Out of Town Thread - New Year's Edition!

[Spring in Fialta]

I wrote earlier that from my personal, real-life, honest to god experience I know people don’t who think LGBT+ Pride events are about acceptance but rather endorsement and if you listen to any of these black sheep who you call bigoted, they all seem to say more or less the same thing: they have no problem tolerating or accepting LGBT+ people but they do not want to endorse it as a political or social concept.

I haven’t read or listened to the Staal’s reasoning but this was the case with Reimer and Provorov and so many commentators refused to listen to them. Which is something I find strange because hockey’s audience surely has many people (or their parents) who surely have similar views.

Is it really impossible for you people to just shrug this off?

How is it not bigoted to refuse to endorse it as a social concept? That doesn't work. We live in a secular society. If you accept that they have equal standing, by definition, in a secular society, you endorse that they have equal rights to everybody else and should thus have the same access to sport, which was what the jerseys were about. If the Staals/Reimer/Provorov were actually consistent in what they said (i.e. acceptance), they'd have worn the jerseys even if they 'disagree' with homosexuality on religious ground - so long as they understand the society they live in.

Honestly, for one reason or another, you just seem really bothered that someone with a bigoted worldview (and who decided to act upon it) were called bigots. Why is that bothering you so much? No one is coming after their livelihood or their rights. They just got called bigots. Why is it bothering you so much?

 

[ReHabs]

How is it not bigoted to refuse to endorse it as a social concept? That doesn't work. We live in a secular society. If you accept that they have equal standing, by definition, in a secular society, you endorse that they have equal rights to everybody else and should thus have the same access to sport, which was what the jerseys were about. If the Staals/Reimer/Provorov were actually consistent in what they said (i.e. acceptance), they'd have worn the jerseys even if they 'disagree' with homosexuality on religious ground - so long as they understand the society they live in.

Honestly, for one reason or another, you just seem really bothered that someone with a bigoted worldview (and who decided to act upon it) were called bigots. Why is that bothering you so much? No one is coming after their livelihood or their rights. They just got called bigots. Why is it bothering you so much?

I disagree with your premise and conclusion.

It bothers me because hockey fans are hypocrites who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground and I’d very much prefer to help influence the community toward a more sustainable and positive future.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I disagree with your premise and conclusion.

It bothers me because hockey fans are hypocrites who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground and I’d very much prefer to help influence the community toward a more sustainable and positive future.

How are people calling the Staals (or Reimer or Provorov) hypocrites? And why do you disagree with my premise and conclusion? If you 'tolerate' LGBT people, shouldn't you 'tolerate' their inclusion in hockey, even if you personally disagree with it? And isn't that what the jersey was about?

Like, you're calling intolerance of intolerance problematic but don't see any issue with players shaking their head no at an extremely minor gesture towards inclusion, whether corporate/cynical or not. More than that, you're getting upset with people calling a spade a spade. You can be a bigot without being hateful, which seem to be where the Staals and Reimer stand.

 

[DAChampion]

How are people calling the Staals (or Reimer or Provorov) hypocrites? And why do you disagree with my premise and conclusion? If you 'tolerate' LGBT people, shouldn't you 'tolerate' their inclusion in hockey, even if you personally disagree with it? And isn't that what the jersey was about?

Like, you're calling intolerance of intolerance problematic but don't see any issue with players shaking their head no at an extremely minor gesture towards inclusion, whether corporate/cynical or not. More than that, you're getting upset with people calling a spade a spade. You can be a bigot without being hateful, which seem to be where the Staals and Reimer stand.

There's the issue that you're ignoring in that backing meaningless gestures is actually detrimental to meaningful social change, because it creates the illusion of progress and thus pacifies people.

The NHL pretending that they care about gay rights is not different from corporations putting out hollow Black Lives Matter tweets during the summer of 2020. It gets them positive press coverage, they get to collect millions of likes on social media, they become part of the team and afterwards they are subsequently inoculated from criticism. And now a few years have passed, people genuinely thought that they fought racism in 2020 and were proud of themselves for supporting the fight against "cis heteronormative patriarchal white supremacy" (TM) but actually the Black -White situation is worsening.

