Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why shouldn't the winter olympics exist Frazz?

pgmason wrote:
Why shouldn't the winter olympics exist Frazz?

Its played by rich people, for rich people, with rich people attending.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I believe that if you're outwardly gay in russia you will be arrested.

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article since I am about to leave the office wrote:male homosexual acts were decriminalized in 1993,[1] there are no laws protecting against discrimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[citation needed] Same-sex marriages and civil unions are not recognized. Many local legislatures have passed laws prohibiting dissemination of information about homosexuality.[3][3][4][5][6] Moscow's top court has ruled that no gay pride parades may be held in Moscow for 100 years.[7] In 2013, Russia's government adopted a federal bill banning the distribution of "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" to minors. The law imposes heavy fines for using the media or internet to promote "non-traditional relations".

 Frazzled wrote:

pgmason wrote:
Why shouldn't the winter olympics exist Frazz?

Its played by rich people, for rich people, with rich people attending.

Aren't you Republican though? I thought that was their shtick.

 Frazzled wrote:

pgmason wrote:
Why shouldn't the winter olympics exist Frazz?

Its played by rich people, for rich people, with rich people attending.

Even assuming this is true, what’s wrong with rich people exactly?

You’re not turning pinko on us are you frazz?

 d-usa wrote:
As a German I refuse to give it to the Dutch. We would have to play soccer over there if we did!

A German scared of playing on Dutch ground? What a nancy!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

pgmason wrote:
Why shouldn't the winter olympics exist Frazz?

Its played by rich people, for rich people, with rich people attending.

Aren't you Republican though? I thought that was their shtick.

He's a Texan... big difference.

And... have you ever done any winter sports? Those are expensive hobbys.

 whembly wrote:
He's a Texan... big difference.

True!

 whembly wrote:
And... have you ever done any winter sports? Those are expensive hobbys.

Roommate is a snowboarder. Showed me his fancy jacket that apparently costs hundreds of dollars

Orlanth wrote:Ignore this, the UK should keep politics out of sport.

We didn't boycott the 1980 Summer Games, don't boycott the 2014 Winter Games. Stephen Fry doesn't have to watch if he doesn't want to.

The 1980 Summer Games were not boycotted because of a massive human rights violation. The 2014 games should be.

LuciusAR wrote:Russia actions towards homosexuals are nasty bullying, no argument here. But once you start down this road where do you stop?

Should we have boycotted the 2008 Olympics over China’s obscene human rights violations?

Yes. That was an easy question.

And "nasty bullying" is a significant understatement for a policy that leads to the arrest and imprisonment of a person based on factors outside their control. Would you call it "nasty bullying" if you were being threatened with prison in Russia because of your eye colour?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LuciusAR wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

pgmason wrote:
Why shouldn't the winter olympics exist Frazz?

Its played by rich people, for rich people, with rich people attending.

Even assuming this is true, what’s wrong with rich people exactly?

You’re not turning pinko on us are you frazz?

Well, there is the fact that billions of tax dollars go towards the Olympics, none of which will be of benefit to the people who are paying those taxes.

Aren't you Republican though?

Do I know you? No. yet you insult me thusly. Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

pgmason wrote:
Why shouldn't the winter olympics exist Frazz?

Its played by rich people, for rich people, with rich people attending.

Even assuming this is true, what’s wrong with rich people exactly?

You’re not turning pinko on us are you frazz?

I was a pinko, before being pinko was cool...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

You’re not turning pinko on us are you frazz?

Well, there is the fact that billions of tax dollars go towards the Olympics, none of which will be of benefit to the people who are paying those taxes.

Azazel has the way of it.

if it helps I promise to join this protest and boycott the winter Olympics! Fight the power! Free Huey!

 Frazzled wrote:

Aren't you Republican though?

Do I know you? No. yet you insult me thusly. Why?

No insult intended Just thought that you were a Republican!

Nope I'm a Bill of Rights Screaming Libertarian with delusions of adequacy.

Maybe Big O will pull out to give them pesky Russians the finger, Britain and others can then follow suit.

"We can have our own Winter Olympics... with blackjack... and hookers..."

Simple question for those who feel that the "civilized" world should boycott Olympic games in Russia next year....


