Inclusivity and the NHL: We Have a Problem

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by btimbit

What's the difference?

The fact that he called it an activity and a lifestyle is itself incredibly intolerant. This isn't a hobby, it's who you are. And he's saying that he does not value who they are.

If you don't see that as intolerant then there's really nothing else to say here

There is only one group of people trying to impose their views on others here...and it isn't Reimer.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There is an enormous difference between saying you don't support someone's choices and saying they aren't welcome.

Conflating the two is disingenuous and at the heart of the confusion of people undertaking this Inclusivity Inquisition.

Lol.

I don't like you but you are welcome to come sit in the corner?

Does that sound welcoming?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Lol.

I don't like you but you are welcome to come sit in the corner?

Does that sound welcoming?

Is that what he said?

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There is only one group of people trying to impose their views on others here...and it isn't Reimer.

Wow. I'm not sure where I saw anyone saying anything about imposing views on anyone. It's about including everyone in an event that they are marginalized in.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It doesn't matter whether his position is religious or not. He was asked to conform or be considered an Inclusivity Heretic. As far as I know, he was never interested in discussing his beliefs one way or the other prior.

The problem is the jersey wearing is no longer a show of support - it's now a test of compliance and conformity.

He was asked to support the position that all people are equal, and that is what he declined to do.

Would you support him boycotting an event during black history month? I tend to think not.

So I ask again why you feel trans or gay people don't deserve support in the same way that people of color do?

Inclusivity heretic? That's called a bigot

I'm guessing you like to complain about "woke" people too.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There is only one group of people trying to impose their views on others here...and it isn't Reimer.

I guess I just think it's a real shame that the message of 'treat people like they're human' is considered imposing your views on others.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by btimbit

What's the difference?

The fact that he called it an activity and a lifestyle is itself incredibly intolerant. This isn't a hobby, it's who you are. And he's saying that he does not value who they are.

If you don't see that as intolerant then there's really nothing else to say here

Everything is a lifestyle, by definition.

the way in which a person or group lives.

A person may be born gay, but they live as a gay person, too. Maybe you don't like the word "lifestyle". Maybe it is a poor choice of words. But at least according to the dictionary, it is accurate.

What is the difference between unsupportive and intolerant? Well, lets see...

unsupportive
adjective
not providing encouragement or emotional help.

intolerant
adjective
Not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

tolerant
adjective
Showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Now is what Reimer doing "not showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviors" that he doesn't agree with? Or is he instead "not providing encouragement or emotional help"?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

And herein lies the problem. You confuse someone saying something with actions.

No I don’t, not participating in a team function is an action. That has nothing to do with words.

[really?]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It doesn't matter whether his position is religious or not. He was asked to conform or be considered an Inclusivity Heretic. As far as I know, he was never interested in discussing his beliefs one way or the other prior.

The problem is the jersey wearing is no longer a show of support - it's now a test of compliance and conformity.

It's not really an issue of compliance and conformity from the league's perspective. As an employer the league has a right to reach out to any community or belief system they wish to. They are telling the world at large that they support this community, and they ask (not tell) their employees to do the same. I respect the choice the league has made and respect James Reimer's opinion on the matter. Folks can feel however they want to about either side of the issue, but as long as the league can choose a course, and Reimer is free to express his beliefs, I don't see conformity or compliance as an issue. Every action has a consequence.

Imagine the league rolling out practice jerseys with three crosses and an empty tomb in honor of Easter. I would imagine a large number of players not being on board with wearing that, and as someone who identifies as a Christian I would fully support that decision and think nothing less of those players for making that decision. It's not what they believe. My problem in such a circumstance, and I have seen this on many occasions, would be where people of the faith would see this as persecution. It's not persecution, it's merely expression of a different opinion or perhaps repudiation of what I might believe, but that is what comes with living in a world where freedom of choice and expression is still allowed.

I would think the league is actually supporting freedom of choice and expression, and viewed in that light I don't see this as a matter involving conformity or compliance. People can disagree with the league's perspective, but simply asking that he wear a jersey to show support to a segment of it's fanbase doesn't look to me like they're compelling him to do much of anything beyond make a choice.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There is an enormous difference between saying you don't support someone's choices and saying they aren't welcome.

Conflating the two is disingenuous and at the heart of the confusion of people undertaking this Inclusivity Inquisition.

It's not a choice, quit being an #######.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Is that what he said?

It's exactly what he said.

I am so welcoming that I am goimg to sit in the locker room and pout during warmups. I won't even take them in my regular jersey because I'm so welcoming.

That's like inviting someone to your house and eating in your room and waiting until they leave to come out.

What a loser.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

He was asked to support the position that all people are equal, and that is what he declined to do.

I dont see that he made this statement. It weakens your argument when you use straw men, or mis-represent someone statements.

Again, there is a big difference between saying you don't support something and saying people are unequal.

In other contexts, there would be a long list of things that every person in this thread would say they do not support, but still consider those people equals and welcoming. To avoid derailing the conversation, I will let you come up with your own list. It won't be hard.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Everything is a lifestyle, by definition.



