Inclusivity and the NHL: We Have a Problem

[ResAlien]

Oh it’s only a dog whistle if you explicitly say it is. Interesting way to operate.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Aye, but let’s be really honest here. Our definitions of pedophilia, and our whole view in consensual relationships, is really quite modern and very limited in global society. It wasn’t all that long ago 14 would have been a pretty normal age for full-grown adults, and child brides are tragically still common enough to not be hidden in the shadows in certain parts of the world.

His example illustrates a very real and pretty recent change in societal norms, whereas your ridiculousness serves to debase. Further demonstrating that these types of conversations are not changing anyone’s mind.

Comparing love between consenting adults to the sexual assault and exploitation of children was the faux pas here. Saying that it still happens legally across the globe or that we've recently evolved isn't the defense you think it is. Highlighting the ridiculousness of that is the correct thing to do.

It's particularly insensitive and dehumanizing, especially considering the overlap of anti-LGTBQ+ movements and their perverted obsession of accusing this community of grooming and pedophilia for merely existing.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

The exact same can be said for Christian's or other religions that condemn Drag Shows with children. Not something I would have my child do but not going to tell someone else they can't. Try living that way, you will be more happy leaving others to decide their fate.

That is the whole issue though. There is a very active portion of people using religion as a reason to shut down LGTBQ+ events. You can't lean on religion as personal thing when it is being used a tool to actively discriminate. Reimer refusing to participate by wearing a jersey gives broad support that it is okay to discriminate as long as he isn't out there protesting at a drag story time.

Originally Posted by 81MC

Aye, but let’s be really honest here. Our definitions of pedophilia, and our whole view in consensual relationships, is really quite modern and very limited in global society. It wasn’t all that long ago 14 would have been a pretty normal age for full-grown adults, and child brides are tragically still common enough to not be hidden in the shadows in certain parts of the world.

His example illustrates a very real and pretty recent change in societal norms, whereas your ridiculousness serves to debase. Further demonstrating that these types of conversations are not changing anyone’s mind.

If you are longing for the days where marrying children is a-ok then West Virginia is the place for you. Child marriage fell out of favour because people realized it was wrong. Kind of like oppressing people for who they love.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

You missed the point and you drew that conclusion yourself. I don't equate pedophilia to homosexuality, but you have seen society change rapidly in terms of what they call acceptable behavior over time. And you can shout all day that your opinion matters more than another, but as long as that person isn't trying to prevent you from living your truth, just move on.



It's stupid to expect everyone to agree and support everything you believe. What makes you the arbiter? Just as it would be dumb for a Christian, Muslim, etc... to force you to support something you don't align with.

The exact same can be said for Christian's or other religions that condemn Drag Shows with children. Not something I would have my child do but not going to tell someone else they can't. Try living that way, you will be more happy leaving others to decide their fate.

Yeah, you just randomly brought up a reference to the sexual abuse of children when talking about another thing besides homosexuality that society might accept. I’m sure out of everything that you could have picked, that was the one that popped into your head for literally no reason at all, just completely random.

Society hasn’t “changed rapidly” in what they call acceptable behaviour over time. Unless rapidly means decades, in which case it has changed no more rapidly than society itself.

Do you think it’s stupid to think that everyone should agree that it’s wrong to keep Black people as slaves or deny women the right to vote? Do you think it’s stupid to think that everyone should agree that murdering someone is wrong?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

You call it inclusiveness, while from another perspective it's focused on "sexual orientation" and goes against foundational belief systems of large number of people.

What if society of tomorrow believed "pedophilia" was "ok" in society? Would it be bigoted if a subset of people didn't agree with that or chose not to actively support that group of people?

That is not at all what folks are talking about. It's asinine. Linking Queer identifies even tacitly to pedophilia or bestiality is a great example of a queerphobic slippery slope fallacy.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

That is not at all what folks are talking about. It's asinine. Linking Queer identifies even tacitly to pedophilia or bestiality is a great example of a queerphobic slippery slope fallacy.

It’s fine. Totally not what they meant. Either they’re disingenuous or simple. Both are equally dangerous unfortunately

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

You call it inclusiveness, while from another perspective it's focused on "sexual orientation" and goes against foundational belief systems of large number of people.

What if society of tomorrow believed "pedophilia" was "ok" in society? Would it be bigoted if a subset of people didn't agree with that or chose not to actively support that group of people?

The point is that these are areas of belief or moral standards that people carry, and this player is not forcing his belief on you. But to say it shouldn't matter, when you surely have your own moral standards that you wouldn't cross if you felt you were asked to support something that crossed a line.

This is stupid and offensive and brought into the conversation with the absolute thinnest veil possible to compare the rape of a child with being LGBTQ+.

