England shame

[Odds]

She hasn't got time to listen to me go on. I do it to keep you all active and alert.... otherwise you won't get out of yours armchairs..

You're an example to us all and the Pat-ex award for whanging on an issue is yours for the taking: Thank yer missus in the acceptance speech.

 

[Pat ex]

You're an example to us all and the Pat-ex award for whanging on an issue is yours for the taking: Thank yer missus in the acceptance speech.

An award, in my honour? You flatter me.

 

[Deleted member 294929]

Why not?

It's a form of protest. Adventitious in the fact that it is displayed to the world.

What was knee bending in sport for?

 

[Munroast]

Starting a game of footie with a yellow card would not be the most sensible approach to a WC game. If Harry ended up getting sent off as a result, the hatred and backlash would have been immense.

The Irainian players refusing to sing the iranian national anthem on live TV, could result in imprisonment, torture or even execution., but they were brave enough to make their protest. Getting a yellow card is hardly comparable but harry bottled it -

 

[Pat ex]

Is avoiding one yellow card an acknowledgment that you will probably pick up at least one more during the game?

 

[noseall]

Is avoiding one yellow card an acknowledgment that you will probably pick up at least one more during the game?

Or put it another way - if every player wore the rainbow band and were subsequently booked for it, you are probably looking at least three sendings off, during a 'competitive hard fought' footie match.

 

[Pat ex]

Or put it another way - if every player wore the rainbow band and were subsequently booked for it, you are probably looking at least three sendings off, during a 'competitive hard fought' footie match.

OK, but whenever I play, I always intend to get through the game without any bookings.

 

[jeds]

There does seem to be some double standard at play. Whatever your view on knee bending, it is based on a political movement, yet it was allowed. You could argue that an armband supporting gay rights is far less 'political', yet that was banned. The obvious conclusion is that the knee bending doesn't point to Qatar where the gay rights protest does.

I thought the Iran crowd silence during the national anthem was impressive and will not have gone unnoticed. I wonder if the people on here that support Iran's persecution of women also support executing women who stand and fight for their human rights? It is illegal in Iran to execute a virgin. Within the last 30 or 40 years ago young women have been forced to marry and have then been raped by their new 'husbands', in order to execute them the following morning. I say women - I mean young girls. The rapists who have admitted this said it was an honour to be chosen. It's so disgusting you tend to think is that really true? Well, yes it is.

 

[noseall]

OK, but whenever I play, I always intend to get through the game without any bookings.

There are few players, entering into a world cup finals match, with the intent of being booked from the first whistle. That would be like a soldier going into battle, handcuffed, unarmed and in his underpants.

 

[Justin Passing]

Everyone's protest is personal to them.
If I protest by painting a statue, my protest might be very different to A N Other who also paints a statue as a protest.

No. He's there as part of a TEAM which represents a COUNTRY. Nothing like you and your statue.

A country can't have everyone on the pitch promoting his or her individual fancy. Can I sponsor someone to wear a "save the tiger" badge? No.
Ban FGM? No.
The rainbow thing worn in Qatar is anti Qatar government.
It's not for some random footballer to protest while he's wearing the England national uniform.
If it's a national protest, then it should be done at a national level. FIFA quite rightly don't allow political messages to be put up bu teams or players. So no, wear the uniform, do you job for England, and that's it.

 

[omph]

It's pretty difficult to object to inequality without also objecting to sexual and gender inequality.
It's like saying one group deserves equality, but another group does not.

Homosexuality is a universal right, as is gender equality. Because inequality is entrenched and pervasive in some societies, that does not remove it from the rights that ought to be enshrined, nor should it prevent fighting for equality within those societies.

It's not like choosing a green energy, where some fuels are more or less green than others.

Define equality. You have to demonstrate how equality can exist in a world that is by it's very nature unequal. You are making a claim which you need to substaniate as a starting point if you want me to accept your premise.

There are two different approaches to be had here, 1, pretending men and women are the same therefore should be treated the same, 2, recognising that men and women are different and are not the same, and therefore men are given preference in one frontier, and women in another. But even this is now being undermined, because gender itself is now considered a social construct, which technically, from a secular/atheistic point is a valid and natural conclusion.

Then we go back to the issue of definitions - the current conceptions of gender equality are again routed in a western liberal paradiagm. Gender equality is tied to a captalistic, second wave feminist narrative. You are then taking these narratives and making them "human rights" - pretty sinister actually. Now the entire world must play the game or they are violating "human rights", which is absurd, because there are differemt approaches and you have not figured this out. It's a type of western globalist neo-colonial totalitarianism. It's now also becoming an issue in the west itself, in the form of wokisms.

 

[transam]

These footballers are there to play football for there national team

Not to get involved in politics

The tournament is being played in adire ear a Stan country in which case you should follow dire ear a Stan laws

Wearing an arm band or not what a load of nonsense

All this fuss over the caper jeez us wept

As for taking the knee if I was there in order to keep every one happy
Sponsors
Club

Ect ect I would take the knee if that was what was wanted even though I could not give a stuff for the token gesture / nonsense

 

[Pat ex]

Define equality. You have to demonstrate how equality can exist in a world that is by it's very nature unequal. You are making a claim which you need to substaniate as a starting point if you want me to accept your premise.

