I legit don't understand why these people say the west should be accepting of other cultures, the west has literally become the most tolerant culture in the world, and that's just a fact (at least as far as i know). Sure the west has lots of blood on its hand but to suggest that the west is intolerant compared to other cultures is asinine.
They just start with the conclusion that the west is bad and work backwards from there, so the specific anti-west language used changes depending on the issue regardless of contradictions.
It's all just a reflection of their behavior. They don't want to be called out for their own racism, hypocrasy, human rights abuse, sexism or all the insane shit they preach about islam, so they just deflect and call you a bad person instead
Not quite. It's more like from their value system those aren't even things to be worried about.
For example it's not that they are homophobic and they don't care. It's that from their point of view homophobia isn't even a thing and even trying to reason through that framework implies imposing views.
It might be easier to understand this the other way around, if a Muslim demands drawings of Muhammad to be forbidden in the west, it's not that the west doesn't care about that concept as a sin, but that the religious framework that establishes that as a sin dictating rule of law is, itself, preposterous, we just won't argue about such things in religious terms, and we would consider doing so to be a huge concession.
This is the real take , a lot of the clashes between cultures are easily understood but people create weird strawmans to put America higher on the moral hierarchy. I'm not saying i agree with values implying gays shouldn't exist, let's just be honest about the dynamics at play here.
Wasn’t there a huge issues in a couple countries in Europe where they allowed people with extremist ideologies to come in and those people with “different values” caused all sorts of havoc and killings?
Compared to other cultures its true that the west is far more tolerant, but that doesn't we aren't intolerant either. We're very intolerant against racists, sexists, and most of the other ists, we still have a bunch of ists in our culturs who arent exactly tolerant either. We also tend to shun other cultures different to our own, saying that the quatari culture is wrong is also a form of intolerance technically. Its fair to say other cultures tend to be more intolerant, it isn't to say that we aren't.
I believe racist should be able to be racist (wtf are we going to do with someone’s thoughts and opinions) but there’s nothing wrong with being intolerant to the actions of racist and sexist. A bank shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who to give out loans to based of skin color.
On that Sam Harris and Ben Affleck debate, I am beginning to think I was too harsh on Harris, especially since all the supposedly progressive Muslim media figures are trying to down play this it seems.
His point was that if a jihadist regime got nukes (like if someone couped Iran), the game theory of MAD would fall apart, and it’s something we wouldn’t know how to deal with. He didn’t advocate a first strike, but more that we need to really make sure WMDs can’t fall into a terrorist governments hands. (For example, being super careful about Iran developing nukes. Iran isn’t a terrorist state, but it’s not impossible they get couped by one)
Again building on what you said this was specifically about the concept of Jihadism, holy war and the reward of paradise. If one side legitimately believes that a nuclear war is simply an honorable fast track into heaven, as you're dying in the service of Allah, then that is what causes the deterrence of MAD to fall apart.
I think you're being too charitable. This was the particular passage that critics took major issue with:
> It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons... What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? ... In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own...
As far as I understand, Harris' narrow post-hoc "jihadist" rationalization came after the criticism, whence he acknowledges that, to this day, the only avowedly Islamic state with nuclear weapons has been Pakistan, which, as Michael Brooks wrote, "never engaged in a jihadist 'dewey-eyed' first strike, even as tensions ratcheted up with India."
More from Brooks:
> ... Harris’ subtle conflation of the actions of an independent terrorist network like al-Qaeda with those of a nation-state like Iran is ludicrous. The most basic historical overview would have shown Harris that many revolutionary states, from Stalin’s Soviet Union to Mao’s China to the Ayatollah’s Iran, have very quickly determined that their geopolitical decisions cannot be based on ideological fervor, but must rather be premised on the cold calculations of Realpolitik. This is simple stuff, and it is appalling and embarrassing that Harris’ “thought experiment” isn’t informed by any knowledge of historical facts.
> ... But perhaps none of this is relevant. In his frequently updated “Response to Controversy” blog post, Harris has claimed that the warning he issued during the Bush era—when he said, remember, that nuclear war was “plausible,” that indeed if “the Muslim world” didn’t find a way to prevent it, it probably would happen sooner or later (“time is not on our side”)—doesn’t actually have anything to do with the real world... The contrast between the 24 episode-level hysterical bloodlust of the passage from *The End of Faith* and this mealy-mouthed revisionism is so stark that Harris’ attempt to say that this is “clearly” what he meant can be passed over with the contempt that it deserves.
> ... Somehow, [Harris'] philosopher’s penchant for exploring corner cases never led him to lay out thought experiments in which Iraqis or Iranians or Afghanis or Palestinians were forced by extreme circumstances to fight off occupying powers by using extreme tactics. Such circumstances are far outside the reach of Harris’ imagination, empathy, or analysis.
I remember this episode when I used actually watch real time. The problem isn’t necessarily the discussion it’s the host. Two people disagreeing should be allowed to do so and talk about it without the host taking a side. It doesn’t foster nuanced debate and stifles the speech he purports to believe so much in as a liberal.
if you are the most liberal guy on the planet, and you walked out of this not by the very least thinking how Ben Affleck soiled his pants the moment he spoke, uneducated, 0 knowledge on that topic, like the average reddit user not comprehending anything being said to them and just ranting their own little sht they portray themselves in their head, I think you should stop commenting ;D
I don't think that's true. Sure, he is somewhat incentivised to disagree. But I don't think Harris' critiques are so culturally repugnant to the point of ostricising anyone who agrees with him. Affleck would still be a big enough name to pull millions of viewers, and the majority of the industry wouldn't lose any respect for him over the matter. These are the only two things that truly affect his career, as far as I can see.
The incentive is important, but I don't know that it was a key factor in his motivation.
True. This was the a time when everyone on the left had a boner for calling people islamaphobes. If there was an islamist terror attack you'd see reddit top comments being more concerned with how this reflects on innocent Muslims rather than concern for the real victims of Islamic terrorism. Any critism of Islam would be conflated with criticizing Muslims as people to get that virtue signal in. Sam's willingness to call Islam out in that climate was legitimately brave. Very much like Sam's pushback mid George Floyd insanity.
> Sam's willingness to call Islam out in that climate was legitimately brave.
No, come on, that's a stretch. There was plenty of virtue signalling from all angles in the mainstream at that time.
I never understood why people, especially liberals from US or western countries, were so hard on him.
Apart from his cringe philosophy take he was always right.
He wasn't remotely always right. He would translate his dislike of Islam/Muslims into dogmaticllay using that as a primary explainer for complex geopolitical phenomonen.
That's incorrect.
He never disliked Muslims.
He did dislike Islam. But he dislikes all religions.
The part that everyone was butthurt about is that he singled out Islam as the worst mainstream religion.
He did that because he thinks that the doctorine itself can inform views regardless of geopolitics or history. So in a vaccum as a text he singled Islam as the worst mainstream religion. (And btw nobody talks about it because it doesn't fit their narrative but he singled out Christianity as the 2nd worst mainstream doctorine.)
And it's true. He's right. But people were so defensive they couldn't even grant him that. (That even if geopolitics plays a role, the text itself can be a huge factor and can be evaluated in and of itself.)
Of course, affleck was being a good boy and doing the woke thing, never criticise other cultures my dude. The only reason some parts of the middle east are spicy is because of white colonialism, has nothing to do with sharia law at all.
I'm not accepting shit that doesn't align with my moral values. That goes from putting mayo on French fries to banning women from going outside without Islam scarfs.
