England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar

[Debater Slayer]

You mean the bigots?
What's the problem with antagonizing bigots?
I still don't see the issue. If anything, an outsider and privileged athlete is under little risk, therefore in a perfect position to make the statement.

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.

Many people who support LGBT rights are not activists, often only possessing shallow knowledge of how the LGBT population is treated in other countries.

But then one has to weigh the cost of alienating anti-LGBT societies from the messages that raise awareness against the benefit to be gained from increasing awareness among people who already support LGBT rights, even if, as you say, their knowledge is shallow.

 

[Koldo]

People 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.

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.

But then one has to weigh the cost of alienating anti-LGBT societies from the messages that raise awareness against the benefit to be gained from increasing awareness among people who already support LGBT rights, even if, as you say, their knowledge is shallow.

But it is NOT the english players who are creating the antagonism towards those bigots. Let's make that clear. Neither wearing a rainbow armband with the word LOVE nor taking a knee entails that.

It is the bigots taking this as a personal offense that creates the antagonism, which was never aimed towards them personally but rather towards public policies and the figures in power.

If a peaceful protest in favor of human rights creates antagonism towards bigots, then so be it.

 

[Secret Chief]

 

[Debater Slayer]

But it is NOT the english players who are creating the antagonism towards those bigots. Let's make that clear. Neither wearing a rainbow armband with the word LOVE nor taking a knee entails that.

It is the bigots taking this as a personal offense, which was never aimed towards them personally but rather towards public policies and the figures in power.

If a peaceful protest in favor of human rights creates antagonism towards bigots, then so be it.

If we simplify the cultural and social factors that shape people's beliefs and reduce all of them to mere bigotry, then that argument may be spot on. But I see things differently: culture is an immensely powerful tool of forming people's worldviews, and when they have always—and often exclusively—been exposed to the narrative that LGBT rights are evil and blasphemous, then it is only natural that they turn out to be homophobic.

The question, in my opinion, should be focused on how to best address this in a way that effects change, not in a way that only antagonistically echoes a message we already agree with but others aren't convinced of yet due to cultural factors.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you think he would have shredded the £10,000 if Beckham had promoted the US instead of Qatar? What about France or another neocolonialist power?

I don't know anything about him, so if his position would remain the same toward other countries with problematic human rights records, I would definitely respect the consistency.

 

[Secret Chief]

Do you think he would have shredded the £10,000 if Beckham had promoted the US instead of Qatar? What about France or another neocolonialist power?

I don't know anything about him, so if his position would remain the same toward other countries with problematic human rights records, I would definitely respect the consistency.

I don't know. One can't protest against every single country....one can point a finger at every one for some reason I'm sure. One picks ones battles to be effective I should think.

- Germany cover mouths and wear rainbows on kit in World Cup protest

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't know. One can't protest against every single country....one can point a finger at every one for some reason I'm sure. One picks ones battles to be effective I should think.

Well, starting with one's own country seems pretty sensible to me—or sometimes a closely neighboring one.

It would be weird for me to ignore my own country's issues and reach overseas to criticize a distant one when I possibly barely had any knowledge as to the cultural elements that had led to its currently unfortunate and draconian legal status quo.

 

[Koldo]

If we simplify the cultural and social factors that shape people's beliefs and reduce all of them to mere bigotry, then that argument may be spot on. But I see things differently: culture is an immensely powerful tool of forming people's worldviews, and when they have always—and often exclusively—been exposed to the narrative that LGBT rights are evil and blasphemous, then it is only natural that they turn out to be homophobic.

I have no qualms with saying that culture gives rise to homophoby. That's often the case. But the follow up is: And, therefore gives rise to bigotry towards LGBT.

It is not like 'being a bigot towards LGBT' and 'being shaped by a given country's culture to hate LGBT' are mutually exclusive.

The question, in my opinion, should be focused on how to best address this in a way that effects change, not in a way that only antagonistically echoes a message we already agree with but others aren't convinced of yet due to cultural factors.

