There are many alternatives to kneeling and wearing armbands in the manner that has happened so far that don't necessitate silence. Social media and off-pitch interviews exist, as do widely circulated press conferences. To choose a method of protest that is possibly the most likely to generate hostility may be emotionally fulfilling (even to me at times) but ultimately counterproductive if you want to promote specific cultural shifts in views.
I see a couple different kinds of hostility.
A) Hostile protest, eg, abusive insults,
threats, arson, assault.
B) Mere reaction to civil criticism.
Type B is acceptable (IMO).
Of course, one should always consider
expressing criticism in a manner most
likely to be productive.
This is not even close to my argument, and I'm not sure where you got that from if you have read my posts in this thread.
I see this specifically as your "perspective",
not an argument you've made.
The point is that if I were a public figure and never or almost never spoke of my country's issues, then defying domestic laws when I was in another country and antagonizing a majority of its population would probably seem self-righteous, inconsistent, and overtly selective. This doesn't render the criticism invalid, to be sure: Qatar is indeed a country with terrible human rights conditions for multiple groups. It does, however, affect the impact of the criticism and its capacity to achieve the desired changes.
Qatar is a country seeking more presence
in the western world. I see this feedback as
effective pressure for them to change.
It is highly debatable whether it is "civil" to intentionally violate the laws of a country you voluntarily traveled to when doing so is unlikely to benefit the locals who suffer the persecution to begin with.
Do armbands & kneeling actually violate Qatar's laws?
(This would point to it being the wrong venue for such
an event in the 1st place.) If so, the boundaries of such
laws against expression are worth pushing against.
Furthermore, I wasn't under the impression that any of the players' protests were individual; all of the protests so far have seemed to be coordinated gestures backed by their respective countries' soccer federations.
Some protests were in concert.
Others weren't, eg, kneeling.
1) I didn't and couldn't possibly "abuse" famous players who will never read or be affected by my words. That's such a bizarre statement, unless you meant something I missed.
I never thought your words would affect them.
"Abuse" simply addresses unfair (IMO) criticism.
2) It is exactly the counterpoductivity to the cause of inspiring change that renders the protests mostly undesirable. The players will go home afterward; LGBT Qataris and their allies will be stuck in the country with the same old homophobic laws now coupled with hostile social backlash against perceived inconsistency and moralizing from foreign public figures representing powerful countries that have their own issues—which, as I said, many of these public figures don't bother addressing even fleetingly.
I don't know what effect the protests would have.
But Qatar is seeking international exposure &
approval, so protests by people from other countries
might have a positive effect.
3) My objection is not because their countries have their own problems; it's because some of them conveniently stay silent on their countries' issues but moralize to others in a way most likely to be unhelpful to promotion of diversity and inclusion, for reasons I have elaborated on here.
We aren't inspired to weigh in on every injustice in
our own & every other country. If this is hypocrisy,
then we're all hypocritical, & perhaps should remain
silent on all issues, eh. Nah.
People will protest when the spirit moves them.
This is good.
