Out of Town Thread - New Year's Edition!

[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.

I think people who think being gay is against God's intention and teachings should be criticized. So I guess this is where our debate ends as we don't see eye-to-eye on this fundamental issue.

 

[Walrus26]

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.

I like your (correct, in my view) use of the word "compelled". The compulsion, and the rhetoric employed in some quarters against anyone resisting such compulsion, is the real issue to me.

Any "if you're not with us, you're against us" position is by definition divisive rather than inclusive, isn't it?

 

[Team_Spirit]

*TFW your hockey team start winning useless games in the last weeks of the season in the Bedard draft*

 

[Andy]

I like your (correct, in my view) use of the word "compelled". The compulsion, and the rhetoric employed in some quarters against anyone resisting such compulsion, is the real issue to me.

Any "if you're not with us, you're against us" position is by definition divisive rather than inclusive, isn't it?

So the issue here is not intolerant ideas, but the folks who intolerant of intolerant ideas?

So the Staals have the right not to agree with Pride because it's against their faith, but I don;t have the right to disagree with the Staal's faith because it goes against my conception of a tolerant society? And someone how the latter is worse than the former?

 

[River Meadow]

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.

I'm confused why the N_____ are used as the catalyst in this cartoon as if that helps drive home the point, but it only makes sense for shock value IMO..

They were the absolute epitome of zero tolerance, and you literally paid with your life

I get the overarching point but it's a terrible example, and I'm not sure I agree with it, although maybe it's accurate, who knows.

 

[ReHabs]

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.

So you agree this is a socio-political topic and is viewed as a socio-political topic. To me, that’s what matters.

Much like with crime, geopolitics, international affairs, taxes, climate, whatever — once it becomes clear that the issue is a political touchstone, you have to accept that people with interpret it through a political lens.

Surely you therefore understand why compelled speech is bad and why anybody worth a lick of salt would refuse to endorse a political movement with which they disagreed.

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.

I disagree with your attempt to conflate “inclusion of LGBT people” with the socio-political movement known as Pride.

You and me could both be for Safety. We could have wildly different interpretations of safety and even more wildly different approaches to achieving safety even if we agreed on a definition of it.

It’s impossible for me to understand how someone can so easily call the refusal to endorse Pride as a bigoted action. It’s simply impossible. So if you think you can’t get over that hump with me, we could drop the topic and mercifully never talk about it again.

 

[HuGort]

"I like your teams, except the Leafs."

President Biden said today in Parliamentary speech

 

[ReHabs]

I'm confused why the N_____ are used as the catalyst in this cartoon as if that helps drive home the point, but it only makes sense for shock value IMO..

They were the absolute epitome of zero tolerance, and you literally paid with your life

I get the overarching point but it's a terrible example, and I'm not sure I agree with it, although maybe it's accurate, who knows.

Yeah it’s a very dumb cartoon that’s often trotted out in order to justify the very thing it shouldn’t.

I’ve seen that cartoon posted to justify banning Russian civilians from entering Canada. I’ve seen that cartoon used to justify suppressing the religious practice of Muslims (as in all of them). Etc.

 

[Andy]

I'm confused why the N_____ are used as the catalyst in this cartoon as if that helps drive home the point, but it only makes sense for shock value IMO..

They were the absolute epitome of zero tolerance, and you literally paid with your life

I get the overarching point but it's a terrible example, and I'm not sure I agree with it, although maybe it's accurate, who knows.

I guess it boils down to this:

If the Staals have the right to not support Pride because being gay is anti-christian, shouldn't folks have the right to not support the Staals belief system?

No one is saying the Staals don't have the right to believe this. I think people are saying that they should have the right to believe this and society should have the right to criticize them for that belief. And it's important for a tolerant society to critically assess whether or not belief systems are intolerant. And it's not contradictory to do so.

 

[ReHabs]

I think people who think being gay is against God's intention and teachings should be criticized. So I guess this is where our debate ends as we don't see eye-to-eye on this fundamental issue.

