Do we all have to be activists these days or at least do we have to support those activists?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

Nelson Mandela:

"Sport has the power to change the world." 

Sports convey lessons about values and culturally appropriate behavior.

Example: National Germany hosting the Olympic Games. Nothing but a propogandi message.

There was also the boycotting of the Springboks.

[allanos]

"Look at the workers from south Asia as one example. If you see the video of workers living in terrible conditions in 50 degree heat, stuck like sardines in a room, no showers so they bathe with a bucket and water from the one or two toilets available for many men, it makes it all a bit real." 

 

The world we live in is far from perfect. Wouldn't it be terrific if it was Utopia and not

dystopia! Instead, we make arms, fight wars, fly to outer space, the moon and beyond. Are our

priorities in the right place?

 

If South Asians are happy to come to the Middle East to toil in boiler room temperatures for meager pay, what does it tell us about the countries they are from, and the kind of governments

they have?

 

Upwards of 600 million Indians, over half of them women, are forced to defecate in the open

each day, lacking self-respect and dignity on the back of it.

 

There are billions of downtrodden people all around the world. It is heartbreaking and shameful. But where are the activists who should be decrying it? And where are the governments who

should be uplifting their people, or the rich governments who should be doing their utmost to

alleviate it?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

29 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Nelson Mandela:

"Sport has the power to change the world." 

Sports convey lessons about values and culturally appropriate behavior.

Example: National Germany hosting the Olympic Games. Nothing but a propogandi message.

LOL. Sport has been propaganda for ages. When a team win at the Olympics people act as though the country won, which is a nonsense, especially in professional sport when the team members may not even be of that nationality.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, allanos said:

"Look at the workers from south Asia as one example. If you see the video of workers living in terrible conditions in 50 degree heat, stuck like sardines in a room, no showers so they bathe with a bucket and water from the one or two toilets available for many men, it makes it all a bit real." 

 

The world we live in is far from perfect. Wouldn't it be terrific if it was Utopia and not

dystopia! Instead, we make arms, fight wars, fly to outer space, the moon and beyond. Are our

priorities in the right place?

 

If South Asians are happy to come to the Middle East to toil in boiler room temperatures for meager pay, what does it tell us about the countries they are from, and the kind of governments

they have?

 

Upwards of 600 million Indians, over half of them women, are forced to defecate in the open

each day, lacking self-respect and dignity on the back of it.

 

There are billions of downtrodden people all around the world. It is heartbreaking and shameful. But where are the activists who should be decrying it? And where are the governments who

should be uplifting their people, or the rich governments who should be doing their utmost to

alleviate it?

 

The press is replete with stories about how these workers were deceived about their conditions before they went there and how happy they are with the outcome.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/08/22/qatar-world-cup-controversy-continues-60-migrant-workers-arrested-protesting-dire-conditions/?sh=73fa990862ed

Edited November 23, 2022 by ozimoron

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, allanos said:

And where are the governments who

should be uplifting their people, or the rich governments who should be doing their utmost to

alleviate it?

LOL. Most of us know what the government is doing about it.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Most of us know what the government is doing about it.

Yes, nothing, they are riding the gravy train of exploiting foreign workers.

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

World has never corresponded with what some consider the "right" viewpoint on life, and IMO never will.

We may have been around for 50,000 years but mentally we are still cavemen, and act like it- to the victor the spoils, and the losers can go jump.

 

Don't like the laws, either don't live in that country or change them, by whatever means possible ( how is it working out for demonstrators in Iran? ).

Before 1972, you could not live together if you where not married in Norway, so it have changed little by little for the better. The Hippie culture changed the world, but did everyone welcome the protests or was it seen as the protesters wecsee today? I also enclose another historic photo of Jesse Owens. 
 

 

»Cohabitation (formerly concubinage or undocumented marriage) was not permitted in Norway until 1972, when the so-called concubinage clause, Section 379 of the Criminal Code, was repealed. Cohabitation was therefore relatively uncommon in Norway until approx. 1970 and was only practiced by very liberal people, preferably in artistic circles. Those who lived in cohabitation did this throughout their lives. They were also often in outspoken rebellion against the church and conservative values. During and after the youth uprisings in 1968 (also, among other things, the hippie culture) there was an increase in cohabitation among young people. The most common term was "paperless marriage" (oldest hit in Aftensposten's archive in 1971), while "cohabitation" became a more common term later (oldest hit in the same archive in 1983). In the beginning it was perceived (and was probably often intended) as a rebellion against conservative values. The argument was often that the love between two people only concerned the two of them and did not concern the church, public authorities and other institutions (hence "paperless"). Cohabitation was also often referred to as "trial marriage", which was relatively descriptive as most cohabitants, unlike in the past, chose to marry after a few years or if they had children»

