It was hilarious... Crowder looked like he wet himself the very moment he saw Seder online. Doubt if he ever finds his courage.Crowder challenges h3h3(?) to debate, Sam drops in instead. Crowder ****ing loses it.
It is not very clear cut. I bought the UEFA argument about flashing the Hungarians with gay colors being political (as it has to do with a protest against a law in Hungary). There are recent precedents like FIFA objecting to English and other players wearing poppies to celebrate the WW1 Armistice Day (FIFA ultimately backed down).UEFA's argument is that Munich's request was linked to the Hungarian team's presence, and thereby political (which it under any other circumstances would not be).
They're walking a rhetorically very thin line
As much as I think literally every building in Europe should be lighted rainbowly due to how stupidly incredibly dull and infuriating and backward and unfair the new Hungarian law is, I actually buy and understand UEFA's arguments. I just found the image funny.UEFA's argument is that Munich's request was linked to the Hungarian team's presence, and thereby political (which it under any other circumstances would not be).
They're walking a rhetorically very thin line
UEFA is a federation of all European countries. To remain such it needs to avoid becoming biased in quarrels between those countries.I think the issue here is that any tacit public support of homosexuality implies not only societal acceptance of homosexuals but also a call for legislative or policy changes to remove or soften the discrimination LGBT people face in certain areas. I don't think these two can be divorced which makes the whole rainbow issue political, especially for people (and countries) opposing these changes.
UEFA should maybe just back a little on the apolitical claims or simply state that only political gestures can come from UEFA itself and not the clubs. Claiming to be ultra apolitical ties your hands and can potentially leave you in a situation with no apolitical solution (the decision to order removal / non-removal of Crimea on Ukrainian jerseys has political implications either way). Not to mention that explicit support for BLM movement does not really say apolitical either.
the roma would like a word(no apartheids in Europe)
often!Sometimes, there is no apolitical option at all.
This line of thinking is unhelpful, it's like saying "everything is political [so we might as well give up on being apolitical]". There are hard choices and nuances that may change as political debates change, but some organizations have an existential need to try for neutrality and their problems need to be appreciated instead of dismissed.Russia challenged the dresses both due to the slogan and Crimea being depicted. The complaint was succesful in the slogan part, but Crimea stayed. My point was that any solution to this complaint is bound to be political. Sometimes, there is no apolitical option at all.
Examples would be good. I was going after you for not being constructive, comrade!I think either you lost me or I lost you. I am saying that it is sometimes very hard to stay apolitical, sometimes even impossible, and hence either the language (not neccessarily the policy itself) referring to strong neutrality or the gestures regarding inclusivity, racism, sexual minorities and so on should be dropped (and you will still face pretty political issues from time to time) as the mix creates inconsistencies in the justification of your actions and, among other things, memes with Spiderman.
The Roma typically need to have a word with themselves first. I've met well-meaning people working with them end up disillusioned.the roma would like a word