LGBT issues in Football
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I don’t really care where she was raised, giving me a back story on someone I don’t know seems to be your way of squirming under the spotlight. ‘How dare my mum be highlighted, she’s my mum!’
I care that you don’t see racist remarks as a reason to think less of someone. You say she’s had decades of misinformation, yet you’re fine with her making casual remarks cause you don’t want to think less of her. That’s a you problem with regards to family dynamics,
It’s clearly conditional because she’s your mum, which I’m sure all of us can understand, but you should still think less of someone because they say racist things. If you don’t then on a certain level, it’s okay to be racist cause you love them, which is a problem.
Everyone should be called out on racism, homophobia or any other derogatory remarks and opinions, regardless of who they are and regardless of how they got here, otherwise we allow acceptance and that stops big changes from actually happening. That’s not ‘super woke’, it’s just what needs to happen. If you can’t be arsed and give it conditions, that’s your problem.
Given the ‘years of disinformation’ don’t you think it’ll take extra effort to change that?
Last edited:
How do you conclude from that that I disagree with increasing freedom? The way I read that other guy's post was that banning alcohol is 'less bad' than suppressing LGBT rights, and therefore my question of "how would you feel if others tried to make us ban alcohol" wasn't relevant or not a good question.
Did I read his post wrong? I wasn't making a moral comparison, the greater context here is others imposing their morality on our Western policy. An alcohol ban is just a hypothetical example, could be something else that goes against our policies.
Edit: I meant to quote you @berbatrick ,I don't know why the quote disappeared.
Did I read his post wrong? I wasn't making a moral comparison, the greater context here is others imposing their morality on our Western policy. An alcohol ban is just a hypothetical example, could be something else that goes against our policies.
Edit: I meant to quote you @berbatrick ,I don't know why the quote disappeared.
I think Botim already explained that they have very heated arguments about this topic all the time. I am not sure what else you expect in this situation. To my mind, Botim is not only calling out his mother, but also able to factor in the circumstances. It's not a necessity to think less about someone, because they have different cultural, educational, etc. background. It's much harder to change when you get older.
It’s still conditional.
By the very definition, not thinking less of someone allows acceptance.
There shouldn’t be acceptance.
Understanding? Of course, but it shouldn’t stop you from thinking less of someone and challenging the stereotype that family members are above derision.
It makes no sense that you’d have heated arguments with someone and yet not think less of them, otherwise you wouldn’t argue with them. Pedantry perhaps, but the moment you try and change them in an argument about opinions, you’re automatically thinking less of them. You don’t argue with a perfect person do you?
Forgive me for being disappointed in anyone for having shit opinions and not just submitting to ‘I love my mum’ tropes. DO think less of someone for being a casual racist.
To use the argumentative skills of some of the less decent posts in this thread, ‘what about your mum?’ could be used to shoot down anything he says. If you don’t have that acceptance then you can’t get a whataboutism thrown at you.
Last edited:
For the record, some of you are interpreting my post completely wrong. This isn't me arguing that increasing freedom is bad. I quoted another poster who talked about changing another country's policy.
Changing another country's policy is serious business in geopolitics and you have to take into account that they may return the favor. Hell, the likes of Russia or China may be secretly trying out subversion and trying to make Western countries make suboptimal decisions. In that context, how would you react? I don't mean others helping us to become better, I mean others trying to make us go backwards.
Changing another country's policy is serious business in geopolitics and you have to take into account that they may return the favor. Hell, the likes of Russia or China may be secretly trying out subversion and trying to make Western countries make suboptimal decisions. In that context, how would you react? I don't mean others helping us to become better, I mean others trying to make us go backwards.
Honestly I don't believe that anyone is a perfect person. I also don't think that you should think less of someone in an argument about different opinions. I can still respect my colleagues or my professors, and disagree with them on several questions. It would be also unwise to think less of someone in an argument, because it would most likely trigger their psychological defence mechanism.
We also might have a different interpretation of the "thinking less of someone" expression. For me, it sounds very arrogant.
