Is anyone genuinely going to boycott?

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

You see what’s happening, and you can then actively discuss it. Qatar wanted to put themselves out there to be seen by the world, so far it’s backfiring on them, because the TV hosts are talking about it, which means we’re talking about it, which means kids are talking about it. It sparks healthy debate

 

I think this is a really valid point as well, to be honest. As I said in my post earlier, Qatar don't give a shit about advertising revenue and you are't boycotting the companies that do (unless you already were.) If you refuse to watch it hurts Heineken or Budweiser or Breitling or whoever else is sponsoring the thing more than it will hurt the state of Qatar.

 

Qatar aren't in it for the money, they're in it for the reputation and legitimacy and yesterday their reputation took far more of a hammering than it gained.

[ozleicester]

Intriguing that "boycotting is a waste of time" and achieves nothing... but then when climate activists pour some paint on to an irrelevant scribble.. its outrageous and serves no purpose. Striking is a waste of time...

Im lost as to what is the successful way to stand up against the wrong?

[grobyfox1990]

13 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Intriguing that "boycotting is a waste of time" and achieves nothing... but then when climate activists pour some paint on to an irrelevant scribble.. its outrageous and serves no purpose. Striking is a waste of time...

Im lost as to what is the successful way to stand up against the wrong?

It’s not a waste of time. Imagine if Mandela et al had that view. Change always comes from the people who act not the people who sit back,  get comfortable, exhale and say ‘what difference can I make’ to justify themselves 

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Intriguing that "boycotting is a waste of time" and achieves nothing... but then when climate activists pour some paint on to an irrelevant scribble.. its outrageous and serves no purpose. Striking is a waste of time...

Im lost as to what is the successful way to stand up against the wrong?

 

Ho boy where to begin.

 

I think the most irritating part of this post is actually comparing some attention seeking little Gen Z twat dumping beans on the Mona Lisa to industrial action and collective bargaining, to be honest. You equating the two is playing far more in to the hands of "THEM" than anyone questioning the merits of boycotting this world cup.

 

Pouring paint on an "irrelevant scribble" (wow, you cultureless edgelord) is worse than "serving no purpose" it's actually anti-climate. I fvcking hate these people so much and if you care more about the environment than posing as a protestor, so should you. I've said this before and I'll die on this hill, climate activism needs to be about winning the hearts and minds of the general populace and getting everyone on board - not antagonising the average joe and putting them off your cause. Nobody lobs paint at a cultural icon because they give a shit about the planet, they do it because they're narcissistic little twats that want to go viral on tiktok and they're doing way more damage to the general perception of climate change than they're helping.

 

And nobody is suggesting that boycotting something, in general terms, has no value. @FoxesDeb just talked about the Nestle boycott which has excellent substance and a lot of people on here will be behind her. What we're doing is questioning what value boycotting this specific event has and I'm not really seeing you present any kind of valid argument to explain why you think it will help (which is not exactly a shock, you're pretty much the counter-culture Webbo in that regard.)

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Ho boy where to begin.

 

I think the most irritating part of this post is actually comparing some attention seeking little Gen Z twat dumping beans on the Mona Lisa to industrial action and collective bargaining, to be honest. You equating the two is playing far more in to the hands of "THEM" than anyone questioning the merits of boycotting this world cup.

 

Pouring paint on an "irrelevant scribble" (wow, you cultureless edgelord) is worse than "serving no purpose" it's actually anti-climate. I fvcking hate these people so much and if you care more about the environment than posing as a protestor, so should you. I've said this before and I'll die on this hill, climate activism needs to be about winning the hearts and minds of the general populace and getting everyone on board - not antagonising the average joe and putting them off your cause. Nobody lobs paint at a cultural icon because they give a shit about the planet, they do it because they're narcissistic little twats that want to go viral on tiktok and they're doing way more damage to the general perception of climate change than they're helping.