Reporting this piece of #### post.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Comparing love between consenting adults to the sexual assault and exploitation of children was the faux pas here. Saying that it still happens legally across the globe or that we've recently evolved isn't the defense you think it is. Highlighting the ridiculousness of that is the correct thing to do.

Religions know how to deflect. Just like the super anti-homophobic politicians and religious staffers who get caught using male escorts.

Religious people should really look inward to stop the sexual exploitation of children. I'd rather take my kid to a drag show than have them exposed to Evangelical groups, especially if they are a girl. Deflect that the "gays" are molesting children when their organizations are guilty of it.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...elical-church/

[bdubbs]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences or criticism.

I just wanted to reiterate in here. Pepsi and others are doing a good enough job explaining my thoughts on this matter enough. Reimer is no good.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m too tired from actually dealing with this stuff in life to be angry with some nobody on the internet. But, when I think about people that pretend to be allies, that use people in this community like props or shields to hide their views behind, or use religion as an excuse to declare some inherent “wrongness” with being gay, or things like that… I do get upset.

At least you can admit you're bringing a lot of baggage to CP.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So you can mock me and insult me all you want. You can write it all off as unearned anger as you show zero respect for myself and others in this conversation. I’m fine dishing it right back whether you want to play the victim or not, but that’s all you’re doing: playing. If you had any of the empathy, respect, or forgiveness for people like your son that you pretend to have, you wouldn’t act the way you do and say the things you say. You can make any excuse you’d like, but you’ve spent the entire thread insisting that we must be tolerant of Reimer and views like him, and when faced with the definition you posted, you can’t give any example of him being anything less than tolerated.

You’ve admitted to trolling and coming here for a laugh. That’s not consistent with the person you say you are. You are right that I don’t know you, but I know the person you’ve presented yourself to be for the last several years. That’s enough.

For the most part I've only mocked and disrespected you. Fairly, I might add. You don't know my child, you don't even think he exists. But you're happy to use him as a kludge to batter me. I'll take responsibility for sharing a personal detail about myself. I probably shouldn't have done that considering the company I am in. But your conduct here is both gross and anti-social, hopefully you can learn this is inappropriate and not a good look. Once again, you'll probably say I'm playing the victim here, that's fine. Or maybe, for a change, you'll recognize that you're assigning to me a lot more than is really there and tone it down.

You say the "person you've presented yourself to be", but when you look at the threads where we've butt heads, I've for the most part given a consistent viewpoint. Whether it is opposing rage culture against a person that did despicable acts of bullying as a child or opposing Trudeau's overreach during the convoy. I think the arguments I've made here are very much in line with previous positions. Sure I can make mocking tongue-in-cheek comments from time to time. It is hard not to in the face of a chorus of "you racist/bigot/homophobe". But I think generally I have been civil on CP. And when I haven't, I've made it a point to apologize. I am not looking to make enemies. Obviously I have failed with you. Such is life.

[etdpratt]

Originally Posted by Bonded

That is the whole issue though. There is a very active portion of people using religion as a reason to shut down LGTBQ+ events. You can't lean on religion as personal thing when it is being used a tool to actively discriminate. Reimer refusing to participate by wearing a jersey gives broad support that it is okay to discriminate as long as he isn't out there protesting at a drag story time.


If you are longing for the days where marrying children is a-ok then West Virginia is the place for you. Child marriage fell out of favour because people realized it was wrong. Kind of like oppressing people for who they love.

Great, and it goes back to my argument of what is the right moral standard/framework? What you have adopted in your own life? Because you set the bar in different places, and I bet it's changed over the course of your life. So are we always supposed to expect everyone to accept your moral framework as one everyone should support?

But if that framework comes from a religious/spiritual foundation, then you have a huge issue with it. Whether from the belief in supreme being or one that you have recognized as your "source of truth", what you deem as "wrong" may not hold in the views of others.

Many Christians, Muslims, etc... believe fornication is wrong. Or gambling is wrong. You could argue there's actually a sound argument for those in terms of why going against those standards can cause many societal problems. But, they are supposed to follow and support your standards, without any expectation of reciprocity.

The irony of saying "people realized it was wrong" when that is again based on your moving standard. So you are asking everyone to adopt and actively support where you have agreed to move the goal posts, but if a Christian asks you to actively support a cause they follow, that's religious oppression?

[etdpratt]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

This is stupid and offensive and brought into the conversation with the absolute thinnest veil possible to compare the rape of a child with being LGBTQ+.

Reporting this piece of #### post.

No, I already responded because you decided to interpret what I said as equivalents, when the entire point was that societal norms and what is deemed "ok" has changed throughout time. If you want to get caught up in your feels and tell me I meant to say something I didn't, then go ahead.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Bonded

If you are longing for the days where marrying children is a-ok then West Virginia is the place for you. Child marriage fell out of favour because people realized it was wrong. Kind of like oppressing people for who they love.