Did we, or anyone boycott the 1936 games in Berlin? The answer to that question should answer the question of whether we should boycott these newest games.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Maybe Big O will pull out to give them pesky Russians the finger, Britain and others can then follow suit.

"We can have our own Winter Olympics... with blackjack... and hookers..."

"But not in America, we don't like those last two things... Except for Vegas..."

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Simple question for those who feel that the "civilized" world should boycott Olympic games in Russia next year....


Did we, or anyone boycott the 1936 games in Berlin? The answer to that question should answer the question of whether we should boycott these newest games.

Because, of course, things haven't changed in the last 77 years.

Want to give a cursary glance of the boycotting section of the 1936 Olympics wikipedia article before you ask something like that? Though I do feel the need to ask if the Germans actively persecuted foreign tourists at the time like the Russians may do. Also, as has been stated, 77 years can change the situation a lot. Considering that the only person not to shake Jesse Owen's hand at those games was the US president (yes, the guy who called those of African descent an inferior race shaked the guy's hand), and the guy had to stay in his own accommodation outwith the US' because of the US, not the Germans, I wouldn't say that the opinions of those who did attend aren't biased.

"People haven't taken a stand before, so they shouldn't now" is hardly an argument with much weight to it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Simple question for those who feel that the "civilized" world should boycott Olympic games in Russia next year....


Did we, or anyone boycott the 1936 games in Berlin? The answer to that question should answer the question of whether we should boycott these newest games.

Indeed, we didn't and because Berlin removed almost all the offensive stuff everyone was suckered into believing it wasn't as bad as we thought. Everyone paid the price for that.

So yeah, pretty sure we should boycot this.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh hey I'm not making a ruckuss about every single issue in the world, guess that means I can't ever make one. I'm sure he did actually post something about China at one point, but let's just assume that he didn't because this is the internet. If the guy was constantly campaigning about every single issue in the world and making statements like he did he'd lose public opinion overnight.

This mises the point, its not about Stephen Fry and his opinions, hwe can beleive whatever he likes. The issue is that he is trying to force the nation to action them. As his opinions are partisan and we are all carried along to the beat of this drum if it becomes policy then it is fair that we might look at other interests.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

And uh... Did you mean to sound like Neville Chamberlain there when you said, "let's not off the guy's who are pulling all these human rights abuses, they might not like us"?

For the record Chamberlain didn't trust Hitler at all, but the UK was not ready for war and France was not giving any backing. Chamberlain is an unfairly maligned figure.
However the point stands, we gain nothing by protesting Moscow on this issue except to piss them off. Boycotting sports and cultural events damages relations and places the UK in a difficult position. Besides our kowtowing to political correct ideology has already made the UK society a laughing stock across the world, and choosing this issue as a major issue to damage relations over can be justifiably seen as.
"We have confused our culture to promote PC dogma, and now insist you confuse Russian culture also."

It doesn't matter which part of PC dogma Fry being spouted, this time it happens to be gay activism.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

One guy is hardly going to lower the Russian opinion of the whole country by making a grandiose statement,

Not if its Fry, but if its Cameron forced into this to appease activists at home yes it will damage relations.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

though I doubt the Russian opinion of us would drop one bit if we did boycott their Olympics. As it stands our relations with the Russians is at an all time post Soviet low,

Russia lost respect for us because of political correctness and short term policy making. The UK had a rep based on its solidity and culture and held respect far more than its economic position wouold warrant. This rep was squandered by Blair, now they see us as people to laugh at, because they see why and too few Britons do as must have bought the dogmas hook line and sinker. We are seen , quite understandably as fools.

Who wants to be dictated to by a fool?

 Wyrmalla wrote:

but I doubt that one comedian is really going to tip them over the edge and make them even bigger on the international stage than they already are. =P

It all depends, again Steven Fry means nothing to the Russians, but if he stamps his feet and our politicians decide to go with the flow rather than anger the UK gay community by trying to stay out of it then damage can occur.
Glasgow city Council has already backed Fry's campauign by removing their twinning status with a Russian city.

Fry's a pretty intelligent and well respected fellow. What he's saying is morally correct, its the question of whether people see it as good for their nation's interests. The way the world works is that people are more than happy to jump into bed with dictatorships or the like as long as they can get something out of it. In this situation we're trying to appease the Russians right now due to the political situation, and not willing to effect this by bringing moral objections into it. However, should things go down hill, I doubt that anyone who did this will be looked on fondly by generations in future though.

