Boycott The Qatar World Cup?

[11101]

Your point is just completely idiotic though.

Going to qatar (or anywhere) to commentate on a WC doesn’t equal, ‘I agree with the shitty things this country does and / or I will not mention those things’.

Let me ask you this - do you think that news reporters who travel to other countries in order to critique the goings on there are also hypocritical because they get paid for doing so? Or because they spend money staying in hotels there?

Think about it - the penny might drop.

I'm assuming Keane is getting paid by the Qataris, indirectly at least, to go over there and commentate. As a celebrity commentator he is at least part of the promotional campaign for it. As Ian Hislop pointed out to Gary Neville, you don't need to go over there and take their money to highlight the wrongs. You can stay at home and do it. It is quite hypocritical to join in with the circus and then tell everybody you disagree with it, even if its better than the likes of Beckham who take the money and keep their mouths shut.

News reporters are a poor analogy because they're getting paid to cover an issue in a country by an outside entity, not promote the country.

 

[stevoc]

Journalism one is actually going there with the sole purpose of exposing Qatar's ethics so its different from a sports commentator who's main purpose is to go commentate on a game and analyze. Journalist actually go to deprived and struggling countries and experience how the people live and what they are going through even if they have to sleep in tents, eat military foods or drink dirty water. I bet you Keane is in a 5 stay Hotel being serviced by the migrant workers.

With sports commentators/pundits I believe those who were against the world cup in Qatar could have voiced their opinions without going there.
I won't contribute a penny to Russia's economy even if I am being paid millions to go work there for a day because I don't like their beliefs and I will let that be known exactly where I am.

And I don't agree with the "he will reach more audience because he is in Qatar" because every country has it's own broadcasting station pretty much. USA is Fox, Most countries in Africa is Super sports, most Spanish countries is Telemundo etc. Most on here don't even know what Keane said and I wouldn't have if not for someone posting it in here.

And that came about because he said it on UK national TV covering the biggest sporting event on the planet. On a channel which has a potential reach of almost 70 million people. Someone in the UK seen it then posted it on social media, which is then shared across various platforms including this forum which enabled you to see it.

I think you may have disproved your own point there mate.

 

[MUnchies]

And that came about because he said it on UK national TV covering the biggest sporting event on the planet. On a channel which has a potential reach of almost 70 million people. Someone in the UK seen it then posted it on social media, which is then shared across various platforms including this forum which enabled you to see it.

I think you may have disproved your own point there mate.

I don't get your point. You are actually making my case for me, he could have been in UK and people will still have posted his opinions just like it's been done on here over the years. They didn't post the tweet just because Keane is in Qatar.
Same way many tweets and social media opinions have been posted on here from people actually not in Qatar and its still getting to millions of people eg. Twitter

So he didn't need to be in Qatar to get his voice heard. That was my whole point so tell me how I disproved my own point.

 

[MackRobinson]

Not sure I understand (or it's a typo), my whole post was about why I *do* think it's inaccurate. My reply to you meant to say it's unnecessary to seperate me from those you dismissed, as I agree with them that it's textbook whataboutism. (Aggravated actually, as it's using made up events.)

It was a typo, but it is necessary separation as far as I'm concerned b/c the approach was clearly different (explaining why its inaccurate vs simply an accusation of whataboutism). Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant since I've explained twice why it was relevant to my point. Again it has nothing to do with whataboutery (which is it and I've already said I disagree with) and the approach. Frankly, I don't even understand why we are discussing this

 

[JustAGuest]

I don't get your point. You are actually making my case for me, he could have been in UK and people will still have posted his opinions just like it's been done on here over the years. They didn't post the tweet just because Keane is in Qatar.
Same way many tweets and social media opinions have been posted on here from people actually not in Qatar and its still getting to millions of people eg. Twitter

So he didn't need to be in Qatar to get his voice heard. That was my whole point so tell me how I disproved my own point.

Why do you care so much? I'll take Keane speaking out about the issues over any pundit going there pretending it's all fine.

 

[calodo2003]

I withdrew everything I said about this being a pure PR stint. Kane really does care.

A monumental gesture that will no doubt advance LGBT rights massively.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Christ, that is ugly as feck.

 

[Pickle85]

Half a million for a watch. Madness.

 

[Wibble]

England vs USA game is the first time I have watched a full 90 mins.