 

source wikipedia norewgian translated by google. Keywords Hippie, liberal and conservative

 

 

 

[JCauto]

19 hours ago, DaLa said:

100% agree. Especially with the 'can't be ar**d' part. Whenever I've been confronted with a situation that isn't personal to me I give it a wide berth. That include anything to do with politics , picket lines, protecting the continued existence of the 3 legged octopus..  Simpler to just work around the problem, move on and not get heated about the subject. Life's too short.

Or, like some of us whom you might label as "activist", we actually give a toss about the future, especially as we have children who are likely to have to live with the consequences of our choices whether they like it or not. They plainly do not. Which is logical, as would you I suspect should your future have been compromised before you even got going. 

I'm going to continue to work towards a better planet and future, and you not giving a shirt just means you are part of the problem. That's your choice and your right to choose. However, please get out of the way of those of us who haven't given up yet. Thanks.

[roquefort]

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

Before 1972, you could not live together if you where not married in Norway, so it have changed little by little for the better. The Hippie culture changed the world, but did everyone welcome the protests or was it seen as the protesters wecsee today? I also enclose another historic photo of Jesse Owens. 
 

 

»Cohabitation (formerly concubinage or undocumented marriage) was not permitted in Norway until 1972, when the so-called concubinage clause, Section 379 of the Criminal Code, was repealed. Cohabitation was therefore relatively uncommon in Norway until approx. 1970 and was only practiced by very liberal people, preferably in artistic circles. Those who lived in cohabitation did this throughout their lives. They were also often in outspoken rebellion against the church and conservative values. During and after the youth uprisings in 1968 (also, among other things, the hippie culture) there was an increase in cohabitation among young people. The most common term was "paperless marriage" (oldest hit in Aftensposten's archive in 1971), while "cohabitation" became a more common term later (oldest hit in the same archive in 1983). In the beginning it was perceived (and was probably often intended) as a rebellion against conservative values. The argument was often that the love between two people only concerned the two of them and did not concern the church, public authorities and other institutions (hence "paperless"). Cohabitation was also often referred to as "trial marriage", which was relatively descriptive as most cohabitants, unlike in the past, chose to marry after a few years or if they had children»

 

source wikipedia norewgian translated by google. Keywords Hippie, liberal and conservative

 

 

 

Your photo is of Tommy Smith and John Carlos, not Jesse Owens. Although his success at the 1936 Olympics was a more powerful statement at the time.  

[JCauto]

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

Before 1972, you could not live together if you where not married in Norway, so it have changed little by little for the better. The Hippie culture changed the world, but did everyone welcome the protests or was it seen as the protesters wecsee today? I also enclose another historic photo of Jesse Owens. 
 

I appreciate your point, however the people in your photograph are Tommie Smith and John Carlos who made the "Black Power" salute on the podium after their race in the 1960's in Mexico City I believe. Jesse Owens was the one who won several gold medals and showed up Hitler in Berlin.

And yes, pretty much every right that people take for granted these days is there because of "activists" whom the old and conservative disparage and mock, but who actually are the people who make things better for others. 

[roquefort]

20 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Should the world only watch the world cup if it would be in a wonderful land with no accidents, 100% perfect human rights record, etc.?

 

The last World Cup was held in Russia, as was a recent Winter Olympics. That should tell you all you need to know about FIFA and the IOC.

[JCauto]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Sport has been propaganda for ages. When a team win at the Olympics people act as though the country won, which is a nonsense, especially in professional sport when the team members may not even be of that nationality.

There's a new term now, "sportwashing". Quite apropos for this situation in my opinion.

[roquefort]

20 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Should the world only watch the world cup if it would be in a wonderful land with no accidents, 100% perfect human rights record, etc.?

 

The last World Cup was held in Russia, as was a recent Winter Olympics. That should tell you all you need to know about FIFA and the IOC.

[JCauto]

3 hours ago, allanos said:

There are billions of downtrodden people all around the world. It is heartbreaking and shameful. But where are the activists who should be decrying it? And where are the governments who

should be uplifting their people, or the rich governments who should be doing their utmost to

alleviate it?

 

Where are the activists who should be decrying it? They're usually in police cells or on the receiving end of violence from the authorities or their stooges.