I support what he's saying and personally think the Russians can go feth themselves due to their attitude of late. Though on that thread I also don't respect a lot of other country's governments, so in a world where everyone did what I said we'd no doubt be in a state of war by now due to my unwillingness to appease despots. =/

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Fry's a pretty intelligent and well respected fellow. What he's saying is morally correct, its the question of whether people see it as good for their nation's interests. The way the world works is that people are more than happy to jump into bed with dictatorships or the like as long as they can get something out of it. In this situation we're trying to appease the Russians right now due to the political situation, and not willing to effect this by bringing moral objections into it. However, should things go down hill, I doubt that anyone who did this will be looked on fondly by generations in future though.

I support what he's saying and personally think the Russians can go feth themselves due to their attitude of late. Though on that thread I also don't respect a lot of other country's governments, so in a world where everyone did what I said we'd no doubt be in a state of war by now due to my unwillingness to appease despots. =/

If the Olympics are supposedly nonpolitical why would a country boycott them? The whole concept is stupid, again just like the Winter Olympics

Boycotting the Olympics over differences of policy seems counter to the Olympics expressed purpose.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Fry's a pretty intelligent and well respected fellow. What he's saying is morally correct, its the question of whether people see it as good for their nation's interests.

It's not even that one sided m,oral agrument, Putin has good reason not to unlock gay pride movements in Russia.
Russia has seen the result of gay pride movement in other nations including the UK.
Gay Pride marches would be all very well if they stopped at providing equal rights for gays, but they don't.
They are often an agitation platform for minority parties, and political agitators.
In the UK for example it was gay rights activitists that initiated the spat with Chile over Pinochet when he was arrested by gay rights activist during a sanctioned quiet visit to the UK.
Gay Pride marches are a stepping stone for such groups as the Socialist Workers party and as a social group gays can be more volatile than many.
Also Gay Pride means what it says it means, pride in other words: we are here and in your face, we demand acceptance. Fair enough, but often tolerance is not reciprocated.

There are many reasons why Putin would choose 'thanks but no thanks' over allowing that sort of activism within his own borders. It causes less ructions if people kept their sexuality to themselves.

Fry does have a point about homophobia in Russia, but you get homophobic individuals anywhere, it's not an international relations issue. Russia never whined to us about bad policing and sectarianism on our streets, and its definitely there. They mind their own business and so should we.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

The way the world works is that people are more than happy to jump into bed with dictatorships or the like as long as they can get something out of it. In this situation we're trying to appease the Russians right now due to the political situation, and not willing to effect this by bringing moral objections into it. However, should things go down hill, I doubt that anyone who did this will be looked on fondly by generations in future though.

This isn't an appeasement situation, we don't see Russia as a hostile dictatorship.
However there is no need to damage relations with Moscow to make a doctrinal point over internal matters, and as ijndicated earlier we are in no position to lecture because the dogmas Fry want us to spout have brough nothing but division to the UK.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

I support what he's saying and personally think the Russians can go feth themselves due to their attitude of late. Though on that thread I also don't respect a lot of other country's governments, so in a world where everyone did what I said we'd no doubt be in a state of war by now due to my unwillingness to appease despots. =/

Just as well no one is interested in barstool opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Fry's a pretty intelligent and well respected fellow. What he's saying is morally correct, its the question of whether people see it as good for their nation's interests. The way the world works is that people are more than happy to jump into bed with dictatorships or the like as long as they can get something out of it. In this situation we're trying to appease the Russians right now due to the political situation, and not willing to effect this by bringing moral objections into it. However, should things go down hill, I doubt that anyone who did this will be looked on fondly by generations in future though.

I support what he's saying and personally think the Russians can go feth themselves due to their attitude of late. Though on that thread I also don't respect a lot of other country's governments, so in a world where everyone did what I said we'd no doubt be in a state of war by now due to my unwillingness to appease despots. =/

If the Olympics are supposedly nonpolitical why would a country boycott them? The whole concept is stupid, again just like the Winter Olympics

Boycotting Olympics did work when the African nations forced an anti-apartheid ban from 1970. I don't actually agree with even that, effective though it was.

