What other last min rule changes will FIFA bravely make to keep the last few payouts of those bribes going. Between Fox and AmBev they are already going to making significantly less money at 2026 because of concessions over Qatars World cup. https://adage.com/article/media/fifa-admist/309601
Must have been quite a lot to be worth it, and can’t wait to read about the sweetheart deal they give ambev to avoid lawsuits.
* (Awareness) Europeans who didn't realize that Qatar is a muslim country that doesn't allow LGBT advertising
* (Asymmetry) Europeans who knew about Qatar's values, but didn't think Qatar would enforce them with the same vigor as Europeans enforce their values
* (Naïveté) Europeans thinking that the reason they could impose their values on these types of international events in the past was something other than money
What is happening is that as the West declines in relative economic dominance, other societies become more important on the international stage, and their moral codes must be accommodated. Europeans are finding out that the shoe is now on the other foot in terms of who must accommodate whom, and they are shocked by the discomfort.
No, it could also mean that events will fork between cultural systems. Not everybody puts money ahead of ethics. There names for people who do that, though.
That said, "well break the rules and just pay the fine" attitudes make my blood boil. And I support ramping up the punishment for premeditated rule breaking.
That's separate from the fact that this rule is cynical and clearly to appease Qatari sensibilities
I find it mildly concerning that fresh accounts with on here seem to be pushing alt-right conspiracy stuff.
My take on Douglas Murray: he didn't understand Foucault, got mad about it, and decided Foucault is an evil Marxist. It kind of rhymes with Jordan Peterson's sentiments about the boogeyman of postmodernism.
My take on Douglas Murray, based on first paragraph of the Introduction of The War on the West: ... a cultural war, and it is being waged remorselessly ...
The man doesn't know the difference between "remorseless" and "relentless".
Why do you believe "remorseless" can't be used there? You are certain that Douglas Murray thinks the attackers in this alleged war are showing remorse?
I don't find categorizing something as "alt-right conspiracy stuff" is a serious rebuttal. Since you've complained about the fresh accounts perhaps you should also consider reading through the comments guidelines yourself (your comment is easily violating the top 6): https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I added some context on why he's a hack, which is plenty interesting.
I do genuinely believe he didn't understand the work of Foucault.
I also do genuinely believe he's personal friends with the prime minister of Hungary which should tell you everything you need to know about his politics.
As far as accounts go you really don’t have a choice on HN, because eventually you’ll get flagged enough to get throttled/suspended and eventually banned for being too controversial, not following groupthink, etc. Between Theranos and pandemic we’ve got a good corpus of what that looks like, and I don’t have 3-4 years to get my commentary vindicated by the same paid news actors that are causing this shit to begin with.
No offense to the mods, but community “guidelines” translates into skewed application.
As for Douglas Murray, the reviews for his books aged like fine wine.
Having never used a burner, been on here a little over a decade, been on the unpopular side of many arguments here, having never had a ban, and being #17 on the leaderboard, I’m pretty confident that HN does not, in fact, require burners.
> Much easier to make burners, say what’s on one’s mind, and move on.
Yes, its a lot easier to use burners than think about how you are engaging and presenting your views.
Maybe I just need anti-depressants, but how does everyone else just carry on with the absurd hypocrisy in the world?
Elon says he's going to tweak Twitter moderation from "ban" to "don't spread, but don't delete" for problematic posts. Reaction: American corporations publicly proclaim they're leaving the platform and cutting their advertisement budgets.
Qatar builds stadiums using slave labor, sends rape victims to jail, treats gay people as sub-human. Reaction: Carry on advertising and sponsorships as usual.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation or maybe complying w/ Qatar now somehow eventually makes the world a better place in the future? Or if someone can just tell me Prozac/Adderall/Zoloft/something just makes this feel fine and lets you carry on, that'd work too.
Public messaging is performative. Very few people actually care, and those who do are not getting airtime, so you wouldn't hear from them.
It's like a soap opera. You don't get mad at characters in soaps doing stupid things to create drama, because that drama is the reason they exist. Media largely works the same way, and you should treat it accordingly. Don't get upset, just don't watch soaps if you don't like drama.
He also unbanned american conservatives that had been banned for not agreeing with American progressive ideology, and allowed the majority of workers to take a severance packet. The absolute evil of it make Qatar World championship look like a childs play!
Globalization means culture clash, even if one side looks the other way in the name of profit, it doesn't mean cultural hegemony has actually been achieved in either direction. Just a truce, and resentments fester.
All these organizations showing the real “global” values — greed, fame, profit. At least saying one thing and doing the other seems to be a truly universal thing.
Mostly because FIFA threatened with in-game actions (yellow card) and not fines or other penalties. Players would be punished by making the game easier to lose, which would give ther opponents an unfair advantage.
Disgusting behvarior by one of the most corrupted orgs around.
I have never watched either, but my guess is they are there to legitimize this event as a sort of a pan-cultural spectacle worthy of being taken seriously as a corporate distraction.
Why must people be represented on armbands? It wasn't a big thing to wear the Star of David at events during WWII to stand in solidarity. It's quite creepy if you ask me.