Where are the governments who should be uplifting their people? They're the ones beating any attempt to change the status quo which is in every case the propping up of the local Elite (in Thailand, these are the "Amaat").

Where are the rich governments who should be doing their utmost to alleviate it? They're mostly doing business with the local Elite.

And where are the Cynical? Asking questions they already know the answers to and making it seem hopeless so they can be satisfied in their complacency and justify their lack of action or thought towards a better future.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Or, like some of us whom you might label as "activist", we actually give a toss about the future, especially as we have children who are likely to have to live with the consequences of our choices whether they like it or not. They plainly do not. Which is logical, as would you I suspect should your future have been compromised before you even got going. 

I'm going to continue to work towards a better planet and future, and you not giving a shirt just means you are part of the problem. That's your choice and your right to choose. However, please get out of the way of those of us who haven't given up yet. Thanks.

At least for me, and I guess for many others, the question is if an activist is really trying to change something (small or big) or if the main reason for the activism is virtual signaling - look, I am and activist for xyz. I show it clearly on my Instagram and fb and twitter.

 

I.e. if you have a colleague who is gay and another colleague uses derogative words in front of that person or behind his back, then you can stand up for your gay colleague and tell the other person that he shouldn't talk bad. That is action or (small scale) activism.

Having a rainbow flag on your fb page but then ignoring if the colleague talks bad, that is just virtual signaling. Look, I pretend to do something good. But in reality, I don't care.

 

For me it seems a lot of activism is just virtual signaling. 

How many people really care about gay rights in a country far away?

And, as bad as it is, we can also include the question: How many people care how many low paid workers from countries like India or Pakistan die? 

I am sure if a single (high paid) engineer from a first world country would die of a heat stroke that would create more news and sympathy. Like: he was one of us...

 

Let's stop pretending! 

 

[Hummin]

9 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I appreciate your point, however the people in your photograph are Tommie Smith and John Carlos who made the "Black Power" salute on the podium after their race in the 1960's in Mexico City I believe. Jesse Owens was the one who won several gold medals and showed up Hitler in Berlin.

And yes, pretty much every right that people take for granted these days is there because of "activists" whom the old and conservative disparage and mock, but who actually are the people who make things better for others. 

You where right and a good reminder to always double check what you think you remember of history. 
 

The world most of us have been born in to have developed so quick that we really do not remember what our grandparents believed in and what they stood for. Most of what I remember from my grandmother is just bright and positive, but she was an to a degree extreme christian and clear and disciplined  when it came to morality we really do not want to associate us with today. 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

At least for me, and I guess for many others, the question is if an activist is really trying to change something (small or big) or if the main reason for the activism is virtual signaling - look, I am and activist for xyz. I show it clearly on my Instagram and fb and twitter.

 

I.e. if you have a colleague who is gay and another colleague uses derogative words in front of that person or behind his back, then you can stand up for your gay colleague and tell the other person that he shouldn't talk bad. That is action or (small scale) activism.

Having a rainbow flag on your fb page but then ignoring if the colleague talks bad, that is just virtual signaling. Look, I pretend to do something good. But in reality, I don't care.

 

For me it seems a lot of activism is just virtual signaling. 

How many people really care about gay rights in a country far away?

And, as bad as it is, we can also include the question: How many people care how many low paid workers from countries like India or Pakistan die? 

I am sure if a single (high paid) engineer from a first world country would die of a heat stroke that would create more news and sympathy. Like: he was one of us...

 

Let's stop pretending! 

 

A great number, they were protesting. The entire German football team included. They seemed to care.

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

At least for me, and I guess for many others, the question is if an activist is really trying to change something (small or big) or if the main reason for the activism is virtual signaling - look, I am and activist for xyz. I show it clearly on my Instagram and fb and twitter.

 

I.e. if you have a colleague who is gay and another colleague uses derogative words in front of that person or behind his back, then you can stand up for your gay colleague and tell the other person that he shouldn't talk bad. That is action or (small scale) activism.

Having a rainbow flag on your fb page but then ignoring if the colleague talks bad, that is just virtual signaling. Look, I pretend to do something good. But in reality, I don't care.

 

For me it seems a lot of activism is just virtual signaling. 

How many people really care about gay rights in a country far away?

And, as bad as it is, we can also include the question: How many people care how many low paid workers from countries like India or Pakistan die? 

I am sure if a single (high paid) engineer from a first world country would die of a heat stroke that would create more news and sympathy. Like: he was one of us...

 

Let's stop pretending! 

