Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Excluding others from playing a kids game (for a 1%’r income) due to your religious beliefs is dumb. This isn’t the Catholic Hockey League.

I guess we can say it’s brave to be dumb…

Is that the case where they’re saying they’d exclude others from playing the game? I didn’t see that said.

What I don’t get is the pride flag in this case, is a symbol for something. We all agree on that. Whatever that symbol is, is up to ones interpretation. Everyone has bought into Brian Burke’s definition that it’s a symbol for inclusion into the sport but that’s his definition. The pride flag is most synonymous with pride parades. Some may not agree with the stuff that goes on at the parade and may not want to wear the jersey because of that. For military nights, some may not agree with wars in general and may define those nights as glorifying wars though some may say it’s to honour soldiers. For race type events you have some minorities who don’t want them thought of any different aside from people a person (ie: see Morgan Freeman’s quick interview on that for an example). The list goes on and on. People define these symbolic events for however they see fit and may choose to not take part in it. I’d rather that than just giving in and not truly believing in it.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Considering the basic premise of wearing the jersey is making the statement that everyone is welcome/appreciated, refusing to wear it is hateful.

People dress up the decision in religion and say they can’t support “the lifestyle” or “the choice” which is bigoted to begin with, but they’re also effectively lying about what the jersey actually represents. They say everyone is welcome, but refuse to wear the jersey that is meant to be a symbol of everyone being welcome.

It shows you how cheap their words are.

Just because wearing a pride jersey symbolizes a specific thing to you, it doesn't mean wearing the jersey symbolizes the exact same specific thing to someone else.

Someone can believe gay players should be welcomed to play hockey and attend hockey games and be a fan of the game...while still being uncomfortable or unwanting to wear pride gear due to their interpretation of what wearing the jersey symbolizes to them.

Even lumping all the NHL players who choose not to wear it into the same group is unreasonable, because you only know the reason for some specific players like staals and Reimer.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I don’t understand why I can’t think a player is dumb for not wanting to wear one of these jerseys? Is that not okay? That’s literally all that is happening to them, people saying that they’re dumb.

I wish this was the case. Unfortunately it is not.

Many are advocating to make it mandatory or to suspend players. They already can't participate in warmups. The reaction to these players is far from benign.

An NHL player is uniquely positioned to avoid retribution. They have some level of physical security. They have contractual security. Many of them have lifetime financial security. They have the union.

But if we view moral panics/witch hunts/crusades become normalized and accepted, then people who do not have the advantages of an NHL player can see some very nasty outcomes.

This is why it is a massive problem if we accept the logical leap that refusing to wear a jersey is the equivalent of hate speech, and hate speech is violence, and violence justifies punishment.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Just because wearing a pride jersey symbolizes a specific thing to you, it doesn't mean wearing the jersey symbolizes the exact same specific thing to someone else.

Someone can literally believe gay players should be welcomed to play hockey and attend hockey games and be a fan of the game...while still being uncomfortable or unwanting to wear pride gear due to their interpretation of what wearing the jersey symbolizes to them.

Even lumping all the NHL players who choose not to wear it into the same group is unreasonable, because you only know the reason for some specific players like staals and Reimer.

The bolded is so stupid though that I can’t understand supporting this. It’s stupid.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I wish this was the case. Unfortunately it is not.

Many are advocating to make it mandatory or to suspend players. They already can't participate in warmups. The reaction to these players is far from benign.

An NHL player is uniquely positioned to avoid retribution. They have some level of physical security. They have contractual security. Many of them have lifetime financial security. They have the union.

But if we view moral panics/witch hunts/crusades become normalized and accepted, then people who do not have the advantages of an NHL player can see some very nasty outcomes.

This is why it is a massive problem if we accept the logical leap that refusing to wear a jersey is the equivalent of hate speech, and hate speech is violence, and violence justifies punishment.

Don’t skip passed the main point. Who’s this “many” people calling for suspensions? Some posts online? This isn’t close to a mainstream opinion. Blah blah “moral panics”…. Tell me who is legitimately calling for suspensions. Let’s start there.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

The bolded is so stupid though that I can’t understand supporting this. It’s stupid.

People are weird, complicated, not-fully rational, not fully logical and don't see everything through the same lens due to different wiring and lived experiences.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Just because wearing a pride jersey symbolizes a specific thing to you, it doesn't mean wearing the jersey symbolizes the exact same specific thing to someone else.

Someone can believe gay players should be welcomed to play hockey and attend hockey games and be a fan of the game...while still being uncomfortable or unwanting to wear pride gear due to their interpretation of what wearing the jersey symbolizes to them.

Even lumping all the NHL players who choose not to wear it into the same group is unreasonable, because you only know the reason for some specific players like staals and Reimer.

Is this a joke? You suggest the symbolism behind the pride flag is determined by the bigots and homophobes who don't believe all people are equal?

You probably believe people who say they fly the Confederate flag as a sign of southern pride, and completely deny it's meant to signify racism.

Your arguments are the same #### people said about the civil rights movement, universal suffrage etc. It's an attempt to turn the bigots into victims and tacitly support their bigotry.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Is this a joke? You suggest the symbolism behind the pride flag is determined by the bigots and homophobes who don't believe all people are equal?

You probably believe people who say they fly the Confederate flag as a sign of southern pride, and completely deny it's meant to signify racism.

Your arguments are the same #### people said about the civil rights movement, universal suffrage etc. It's an attempt to turn the bigots into victims and tacitly support their bigotry.

Your argument is weak if you need to invoke comparisons to suffrage or the civil rights movement.

Make your argument without resorting to red herrings and straw men.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

People are weird, complicated, not-fully rational, not fully logical and don't see everything through the same lens due to different wiring and lived experiences.

