Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[GullFoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1644399646788435969

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

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

Sure, but moral panic and name calling isn't going to get us there.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Sure, but moral panic and name calling isn't going to get us there.

Repeating "moral panic" is essentially name calling. It's definition implies people are irrational.

There's nothing irrational about being inclusive. Or recognizing dangers a particular segment face.

Fear of drag shows more closely falls in the definition of moral panic.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

https://twitter.com/user/status/1644399646788435969

There's some merch in the flames store too

https://www.flamesport.com/products/...40118981361744

https://www.flamesport.com/products/...0118981820496q

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

There's some merch in the flames store too

https://www.flamesport.com/products/...40118981361744

https://www.flamesport.com/products/...0118981820496q

Woo! Thank you!

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

There's some merch in the flames store too

https://www.flamesport.com/products/...40118981361744

https://www.flamesport.com/products/...0118981820496q

What is a cubed puck? Does it come in a plastic case?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by butterfly

What is a cubed puck? Does it come in a plastic case?

Yes

https://www.flamesport.com/products/...caAqJwEALw_wcB

[2Stonedbirds]

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Sure, but moral panic and name calling isn't going to get us there.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Repeating "moral panic" is essentially name calling. It's definition implies people are irrational.

There's nothing irrational about being inclusive. Or recognizing dangers a particular segment face.

Fear of drag shows more closely falls in the definition of moral panic.

Not to mention that inclusion isn't a moral issue, it's part of the social contract in modern societies. Tolerance and inclusion for everyone.

[butterfly]

Ugh $25 for US shipping...I really want the special puck, it looks so cool!

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

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

Not “some reporter”

Gotta think Selanne is tweeting daily after every mass shooting in the states, I am sure he does not just pick his spots based on bigotry.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Not to mention that inclusion isn't a moral issue, it's part of the social contract in modern societies. Tolerance and inclusion for everyone.

As long as you wear the appropriate sweater, or else you better watch out.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

[Reggie Dunlop]

The pregame skate should be clothing optional.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

As long as you wear the appropriate sweater, or else you better watch out.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Actually your ignorance is astounding. It's only hypocrisy if you believe tolerance is a moral issue, which it isn't. It's a social contract, and if you don't hold up your end of accepting/tolerating/including everyone then you don't also get the benefit of being accepted/tolerated/included by everyone else.

Your "viewpoint" would literally say it's hypocrisy to be you intolerant of the KKK because they are intolerant of people of colour.

We get that you don't think LGBTQ+ deserve the same level of inclusion as everyone else, you don't need to keep bringing it up.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

While I hate to side with BoLevi in... well, anything, you don't appear understand what a "moral issue" is.

All "moral issue" means is that there is a normative statement about behaviour in play. A social contract is a moral issue. If your position has the word "should" in it - if you're suggesting that someone should participate in a social contract, or should be "accepting/tolerating/including everyone", you're talking about a moral issue.

[Coach]

I wish they had more merchandise available.

For one, I wish they did more with these jerseys. Why do they have to look like practice jerseys? Make them a fully designed thing someone wants to wear.

Also, hats? Maybe a few t-shirt choices?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

They do have a t-shirt: https://www.flamesport.com/collectio...floral-pride-t

I actually do think they could be doing a better job with this stuff in terms of raising money; I think if they sold them at a slightly elevated price - maybe 20% more than the regular stuff - they'd do better overall than just by doing the player-worn auction. But the cynic in me suspects the issue is that they don't want to lose the customer for their regular merch to a sale that's going to charity.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

It's a social contract, and if you don't hold up your end of accepting/tolerating/including everyone then you don't also get the benefit of being accepted/tolerated/included by everyone else.

This take is illiberal.

A truly liberal position is to state that people can live how they choose as long as they are not pursuing activity that is harmful to someone else.

Choosing not to endorse someone or an idea is not the same as performing an activity that harms them. In your context of a social contract, the only thing that violates that social contract is when you attempt to do harm to another person. In Reimer's case, he did not do that and made very clear statements that he would uphold his end of the social contract by welcoming everyone.

Reimer's position on LGBTQ+ people might be distasteful and incorrect, but ideas themselves don't violate the fundamentals of a liberal society. However, trying to coerce him into making public statements does violate the fundamentals of a liberal society.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

A truly liberal position is to state that people can live how they choose as long as they are not pursuing activity that is harmful to someone else.

Choosing not to endorse someone or an idea is not the same as performing an activity that harms them.

This is not true when we're talking about marginalized & historically repressed groups. Reimer's decision did cause harm in this case. He was asked to simply wear a warm up jersey just like all of his teammates, but he decided to instead stick out like a sore thumb, and push back against something for which there is no reasonable justification for doing so. If he truly believed in inclusion for everyone, he would have wore the damn thing.

In your context of a social contract, the only thing that violates that social contract is when you attempt to do harm to another person. In Reimer's case, he did not do that and made very clear statements that he would uphold his end of the social contract by welcoming everyone.

Reimer's position on LGBTQ+ people might be distasteful and incorrect, but ideas themselves don't violate the fundamentals of a liberal society. However, trying to coerce him into making public statements does violate the fundamentals of a liberal society.

He's receiving harsh criticism, as he should. He made a bad choice and there are consequences for making such a choice. However, he's carrying on with his NHL career, and his life of extreme privilege, uninterrupted, so no he is not being "coerced" into making public statements.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

This is not true when we're talking about marginalized & historically repressed groups. Reimer's decision did cause harm in this case. He was asked to simply wear a warm up jersey just like all of his teammates, but he decided to instead stick out like a sore thumb, and push back against something for which there is no reasonable justification for doing so. If he truly believed in inclusion for everyone, he would have wore the damn thing.



He's receiving harsh criticism, as he should. He made a bad choice and there are consequences for making such a choice. However, he's carrying on with his NHL career, and his life of extreme privilege, uninterrupted, so no he is not being "coerced" into making public statements.

His privileged position allows him the room to make that decision. The problem is if we allow or encourage illiberal coercion, then we might think it's acceptable to do it to people with less privilege than Reimer.