6 ms·

it's disgusting to organize public, worldwide events in barbaric countries.

by krzrak 4y ago

dang 4y ago
Maybe so, but please don't fulminate on HN. We want curious conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
elpescado 4y ago
Is "World Cup" public? I assume this is an event organised by private (for-profit) entity (FIFA).
- Karellen 4y ago
  FIFA is actually registered as a non-profit organisation. ...despite making profits of around $250M/year with cash reserves of over $2.5B.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    See also: Wikipedia Foundation.
    - mhh__ 4y ago
      Not even close
    - Karellen 4y ago
      Registered as a charitable foundation (distinct from non-profits) with profits of $40M, and an endowment (distinct from cash reserves) of $100M. In disputes, WMF has argued that it should not necessarily be liable for content written by 3rd-party contributors, which doesn't appear to be an entirely unreasonable position. It has lobbied for consumer rights in Copyright legislation hearings, and it has lobbied against governmental mass surveillance in which it was joined by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It has also been criticised for some software projects being late, over budget, and not living up to expectations (so, par for the course for a typical software project?), or being developed with insufficient transparency. Which, OK, isn't great. But you're comparing that to FIFA, whose officials have been repeatedly charged (with some guilty pleas, some convictions, and other cases ongoing) of multiple counts of political corruption, bribery, match fixing, racketeering and money laundering. Also, they lobby for exemptions to workers rights protections, and for special case tax exemptions beyond those normally afforded by it's non-profit status. If you were trying to make the point that FIFA "isn't that bad, actually", I don't think comparing them to WMF does them any favors. (Or, it does make WMF look pretty good, in comparison.) Maybe try comparing FIFA to the IOC or the NRA if you want to make them look better next time.
- BjoernKW 4y ago
  FIFA only nominally is a private, officially non-profit (yet actually very much for-profit), entity. They're embroiled in politics at the highest level because football / soccer arguably is the world's most popular (spectator) sport, which is something politicians gladly make use of to promote their own agendas and careers. FIFA World Cups more often than not involve large public infrastructure programs. FIFA and its high-ranking officials on the other hand profit in various ways, too, from "mere" tax holidays to downright corruption.
cmntqatar2022 4y ago
- kylecazar 4y ago
  Isn't it safe to conclude he's talking about the host country of the World Cup?
  - cmntqatar2022 4y ago
    - KoftaBob 4y ago
      The term barbaric is used to describe someone's * opinion * of another person/culture/group of people. Anyone is free to describe anyone else's culture as barbaric, that's their opinion.
    - bsagdiyev 4y ago
      Yes, absolutely. Full stop. Just because it's a cultural norm doesn't make it compatible with modern society.
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      > It's their culture, their country, do we have a moral right to say country barbaric for their cultural norms they accepted for hundreds of years? Yes, who am I to say that throwing a virgin into a volcano to please the fire god is barbaric? They've done it for hundreds of years! You know what's barbaric? Abolitionism! Slavery has been part of our society for hundreds of years, and that fellow Wilberforce thinks he can just overturn our norms by an act of parliament?
      - brobdingnagians 4y ago
        If you dig below the surface a little bit,most countries are barbaric, and not just by culturally relative things. Just one of many examples, the US openly tortures innocent individuals, persecutes journalists, and has started more wars in the last century than any other country. That's pretty warlike and barbaric, but if the entire world decided to boycott and sanction the US, Americans would throw a tantrum and rant about being the beacon of democracy and all good things.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Also a country that persecutes gay people. This event should really be boycott.
TomGullen 4y ago
Interesting interview on the radio here in the UK a few weeks ago with a famous climber who went to Saudi Arabia I think to compete after much moral deliberation. He did say that every native he spoke to was very grateful for his attendance, people travelling and participating in these sorts of events is an effective way to bring change and open peoples eyes, mainly through his insistence there were female climbers competing also which wasn't in the original plan. I'm in two minds about his story, it was a much smaller scale event and sounded well run. This World Cup though sounds flat out awful, mainly due to the throwaway slave labour in building the infrastructure and the rampant corruption from both sides. If the infrastructure wasn't built with slave labour, and if the country won the right to host fairly maybe I'd be OK with it.
- Bhurn00985 4y ago
  It could bring change and open people's eyes, but it can also be used to legitimize and normalize a regime that shouldn't.
  - justusw 4y ago
    Bringing change by strengthening economic and cultural ties has been tried for a few decades now with mixed results. Be that the United States–China Relations Act of 2000 during the Clinton administration, or Angela Merkel cozying up with Russia during her chancellorship. In one case, it didn't keep China from abusing its Uyghur citizens, in the other case, it didn't keep Russia from invading Ukraine.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > it can also be used to legitimize and normalize a regime that shouldn't Saudi Arabia and Qatar aren’t going anywhere if they can’t get World Cups.
- kepler1 4y ago
  Well, pardon me for pointing out, but he really should be talking to the people who aren't available to him to meet. The workers, slaves, people in jails. I'm sure they would have a slightly different opinion. Availability bias at its most obvious.
butterfly771 4y ago
Liberalism may even make you forget local laws that respect the cultural practices of others? Arrogant speech is no good. If someone like you reaches the top of politics, I think the world war will come soon, and you are more likely to be a fascist than others.
- theowwruoi34 4y ago
  How dare these infidels not follow Sharia even when they're inside their homes, away from the sights of everyone except the Holy One (TM). /s
mensetmanusman 4y ago
If only everything were so black and white. Every country has facets of barbarism.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  Whataboutism won’t change the barbarity of imprisoning consenting adults for having sex or being gay.
  - curiousgal 4y ago
    Barbarism is subjective though. To me trying to control a woman's body is an instance of barbarism but I am yet to see the U.S. being reffered to as a barbaric country, so yeah let's hold our judgment.
  - asdfataway2 4y ago
    [flagged]
- thorowsw4511 4y ago
powerapple 4y ago
Not having one night stand is barbaric?
- npteljes 4y ago
  Who's saying that they don't have them? Some are just punished for it. And the way they go about that is barbaric.
belorn 4y ago
I am assuming you are describing the behavior of combining government law with religious believes, and how that is applied.
asdfataway2 4y ago
GuB-42 4y ago
It is interesting to see all the discussion that follows regarding the term "barbaric". Is making homosexuality illegal barbaric? Is the US worse because they do $horrible_thing? I think it may be useful to remember the origin of the word. Barbarians in ancient Greece were simply the non-Greek. People of different culture, speaking a different language. And of course, they were considered inferior and unrefined by the Greeks, who called themselves citizens. For the Romans, Barbarians were those who were neither Roman nor Greek. It included Germans, Gauls, Persians,... So I think it is useful to remember that in addition to the idea that "barbaric" means primitive, brutal or cruel, there is also that idea of looking down on cultures that are not our own.