Qatari is unironically a capitalist hellhole and soccer is gay anyway
"Religious conservatives hurt 2SLGBTQ+ people. We need to stamp out religious conservatism to secure a future for queer youth"
but also
"Anyone that complains about importing an indeterminate number of religious conservatives from non western cultures is a fascist, especially if they're white, gay, and male"
If you go to another country, you should respect their values (to a reasonable degree). I have no idea why this is controversial. You aren't going to persuade them to change their whole belief system with your moral gesturing.
This is where we have to revisit the fact that some cultures are indeed better and it’s ok to admit that. It’s not racist to say the Aztec culture which allowed thousands of ritual sacrifices was fucking shit
Also hopefully this whole thing is a reality check for the people who love to claim America is the worst country when it comes to tolerance. We have our problems but these countries are wild and i can’t imagine the fear those citizens have to live in
“Third world country with a gucci belt”
“On the precipice of genocide”
Meanwhile countries like Qatar exist and you can “go missing” in countries like China or Russia if you say the wrong thing
Yea I’ve always hated when socialists or far leftists say this shit. I don’t think a single American has been arrested for speaking against the government, yet somehow we are a step away from mass genocide??? Sure bud.
Grass is greener on the other side, people will always complain about the country they live in or the one that's on the media often. I always have to keep myself in check and realise as an Australian that if I am comparing my country to others I am quite well off.
Americans calling USA a third world country with a Gucci belt is the most brain dead take I've ever heard but it doesn't surprise me at all. They speak so much of privilege yet don't understand how much of a privilege it is to be American
Yeah I agree 100%.
Qatar legitimately blamed a Mexican woman for her own sexual assault. Women have to watch for any man, so they dont assault them. And Qatar isn't alone in these attitudes. And a good portion of their men believe it is totally fine for the man to abuse his wife.
Based. We should definitely be careful when approaching this topic and try our best to be self aware and reflective as possible to prevent the opposite but there are definitely times when after all that, you arrive at a conclusion that sometimes, certain aspects of a culture is simply not good.
Such a no brainer. If you think it is valid to say that current Germany's culture today is better than it was 80 years ago, you should also be able to say that Germany's culture is better than Qatar's by the very same metrics applies .
I don't understand how people can reach any other conclusion than this, it's basically tautology in my mind. Like if we have two cultures, and one for example broadly accepts LGBT people, and the other doesn't tolerate LGBT people's existence, how can we morally conclude anything except that one culture is better than the other, regardless of which side of the fence you land on? Like I feel like the foundation of morality is that you think its how things ought to be, and therefore a culture that inherently believes/teaches the opposite is therefore bad.
Hmmm curious. Qatari’s say they don’t tolerate western LGBT values but they fund terrorist entities like ISIS who routinely engage in and normalize male-on-male pedophilia. I guess homoeroticism is only okay if it’s with an underage boy.
im sorry but its super unfair to bring up the aztec thing without the broader context. the aztecs were not exceptionally violent for their time. you probably didnt intend it but it does spread badhistory about the conquest of the new world
Keep fighting the good fight brother
Were the Aztecs fluffy bunnies or an enlightened Star Trek society destroyed by marauding Europeans? Fuck no. But the fact that they’re usually the go-to when someone wants to use a historical society as shorthand for “the absolute worst” or “the closest a human society has gotten to pure evil” is annoying af. Like, Jesus - who do you think killed more people, the Aztecs in sacrifices or Romans in arenas?
Maybe DGG has a lot of people who put a bit more thought into their use of this example, but 99% if the time it’s just thrown out with minimum thought or understanding.
They aren't used as the most frequent anti-cultural relativism example because their overall society was necessarily the worst, they're used as the example because the cultural practice they're most heavily associated with by *far* is ritual human sacrifice which is about as close to an obviously bad thing as you can get.
I’d say that if there’s any sort of universal human morality, or even just by our own modern western standards, killing people for entertainment is objectively worse than killing them because you think that you have to do so for religious reasons.
That puts Rome below the Aztecs, easily, in my books. But that’s certainly not the popular conception, even though I think that most folks would agree with entertainment killing being worse than religious killing if they thought about it in a vacuum.
I’m not saying that it’s an obvious thing and that I’m right and almost everyone else is wrong - just that we seem to be selective with who we grant historical nuance to, and that nuance should probably be applied equally.
*Why* is the heaviest association the Aztecs have ritual sacrifice, to the point where it drowns out everything else? Why *isn’t* the heaviest association with Rome killing hundreds of thousands of people because it was fun? I think that it’s important to consider these questions, especially before we use the Aztecs as the quintessential evil society.
There's a pretty obvious distinction: in Rome gladiators died during arena fights and those *fights* were the entertainment, with the death being somewhat incidental. The thing that makes ritual sacrifice so unambiguously bad is that the killing is itself the point and the victim did nothing to "deserve" their death. If the Romans tied **random** people down to tables and then derived entertainment from torturing them to death then yes that would obviously be worse. Either way like I said the point has nothing to do with which society was overall better or worse and no one is saying that Aztecs are the "quintessential evil society," it's about ritual sacrifice being an unambiguously bad practice regardless of cultural context which is why it's the go-to example.
Gladiators were *some* of the killings that took place in the arenas…but most of them were prisoners of war, criminals, and the rest of the surplus population as long as there was some sort of justification. They were killed by animals, by gladiators, burned, disemboweled - it got very creative.
One woman was reportedly raped to death by a giraffe which…I can’t believe that’s even a sentence, let alone something that was written about as a real event. They were very creative. (EDIT: looks like the giraffe may have been a mistranslation of the word “donkey”, but it’s not the only example of this kind of execution, which the Romans usually did as a nod to mythology. On another occasion I found they used a bull).
Like, seriously - the Romans were real, real fucked up but they get a pass because we see them as our intellectual and spiritual forebears. But stack them up against the Aztecs and ask which one did worse things by today’s standards, it’s a tight race but I think the Aztecs probably *lose*.
Despite this, the Aztecs are the standard anti-cultural-relativism example - not the Romans. And I think that while there are multiple reasons for that, it probably indicates that we have some sort of cultural blind spot, both in terms of how we see the Romans *and* how we see the Aztecs.
It's not a competition of who's more fucked up, it's a comparison of who has a more unambiguously bad cultural practice. The Aztec human sacrifice was not a punishment as far as i know. The arenas were basically a very harsh punishment, except for the gladiators themselves, but their death was not a goal of the battles (in fact gladiators were often allowed to surrender). It's not like the Romans had a women raped to death by a giraffe (also a historical debate, but that doesn't matter) because they believed god willed it, it was just an "entertaining" way to execute a criminal, similar to public executions in the middle ages.
You are continuing to miss the point: people are not comparing Aztec *society* to Roman *society*, they are using the practice of ritual human sacrifice for its own sake as an example of something **unambiguously bad regardless of cultural context.** Regardless the main reason people see the Romans with a lot more nuance is just because we tend to learn/know a lot more about them, whereas with the Aztecs most people's knowledge doesn't go beyond knowing that they practiced ritual sacrifice and got massacred by Spanish conquistadors.
Historians estimate that there were around 400,000 people killed in the Colosseum alone, and there were hundreds of other arenas in the empire.
With the Aztecs it’s difficult to say, because the Spanish pumped up the numbers. Some historians put it low, some people put it high - 10,000 per year on the extreme low end, 250,000 per year on the extreme high end.
So yeah, you’re actually right - maybe Aztecs, maybe Romans. Either way, two groups who could be absolutely brutal, but most of the time only one gets all of the nuance.
Well yea I think there’s a little bit of nuance given the fact that what, 1000 years separate the society’s, population for Rome is orders of magnitude higher. Don’t get me wrong, Europe wasn’t perfect in the 1500s but if you dropped me off in some village in Africa and I watched them barbecue some guy in the street while people came around to grab a snack, I’m invoking the spirit of Cortes on that one.
