Out of Town Thread - New Year's Edition!

[River Meadow]

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.

When you start talking about "Consequences" for holding such an opinion, we start to go down a very slippery slope.

What Consequences should there be? Should they potentially lose their jobs?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

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.


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

None of this has anything to do with the subject at hand. Living standards decreasing or people working longer hours does not mean that mainstream acceptance of diversity haven't improved, which is what you appeared to be suggesting.

 

[DAChampion]

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.

One step forward, two steps back.

 

[Adam Michaels]

 

[ReHabs]

"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?

Read my posts above. To me it’s very clearly not about the colours of the rainbow.

It’s much more likely they don’t want to be compelled to endorse the socio-political movement known as Pride.

This isn’t like racial segregation/integration here where there is a clear delineation between the topic. The Pride community has many divisions within itself and it would be highly unusual to think someone is bigoted because they don’t want to endorse the Pride brand.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

One step forward, two steps back.

Farcical.

 

[DAChampion]

None of this has anything to do with the subject at hand. Living standards decreasing or people working longer hours does not mean that mainstream acceptance of diversity haven't improved, which is what you appeared to be suggesting.

Like I explicitly wrote, there have been a few positive developments, of which gay marriage is one, but the overall picture is negative.

 

[Andy]

When you start talking about "Consequences" for holding such an opinion, we start to go down a very slippery slope.

What Consequences should there be? Should they potentially lose their jobs?

Yes, it is slippery, but I haven't heard anyone in this thread saying the Staals should lose their job. I see people calling them idiots and bigots and judging them for it.

I think those are fairly reasonable consequences. If someone starts physically attacking them, then we can change the discussion, but I think it's pretty clear that the response has been reasonable on the whole.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Like I explicitly wrote, there have been a few positive developments, of which gay marriage is one, but the overall picture is negative.

Be more specific. 'The environment' really isn't it.

 

[River Meadow]

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

I think that is totally fine to disagree with it.

My issue would be, is if people are literally boycotted and forced out of jobs for having differing beliefs.

 

[Miller Time]

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.

No, they shouldn't.

And, for many, their chosen preferences have led to unimaginable brutalization, mistreatment, injustice and abuse that made (and continues to make) them incredibly unsafe and unwelcome in many spaces... hence why the focus of these events is on.... Inclusion.

it's a celebration and acknowledgment of EVERYONE's right to feel safe and included, the flags and direct ties to that community is precisely because that community is more frequently targeted for exclusion.

I really don't get why this is still not understood???

 

[Andy]

Read my posts above. To me it’s very clearly not about the colours of the rainbow.

It’s much more likely they don’t want to be compelled to endorse the socio-political movement known as Pride.

This isn’t like racial segregation/integration here where there is a clear delineation between the topic. The Pride community has many divisions within itself and it would be highly unusual to think someone is bigoted because they don’t want to endorse the Pride brand.

What part of the bible and the teaching of the christian god talk about "Pride". What about pride would not be a part of Christian beliefs? What do you think they are referencing here?

 

[JoelWarlord]

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.

Yeah I studied critical theory too, capital subsumes its own critiques, yadda yadda, but this is just a rehash of "love the sinner, hate the sin", not some principled stand against rainbow washing. I understand where you're coming from, but these are hockey teams which function as an outlet for local community. It's not the same thing as Lockheed Martin doing pride events.

I don't think the NHL and its teams/players being "authentic" in their support for LGBTQ+ inclusion or not is relevant. We're all grown-ups here, and we know that most of the teams are doing a cost/benefit analysis and choosing to host pride nights because it's good for their brands. I just don't think that really matters. Even if it's just an empty corporate branding gesture, the point is that the 12 y/o gay kid that's watching a game on TV with their homophobic parents sees all the players on their favourite team wearing pride jerseys and feels accepted as part of hockey fandom and feels that a hockey game including a major team that's a local institution is a welcoming space for them.

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.

When James Reimer doesn't wear the pride jersey and talks about being unable to endorse certain lifestyles as a Christian he is not taking a stand about capital pitting workers against one another by encouraging alignment with symbols to obfuscate material conditions. In the broadest terms I am sympathetic to this argument about the issues associated with greenwashing or rainbow washing and so on. Nonetheless, it seems wholly irrelevant to this situation given the people who chose not to wear the pride jerseys were very convinced that these jerseys represented a meaningful social change they disapprove of and were very clear in saying so!

they have no problem tolerating or accepting LGBT+ people but they do not want to endorse it as a political or social concept.

