World Cup 2022

[callentournies]

what a weird, weird moment this is

[iNcog]

you might benefit from opening twitter less. "twitter is a rat-hole"

Well, I mean wherever the professional offense takers express their discomfort at 'thing happening on TV'

Who cares, you are West now. If that bothers you, just join another union with Serbia or Russia.

Romania can be geopolitically nonbinary, just like Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan.
And besides, the West does not see us as the West, case in point being how they keep us outside Schengen in perpetuity for invented reasons, or how they see Poland's political culture as foreign to Western standards

The same is starting to happen for India, China, every manufacturing powerhouse that the West has put on a path to development and now are starting to flip the bird on you (the West), telling you that you're not in the position to play the global referee anymore.
In the name of diversity quotas in the USA, you made them run your companies, they're funding and helping back their own ethnic group back home with capital you gave them by making them rich, transferring technology and know-how, so that later their countries will tell you that you're no longer needed and you don't have any moral authority. What is more, if you dare criticise them, they're gonna serve you back your own arguments about racism, colonialism etc etc. You have enabled them.

The West deserves this, especially its leftwing camp. This is actually glorious.
They deserve to be put in that state of minority in which they will work long hours in a factory, only to be able to afford the life of the people on whose shoulders they were crying decades ago.
Then we'll see if they have any time or disposition to cry on the shoulders of any oppressed minority in another corner of the world when their life will be just as miserable.
If you're not put in a situation in which you need to struggle to survive, you can afford to have this virtue-signalling lifestyle.

You're acting like most middle class westerners had a say in how unethically run these big corporations were run. We didn't.

Idk, there've been so many Westerners coming here and lecturing us how your system is so great at representing people's political will, so open to changing power, so good at holding officials accountable. And now you're telling me it's not. We've been sold some big lies, if so. Why go around the world preaching the gospel of democracy when you know it's far from delivering on its promises. And I don't mean only political leaders who are guilty of this kind of deception, but your academics and think tanks too, who came here to teach us how to become more like you, unable to represent people's will properly.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being critical today in 2022 and trying to push towards a better standard for all of humanity. Your whataboutism just doesn't really add anything to the conversation. You're free to be a cynical edgelord in your corner, enjoy. The rest of us will try to push towards humanity improving as a whole.

That's the hubris and delusion that "you" (the West) are some kind of flag bearer for whatever humanity should be. As if Qatar is not part of humanity, so if they want to become a member of the species, they need to apply for humanity membership at the Western headquarters. Because that's where "the better standard for all of humanity" gets defined. They don't have any say in it, as it's defined elsewhere.

Not sure that I've ever been not critical of "democracy" and other such western institutions, but okay. You seem to be having fun getting angry over there alone. I'm not sure we can have a real discussion when you're literally setting up arguments I've never made and then viciously attacking into it. I suppose that's the definition of a straw man

[lejend]

[Dolan]

Not sure that I've ever been not critical of "democracy" and other such western institutions, but okay. You seem to be having fun getting angry over there alone. I'm not sure we can have a real discussion when you're literally setting up arguments I've never made and then viciously attacking into it. I suppose that's the definition of a straw man

But don't you get it, part of the West's moral higher ground was lecturing the rest of the world about how they need to adopt its democratic model. And then you're telling me that you guys, in your vibrant and functional democracies, had no control over what your companies did.
Then why did you (your people, your media, your leaders, your academics, your think tanks) get so preachy about your superior political system. Aren't you able to make some connections without them being spelled out to you.
You've said that the middle class had no say in how Western companies were run. What say did the middle class have in what, then? Anything specific? Or was everything outside its control? Then where is the democracy, if your middle class had no control whatsoever over how things were run, which laws were passed, etc.
What exactly is the Western model, then, and what is it so great about it if nobody had any control over what companies did.
Was your democracy just some kind of Sim game, in which you were given an interface to move some pieces in, so that you feel like you're moving things, but it was all just some virtual illusion of power.

Maybe it was just that, you were given your little pieces, that little piece of ballot paper to have this impression you're controlling things and then whatever the outcome was, it didn't matter, because things were managed in ways that never touched the corporations anyway. Then that was democracy in name only and maybe because the people in power knew better than to let the plebs make such big strategic decisions.

Maybe those corporations actually had no choice but to act like this, because Westerners kept voting leaders that promised them the moon without caring what it took to deliver the moon. And delivering the moon required making such compromises, befriending the devil to help you cross that difficult bridge. Keeping oil prices low to keep an artificial level of prosperity that would not have been possible without your corporations running a profitable trade with Gulf states.