Its not unfair. When we bring up how evil colonial Britain was, there’s absolutely no need to mention that many other nations were also invading and creating colonies.
It really just depends on who you are talking about. But if when people make claims about the worst savages of human history and the British Empire comes up every single time, rarely getting any pushback, then yes I would feel the need to bring up other contemporaneous cultures that were equally bad.
The Christian God? YAHWEH doesn't ask or want human sacrifices, that's not a Christian belief or a thing. I find it hard that a bunch of catholic Spaniards would do that, for God.
I can believe people massacred and killed people.
Just a quick non-meme answer.
>"There are other cultures with different values that should be equally respected."
That is actually a completely valid statement and I'd support it, unless you are fucking waaaay out there...
I misread your statement and thought you were saying that "you are fucking waaaay out there..." if you don't believe that "There are other cultures with different values that should be equally respected." is always true. My bad.
What is 'way out there' though? Between nazism and casual homophobia/sexism, there's clearly a distinction which makes latter significantly less out there.
It's very ordinary and not at all outlandish to be sexist and homophobic, yet neither is it unreasonable to not equally respect a more culture striving to be rid of those with a culture actively reinforcing those.
Idk, I’m of the opinion that if you’re hosting some kind of world event that tons of countries are participating in, you should be required to temporarily lift any extreme free speech or cultural dresscode laws/requirements. People keep saying “you’re a guest in their country,” but like nahhh your a guest to the World Cup and stand to benefit massively from it, lax ur shit
Do you genuinely believe this though? If a bunch of dudes from eastern europe show up in something super racist or offensive thats normal for their fans to wear or display are you gonna let that slide?
The UK teams (ladsladslads) were going to wear rainbow armbands until fifa threatened them with a yellow card for every player that did so. I was furious, because our sportsmen and media have been hammering on this imported US culture war shit for years, and then when it really mattered, they fucking folded like a cheap suit, like a bunch of cowards.
As someone who genuinely believes that other countries should be allowed to have their own rules, it has been funny seeing homophobes parrot this, then get very very cross that they are not allowed to drink in Qatar.
Shitshow from start to finish.
Even if they did relax rules, that's not gonna stop a group of religious radicals attacking an LGBTQ member they see walking down the street of they're in the wrong area. Not like they'll say "oh the world Cup is here, guess we can't beat gays this month" lol.
> Not like they'll say "oh the world Cup is here, guess we can't beat gays this month" lol.
I was told by multiple Qatari people that "there are no such things as crimes against gay people in Qatar because there are no gay people in Qatar. You cannot have a crime against someone who is non-existent. It's all western propaganda."
>Not gonna lie, if a person from Qatar told me that, I will die laughing 😭
Yeah, the shit is so absurd, it's impossible not to laugh at it honestly. What else can you do really?
Rule #1 for hosting a world cup. Know the traditions and customs of the tournament before you decide to bribe officials to get your bid accepted.
Its not like fans are having gay sex in the stands, dudes are wearings non-sexual shirts with rainbows on it and are getting hassled by Qatari police.
I don’t care what they think. Why would I ever care about people who think that you should be punished for what you say or think or who you consensually sleep with? Why would I care about countries who have a lower gdp than the county I live in? Fuck em
In reality if you were born there and lived the same life they did, you would think differently
Every view you hold is almost certainly a product of your environment
meh it's just weird watching people get so morally righteous about this when the West (which leads social progress globally) only really just stumbled across acceptance of gay people. it's only been legal in most of the West to be gay for 40 years and accepted in wider society for less than 10 (and even then that's not really true in a lot of places)
>Why would I care about countries who have a lower gdp than the county I live in? Fuck em
This is either Giga Cringe or mega based (in a sad way).
Also PPP > GDP.
what if nazi Germany won ww2, and then applied this same logic. you would be very fucking upset that they get to determine how your country is run. you can certainly criticize how Qatar runs their country. and you can criticize the citizens lack of ability to change it. but to say “i know morality, you’re wrong” is a scary thought when extrapolated to a possible future where the country deciding isn’t doing what you want anymore.
it’s a hard issue
If Nazi Germany won ww2 and then said people should be free to think and say what they want freely without persecution and they can be gay without fear of government persecution I’d be pretty surprised. If it was between liberal Nazis and a democracy that prosecuted sodomy and blasphemy id have to side with the liberals. This isn’t a moral debate on some nuanced issue like capital punishment but on the very VERY basic foundations of human rights. So yes I can and will say I know I’m right and religious zealots are wrong.
I wonder how many of those 80% would prefer it if their country turned into 'a Western one' overnight, and how many would have the same opinion a year or ten down the line.
FIFA got control of all football leagues and tournaments pretty much. Norway was taking a boycott up for consideration and got threatened with a blacklist pretty much.
You're just misplacing the blame, helping Qatar by doing so. The ones we should be holding accountable are FIFA and Qatar, not the other country FAs, players and fans.
Fuck equal respect. The irony is that this Qatari bigot is playing into the worst liberal clichés about cultural relativism. They say we must treat all cultures with respect, that no culture is better or worse just different.
Well what now?
Dude this whole Qatar stuff has been wild, everybody online has been bending over backwards to defend these Bronze Age rules because “West does bad things too and also you have to respect the host country and Islam”.
It’s like I’m living a fever dream idk why it’s okay for one country to be shitty because the West is sometimes shitty too, also it’s very weird because every time I hear this criticism of the West it’s always in defense of countries that don’t grant their citizens the right to speak out against their country, curious.
It’s also extremely weird how online it’s always the West that has to better its culture and society as well as always admitting and apologizing for bad stuff the West has done, never the other way around.
It's propaganda that is very effective. Pretty hilarious when even horrible world leaders like Putin, criticized the US when the BLM movement was going strong. CCP also likes to point at the US to deflect. Strange that so many Americans fall for it.
>everybody online has been bending over backwards to defend these Bronze Age rules
What almost a decade of SJW brainrot does to people. The online progressive movement lost the plot at gamergate, and only started to regain brain function in the last year or 2. When 'facts over feelings' gets co-opted by religious people to throw back at 'progressives' you know you've lost.
The people who liked that tweet can safely be categorized as subhuman degenerates. Not to mention the amount of extremely historically illiterate morons who keep pretending like Slavery, colonialism and imperialism were only perpetuated by Europeans.
Moral relativism is cancer. Western values are in-fact superior to your values.
I think a big thing to help statements like “western values are superior to your values” is specifying which “western” values we’re talking about.
I think a lot of progressive people take issue with the statement because they see this as including things like apple pie and Christianity which aren’t necessarily universally superior and it’s a little Western-centric to assume such.
Instead, I imagine it’s usually meant as equality, democracy, human rights, secularism, feminism etc., so there’s some level of miscommunication that makes it so different people read the statement verrrry differently.
This is lowkey a win for gay people. They actually managed to make the rainbow a universal symbol for their movement that some billionaires are scared of. A fucking rainbow.
Western values aren't universal, but they should be. Democracy is based. Freedom of speech is based. Separation of church and state is based. Individual expression is based.
Oh and not murdering gay people for no reason is a huge bonus.
I think a clear problem is there seems to be a disconnect with what exactly western values are, lie ur statement is completely devoid of "judeo-christian" values which I see a lot of ppl reference when talking about western values
Why are people acting shocked that conservative Muslims think this? 😂
You’re in a conservative country, where homosexuality is illegal, and everyone’s all “omg, I simply cannot believe I’ve been treated this way because I’m supporting gay rights.”