Eh. They had no problem with it two years ago, and now that there's been a steady and growing media campaign whipping up a trans panic and fears about drag shows and "grooming" for the past few years, they've pivoted to "not endorsing it". It really just feels like a dog whistle to me. There's been an extremely pervasive media push of trans panic stuff creating a narrative about doctors giving 8 year old boys same-day hormones and surgery because they played with dolls once, or allowing kids to use litter boxes and identify as cats or whatever else, and we've seen it in this thread. I don't think it's a coincidence that this trend is arising at the same time.

I don't doubt that they sincerely make this distinction either. I'm sure that the Staals or Reimer or Provorov don't have cartoonishly evil hatred in their hearts directed at every gay or trans person, but the trans panic stuff that's emerged over the past few years (and seeing Provorov do this without any real consequences) is largely what's changed here IMO.

it’s not bigoted to refuse to endorse a political position. That’s the long and short of it.

Not inherently, but they're not refusing to wear a jersey on Decrease Local Property Tax By 0.25% Night. This is entirely about strongly held personal beliefs leaving them unable to in good conscience support the inclusion of LGBT people (even if you take the sidestep to "they don't support the political movement that the pride flag represents", it's the same thing taken to its logical conclusion). It doesn't mean they're irredeemably evil and monstrous people who should be banned from the league or something, but it's just straightforwardly a bigoted action and can be described as such.

 

[River Meadow]

Read my posts above. To me it’s very clearly not about the colours of the rainbow.

It’s much more likely they don’t want to be compelled to endorse the socio-political movement known as Pride.

This isn’t like racial segregation/integration here where there is a clear delineation between the topic. The Pride community has many divisions within itself and it would be highly unusual to think someone is bigoted because they don’t want to endorse the Pride brand.

That's a whole other can of worms and will likely go over a lot of people's heads tbh.

The rabbit hole goes deep if you're willing to peel back the layers of the onion.

Now, tbf, we do know what the Bible says about somethings so it could also very well be the colors of the rainbow or a bit of both..

 

[DAChampion]

Be more specific. 'The environment' really isn't it.

There are significant environmental areas of concern right now, if I were to rank them I'd go with global warming where we are not making progress, plastics pollution and that of other endocrine disruptors where we are not making progress, deforestation where we are not making progress, at the top.

You may point out that we can now fight against deforestation by buying plots of land, but if you piss against a tidal wave, the tidal wave wins.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Yeah I studied critical theory too, capital subsumes its own critiques, yadda yadda, but this is just a rehash of "love the sinner, hate the sin", not some principled stand against rainbow washing. I understand where you're coming from, but these are hockey teams which function as an outlet for local community. It's not the same thing as Lockheed Martin doing pride events.

I don't think the NHL and its teams/players being "authentic" in their support for LGBTQ+ inclusion or not is relevant. We're all grown-ups here, and we know that most of the teams are doing a cost/benefit analysis and choosing to host pride nights because it's good for their brands. I just don't think that really matters. Even if it's just an empty corporate branding gesture, the point is that the 12 y/o gay kid that's watching a game on TV with their homophobic parents sees all the players on their favourite team wearing pride jerseys and feels accepted as part of hockey fandom and feels that a hockey game including a major team that's a local institution is a welcoming space for them.

When James Reimer doesn't wear the pride jersey and talks about being unable to endorse certain lifestyles as a Christian he is not taking a stand about capital pitting workers against one another by encouraging alignment with symbols to obfuscate material conditions. In the broadest terms I am sympathetic to this argument about the issues associated with greenwashing or rainbow washing and so on. Nonetheless, it seems wholly irrelevant to this situation given the people who chose not to wear the pride jerseys were very convinced that these jerseys represented a meaningful social change they disapprove of and were very clear in saying so!

Eh. They had no problem with it two years ago, and now that there's been a steady and growing media campaign whipping up a trans panic and fears about drag shows and "grooming" for the past few years, they've pivoted to "not endorsing it". It really just feels like a dog whistle to me. There's been an extremely pervasive media push of trans panic stuff creating a narrative about doctors giving 8 year old boys same-day hormones and surgery because they played with dolls once, or allowing kids to use litter boxes and identify as cats or whatever else, and we've seen it in this thread. I don't think it's a coincidence that this trend is arising at the same time.

I don't doubt that they sincerely make this distinction either. I'm sure that the Staals or Reimer or Provorov don't have cartoonishly evil hatred in their hearts directed at every gay or trans person, but the trans panic stuff that's emerged over the past few years (and seeing Provorov do this without any real consequences) is largely what's changed here IMO.

Not inherently, but they're not refusing to wear a jersey on Decrease Local Property Tax By 0.25% Night. This is entirely about strongly held personal beliefs leaving them unable to in good conscience support the inclusion of LGBT people (even if you take the sidestep to "they don't support the political movement that the pride flag represents", it's the same thing taken to its logical conclusion). It doesn't mean they're irredeemably evil and monstrous people who should be banned from the league or something, but it's just straightforwardly a bigoted action and can be described as such.