it's disgusting to organize public, worldwide events in barbaric countries.

by krzrak 4y ago

it's disgusting to organize public, worldwide events in barbaric countries.

dang 4y ago

Maybe so, but please don't fulminate on HN. We want curious conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

elpescado 4y ago

Is "World Cup" public? I assume this is an event organised by private (for-profit) entity (FIFA).

Karellen 4y ago
FIFA is actually registered as a non-profit organisation. ...despite making profits of around $250M/year with cash reserves of over $2.5B.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  See also: Wikipedia Foundation.
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    Not even close
  - Karellen 4y ago
    Registered as a charitable foundation (distinct from non-profits) with profits of $40M, and an endowment (distinct from cash reserves) of $100M. In disputes, WMF has argued that it should not necessarily be liable for content written by 3rd-party contributors, which doesn't appear to be an entirely unreasonable position. It has lobbied for consumer rights in Copyright legislation hearings, and it has lobbied against governmental mass surveillance in which it was joined by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It has also been criticised for some software projects being late, over budget, and not living up to expectations (so, par for the course for a typical software project?), or being developed with insufficient transparency. Which, OK, isn't great. But you're comparing that to FIFA, whose officials have been repeatedly charged (with some guilty pleas, some convictions, and other cases ongoing) of multiple counts of political corruption, bribery, match fixing, racketeering and money laundering. Also, they lobby for exemptions to workers rights protections, and for special case tax exemptions beyond those normally afforded by it's non-profit status. If you were trying to make the point that FIFA "isn't that bad, actually", I don't think comparing them to WMF does them any favors. (Or, it does make WMF look pretty good, in comparison.) Maybe try comparing FIFA to the IOC or the NRA if you want to make them look better next time.
BjoernKW 4y ago
FIFA only nominally is a private, officially non-profit (yet actually very much for-profit), entity. They're embroiled in politics at the highest level because football / soccer arguably is the world's most popular (spectator) sport, which is something politicians gladly make use of to promote their own agendas and careers. FIFA World Cups more often than not involve large public infrastructure programs. FIFA and its high-ranking officials on the other hand profit in various ways, too, from "mere" tax holidays to downright corruption.