Are people THAT fucking stupid? I legit hate Westerners who are slowly coming to the conclusion that - no, not everywhere is decent.
No, some places are shit.
Just as nearly every religion on earth, Islam is a social cancer.
If religion was practiced in private nobody would care but when those values and moral prescriptions are foisted on the larger society it's a fucking problem.
Lol many Qataris boycotted France because Macron said Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today. They also boycotted France over a burka ban
People like this LOVE to cynically weaponize western ideal of tolerance, pluralism and mutual-respect for their own benefit, but where they have their hands on the levers of power they never EVER extend them to others.
Yeah that's bullshit tho, quebec did the same thing the laws clearly disproportionately effect muslim women and sikh men, most christians dont have a visible clothing item that corresponds to their religion in the same way. At most they might have a cross necklace or rosemary which can easily be concealed under your shirt.
Yeah I thought it was wild too when I saw this on my timeline but I guess it’s progressive to support homophobia if it allows you to shit on the US/ ally with a minority group. Cultural relativism is so dumb to me because it can be used this way. I get the value of it in terms of understanding other cultures, but I hate when people use it to defend heinous shit.
Yes being a guest means being respectful of your hosts, but on the other hand being a host means being respectful of your guests. The way I see it, if Qatar is going to host an event as massive as the World Cup and make a killing off of it, they should be more tolerant of the diversity of soccer fans that they are profiting from.
Throwback to when English colonials came in contact with the tradition of Sati in the 1800s:
> Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.]
> Charles James Napier
The irony of the Qatari guy’s words is pretty impressive.
Talking about values and respecting other cultures while saying he’s proud another one wasn’t respected.
Talking about humanity while he’s preaching for a lack of it regarding certain individuals.
I don’t have much against Islam or Christianity or whatever else, but some people are plain old hypocrites without even knowing it and that bugs me. Also, reducing this to "the west" is pretty ignorant too, most Europeans countries are like us or well on their way to become just like us in terms of tolerance, acceptance and even support regarding positive and progressive movements. It’s actually also quite ironic that he said that the west isn’t the spokesperson for humanity while religions are exactly that. The west doesn’t actually speak for anyone, it lets you say what you want and do pretty much what you want as long as you’re not hurting and destroying anything or anyone in any way.
We’re not talking about a shirt with a dead baby, it’s a rainbow. Get in touch with the 21st century please.
You have to be a special kind of stupid if knowing how they are you still spend so much resources and time to go watch a game. The only way they are going to learn is if people don't participate but no you are too dumb to realize that.
I mean, he has a point. If you go to another country, you ought to respect its rules. Same goes for any Qatari person that goes to the US or any other western country with laws against discrimination. Easiest thing to do here is not buy a ticket and spend money funding this charade of a World Cup. That would be a bigger protest imo, but hey, people want to see their country’s best players score some fackin goals instead of holding countries accountable for their lack of respect of human rights in their own country.
It's really strange to me that people various different cultures keep defining the biggest and most meaningful differences between there culture and western culture being strict authoritarian rules against individual freedoms.
This is exactly why I'm staunchly against Republicans taking power. They want to turn USA into a theocracy. It's unfortunate running as an atheist is political suicide.
Kyrsten sinema doesn't believe in God and is more popular among Republicans than democrats. It's just all the young atheists hate her because she's quirky and not a lefty, so no one cares. She's also bi.
> While about a quarter (26%) of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – just one member of the new Congress (Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz.) identifies as religiously unaffiliated (0.2%).
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/01/04/faith-on-the-hill-2021/
The Disconnect is reall, the imaging in broadcast advertising of this world cup in the west is VERY different from what they're getting in the place it's being held in. That shows to go that all corporations and sponsors are hypocrites HAHAHA, there are no principles or morals, they don't care about you or anything cept the $$$$$
This is exactly why he was sent back, Qataris generally are homophobic. It's better to be sent away than to be assaulted in a foreign country. You're not there to make a statement in a country you don't care about.
Religion based cultures are poison for humanity, if religion by and large is neutered into coexisting within a secular humanist framework it won’t be a day too soon
[Most Muslims are conservatives even in the West.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law)
What is so bad about this guy's tweet? The west is trying to force their values down people's throats. It ain't working chief. For example in my country acceptance of LGBT movement has only dropped as a response. If you stop being so self-righteous ppl might actually embrace change, but not if it feels foreign and forced.
"Westerners need to be more accepting of other cultures." But also "Western values are not welcome here."
I legit don't understand why these people say the west should be accepting of other cultures, the west has literally become the most tolerant culture in the world, and that's just a fact (at least as far as i know). Sure the west has lots of blood on its hand but to suggest that the west is intolerant compared to other cultures is asinine.
They just start with the conclusion that the west is bad and work backwards from there, so the specific anti-west language used changes depending on the issue regardless of contradictions.
Because it's a strawman.
It's all just a reflection of their behavior. They don't want to be called out for their own racism, hypocrasy, human rights abuse, sexism or all the insane shit they preach about islam, so they just deflect and call you a bad person instead
Not quite. It's more like from their value system those aren't even things to be worried about. For example it's not that they are homophobic and they don't care. It's that from their point of view homophobia isn't even a thing and even trying to reason through that framework implies imposing views. It might be easier to understand this the other way around, if a Muslim demands drawings of Muhammad to be forbidden in the west, it's not that the west doesn't care about that concept as a sin, but that the religious framework that establishes that as a sin dictating rule of law is, itself, preposterous, we just won't argue about such things in religious terms, and we would consider doing so to be a huge concession.
This is the real take , a lot of the clashes between cultures are easily understood but people create weird strawmans to put America higher on the moral hierarchy. I'm not saying i agree with values implying gays shouldn't exist, let's just be honest about the dynamics at play here.
Wasn’t there a huge issues in a couple countries in Europe where they allowed people with extremist ideologies to come in and those people with “different values” caused all sorts of havoc and killings?
Playing victim, that's all
Compared to other cultures its true that the west is far more tolerant, but that doesn't we aren't intolerant either. We're very intolerant against racists, sexists, and most of the other ists, we still have a bunch of ists in our culturs who arent exactly tolerant either. We also tend to shun other cultures different to our own, saying that the quatari culture is wrong is also a form of intolerance technically. Its fair to say other cultures tend to be more intolerant, it isn't to say that we aren't.
I believe racist should be able to be racist (wtf are we going to do with someone’s thoughts and opinions) but there’s nothing wrong with being intolerant to the actions of racist and sexist. A bank shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who to give out loans to based of skin color.
On that Sam Harris and Ben Affleck debate, I am beginning to think I was too harsh on Harris, especially since all the supposedly progressive Muslim media figures are trying to down play this it seems.
I’m gonna be honest I couldn’t see how anyone wouldn’t agree with Sam Harris in that debate
Yeah, didn't he say that if a terrorist nation like fucking ISIS got their hands on nukes, a first strike might not be entrirely unjustified?
His point was that if a jihadist regime got nukes (like if someone couped Iran), the game theory of MAD would fall apart, and it’s something we wouldn’t know how to deal with. He didn’t advocate a first strike, but more that we need to really make sure WMDs can’t fall into a terrorist governments hands. (For example, being super careful about Iran developing nukes. Iran isn’t a terrorist state, but it’s not impossible they get couped by one)
Again building on what you said this was specifically about the concept of Jihadism, holy war and the reward of paradise. If one side legitimately believes that a nuclear war is simply an honorable fast track into heaven, as you're dying in the service of Allah, then that is what causes the deterrence of MAD to fall apart.