Superb.

 

[River Meadow]

No, they shouldn't.

And, for many, their chosen preferences have led to unimaginable brutalization, mistreatment, injustice and abuse that made (and continues to make) them incredibly unsafe and unwelcome in many spaces... hence why the focus of these events is on.... Inclusion.

it's a celebration and acknowledgment of EVERYONE's right to feel safe and included, the flags and direct ties to that community is precisely because that community is more frequently targeted for exclusion.

I really don't get why this is still not understood???

tbh, even if I personally did not agree, I would still wear the damn ribbon... or jersey, or whatever the heck it was.

It just seems really easy to do, but I guess these people are trying to take a stand against something

 

[Miller Time]

One step forward, two steps back.

it will be if we don't call out bigots hiding behind terrible interpretations of religious text (or cultural, or scientific practices, for that matter).

It's funny, because this type of thinking is what stalls progress and helps make the steps back happen. But that's life, if humans were actually good at making consistent progress, we wouldn't be nearly as stuck in our foolish ways as we continue to be. To je to

 

[Spring in Fialta]

There are significant environmental areas of concern right now, if I were to rank them I'd go with global warming where we are not making progress, plastics pollution and that of other endocrine disruptors where we are not making progress, deforestation where we are not making progress, at the top.

You may point out that we can now fight against deforestation by buying plots of land, but if you piss against a tidal wave, the tidal wave wins.

And what does this have top do with you suggesting that the lives/acceptance of minority groups hasn't really improved and that it's mostly a fugazi?

 

[ReHabs]

What part of the bible and the teaching of the christian god talk about "Pride". What about pride would not be a part of Christian beliefs? What do you think they are referencing here?

It’s not up to me to interrogate their socio-political views — I respect that they have them, as I have mine.

They haven’t agitated to oppress or suppress anybody’s rights as far as I know and I don’t believe they should be criticized because they exercised the most basic right there could be: the right to not be compelled to endorse certain political speech.

Look up compelled speech and why it’s so pernicious.

 

[DAChampion]

And what does this have top do with you suggesting that the lives/acceptance of minority groups hasn't really improved and that it's mostly a fugazi?

You're the one who asked for more detail.

 

[River Meadow]

it will be if we don't call out bigots hiding behind terrible interpretations of religious text (or cultural, or scientific practices, for that matter).

It's funny, because this type of thinking is what stalls progress and helps make the steps back happen. But that's life, if humans were actually good at making consistent progress, we wouldn't be nearly as stuck in our foolish ways as we continue to be. To je to

But now you're doing the same sorta thing, and the vicious cycle just repeats and there is more divisiveness..

 

[Spring in Fialta]

You're the one who asked for more detail.

I mean, I guess you moved the goalposts to Jupiter on that one. Woah. Impressive.

 

[Andy]

It’s not up to me to interrogate their socio-political views — I respect that they have them, as I have mine.

They haven’t agitated to oppress or suppress anybody’s rights as far as I know and I don’t believe they should be criticized because they exercised the most basic right there could be: the right to not be compelled to endorse certain political speech.

Look up compelled speech and why it’s so pernicious.

This is your argument? Man, this is one lazy cop out.

Let me go read the bible verse that talks about the pride movement and why it's not christian.

But now you're doing the same sorta thing, and the vicious cycle just repeats and there is more divisiveness..

 

[DAChampion]

Yeah I studied critical theory too, capital subsumes its own critiques, yadda yadda, but this is just a rehash of "love the sinner, hate the sin", not some principled stand against rainbow washing. I understand where you're coming from, but these are hockey teams which function as an outlet for local community. It's not the same thing as Lockheed Martin doing pride events.

I don't think the NHL and its teams/players being "authentic" in their support for LGBTQ+ inclusion or not is relevant. We're all grown-ups here, and we know that most of the teams are doing a cost/benefit analysis and choosing to host pride nights because it's good for their brands. I just don't think that really matters. Even if it's just an empty corporate branding gesture, the point is that the 12 y/o gay kid that's watching a game on TV with their homophobic parents sees all the players on their favourite team wearing pride jerseys and feels accepted as part of hockey fandom and feels that a hockey game including a major team that's a local institution is a welcoming space for them.

But I have been clear that I'm not speaking to Eric Staal's state of mind. He might be a real jackass. He might be someone who promotes bigotry in his daily personal life. Nobody here knows. He might not even know, his own thinking on the matter might be in flux and there's evidence of that since two years ago he didn't seem to care.
I am and have been specifically addressing the discussion on the forum.