I've probably watched 1 hour in total of other games. Mine is definately through boredom though international football just doesn't do it for me.

I didn't bother getting up despite being awake. Then again that could just because I've likely finally got covid and feel like crap.

 

[Zen86]

I withdrew everything I said about this being a pure PR stint. Kane really does care.

A monumental gesture that will no doubt advance LGBT rights massively.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Hero. He’ll be in contention for SPOTY no doubt.

 

[Wibble]

Half a million for a watch. Madness.

I could never waste so much money on a fecking watch. Do something good with it if you have so much money that you can piss it away on a watch.

 

[MUnchies]

Why do you care so much? I'll take Keane speaking out about the issues over any pundit going there pretending it's all fine.

I don't care so much, reason why my first post in this thread was few days ago. I made my point and people kept replying to it like you. Seems like you are the one that cares so much to comment on my post.

 

[BooloBiibshe]

England will never win a world cup or euro until they stop talking before the game and bragging about their young talents. Look what happened to Bellingham tonight. He didn't perform well and half of the talk was about him on ITV. They even showed us a little documentary from his school days just because he had a good game against Iran.

On the other hand boycotting the World Cup is too late now. It was too late since European countries started to qualify for it. If they were serious about Qatar World Cup, why didn't they protest and boycott before qualifications?.

Imagine England win this one and people just say ' Well it is been hosted in Qatar so it doesn't count'.

 

[JustAGuest]

I don't care so much, reason why my first post in this thread was few days ago. I made my point and people kept replying to it like you. Seems like you are the one that cares so much to comment on my post.

That's a lot of posts on something you don't care about then.

 

[MUnchies]

That's a lot of posts on something you don't care about then.

Ok if you say so boss.

 

[Moby]

I could never waste so much money on a fecking watch. Do something good with it if you have so much money that you can piss it away on a watch.

I bet that's exactly how less fortunate people feel when they see us spend around 500-1000 pounds on a smartphone or a gaming console etc. All perspective.

 

[Synco]

It was a typo, but it is necessary separation as far as I'm concerned b/c the approach was clearly different (explaining why its inaccurate vs simply an accusation of whataboutism). Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant since I've explained twice why it was relevant to my point.

You seem to have missed something crucial, though: I didn't just say it's incorrect, I also said what I see as the not so nice purpose behind the falsehoods:

[Sticking to the truth] wouldn't really help delegitimising pro-LGBT protests in Qatar, as is the intention. So these incidents are recombined creatively to serve the purpose.

The cartoon uses alternative facts to push its talking point inside the online discourse.

The post in the link sums up the cartoon's (fake news) messaging perfectly: The German players pretend to care about human rights, but what about the DFB silencing Özil over his support for the Uighurs?

The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism, the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism is a variant of the appeal to hypocrisy logical fallacy.

Easy to put 2 & 2 together there.

 

[Dan_F]

I'm assuming Keane is getting paid by the Qataris, indirectly at least, to go over there and commentate. As a celebrity commentator he is at least part of the promotional campaign for it. As Ian Hislop pointed out to Gary Neville, you don't need to go over there and take their money to highlight the wrongs. You can stay at home and do it. It is quite hypocritical to join in with the circus and then tell everybody you disagree with it, even if its better than the likes of Beckham who take the money and keep their mouths shut.

News reporters are a poor analogy because they're getting paid to cover an issue in a country by an outside entity, not promote the country.

You think the ITV pundits are being paid by Qatar? Just clearing up this point for the purpose of the discussion.

How many people is Ian Hislop reaching at home vs Neville? Hislop’s name is only being discussed because Neville went on the show. If Hislop spoke out about Qatar, only those who were already in that eco chamber would hear it.

 

[Wibble]

I bet that's exactly how less fortunate people feel when they see us spend around 500-1000 pounds on a smartphone or a gaming console etc. All perspective.

Maybe but there are degrees. Half a mil on a fecking watch is so ludicrous it should be beyond debate.

One of these and a donation to an appropriate charity might distract from the actual point far less.

 

[Denis79]

World Cup: Iran protesters confronted at World Cup game against Wales

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63762276

 

[stevoc]

I don't get your point. You are actually making my case for me, he could have been in UK and people will still have posted his opinions just like it's been done on here over the years. They didn't post the tweet just because Keane is in Qatar.
Same way many tweets and social media opinions have been posted on here from people actually not in Qatar and its still getting to millions of people eg. Twitter

So he didn't need to be in Qatar to get his voice heard. That was my whole point so tell me how I disproved my own point.