That attitude is very narrow minded, intolerant and toxic. It‘s also not true at all.
Do you have a reading disorder?
I literally just said I'm not fine with and I confront her with it. Her past is very relevant though, because she was taught that we were helping the poor Africans.
Acting like you're better than everyone else because you think you have all the answers is way more disgusting than an old lady making a misguided remark out of ignorance imo.
I am very disgusted by people eating animals, yet I respect others and the fact that people don't change overnight. Every single person has plenty of prejudice. And they deserve to be called out for it, but not disrespected/thought of less than others.
I think we read that line differently then.
I guess I will reframe my point from my personal experience. My father had some decidedly pro-Fox News views shortly before the election last year. I love him dearly and he was for me the role model for how to be a good man and husband. BUT, when he began spouting those talking points I did think less of him. I did not love him .001% less than before, but I still thought less of him. Almost nothing can ever make me love him less, but how I view him, and anyone I love, can change based on their actions. Just my 2 cents.
No. I don’t have a reading disorder. You seem to not want to own your words. You said you don’t think less of her, I’m asking why not? You say you argue with her, why if you don’t think less of her? On some level you are fine with it because you’re giving her a pass by not thinking less of her for it, even if that comes under the mask of understanding people don’t change overnight.
I don’t think I’m better than anyone else and I don’t think I have all the answers, this is you lashing out now cause someone dared make you think about how you feel about your mum, which is the whole point. None of us should be to the point where we’re not felt less of for having shitty opinions, we should always be challenged and no amount of love or understanding should change that. Mums, dads, friends, coworkers, enemies, strangers, whoever, none of us are above it.
I agree context is important and understanding the background to a person is key but that doesn’t change my opinion that you absolutely SHOULD think less of someone if they espouse opinions that are troubling.
You were the one that provided the condition whereby you don’t think less of someone, she’s your mum.
I called you out on it. Own it. Not letting people call you out on something just provides a buffer.
You mentioned background and misinformation, clearly part of your belief system is that a person is allowed unconditional love, no matter what they think. I absolutely wouldn’t (and don’t) love a person as much if they spaff out some casual racist remarks, it absolutely makes me think less of them. That change in how I see them makes me argue with them, and I suspect it’s why it makes you argue with your mum too. That shouldn’t even be controversial.
Why do you argue with people?
I believe so.
I believe that when someone says racist things, I’m well within my rights to think less of them. I don’t believe there’s a condition in that, whether they’re someone I love or someone I hate or anyone else. It could be for a brief moment but the image I have of them is changed.
If I then argue with them, it could be (amongst other things) because I’m trying to help them, and that could very well be because I love them, but that notion of trying to help is driven through the response of thinking less of them. I don’t want to think less of certain people in my life but when they do something bad, I do.
When I realised my mum, dad, sister, grandparents, best friends had opinions that I didn’t like, understand or respect (and respect for an opinion is earnt, not given automatically), I argued with them, I suspect I was disappointed that it shattered my idea of them. It’s hard to admit at first that I absolutely do think less of them but that’s driven through the information I’ve received about who I should trust and respect and that’s the same level of understanding mentioned when saying people don’t change overnight.
It also does not mean in the slightest that I know all the answers or that I’m better than them.
What’s your interpretation of it?
Last edited:
To value the person in question less than previously. So, I think that we have the same concept about the term. However, we disagree on that it is always necessary to think less of someone if you would like to change their opinion. That's fine as I understand your viewpoint and you explained yourself very well.
From my point of view, it would be ignorance to think less of someone due to different worldviews. For example, Botim's mother was socialized in a different era. She isn't born to be casually racist. She learned how the society works and what's her role(s) in it. Most of the people naturally defend their groups and oppose the other groups, because that's how you protect your self-image. It becomes discrimination if your membership is not voluntary - e.g. age, gender, origin.
Another part of this discussion is the stereotypes. You have a certain image about those groups which includes positive and negative aspects as well. It is a schema which facilitate the processing of information and the decision making. We all have different kinds of pattern of though to simplify our everyday life. Most of those schemas are based on previous experiences, socialization, etc.