So I think somewhere there was a level of implicit complicity. Your people voted politicians in power to "do whatever, use your shady methods to keep our prosperity up and growing, we don't care how". And that's what they did, without needing to ask for your support of any specific measures, because the objective was to make the impossible possible given devilish constraints. And then someone like you can come and complain about how those things from the past were just decisions over which voters/the middle class had no control. Well, no shit, that was part of the deal. They didn't care how the objective was achieved, they just wanted it done, they wanted prosperity, that's what they voted for and that could only be achieved with low oil prices.

We didn't vote for that -- said the Westerner with thousands of bucks per month salary and purchasing power above most of the world. It was done against our wishes, our voters always voted based on how well politicians reined corporations in, not on how much they made the economy go up and up. Our elections were always about making the corporations ethical not about living standards going up.

[lejend]

"We're not racist, we just care about human rights..."

[Dolan]

Nah it's about Germany being in China's pockets. Germany does not dare say anything that would bother China too much, as that would hurt mah money interests and that's the most important thing in Germany after any other outlet for pride was destroyed by the WW2 legacy.
Only economic pride is allowed.
Ozil was probably left on the offside there, as the federation got some phonecall telling it it's not worth upsetting that big trade volume with China over that.
Qatar is more manageable, not so much German investment, plants, ships going back and forth carrying goods.

[iNcog]

Not sure that I've ever been not critical of "democracy" and other such western institutions, but okay. You seem to be having fun getting angry over there alone. I'm not sure we can have a real discussion when you're literally setting up arguments I've never made and then viciously attacking into it. I suppose that's the definition of a straw man

But don't you get it, part of the West's moral higher ground was lecturing the rest of the world about how they need to adopt its democratic model. And then you're telling me that you guys, in your vibrant and functional democracies, had no control over what your companies did.
Then why did you (your people, your media, your leaders, your academics, your think tanks) get so preachy about your superior political system. Aren't you able to make some connections without them being spelled out to you.
You've said that the middle class had no say in how Western companies were run. What say did the middle class had in what, then? Anything specific? Or was everything outside its control? Then where is the democracy, if your middle class had no control whatsoever on how things were run, which laws were passed, etc.
What exactly is the Western model, then, and what is it so great about it if nobody had any control over what companies did.
Was your democracy just some kind of Sim game, in which you were given an interface to move some pieces in, so that you feel like you're moving things, but it was all just some virtual illusion of power.

Maybe it was just that, you were given your little pieces, that little piece of ballot paper to have this impression you're controlling things and then whatever the outcome was, it didn't matter, because things were managed in ways that never touched the corporations anyway. Then that was democracy in name only and maybe because the people in power knew better than to let the plebs make such big strategic decisions.

Maybe those corporations actually had no choice but to act like this, because Westerners kept voting leaders that promised them the moon without caring what it took to deliver the moon. And delivering the moon required making such compromises, befriending the devil to help you cross that difficult bridge. Keeping oil prices low to keep an artificial level of prosperity that would not have been possible without your corporations running a profitable trade with Gulf states.

So I think somewhere there was a level of implicit complicity. Your people voted politicians in power to "do whatever, use your shady methods to keep our prosperity up and growing, we don't care how". And that's what they did, without needing to ask for your support of any specific measures, because the objective was to make the impossible possible given devilish constraints. And then someone like you can come and complain about how those things from the past were just decisions over which voters/the middle class had no control. Well, no shit, that was part of the deal. They didn't care how the objective was achieved, they just wanted it done, they wanted prosperity, that's what they voted for and that could only be achieved with low oil prices.

We didn't vote for that -- said the Westerner with thousands of bucks per month salary and purchasing power above most of the world. It was done against our wishes, our voters always voted based on how well politicians reined corporations in, not on how much they made the economy go up and up. Our elections were always about making the corporations ethical not about living standards going up.

Bruh if you dont take a few deep breaths you're going to pass out soon. You may also want to read the part where I point out that I am not engaging with you (or lejend).

[Goodspeed]

Idk, there've been so many Westerners coming here and lecturing us how your system is so great at representing people's political will, so open to changing power, so good at holding officials accountable.

When it comes to democracy, I've only ever seen people here lamenting its flaws while admitting somewhat reluctantly that it's still better than the alternatives that are out there (it is). Others I've seen supporting socialism, even communism. So I'm not sure why you think there are "so many Westerners" here lecturing "you" about democracy's greatness. That's just not a thing.

