Inclusivity and the NHL: We Have a Problem

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by btimbit

If Reimer simply chose to quietly not take part you'd have a point. A bad point, but still a point.

But this isn't a case of some quiet objector, he got up on a soapbox and spoke out against it, while trying to word it like he's not speaking out against it. Then a few hours later he doubled down with "I wouldn't support muslims either, and I have a Muslim friend"

I still don't see how calling him out for that is the "Inclusivity Police" demanding compliance.

Reimer was not standing on a soapbox. The media got wind that he was sitting out during practice and rushed to shove a mic in his face. It is pretty clear that Reimer did not intend to make this into a media circus. It doesn't even make sense that he would given the current political climate.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Reimer was not standing on a soapbox. The media got wind that he was sitting out during practice and rushed to shove a mic in his face. It is pretty clear that Reimer did not intend to make this into a media circus. It doesn't even make sense that he would given the current political climate.

You and the rest of the other klansmen in this thread sure enjoy the spotlight. Why wouldn't Reimer? How else would your type be able to make such a huge production of what victims you are?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by btimbit

If Reimer simply chose to quietly not take part you'd have a point. A bad point, but still a point.

But this isn't a case of some quiet objector, he got up on a soapbox and spoke out against it, while trying to word it like he's not speaking out against it. Then a few hours later he doubled down with "I wouldn't support muslims either, and I have a Muslim friend"

I still don't see how calling him out for that is the "Inclusivity Police" demanding compliance.

The NHL/team does not allow him to participate in a number of things (including an important warm-up). So he isn't really permitted to be discrete.

The media then sees a story and rather than focusing on the positives coming from the jersey wearing players they help ignite a controversy where there was none before.

Predictable outrage ensues...everyone gets clicks (including CP), and here we are.

[really?]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This is a very thoughtful post and I largely agree. The most effective way for all of this to have an impact is for the NHL to make it totally optional, and to celebrate those who wear the jerseys. The most inclusive thing to do at that point as fans, media and the teams is to celebrate the people wearing the jerseys and simply ignore the players who choose not to.

But this is insufficient for the Inclusivity Police, who require compliance.

Making it optional would not be the league supporting the community, but passing that on to the player. The league is clearly extending support to a segment of their community.

As to the inclusivity police, that works in a number of ways. Not to be an apologist, but now being one, the majority faith community in North America has done a horrible job of attempting to dictate morality through corporate/legislative means. In the US the constitution clearly separates religion from state, yet many folks ignore this rather fundamental issue of law, while lauding the constitution. Moral lectures become tiresome rather quickly, but such lectures and ideologies are not limited to the inclusivity police.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Reimer was not standing on a soapbox. The media got wind that he was sitting out during practice and rushed to shove a mic in his face. It is pretty clear that Reimer did not intend to make this into a media circus. It doesn't even make sense that he would given the current political climate.

He can't be that dumb and not expect to sit in his locker room reading Bible verses while the rest of his team is warming up to bring attention on himself.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The NHL/team does not allow him to participate in a number of things (including an important warm-up). So he isn't really permitted to be discrete.

The media then sees a story and rather than focusing on the positives coming from the jersey wearing players they help ignite a controversy where there was none before.

Predictable outrage ensues...everyone gets clicks (including CP), and here we are.

He chose to sit out. The NHL/team didn't force anything. The NHL has nothing to do with Pride events. They aren't NHL sanctioned.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Reimer was not standing on a soapbox. The media got wind that he was sitting out during practice and rushed to shove a mic in his face. It is pretty clear that Reimer did not intend to make this into a media circus. It doesn't even make sense that he would given the current political climate.

Really? You think it was clear that he didn't want to turn this into a media circus, despite having a prepared statement about how he thinks homosexuality is just an immoral lifestyle and activity and then implying it's optional?


I actually have two side questions here

- First one goes to you and BoLevi both, but out of curiosity, what is it that makes you want to defend these statements and actions?

- Was Yikes your alt account by chance?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

You are obviously not a serious person or trying to engage in a serious discussion. You cannot be trying to use semantics and rigid language definitions to get out of your horrifying opinion that you've backed yourself into.

So it's only OK for the "inclusive" crowd to use rigid language definitions?

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

It's not our problem that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and find yourself unable to reconcile these two competing thoughts in your head, but you are literally spamming this thread with nonsense posts and unserious rhetoric, so either you don't actually believe anything you're saying and you're just trolling us, or you don't actually have an argument to make. Either way, it's clear you've run out of runway. Take a break, kay?

It can't be all the above? Well, it is. So deal.

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Also, did I see you a few pages back use a veiled stereotype about black men's penis size as a humble brag for why you've got so many kids? WTF is wrong with you? Nevermind, it's probably something I don't actually want to know anyway.

I think you mean what is right with me. But to each their own.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by really?

Making it optional would not be the league supporting the community, but passing that on to the player.

The league can fully support whatever cause they want, and they have done so. Compelling other individuals to support it is where the difficulty lies. People should worry about their own support and not assume that bludgeoning others into agreeing is also required to show support.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by btimbit

- First one goes to you and BoLevi both, but out of curiosity, what is it that makes you want to defend these statements and actions?

Because being illiberal in an attempt to service "liberalism" is how we go down a dark path.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

It's 2023. I wish people that were bigoted or racist or homophobic or whatever would just admit it. Stop moving goalposts, or definitions, or hiding behind a made up book like the bible. Just say that's who you are. It's tiring seeing some people admit they're intolerant and having other people trying to defend it like it's not happening. It's boring and tiring. You're intolerant. Save the rest of us the time and effort and just admit that's who you are. Reimer could have saved the verbal diarrhea and just said it out loud.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I dont see that he made this statement. It weakens your argument when you use straw men, or mis-represent someone statements.