Back in the ancient Olympics wars would be stopped for the games, the ancient Greeks had the right attitude, if hostile nations can find some common ground the world becomes a better place. Sport is the best choice for this.
the Olympics is important, though in particular the summer games.

I know a gay rights activist tried to citizens arrest Mugabe, and failed.

Do tell us more about how gay rights activists arrested Pinochet.

Eugh... Staying classy over this matter aren't we Dakka? Saying that gay rights activists stir up trouble within the conservatively minded, so instead they should be fined and arrested instead? Shall be it be noted that the Gay Pride rallies in Russia are often violently confronted by opposition groups? Oh yes, because they're fighting for a good cause they deserve to receive this negative action from others and their own government?

Saying that we should give a toss about the situation in Russia comes across as rather close minded. That's comparable to choosing to ignore say a European having it in their policy that all those of a certain popular religion aren't allowed to practice it as it offends people, despite the religion and its practices being peaceful (or a ethnic group not expressing themselves or whatever). People are wanting to express themselves and their government is saying that its against the law. They're activism is a result of their poor treatment, but again, apparently they can't complain about their situation as that'll both the majority. People are demanding to be seen as equals alongside their countrymen, but their being denied this by their government. I guess they aren't allowed to campaign against this then? I don't know if certain users here are just ignorant, homophobic or they just don't see the problem, but denying that what the Russian government is doing as being an issue perplexes me.

Oh how isn't a guy who's been ruling over a country for thirteen years due to a electoral loophole a dictator? During the last election there was pretty rampant claim of vote rigging by the people and other country's governments. To say that they aren't hostile either doesn't really reflect much of their foreign policy of late considering the middle east, in that its been shown that almost the entirety of the international community has opposed them on certain topics (where their only allies were dictatorships...).

Not to sound like a jerk, but gay rights are kind of the least of Russians worries right now. Pretty much every Russian is being oppressed to some degree, the gays are just getting a much more blatant amount of it.

If I were to boycott Russia's hosting of the Olympics, it would be for how all of their citizens are being oppressed, not just because of the gays. Yes, their situation is horrible, but they're not the only ones who are being kept down. I don't see how we can look at that nation as a whole and yet all you're hearing is "look at how the homosexuals are treated!" when elections are being rigged and its turning into a dictatorship in all but name.

But the Olympics are supposed to be about setting political differences aside, at least for a little while, and enjoying some friendly competition. Its supposed to build a sense of community. We even went to Nazi Germany's hosting for goodness sake! Political bickering is supposed to be checked at the door, so that for at least a little while we can pretend to get along.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Eugh... Staying classy over this matter aren't we Dakka? Saying that gay rights activists stir up trouble within the conservatively minded, so instead they should be fined and arrested instead? Shall be it be noted that the Gay Pride rallies in Russia are often violently confronted by opposition groups? Oh yes, because they're fighting for a good cause they deserve to receive this negative action from others and their own government?

Actually they can stir up trouble with most people given the chance, in the UK Gay Pride is often linked by the extreme left, but of course anyone who isnt falling over backwards to welcome it is 'conservatively minded'.

They shouldnt be 'fighting' for this or any sexuality cause. Sexual preferences are a private personal matter, everyone else is expected to keep it to themselves, why not Gay Pride.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Saying that we should give a toss about the situation in Russia comes across as rather close minded. That's comparable to choosing to ignore say a European having it in their policy that all those of a certain popular religion aren't allowed to practice it as it offends people, despite the religion and its practices being peaceful (or a ethnic group not expressing themselves or whatever).

While on this note Gay Pride activists groups lose no time to bash religion also, their tolerance is demanded, but not reciprocated.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

People are wanting to express themselves and their government is saying that its against the law. They're activism is a result of their poor treatment, but again, apparently they can't complain about their situation as that'll both the majority. People are demanding to be seen as equals alongside their countrymen, but their being denied this by their government.

Gay Pride activism doesn't stop at asking for equality, it demands preferential treatment with regards to indecency in a public place amongst other things. Equality is when people can practice their own sexual preferences in the privacy of their own homes without discrimination.
Most dangerous of all it politicises sexuality, as everyone has some form of sexuality and it doesn't of itself effect ability or social demographic it opens up a new political avenue when there is enough discord in society already. Furthermore if any counterbalance was to be made, aka a Straight Pride movement for non-gay people, it would likely be immediately labeled a hate group.

