Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

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.

Yup, just keep trotting out that No True Scotsman fallacy again and again. I'm sure you'll convince someone eventually, but probably only the dumb ones.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

This whole argument is painfully sophomoric and the game was over a week ago at this point... someone should really just close the thread.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Yup, just keep trotting out that No True Scotsman fallacy again and again. I'm sure you'll convince someone eventually, but probably only the dumb ones.

No true Scotsman refers to people not ideas, which is precisely the opposite of what I have done.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This whole argument is painfully sophomoric and the game was over a week ago at this point... someone should really just close the thread.

Any minute now he's gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This whole argument is painfully sophomoric and the game was over a week ago at this point... someone should really just close the thread.

I certainly agree on the sophomoric bit. Unfortunately the world itself has become sophomoric. Watching pro sports is itself sophomoric.... Never mind arguing over esoteric advanced stats.

With a franchise that appears to be circling the drain (or at least headed in a very bad direction), we may as well talk about some important issues

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

No true Scotsman refers to people not ideas, which is precisely the opposite of what I have done.

Not really.

You're saying this bull#### position that "nobody who is truly liberal would act this way" as a way of denigrating the person and the position. Unfortunately, just because you say it doesn't make it true, but you keep doing it over and over despite how many people push back on it and explain why it is consistent with being liberal.

Basically, you need a new or better argument instead of rehashing the same old tired line.

[Goriders]

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.

Pretty sure if I was a member of the LBGTQ community I wouldn’t give a crap if Reimer wore a warm up jersey or not. I’d pride myself on being a little mentally tougher than that. Disappointed maybe. But who really cares.

If he was out beating up people or truly discriminating against them somehow I’d say that would obviously be another story. There are laws to prevent or handle those situations.

North Americans are offended by everything these days. Fueled by the media and especially social media. We don’t have to all agree on everything. There are plenty of things that people do that I don’t understand or agree with. But if they aren’t illegal and they hurting anyone why would I care or waste my time focusing on it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Goriders

There are plenty of things that people do that I don’t understand or agree with. But if they aren’t illegal and they hurting anyone why would I care or waste my time focusing on it.

LOL. Why indeed would you do that?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sure, I have reframed not being a bigot as a social contract instead of a moral issue. Morality involves a discussion over right and wrong. There is no discussion when it comes to bigotry vs. inclusion. Inclusion (i.e equality) is a given in modern society.

Considering this a moral discussion opens the door to people like Bolevi throwing out the invented "tolerance paradox" whereby we are required to be tolerant to his intolerance...otherwise we are intolerant.This is a load of crap.

Intolerance to bigots, whether they be Nazis, racists, homophobes etc. is simply our reaction to their breaking the social contract of equality.

Bolevi also intentionally ignores the harm caused to at risk groups when they are attacked by bigots like Reimer (yes Bolevi, that was an ideological attack). But that's more of him showing his personal bias.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Pretty sure if I was a member of the LBGTQ community I wouldn’t give a crap if Reimer wore a warm up jersey or not. I’d pride myself on being a little mentally tougher than that. Disappointed maybe. But who really cares.

If he was out beating up people or truly discriminating against them somehow I’d say that would obviously be another story. There are laws to prevent or handle those situations.

North Americans are offended by everything these days. Fueled by the media and especially social media. We don’t have to all agree on everything. There are plenty of things that people do that I don’t understand or agree with. But if they aren’t illegal and they hurting anyone why would I care or waste my time focusing on it.

Activists consider controversy as a form of currency for at least a couple of reasons. First it allows people to translate their "support" into social status. Secondly, controversy draws attention to the issue that is of importance to them.

If every single player wore the jersey, I suspect that a population of activists would create controversy in another manner. My guess is they would look for players to make verbal statements and find the players who were a little too light on full endorsement. We then wouldn't be talking about jerseys but instead about players not providing "clear and unambiguous" supporting statements to the jerseys. There is no endpoint or goal to this process.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Sure, I have reframed not being a bigot as a social contract instead of a moral issue. Morality involves a discussion over right and wrong. There is no discussion when it comes to bigotry vs. inclusion. Inclusion (i.e equality) is a given in modern society.

