Inclusivity and the NHL: We Have a Problem

[Flame On]

Whatever this thread has done, it has certainly exposed the Scott Baio and James Woods of our community.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not an ideology, it’s not a lifestyle, and nobody is asking for special rights, just to be treated like everyone else and have the same opportunities and experiences as everyone else.

Hope that helps.

Like what I said, they DO have the same rights as everyone else. They're only treated differently by people with judgements. The fact of the matter is, social media have found a powerful voice that seem to have masked everyone else. And everyone now needs to be on the same bandwagon. Otherwise, it'll be flipped the other way around. Inclusivity should be all. Right now, it seems to be the minority putting the shame on a majority that have neither any opinion or have no voice in the social media.

[Yeah_Baby]

Inclusion doesn’t mean that queer people have to sit at the table with people who want them dead

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Nuance is the antithesis of naivety. If only the world were so unsubtle.

Now you're getting it.

Originally Posted by cannon7

I have never used my children in this way. You are clearly too lost here to see a father attempting to relate.

When your views are categorized a certain way, you bring up your children as proof point that the categorization is unfounded. That is using them as a shield.

Originally Posted by cannon7

Disagree. If you leave no room for subtlety, it is your fault when you can't see any shade other than black and white.

There's plenty of room of subtlety. You're confusing a lack of room with your lack of ability to make use of it. That's nobody else's fault.

Originally Posted by cannon7

You're saying there are no honest, nuanced and real people on CP? That's pretty insulting. Couldn't disagree more. I don't count you among them, but I think that has been made clear.

Where did I say that? This is an extremely poor read, especially for someone who mocks others for reading comprehension. The point was the exact opposite, that people on CP are actually real people you can have honest conversations with, not a mindless internet mob/stand-in for rage culture. You want to write everyone here off that way because it's easier than engaging honestly.

Originally Posted by cannon7

I've seen some pretty powerful people toppled for their unpopular views. I know we want to pretend the power dynamic is clearly defined, but I am not so sure.

Let's say you have to protect a powerful person who might lose some power because they had intolerant views or the entire LGBTQ population of the state of Arkansas who will have less rights than the average person because their biology is different... who do you protect?

It's not really a fair comparison, is it?

Originally Posted by cannon7

I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice, so any belief to the contrary is quaint. But you want me to choose and I am telling you these are not mutually exclusive positions. And if it hasn't been made clear, I am not comfortable with giving anyone such powers.

It's a thought exercise and not a complicated one. You're not actually giving anyone these powers, this is just a conversation on the internet. If you're capable of nuance and subtlety, you're capable of using your imagination to complete a simple thought exercise, so, which do you choose?

Originally Posted by cannon7

Countless beliefs can potentially do harm. We can't banish them all. Our starting point is the entirety of human condition. You only seem to know how to apply broad brushes when what we really need is a thicker more robust canvas. A middling goaltender refusing to wear a jersey shouldn't be a crisis of culture resulting in deep wounds.

Because we can't banish all beliefs that do harm we shouldn't try to banish any of them? I think "the entirety of human condition" would disagree with you, considering our history is full of growth, education, and evolution, with a lot of positive change made by recognizing and confronting harmful beliefs.

Reimer hasn't caused a crisis of culture resulting in deep wounds, you're mischaracterizing the position others are taking because you refuse to engage with the honest, more nuanced positions people hold, which is hypocritical.

Originally Posted by cannon7

Ok, so what we really mean is we're only inclusive of those who agree with us. Sounds pretty exclusive to me. And we only seem to be concerned with negative impacts to some groups and not so much others. But that is because the groups we don't care about are not inclusive enough for our liking. Seems pretty circular. Am I being too subtle?

No, we mean we're inclusive of all those people and ideas that are also inclusive. That should be obvious, no? What are you struggling to understand and how can we help?

Ideas and beliefs that are the antithesis of inclusivity cannot be included in inclusivity. It's like saying to create a truly loving environment, you have to love hate. It's not nuance, it's naive.