You can have equality without gay pride activism, most people will accept that people should be free from persecution. If Russians don't enjoy that then there is room for improvement there, but the pace of such should not be dictated by foreign governments. However if Putin has decided not to host yet another partisan political movement then Russia will likely be a whole lot less troubled as account of it.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

I guess they aren't allowed to campaign against this then? I don't know if certain users here are just ignorant, homophobic or they just don't see the problem, but denying that what the Russian government is doing as being an issue perplexes me.

Oh how isn't a guy who's been ruling over a country for thirteen years due to a electoral loophole a dictator? During the last election there was pretty rampant claim of vote rigging by the people and other country's governments. To say that they aren't hostile either doesn't really reflect much of their foreign policy of late considering the middle east, in that its been shown that almost the entirety of the international community has opposed them on certain topics (where their only allies were dictatorships...).

So after so many years of big bad Putin, why choose this issue and now to make a stand of the sorts which will collapse UK-Russian relations? Because in the eyes of some a partisan gay rights agenda is more important than all the others.

Putin banned gay pride marches in 2006, this isn't current news, and largely it has had no damaging effect, perhaps Russia doesn't want yet another activist group, luckily for them Stephen Fry knows better.

It had no detrimental effect bar for the ones who are being repressed. If I was told that I wasn't allowed to express my identity then I'd be pretty peeved over it. The Russians have plenty of right wing groups who are allowed to march, yet they're government is pretty uptight about the leftist ones. Perhaps due to their government being largely supported by the right, whereas the leftists instead form the majority of Putin's opposition?

Tah for belittling gay right groups and saying that they cause trouble whenever given the chance btw. Doesn't come across as grouping everyone together under one banner and being homophobic in the least (hey those muslim terrorists bomb a lot of stuff, guess they're all like that).

I think I'll call an end to my involvement in this thread for a bit. The arguments are becoming circular and kind of offensive considering my own stint. =P

 Wyrmalla wrote:
It had no detrimental effect bar for the ones who are being repressed. If I was told that I wasn't allowed to express my identity then I'd be pretty peeved over it.

The right of expressing an identity has developed into the right to push it in peoples faces thanks to gay pride activism. I don't want to know if someone is gay or straight, they should keep it to themselves.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

The Russians have plenty of right wing groups who are allowed to march, yet they're government is pretty uptight about the leftist ones. Perhaps due to their government being largely supported by the right, whereas the leftists instead form the majority of Putin's opposition?

Citation needed. Which groups.
Besides you might be surpised to find this isn't an issue of left vs hard right, opposition to left wing groups hold broad popular support the opposite to what you might find in western Europe.
Russians by and large don't want activism like Gay Pride marches or Pussy Riot, its western activists who say they should have them. Soits fair to say Stephen Fry is trying to use UK government pressure to force societal changes on Russia that the Russian people show no indication of wanting.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Tah for belittling gay right groups and saying that they cause trouble whenever given the chance btw. Doesn't come across as grouping everyone together under one banner and being homophobic in the least (hey those muslim terrorists bomb a lot of stuff, guess they're all like that).

A false analogy, only a few moslems are jihadist terrorists, but many moslem jihadists are terrorists.
Likewise there is no problem with people being gay, or even wanting gay rights. However while only a few gays are left wing agitators a large proportion of gay rights activists are.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
It had no detrimental effect bar for the ones who are being repressed. If I was told that I wasn't allowed to express my identity then I'd be pretty peeved over it. The Russians have plenty of right wing groups who are allowed to march, yet they're government is pretty uptight about the leftist ones. Perhaps due to their government being largely supported by the right, whereas the leftists instead form the majority of Putin's opposition?

Tah for belittling gay right groups and saying that they cause trouble whenever given the chance btw. Doesn't come across as grouping everyone together under one banner and being homophobic in the least (hey those muslim terrorists bomb a lot of stuff, guess they're all like that).

I think I'll call an end to my involvement in this thread for a bit. The arguments are becoming circular and kind of offensive considering my own stint. =P

You know this is Russia right? You know Russia with the Gulags and the KGB and the Cold War and the just last year invaded a US ally right? Homosexual rights is about #427 on the priority list, for both them and us.

First world problems.