I guess it's a feature of my profession as I am a researcher in educational science. I have to understand the other party and discover their motives if I would like to achieve change. For that, openness is absolute necessary. If I would already think less of them, I would be in a hopeless situation - people usually don't like if you devalue them.
So don't take them. As far as I know it isn't compulsory.
And what is it you don't want them to see?
So if a friend reveals that they are a racists or homophobe or white supremacists or whatever it is narrow minded, intolerant and toxic to think less of them than before you discovered they had despicable views? I don't think so.
What happened to the free speech of the LGBT+ people you relish in seeing getting attacked by the far right?
You didn't answer any of my questions either. But no, I use the term "left" for the policital left. And the people who initiated this campaign against Hungary clearly belong to the left. And of course it will be called "whataboutism" but I will add anyway, these people are very selective in deciding which human rights cause they support.
No, the rainbow in itself doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. But this campain against Hungary did. They were our guests in Munich and were treated very poorly.
I guess there are many good reasons to argue with someone.
Relevant part was the one I quoted. He essentially said that if you argue with someone, you think less of this person. Which is absolute nonsense. I argue - mainly businesswise - on a daily basis and never did it actually cross my mind to think less of someone for the sole reason of arguing with them. Having different opinions about stuff is normal and simply has to do with the huge variety of individuals we humans are. Stating that you're in need of a bubble or otherwise think less of people just shows how narrow minded, intolerant and toxic someone is, yes. You think less of someone because of specific opinions/aspects of an opinion maybe, but not just because it's not completely congruent with your own.
To answer your specific question: It's perfectly fine to think less of a person because of their views, if those views are despicable (very subjective btw). It's not rational, social or practical to think less of someone just because you have a different opinion and you're arguing with him. Why on earth would I think less of someone just because he's not seeing things as I do?
I guess it depends on if it matters and if so how it matters. It also depends what you mean by think less of and again that will be context driven.
At work differing opinions can drive batter decision making and imo often does. In that case I generally think more of people who disagree with me if that is the aim. Even of they are talking out of their arse and worse decisions outside my control are made I don't really think less of them necessarily but I might well think less of their expertise in certain areas. Unless they are just being dicks to try to exert power or some other idiotic reason and then my opinion of them plummets.
In everyday life I wouldn't consider most things an argument or consequential difference anyway but consequential things (like things I listed) would cause me to think less of people to at least some degree. And on the Caf differing opinions are great in many threads where people who disagree with me often improve my understanding of things but when the opinions are lunatic fringe and/or dangerous nonsense I certainly don't. Often the same topics contain both sorts e.g. covid threads, transgender threads and very occasionally the two types overlap.
And of course most of the time differences/arguments/opinions are so inconsequential as to not even be important enough to think about an opinion of the person in question.
The difference is we are currently in the Euros. Hungary is part of the EU. Why should they get the benefits of that when they are passing laws that are very much against the EU’s main values/principles.
Qatar should never have been given the World Cup, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue there. I don’t expect any protests like that, as they will be aiming to show off the country in the best possible light.
It was discussed already, Mr. Whataboutismer.
Sorry, but I don't think this is reasonable. Mainly because you seem to take no account of the elementary difference between family relations and general social interaction. He stated clearly that he argued with his mother over this a lot. That's a good deal more than a lot of people do when it comes to parents' failings. Most just roll their eyes and get on with dinner. You have the parents you have. If you want to have a family, you ultimately have to take what you get, you're not in a position to demand they have to be certain things.
Think some forget that Hungary is a member state of the EU and the UEFA. Both of those insitutions, at least on paper, oppose discrimination. Being a member of both is not a god-given right but voluntary, some would say a privilege. Membership requires meeting certain criteria. If other countries telling Hungary that discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community is wrong, is somehow unjust intervention of interior politics, same as arab countries pushing for a ban of alcohol in the west (lol), they can just feck off from the EU and UEFA.
Will be fun to see how the WC in Qatar plays off in this regard. Absolute shame that they're the host nation, for so many reasons.
