Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by manwiches
Some of need to learn yoga. Might make you less angry.

fyp

[dissentowner]

I am just in awe that a thread turned into a dramafest and it had nothing to do with something I said.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Originally Posted by cannon7

In this context, how these words are being used are a form of Godwin's law.

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.

Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics. Later it was applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

I am sorry, but that is not even close to what is happening. These words are being used accurately to describe the subject matter being discussed in this thread.

Your post is a good example deflection though. And really so are all the cries about accurate use of English being name calling. They all scream "I have no rational argument to make, so I am going to try to deflect to other issues.". Trying to change the topic to be about the tone of language and how mean everyone is being, in an effort to distract from what is actually being discussed.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

It's at the bottom of each forum page - and it's been weird as it's never shown Mango, TC, or I as Moderators for the past 8 years - I remember Photon looked into that back in the day and couldn't figure it out.



https://forum.calgarypuck.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6 scroll

Which is amusing, as I've always seen you as a mod, but not Mango or TC. I see a list of 8: Moderator, MRCboicgy, photon, ken0042, KootenayFlamesFan, Iowa_Flames_Fan and Textcritic.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Which is amusing, as I've always seen you as a mod, but not Mango or TC. I see a list of 8: Moderator, MRCboicgy, photon, ken0042, KootenayFlamesFan, Iowa_Flames_Fan and Textcritic.

Wait, Cecil Terwilliger isn't a mod?!?!?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Chill out and have a Bud Light.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

Wait, so now the dictionary is part of the conspiracy out to get you?

Those are not name calling, they are words that in the English language have meaning.


homophobe - noun
a person characterized by homophobia
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people


To tie it back to this thread topic: Reimer though his actions demonstrated such an extreme aversion to gay people that he refused to participate is saying that everyone is welcome in hockey. So to call him a homophobe is in no way name calling, it is using the proper word in the English language to describe his actions.

This is no different than calling someone who jogs a jogger. If I did not want to be called a jogger, I would stop jogging. If I instead went on tirades about how it is name calling to say that I am a jogger and demand that people and the English language change, then I would also fit the definition of ignorant (lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified).

Analogies are often a poor way to make a point. Yours is a good example of that.

At any rate, I was talking about people in this thread calling other posters names. It indicates that one has a weak position if they can't make a compelling point and resort to name calling. Nobody online ever admits to losing a debate - the closest someone comes is resorting to the racist/bigot/homophobe name calling.

On the Reimer issue, we have Reimer on the record making a very clear statement that he welcomes everyone. That's hardly the words of a homophobe. Instead, people come to that conclusion by inferring an insidious and malicious motivation because of...not wearing a sweater? Let's take a moment to absorb how silly that sounds. (Putting on the sweater can't be both "no big deal" and also a "massive statement".)

The proper interpretation of Reimer's position is that he feels he cannot endorse how LGBTQ+ live, genetics or not. However, he can still welcome LGBTQ+ people as equals in society. THAT is the most useful and generous interpretation of his position and statements.

Instead people start calling him names, and making preposterous claims that being "welcoming" also requires endorsement. The sweater idea appears to be a very bad one because it seems to be inherently regarding what it represents. If it's a statement about being welcoming, then Reimer did that, and did it without ambiguity. It is illiberal and frankly disingenuous to try to interpret his other actions as being contrary to his explicit statements.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

I am sorry, but that is not even close to what is happening. These words are being used accurately to describe the subject matter being discussed in this thread.

Your post is a good example deflection though. And really so are all the cries about accurate use of English being name calling. They all scream "I have no rational argument to make, so I am going to try to deflect to other issues.". Trying to change the topic to be about the tone of language and how mean everyone is being, in an effort to distract from what is actually being discussed.

It is interesting that you're accusing me of deflecting while not really even addressing my point.

So I've been called a bigot, homophobe, racist, fascist, etc. in both this thread and the predecessor thread regarding James Reimer. Now you may think these words are being used "accurately to describe its subject matter", but what evidence do you actually have to support this assertion? Please be specific, preferably with exact quotes.

In politics, association is often accomplished by name-calling--linking a person or idea to a negative symbol. The persuader hopes that the receiver will reject the person or idea on the basis of the negative symbol, rather than by examining the evidence.

That is what I think is actually happening here and is a logical fallacy.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by cannon7

It is interesting that you're accusing me of deflecting while not really even addressing my point.

So I've been called a bigot, homophobe, racist, fascist, etc. in both this thread and the predecessor thread regarding James Reimer. Now you may think these words are being used "accurately to describe its subject matter", but what evidence do you actually have to support this assertion? Please be specific, preferably with exact quotes.

In politics, association is often accomplished by name-calling--linking a person or idea to a negative symbol. The persuader hopes that the receiver will reject the person or idea on the basis of the negative symbol, rather than by examining the evidence.

That is what I think is actually happening here and is a logical fallacy.

You cannot reason someone out of an idea that they have not reasoned themselves into.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You cannot reason someone out of an idea that they have not reasoned themselves into.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Looks like Zadorov liked a tweet by Selanne slamming some reporter in the US offering the trans community support.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Looks like Zadorov liked a tweet by Selanne slamming some reporter in the US offering the trans community support.

https://twitter.com/teemusel8nne/sta...267LXyZXnaQu0A

Not “some reporter”

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Analogies are often a poor way to make a point. Yours is a good example of that.

