered widespread sympathy even from some people who admitted they previously knew little or nothing about transgendered people's issues.
I have major doubts that we would have seen the same effect if a British or American soccer player had worn a trans flag armband during a 28-day sporting event without having any record of being as socially aware or as publicly concerned about their own country's abuses.
It doesn't have to work by itself. I'm absolutely certain wearing an armband will do nothing to change the position of the Qatari state or correct the bigoted opinions of people who would find the message "aggressive" or "disrespectful". I'm also certain that staying quiet won't help either.
What is important is that LGBT people watching the tournament from abroad and especially within Qatar feel that the solidarity football expresses towards them isn't forgotton because some despots bribed enough of the right people.
But where is the evidence concerning "Social media and off-pitch interviews" specifically, since you have mentioned those as alternatives?
Is there any evidence of athletes making use of those methods and bringing about any change?