 

One thing that is very much actual for me personally, and it is what kind of airline I choose, and where they come from. That is one way to protest or use your power after you are made aware, but most people do what suits them pest, and give most value for their money especially now after covid, and The Emirates and Qatar is the most convenient airlines at the moment. 
 

And Im allowed to say The Golf states is <deleted>ty countries with <deleted>ty human rights. Some say the humans rights is not perfect in Thailand either, but truth is, Thailand so much better off than most countries in the world like it or not. A few major dont do, but except from that the best dictatorship in the word. 
 

 

[JCauto]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

At least for me, and I guess for many others, the question is if an activist is really trying to change something (small or big) or if the main reason for the activism is virtual signaling - look, I am and activist for xyz. I show it clearly on my Instagram and fb and twitter.

 

I.e. if you have a colleague who is gay and another colleague uses derogative words in front of that person or behind his back, then you can stand up for your gay colleague and tell the other person that he shouldn't talk bad. That is action or (small scale) activism.

Having a rainbow flag on your fb page but then ignoring if the colleague talks bad, that is just virtual signaling. Look, I pretend to do something good. But in reality, I don't care.

 

For me it seems a lot of activism is just virtual signaling. 

How many people really care about gay rights in a country far away?

And, as bad as it is, we can also include the question: How many people care how many low paid workers from countries like India or Pakistan die? 

I am sure if a single (high paid) engineer from a first world country would die of a heat stroke that would create more news and sympathy. Like: he was one of us...

 

Let's stop pretending! 

 

"Activists" are not the ones virtue signaling, they're in the streets. If you're outside of your house engaging in these issues in some manner, whether it be the work you do, the protest you attend, the defense of the people being abused by others (although to be fair this can be also done online although clearly this is a lower level of engagement and of impact) then it's possible you are an "activist". I don't think someone with rainbow shirts or flags or symbols on their FB page is an activist although they MAY be if that support translates to actual action. There's nothing wrong with signaling one's support for a cause, and you'll note that similarly anyone stumping for the Right  is usually designated as a "Conservative Activist" or whatever.

But those are people who are, you know, being active. They're not just typing on a keyboard. Those typing people, who are by far the majority, are signaling their support for that cause but are unwilling to go beyond that. They consider that support virtuous, but I expect that the Conservative supporter similarly considers their support of those causes to be virtuous. So it's not "virtue signaling" since that's obviously the reason one would signal in all cases. You are trying to make that a pejorative by labeling that as "virtue signaling", meaning it's the person trying to impress others about their viewpoints being correct but being unwilling to do anything about it or even believe in it. How do you know they don't? I expect that the Conservatives like yourself who "virtue signal" believe what they type. But if you similarly aren't attending protests about Drag Queens reading to children or whatever then you're not an Activist.

[ross163103]

100% agree! Why does it seem like the vocal minority gets what they want--obviously because they're vocal, but they are the minority. If the majority wants it this way fair enough. Why can't people just live and let live instead of pushing their issues on everyone else. I don't push my issues on you so don't bother me with yours.

[JonnyF]

Keep activism and politics out of sport. It should be a uniting force not a divisive one. I don't need uneduated footballers telling me what to think. Let them virtue signal elsewhere.

 

If you don't like the venue of Qatar, don't watch, don't play, don't commentate. But no, the likes of Lineker, Neville, Southgate still want to earn the cash, take the glory while appearing to care and "educate" the fans. Bunch of hypocritical muppets.  

[OneMoreFarang]

37 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I expect that the Conservatives like yourself

Who or what gives you the idea that I am a conservative?

Or is anybody who is not woke a conservative in your mind?

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Purdey said:

Throughout history a mass of people have been pushed to give rights to others by activists. 

"End slavery? Nonsense. That William Wilberforce is just an activist."

"Votes  for women? Blooming suffragette activists."

We are too lazy or feel unable to be activists because of jobs, family etc. Giving at least moral support to activists is all we can do. When someone takes a knee or wears a rainbow armband, that is not an activist but a strong supporter. Showing support for activists is necessary. Throwing yourself in front of the king's horse is activism. 

Throwing oneself in front of a moving horse is stupidity, as one might cause the horse to startle and bolt and hurt innocent people. If one wants to kill themselves to make a point, do what the monk in Vietnam did.

IMO society is far too divided on everything these days for any one side to bring change. Also the really big changes in western society already happened eg votes for women, decriminalisation of homosexuality, welfare etc, so all that happens now IMO is annoying people to try and tinker around the edges eg 36 genders or some such which isn't really important for most.

