Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The Rogers logo (elastic band like thing) had the colors, but the wordmark did not.

Ahhh, good catch.

I’m not sure why they didn’t do the whole logo — I guess it’s better than nothing.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The Rogers logo (elastic band like thing) had the colors, but the wordmark did not.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by curves2000

We will see how far this initiative will go next year. The vast majority of players participated, several teams canceled the event and some teams "decisions" that resulted in everybody wearing them were all part of it in 2023.

The new NHLPA head had some interesting tidbits on the matter on this weeks piece from Elliot Friedman.

"He walked the line on players wearing Pride jerseys, saying, “The LGBTQ community shouldn't feel hockey players are turning their back on (them),” while adding, “If a player doesn’t want to wear a jersey in warmup, they shouldn't be forced to.”

Although he correctly pointed out a “supermajority” of the players are wearing them, the controversy over the few who haven’t and teams that made decisions for their rosters led commissioner Gary Bettman to suggest it’s something that will have to be evaluated in the offseason.

Does Walsh believe any jerseys should be mandatory?

“I want to talk to players about that," he said. "See how they feel ... and then with the league as well.”

As for the idea that any player who misses warmup shouldn’t be able to play, Walsh wouldn’t go there: “No, I don’t think that should be the case at all.”

It’s fair to wonder if more online “culture war” topics will spill into hockey. As former mayor of Boston and U.S. Secretary of Labor, Walsh recognizes that no matter what he says, people are going to dislike it. But, “As far as the game of hockey, it’s important that we are inclusive. People know they are welcome to be part of the game, we want them to be part of this game. Social media is going to be social media, people are going to use (their) platform to say whatever they want, and that’s fine. But I do think it’s important for us to be an inclusive game.”

My take is that the NHL will need to figure out where the player's actual position on this is and go from there with adjustments. They don't want the bad press or additional concerns being raised. Different dynamics at play and it isn't as simple as some people would like to think. I have no doubt that the majority of players are in favor but there is going to be people who feel different and or have their own personal limits.

Link to the article. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...r-marty-walsh/

Will the league be re-evaluating military appreciation nights, as well? Or is it just nights that are about inclusion that need to be looked at?

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Will the league be re-evaluating military appreciation nights, as well? Or is it just nights that are about inclusion that need to be looked at?

Exactly, if you’re going to scrap one, you have to scrap them all.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The Rogers logo (elastic band like thing) .

It’s the money hole. Where all our money goes.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Will the league be re-evaluating military appreciation nights, as well? Or is it just nights that are about inclusion that need to be looked at?

I have no idea if they are but on the balance of probabilities, I think it is reasonable to say probably not. I don't know if the NHL has many people who personally object or don't want to personally wear military gear on those nights. The same goes for Hockey Fights Cancer, Black History etc.

I just think that there is a small but probably larger than anticipated group of male NHL hockey players who personally would rather not wear the jersey. Some people agree with it and other's don't. It's just the way it is. Your never going to have 100% buy in on everything from everybody.

In his article, 32 thoughts, Friedman says the following

"It’s fair to wonder if more online “culture war” topics will spill into hockey. As former mayor of Boston and U.S. Secretary of Labor, Walsh recognizes that no matter what he says, people are going to dislike it"

It's sports and politics, people don't always agree and that's ok. I think sometimes people forget that. People can generally be very respectful of others but may prefer to not partake in other aspects. Not everybody is going to always be on board with everything, even within a community.

I think the NHL's intension might have been in the right place with the messaging and the gesture, in some ways I have always argued things like this and other social issues in sports might just be pacifying the public in a lot of ways. I don't know if the NHL thought this through with some of the pushback, with some teams potentially making it not quite mandatory but vocal about doing it. Other teams might have taken a hands off approach too.

Other things that need to be worked on is the power dynamic and how thing play out over the longer term for players and different caliber of players. Some people may object now or in the future. Sure some elite superstars may not be on board and can "survive" some of the backlash they may get if things change, but what about 4th line grinder bubble players? The NHLPA is required to address their concerns since its taking money off their chq.

What happens if a player other than a white player makes a decision to not participate in the future? Are we suspending and financially penalizing black, brown, Asian, Native, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and other visible minority players under the banner of "hockey is for everybody? What message does that send?

I don't have any answers but I assume these are part of the questions and discussions being had. Maybe they have to grandfather these things into contracts, perhaps other sports leagues are or are not on board.

Life's really easy when it's easy but when it's not as easy, it get's complicated

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I have no idea if they are but on the balance of probabilities, I think it is reasonable to say probably not. I don't know if the NHL has many people who personally object or don't want to personally wear military gear on those nights. The same goes for Hockey Fights Cancer, Black History etc.