No I don't need to define my idea of equality for you to accept it. You can have your own view and we can agree on most points, but disagree on minor points. Equality isn't a strict religion that you have to strictly follow a laid down regime.
It's a pluralist movement. By claiming that support of equality for one group, it's difficult to not support equality for another group, my explanation is related to your subsequent comment and my reply. So in essence i would have reversed the order of your post.

There are two different approaches to be had here, 1, pretending men and women are the same therefore should be treated the same, 2, recognising that men and women are different and are not the same, and therefore men are given preference in one frontier, and women in another. But even this is now being undermined, because gender itself is now considered a social construct, which technically, from a secular/atheistic point is a valid and natural conclusion.

You discuss inequality between genders as one of only two options. That's ignoring the nuances of equality. There are times when equality between sexes can be exactly equal, e.g pay, responsibility, opportunities, etc. Then there are times/scenarios when equality cannot be exactly equal, e.g. a lot of sports, perhaps manual labour, etc.
Then there are the times when equality can only be achieved by providing 'levelling' processes, e.g with disabled, etc.
So equality is not an 'either', 'or', it's much more nuanced issue and approach.
Moving on to gender and social constructs, sex labels were social constructs, not just gender labels. Similarly the supposed "natural order of male dominated society", or patriarchy was a socially constructed order.

Then we go back to the issue of definitions - the current conceptions of gender equality are again routed in a western liberal paradiagm.

Gender equality is correcting previous prejudices, not exporting new concepts. gender equality was accepted in other cultures way before it was recognised as gender inequality in "western liberal" culture.

Gender equality is tied to a captalistic, second wave feminist narrative.

Like other inequalities, it is more nuanced than that. it is wrapped up in feminist narrative only because that feminist narrative seeks to deny gender equality in some scenarios.
It has nothing to do with capitalism.

You are then taking these narratives and making them "human rights" - pretty sinister actually.

If I don't accept your argument, I am not doing what you suggest. I agree that there are some feminist narrative that seeks to deny some gender equality, but the sinisterism is not mine.
The protagonism between feminist and gender equality is down to disagreements between the factions, and need not impact on their human rights.

Now the entire world must play the game or they are violating "human rights", which is absurd, because there are differemt approaches and you have not figured this out. It's a type of western globalist neo-colonial totalitarianism.

You have arrived at your conclusion based on the concept that equality is a defined universal definition. As we've seen it's not, it's a pluralist movement. Therefore it's not "a type of western globalist neo-colonial totalitarianism". Like fighting racism, it's a movement without an origin, it's fighting to right the wrongs of history, the history that was incorrectly socially-constructed at the time

 

[transam]

Now we have a big fuss being made about Welsh supporters who were asked to remove there rainbow hats prior to entering the stadium

Jeez us wept even supporters going to Quatar to protest at a match

If I was in charge in Quatar I would deport / kick em out the country

 

[omph]

No I don't need to define my idea of equality for you to accept it. You can have your own view and we can agree on most points, but disagree on minor points. Equality isn't a strict religion that you have to strictly follow a laid down regime.
It's a pluralist movement. By claiming that support of equality for one group, it's difficult to not support equality for another group, my explanation is related to your subsequent comment and my reply. So in essence i would have reversed the order of your post.


You discuss inequality between genders as one of only two options. That's ignoring the nuances of equality. There are times when equality between sexes can be exactly equal, e.g pay, responsibility, opportunities, etc. Then there are times/scenarios when equality cannot be exactly equal, e.g. a lot of sports, perhaps manual labour, etc.
Then there are the times when equality can only be achieved by providing 'levelling' processes, e.g with disabled, etc.
So equality is not an 'either', 'or', it's much more nuanced issue and approach.
Moving on to gender and social constructs, sex labels were social constructs, not just gender labels. Similarly the supposed "natural order of male dominated society", or patriarchy was a socially constructed order.


Gender equality is correcting previous prejudices, not exporting new concepts. gender equality was accepted in other cultures way before it was recognised as gender inequality in "western liberal" culture.


Like other inequalities, it is more nuanced than that. it is wrapped up in feminist narrative only because that feminist narrative seeks to deny gender equality in some scenarios.
It has nothing to do with capitalism.


If I don't accept your argument, I am not doing what you suggest. I agree that there are some feminist narrative that seeks to deny some gender equality, but the sinisterism is not mine.
The protagonism between feminist and gender equality is down to disagreements between the factions, and need not impact on their human rights.


You have arrived at your conclusion based on the concept that equality is a defined universal definition. As we've seen it's not, it's a pluralist movement. Therefore it's not "a type of western globalist neo-colonial totalitarianism". Like fighting racism, it's a movement without an origin, it's fighting to right the wrongs of history, the history that was incorrectly socially-constructed at the time

How can we have a discussion if you are not willing to define your terms ? Definitions are very important. I haven't defined equality, because I'm not making a claim, you are. Define equality, and define pluralism. If you can't define them, then your argument is moot.
Muslims don't accept your understanding of equality. Now what ? must we force them to accept this standard ? Oh, the Gov already is forcing their kids to accept homosexuality via Prevent, all in the name of freedom and equality as you define it. Women wearing hijab is inequality too by the western standard, so now what ? Why do you get to define the terms and no else has a say ?

The next argument you make is one of nuisance, so equal pay for equal work as an example. Again, how do we define equal ? Is there even such a thing ? Take two women, both have the same title, but one works very hard. The boss decides to pay her more than the other, but the titles are the same. Different humans bring different potentials to the table, some more than others. If there must be equal pay, then the individuals must be equivalent in performance and output, but that is almost never the case.