Do you think you could ever stop arguing against made up positions? That would be nice

[knusch]

yes, democracy is great. better than any other dogshit system in the past or present and its not even close.

fight me

[Dolan]

Idk, there've been so many Westerners coming here and lecturing us how your system is so great at representing people's political will, so open to changing power, so good at holding officials accountable.

When it comes to democracy, I've only ever seen people here lamenting its flaws while admitting somewhat reluctantly that it's still better than the alternatives that are out there (it is). Others I've seen supporting socialism, even communism. So I'm not sure why you think there are "so many Westerners" here lecturing "you" about democracy's greatness. That's just not a thing.

Do you think you could ever stop arguing against made up positions? That would be nice

Well, you can't just use a copout like 'we didn't vote for that, it was our corporations', while Western democracy has been advertised on the whole globe as a political panacea. Some states like the US even continue to do so, what with all these official messages about 'spreading democracy, staying the course of democracy', etc.
Which one is it: either your democracy is dysfunctional / fails to deliver on its promise of representing people's will (so it shouldn't be advertised as a political panacea) or things actually work as they should, namely the political elite understands very well that the general public is too clueless to be let anywhere near the buttons of power. So they did whatever was necessary to keep the plebs pacified, including by befriending Gulf states to get access to cheap oil and keep that post-WW2 boom going.

[duckzilla]

There's not even such a thing as "Western democracy" but rather a plethora of democratic models each with their own strengths and weaknesses. No one in their right mind advertises a specific democratic model as a political panacea. It is just that participatory governance processes are objectively better when it comes to things like stabilizing a country, because they tend to alleviate questionable developments like power concentration.

[harcha]

Idk, there've been so many Westerners coming here and lecturing us how your system is so great at representing people's political will, so open to changing power, so good at holding officials accountable.

When it comes to democracy, I've only ever seen people here lamenting its flaws while admitting somewhat reluctantly that it's still better than the alternatives that are out there (it is). Others I've seen supporting socialism, even communism. So I'm not sure why you think there are "so many Westerners" here lecturing "you" about democracy's greatness. That's just not a thing.

Do you think you could ever stop arguing against made up positions? That would be nice

Well, you can't just use a copout like 'we didn't vote for that, it was our corporations', while Western democracy has been advertised on the whole globe as a political panacea. Some states like the US even continue to do so, what with all these official messages about 'spreading democracy, staying the course of democracy', etc.

Not my problem, not my fault. Take it up with someone else.

[Goodspeed]

Idk, there've been so many Westerners coming here and lecturing us how your system is so great at representing people's political will, so open to changing power, so good at holding officials accountable.

When it comes to democracy, I've only ever seen people here lamenting its flaws while admitting somewhat reluctantly that it's still better than the alternatives that are out there (it is). Others I've seen supporting socialism, even communism. So I'm not sure why you think there are "so many Westerners" here lecturing "you" about democracy's greatness. That's just not a thing.

Do you think you could ever stop arguing against made up positions? That would be nice

Well, you can't just use a copout like 'we didn't vote for that, it was our corporations', while Western democracy has been advertised on the whole globe as a political panacea. Some states like the US even continue to do so, what with all these official messages about 'spreading democracy, staying the course of democracy', etc.
Which one is it: either your democracy is dysfunctional / fails to deliver on its promise of representing people's will (so it shouldn't be advertised as a political panacea) or things actually work as they should, namely the political elite understands very well that the general public is too clueless to be let anywhere near the buttons of power. So they did whatever was necessary to keep the plebs pacified, including by befriending Gulf states to get access to cheap oil and keep that post-WW2 boom going.

I think we're talking about different places actually. I thought you meant ESOC when you said "here" but you meant Romania probably. Anyway point stands, it's not that everyone in the West thinks democracy is the second coming of whatever was at some point amazing, it's that it's better than whatever Qatar and such places have going on

[fightinfrenchman]

Idk, there've been so many Westerners coming here and lecturing us how your system is so great at representing people's political will, so open to changing power, so good at holding officials accountable.

When it comes to democracy, I've only ever seen people here lamenting its flaws while admitting somewhat reluctantly that it's still better than the alternatives that are out there (it is). Others I've seen supporting socialism, even communism. So I'm not sure why you think there are "so many Westerners" here lecturing "you" about democracy's greatness. That's just not a thing.

Do you think you could ever stop arguing against made up positions? That would be nice

Well, you can't just use a copout like 'we didn't vote for that, it was our corporations', while Western democracy has been advertised on the whole globe as a political panacea.