Indeed, I'm getting that feeling.

My point is his geographical location isn't the important part. It's the being on national TV part, more people will have seen his opinion on TV than would have seen a post on Twitter. So in turn more people will be reposting it, sharing it and discussing it like we are right now. Companies pay millions to place adverts in the commercial breaks of World Cup games do you think they do that for a laugh as opposed to just posting an advert on Twitter? No of course they don't they pay millions so their advert will be seen by many, more people potentially reaching tens of millions.

You seem to be fixated on his location, the important part here is what he said about the World Cup in Qatar. If saying that on live TV in Qatar reaches more people all the better.

 

[11101]

You think the ITV pundits are being paid by Qatar? Just clearing up this point for the purpose of the discussion.

How many people is Ian Hislop reaching at home vs Neville? Hislop’s name is only being discussed because Neville went on the show. If Hislop spoke out about Qatar, only those who were already in that eco chamber would hear it.

Probably not directly, but they will be having an awful lot provided for them by Qatar as part of the media package, and half their job is to promote the tournament and the host.

Keane is not Hislop. Somebody of Keane's stature could have made a bigger point by publicly refusing to go.

 

[Bert_]

Qatar didn’t enjoy positive press at all in the Middle East recently. The blockade was lifted but there were no Emirati or Saudi tourists coming to Qatar recently... That has changed, thepublic in neighboring countries are thankful to Qatar that they brought the World Cup so close by. The Saudi regime hates Qatar but since the Saudi team qualified to the WC, FIFA and Qatar invested massively in attracting football fans and convince them it will be a great experience. Now the Saudi regime had to play along and send the crown prince to the opening ceremony…

And it might come as a surprise to some of you but the western establishments, most of whom connected to war crimes against civilians in the region, aren’t very popular. So when the western establishment seem to be aiming its propaganda at Qatar the automatic reaction of the masses is “the British says Qatar are wrong, that means Qatar are good. They must be resisting their neo-colonialism.“ You have no idea how much the messenger can destroy their own message just being who they are. It’s unjust, but it’s the way of the world… remember Wikileaks it is now inaudible in Europe, because Assange was revealed to be a bad person, that’s enough. Nobody in the West cares about the horrendous things he uncovered.

I was interested in any articles etc from non-western sources (not just middle-eastern) that were supportive of the Qatar world cup as I'm interested in their take on the matter but I may have misunderstood your post. It sounds like you're essentially saying that rather than active support, there just isn't any vocal criticism or vocal support coming from non-western countries (in general, there are always exceptions). So basically a non-topic which is fair enough.

Your last part suggests there is mass support of Qatar across the non-western world (85%+ of the world) though even if not in the media. Not because of any support of Qatar's human rights abuses or anything like that, just solely due to people in the west having criticised them for it.

It's depressing if that's the case. I guess that would mean that anyone in the west should not oppose China's treatment of the Uyghurs or Israel's treatment of Palestinians or any other crime against humanity that is being committed anywhere in the world. Otherwise the entire non-western world will support the opposite side.

What happens when a western government commits another atrocity in the middle east or elsewhere and people from that county or any other western country criticises them? Do non-westerners then support that western government?

 

[MUnchies]

Indeed, I'm getting that feeling.

My point is his geographical location isn't the important part. It's the being on national TV part, more people will have seen his opinion on TV than would have seen a post on Twitter. So in turn more people will be reposting it, sharing it and discussing it like we are right now. Companies pay millions to place adverts in the commercial breaks of World Cup games do you think they do that for a laugh as opposed to just posting an advert on Twitter? No of course they don't they pay millions so their advert will be seen by many, more people potentially reaching tens of millions.

You seem to be fixated on his location, the important part here is what he said about the World Cup in Qatar. If saying that on live TV in Qatar reaches more people all the better.

I am not fixated on the location at all. All the reply's to my comment have been about my very first post saying why he was in Qatar so I keep replying to that.

We all agree that Qatar's ethics are terrible, but because I called Keane a hypocrite for being in Qatar while advocating the world cup shouldn't be there it seems my stance on Qatar is disregarded. We can agree on a message but not agree on how it's been delivered.

A jury can agree someone is guilty but might not agree on life sentence or death penalty. Does that make any of their guilty verdict not relevant?