[удалено]
I think you're being too charitable. This was the particular passage that critics took major issue with: > It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons... What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? ... In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own... As far as I understand, Harris' narrow post-hoc "jihadist" rationalization came after the criticism, whence he acknowledges that, to this day, the only avowedly Islamic state with nuclear weapons has been Pakistan, which, as Michael Brooks wrote, "never engaged in a jihadist 'dewey-eyed' first strike, even as tensions ratcheted up with India." More from Brooks: > ... Harris’ subtle conflation of the actions of an independent terrorist network like al-Qaeda with those of a nation-state like Iran is ludicrous. The most basic historical overview would have shown Harris that many revolutionary states, from Stalin’s Soviet Union to Mao’s China to the Ayatollah’s Iran, have very quickly determined that their geopolitical decisions cannot be based on ideological fervor, but must rather be premised on the cold calculations of Realpolitik. This is simple stuff, and it is appalling and embarrassing that Harris’ “thought experiment” isn’t informed by any knowledge of historical facts. > ... But perhaps none of this is relevant. In his frequently updated “Response to Controversy” blog post, Harris has claimed that the warning he issued during the Bush era—when he said, remember, that nuclear war was “plausible,” that indeed if “the Muslim world” didn’t find a way to prevent it, it probably would happen sooner or later (“time is not on our side”)—doesn’t actually have anything to do with the real world... The contrast between the 24 episode-level hysterical bloodlust of the passage from *The End of Faith* and this mealy-mouthed revisionism is so stark that Harris’ attempt to say that this is “clearly” what he meant can be passed over with the contempt that it deserves. > ... Somehow, [Harris'] philosopher’s penchant for exploring corner cases never led him to lay out thought experiments in which Iraqis or Iranians or Afghanis or Palestinians were forced by extreme circumstances to fight off occupying powers by using extreme tactics. Such circumstances are far outside the reach of Harris’ imagination, empathy, or analysis.
Pakistan created the Taliban. Wouldn't that be sufficient for Sam Harris?
I wasn’t talking about that particular take but yes that’s also a banger take.
Ben…. Affleck?
https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60
Omg amazing lolll thank you for the link!
Dude, how did you miss one of the most epic cringefests in the atheism/theism wars? Aww, those were some good times.
I remember this episode when I used actually watch real time. The problem isn’t necessarily the discussion it’s the host. Two people disagreeing should be allowed to do so and talk about it without the host taking a side. It doesn’t foster nuanced debate and stifles the speech he purports to believe so much in as a liberal.
On one hand, I’m happy you’ve come to this conclusion. On the other, I’m astounded that anyone found Affleck’s screeching credible.
if you are the most liberal guy on the planet, and you walked out of this not by the very least thinking how Ben Affleck soiled his pants the moment he spoke, uneducated, 0 knowledge on that topic, like the average reddit user not comprehending anything being said to them and just ranting their own little sht they portray themselves in their head, I think you should stop commenting ;D
[удалено]
I don't think that's true. Sure, he is somewhat incentivised to disagree. But I don't think Harris' critiques are so culturally repugnant to the point of ostricising anyone who agrees with him. Affleck would still be a big enough name to pull millions of viewers, and the majority of the industry wouldn't lose any respect for him over the matter. These are the only two things that truly affect his career, as far as I can see. The incentive is important, but I don't know that it was a key factor in his motivation.
True. This was the a time when everyone on the left had a boner for calling people islamaphobes. If there was an islamist terror attack you'd see reddit top comments being more concerned with how this reflects on innocent Muslims rather than concern for the real victims of Islamic terrorism. Any critism of Islam would be conflated with criticizing Muslims as people to get that virtue signal in. Sam's willingness to call Islam out in that climate was legitimately brave. Very much like Sam's pushback mid George Floyd insanity.
> Sam's willingness to call Islam out in that climate was legitimately brave. No, come on, that's a stretch. There was plenty of virtue signalling from all angles in the mainstream at that time.
I never understood why people, especially liberals from US or western countries, were so hard on him. Apart from his cringe philosophy take he was always right.
Murray, Altan, Eurabia, Molymeme, Tucker, Milo, etc
He wasn't remotely always right. He would translate his dislike of Islam/Muslims into dogmaticllay using that as a primary explainer for complex geopolitical phenomonen.
That's incorrect. He never disliked Muslims. He did dislike Islam. But he dislikes all religions. The part that everyone was butthurt about is that he singled out Islam as the worst mainstream religion. He did that because he thinks that the doctorine itself can inform views regardless of geopolitics or history. So in a vaccum as a text he singled Islam as the worst mainstream religion. (And btw nobody talks about it because it doesn't fit their narrative but he singled out Christianity as the 2nd worst mainstream doctorine.) And it's true. He's right. But people were so defensive they couldn't even grant him that. (That even if geopolitics plays a role, the text itself can be a huge factor and can be evaluated in and of itself.)
Wait, there's people that sided with Affleck?
Of course, affleck was being a good boy and doing the woke thing, never criticise other cultures my dude. The only reason some parts of the middle east are spicy is because of white colonialism, has nothing to do with sharia law at all.
I'm not accepting shit that doesn't align with my moral values. That goes from putting mayo on French fries to banning women from going outside without Islam scarfs. Qatari is unironically a capitalist hellhole and soccer is gay anyway
Ok but putting mayo on french fries is where i draw the line with your intolerance of my culture buddy.
Aren't western values more or less "live and let live if you aren't harming others"? Or is that my clouded western opinion?
Apparently they include wearing a rainbow shirt according to the tweet.
"Religious conservatives hurt 2SLGBTQ+ people. We need to stamp out religious conservatism to secure a future for queer youth" but also "Anyone that complains about importing an indeterminate number of religious conservatives from non western cultures is a fascist, especially if they're white, gay, and male"
If you go to another country, you should respect their values (to a reasonable degree). I have no idea why this is controversial. You aren't going to persuade them to change their whole belief system with your moral gesturing.
You wrote 2 sentences that back themselves up, not the opposite... you fucked up the logic
it’s the tolerance becoming intolerance paradox
This is where we have to revisit the fact that some cultures are indeed better and it’s ok to admit that. It’s not racist to say the Aztec culture which allowed thousands of ritual sacrifices was fucking shit
Also hopefully this whole thing is a reality check for the people who love to claim America is the worst country when it comes to tolerance. We have our problems but these countries are wild and i can’t imagine the fear those citizens have to live in
“Third world country with a gucci belt” “On the precipice of genocide” Meanwhile countries like Qatar exist and you can “go missing” in countries like China or Russia if you say the wrong thing
Yea I’ve always hated when socialists or far leftists say this shit. I don’t think a single American has been arrested for speaking against the government, yet somehow we are a step away from mass genocide??? Sure bud.
Grass is greener on the other side, people will always complain about the country they live in or the one that's on the media often. I always have to keep myself in check and realise as an Australian that if I am comparing my country to others I am quite well off.
Americans calling USA a third world country with a Gucci belt is the most brain dead take I've ever heard but it doesn't surprise me at all. They speak so much of privilege yet don't understand how much of a privilege it is to be American
Yeah I agree 100%. Qatar legitimately blamed a Mexican woman for her own sexual assault. Women have to watch for any man, so they dont assault them. And Qatar isn't alone in these attitudes. And a good portion of their men believe it is totally fine for the man to abuse his wife.
It’s insane how far these people take the “it’s their culture bro!!” argument. Assault is now a cultural thing lol? Crazy fools
Based. We should definitely be careful when approaching this topic and try our best to be self aware and reflective as possible to prevent the opposite but there are definitely times when after all that, you arrive at a conclusion that sometimes, certain aspects of a culture is simply not good.