Yes I can

[jesus3]

That imaginary army of strawmen seems powerful

[jesus3]

On the sports side of things, the Qatar Team looks completely amateurish except for a few exceptions. They complement that 'out of place' feeling this whole event invokes in regards to location and time of the year.

[Dolan]

participatory governance processes are objectively better when it comes to things like stabilizing a country, because they tend to alleviate questionable developments like power concentration.

That's the only big problem democracy solved: setting up a system that avoids power entrenchment and self-perpetuation.
But on the other hand, with its indiscriminate enfranchisement, democracy has led to a style of doing politics governed by fickle, shifting public moods, moral fads, feelings, emotional impressionism.
Majority opinion getting manufactured by abusing the spiral of silence effect, projecting certain positions in the media to make people get the impression those are the reasonable, approved, good choices, and have the media elites promote them, so that the spiral of silence effect makes people believe they can't go against what is publicly declared to be the reasonable choice. Basically NPC ideology on a mass scale.
Eventually politicians understand that they can't simply present political choices as honest dilemmas that may be too complicated for the general public to understand, they need to package them into dumbed down cartoonish choices, that hide the actual costs of implementation, or else they'd become unpopular. It's all about projecting the feelgood impression.

On the other hand, a system like Qatar's rejects this government by fickle public opinion and emotional fads in favour of hierachy, tradition, structure, all based on imaginary abstract certainty that gives everyone the feelgood impression life has a purpose, it's all under control, everyone plays the role they're supposed to. In a way, their system also works, because they don't see any good in having an open-ended political system that is perpetually unstable, prone to political bickering, scandals, media scoops, etc.
Anyway, there's a lot to say on this subject, but I don't want to spend much time on this.

[fightinfrenchman]

Anyway, there's a lot to say on this subject, but I don't want to spend much time on this.

Could have fooled me

[harcha]

participatory governance processes are objectively better when it comes to things like stabilizing a country, because they tend to alleviate questionable developments like power concentration.

That's the only big problem democracy solved: setting up a system that avoids power entrenchment and self-perpetuation.
But on the other hand, with its indiscriminate enfranchisement, democracy has led to a style of doing politics governed by fickle, shifting public moods, moral fads, feelings, emotional impressionism.
Majority opinion getting manufactured by abusing the spiral of silence effect, projecting certain positions in the media to make people get the impression those are the reasonable, approved, good choices, and have the media elites promote them, so that the spiral of silence effect makes people believe they can't go against what is publicly declared to be the reasonable choice. Basically NPC ideology on a mass scale.
Eventually politicians understand that they can't simply present political choices as honest dilemmas that may be too complicated for the general public to understand, they need to package them into dumbed down cartoonish choices, that hide the actual costs of implementation, or else they'd become unpopular. It's all about projecting the feelgood impression.

On the other hand, a system like Qatar's, rejects this government by fickle public opinion and emotional fads in favour of hierachy, tradition, structure, all based on imaginary abstract certainty that gives everyone the feelgood impression life has a purpose, it's all under control, everyone plays the role they're supposed to. In a way, their system also works, because they don't see any good in having an open-ended political system that is perpetually unstable, prone to political bickering, scandals, media scoops, etc.
Anyway, there's a lot to say on this subject, but I don't want to spend much time on this.

Yeah these are significant issues you bring up (and overstate imho). Politicians need to keep in mind that loud people on social medias are just that - some loud people. You have to consider the opinion of all of your electorate, because garbage in makes garbage out. We felt this throughout the lockdowns because my country is small and it seemed that anyone can guide politics quite easily if you are loud enough on Twitter especially in a situation where politicians are very unsure as to what is the right option/policy.
The second point you bring up however is more to do with media, and yes, that has glaring issues as well, and it seems that media across the political spectrum has a long way to go to become more ethical in how they present the news.

I also disagree with people who are trying to say "Qatar needs to become more democratic" because I think that this is for Qataris to determine. At most I would say "Qataris deserve the right to self-determination" and honestly I don't know enough about the country to make any claims about this being either way.

[lejend]

USA wins 0-0 against the UK

[Horsemen]

USA wins 0-0 against the UK

[lejend]

Another huge upset

[lejend]

Too bad Japan didn't win though

[Dolan]

Anyway, there's a lot to say on this subject, but I don't want to spend much time on this.

Could have fooled me

It doesn't take me a lot of time to type out two paragraphs tbh. 2 minutes

[jesus3]

Poland with a glorious performance yesterday, I'm sure the Frenchies already prepare to go down