Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bluetriumphantcloud t1_ix5pu3v wrote

I guess they forgot to buy the BBC.

203

Viron_22 t1_ix69912 wrote

The check didn't clear yet.

40

thatguysaidearlier t1_ix7dcns wrote

It would be a cheque anyway... :)

18

Viron_22 t1_ix7gqrn wrote

Really with FIFA it would probably be in cash, they don't want to leave a paper trail at this point. Wouldn't want people thinking they were corrupt, would they?

8

KRossKoWolf t1_ix5hejg wrote

Good. Should never have been allowed to be hosted there in the first place. Just a case of money over morals.

133

44MHz t1_ix7j381 wrote

It's still a step in the right direction from Russia in 2018.

−78

jamesmon t1_ix7osd1 wrote

You might think, but somehow Qatar manages to be worse. They just don’t have the power to project themselves on others like Russia does.

30

44MHz t1_ix7z4sg wrote

They don't manage to be worse. Russia is far far worse. Russia is literally running a genocide campaign and has been committing continuous war crimes since at least 2014.

Qatar just isn't running a massive propaganda and brainwashing fake news campaign on the scale that Russia is. They are an easy target for racists and islamophobia.

−19

jamesmon t1_ix834nl wrote

They make themselves an easy target by treating women and homosexuals like shit. Both countries are garbage.

7

thesame123 t1_ix8a4ot wrote

Calm down, mate. Not everything is about racism. Maybe try acknowledging the fact that Qatar doesn’t believe in human rights.

6

44MHz t1_ix8bcks wrote

They absolutely believe in human rights.

−12

JimmminyCricket t1_ix8fk3a wrote

If you mean the right to treat human, non male, non cis, non Muslims like shit, then yes you’re right.

6

44MHz t1_ix8fxso wrote

In the West it's exactly the same except change Muslim with white.

−2

BostonBoy01 t1_ix8gm51 wrote

Muslims can’t get married in the west?

3

JimmminyCricket t1_ix8hbdq wrote

Yea evidently the gays banned Muslims from marrying the opposite sex, the whites banned Muslims from practicing Islam or reading the Quran and the furries are forcing everyone to attend furry conventions every Saturday or the furry morality police will pick you up.

1

44MHz t1_ix8hrai wrote

If you think gays and Muslims aren't persecuted in white countries then you are obviously white and not gay or Muslim.

They are literally being killed. Just a few hours ago a group of Gays were executed in a bar in America.

This is happening right now.

0

JimmminyCricket t1_ix8idi5 wrote

Duh it’s happening. It’s due to extremists. But guess what? The government doesn’t OUTRIGHT BAN these people from existing. Yes we need to change our culture still (as do the Qataris…) but we are at least a major leap ahead.

And if you truly feel that way, why are you seemingly only standing up against it on one side of things? On the other (Qatar) side you just want to run defense and point to other countries that “do it too.” So is it bad or not????? PERIOD. That’s it. It’s bad. Call it out every time. Big or small.

2

44MHz t1_ix8jadg wrote

It's not extremists if they are the presidents of those countries.

I'm not standing up for anyone.

I'm just telling you that Russia is far worse than Qatar.

0

44MHz t1_ixcjfmx wrote

Christians can’t get married in Qatar? (They absolutely can)

1

44MHz t1_ix8hv7w wrote

Not in state Churches, no.

It's the same thing.

0

tatxc t1_ixchuo0 wrote

In the UK any Muslim could get married in any state registry office or C of E Church a Christian could.

1

44MHz t1_ixcjnh9 wrote

Just like they can in churches in Qatar.

It's the same thing.

0

tatxc t1_ixcnh8x wrote

Yeah, no. Gays can't get married in Qatar.

Jews can't even get koshur food there right now or pray in public.

1

44MHz t1_ixdwe7z wrote

Neither can gays get married in many parts of Europe, like Italy.

And halal food practices are illegal in Sweden and Denmark, for example.

It’s the same thing.

0

tatxc t1_ixe1d0x wrote

Halal slaughter is banned in animal rights grounds. Halal food isn't, you can buy Halal food there easily.

And Italy might not have gay marriage but it does have civil unions registered by the state. That's not the same as Qatar where its illegal.