 

And nobody is suggesting that boycotting something, in general terms, has no value. @FoxesDeb just talked about the Nestle boycott which has excellent substance and a lot of people on here will be behind her. What we're doing is questioning what value boycotting this specific event has and I'm not really seeing you present any kind of valid argument to explain why you think it will help (which is not exactly a shock, you're pretty much the counter-culture Webbo in that regard.)

A quick comment on the bolded:

 

As much as this is true because it's vital to the solution to have as many people on board as possible, the scientific facts regarding it and the consequences should really stand by themselves and therefore IMO those people who don't listen and/or don't care about the message are at least in part culpable for those consequences regardless of how the message is delivered. 

 

I have no time for people using folks like Just Stop Oil or XR as a convenient figleaf to care nothing and do nothing about the problem.

[Stadt]

Winning the world cup in Qatar would be so naff, it's similar to Liverpool ending their title drought behind closed doors - a huge caveat to what should be an amazing feat.

 

This probably sounds callous but I'm fed up of the only criticism coming through a political lens rather than a footballing one. The construction deaths, human rights violations and repressive Islamic laws are obviously worse than sporting concerns but most of the media criticism hasn't weighed up why it'll most likely be a poor spectacle and why it's bad for the match-going fans. The footballing criticism is almost exclusively because of the scheduling rather than Qatar's lack of footballing heritage, boring grounds, lack of attractions, shit amenities, limited alcohol etc.

[Fear Of The Fox]

37 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Intriguing that "boycotting is a waste of time" and achieves nothing... but then when climate activists pour some paint on to an irrelevant scribble.. its outrageous and serves no purpose. Striking is a waste of time...

Im lost as to what is the successful way to stand up against the wrong?

The successful way is to have consistency and boycott as a collective at the right time. Also when you're boycotting (or protesting for something) it needs to be meaningful. 

The problem is that we always "protest" and "boycott" from the comfort of our couch with a mobile phone on our hands. We're all a laughing stock of citizens. 

 

[Finnegan]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A quick comment on the bolded:

 

As much as this is true because it's vital to the solution to have as many people on board as possible, the scientific facts regarding it and the consequences should really stand by themselves and therefore IMO those people who don't listen and/or don't care about the message are at least in part culpable for those consequences regardless of how the message is delivered. 

 

I have no time for people using folks like Just Stop Oil or XR as a convenient figleaf to care nothing and do nothing about the problem.

 

You're one of my favourite Foxestalkers Mac, I don't mean to be patronising but I love your energy especially when it comes to the environment. But fvck this attitude, I'm sorry.

 

The science speaks for itself to you, it obviously doesn't speak to the countless millions that have been hoodwinked by an extremely well resourced lobbying machine. Those people you have no time for are EXACTLY the people you need to win over. What's the point giving up on them and sticking to the people that agree with you? An echo chamber won't change the world.

 

If you care and care enough to be active about it (which the bean-lobbers and motoroway-supergluers are supposed to) then you should be out there trying to convince the people that don't already agree with you, not actively antagonising them. Kier Starmer is the right choice for the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn wasn't (antisemitism scandal aside) because one was chosen to pander to students who were going to vote Labour anyway and the other was chosen to court the middle ground that are undecided. Similarly you could swap Labour for Democrat, Corbyn for Sanders and Starmer for Biden and the point is the same.

 

Billy-Bob gun nut rolling coal down the highway in his lifted big wheeler covered in Trump stickers and Gaz the Top Gear obsessive who hasn't missed a Clarkson collumn in years and refuses to drive anything other than a V8 at 110mph down the M1 are your target audience and your message needs to be tailored towards winning them back, not seeing them as the enemy.

[shade]

I don't think it's our job to impose our moral values on other countries, especially not one who's morality comes from a place of religion. It's less than a lifetime ago that our country was doing exactly what we're pontificating against now. 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Intriguing that "boycotting is a waste of time" and achieves nothing... but then when climate activists pour some paint on to an irrelevant scribble.. its outrageous and serves no purpose. Striking is a waste of time...