At any rate, I was talking about people in this thread calling other posters names. It indicates that one has a weak position if they can't make a compelling point and resort to name calling. Nobody online ever admits to losing a debate - the closest someone comes is resorting to the racist/bigot/homophobe name calling.

On the Reimer issue, we have Reimer on the record making a very clear statement that he welcomes everyone. That's hardly the words of a homophobe. Instead, people come to that conclusion by inferring an insidious and malicious motivation because of...not wearing a sweater? Let's take a moment to absorb how silly that sounds. (Putting on the sweater can't be both "no big deal" and also a "massive statement".)

The proper interpretation of Reimer's position is that he feels he cannot endorse how LGBTQ+ live, genetics or not. However, he can still welcome LGBTQ+ people as equals in society. THAT is the most useful and generous interpretation of his position and statements.

Instead people start calling him names, and making preposterous claims that being "welcoming" also requires endorsement. The sweater idea appears to be a very bad one because it seems to be inherently regarding what it represents. If it's a statement about being welcoming, then Reimer did that, and did it without ambiguity. It is illiberal and frankly disingenuous to try to interpret his other actions as being contrary to his explicit statements.

This is hilarious. Doubling down on complaining about language only further proves my point.

My point is that whining about words being name calling is a total distraction, and has nothing to do with the topic. Especially when the words are directly relevant to the topic, and being used for their actual meaning. Trying switch the subject to be about the words and how mean people are being is a sign of a weak argument. If the argument was strong it could stand on its own, instead of trying to hide behind technicalities.


Reimer's words are meaningless compared to his actions, actions are how I judge people. But, lets be charitable and go by what you call the "proper" interpretation of his words (or more accurately your summarisation of his words): "The proper interpretation of Reimer's position is that he feels he cannot endorse how LGBTQ+ live, genetics or not".

To start with, that is ridiculously stereotyping a group of people who have nothing in common except they were born LGBTQ+. There is no one way we live, we are just people trying to live our lives without being discriminated against. To even try an say that a diverse group of people live in a way you cannot endorse, is discriminating against them. This is exactly the problem discriminated against people are complaining about.

It is also completely contradictory to say you welcome LGBTQ+ people as equals in society, while at the same time segregating them into a group based on their genetics, making assumptions about how everyone in that group "lives", and then condemning them for that stereotype. Especially using vague meaningless statements like "how LGBTQ+ live", what does that even mean? What exactly does every single LGBTQ+ person do that cannot be endorsed?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

This is hilarious. Doubling down on complaining about language only further proves my point.

My point is that whining about words being name calling is a total distraction, and has nothing to do with the topic. Especially when the words are directly relevant to the topic, and being used for their actual meaning. Trying switch the subject to be about the words and how mean people are being is a sign of a weak argument. If the argument was strong it could stand on its own, instead of trying to hide behind technicalities.


Reimer's words are meaningless compared to his actions, actions are how I judge people. But, lets be charitable and go by what you call the "proper" interpretation of his words (or more accurately your summarisation of his words): "The proper interpretation of Reimer's position is that he feels he cannot endorse how LGBTQ+ live, genetics or not".

To start with, that is ridiculously stereotyping a group of people who have nothing in common except they were born LGBTQ+. There is no one way we live, we are just people trying to live our lives without being discriminated against. To even try an say that a diverse group of people live in a way you cannot endorse, is discriminating against them. This is exactly the problem discriminated against people are complaining about.

It is also completely contradictory to say you welcome LGBTQ+ people as equals in society, while at the same time segregating them into a group based on their genetics, making assumptions about how everyone in that group "lives", and then condemning them for that stereotype. Especially using vague meaningless statements like "how LGBTQ+ live", what does that even mean? What exactly does every single LGBTQ+ person do that cannot be endorsed?

What discriminatory action has Reimer taken towards LGBTQ+ people?

[Yeah_Baby]

Not everyone who is homophobic does hate crimes. Of course there are degrees of harm. But that doesn’t mean harm wasn’t done.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Not everyone who is homophonic does hate crimes. Of course there are degrees of harm. But that doesn’t mean harm wasn’t done.

We're doing pretty well as as society if our definition of "doing harm" has been reduced to not putting in a hockey sweater.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What discriminatory action has Reimer taken towards LGBTQ+ people?

He didn’t wear a jersey. Think that’s why you guys have been calling each other names for the last week or two.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You cannot reason someone out of an idea that they have not reasoned themselves into.

What? Yes you can. It happens all the time. People are frequently deprogrammed from cults. There's a guy whose hobby is talking people out of being in the KKK. What an absurd thing to suggest.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Not everyone who is homophonic does hate crimes.

In fact almost none do. Crimes of diction, on the other hand...

[Badgers Nose]

'reductio ad Hitlerum'

that's better than anything else in the thread - amazing term!

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

We're doing pretty well as as society if our definition of "doing harm" has been reduced to not putting in a hockey sweater.

Yup! And we can do even better! Fancy that!