1

44MHz t1_ixe2fyv wrote

Gay marriage is illegal in Italy. "Alternatives" exist in both Italy and Qatar but they don't count.

Most halal food is kosher anyway. Kosher has slightly stricter preparation rules for some ingredients, but if you practice Judaism you know what these are and can avoid them.

0

tatxc t1_ixeq95x wrote

Being gay is illegal in qatar. Its very fucking different and you know it.

And its easy to avoid unless you're visiting a country for an event. And none of that addresses the ban on public prayer. They're both clearly an attempt to suppress Judaism.

1

44MHz t1_ixer1ok wrote

Being gay is not illegal in Qatar. What is this nonsense.

And Italy's ban on gay marriage is clearly a way to suppress gay people. That's Europe for you.

0

tatxc t1_ixgpbl4 wrote

Sexual acts of male homosexuality are illegal in Qatar, with a punishment of up to three years in prison and a fine and the possibility of a death penalty for Muslims under sharia law.

You're not fooking anyone with this disingenuous crap and you're just factually wrong here.

1

44MHz t1_ixgq4ks wrote

Funny, because a gay marriage is illegal in Italy, with punishment of up to three years in prison and fines.

It's even the same punishment in Europe.

0

tatxc t1_ixi7ccs wrote

Yeah sorry going to need a source on that one.

1

44MHz t1_ixie4j8 wrote

Gay marriage (or any non-genuine marriage) is a breach of art 495 in the Italian penal code.

0

tatxc t1_ixifgjb wrote

No, 495 is for falsely declaring on official documents and the penalty is one year.

I think you know this too, as there's never been a case of a homosexual being prosecuted under these laws.

1

44MHz t1_ixifrw8 wrote

There has never been a gay marriage punished in Qatar either.

So we can dismiss that one too.

0

tatxc t1_ixiuaas wrote

That's because qatar imprisons people for the act of homosexuality and offers no legal alternative. So we can't dismiss that at all, they're not the same and you know that.

1

44MHz t1_ixiwavo wrote

And Italy imprisons people for claiming gay marriage (since they are considered non-genuine). There is no legal alternative.

0

tatxc t1_ixj0o44 wrote

No they don't, this has been to court before. They don't go to prison, they just get reclassified as civil unions. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The LGBTQ+ safety index rates Italy 53rd of 203 countries with a score of 168. Qatar are rated 190th with a score of - 137.

They aren't the same. You know that, I know that. We're done here.

1

44MHz t1_ixj26ws wrote

Civil unions are not as much as an alternative to marriage as a wife is and alternative to a gay man’s marriage. These two cannot be equated.

0

tatxc t1_ixj476h wrote

This is nonsense, a legally binding, state recognised agreement between two people, while not perfect, is clearly better than being imprisoned for committing the acts required to develop a connection needed to enter said contact. This is a fact and its why the safety index is so heavily different. I'll only be accepting sourced arguments from reasonably objective sources from you now I'm afraid.

1

44MHz t1_ixjc4t7 wrote

Same for you.

Please give the source stating gays in Italy are not fighting for gay marriage to be recognized and they are happy with civil partnership as being equal to straight marriage.

0

tatxc t1_ixjdd4x wrote

Nobody argued that, it's the definition of a straw man. Nobody argued that European countries were perfect. And the fact you're trying to argue that is because you know the actual point of contention is irrefutable. You're just JAQing off.

The simple and irrefutable fact is that all Western European countries are significantly better places for homosexuals to live, work and visit than Qatar. The [LGBTQ+ safety index] and (https://www.asherfergusson.com/lgbtq-travel-safety/) equalidex both clearly illustrate this.

1

44MHz t1_ixje4n6 wrote

And European countries are significantly worse than Qatar for Muslims.

What’s your point?

1

tatxc t1_ixjgc07 wrote

> And European countries are significantly worse than Qatar for Muslims.

I'm afraid you're going to need a citation for the fact that Muslims' human rights are better catered for in Qatar than in the UK. Because for gay Muslims, women, foreign working Muslims or even Shia Muslims

1

JimmminyCricket t1_ix8h395 wrote

LOL. Okay? First off yea, white people are treated better due to systemic racism. It’s quite different in terms of rules and laws for everyone though lmao.