To paraphrase Theodore Adorno, by loudly worshipping impotent criticism of the system you are in fact enabling the system.

 

[ReHabs]

How are people calling the Staals (or Reimer or Provorov) hypocrites? And why do you disagree with my premise and conclusion? If you 'tolerate' LGBT people, shouldn't you 'tolerate' their inclusion in hockey, even if you personally disagree with it? And isn't that what the jersey was about?

Like, you're calling intolerance of intolerance problematic but don't see any issue with players shaking their head no at an extremely minor gesture towards inclusion, whether corporate/cynical or not. More than that, you're getting upset with people calling a spade a spade. You can be a bigot without being hateful, which seem to be where the Staals and Reimer stand.

In short, my point is none of you are in any position to call anybody a bigot (or any of the other pejoratives toss out). This sort of language is not productive or even necessary. It helps advance nothing in a positive way. Not one thing.

Flippantly calling people bigoted (and worse) is not normal and it fuels divisions, hatred, and other breaking points between people and society.

I brought up their charity to offer one dimension to them that you might’ve missed. You ignored that entirely.

B&W style proclamations about the morale hygiene of people you’ll never know or meet are destructive and fascistic tbh.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

There's the issue that you're ignoring in that backing meaningless gestures is actually detrimental to meaningful social change, because it creates the illusion of progress and thus pacifies people.

The NHL pretending that they care about gay rights is not different from corporations putting out hollow Black Lives Matter tweets during the summer of 2020. It gets them positive press coverage, they get to collect millions of likes on social media, they become part of the team and afterwards they are subsequently inoculated from criticism. And now a few years have passed, people genuinely thought that they fought racism in 2020 and we're proud of themselves but actually the Black -White situation is worsening.

To paraphrase Theodore Adorno, by loudly worshipping impotent criticism of the system you are in fact enabling the system.

This would only matter if any of the players who refused to wear the jersey said they weren't wearing the jersey because they thought it would impede on meaningful change. None did.

Furthermore, it also removes agency from what the players can do with what they're given. The NHL may very well 'not care' (what does that even mean? The NHL is made up of individuals with different personal beliefs and the NHL can both mean what it does and want to benefit from it as an organization) but the player can take that moment to show that he does.

Your entire premise is that the gesture is meaningless - based on what but your own cynicism? - and that it's mutually exclusive to progress, which is an enormous leap.

In short, my point is none of you are in any position to call anybody a bigot (or any of the other pejoratives toss out). This sort of language is not productive or even necessary. It helps advance nothing in a positive way. Not one thing.

Flippantly calling people bigoted (and worse) is not normal and it fuels divisions, hatred, and other breaking points between people and society.

I brought up their charity to offer one dimension to them that you might’ve missed. You ignored that entirely.

B&W style proclamations about the morale hygiene of people you’ll never know or meet are destructive and fascistic tbh.

So your feelings got hurt. Got it.

Nobody ignored their charity. It was acknowledged by everyone who said that the Staals probably do have some good qualities. You really just seem hellbent on playing victim but I don't have any issue with making a judgement call based on someone's action. We do it everyday. That's how we choose friends, lovers, employees, etc. There's definitely enough there to call them bigots. That it hurts your feelings is immaterial. Calling it fascist might genuinely be one of the dumbest and poorest interpretation of the word that I've ever come across.

 

[Miller Time]

There's the issue that you're ignoring in that backing meaningless gestures is actually detrimental to meaningful social change, because it creates the illusion of progress and thus pacifies people.

The NHL pretending that they care about gay rights is not different from corporations putting out hollow Black Lives Matter tweets during the summer of 2020. It gets them positive press coverage, they get to collect millions of likes on social media, they become part of the team and afterwards they are subsequently inoculated from criticism. And now a few years have passed, people genuinely thought that they fought racism in 2020 and were proud of themselves for supporting the fight against "cis heteronormative patriarchal white supremacy" (TM) but actually the Black -White situation is worsening.