I just think that there is a small but probably larger than anticipated group of male NHL hockey players who personally would rather not wear the jersey. Some people agree with it and other's don't. It's just the way it is. Your never going to have 100% buy in on everything from everybody.

In his article, 32 thoughts, Friedman says the following

"It’s fair to wonder if more online “culture war” topics will spill into hockey. As former mayor of Boston and U.S. Secretary of Labor, Walsh recognizes that no matter what he says, people are going to dislike it"

It's sports and politics, people don't always agree and that's ok. I think sometimes people forget that. People can generally be very respectful of others but may prefer to not partake in other aspects. Not everybody is going to always be on board with everything, even within a community.

I think the NHL's intension might have been in the right place with the messaging and the gesture, in some ways I have always argued things like this and other social issues in sports might just be pacifying the public in a lot of ways. I don't know if the NHL thought this through with some of the pushback, with some teams potentially making it not quite mandatory but vocal about doing it. Other teams might have taken a hands off approach too.

Other things that need to be worked on is the power dynamic and how thing play out over the longer term for players and different caliber of players. Some people may object now or in the future. Sure some elite superstars may not be on board and can "survive" some of the backlash they may get if things change, but what about 4th line grinder bubble players? The NHLPA is required to address their concerns since its taking money off their chq.

What happens if a player other than a white player makes a decision to not participate in the future? Are we suspending and financially penalizing black, brown, Asian, Native, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and other visible minority players under the banner of "hockey is for everybody? What message does that send?

I don't have any answers but I assume these are part of the questions and discussions being had. Maybe they have to grandfather these things into contracts, perhaps other sports leagues are or are not on board.

Life's really easy when it's easy but when it's not as easy, it get's complicated

Thank you. Logical understanding that it’s complicated. Nobody should be bullied into this. It hasn’t been fully thought out. Like you said it’s possibly appeasing the public. Anyway, I think everything you said was right.

[combustiblefuel]

1

Originally Posted by bluejays

Thank you. Logical understanding that it’s complicated. Nobody should be bullied into this. It hasn’t been fully thought out. Like you said it’s possibly appeasing the public. Anyway, I think everything you said was right.

Bullied into it .. ya ok... How many players travel been bullied into military appreciation night especially those that disagreed wit the initial Iraq in vision.

Gays = bad war = good.

Imagine a person sat out for black history month , Indegionous night or a military night?

They would get black balled like Kaepernick.

[bluejays]

Bullied may be a strong word, but most of these guys are out to cash a paycheque. Are they well informed about everything (wars, indigenous rights, etc) where they're making an informed decision about what they want to support or do they just roll with the punches to appease their bosses? What's apparent for any of these causes is if you're not taking part you must be hateful, which is wrong.

[Number 39]

I assume mandatory participation in these events is something that will eventually be collectively bargained between the NHL and NHLPA.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Bullied may be a strong word, but most of these guys are out to cash a paycheque. Are they well informed about everything (wars, indigenous rights, etc) where they're making an informed decision about what they want to support or do they just roll with the punches to appease their bosses? What's apparent for any of these causes is if you're not taking part you must be hateful, which is wrong.

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.

[Enoch Root]

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.

It is literally this simple.

[BoLevi]

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.

Players have demonstrated that this argument is simply a straw man argument. It is not logical or reasonable to assume someone is hateful because they refuse to wear an article of clothing. In other words someone not making a statement can never be the equivalent of them making another statement.

Your comments are a textbook example of a moral panic.

[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.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It is not logical or reasonable to assume someone is hateful because they refuse to wear an article of clothing.

Maybe not hateful. But intolerant, or cowardly.

[Bonded]

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.

Cause of the persecution man. We just don’t know what it is like for them to be so oppressed

[Yeah_Baby]

at the end of the day I agree with Walsh, and that's the sensible position for the head of the union. it is however very valid for folks to criticize the choice and any sort of nonsensical personal manifesto that a player releases publically explaining how they 'love the sinner but hate the sin'.


It's the way folks, and those who defend them along 'culture war' lines, make themselves martyrs, or seemingly try to twist it those white straight men are persecuted, instead of doing a quantum of self-reflection that gets my goat.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Maybe not hateful. But intolerant, or cowardly.

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.

[GioforPM]

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 beliefs (which is obvious due to the cherry picking of tenets) is cowardly.

I mean, look at Reimer. He’s a Mennonite, right? His Church has Pride events.

https://www.mennoniteusa.org/menno-s...s-for-worship/

https://canadianmennonite.org/prideresources

[Scroopy Noopers]

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.

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…