Again, there is a big difference between saying you don't support something and saying people are unequal.

In other contexts, there would be a long list of things that every person in this thread would say they do not support, but still consider those people equals and welcoming. To avoid derailing the conversation, I will let you come up with your own list. It won't be hard.

Please inform me what other "things" people in this thread would not support that are a fundamental right of existence?

Seriously, you can't understand that saying "I don't support you being gay" is the same as saying "I don't support you being black"? If everyone had your attitude we would still have segregated schools.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The league can fully support whatever cause they want, and they have done so. Compelling other individuals to support it is where the difficulty lies. People should worry about their own support and not assume that bludgeoning others into agreeing is also required to show support.

It's not a cause it's supporting a fundamental human right to exist as you are.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Well, I personally like threads like this. Those people are exposing themselves and I get to add to my block list. Nice to know who is not worth my time to engage, since they feel that some of my family shouldn't exist.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

It's 2023. I wish people that were bigoted or racist or homophobic or whatever would just admit it. Stop moving goalposts, or definitions, or hiding behind a made up book like the bible. Just say that's who you are. It's tiring seeing some people admit they're intolerant and having other people trying to defend it like it's not happening. It's boring and tiring. You're intolerant. Save the rest of us the time and effort and just admit that's who you are. Reimer could have saved the verbal diarrhea and just said it out loud.

The pinnacle is hiding behind children in their battle against "groomers".

What a load.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Really? You think it was clear that he didn't want to turn this into a media circus, despite having a prepared statement about how he thinks homosexuality is just an immoral lifestyle and activity and then implying it's optional?

Based on what he said, he approached the Sharks organization about what he planned to do and there was some "due diligence" because they likely knew the media might run with this story. I don't think this was on a whim, far from it, but I do think Reimer hoped this wouldn't become what it is now. But I can't read the man's mind, just my interpretation.

Originally Posted by btimbit

I actually have two side questions here

- First one goes to you and BoLevi both, but out of curiosity, what is it that makes you want to defend these statements and actions?

I can't speak for BoLevi who is far more thoughtful and well-reasoned than I. But for me I measure society on its ability to tolerate opposing viewpoints. And right now our society is tearing itself apart.

I subscribe to the Voltaire school of "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

Originally Posted by btimbit

- Was Yikes your alt account by chance?

Have never had an alt account in 21 years of being on CP. I know, it's crazy, another poster agreeing with me on anything.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Because being illiberal in an attempt to service "liberalism" is how we go down a dark path.

So are you just using this topic as a tool in the "culture war"? Do you care that what Reimer said is intolerant, or is that irrelevant because it gives you a chance to go after the 'lefties'? Why do you think people calling out intolerance is just group think or the thought police or whatever else you called it as well?

Originally Posted by cannon7

Based on what he said, he approached the Sharks organization about what he planned to do and there was some "due diligence" because they likely knew the media might run with this story. I don't think this was on a whim, far from it, but I do think Reimer hoped this wouldn't become what it is now. But I can't read the man's mind, just my interpretation.



I can't speak for BoLevi who is far more thoughtful and well-reasoned than I. But for me I measure society on its ability to tolerate opposing viewpoints. And right now our society is tearing itself apart.

I subscribe to the Voltaire school of "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

Well, that's the crux of the issue right there isn't it. You think someone saying lgbt people just have an immoral hobby is simply an 'opposing viewpoint'
Also, it's been said dozens of times but I'll say it again, nobody has tried to take away his right to say it. We have just as much of a right to call him out for it as he does it, so why will you defend his right to say it while also criticize the people calling him out for it?

but you also admitted you're trolling so I guess we're just done here

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I can't speak for BoLevi who is far more thoughtful and well-reasoned than I. But for me I measure society on its ability to tolerate opposing viewpoints. And right now our society is tearing itself apart.

'Opposing viewpoints'. Just say it out loud cannon. Why are we beating around the bush here?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by btimbit

So are you just using this topic as a tool in the "culture war"? Do you care that what Reimer said is intolerant, or is that irrelevant because it gives you a chance to go after the 'lefties'? Why do you think people calling out intolerance is just group think or the thought police or whatever else you called it as well?



Well, that's the crux of the issue right there isn't it. You think someone saying lgbt people just have an immoral hobby is simply an 'opposing viewpoint'
Also, it's been said dozens of times but I'll say it again, nobody has tried to take away his right to say it. We have just as much of a right to call him out for it as he does it, so why will you defend his right to say it while also criticize the people calling him out for it?

but you also admitted you're trolling so I guess we're just done here

It went from defending the right to an opinion or belief and Reimer's character to defending the actual position.

I've never quite seen that kind of roundabout to telling on yourself on this site. It's been a scene, man.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I can't speak for BoLevi who is far more thoughtful and well-reasoned than I. But for me I measure society on its ability to tolerate opposing viewpoints. And right now our society is tearing itself apart.

See I am more of a glass half full guy. I am old enough to remember when gay marriage was an actual public policy issue and people would talk about slippery slopes involving animals and all sorts of things. And their views were actually taken as something you should listen to. Now people who oppose basic human rights for other human beings are roundly criticized for being the bigots that they are. Their views are seen for the utter hatred that they are. I see our society getting much better in that regard whereas you see it as a negative.