To paraphrase Theodore Adorno, by loudly worshipping impotent criticism of the system you are in fact enabling the system.

that might apply if this was their argument for not supporting it... which it wasn't.

beyond that, while symbolic gestures certainly can be a panacea that allows some to avoid the difficult work that change requires, we are also highly narrative-based creatures... Symbols and storytelling absolutely matter, and are a crucial part of mobilizing change. to discount that is, in my opinion, highly inconsistent with much of our history, and to minimize the role that symbols and stories play is dangerous.

Burke, who has been a catalyst for this effort by the NHL, absolutely cares. That some of his peers and some owners are doing it only for show doesn't negate in any way how important it has been in a much-needed direction.

it's a mistake to think that progress occurs in a linear upwards trajectory. Germany was one of the most progressive places in europe not long before Nazism took hold... The US was one of the last wester nations to abolish the slave trade, despite being one of the first to abolish the monarchy... good things can come out of bad moments and bad moments can come forth from good moments, such is life.

A league and sport community choosing to embrace a movement dedicated to inclusivity and improving the sense of safety for everyone should be applauded. It's in fact the bs stories that misguided hypocrites like the Stalls and Reimer cling to that gets in the way of progress, and that co-opts and re-directs efforts to build healthier communities... siding with that kind of bigotry is picking the wrong side, imo.


also, your quote seems oddly misplaced...
i'd interpret the recent events as the Staals/Reimers as the ones delivering "impotent criticism of the system" (the system being the league they are a part of and it's embracing of a movement towards inclusivity that they individually disagree with -well, Eric Staal does selectively, as we've seen-)...

all the loud and idiotic attempts at defending their inane actions would certainly fit with "loudly worshipping impotent criticism"

and we can only hope that the net effect is that this noise only further galvinizes the hockey community and those who follow it to further enshrine policies and structures that promote inclusivity and further limit the options for the bigots among us... enabling the system to cement the changes that expose the pettiness of their narrow, hypocritical and misguided interpretation of scripture

so a good quote, but not in the way you intended

 

[ReHabs]

This would only matter if any of the players who refused to wear the jersey said they weren't wearing the jersey because they thought it would impede on meaningful change. None did.

Furthermore, it also removes agency from what the players can do with what they're given. The NHL may very well 'not care' (what does that even mean? The NHL is made up of individuals with different personal beliefs and the NHL can both mean what it does and want to benefit from it as an organization) but the player can take that moment to show that he does.

Your entire premise is that the gesture is meaningless - based on what but your own cynicism? - and that it's mutually exclusive to progress, which is an enormous leap.



So your feelings got hurt. Got it.

Nobody ignored their charity. It was acknowledged by everyone who said that the Staals probably do have some good qualities. You really just seem hellbent on playing victim but I don't have any issue with making a judgement call based on someone's action. We do it everyday. That's how we choose friends, lovers, employees, etc. There's definitely enough there to call them bigots. That it hurts your feelings is immaterial. Calling it fascist might genuinely be one of the dumbest and poorest interpretation of the word that I've ever come across.

Not sure if English is your first language so I’ll forgive your tone and bizarre insistence that I’m “playing the victim” or that I’ve conveyed any sort of “hurt” feelings.

The issue at hand is that there are many people who don’t see LGBT+ (or BLM, or whatever) as innocuous or innocent or wholly and solely positive social movements. Much like many of their true believes and core campaigners, many people consider these as campaigns and socio-political movements with material impact — it’s not bigoted to refuse to endorse a political position. That’s the long and short of it.

 

[Andy]

@Spring in Fialta and @Andy

I don’t think it’s wrong or bad or immoral that anybody refused to wear any sort of clothing or refused to endorse any cause. It doesn’t make them bigoted or prejudiced — not in my eyes. I brought up their charity as an example of the complexity of the topic — the witch-hunts are not necessary.

The charity has nothing to do with the topic. It's a way to distract from it.

The Staals said in not so many words that they cannot wear a sweater that supports a community because its against the their religious beliefs.