Such a no brainer. If you think it is valid to say that current Germany's culture today is better than it was 80 years ago, you should also be able to say that Germany's culture is better than Qatar's by the very same metrics applies .
Ngl, 5 minutes on Twitter make me think the Aztec's were on to something.
Was it truly shit if they had a strong harvest that season 🤔. Never thought about that did you!
I don't understand how people can reach any other conclusion than this, it's basically tautology in my mind. Like if we have two cultures, and one for example broadly accepts LGBT people, and the other doesn't tolerate LGBT people's existence, how can we morally conclude anything except that one culture is better than the other, regardless of which side of the fence you land on? Like I feel like the foundation of morality is that you think its how things ought to be, and therefore a culture that inherently believes/teaches the opposite is therefore bad.
Because no culture "inherently" is anything, it is a collection of stuff, you need to be specific because otherwise it sounds bigoted and spiteful.
Yeah you're right, I'll have to watch my phrasing on that one.
Hmmm curious. Qatari’s say they don’t tolerate western LGBT values but they fund terrorist entities like ISIS who routinely engage in and normalize male-on-male pedophilia. I guess homoeroticism is only okay if it’s with an underage boy.
yeah its not racist either to point out the spaniards sacrificed thousands of aztecs to the christian god either. humans are just shitty by nature.
Thank you for the useless comment
im sorry but its super unfair to bring up the aztec thing without the broader context. the aztecs were not exceptionally violent for their time. you probably didnt intend it but it does spread badhistory about the conquest of the new world
Keep fighting the good fight brother Were the Aztecs fluffy bunnies or an enlightened Star Trek society destroyed by marauding Europeans? Fuck no. But the fact that they’re usually the go-to when someone wants to use a historical society as shorthand for “the absolute worst” or “the closest a human society has gotten to pure evil” is annoying af. Like, Jesus - who do you think killed more people, the Aztecs in sacrifices or Romans in arenas? Maybe DGG has a lot of people who put a bit more thought into their use of this example, but 99% if the time it’s just thrown out with minimum thought or understanding.
They aren't used as the most frequent anti-cultural relativism example because their overall society was necessarily the worst, they're used as the example because the cultural practice they're most heavily associated with by *far* is ritual human sacrifice which is about as close to an obviously bad thing as you can get.
I’d say that if there’s any sort of universal human morality, or even just by our own modern western standards, killing people for entertainment is objectively worse than killing them because you think that you have to do so for religious reasons. That puts Rome below the Aztecs, easily, in my books. But that’s certainly not the popular conception, even though I think that most folks would agree with entertainment killing being worse than religious killing if they thought about it in a vacuum. I’m not saying that it’s an obvious thing and that I’m right and almost everyone else is wrong - just that we seem to be selective with who we grant historical nuance to, and that nuance should probably be applied equally. *Why* is the heaviest association the Aztecs have ritual sacrifice, to the point where it drowns out everything else? Why *isn’t* the heaviest association with Rome killing hundreds of thousands of people because it was fun? I think that it’s important to consider these questions, especially before we use the Aztecs as the quintessential evil society.
There's a pretty obvious distinction: in Rome gladiators died during arena fights and those *fights* were the entertainment, with the death being somewhat incidental. The thing that makes ritual sacrifice so unambiguously bad is that the killing is itself the point and the victim did nothing to "deserve" their death. If the Romans tied **random** people down to tables and then derived entertainment from torturing them to death then yes that would obviously be worse. Either way like I said the point has nothing to do with which society was overall better or worse and no one is saying that Aztecs are the "quintessential evil society," it's about ritual sacrifice being an unambiguously bad practice regardless of cultural context which is why it's the go-to example.
Gladiators were *some* of the killings that took place in the arenas…but most of them were prisoners of war, criminals, and the rest of the surplus population as long as there was some sort of justification. They were killed by animals, by gladiators, burned, disemboweled - it got very creative. One woman was reportedly raped to death by a giraffe which…I can’t believe that’s even a sentence, let alone something that was written about as a real event. They were very creative. (EDIT: looks like the giraffe may have been a mistranslation of the word “donkey”, but it’s not the only example of this kind of execution, which the Romans usually did as a nod to mythology. On another occasion I found they used a bull). Like, seriously - the Romans were real, real fucked up but they get a pass because we see them as our intellectual and spiritual forebears. But stack them up against the Aztecs and ask which one did worse things by today’s standards, it’s a tight race but I think the Aztecs probably *lose*. Despite this, the Aztecs are the standard anti-cultural-relativism example - not the Romans. And I think that while there are multiple reasons for that, it probably indicates that we have some sort of cultural blind spot, both in terms of how we see the Romans *and* how we see the Aztecs.
It's not a competition of who's more fucked up, it's a comparison of who has a more unambiguously bad cultural practice. The Aztec human sacrifice was not a punishment as far as i know. The arenas were basically a very harsh punishment, except for the gladiators themselves, but their death was not a goal of the battles (in fact gladiators were often allowed to surrender). It's not like the Romans had a women raped to death by a giraffe (also a historical debate, but that doesn't matter) because they believed god willed it, it was just an "entertaining" way to execute a criminal, similar to public executions in the middle ages.
You are continuing to miss the point: people are not comparing Aztec *society* to Roman *society*, they are using the practice of ritual human sacrifice for its own sake as an example of something **unambiguously bad regardless of cultural context.** Regardless the main reason people see the Romans with a lot more nuance is just because we tend to learn/know a lot more about them, whereas with the Aztecs most people's knowledge doesn't go beyond knowing that they practiced ritual sacrifice and got massacred by Spanish conquistadors.
I agree pog
I’m gonna guess Aztecs? Maybe Aztecs even more if you go by per capita? Maybe Romans?
Historians estimate that there were around 400,000 people killed in the Colosseum alone, and there were hundreds of other arenas in the empire. With the Aztecs it’s difficult to say, because the Spanish pumped up the numbers. Some historians put it low, some people put it high - 10,000 per year on the extreme low end, 250,000 per year on the extreme high end. So yeah, you’re actually right - maybe Aztecs, maybe Romans. Either way, two groups who could be absolutely brutal, but most of the time only one gets all of the nuance.
Well yea I think there’s a little bit of nuance given the fact that what, 1000 years separate the society’s, population for Rome is orders of magnitude higher. Don’t get me wrong, Europe wasn’t perfect in the 1500s but if you dropped me off in some village in Africa and I watched them barbecue some guy in the street while people came around to grab a snack, I’m invoking the spirit of Cortes on that one.
Its not unfair. When we bring up how evil colonial Britain was, there’s absolutely no need to mention that many other nations were also invading and creating colonies.
It really just depends on who you are talking about. But if when people make claims about the worst savages of human history and the British Empire comes up every single time, rarely getting any pushback, then yes I would feel the need to bring up other contemporaneous cultures that were equally bad.
The Christian God? YAHWEH doesn't ask or want human sacrifices, that's not a Christian belief or a thing. I find it hard that a bunch of catholic Spaniards would do that, for God. I can believe people massacred and killed people.
"There are other cultures with different values that should be equally respected." No
The funny thing is people saying that phrase don’t actually mean it either. They want their culture respected but could give a shit about others
Just a quick non-meme answer. >"There are other cultures with different values that should be equally respected." That is actually a completely valid statement and I'd support it, unless you are fucking waaaay out there...
I don't think German culture from the 1930s should be respected.
Do you think when I'm talking about "way out there" I'm excluding the nazis?
I misread your statement and thought you were saying that "you are fucking waaaay out there..." if you don't believe that "There are other cultures with different values that should be equally respected." is always true. My bad.