Also, all you have is to redirect to “BUT BUT BUT THE DEH TEH USA BED TOO1!!1!11!”

Like come on man. The way to take criticism is not to turn around and criticize. Fucking admit fault. See how I did that in the first paragraph for the USA even though it’s an evident “what-aboutism” and a strawman argument?

2

CaptainDino123 t1_ixdjx0e wrote

Muslims can be executed for being muslim in the west? Damn I must have missed that news story

1

44MHz t1_ixdxpln wrote

White people can be executed for being white in Qatar? Damn I must have missed that news story

1

CaptainDino123 t1_ixe5dok wrote

Homosexuals fam

1

44MHz t1_ixe6i8s wrote

In the US, gay people are getting murdered in the street. The police do nothing since most of them are against gay rights.

0

Ehab1991 t1_ix8oc4f wrote

Don't waste your time with these brainwashed idiots.

−2

grr_not_me t1_ix74fnx wrote

I just unjoined the World Cup subreddit. I hadn't paid attention to it until today. All I saw today was people trying to justify Qatar and FIFA actions by "both siding" the issue, and just general toxicity. I don't remember the toxicity during he last World Cup.

50

44MHz t1_ix7j29n wrote

> I don't remember the toxicity during he last World Cup.

Which is ironic because the toxicity should have been a lot worse. The state of Russia is orders of magnitude worse than Qatar.

11

grr_not_me t1_ix7z5ks wrote

Good point, I completely forgot about that. Maybe FIFA has finally gone one too far for me and an okay percentage of fans around the world. I guess TV ratings will see if they went too far or are just too popular.

2

Jimmy_kong253 t1_ixc3u1e wrote

But at the time Russia wasn't as bad as it is now. If Russia was hosting now it would be a complete uproar worse than Qatar

1

44MHz t1_ixcfixk wrote

Russia invaded Ukraine and started its genocide in 2014. Four years before it hosted the World Cup.

1

TheExtreel t1_ix7o2wy wrote

It's a shame but they're just trying to justify themselves watching it. A lot of people have conflicting feelings about this world cup and they don't know how to feel good about themselves enjoying this world cup after all the shitty things Qatar has done, so they try to argue their way into believing "its not that bad" or "other countries are worse" just so they can enjoy the cup.

At least that's how i see it. It's football fans were talking about here, they might just be shitty people and that's that.

11

Ehab1991 t1_ix7jgft wrote

It's plain racism at this point

−24

JimmminyCricket t1_ix8gir2 wrote

You’re actually defending an authoritarian regime that hates women and gay people. A government that HAS A MORALITY POLICE.😂😆

You’re actually DEFENDING intolerance/prejudice and racism and turning around and screaming racism at the people pointing it out.

You’re insincere and you don’t know how you’re supposed to feel. So you scream racism because it’s been true before.

Grow up.

4

Ehab1991 t1_ix8o3vf wrote

You're mixing Qatar with Saudi Arabia, that shows exactly how racist you're in lumping them all up ignorantly.

​

I know exactly how I feel, the west is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, y'all should be ashamed of yourselves.

​

Fuck all of y'all.

−5

JimmminyCricket t1_ix8p3r1 wrote

You’re a clown that can’t even debate on an intellectual factual level. Just calling me racist and cursing at me when I don’t bend to your will. You are wrong. I don’t give a fuck how you feel. QATAR is as if not completely worse racist/prejudiced as middle American white conservatives.

Grow up you petulant child. 🤡

https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/03/29/everything-i-have-do-tied-man/women-and-qatars-male-guardianship-rules

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/24/qatar-security-forces-arrest-abuse-lgbt-people

“All six said that police forced them to sign pledges indicating that they would “cease immoral activity.”

3

Ehab1991 t1_ix8qvdd wrote

First of all, I didn't say anything about gay folks intolerance because, news flash, it's a Muslim country, wth did you expect?

Second of all, you can't just impose your western values as the morally correct choice on other nations, it doesn't work like that. That article about guardianship doesn't mean jack shit. They site just two isolated cases and generalize it on the whole country!

Get the fuck outta here.