Oh for #### sakes, get out of here with this nonsense. If this is where you head mentally after reading that, you’re willfully being a pos. Gosh, can’t imagine why half the threads turn to #### when this is the type of garbage that gets thrown around.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Beaverton coming in hot

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

“I am choosing not to endorse something which is counter to my personal convictions which are based on the Bible, the highest authority in my life,” said Reimer while working on the Sabbath, wearing cloths of mixed fabric and doing a whole lot of other things banned by the good book, including letting in a soft Bergeron wrister from the point to tie the game with less then a minute left.

“I have to follow what the Bible says as long as it aligns with the anti-LGBTQ political stance the modern day Christian church has adopted and not all the stuff about loving your fellow man or covering up rebounds.”

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

No, I already responded because you decided to interpret what I said as equivalents, when the entire point was that societal norms and what is deemed "ok" has changed throughout time. If you want to get caught up in your feels and tell me I meant to say something I didn't, then go ahead.

Solid gas lighting attempt champ. Every person who reads this knows exactly why you chose the example you chose, and exactly what it says about you.

It was a piece of #### move and should result in you getting banned.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by cannon7

At least you can admit you're bringing a lot of baggage to CP.



For the most part I've only mocked and disrespected you. Fairly, I might add. You don't know my child, you don't even think he exists. But you're happy to use him as a kludge to batter me. I'll take responsibility for sharing a personal detail about myself. I probably shouldn't have done that considering the company I am in. But your conduct here is both gross and anti-social, hopefully you can learn this is inappropriate and not a good look. Once again, you'll probably say I'm playing the victim here, that's fine. Or maybe, for a change, you'll recognize that you're assigning to me a lot more than is really there and tone it down.

You say the "person you've presented yourself to be", but when you look at the threads where we've butt heads, I've for the most part given a consistent viewpoint. Whether it is opposing rage culture against a person that did despicable acts of bullying as a child or opposing Trudeau's overreach during the convoy. I think the arguments I've made here are very much in line with previous positions. Sure I can make mocking tongue-in-cheek comments from time to time. It is hard not to in the face of a chorus of "you racist/bigot/homophobe". But I think generally I have been civil on CP. And when I haven't, I've made it a point to apologize. I am not looking to make enemies. Obviously I have failed with you. Such is life.

It’s not about having consistent viewpoints, it’s that your views consistently run counter to the people you claim to be close to and you consistently show less empathy for the people who stand to be hurt the most by the things you defend than the people doing the hurting.

So, I don’t know what I’m supposed to think of you. Have you ever once thought, considering you’ve come to the conclusion that nobody ever understands you and apparently nobody on CP can read, that there is a disconnect between how you believe you’re coming across and how you’re actually being received?

I don’t think it’s a big ask to say that we should be allowed to criticize the beliefs of someone when those beliefs are that it is wrong and invalid to be gay or trans, or that it’s just an activity or lifestyle and not how someone is? Reimer is a nobody in the grand scheme of things, but there are people with actual power who think just like him and believe those same things and make policy that reflect those beliefs and harm LGBTQ folks, kids especially. Is that above criticism to you? Or is it ok that we criticize beliefs like Reimer’s so long as we “tolerate” him, just as everyone has done since he made the statement?

And if it is ok, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by argument against something nobody is arguing for?

[Yeah_Baby]

@ the beaverton

(Christians aren't held to Levitical law because Jesus marks the start of a new covenant between God and humanity according to a lot of Christian theology. And as an amateur religious studies/theology person that argument even as a joke bugs me because it's just not correct. but then that also leads to me to ways in Christianity appropriates Judaism and has since at least the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by Rome and it's move from a small weirdo Jewish sect/off shoot which were common in 1st century Israel until something else entirely. but now I'm going off another tangent, 1st century christian history is the day after post cold war geo poltics. today is queer theory)

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by cannon7

But you're happy to use him as a kludge to batter me.

You tried to use your own kid as a shield to be a piece of ####. Don't be shocked when people turn that around on you. Certainly don't throw up righteous indignation over it being thrown back at you.

Anyways, my opinion on the matter is being very eloquently made by others, and Pepsi is already bringing the direct unwillingness to let people put out bull#### to defend outdated viewpoints so I'll just leave it with Reimer is a piece of ####. So is any other player that refuses to stand up and say no matter what I believe, you are welcome. So is any person posting here who doesn't feel that way.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Solid gas lighting attempt champ. Every person who reads this knows exactly why you chose the example you chose, and exactly what it says about you.

It was a piece of #### move and should result in you getting banned.

Nobody drops a word like "pedophilia" in a thread about gay acceptance by accident

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Nobody drops a word like "pedophilia" in a thread about gay acceptance by accident

Someone made the point of "Godwin's Law" for homosexuality and pedophelia. It is 100% accurate. It's the only bullet they have left in their gun and they are quick to fire it off.