Originally Posted by cannon7

I've already established that I think criticism is fine, even strong criticism. You've somehow conflated that with what I don't think to be helpful to the mission. Par for the course, I guess. But whether it is helpful or not, it should be allowed. Bad ideas should be allowed because that is how good ideas are tested. You want me to choose, black or white. And I'm trying to show you the spectrum of light. But this may not be straightforward enough for you.

I'm actually just asking you a simple question that anyone who understands their own beliefs should be able to answer, it's not difficult.

It's not black and white or "straightforward" vs. nuance subtlety, it's you being literally unable to answer simple, hypothetical questions and me wondering why.

Again, which do you think is more helpful towards inclusivity:

the idea that someone's biology is inherently wrong, a sinful choice, or makes them lesser

or

the idea that those beliefs should be met with strong criticism

Which of those two things would you say are "more helpful" to creating an inclusive environment? It's not as complicated as you're pretending it to be. Try to answer without making it sound like it's someone else's fault you can't answer.

[Flame On]

This is the crux of what religious types just don't get. They think they are persecuted as a group, just like LGBTQ+ or People of Colour. They don't get that they aren't a group like those, they're a voluntary club. They also don't seem to get that when they have a person they like that's "cancelled" in most cases it's by a private corporation or organization that has every right to do that. So it's not even society ganging up on religious types, at least not directly.

And don't even get me started that martyrdom and victimhood is backed in the the christian faiths.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Inclusion doesn’t mean that queer people have to sit at the table with people who want them dead

It's not like an LBQT+ person looks any different unless if the table is full of like biker gangs or aryan nation members. But then again, who are we to judge?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by CSharp

It's not like an LBQT+ person looks any different unless if the table is full of like biker gangs or aryan nation members. But then again, who are we to judge?

Sometimes. Sometimes not. If I have my nails painted I’m going to get clocked.

[Harry Lime]

For a lot of people around the world, religious beliefs are not a choice, you are indoctrinated from the moment you can talk. A the moment Muslim countries are the pinnacle of this, but a lot of pockets in the Christian world, the closer you get to the equator, it seems to intensify.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Like what I said, they DO have the same rights as everyone else. They're only treated differently by people with judgements. The fact of the matter is, social media have found a powerful voice that seem to have masked everyone else. And everyone now needs to be on the same bandwagon. Otherwise, it'll be flipped the other way around. Inclusivity should be all. Right now, it seems to be the minority putting the shame on a majority that have neither any opinion or have no voice in the social media.

And a lot of those people with "judgements" are hockey players, that's the whole point of these nights. Historically hockey has been a straight white man's game, these special nights are just a small step in trying to change that. Real change won't happen until the toxic masculinity in sports decreases enough where gay athletes could actually openly be themselves, but baby steps are still progress

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Like what I said, they DO have the same rights as everyone else. They're only treated differently by people with judgements. The fact of the matter is, social media have found a powerful voice that seem to have masked everyone else. And everyone now needs to be on the same bandwagon. Otherwise, it'll be flipped the other way around. Inclusivity should be all. Right now, it seems to be the minority putting the shame on a majority that have neither any opinion or have no voice in the social media.

Wait what? When did that happen? In which country do they have equal rights in law and in practice? Like gay men can finally, with some restrictions, give blood in Canada as of last year...in 2022.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Like what I said, they DO have the same rights as everyone else. They're only treated differently by people with judgements. The fact of the matter is, social media have found a powerful voice that seem to have masked everyone else. And everyone now needs to be on the same bandwagon. Otherwise, it'll be flipped the other way around. Inclusivity should be all. Right now, it seems to be the minority putting the shame on a majority that have neither any opinion or have no voice in the social media.

Except in a lot of states, including ones the NHL operates in, they don't.

How many openly LGBTQ players are playing in the NHL right now? The answer is 0. If the NHL followed the low end of the average LGBTQ population in North America, we'd see at least around 30.