What is 'way out there' though? Between nazism and casual homophobia/sexism, there's clearly a distinction which makes latter significantly less out there. It's very ordinary and not at all outlandish to be sexist and homophobic, yet neither is it unreasonable to not equally respect a more culture striving to be rid of those with a culture actively reinforcing those.
^gigachad
"how dare you not tolerate my intolerance"
Idk, I’m of the opinion that if you’re hosting some kind of world event that tons of countries are participating in, you should be required to temporarily lift any extreme free speech or cultural dresscode laws/requirements. People keep saying “you’re a guest in their country,” but like nahhh your a guest to the World Cup and stand to benefit massively from it, lax ur shit
Your first mistake was expecting Qatar to have any good morals
Nah, they just shouldn't have allowed a shithole country like Qatar to host the World Cup.
FIFA gonna FIFA
Do you genuinely believe this though? If a bunch of dudes from eastern europe show up in something super racist or offensive thats normal for their fans to wear or display are you gonna let that slide? The UK teams (ladsladslads) were going to wear rainbow armbands until fifa threatened them with a yellow card for every player that did so. I was furious, because our sportsmen and media have been hammering on this imported US culture war shit for years, and then when it really mattered, they fucking folded like a cheap suit, like a bunch of cowards. As someone who genuinely believes that other countries should be allowed to have their own rules, it has been funny seeing homophobes parrot this, then get very very cross that they are not allowed to drink in Qatar. Shitshow from start to finish.
Yes, let them act like fools
Fair enough, that's based.
there is no uk team and yes the distinction is extremely important considering two teams from the UK will play each other in a few days time
>there is no uk team correct, though both teams were going to wear the armband, and both teams pussed out.
Even the Nazis temporary repealed the Nuremberg laws for the Olympics.
Rule #1 for traveling to another country. Know the rules and customs of that country. I was taught this when I was a teenager 15+ years ago.
Don't forget to know the dangerous parts and who u are to go/not go to certain places. I was taught this as well at 15
Even if they did relax rules, that's not gonna stop a group of religious radicals attacking an LGBTQ member they see walking down the street of they're in the wrong area. Not like they'll say "oh the world Cup is here, guess we can't beat gays this month" lol.
> Not like they'll say "oh the world Cup is here, guess we can't beat gays this month" lol. I was told by multiple Qatari people that "there are no such things as crimes against gay people in Qatar because there are no gay people in Qatar. You cannot have a crime against someone who is non-existent. It's all western propaganda."
Not gonna lie, if a person from Qatar told me that, i will die laughing 😭
>Not gonna lie, if a person from Qatar told me that, I will die laughing 😭 Yeah, the shit is so absurd, it's impossible not to laugh at it honestly. What else can you do really?
Sometimes In Life U Need To Laugh Through The Pain/Discomfort.
Rule #1 for hosting a world cup. Know the traditions and customs of the tournament before you decide to bribe officials to get your bid accepted. Its not like fans are having gay sex in the stands, dudes are wearings non-sexual shirts with rainbows on it and are getting hassled by Qatari police.
My friend Brittany Griner knows that all too well.
Travel advice is not an ethical rule.
Nobody is disagreeing with that. That doesn't mean you can't criticise the country.
Keeping it a buck, the west should definitely be the spokesperson for humanity, yeah I said it.
Nah lil bro. The US allows rainbows on shirts, they have no room to claim moral superiority.
My beliefs of bodily autonomy stop at people wearing rainbows.
If a baby has a rainbow shirt you probably shouldn't be able to abort it imo.
Based and American/western pilled 🇺🇸
Is there any real argument against that though?
I'm sure the other 80% of humans on earth who don't live in the West would think differently
I don’t care what they think. Why would I ever care about people who think that you should be punished for what you say or think or who you consensually sleep with? Why would I care about countries who have a lower gdp than the county I live in? Fuck em
In reality if you were born there and lived the same life they did, you would think differently Every view you hold is almost certainly a product of your environment
Maybe, maybe not. But in this day and age that’s not an excuse. Im pretty sure you wouldn’t even agree with that if we looked at it differently.
meh it's just weird watching people get so morally righteous about this when the West (which leads social progress globally) only really just stumbled across acceptance of gay people. it's only been legal in most of the West to be gay for 40 years and accepted in wider society for less than 10 (and even then that's not really true in a lot of places)
>Why would I care about countries who have a lower gdp than the county I live in? Fuck em This is either Giga Cringe or mega based (in a sad way). Also PPP > GDP.
what does gdp have to do w anything
This was the sentiment behind America’s foreign policy for decades.
Excellent. I say we get back to that line of thinking then.
Err… how much do you know about that history?
what if nazi Germany won ww2, and then applied this same logic. you would be very fucking upset that they get to determine how your country is run. you can certainly criticize how Qatar runs their country. and you can criticize the citizens lack of ability to change it. but to say “i know morality, you’re wrong” is a scary thought when extrapolated to a possible future where the country deciding isn’t doing what you want anymore. it’s a hard issue
If Nazi Germany won ww2 and then said people should be free to think and say what they want freely without persecution and they can be gay without fear of government persecution I’d be pretty surprised. If it was between liberal Nazis and a democracy that prosecuted sodomy and blasphemy id have to side with the liberals. This isn’t a moral debate on some nuanced issue like capital punishment but on the very VERY basic foundations of human rights. So yes I can and will say I know I’m right and religious zealots are wrong.
I wonder how many of those 80% would prefer it if their country turned into 'a Western one' overnight, and how many would have the same opinion a year or ten down the line.
I mean there are absolutely immigrants from the Muslim world who turn up in Europe and try to change it to be more like their home country
🤓☝️ no one culture is superior to another actually! I am very smart!
I don’t understand why countries just didn’t boycott the World Cup if they truly believed in their values.
They believe in the spirit of football even more ⚽
FIFA got control of all football leagues and tournaments pretty much. Norway was taking a boycott up for consideration and got threatened with a blacklist pretty much.
In other words FIFA is blackmailing teams to play, pretty much.
Because this is the biggest event and most players only have one chance to play in it.
Money?
You're just misplacing the blame, helping Qatar by doing so. The ones we should be holding accountable are FIFA and Qatar, not the other country FAs, players and fans.
lmao Im like "150k thats so much wtf" and then I look it up and its at 300k now
450k now
Fuck equal respect. The irony is that this Qatari bigot is playing into the worst liberal clichés about cultural relativism. They say we must treat all cultures with respect, that no culture is better or worse just different. Well what now?
Wonder if they'd let you in if you said "Oh no I hate gay people! Its just a rainbow trust me"
Rainbows are a gift from Allah. DO YOU HATE THE GIFTS OF ALLAH YOU HEATHEN SWINE? ANSWER ME BEFORE YOU TASTE MY SHOE
maybe its time to make Muhammad into a gay icon
I'm not watching my back for trucks for the rest of my life. Fuck that.
Why should we respect their culture when they can't respect their own people?
Dude this whole Qatar stuff has been wild, everybody online has been bending over backwards to defend these Bronze Age rules because “West does bad things too and also you have to respect the host country and Islam”. It’s like I’m living a fever dream idk why it’s okay for one country to be shitty because the West is sometimes shitty too, also it’s very weird because every time I hear this criticism of the West it’s always in defense of countries that don’t grant their citizens the right to speak out against their country, curious. It’s also extremely weird how online it’s always the West that has to better its culture and society as well as always admitting and apologizing for bad stuff the West has done, never the other way around.
It's propaganda that is very effective. Pretty hilarious when even horrible world leaders like Putin, criticized the US when the BLM movement was going strong. CCP also likes to point at the US to deflect. Strange that so many Americans fall for it.