Will be fun to see how the WC in Qatar plays off in this regard. Absolute shame that they're the host nation, for so many reasons.
Crikey Kamprad. Don't go to Japan then. They're very conservative but have naked festivals and Kanamara Matsuri, the penis festival where they erect a giant phallus in the town square and old ladies suck on penis-shaped ice-creams.
Also don't go to Thailand where many temples have carved wooden phalluses on display. Our local temple even has a public penis museum. In fact don't go anywhere.
Many festivals have naked or half-naked people not just your "sexualised" gay parades.
And if someone throws a dildo at you might I suggest you throw it back. It's wonderfully liberating.
I’ve been to several pride events and never once saw a penis. Which ones do you go to?
I’d happily do all three just to upset you.
Throwing dildos is extreme to be fair. Best start out with entry level butt plugs.
When I say ‘entry level’…
When I say ‘entry level’…
Still better than any non-straight person in Hungary.
Also: how exactly were the Hungarian fans treated poorly in Munich?
He did say he argued with his mother, it was more the idea that you wouldn’t think less of someone, despite racism, purely because she’s your mum.
If she’s racist then you should. Doesn’t matter who it is.
Giving people qualifications and passes allows for tolerance and acceptance and racism (or homophobia as the thread is about) should never be tolerated or accepted.
I fully accept if she’s come from a certain background/generation/belief system then you make allowances when challenging those views but I can remember the disappointment when I found out my mum was a bigot, I couldn’t not think less of her for that.
They turned up with a sign that literally had a Red Cross through two gay people and allegedly one of them was doing a Nazi salute behind the goal. Germany responded with rainbow flags for all. How exactly were they treated very poorly?
Not to get too personal, but frankly I think the point here isn't what anyone thinks about racism (where it seems to me views are much the same), but rather what you think and expect about how you deal with family (ie, parents). You only get one pair, you know. And you can't choose them. And they're not always in every respect admirable. And mostly, you can't change them. So, if you want to have a close relationship with them, and have someone in your life who is prepared to love and support you even when you don't earn it, that works in both directions and requires you to practice tolerance of shortcomings to a completely different degree than you do with friends, acquaintances or colleagues, of whom there is a practically limitless supply.
If you think the right way of going about it is instead to set some standards and hold everyone to them, then life may hand you some rough lessons.
Depends how much you want family and the traditional idea of it, which again is introjected values and messages passed down through centuries.
Or you could continue to call people out for racism, homophobia, et al.
I’m fine with us dropping the idea that we have to be civil with antiquated views because they’re coming from family members, that’s an idea anchored in the past that they come from.
Either you don’t condone hate speech, or you actually do because someone you love spews it out, choose one.
I don't know why you have to be so black and white about this. @Botim already explains that he/she challenges his/her mom about this, so he doesn't condone it. Yet he still loves her, cause it's a bond going back to his birth that's deeper than one aspect of her thinking. You guys seem to have gotten totally hung up on what it means exactly to 'think less of someone', but that's just semantics; it's not what this discussion is really about.
Also, it makes no sense to simply dismiss caring about family ties as antiquated. I mean, most people literally grow up with their families, that's not the kind of emotional tie you can simply sever through a simple rational decision.
During their anthem a guy ran onto the pitch with a rainbow flag and some spectators applauded it. But it started way earlierer with the media coverage and the behaviour of some politicians.
Good luck with that.
Oh goodness no someone waived a flag in front of them?! So much worse than being beaten to death or being denied your civil rights.
You do realise that it's pretty much a 100% certainty that your ideals will be viewed as antiquated in 30 years time, right?
I hope you'll enjoy your (grand)kids calling you a xenophobic moron.
Nobody here has argued you should let racist remarks slip, the argument is that it's way more productive (and social) to try and understand where they're coming from. And treat others with respect, instead of dismissing everyone that's not a hundred percent woke/pc as an old fool.
What a troll post.I hope those poor Hungarian supporters recovered from this traumatizing events.
The only thing beaten to death here is reason. Exactly which civil right is taken away with this new law in Hungary?