cmntqatar2022 4y ago

kylecazar 4y ago
Isn't it safe to conclude he's talking about the host country of the World Cup?
- cmntqatar2022 4y ago
  - KoftaBob 4y ago
    The term barbaric is used to describe someone's * opinion * of another person/culture/group of people. Anyone is free to describe anyone else's culture as barbaric, that's their opinion.
  - bsagdiyev 4y ago
    Yes, absolutely. Full stop. Just because it's a cultural norm doesn't make it compatible with modern society.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    > It's their culture, their country, do we have a moral right to say country barbaric for their cultural norms they accepted for hundreds of years? Yes, who am I to say that throwing a virgin into a volcano to please the fire god is barbaric? They've done it for hundreds of years! You know what's barbaric? Abolitionism! Slavery has been part of our society for hundreds of years, and that fellow Wilberforce thinks he can just overturn our norms by an act of parliament?
    - brobdingnagians 4y ago
      If you dig below the surface a little bit,most countries are barbaric, and not just by culturally relative things. Just one of many examples, the US openly tortures innocent individuals, persecutes journalists, and has started more wars in the last century than any other country. That's pretty warlike and barbaric, but if the entire world decided to boycott and sanction the US, Americans would throw a tantrum and rant about being the beacon of democracy and all good things.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Also a country that persecutes gay people. This event should really be boycott.

TomGullen 4y ago

Interesting interview on the radio here in the UK a few weeks ago with a famous climber who went to Saudi Arabia I think to compete after much moral deliberation. He did say that every native he spoke to was very grateful for his attendance, people travelling and participating in these sorts of events is an effective way to bring change and open peoples eyes, mainly through his insistence there were female climbers competing also which wasn't in the original plan. I'm in two minds about his story, it was a much smaller scale event and sounded well run. This World Cup though sounds flat out awful, mainly due to the throwaway slave labour in building the infrastructure and the rampant corruption from both sides. If the infrastructure wasn't built with slave labour, and if the country won the right to host fairly maybe I'd be OK with it.

Bhurn00985 4y ago
It could bring change and open people's eyes, but it can also be used to legitimize and normalize a regime that shouldn't.
- justusw 4y ago
  Bringing change by strengthening economic and cultural ties has been tried for a few decades now with mixed results. Be that the United States–China Relations Act of 2000 during the Clinton administration, or Angela Merkel cozying up with Russia during her chancellorship. In one case, it didn't keep China from abusing its Uyghur citizens, in the other case, it didn't keep Russia from invading Ukraine.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > it can also be used to legitimize and normalize a regime that shouldn't Saudi Arabia and Qatar aren’t going anywhere if they can’t get World Cups.
kepler1 4y ago
Well, pardon me for pointing out, but he really should be talking to the people who aren't available to him to meet. The workers, slaves, people in jails. I'm sure they would have a slightly different opinion. Availability bias at its most obvious.

butterfly771 4y ago

Liberalism may even make you forget local laws that respect the cultural practices of others? Arrogant speech is no good. If someone like you reaches the top of politics, I think the world war will come soon, and you are more likely to be a fascist than others.

theowwruoi34 4y ago
How dare these infidels not follow Sharia even when they're inside their homes, away from the sights of everyone except the Holy One (TM). /s

mensetmanusman 4y ago

If only everything were so black and white. Every country has facets of barbarism.

khazhoux 4y ago
Whataboutism won’t change the barbarity of imprisoning consenting adults for having sex or being gay.
- curiousgal 4y ago
  Barbarism is subjective though. To me trying to control a woman's body is an instance of barbarism but I am yet to see the U.S. being reffered to as a barbaric country, so yeah let's hold our judgment.
- asdfataway2 4y ago
  [flagged]
thorowsw4511 4y ago

powerapple 4y ago

Not having one night stand is barbaric?

npteljes 4y ago
Who's saying that they don't have them? Some are just punished for it. And the way they go about that is barbaric.

belorn 4y ago

I am assuming you are describing the behavior of combining government law with religious believes, and how that is applied.

asdfataway2 4y ago

GuB-42 4y ago

It is interesting to see all the discussion that follows regarding the term "barbaric". Is making homosexuality illegal barbaric? Is the US worse because they do $horrible_thing? I think it may be useful to remember the origin of the word. Barbarians in ancient Greece were simply the non-Greek. People of different culture, speaking a different language. And of course, they were considered inferior and unrefined by the Greeks, who called themselves citizens. For the Romans, Barbarians were those who were neither Roman nor Greek. It included Germans, Gauls, Persians,... So I think it is useful to remember that in addition to the idea that "barbaric" means primitive, brutal or cruel, there is also that idea of looking down on cultures that are not our own.