This is not about charity. It's about their faith and the demands it makes of its members towards a particular community. And their faith's view of that community is rooted in bigotry, even if that bigotry is justified by the word of God.

It's fairly simple.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Not sure if English is your first language so I’ll forgive your tone and bizarre insistence that I’m “playing the victim” or that I’ve conveyed any sort of “hurt” feelings.

I think a lot of people in this thread would disagree that I havethe wrong read on this. You're calling people who have deemed the Staals bigots as acting like fascists for Christ's sake.

I have no idea where you personally stand on this issue, but I think it's pretty obvious that for a lot of people who dislike that players have been criticised for refusing to wear the jersey are offended by terms that they don't like being associated with what they think. I understand that no one likes to think of themselves as a bigot. Doesn't mean they aren't and that it shouldn't be pointed out. Placating it (and to pretend like doing so would actually advance causes) is a crock of shit that no one serious should indulge.

 

[Andy]

that might apply if this was their argument for not supporting it... which it wasn't.

It all boils down to this. They could have said they do not support it because it is a superficial performative act that gives the impression things are fine and that more work is needed than wearing a sweater.

Instead they said they cannot wear a sweater because support that community runs against their religious beliefs.

In other words, the Staals don't care about the meaning or lack thereof of a symbolic gesture. The Staals can't support the LGBTQ community because their faith doesn't recognize these people. And that is the issue.

 

[DAChampion]

beyond that, while symbolic gestures certainly can be a panacea that allows some to avoid the difficult work that change requires, we are also highly narrative-based creatures... Symbols and storytelling absolutely matter, and are a crucial part of mobilizing change.

The emphasis on narrative is a cope to distract from the reality of flawed underlying fundamentals, and that has been particularly been so in the past few years. If you look deeply you'll notice that no meaningful positive social change is taking place, just symbol manipulation.

 

[River Meadow]

Not sure if English is your first language so I’ll forgive your tone and bizarre insistence that I’m “playing the victim” or that I’ve conveyed any sort of “hurt” feelings.

The issue at hand is that there are many people who don’t see LGBT+ (or BLM, or whatever) as innocuous or innocent or wholly and solely positive social movements. Much like many of their true believes and core campaigners, many people consider these as campaigns and socio-political movements with material impact — it’s not bigoted to refuse to endorse a political position. That’s the long and short of it.

In regards to BLM, anyone who thinks that is a legit organization at this point with all of the information out there.. bless their hearts.

Also, obligatory:

 

[Andy]

In short, my point is none of you are in any position to call anybody a bigot (or any of the other pejoratives toss out). This sort of language is not productive or even necessary. It helps advance nothing in a positive way. Not one thing.

Flippantly calling people bigoted (and worse) is not normal and it fuels divisions, hatred, and other breaking points between people and society.

I brought up their charity to offer one dimension to them that you might’ve missed. You ignored that entirely.

B&W style proclamations about the morale hygiene of people you’ll never know or meet are destructive and fascistic tbh.

If one's religion does not recognize or respect the existence of another community cannot be described as bigotry, then what is it? And why shouldn't society criticize such a world view?

What benefit does such an attitude provide to society?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The emphasis on narrative is a cope to distract from the reality of flawed underlying fundamentals, and that has been particularly been so in the past few years. If you look deeply you'll notice that no meaningful positive social change is taking place, just symbol manipulation.

Things aren't linear but you'd be absolutely nuts to think that societal views towards minorities haven't improved dramatically in the last 30 years (let alone 50).

 

[ReHabs]

If one's religion does not recognize or respect the existence of another community cannot be described as bigotry, then what is it? And why shouldn't society criticize such a world view?

What benefit does such an attitude provide to society?

“Cannot recognize”? “Cannot respect”?

Can you cite your sources please

 

[Andy]

The emphasis on narrative is a cope to distract from the reality of flawed underlying fundamentals, and that has been particularly been so in the past few years. If you look deeply you'll notice that no meaningful positive social change is taking place, just symbol manipulation.

But this is not what the Staals are arguing though. And though such an argument is valid for this situation we need be careful to ascribe it to the reasoning for the Staals' refusal to participate.