 

[Pintu]

I was interested in any articles etc from non-western sources (not just middle-eastern) that were supportive of the Qatar world cup as I'm interested in their take on the matter but I may have misunderstood your post. It sounds like you're essentially saying that rather than active support, there just isn't any vocal criticism or vocal support coming from non-western countries (in general, there are always exceptions). So basically a non-topic which is fair enough.

Unfortunately, I do not speak "non-western languages". But I've heard enough reports about it being a non topic. They only mention it when they want to say "7 Europeans countries are angry at Qatar and Fifa", and it seems to stop at that. They barely mention the reasons behind the European anger.

The French Le Monde did a reporting where they screen the coverage in Japan, South Korea, Ghana, Tunisia, Argentina (focused on participating nations). None of them seems to share European views on Qatar organizing the WC. Just excitement. And I personally believe they'd have seen the same indifference to the subject in many European countries. It's no coincidence that only 10 of UEFA's 55 associations signed the "One love letter".

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sports/ar...ual-resonance-around-the-world_6004287_9.html

Your last part suggests there is mass support of Qatar across the non-western world (85%+ of the world) though even if not in the media. Not because of any support of Qatar's human rights abuses or anything like that, just solely due to people in the west having criticised them for it.

There are huge numbers of likes and retweets/Tiktok shares of Qatari accounts with talking points against the West. But that's very difficult to estimate. Social media can be manipulated... Then again, I meant mass support across the Arab world (especially the Middle East). That's the priority number one for Qatar. And I wasn't expecting it given how bad relations have been between Qatar and those countries in recent years. And the Western anger is helping Qatar get some appreciation for "standing up to the bully".

It's depressing if that's the case. I guess that would mean that anyone in the west should not oppose China's treatment of the Uyghurs or Israel's treatment of Palestinians or any other crime against humanity that is being committed anywhere in the world. Otherwise the entire non-western world will support the opposite side.

What happens when a western government commits another atrocity in the middle east or elsewhere and people from that county or any other western country criticises them? Do non-westerners then support that western government?

I meant of course the Western officials (plus their representatives/ including MSM and Football organizations, as long as they are embracing full hypocrisy). I never talked about people. I am myself "someone in the west".


This here (from a Swedish leftist magazine), is a column amongst the best I've read about Qatar. It is critical of both Qatar and the hypocrisy of Western MSM. He starts by telling stories of slave labor and stadiums deaths, we all assume it happened in Qatar.. Before the end of the article these examples are revealed to be from Los Angeles, and different parts of Europe (and they are not isolated cases)... And he asks the important question. Are we protesting against the system, or is it only Qatar?

Are we allowed to make the posturing against Qatar, a part of a serious protest against the entire system of football corruption, slave labor and sport washing ?

https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbla...s-kritik-mot-qatar-ett-hyckleri-av-simon-bank

 

[MackRobinson]

You seem to have missed something crucial, though: I didn't just say it's incorrect, I also said what I see as the not so nice purpose behind the falsehoods:

The belief that the purpose is delegitimizing pro-LGBT protests is frankly a lazy accusation. One can agree with a position and still be critical of an individual.

The post in the link sums up the cartoon's (fake news) messaging perfectly: The German players pretend to care about human rights, but what about the DFB silencing Özil over his support for the Uighurs?


Easy to put 2 & 2 together there.

First, he posted the image, not the link. Secondly, at best he expressed a vague, tangential viewpoint by posting that picture. To immediately scream whataboutery and make the accusation that it's somehow a defense of Qatar's censorship is silly, regardless if it is true or not. No question was asked. No argument was made.

 

[Pintu]

First, he posted the image, not the link. Secondly, at best he expressed a vague, tangential viewpoint by posting that picture. To immediately scream whataboutery and make the accusation that it's somehow a defense of Qatar's censorship is silly, regardless if it is true or not. No question was asked. No argument was made.

You seem to have missed something crucial, though: I didn't just say it's incorrect, I also said what I see as the not so nice purpose behind the falsehoods:

A quick search with the nickname of the poster shows he's criticized Qatar plenty.

There are better ways of defending Qatar's censorship than calling their laws inhumane.

If you want to ignore the fact I criticized Qatar on literally everything, but at the same time I called out hypocrisy of the others, its up to you.

I said multiple times they are a backward state with inhumane laws that should change now.