Im lost as to what is the successful way to stand up against the wrong?

You are only allowed to oppose something if everyone else agrees and aren’t going to be inconvenienced. Then, you are only allowed to protest as long as it doesn’t damage something someone previously didn’t give a shit about. Plus, you are not allowed any form of protest if are young, old, have a middle class accent, are good looking, scruffy, able to take time off work, or have a banner without a witty slogan.

 

But mainly, on this topic, you aren’t allowed to protest because that will make others feel guilty for being weak.

[Daggers]

16 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

You're one of my favourite Foxestalkers Mac, I don't mean to be patronising but I love your energy especially when it comes to the environment. But fvck this attitude, I'm sorry.

 

The science speaks for itself to you, it obviously doesn't speak to the countless millions that have been hoodwinked by an extremely well resourced lobbying machine. Those people you have no time for are EXACTLY the people you need to win over. What's the point giving up on them and sticking to the people that agree with you? An echo chamber won't change the world.

 

If you care and care enough to be active about it (which the bean-lobbers and motoroway-supergluers are supposed to) then you should be out there trying to convince the people that don't already agree with you, not actively antagonising them. Kier Starmer is the right choice for the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn wasn't (antisemitism scandal aside) because one was chosen to pander to students who were going to vote Labour anyway and the other was chosen to court the middle ground that are undecided. Similarly you could swap Labour for Democrat, Corbyn for Sanders and Starmer for Biden and the point is the same.

 

Billy-Bob gun nut rolling coal down the highway in his lifted big wheeler covered in Trump stickers and Gaz the Top Gear obsessive who hasn't missed a Clarkson collumn in years and refuses to drive anything other than a V8 at 110mph down the M1 are your target audience and your message needs to be tailored towards winning them back, not seeing them as the enemy.

Wrong.

 

But we aren’t allowed to discuss politics.

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, shade said:

I don't think it's our job to impose our moral values on other countries, especially not one who's morality comes from a place of religion. It's less than a lifetime ago that our country was doing exactly what we're pontificating against now. 

 

I don't know that it's necessarily our place to roll over there with tanks and aircraft carriers and insist that the Arab nations govern themselves exactly as we do, sure.

 

But there's a difference between imposing our values on them and endorsing theirs by granting them a World Cup (or Olympic Games, or whatever else.)

 

And religion is a poor excuse, I don't think we should really let them get away with pretending their bigotry has some sort of holy reverence. Muslim majority countries in Europe such as Bosnia, Albania and Turkey have had legalised homosexuality for years. Hell, the legalisation of homosexuality in Turkey pre-dates the existence OF Turkey. Whilst nobody should pretend that LGBT rights are perfect in those states (or even plenty of Western "Christian" ones), they're a lot better than in Middle East.

 

"Religion" is a tool used by extremely autocratic middle eastern dictatorships to control their populace (which is fortunately starting to finally blow up a little in Iran at least) and impose bigotry. I don't really think we should just shrug that off and go "oh you scamps with your crazy ways."

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, Daggers said:

But we aren’t allowed to discuss politics.

 

Pussy.

 

Look at you, slave to the rules. Fight the power, Dave, fight the power.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

You're one of my favourite Foxestalkers Mac, I don't mean to be patronising but I love your energy especially when it comes to the environment. But fvck this attitude, I'm sorry.

 

The science speaks for itself to you, it obviously doesn't speak to the countless millions that have been hoodwinked by an extremely well resourced lobbying machine. Those people you have no time for are EXACTLY the people you need to win over. What's the point giving up on them and sticking to the people that agree with you? An echo chamber won't change the world.

 

If you care and care enough to be active about it (which the bean-lobbers and motoroway-supergluers are supposed to) then you should be out there trying to convince the people that don't already agree with you, not actively antagonising them. Kier Starmer is the right choice for the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn wasn't (antisemitism scandal aside) because one was chosen to pander to students who were going to vote Labour anyway and the other was chosen to court the middle ground that are undecided. Similarly you could swap Labour for Democrat, Corbyn for Sanders and Starmer for Biden and the point is the same.