A lot of homophobia, which is hateful, is rooted in irrational beliefs, broken logic, or weird ideas about what being a member of the LGBTQ community involves.

That doesn’t make it better or something above criticism.

The jersey doesn’t mean a specific thing “to me.” It means a specific thing. Some players purposely pretend it means something else, or give it meaning it is not intended to have, and use that as a reason not to wear it. That, again, is not something that should be above criticism.

If I were to go the opposite direction and say that wearing the jersey means a player is a member of the LGBTQ community, that would also be wrong, and also deserving of criticism. So, even the bigoted terminology these players use aside (lifestyle, choice), their interpretation is just plain wrong.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Your argument is weak if you need to invoke comparisons to suffrage or the civil rights movement.

Make your argument without resorting to red herrings and straw men.

Your argument is weak when you resort to calling the backlash to this a “witch-hunt”.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Your argument is weak when you resort to calling the backlash to this a “witch-hunt”.

I prefer the term moral panic.


At any rate, let's unpack this. Women's suffrage was about the right to vote. All members of the LGBTQ+ community have the right to vote. Your comparison is invalid and such hyperbole deserves criticism.

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Don’t skip passed the main point. Who’s this “many” people calling for suspensions? Some posts online? This isn’t close to a mainstream opinion. Blah blah “moral panics”…. Tell me who is legitimately calling for suspensions. Let’s start there.

I have specifically said that a player who refused to wear the Pride jersey should be fined, scratched from the line-up for that evening and forfeit 1/82 of his salary, which in turn is donated to an appropriate pro-LGTBQ2S+ charitable organization. I stand by that position.

I also believe that the same thing should happen to someone who refuses to wear a military appreciation jersey or if they peeled the poppy sticker off of their helmet. If you want to make a stand for something that you believe in, then accept the consequences.

I believe that the poster "Bo Levi" is advocating for a consequence free environment for those who refuse to wear the Pride jersey.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A lot of homophobia, which is hateful, is rooted in irrational beliefs, broken logic, or weird ideas about what being a member of the LGBTQ community involves.

That doesn’t make it better or something above criticism.

The jersey doesn’t mean a specific thing “to me.” It means a specific thing. Some players purposely pretend it means something else, or give it meaning it is not intended to have, and use that as a reason not to wear it. That, again, is not something that should be above criticism.

The jersey might mean different things to different people. That's all I'm saying. And the consensus can define it as X, but if I believe it's Y and you can't convince me it's X...then to me, it means Y. And I would then make my decision based on my definition.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I prefer the term moral panic.


At any rate, let's unpack this. Women's suffrage was about the right to vote. All members of the LGBTQ+ community have the right to vote. Your comparison is invalid and such hyperbole deserves criticism.

Who’s calling for suspensions?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A lot of homophobia, which is hateful, is rooted in irrational beliefs, broken logic, or weird ideas about what being a member of the LGBTQ community involves.

That doesn’t make it better or something above criticism.

The jersey doesn’t mean a specific thing “to me.” It means a specific thing. Some players purposely pretend it means something else, or give it meaning it is not intended to have, and use that as a reason not to wear it. That, again, is not something that should be above criticism.

If I were to go the opposite direction and say that wearing the jersey means a player is a member of the LGBTQ community, that would also be wrong, and also deserving of criticism. So, even the bigoted terminology these players use aside (lifestyle, choice), their interpretation is just plain wrong.

This is the problem with symbolic gestures...they are just that: symbolic and gestures.

If you perceive a a logical conflict between what a player chooses to do symbolically and the direct statements they make, that's on you.

Reimer is a good example. He says everyone is welcome. I believe him. To make up a rigid definition of a symbol that you then impose on a person in conflict with their direct statements is a non-sensical position. Just take him at his word and make the very reasonable assumption that you both view the symbol differently.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The jersey might mean different things to different people. That's all I'm saying. And the consensus can define it as X, but if I believe it's Y and you can't convince me it's X...then to me, it means Y. And I would then make my decision based on my definition.

And you’d be wrong. That’s all.

Unless you’re of the belief that no belief or understanding can be wrong and everything in the world is subjective. Which is… also wrong.

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I prefer the term moral panic.


At any rate, let's unpack this. Women's suffrage was about the right to vote. All members of the LGBTQ+ community have the right to vote. Your comparison is invalid and such hyperbole deserves criticism.

How long did it take for the Suffrage movement to win women the right to vote? Who fought against it and why? Did some women fight against the Suffrage movement and why would they?

This isn't hyperbole, it instead provides nuance.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And you’d be wrong. That’s all.

Unless you’re of the belief that no belief or understanding can be wrong and everything in the world is subjective. Which is… also wrong.

Then abandon the symbols and just rely on actions and statements.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

How long did it take for the Suffrage movement to win women the right to vote? Who fought against it and why? Did some women fight against the Suffrage movement and why would they?

This isn't hyperbole, it instead provides nuance.

I would say that the inability to understand nuance is at the root of this entire jersey issue.

"You're either with us or against us" seems to be a commonplace position for those complaining about the Reimers of the league.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I wish this was the case. Unfortunately it is not.

Many are advocating to make it mandatory or to suspend players. They already can't participate in warmups. The reaction to these players is far from benign.

An NHL player is uniquely positioned to avoid retribution. They have some level of physical security. They have contractual security. Many of them have lifetime financial security. They have the union.

But if we view moral panics/witch hunts/crusades become normalized and accepted, then people who do not have the advantages of an NHL player can see some very nasty outcomes.

This is why it is a massive problem if we accept the logical leap that refusing to wear a jersey is the equivalent of hate speech, and hate speech is violence, and violence justifies punishment.

You equate the shaming of someone who won't support LGBTQ+ right to equality with the Crusades and burning women alive for "witchcraft".

You seriously can't see the false equivalence here?