You can do both.
You can be a hypocrite in your actions without invalidating your ideas.
...and back to square 1.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Thu 22 Dec 2022, 9:16,
Reply)
Aye.
Actions are more important, but the original point seemed to be suggesting that being a hypocrite on any level (in this case, 7 years ago) somehow invalidates what someone is saying.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Thu 22 Dec 2022, 10:36,
Reply)
7 years isn't a very long time though, really.
I feel that the hypocrisy is problematic in this case due to the context of Lycett's 'ultimatum'.
Lycett wasn't saying "Qatar is bad, you shouldn't go there." after being there himself. He was telling Beckham that his standing as a gay icon (?) in the LGTB community would be tarnished by his support of the Qatar World Cup and that his involvement would ultimately prove damaging for the LGBT community.
Basically "If you care at all about LGBT rights, you shouldn't travel to Qatar for personal gain". Despite Lycett being a queer man that has travelled to Qatar for personal gain.
Mind you, I'm not really fussed that he's being a hypocrite. The whole stunt was a "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME" routine, just like most of the boring cunt's output over the last few months.
It's a bit of a shame, really. I watched him in a Jonathan Ross interview last night and he (mostly) came across as charming and relatively likeable. It's just this low effort slacktivism that turns me off. 'Oh, look. You're a somewhat recognisable, left-leaning TV personality appearing on Sunday with LK pretending to be a right-wing Tory supporter'. Genius
(, Thu 22 Dec 2022, 10:54, Reply)
His point was that Beckham has
sold his liberal image (which he has built off the back of things like promotions in gay magazines) to help the government with the "sportswashing" of Qatar, via a ten year ambassadorship deal, not that people shouldn't travel there for any-old work.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Thu 22 Dec 2022, 11:23,
Reply)