Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

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

Then abandon the Military Appreciation Nights & national anthems as well.

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

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.

Possibly it is Reimer, Provorov, etc. that are unable to understand nuance and why others are upset with their misguided decisions.

[Infinit47]

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.

Do you have any sense of what is occuring in the world with respect to basic rights of the LGBTQ+ communities?

The fact is you can't grasp the equivalency here, and why refusing to support this marginalized group is so important at this time, makes me think you don't feel this group deserves the same protection as others.

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

Then abandon the Military Appreciation Nights & national anthems as well.

Yes, please do.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Standing up for their beliefs is cowardly? I’d say it’s the opposite. Especially in this day and age.

Whether people agree with them is irrelevant.

Hiding behind a made up religion to support inequality is indeed cowardly.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

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.

It isn’t though. It’s “why are you against them/us? It doesn’t make sense”

Edit: followed by “why can’t you understand this very simple explanation that has been laid out for you?”. And then it basically ends there. Some people, like me, will see a highlight posted of a save by James Reimer, think to themselves “pft, #### that guy”, and move on. Although some of you will remain upset that the player didn’t get to do their little skate around for the fans before puck drop.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

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.

Some good people on both sides?

It's not a nuance issue, it's about your desire to support someone's point of view that's bigoted under the guise of preventing sort of moral panic driven society (hysteria much?).

You are saying the exact same things the separate but equal people's said about black people in the US.

Inequality will not end until people who support that inequality are called out, as we've seen over and over again in human history.

[GioforPM]

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.

This is like the civil rights movement.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Do you have any sense of what is occuring in the world with respect to basic rights of the LGBTQ+ communities?

The fact is you can't grasp the equivalency here, and why refusing to support this marginalized group is so important at this time, makes me think you don't feel this group deserves the same protection as others.

He can grasp it, he chooses not to because he is a bigoted troll who is allowed to continue because he is careful with his language.

Along with the crusades and witch-burning, he’s also compared this totalitarianism and struggle sessions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

As a friendly reminder, this is the same person who goes over the top with comparisons (crusades, struggle sessions, etc) meant to highlight how illiberal and dangerous anything that promotes acceptance of any minority population is (not limited to LGBTQ), while also being the same person who believed the unvaccinated should be left to die (which should show you that this has nothing to do with liberalism or values, but mostly BoLevi just likes to demonize and stick it to people or types of people he hates, which includes LGBTQ people).

He is truly not worth having a real conversation with.

[Infinit47]

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.

You might want to turn off OAN and Newsmax and watch some proper world news to see the basic rights LGBTQ+ are losing all over the world.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

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.

LMAO



Tell me again how words mean what they mean. Hell of an argument you're putting together here.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

Then abandon the Military Appreciation Nights & national anthems as well.

I would agree with both of those steps.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

Possibly it is Reimer, Provorov, etc. that are unable to understand nuance and why others are upset with their misguided decisions.

There is much that Reimer and Provorov appear to not understand. But that doesn't justify deliberately mis-representing their position.

They don't want to wear a jersey. That's the only claim they have made. Their other statements are completely consistent with all of the things we would consider fair and welcoming. They are not advocating removing the rights of any community as far as I have seen in in their statements. In fact, they have done the opposite.

[powderjunkie]

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.

If the meaning can be so ambiguous, why should Reimer et al kowtow to the generally accepted meaning that they find so offensive? Why not personally define it as a rainbow jersey, symbolizing the beautiful optical effect that occurs after rain?

Or better yet, the particular rainbow that you believe you will one day see from Noah's Arc after your benevolent god drowns all those evil gays?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If the meaning can be so ambiguous, why should Reimer et al kowtow to the generally accepted meaning that they find so offensive? Why not personally define it as a rainbow jersey, symbolizing the beautiful optical effect that occurs after rain?

Or better yet, the particular rainbow that you believe you will one day see from Noah's Arc after your benevolent god drowns all those evil gays?

My gut tells me that if it was a plain black jersey, with bold contrasting writing that read “it’s okay to play if you’re gay”, that they’d still refuse while saying they interpret that differently.

[ben voyonsdonc]

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.

Being gay in Canada was actually criminal behaviour during the lives of many people who are on this board. Same sex marriage wasn’t legal until 2005. Gay spaces were targets of police activity as recently as the early 2000s. Legal equality for gay people is still relatively new. Trans people are even further behind in protections and are under real threat.

Pride night isn’t about legal equality. It’s about showing LGBTQ fans that the players give a #### about them. It’s about showing queer hockey players that they are welcome to be themselves within the hockey world. The fact that some players can’t even do that, shows that pride night and other queer community supporting events are still very necessary.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If the meaning can be so ambiguous, why should Reimer et al kowtow to the generally accepted meaning that they find so offensive? Why not personally define it as a rainbow jersey, symbolizing the beautiful optical effect that occurs after rain?

Or better yet, the particular rainbow that you believe you will one day see from Noah's Arc after your benevolent god drowns all those evil gays?

That goes both ways. Why is the pride jersey considered the only way to show that you are welcome? Reimer for instance (and I think the other players) have made clear, unambiguous statements welcoming everybody to games.

Why is that insufficient? It seems like it's insufficient because what they actually want is endorsement.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Do you have any sense of what is occuring in the world with respect to basic rights of the LGBTQ+ communities?

The fact is you can't grasp the equivalency here, and why refusing to support this marginalized group is so important at this time, makes me think you don't feel this group deserves the same protection as others.

I actually do not. I honestly have no idea what is occurring but with all the drama and outrage all over the internet I think it's great that the teams are putting this stuff on to promote inclusion. Will we ever get to a point where these things aren't necessary?

This world is really getting annoying, like these guys can't put on a jersey for 5 minutes to show that regardless of your sexual orientation you can put on skates and put a rubber disk in a net! What a bunch of ####ing losers.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That goes both ways. Why is the pride jersey considered the only way to show that you are welcome? Reimer for instance (and I think the other players) have made clear, unambiguous statements welcoming everybody to games.

Why is that insufficient? It seems like it's insufficient because what they actually want is endorsement.

No, he’s not clear and unambiguous at all.

“In this specific instance, I am choosing not to endorse something that is counter to my personal convictions, which are based on the Bible, the highest authority in life,” Reimer said.“

I sure as hell don’t feel welcome reading that.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

No, he’s not clear and unambiguous at all.

“In this specific instance, I am choosing not to endorse something that is counter to my personal convictions, which are based on the Bible, the highest authority in life,” Reimer said.“

I sure as hell don’t feel welcome reading that.

The rest of his quote you chose to ignore “I strongly believe that every person has value and worth, and the LGBTQIA+ community, like all others, should be welcomed in all aspects of the game of hockey,” I don’t support Reimer but you can’t cherry pick the quote