If wearing an armband written Love and taking a knee are interpreted as antagonism towards them themselves, do you really think there is anything that would not be interpreted as antagonism? Sounds naive. Very naive.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well, starting with one's own country seems pretty sensible to me—or sometimes a closely neighboring one.

It would be weird for me to ignore my own country's issues and reach overseas to criticize a distant one when I possibly barely had any knowledge as to the cultural elements that had led to its currently unfortunate and draconian legal status quo.

Maybe Joe has criticised his own country. Maybe not. Tbh I can't get my head round your objection. I don't need to decry the sins of the UK's past before I criticise France for its production of foie gras.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I have no qualms with saying that culture gives rise to homophoby. That's often the case. But the follow up is: And, therefore gives rise to bigotry towards LGBT.

It is not like 'being a bigot towards LGBT' and 'being shaped by a given country's culture to hate LGBT' are mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive; they're just best addressed by tackling the root causes that sustain the harmful beliefs within the culture instead of aggressively pushing for the desired outcome without considering that an aggressive approach sometimes undermines the cause one is promoting.

If wearing an armband written Love and taking a knee are interpreted as antagonism towards them themselves, do you really think there is anything that would not be interpretrd as antagonism? Sounds naive. Very naive.

I never interpreted respectful discussions against my former beliefs about LGBT people as antagonism. People weren't obligated to be respectful when I said harmful or bigoted things, but they were, and here we are now.

I'm not the only one who has changed similarly; I know both atheists and Muslims who have become LGBT allies in similar ways.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Maybe Joe has criticised his own country. Maybe not. Tbh I can't get my head round your objection. I don't need to decry the sins of the UK's past before I criticise France for its production of foie gras.

I think we're approaching this from very different cultural perspectives and backgrounds. Where I live, people generally still remember that England colonized Egypt for over 70 years, attacked us in 1956, supported Israel against Arabs later on, and then invaded Iraq with the US. Even now, the UK continues to benefit from exploitation of specific other countries.

So when a public figure from the UK—not you or me, but a public figure followed by millions—finds it appropriate to point fingers at a foreign country in a shallow manner that doesn't address any cultural issues beyond saying "you must change now!" all the while not saying a single word about his country's past or present issues, then yes, he's doing the cause a disservice and potentially even harming the image of activists who don't have the luxury of being protected by fame, wealth, and a powerful state.

 

[Koldo]

They're not mutually exclusive; they're just best addressed by tackling the root causes that sustain the harmful beliefs within the culture instead of aggressively pushing for the desired outcome without considering that an aggressive approach sometimes undermines the cause one is promoting.

What is aggressive about wearing armband with the word LOVE or taking a knee... exactly?

I never interpreted respectful discussions against my former beliefs about LGBT people as antagonism. People weren't obligated to be respectful when I said harmful or bigoted things, but they were, and here we are now.

I'm not the only one who has changed similarly; I know both atheists and Muslims who have become LGBT allies in similar ways.

Would you personally interpret wearing an armband with the word LOVE or taking a knee as being antagonism against you though? If not, then you are a not a proper example. If yes, what would be your rationale?

 

[Debater Slayer]

What is aggressive about wearing armband with the word LOVE or taking a knee... exactly?

To many people who view homosexuality as a major sin and a violation of their cultural norms, a foreigner coming in and displaying a symbol of support for homosexuality is seen as aggressive and disrespectful. Of course, this is a faulty view based on an archaic view of sexuality, but it's how a lot of people see this. If you want to change a group, you first need to understand them.

Would you personally interpret wearing an armband with the word LOVE or taking a knee as being antagonism against you though? If not, then you are a not a proper example. If yes, what would be your rationale?

Me? Obviously not, since I'm a pro-LGBT atheist.

Back when I was a conservative Muslim with homophobic and culturally traditionalist views? Yes, because I would have seen it as an attack on my beliefs within the framework of my former religion.

 

[Yerda]

To many people who view homosexuality as a major sin and a violation of their cultural norms, a foreigner coming in and displaying a symbol of support for homosexuality is seen as aggressive and disrespectful.

Good. **** them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Good. **** them.

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.