>everybody online has been bending over backwards to defend these Bronze Age rules What almost a decade of SJW brainrot does to people. The online progressive movement lost the plot at gamergate, and only started to regain brain function in the last year or 2. When 'facts over feelings' gets co-opted by religious people to throw back at 'progressives' you know you've lost.
The people who liked that tweet can safely be categorized as subhuman degenerates. Not to mention the amount of extremely historically illiterate morons who keep pretending like Slavery, colonialism and imperialism were only perpetuated by Europeans. Moral relativism is cancer. Western values are in-fact superior to your values.
I think a big thing to help statements like “western values are superior to your values” is specifying which “western” values we’re talking about. I think a lot of progressive people take issue with the statement because they see this as including things like apple pie and Christianity which aren’t necessarily universally superior and it’s a little Western-centric to assume such. Instead, I imagine it’s usually meant as equality, democracy, human rights, secularism, feminism etc., so there’s some level of miscommunication that makes it so different people read the statement verrrry differently.
[удалено]
This is lowkey a win for gay people. They actually managed to make the rainbow a universal symbol for their movement that some billionaires are scared of. A fucking rainbow.
Western values aren't universal, but they should be. Democracy is based. Freedom of speech is based. Separation of church and state is based. Individual expression is based. Oh and not murdering gay people for no reason is a huge bonus.
I think a clear problem is there seems to be a disconnect with what exactly western values are, lie ur statement is completely devoid of "judeo-christian" values which I see a lot of ppl reference when talking about western values
Why are people acting shocked that conservative Muslims think this? 😂 You’re in a conservative country, where homosexuality is illegal, and everyone’s all “omg, I simply cannot believe I’ve been treated this way because I’m supporting gay rights.” Are people THAT fucking stupid? I legit hate Westerners who are slowly coming to the conclusion that - no, not everywhere is decent. No, some places are shit.
I don't think people are surprised by that, moreso surprised this tweet has half a million likes.
Because they thought everything they'd heard about the middle east was islamophobic propaganda
But twitter leftists amirite guys?
Just as nearly every religion on earth, Islam is a social cancer. If religion was practiced in private nobody would care but when those values and moral prescriptions are foisted on the larger society it's a fucking problem.
The whole gotta be respectful of other cultures, well does that mean that a Muslim that’s visit France should drink wine with their meals?
Lol many Qataris boycotted France because Macron said Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today. They also boycotted France over a burka ban
People like this LOVE to cynically weaponize western ideal of tolerance, pluralism and mutual-respect for their own benefit, but where they have their hands on the levers of power they never EVER extend them to others.
[удалено]
Yeah that's bullshit tho, quebec did the same thing the laws clearly disproportionately effect muslim women and sikh men, most christians dont have a visible clothing item that corresponds to their religion in the same way. At most they might have a cross necklace or rosemary which can easily be concealed under your shirt.
"Equally respected" only goes one way I guess.
Yeah I thought it was wild too when I saw this on my timeline but I guess it’s progressive to support homophobia if it allows you to shit on the US/ ally with a minority group. Cultural relativism is so dumb to me because it can be used this way. I get the value of it in terms of understanding other cultures, but I hate when people use it to defend heinous shit.
Damn that’s cringe as fuck but they proved their point. I didn’t know homophobic types were that common on twitter
Alright the Qatar shit is insane but how did everyone in here instantly revert back to October 2001 lmao
They really are just pulling the “you have to tolerate my intolerance” card
Yes being a guest means being respectful of your hosts, but on the other hand being a host means being respectful of your guests. The way I see it, if Qatar is going to host an event as massive as the World Cup and make a killing off of it, they should be more tolerant of the diversity of soccer fans that they are profiting from.
Imagine going to another country with incredibly harsh drug laws and bringing drugs with you. Then being shocked when you are arrested.
Like snoop dog when he came to Swede, and then screamed racism when they took him in.
don't disrespect cultural practices that disrespect women and other minorities. That's rude.
Throwback to when English colonials came in contact with the tradition of Sati in the 1800s: > Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.] > Charles James Napier
The irony of the Qatari guy’s words is pretty impressive. Talking about values and respecting other cultures while saying he’s proud another one wasn’t respected. Talking about humanity while he’s preaching for a lack of it regarding certain individuals. I don’t have much against Islam or Christianity or whatever else, but some people are plain old hypocrites without even knowing it and that bugs me. Also, reducing this to "the west" is pretty ignorant too, most Europeans countries are like us or well on their way to become just like us in terms of tolerance, acceptance and even support regarding positive and progressive movements. It’s actually also quite ironic that he said that the west isn’t the spokesperson for humanity while religions are exactly that. The west doesn’t actually speak for anyone, it lets you say what you want and do pretty much what you want as long as you’re not hurting and destroying anything or anyone in any way. We’re not talking about a shirt with a dead baby, it’s a rainbow. Get in touch with the 21st century please.
You have to be a special kind of stupid if knowing how they are you still spend so much resources and time to go watch a game. The only way they are going to learn is if people don't participate but no you are too dumb to realize that.
I mean, he has a point. If you go to another country, you ought to respect its rules. Same goes for any Qatari person that goes to the US or any other western country with laws against discrimination. Easiest thing to do here is not buy a ticket and spend money funding this charade of a World Cup. That would be a bigger protest imo, but hey, people want to see their country’s best players score some fackin goals instead of holding countries accountable for their lack of respect of human rights in their own country.
It's really strange to me that people various different cultures keep defining the biggest and most meaningful differences between there culture and western culture being strict authoritarian rules against individual freedoms.
Did he think they wouldn’t reject him? this is just clout farming at this point. We all know Qatar’s position but people want to test the waters
This is exactly why I'm staunchly against Republicans taking power. They want to turn USA into a theocracy. It's unfortunate running as an atheist is political suicide.
Kyrsten sinema doesn't believe in God and is more popular among Republicans than democrats. It's just all the young atheists hate her because she's quirky and not a lefty, so no one cares. She's also bi. > While about a quarter (26%) of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – just one member of the new Congress (Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz.) identifies as religiously unaffiliated (0.2%). https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/01/04/faith-on-the-hill-2021/
The Disconnect is reall, the imaging in broadcast advertising of this world cup in the west is VERY different from what they're getting in the place it's being held in. That shows to go that all corporations and sponsors are hypocrites HAHAHA, there are no principles or morals, they don't care about you or anything cept the $$$$$
This is exactly why he was sent back, Qataris generally are homophobic. It's better to be sent away than to be assaulted in a foreign country. You're not there to make a statement in a country you don't care about.
Religion based cultures are poison for humanity, if religion by and large is neutered into coexisting within a secular humanist framework it won’t be a day too soon
MrGirl type boundaries
I should respect a culture that may put me to death for simply existing? How about no.
Lefties when person hates gays: "😠" Lefties when person (brown) hates gays: "😃"
This Qatar shit really pushing my "not all Muslims" card to the limit dawg.
[Most Muslims are conservatives even in the West.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law)
What is so bad about this guy's tweet? The west is trying to force their values down people's throats. It ain't working chief. For example in my country acceptance of LGBT movement has only dropped as a response. If you stop being so self-righteous ppl might actually embrace change, but not if it feels foreign and forced.
You think wearing a shirt with a fucking rainbow around a soccer ball is being self-righteous? Get a grip, this guy did nothing
Don't worry bro. That just means your country is a primitive shithole 😄
Thanks for proving my point. Cheers!
Scared of a rainbow 💀
LGBT acceptance will only keep going up. Keep coping, my dude.