Considering this a moral discussion opens the door to people like Bolevi throwing out the invented "tolerance paradox" whereby we are required to be tolerant to his intolerance...otherwise we are intolerant.This is a load of crap.

Intolerance to bigots, whether they be Nazis, racists, homophobes etc. is simply our reaction to their breaking the social contract of equality.

Bolevi also intentionally ignores the harm caused to at risk groups when they are attacked by bigots like Reimer (yes Bolevi, that was an ideological attack). But that's more of him showing his personal bias.

You are conflating a number of different concepts. Liberal ideals actually require one to be tolerant of intolerant ideas and even statements. It's when ideas and statements turn into actions that cause harm that we can say the line has been crossed.

There is no tolerance paradox - it's a myth. It is only confusing to people who confuse statements/ideas with actions.

[KelVarnsen]

You aren't the victim. Stop acting like one.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Pretty sure if I was a member of the LBGTQ community I wouldn’t give a crap if Reimer wore a warm up jersey or not. I’d pride myself on being a little mentally tougher than that. Disappointed maybe. But who really cares.

If he was out beating up people or truly discriminating against them somehow I’d say that would obviously be another story. There are laws to prevent or handle those situations.

North Americans are offended by everything these days. Fueled by the media and especially social media. We don’t have to all agree on everything. There are plenty of things that people do that I don’t understand or agree with. But if they aren’t illegal and they hurting anyone why would I care or waste my time focusing on it.

Well, you’re not. And I would put the mental toughness of anyone in the LGBTQ community against someone so mentally weak that they’ve spent weeks clicking on a thread just to do pointless little drive-bys about how a thread shouldn’t exist.

Seriously, for someone above wasting their time on or caring about it, you’ve wasted plenty. Be a little mentally tougher going forward.

[TheChief]

/wrong thread

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

You aren't the victim. Stop acting like one.

If we allow illiberal views to propagate and become the norm then we are all victims.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You are conflating a number of different concepts. Liberal ideals actually require one to be tolerant of intolerant ideas and even statements. It's when ideas and statements turn into actions that cause harm that we can say the line has been crossed.

There is no tolerance paradox - it's a myth. It is only confusing to people who confuse statements/ideas with actions.

Your entire argument is that we are required to tolerate the intolerance of others, lest we become intolerant. That's the tolerance paradox.

Your purported style of liberalism is exactly what the "enlightened" separate but equal crowd believed in response to the civil rights movement. Which was really good at maintaining the racist status quo.

You know this bigoted belief is indefensible, so instead you turn the argument around and defend someone's right to have an indefensible belief. The only explanation is you feel more offended by the LGBTQ+ community than by the bigotry on display.

Claiming there is zero connection between high profile people displaying bigotry and the subsequent actions of other people who feel emboldened to act against that marginalized group shows you aren't paying attention.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, you’re not. And I would put the mental toughness of anyone in the LGBTQ community against someone so mentally weak that they’ve spent weeks clicking on a thread just to do pointless little drive-bys about how a thread shouldn’t exist.

Seriously, for someone above wasting their time on or caring about it, you’ve wasted plenty. Be a little mentally tougher going forward.

Either way. I wouldn’t care.

[blender]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

If we allow illiberal views to propagate and become the norm then we are all victims.

It seems like you are operating under a presumption that liberalism is in itself a good thing. I would argue against that position and that your argument is inherently flawed.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Activists consider controversy as a form of currency for at least a couple of reasons. First it allows people to translate their "support" into social status. Secondly, controversy draws attention to the issue that is of importance to them.

If every single player wore the jersey, I suspect that a population of activists would create controversy in another manner. My guess is they would look for players to make verbal statements and find the players who were a little too light on full endorsement. We then wouldn't be talking about jerseys but instead about players not providing "clear and unambiguous" supporting statements to the jerseys. There is no endpoint or goal to this process.

Most of them are probably just focusing on trying to win the hockey game that starts in a half an hour and want to be left alone is my guess.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Either way. I wouldn’t care.

Yeah, we know. You’ve made a point of clicking on the thread multiple times to tell people that. You’re going to set a record for number of times someone who doesn’t care tells people he doesn’t care.