It's worth asking yourself why there are no LGBTQ players in the NHL or why the ones who are in the NHL don't feel comfortable being themselves (we have no shortage of players posing with girlfriends and wives on instagram, or in tv segments, documentary series, etc, so we know it's not like players worry about being themselves when they're straight).

To your last point, please explain how criticizing the belief that being gay is wrong "shames" you or anyone else who has no opinion in any way whatsoever.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

This thread moves pretty fast, so apologies if fata.

James Reimer can’t wear Pride jersey due to Christianity even though Bible also bans working on sabbath, coughing up 3 goal lead to Bruins in Game 7

https://thebeaverton.com/2023/03/jam...ins-in-game-7/

[2Stonedbirds]

This #### is like watching Seinfeld re-runs.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

This thread moves pretty fast, so apologies if fata.



https://thebeaverton.com/2023/03/jam...ins-in-game-7/

“I’m a Christian and I haven’t seen anything in the words of Jesus about not wearing a Pride jersey. I do recall him talking a lot about not just lying in the ice while Milan Lucic has the puck in the slot. But maybe that’s a denomination thing,” said Toronto man Asher Collins.

Fabulous

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Whatever this thread has done, it has certainly exposed the Scott Baio and James Woods of our community.

"exposed" -- like nazis in hiding or something.

Such sad rhetoric.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by cannon7

"exposed" -- like nazis in hiding or something.

Such sad rhetoric.

Actually, “exposed” like Scott Baio or James Woods. Says so right in the post.

[Goriders]

Need a good witch burning.

Or maybe a truce during game time. Argue and name call till 8:30?

But get the pile of kindling ready for around 11:00ish? Maybe 12:00 if the Flames win?

Deal?

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except in a lot of states, including ones the NHL operates in, they don't.

How many openly LGBTQ players are playing in the NHL right now? The answer is 0. If the NHL followed the low end of the average LGBTQ population in North America, we'd see at least around 30.

It's worth asking yourself why there are no LGBTQ players in the NHL or why the ones who are in the NHL don't feel comfortable being themselves (we have no shortage of players posing with girlfriends and wives on instagram, or in tv segments, documentary series, etc, so we know it's not like players worry about being themselves when they're straight).

To your last point, please explain how criticizing the belief that being gay is wrong "shames" you or anyone else who has no opinion in any way whatsoever.

No one should shame anyone - that's my whole point - whether you're straight, LGBQT+, colored, religious, or whatever, if you're human, alien, or some other species out of this world, EVERYONE should have equal rights without being shamed. However, it used to be the majority shaming the minority - on the most part, it still is for the majority (in any country). In the Eyes-5 nation, especially when social media is king, the world is flipped the other way. So, now, it's the LGBQT+ shaming anyone who is not on board with their brand.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CSharp

No one should shame anyone - that's my whole point - whether you're straight, LGBQT+, colored, religious, or whatever, if you're human, alien, or some other species out of this world, EVERYONE should have equal rights without being shamed. However, it used to be the majority shaming the minority - on the most part, it still is for the majority (in any country). In the Eyes-5 nation, especially when social media is king, the world is flipped the other way. So, now, it's the LGBQT+ shaming anyone who is not on board with their brand.

LGBTQ is not a brand, and you haven’t explained how being critical of people shaming LGBTQ people shames everyone with no opinion.

If you believe everyone should have equal rights and that nobody should be shamed, why take bigger issue with the reaction to people saying being gay is wrong or a sin than you take with the people actually doing the initial shaming?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by CSharp

No one should shame anyone - that's my whole point - whether you're straight, LGBQT+, colored, religious, or whatever, if you're human, alien, or some other species out of this world, EVERYONE should have equal rights without being shamed. However, it used to be the majority shaming the minority - on the most part, it still is for the majority (in any country). In the Eyes-5 nation, especially when social media is king, the world is flipped the other way. So, now, it's the LGBQT+ shaming anyone who is not on board with their brand.