 

Billy-Bob gun nut rolling coal down the highway in his lifted big wheeler covered in Trump stickers and Gaz the Top Gear obsessive who hasn't missed a Clarkson collumn in years and refuses to drive anything other than a V8 at 110mph down the M1 are your target audience and your message needs to be tailored towards winning them back, not seeing them as the enemy.

I appreciate that, Finn. Allow me to clarify:

 

You're absolutely right in that convincing the people you speak of is critical to success. I have endeavoured to do that on here, I have endeavoured to do that out in the world and I will continue to do so by communicating the science and making it as clear as I possibly can where I can. I'm not writing them off as a lost cause because if I do so then because of democratic systems I'm essentially writing off the whole damn thing as a lost cause.

 

However, while they're not an enemy and I think anyone can be talked round, we're dealing with a situation and an entity that doesn't suffer ignorance or tone of message as a human would at all. Not one bit. As such, should the shit hit the fan, it *will* be those who chose to do nothing who will be responsible, not those who tried to get other people to do something, pretty much regardless of the form it took. Believe me, if this were to do with human rights or warfare or some other situation where the antagonist party was human, then I'd agree more. But it isn't, and I think that has an effect on the landscape.

 

I will continue to do what I can where I can to help people and get them on board. But should the worst happen (and I really really hope the situation never arises), I will also do my best to ensure it is known who was culpable for it, too.

 

[Pliskin]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

I think this is a really valid point as well, to be honest. As I said in my post earlier, Qatar don't give a shit about advertising revenue and you are't boycotting the companies that do (unless you already were.) If you refuse to watch it hurts Heineken or Budweiser or Breitling or whoever else is sponsoring the thing more than it will hurt the state of Qatar.

 

Qatar aren't in it for the money, they're in it for the reputation and legitimacy and yesterday their reputation took far more of a hammering than it gained.

Exactly. Boycotting works for some issues, and not for others. As you’ve said Qatar aren’t hosting this World Cup for money, they’re doing it to boost their reputation as a nation. 
 

There are plenty of issues in plenty of other nations, but when you actively host a large world wide tournament you’re opening yourself up for public opinion. 
 

I can understand why the high level female footballers are boycotting, that’s slightly different to you or I doing this, because that’s a high profile person coming out and actively taking a stance, which sparks conversation amongst those following them. 
 

For us, putting it on TV means we can watch the debate, and that means so can everyone else, that then means it’s discussed at work, in the streets, down the pub. It starts the conversation. 
 

The aim of any stance against a policy or law is to make a difference, Qatar like you have eluded to could come out of this worse off. 

[grobyfox1990]

7 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Exactly. Boycotting works for some issues, and not for others. As you’ve said Qatar aren’t hosting this World Cup for money, they’re doing it to boost their reputation as a nation. 
 

There are plenty of issues in plenty of other nations, but when you actively host a large world wide tournament you’re opening yourself up for public opinion. 
 

I can understand why the high level female footballers are boycotting, that’s slightly different to you or I doing this, because that’s a high profile person coming out and actively taking a stance, which sparks conversation amongst those following them. 
 

For us, putting it on TV means we can watch the debate, and that means so can everyone else, that then means it’s discussed at work, in the streets, down the pub. It starts the conversation. 
 

The aim of any stance against a policy or law is to make a difference, Qatar like you have eluded to could come out of this worse off. 

Lol i hope i'm wrong but i'm really struggling to square how people think Qatar will come out of this WORSE!!!!!! The worlds media, football players, broadcasters, sponsors and fans have all touched down in Qatar. Qatar has already won. A 'toned down' Denmark shirt and a monologue from Lineker can easily be hidden amongst the bucketload of positive branded images from the worlds football players and fans having a great time in Doha.