Freedom House researches this exact topic and they're funded by the US Government. Their current chair is a republican but they're non-partisan.
Looking at their most recent data[0], we can see the US scored 14/16 in 2022 on "Freedom of Expression and Belief", meaning that 53 countries were better by scoring 15/16 or 16/16. Of the 27 countries that scored 16/16, 11 were European. Qatar scored 6/16 by the way.
When you look at the total Freedom Index, the US scores 83/100 which is good for place 62 and lower than most of Europe. Qatar scored 25/100. Here is a world map[1].
The difference being that in the US you don't have to fear prosecution for most things you'd get prosecuted for in, say, Quatar. You might get cancelled on Twitter but you don't end up in jail or get killed at least.
Totally there are cases like that but let's not pretend it's as bad as in many other countries. Cases like this also consistently make the news in NA and Europe.
And neither of them were imprisoned, beaten or detained for exercising those expressions. Nor did either have a fear of those things happening to them. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Both men are still free to to express themselves as they see fit.
You seem to be conflating two different issues.
Freedom of expression although closely linked to freedom of association is distinct from it. Freedom of association is the right to form and join clubs, societies, trade unions or political parties with anyone you choose. In your two examples both of those individuals chose to join professional sports clubs as contract employees. As such they were beholden to whatever codes of conduct their employers set forth, the same as any job. Contrast this to Kanye West who was also recently shoveling a bunch anti-semitic garbage. Kanye works for himself and so was not beholden to an association's code of conduct.
By the way the net result of Kyrie Irving's "problems" were an 8 game suspension. He's back playing as of yesterday. And just to put in perspective how different Kapernick and Irving situations are, four years ago Kyrie Irving was pushing "flat earth" nonsense.[1]
I really don't understand what your URL is meant to convey and you don't provide any detail yourself. Per the ACLU:
>"WHAT DOES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ACTUALLY MEAN?"
>"The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and free association, which means that the government does not have the right to forbid us from saying what we like and writing what we like; we can form clubs and organizations, and take part in demonstrations and rallies." [1]
However the The First Amendment has limits, it does not cover what's classified as "true threats."[2][3] And of course context matters. In this case Brittany Martin was standing chest to chest with a police officer in extremely tense situation and exclaimed:
“Y’all want war, y’all got it,” “We’re ready to die for this,” and “You better be ready to die for the blue. I’m ready to die for the Black” [4]
Do you believe had if she been in the middle of the crowd or in an empty parking lot exclaiming the same with a megaphone she would have been arrested? And while I don't agree with the outcome of any of this, she did in fact have a jury trial. It was a jury that found her guilty. A jury of eight men, five being white and the other three being Black, and six women, five of whom where Black and one white.
> Do you believe had if she been in the middle of the crowd or in an empty parking lot exclaiming the same with a megaphone she would have been arrested?
No, that's my whole point. She said something that the authorities did not like. She did not do anything whatsoever. And she was jailed for it. She was punished by the government for saying something she liked to say.
You consider a single unarmed woman speaking a 'true threat' to a phalanx of armed police men? I guess there's not much right to free expression left then. The cops on the photo sure do look frightened. I guess she can be happy that she wasn't simply shot on the spot.
If any stranger, man or woman, got in my face and told me "You better be ready to die", then yes I would find that threatening. I think most people would feel threatened by such behavior. I think you would as well. This is generally considered aggressive behavior.You are no longer expressing an opinion when you tell someone they "better be ready to die." Further, you would also have no idea if that person was armed or not. Lastly the idea that the police officer was part of a phalanx appears to be a detail you made up and it's irrelevant anyway, as a particular formation means nothing if you are outnumbered.
Yes of course you can always find an outlier to support your case but this is not the general case in the US. And certainly not at all comparable to what your options for self-expression would be in any of the United Arab Emirates which is actually the context of this whole discussion. The idea that they might be in any way comparable is absurd.
That is exactly freedom of expression. The first amendment protects against government action, which it did in both cases. What it does not and cannot do is force other people to continue doing business with someone, as that would violate their own rights to free expression.
It's shocking how common this misconception is recently. To maintain our democracy citizens need to understand and care about civics. If we reach a critical mass of people who fundamentally don't care what the constitution says, we are in for big problems.
I don't think it's so shocking as it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
> What it does not and cannot do is force other people to continue doing business with someone, as that would violate their own rights to free expression.
If I fire someone after they change their religion to one I disagree with, would I be free from legal consequence?
Yes, as you would be guilty of religious discrimination. Colin Kaepernick was not fired. He opted out of his contract in 2017 and became a free agent.[1]
My understanding is that Kaepernick wasn't even that great of a player and wouldn't have had much of a career regardless of the kneeling. Maybe another season at most so he didn't really lose anything. He also didn't even want to play, he said the NFL players were slaves... Unless he wanted to be a slave?
I like how you make sweeping generalisations, with out getting specific enough to actually be required to defend yourself.
Does the UK have freedom of expression? if not why not, if so what about Germany, or France, or Belgium, or Luxembourg, or the Netherlands, or Sweden, or finland, or Norway, or Denmark?
I'll be nice and give you belarus, Hungary, I'll even give you transnistria.