 

[Secret Chief]

I think we're approaching this from very different cultural perspectives and backgrounds. Where I live, people generally still remember that England colonized Egypt for over 70 years, attacked us in 1956, supported Israel against Arabs later on, and then invaded Iraq with the US. Even now, the UK continues to benefit from exploitation of specific other countries.

It's not that long ago that Germany, Italy and Japan made war on the UK. So what? Countries "exploit" other countries however and wherever they can. That is the way of the world; I'm not defending that but just noting that that is the way things are.

So when a public figure from the UK—not you or me, but a public figure followed by millions—finds it appropriate to point fingers at a foreign country in a shallow manner that doesn't address any cultural issues beyond saying "you must change now!" all the while not saying a single word about his country's past or present issues, then yes, he's doing the cause a disservice and potentially even harming the image of activists who don't have the luxury of being protected by fame, wealth, and a powerful state.

Rich and famous people still have opinions like the rest of us. All I can do is canvas, or sign petitions or make donations or go on marches. The rich and famous can do more of course; but in doing so risk public pushback. If I was rich, famous and followed by millions I might well be (picks random outrage) protesting against foie gras in France, without feeling the need to produce a long list of apologetic references to prior misdemeanours of the UK; it's irrelevant to my protest (and would be viewed as an odd distraction). I'd be equally happy to point a finger at current British activities such as badger culling. I don't want such things being phased out over decades either.

 

[Koldo]

To many people who view homosexuality as a major sin and a violation of their cultural norms, a foreigner coming in and displaying a symbol of support for homosexuality is seen as aggressive and disrespectful. Of course, this is a faulty view based on an archaic view of sexuality, but it's how a lot of people see this. If you want to change a group, you first need to understand them.

Me? Obviously not, since I'm a pro-LGBT atheist.

Back when I was a conservative Muslim with homophobic and culturally traditionalist views? Yes, because I would have seen it as an attack on my beliefs within the framework of my former religion.

How exactly does this work?
How can you feel like it is aggressive and antagonizing for someone to take a peaceful stand in favor of LGBT rights by wearing an armband or taking a knee, and yet at the same time don't feel the same way towards someone openly speaking in favor of LGBT rights directly to you?
What's the rationale behind it?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not that long ago that Germany, Italy and Japan made war on the UK. So what? Countries "exploit" other countries however and wherever they can. That is the way of the world; I'm not defending that but just noting that that is the way things are.

Germany and Japan have gone to great pains to atone for some of the damage they did in World War II. War and violence may exist as long as humans exist, but in my opinion, acknowledging this doesn't mean countries can't also try to offer reparation or to undo whatever damage they can when the effects of past aggression still persist today.

Rich and famous people still have opinions like the rest of us. All I can do is canvas, or sign petitions or make donations or go on marches. The rich and famous can do more of course; but in doing so risk public pushback. If I was rich, famous and followed by millions I might well be (picks random outrage) be protesting against foie gras in France, without feeling the need to produce a long list of apologetic references to prior misdemeanours of the UK; it's irrelevant to my protest (and would be viewed as an odd distraction). I'd be equally happy to point a finger at current British activities such as badger culling.

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.

 

[Debater Slayer]

How exactly does this work?
How can you feel like it is aggressive and antagonizing for someone to take a peaceful stand in favor of LGBT rights by wearing an armband or taking a knee, and yet at the same time don't feel the same way towards someone openly speaking in favor of LGBT rights directly to you?
What's the rationale behind it?

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?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Players always have the option of refusing to participate altogether if they want to send an even stronger message.

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 probably be harmful to their careers and public image in some ways, but that would be the cost of taking a stand.

It would also mean deplatforming themselves, so it would probably be counterproductive.

I don't know why an English player would prioritize Qatar's human rights abuses over those committed by their own country, but even if they did, I doubt they would do the same if the World Cup were held in, say, China, where wearing an anti-CCP armband could get them imprisoned for life or even killed. If they can't be consistent in how they stand for their professed principles, selectivity gives a poor image to the whole endeavor and renders it potentially more counterproductive than useful.

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.