 

At this stage, when the tournament has already kicked off, how do you think any serious negativity will hit them? No one is pulling out now

Edited 21 November 2022 by grobyfox1990

[sheffield_fox]

I'm definitely boycotting the first game. Absolutely fuming at the decision to stop Kane wearing the armband. But FIFA are fine with Iran banning women from their stadiums. 

 

I'd have been happy for England to have pulled out of the tournament.

 

FIFA is absolutely not fit for purpose, but what's new there? They need replacing.

 

I'll consider watching the other England games, I don't partcularly think that boycotting works as BBC have already paid for the rights and it's not pay per view. But in this case, all the political stuff is pissing me off so much that I can't be arsed to subject myself to it for the length of the broadcast. 

[Daggers]

The more people who say they aren't going to avoid watching the tourno the more smugger and self-righteous I feel.

 

Sometimes it hurts to be so perfect.

 

[Pliskin]

34 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Lol i hope i'm wrong but i'm really struggling to square how people think Qatar will come out of this WORSE!!!!!! The worlds media, football players, broadcasters, sponsors and fans have all touched down in Qatar. Qatar has already won. A 'toned down' Denmark shirt and a monologue from Lineker can easily be hidden amongst the bucketload of positive branded images from the worlds football players and fans having a great time in Doha.

 

At this stage, when the tournament has already kicked off, how do you think any serious negativity will hit them? No one is pulling out now

I think your view of the world is somewhat warped…..

 

None is going to pull out….. Qatar have hosted this tournament to boost their reputation and footprint in the world of football. So far there has been heavy emphasis on the main issues highlighted within Qatar, but the most discussed issues is of their quite clear anti LGBTQ+ laws…. These aren’t opinions they’re laws…. I won’t be drawn into a debate of “well other countries are just as bad”…. Because we’re all quite aware of this, but like I said when you put yourself in the shop window, you’re there to sell yourself. 
 

The fact that there’s already talk of the rainbow arm bands being dropped through fear of causing offence, just highlights that this isn’t just a ‘minor problem’. 
 

In terms of damage, it means that Qatar as a nation may never host a major tournament again, it means that they might not be able to boost the reputation of their leagues and attract high profile players. It means that the wider world sees the policies and other major organisations may choose to distance themselves from them as a nation. 
 

I’m not sure what your idea of ‘Qatar has won’ is? They don’t need this for finances, they were happy to pull beer and Budweiser would have probably had a handsome settlement from them. But it’s the subtle things they do that will resonate with the masses and could damage their reputation going forward.  
 

You mention bucket load of positive images? For every positive I’ve also seen negative, there’s plenty of context out there too which is painting a not so pretty picture. 
 

People will naturally have a good time there, but that doesn’t mean you can plead ignorance to the wider issues that have been discussed. It’s mainly FIFA’s fault for deciding to whist a World Cup in a nation that frankly isn’t fit to host one.

Edited 21 November 2022 by Pliskin

[urban.spaceman]

 

[grobyfox1990]

15 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I think your view of the world is somewhat warped…..

 

None is going to pull out….. Qatar have hosted this tournament to boost their reputation and footprint in the world of football. So far there has been heavy emphasis on the main issues highlighted within Qatar, but the most discussed issues is of their quite clear anti LGBTQ+ laws…. These aren’t opinions they’re laws…. I won’t be drawn into a debate of “well other countries are just as bad”…. Because we’re all quite aware of this, but like I said when you put yourself in the shop window, you’re there to sell yourself. 
 

The fact that there’s already talk of the rainbow arm bands being dropped through fear of causing offence, just highlights that this isn’t just a ‘minor problem’. 
 

In terms of damage, it means that Qatar as a nation may never host a major tournament again, it means that they might not be able to boost the reputation of their leagues and attract high profile players. It means that the wider world sees the policies and other major organisations may choose to distance themselves from them as a nation. 
 

I’m not sure what your idea of ‘Qatar has won’ is? They don’t need this for finances, they were happy to pull beer and Budweiser would have probably had a handsome settlement from them. But it’s the subtle things they do that will resonate with the masses and could damage their reputation going forward.  
 