A person may be born gay, but they live as a gay person, too. Maybe you don't like the word "lifestyle". Maybe it is a poor choice of words. But at least according to the dictionary, it is accurate.

What is the difference between unsupportive and intolerant? Well, lets see...





Now is what Reimer doing "not showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviors" that he doesn't agree with? Or is he instead "not providing encouragement or emotional help"?

He's pretending to do one while his words do both. Why are you trying to create a grey area where there isn't one?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There is an enormous difference between saying you don't support someone's choices and saying they aren't welcome.

Conflating the two is disingenuous and at the heart of the confusion of people undertaking this Inclusivity Inquisition.

If you give them enough rope...

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Everything is a lifestyle, by definition.



A person may be born gay, but they live as a gay person, too. Maybe you don't like the word "lifestyle". Maybe it is a poor choice of words. But at least according to the dictionary, it is accurate.

What is the difference between unsupportive and intolerant? Well, lets see...





Now is what Reimer doing "not showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviors" that he doesn't agree with? Or is he instead "not providing encouragement or emotional help"?

You are obviously not a serious person or trying to engage in a serious discussion. You cannot be trying to use semantics and rigid language definitions to get out of your horrifying opinion that you've backed yourself into.

It's not our problem that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and find yourself unable to reconcile these two competing thoughts in your head, but you are literally spamming this thread with nonsense posts and unserious rhetoric, so either you don't actually believe anything you're saying and you're just trolling us, or you don't actually have an argument to make. Either way, it's clear you've run out of runway. Take a break, kay?

Also, did I see you a few pages back use a veiled stereotype about black men's penis size as a humble brag for why you've got so many kids? WTF is wrong with you? Nevermind, it's probably something I don't actually want to know anyway.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by really?

It's not really an issue of compliance and conformity from the league's perspective. As an employer the league has a right to reach out to any community or belief system they wish to. They are telling the world at large that they support this community, and they ask (not tell) their employees to do the same. I respect the choice the league has made and respect James Reimer's opinion on the matter. Folks can feel however they want to about either side of the issue, but as long as the league can choose a course, and Reimer is free to express his beliefs, I don't see conformity or compliance as an issue. Every action has a consequence.

Imagine the league rolling out practice jerseys with three crosses and an empty tomb in honor of Easter. I would imagine a large number of players not being on board with wearing that, and as someone who identifies as a Christian I would fully support that decision and think nothing less of those players for making that decision. It's not what they believe. My problem in such a circumstance, and I have seen this on many occasions, would be where people of the faith would see this as persecution. It's not persecution, it's merely expression of a different opinion or perhaps repudiation of what I might believe, but that is what comes with living in a world where freedom of choice and expression is still allowed.

I would think the league is actually supporting freedom of choice and expression, and viewed in that light I don't see this as a matter involving conformity or compliance. People can disagree with the league's perspective, but simply asking that he wear a jersey to show support to a segment of it's fanbase doesn't look to me like they're compelling him to do much of anything beyond make a choice.

This is a very thoughtful post and I largely agree. The most effective way for all of this to have an impact is for the NHL to make it totally optional, and to celebrate those who wear the jerseys. The most inclusive thing to do at that point as fans, media and the teams is to celebrate the people wearing the jerseys and simply ignore the players who choose not to.

But this is insufficient for the Inclusivity Police, who require compliance.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This is a very thoughtful post and I largely agree. The most effective way for all of this to have an impact is for the NHL to make it totally optional, and to celebrate those who wear the jerseys. The most inclusive thing to do at that point as fans, media and the teams is to celebrate the people wearing the jerseys and simply ignore the players who choose not to.

But this is insufficient for the Inclusivity Police, who require compliance.

If Reimer simply chose to quietly not take part you'd have a point. A bad point, but still a point.

But this isn't a case of some quiet objector, he got up on a soapbox and spoke out against it, while trying to word it like he's not speaking out against it. Then a few hours later he doubled down with "I wouldn't support muslims either, and I have a Muslim friend"

I still don't see how calling him out for that is the "Inclusivity Police" demanding compliance.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by btimbit

He's pretending to do one while his words do both. Why are you trying to create a grey area where there isn't one?

I don't know how you can infer such motives based on what Reimer has said and done, or not done in this case. Unless your dog talks to you or something.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Oh, Burke said something? Well, then I'm convinced. He does have a freakishly large head, there must be more than water in there.



Sounds like he's more unsupportive than intolerant? Just reading the actual words here.

Since you subsequently engaged in some sort of dictionary exercise amongst the synonyms for unsupportive is uncompromising. A synonym for intolerant is uncompromising. So since you cracked open the dictionary I am assuming you will concede, by the English language, it is likely that there is significant crossover in the Venn diagram according to the “actual words” between unsupportive and intolerant.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I don't know how you can infer such motives based on what Reimer has said and done, or not done in this case. Unless your dog talks to you or something.

I explained it well, you just ignored it

I can send one of my dogs over to explain it if you want