 

[Bert_]

Unfortunately, I do not speak "non-western languages". But I've heard enough reports about it being a non topic. They only mention it when they want to say "7 Europeans countries are angry at Qatar and Fifa", and it seems to stop at that. They barely mention the reasons behind the European anger.

The French Le Monde did a reporting where they screen the coverage in Japan, South Korea, Ghana, Tunisia, Argentina (focused on participating nations). None of them seems to share European views on Qatar organizing the WC. Just excitement. And I personally believe they'd have seen the same indifference to the subject in many European countries. It's no coincidence that only 10 of UEFA's 55 associations signed the "One love letter".

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/sports/ar...ual-resonance-around-the-world_6004287_9.html


There are huge numbers of likes and retweets/Tiktok shares of Qatari accounts with talking points against the West. But that's very difficult to estimate. Social media can be manipulated... Then again, I meant mass support across the Arab world (specially the Middle East). That's the priority number one for Qatar. And I wasn't expecting it given how bad relations have been between Qatar and those countries in recent years. And the Western anger is helping Qatar get some appreciation for "standing up to the bully".



I meant of course the Western officials (plus their representatives/ including MSM and Football organizations, as long as they are embracing full hypocrisy). I never talked about people. I am myself "someone in the west".


This here (from a Swedish leftist magazine), is a column amongst the best I've read about Qatar. It is critical of both Qatar and the hypocrisy of Western MSM. He starts by telling stories of slave labor and stadiums deaths, we all assume it happened in Qatar.. Before the end of the article these examples are revealed to be from Los Angeles, and different parts of Europe (and they are not isolated cases)... And he asks the important question. Are we protesting against the system, or is it only Qatar?

Are we allowed to make the posturing against Qatar, a part of a serious protest against the entire system of football corruption, slave labor and sport washing ?

https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbla...s-kritik-mot-qatar-ett-hyckleri-av-simon-bank

I appreciate this constructive post and I've a better understanding of where you're coming from. And thanks for clarifying you're referring to the powers that be in countries rathe than its general population. Unfortunately, a lot of people can't seem to make that distinction.

I'm not able to read the Le Monde article as it's behind a paywall but I did read the Simon Bank article you posted. He seems to focus on the plight of migrant workers and how the corrupt capitalist system is to blame for that and goes on to says how Qatar and the USA (he uses the US example) both engage in this system. I completely agree with that. All countries engage in it as it's a transnational system that doesn't respect borders. And to answer his closing question, yes we should be protesting about the system not just the symptoms.

That being said, it's got nothing to do with LGBTQ and women's rights in Qatar though which is the main crux of the protests.

 

[Dan_F]

Probably not directly, but they will be having an awful lot provided for them by Qatar as part of the media package, and half their job is to promote the tournament and the host.

Keane is not Hislop. Somebody of Keane's stature could have made a bigger point by publicly refusing to go.

I don’t see how anyone watching any coverage can possibly look at Qatar in a positive light. They’ve continually highlighted the issues in both BBC and ITV. I would assume the broadcasters are paying to be there, not the other way around.

 

[AlPistacho]

Looking at the coverage of the BBC & then contrasting it with what I’m actually seeing from fans on social media. I think now the disservice is being done to us by the BBC/ITV who are not giving us the WC experience.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Synco]

A quick search with the nickname of the poster shows he's criticized Qatar plenty.

There are better ways of defending Qatar's censorship than calling their laws inhumane.

The part you've quoted is about the messaging of the cartoon, not the posting history of the poster. "It" in that sentence denotes the cartoon, and the bolded part is what I see as its creator's purpose.

Of course, if someone chooses to promote a political message, criticism of that message applies to him/her as well. That's a banality. But my argument was always centered on the message itself.

The belief that the purpose is delegitimizing pro-LGBT protests is frankly a lazy accusation. One can agree with a position and still be critical of an individual.

These charges of hypocrisy are absolutely meant to do that. They aim is to deligitimise a protest (the German team's in this case) by pointing to those who protest.

First, he posted the image, not the link.

The link was an illustration of how the cartoon's messaging is widely received. The same takeaway was made by most on the Caf who referred to it, and (as I tried to show in my longer post) not by coincidence.

Secondly, at best he expressed a vague, tangential viewpoint by posting that picture. To immediately scream whataboutery and make the accusation that it's somehow a defense of Qatar's censorship is silly, regardless if it is true or not. No question was asked. No argument was made.