You mention bucket load of positive images? For every positive I’ve also seen negative, there’s plenty of context out there too which is painting a not so pretty picture. 
 

People will naturally have a good time there, but that doesn’t mean you can plead ignorance to the wider issues that have been discussed. It’s mainly FIFA’s fault for deciding to whist a World Cup in a nation that frankly isn’t fit to host one.

This is what i mean by we as a country, the UK, are so dangerously and arrogantly inward looking. We genuinely believe our way of thinking translates to the whole world. If you read your reply it is almost wholly weighted to your point of view, transposed onto the world, with absolutely no regard of global consensus 'For every positive I’ve also seen negative' It's this insular mindset which I believe contributed to Brexit.

 

Just because something is important to us, and we think it is wrong, doesn't mean the whole world agrees. I'm lucky (unlucky?) enough to have a global role at work which means i'm forced to travel a lot and communicate globally on a daily basis. I've had to tone down my criticism of the Qatar issues because it's so hard to get agreement and i'm starting to look a bit weird. Generally the attitude has been 'Europe is falling apart so you are focusing attention on other countries' to hide your own failings, JEALOUSY.' etc etc

 

The bloomberg chats i've been part of this morn barely noticed the rainbow armband ever existed, and collate the pulling out of wearing them as proof England couldn't care less about LGBTQ+ rights as well. In short, the inward arrogance of believing everything we do is 'right' is very very wrong IMO

[leicsmac]

35 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

This is what i mean by we as a country, the UK, are so dangerously and arrogantly inward looking. We genuinely believe our way of thinking translates to the whole world. If you read your reply it is almost wholly weighted to your point of view, transposed onto the world, with absolutely no regard of global consensus 'For every positive I’ve also seen negative' It's this insular mindset which I believe contributed to Brexit.

 

Just because something is important to us, and we think it is wrong, doesn't mean the whole world agrees. I'm lucky (unlucky?) enough to have a global role at work which means i'm forced to travel a lot and communicate globally on a daily basis. I've had to tone down my criticism of the Qatar issues because it's so hard to get agreement and i'm starting to look a bit weird. Generally the attitude has been 'Europe is falling apart so you are focusing attention on other countries' to hide your own failings, JEALOUSY.' etc etc

 

The bloomberg chats i've been part of this morn barely noticed the rainbow armband ever existed, and collate the pulling out of wearing them as proof England couldn't care less about LGBTQ+ rights as well. In short, the inward arrogance of believing everything we do is 'right' is very very wrong IMO

As much as this is true, especially the part about being inward looking, my thoughts on the bolded is while it is also true, on some value matters there really should be agreement as a species, not disagreement as disparate tribes.

[Mickyblueeyes]

Joe Lycett shows the attention seeking and bandwagon jumping from some is so shameful. 

[shade]

2 hours ago, sheffield_fox said:

I'm definitely boycotting the first game. Absolutely fuming at the decision to stop Kane wearing the armband. But FIFA are fine with Iran banning women from their stadiums. 

 

I'd have been happy for England to have pulled out of the tournament.

 

FIFA is absolutely not fit for purpose, but what's new there? They need replacing.

 

I'll consider watching the other England games, I don't partcularly think that boycotting works as BBC have already paid for the rights and it's not pay per view. But in this case, all the political stuff is pissing me off so much that I can't be arsed to subject myself to it for the length of the broadcast. 

who decides what political statements are permissible or not?

[grobyfox1990]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As much as this is true, especially the part about being inward looking, my thoughts on the bolded is while it is also true, on some value matters there really should be agreement as a species, not disagreement as disparate tribes.

There should be I agree. And I agree with the British viewpoint on these issues. But if the majority doesn’t care about something, is that the decision what we go with? From interacting with your other posts I know that you won’t read my comment the wrong way and reply with ‘what so do you believe in killing migrant workers wtf mate omg’ etc etc