0

Thraxmonger t1_ix8lzsh wrote

No sport is worth the cost of corruption and racketeering that football brings to the table. It makes boxing look like an ethical masterclass by comparison. All sports require its fans to be tribal, but football takes everything to the next level, and the violence of the sport's fanbase speaks for itself. Hosting something that's supposed to be the "world's game" in a place like Qatar is more than enough evidence that ethics are purely secondary to profit. This is not the "world's game", but it is a game that is out to profit from that world in whatever ways it can.

7

Jimmy_kong253 t1_ixc42oy wrote

These opening ceremonies be it Olympics or world cup that use unity as a theme are bs especially when it's from host countries with a history of being a divider. I figured someone at BBC saw the theme and was like nope nobody is going to turn in to that we will just wait till the BTS guy lip syncs his song to switch

1

Saysbruh t1_ix7tyf0 wrote

The irony

−1

Canadian_summer1 t1_ix86n89 wrote

Bro y'all are surprised about slavery with people building the stadium I remember watching a videos about it from last week tonight in like what 2017? You guys sure didn't make a big shit then.

−5

sleepy_tech t1_ix7taen wrote

The Qataris must be having sleepless nights now. Oh no!!

−6

spaceyspaceyspace t1_ix7bjpc wrote

> where they were focusing on the important things instead

Yeah they’re writing much more subtly than that, it’s not a newspaper for children or people with an IQ of 5…

−11

dadidas t1_ix6qgvj wrote

Don’t have a license for that?

−20

ErenV400 t1_ix7si9s wrote

No one even watches that channel lmao, Keep seething

−20

sleepy_tech t1_ix7td60 wrote

Exactly. CNN and BBC are both dead.

−18

ErenV400 t1_ix7ucla wrote

Everyone here is a loser lmao no one cares about them, The real fans are already in Qatar enjoying

−16

GoodmanSimon t1_ix7k8z6 wrote

A bit of a weird thing for the bbc to do.

I mean they have entire teams in Qatar reporting the tournament and yet they still choose to have a go at their human rights.

I think it would have been best for them to not go at all ... but I guess they still had to make money.

−25

Sfb208 t1_ix7kdvl wrote

BBC doesn't make money. It's a public service station funded through the TV licence.

However, they do have a remit to report on anything of public interest to the British people, and yes, that means they cover major sports events. Particularly football, as its probably the biggest sport in the UK.

29

GoodmanSimon t1_ix7lzuz wrote

They do make money, they sell the rights to some of their shows/events.

License fees only partially cover their costs, (large part if I recall), but that's not all of it. They have to sell some of their contents.

>However, they do have a remit to report on anything of public interest

Yes, then why not show the opening ceremony then?

−14

Sfb208 t1_ix7mcvm wrote

True, except most of their money doesn't go into the pockets of shareholders, which is a significant difference than, say, fox.

Opening ceremony isn't necessary part of the games. It's the games they report on. Plus, they're public remit does place them in an awkward position. Plenty of people would prefer tax payer money wasn't spent on promoting Qatar, but they'd be damned by football fanatics if they didn't. Not showing the ceremony is a compromise. Its a nod to taking a stand without withholding actual sports coverage.

14

GoodmanSimon t1_ix7n1a2 wrote

I am not going to split hair here, I think we are both saying the same thing in a way.

I still think they do have to make money otherwise the UK taxpayers would need to pay higher fees and that would make the BBC even more unpopular, (or the government of the day if they had to use taxpayer money to foot the difference).

So, while they are definitely not a private entity they do have to make some money.

Because they are seen as the TV station of the UK, they also have a role to play when it comes to those kind of delicate situations. In this case I think they chose a bit of a backhanded way to still be there but be seen to be outraged.

−5

teabagmoustache t1_ix7ooem wrote

>I guess they still had to make money

This is the part people are disagreeing with.

They make no money from the World Cup.

You turned the conversation into something completely irrelevant instead of just accepting you got that detail wrong.

5

ItDoesntMatter59 t1_ix7lc9i wrote

The BBC makes no money as it’s effectively run as a state non profit.

7

GoodmanSimon t1_ix7m2wf wrote

They do, they sell contents, (like coverage of the soccer world cup), to other providers.

License fee does not cover everything.

−2

teabagmoustache t1_ix7n18p wrote

The BBC does not sell it's coverage rights to third parties. Rights to broadcast the World Cup are paid to FIFA.