[Tropposurfer]

Injustice and hypocrisy are frequent bedfellows

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Who or what gives you the idea that I am a conservative?

Or is anybody who is not woke a conservative in your mind?

I suspect any that don't agree with the leftist agenda are judged to be "conservative" as if to be "conservative" is a bad thing.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

And where are the Cynical? Asking questions they already know the answers to and making it seem hopeless so they can be satisfied in their complacency and justify their lack of action or thought towards a better future.

You are welcome to your viewpoint of course, but IMO nothing is going to change unless it benefits the unknown that run our world.

Am I complacent- no, but I know what a losing battle looks like.

 

A "better future"? I think that hope vanished the day the world population passed 3 billion, and now it's just a long, slow downward spiral to the end, whatever the end may be, but IMO not good for anyone around then.

 

Am I cynical? Absolutely.

I only have to look outside my door to be so.

Edited November 24, 2022 by thaibeachlovers

[PremiumLane]

The most boomer of all the boomer posts on this forum

[xtrnuno41]

Shown in human history, is we have nothing but dictators around.

Anywhere, anyhow, anyway, anytime. You could be an activist on many things nowadays.

And the problem with all dictators, they think they are a god and all otherwise are collateral damage.

Fact is, we have too many people on this planet in a breaking down system.

The system (Ponzi scheme) is getting out of hands. Will be there a scenario as in 10 billion from National Geographics, one day? 

History has proven it can change. Therfor you dont have French, German, Italian, Russian and more royaltiesanymore. However the ones who replaced them, are as bad.

 

Everyone was thinking Qatar would do better, well NOT. It makes no difference.

It will never ever change, it is human way. Up to you if you want to be an activist or a supporter of it.

Say the US group BLM, they scream and shout, but only for the ones in USA.

What about the people in Africa? They dont care. Do they help them?

Why were we in Afghanistan? Red this morning, "my" country lost in court on an illegal bombardment case in Afghanistan, they have to pay up.

Should I be an activist in a group against Assad? I could, I really hate that man, but there are more of those clowns globally, I would see them gone.

I could be a hippie, against all stupid authority. However how many of those hippies are flipped over to the other site? 

 

Ideals Lost Lyrics

Look at me, sitting in this chair
I'm twenty-two and I don't care
My ideals have disappeared
I became one of those I've always feared

I had the illusion that I could change the world
Ideals lost, Ideals lost
Nowadays I laugh about the dream I've had
Ideals lost, Ideals lost

They call it grown-up, i think it's just old
Never thought that life could feel so cold
I've lost mu faith in my own friends
Always thought treu friendship never ends
I'm replacable and it makes me sad

Ideals lost, Ideals lost
Nowadays I laugh about the dreams I've had
Ideals lost, Ideals lost

Leave me alone and I'll be fine
Do your thing and allow me mine
I just need to disengage
Rebuilt myself and release my pent up rage

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Who or what gives you the idea that I am a conservative?

Or is anybody who is not woke a conservative in your mind?

Pretty easy to tell from your responses. What are your main issues - the hypocrisy of "virtue signaling", gay people's rights outside of your country mattering to you somehow, worker's who are treated brutally outside of your country mattering to you somehow, "wokeness". These are all positions that identify you as an Conservative. "Virtue Signaling" was Alt-Right code invented to minimize people's feelings of empathy for others. That you find it odd that people would care about disadvantaged "others" in countries outside of your own demonstrates a similar callousness that is a trademark of Conservative commentary. The "war on Woke" is the latest Conservative rallying cry to minimize any discussion or understanding about the injustices suffered in the past by non-White non-male people.  It's not exactly something you are hiding carefully.

 

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are welcome to your viewpoint of course, but IMO nothing is going to change unless it benefits the unknown that run our world.

Am I complacent- no, but I know what a losing battle looks like.

 

A "better future"? I think that hope vanished the day the world population passed 3 billion, and now it's just a long, slow downward spiral to the end, whatever the end may be, but IMO not good for anyone around then.

 

Am I cynical? Absolutely.

I only have to look outside my door to be so.

At least you post honestly most of the time even if we disagree on substance. Many of your brethren are far more cynical than you in that they refuse to be honest about their own cynicism and acceptance that nothing will change and there's no point. This is to me one of the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals (in the context of their US designations). Liberals do believe in working towards a better future and for the improvement of conditions for others. Conservatives do not see much in the way of hope for the future and are not particularly concerned about others. This is demonstrated in their lack of coherent policy other than "does it <deleted> the Libs off?".