It's a political cartoon. They're meant to be political statements. It's the same as I replied to Pintu: if you spread a political message, you can be criticised for what it says. Shouldn't this be obvious?

 

[Steffa Barnesa]

BBC & ITV deciding not to show any of the opening ceremony set the tone. Very little coverage of fans enjoying themselves on the ground, despite it being a historic tournament for fans of many nations. You'd hope the BBC wouldn't take a stance and show that side, but they'll always let you down.

 

[11101]

I don’t see how anyone watching any coverage can possibly look at Qatar in a positive light. They’ve continually highlighted the issues in both BBC and ITV. I would assume the broadcasters are paying to be there, not the other way around.

But they are watching it, and every minute of coverage raises Qatar's profile, even if some of the coverage is negative. I would have loved the BBC/ITV to just show the games, no pre or post game show, analysis, or even commentary. Here's the games and that's it.

The broadcasters will pay FIFA but the organisers always throw all kinds of perks at them.

 

[AlPistacho]

BBC & ITV deciding not to show any of the opening ceremony set the tone. Very little coverage of fans enjoying themselves on the ground, despite it being a historic tournament for fans of many nations. You'd hope the BBC wouldn't take a stance and show that side, but they'll always let you down.

Yeah that’s become annoying now. Other countries are seeing the “festive” side while the BBC & ITV & Sky Sports its everything outside the stadium is only the negatives. Yet social media is filled with great snippets and stories of fans from everywhere uniting and having fun.

No doubt “ keep politics aways from sports” will be back in 4 years.

 

[Dan_F]

But they are watching it, and every minute of coverage raises Qatar's profile, even if some of the coverage is negative. I would have loved the BBC/ITV to just show the games, no pre or post game show, analysis, or even commentary. Here's the games and that's it.

The broadcasters will pay FIFA but the organisers always throw all kinds of perks at them.

Fair enough, I disagree. I don’t think this is a case of any publicity is good publicity.

 

[MackRobinson]

It's a political cartoon. They're meant to be political statements. It's the same as I replied to Pintu: if you spread a political message, you can be criticised for what it says. Shouldn't this be obvious?

I'm confused as to how you are making these leaps in judgment. The point is/was simply posting that picture is not whataboutery, not that he shouldn't be criticized. Let me clarify again. He wasn't responding to a question or an argument. He brought up a loosely related issue in a thread of loosely related issues.

 

[stevoc]

Yeah that’s become annoying now. Other countries are seeing the “festive” side while the BBC & ITV & Sky Sports its everything outside the stadium is only the negatives. Yet social media is filled with great snippets and stories of fans from everywhere uniting and having fun.

No doubt “ keep politics aways from sports” will be back in 4 years.

Which channels from other countries are you watching?

 

[Synco]

I'm confused as to how you are making these leaps in judgment. The point is/was simply posting that picture is not whataboutery, not that he shouldn't be criticized. Let me clarify again. He wasn't responding to a question or an argument. He brought up a loosely related issue in a thread of loosely related issues.

It all seems to boil down to how we perceive the cartoon. I think it's a clear case of whataboutery (based on a falsehood), so the criticism naturally applies to the one who posted it as well. You apparently don't, so you think this criticism is unfair. Don't think we'll get much more out of this exchange, tbh.

 

[MackRobinson]

It all seems to boil down to how we perceive the cartoon. I think it's a clear case of whataboutery (using a falsehood), so the criticism naturally applies to the one who posted it as well. You apparently don't, so you think this criticism is unfair. Don't think we'll get much more out of this exchange, tbh.

Whataboutery does not mean using falsehoods, has nothing to do with how we perceive the cartoon, and once again the question isn't whether or not he can be criticized. You and others are calling something a whataboutism that isn't. That's it.

 

[duffer]

BBC & ITV deciding not to show any of the opening ceremony set the tone. Very little coverage of fans enjoying themselves on the ground, despite it being a historic tournament for fans of many nations. You'd hope the BBC wouldn't take a stance and show that side, but they'll always let you down.

I watched it on BBC, they showed pretty much all of it.

 

[Synco]

Whataboutery does not mean using falsehoods, has nothing to do with how we perceive the cartoon, and once again the question isn't whether or not he can be criticized. You and others are calling something a whataboutism that isn't. That's it.

Alright, fine.