They sell their own content to other providers, like UK Gold and Brit Box for example but they do not profit from broadcasting the World Cup.

5

matrixislife t1_ix5mjck wrote

Wow, the Guardian sounds really pissed off that people have been having a go at Qatar.

−88

taversham t1_ix5thno wrote

The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper that has also been heavily criticising Qatar. Bits of the article like:

"Rather than Doha’s preferred narrative of a tiny Arab country uniting the world with football, viewers in the UK were left in no doubt that the World Cup was mired in accusations of bribery and that Qatar was a deeply flawed host country."

make it pretty clear that they are on the BBC's side in this.

40

matrixislife t1_ix5u7z0 wrote

>The BBC declined to explain why it had shunted coverage of the opening ceremony – traditionally an opportunity for host countries to project soft power around the world – to an online-only stream.

>Even the former footballers brought in to analyse the actual sport for the BBC broke down any pretence that politics should be kept out of football.

>Back on the BBC, there was no such niceties,

>And then, after half an hour, the programme rapidly shifted towards discussion of football –......– and, eventually, 22 people kicking a ball around a pitch.

And it continues. This is not the Guardian getting firmly behind the Beeb. I was expecting them to be fully in lockstep, but apparently not.

−34

taversham t1_ix5wa87 wrote

I think perhaps you're misinterpreting the tone of the article, saying the BBC had "no such niceties" in comparison to Al Jazeera's coverage is a a criticism of the latter not the former.

They go over every point that BBC brought up so that their readers will know about it, and only briefly touch on any "counterpoints" (which they dismiss as mere "niceties") - compare it to their article about the Fox coverage, which briefly summarises that the Fox coverage of Qatar was positive and then goes into detail about the criticisms thereof.

21

matrixislife t1_ix5wvzg wrote

I'm fine with the tone, if it were being positive about the BBC then they would have chosen a positive way to phrase it, "Back on the beeb, they were focussing on the important things instead" or somesuch, not "they were being gits"

−29

nykgg t1_ix81dr6 wrote

Dude, you are really misreading the tone here. Every quote you list is supportive of the BBC actions.

The Guardian disapproves of Qatar getting to project soft power through this event.

The Guardian doesn’t like the idea that ‘politics should be kept out of football’.

The Guardian does not have any interest in presenting this event with niceties either.

This is all relatively in-line with the Guardian’s own mission.

Maybe in a tabloid paper like the Sun they’d be using super positive approving language, but in a paper like the Guardian, Independent or Times they try to keep a more detached tone, even if their own politics are being highlighted.

IT WOZ THE SUN WOT SPORTS-WASHED IT!

4

matrixislife t1_ix82idh wrote

I disagree. And let's not try to put the Grauniad too far ahead of other papers, they have their own issues.

0

nykgg t1_ix82z1l wrote

That’s why I distinguished it into the same group as other non-tabloid papers…

3

matrixislife t1_ix83e90 wrote

That's what I meant. Some of the stuff they publish under "opinion" pieces is much worse than the redtops.

1

nykgg t1_ix87d4t wrote

Perhaps, but you must agree they are on average far less brash with their language choice than those papers

2

matrixislife t1_ix8ec6t wrote

Language choice takes second place when it comes to subject choice and manifestation of inherent biases. They are all papers that promote an ideology, they are the same imo.

1

nykgg t1_ix8vvyx wrote

Okay, but you think that the Guardian is against the BBCs choice to present Qatar critically even though it’s clearly the opposite? So where does that leave your assessment of their use of language?

2

matrixislife t1_ix97k0u wrote

>it’s clearly the opposite

In your opinion. My assessment of their use of language is fine, in my opinion.

1

itsalonghotsummer t1_ix5pppz wrote

No it doesn't

8

matrixislife t1_ix5qca1 wrote

Nice to see a well thought out, concise and erudite rebuttal. Or it would have been.
Just to maintain the flavour of the thread..
Yes it does!

−24

ItDoesntMatter59 t1_ix7lgqy wrote

Yours wasnt so why should he give a long reply

3

matrixislife t1_ix7s9g7 wrote

To explain why he disagrees? I didn't realise we were comparing word counts in responses.

0