To refuse to participate because you feel its lack authenticity and is pure theatre is one thing. To refuse to participate because the existence of a community is contrary to one's faith is completely different thing.

 

[River Meadow]

If one's religion does not recognize or respect the existence of another community cannot be described as bigotry, then what is it? And why shouldn't society criticize such a world view?

What benefit does such an attitude provide to society?

I'm really not sure why people want others to know who or what they like in terms of relations.

Keep your desires, kinks, etc, private, IMO.

These types of preferences should not be a character trait or define someone.

 

[Andy]

“Cannot recognize”? “Cannot respect”?

Can you cite your sources please

"Having said that, we feel that by us wearing a Pride jersey it goes against our Christian belief".

What Christian belief do you think they are referencing here? Are the colors of the rainbow anti-christian?

 

[Miller Time]

The emphasis on narrative is a cope to distract from the reality of flawed underlying fundamentals, and that has been particularly been so in the past few years. If you look deeply you'll notice that no meaningful positive social change is taking place, just symbol manipulation.

i don't think you know what you are talking about if you believe this.

while yes, there has also been some very awful shifts in the wrong direction in recent years, to state that shows you don't actually work or engage in these struggles.

DM me, happy to share info to help you better understand the tremendous amount of meaningful progress that has been made in communities across north america in recent years. It is, indeed, the success of the movement that has also galvinized those that oppose social justice and drawn out of the weeds the hatred and bigotry that has been there and was previously content to lay low, since the objects of their hatred had no voice and no recourse to the violence and injustice they faced.

Ppl really need to go past the media and superficial talking heads when trying to understand these complex social issues... or simply spend some time actually talking with those with less privilege and access to justice

 

[River Meadow]

"Having said that, we feel that by us wearing a Pride jersey it goes against our Christian belief".

What Christian belief do you think they are referencing here?

tbh, that's a fair point.

However, should they not be able to hold this opinion?

 

[Andy]

tbh, that's a fair point.

However, should they not be able to hold this opinion?

I don't think the issue is whether they should hold that opinion. People can hold any opinion they like. I think the issue here is whether I need to respect their opinion or not think lesser of them.

Essentially the Staals are saying, please respect the fact that our faith does not allow us to respect this other community.

Again, it asks us to be tolerant of intolerance. We do not need to. Folks have the right to hold an opinion, but they also need to face the consequences of holding an opinion. Consequences can mean something as simple as social judgement, which quite frankly is a reasonable response to such a position.

 

[Miller Time]

tbh, that's a fair point.

However, should they not be able to hold this opinion?

anyone can hold any opinion... i don't think anyone has really said that they can't have a bigoted and hypocritical opinion... only that when you hold such opinions, it makes you a hypocrite and a bigot.

if it walks like a duck
quacks like a duck
it's probably not a decent human being

 

[DAChampion]

Things aren't linear but you'd be absolutely nuts to think that societal views towards minorities haven't improved dramatically in the last 30 years (let alone 50).

I am referring to the recent twenty or thirty years in Western societies specifically. Though a few things are improving, the overall picture is worsening, with living standards decreasing, people working longer hours, people being more atomized and having fewer social relations, the Black-White wealth gap increasing, the environment worsening, academic standards decreasing and the quality of art decreasing.

11 year olds having cell phones enabling them to type a lot of emojis and listen to Cardi B's WAP doesn't make up for those deficiencies.

But this is not what the Staals are arguing though. And though such an argument is valid for this situation we need be careful to ascribe it to the reasoning for the Staals' refusal to participate.

To refuse to participate because you feel its lack authenticity and is pure theatre is one thing. To refuse to participate because the existence of a community is contrary to one's faith is completely different thing.

I'm not ascribing anything to Staal. I'm addressing the conversation in here, where multiple posters are defending performative progressivism.

 

[Miller Time]

“Cannot recognize”? “Cannot respect”?

Can you cite your sources please

the english language dictionary would be a good starting point.

Definition of RESPECT

a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation; an act of giving particular attention : consideration; high or special regard : esteem… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com