You’re not going to find much sympathy from me on this topic if you’re going to so strongly resist the actual arguments I’ve made.

I made zero (0) commentary on anybody’s theology or religious beliefs. Not one.

 

[River Meadow]

Yeah it’s a very dumb cartoon that’s often trotted out in order to justify the very thing it shouldn’t.

I’ve seen that cartoon posted to justify banning Russian civilians from entering Canada. I’ve seen that cartoon used to justify suppressing the religious practice of Muslims (as in all of them). Etc.

Don't get me started on this whole cancelling Russia thing..

Let's punish the Russian people for what Putin is doing - Which is not technically any worse than what the US has done for past decades.

 

[DAChampion]

If the Staals have the right to not support Pride because being gay is anti-christian, shouldn't folks have the right to not support the Staals belief system?

Obviously !

 

[River Meadow]

I guess it boils down to this:

If the Staals have the right to not support Pride because being gay is anti-christian, shouldn't folks have the right to not support the Staals belief system?

No one is saying the Staals don't have the right to believe this. I think people are saying that they should have the right to believe this and society should have the right to criticize them for that belief. And it's important for a tolerant society to critically assess whether or not belief systems are intolerant. And it's not contradictory to do so.

Yeah, I really don't mind if both sides want to fight, tbh.

As long as no one gets 'cancelled' over it.. which we have been seeing a lot of...

 

[jaffy27]

Glad you see through the thin veil...it comes off even cheaper because well, it's the NHL. The sport in itself just isn't very inclusive, i've got 13yr old nephew who plays hockey and is considering quitting because of all the crap he gets as a mixed race kid.

The narrative around the game of hockey period, nevermind the NHL, needs to change with real actions...not these novelty jersey nights which are entirely self-serving for a league desperate to change it's image.

I find it's doing more damage than anything.

Representation is huge, you hit the nail on the head and I understand that the same applies here with the pride community, however, representation has to come in a different way, not this way IMO.

As for the inclusion part, also agreed, however are people currently being inclusive when they're calling players who have opted out of pride nights as bigots or homophobes? Again, correct me if i'm wrong, but choosing to wear a garment, or not, does not imply support or opposition.

I think of myself in this situation, again as a black hockey fan...if I played hockey, I wouldn't wear a BHM jersey not because i'm not proud of who I am but because I don't think who I am is a novelty act. It's not something I think should be marketed.



I agree with you at root - it's silly for a player, no matter how you feel on the topic, to not wear the jersey because then you're just inviting the backlash and letting others set your narrative and ultimately, it works against inclusion for all.

However it goes both ways...assuming an individual is a homophobe or a bigot because he/she chooses not to wear a garment is a leap too many make which I won't.

Although, I also think hiding behind the bible/religion is bullshit too and a cop out I mean my wife didn't make dinner for me last night, pretty sure I can find a reference in the bible that allows me to stone her if I wanted (don't worry, I won't). If you're going to stand on something, own it or else throw the jersey on and go bout' your business like you always have.



Hmm...not sure about that. Maybe, but I honest feel like those who are, aren't interested in coming out as hockey players. Maybe that's a decision that's personal and they want to make it away from the public eye. They also shouldn't have to feel the pressure of coming out.

Again, not saying I disagree with you, everything you said is right but we have to actually listen/hear all sides. Like I said earlier, I disagree with the explicit action of being vocal about not wearing a jersey, I also disagree with the narrative that that automatically means you're against that particular community.

You are literally spot on on every topic.

You, like Runner, have a gift of translating thought to paper. I could only dream of having 10% of your composing talent.

Well done, a very powerful and accurate post IMO…..

 

[Andy]

You’re not going to find much sympathy from me on this topic if you’re going to so strongly resist the actual arguments I’ve made.

I made zero (0) commentary on anybody’s theology or religious beliefs. Not one.

You haven't made any commentary on the religious beliefs because actually making a commentary will quickly require you to acknowledge that when the Staals say the event is not part of their christian beliefs that what they are saying is being gay is not part of christian teaching. And you're avoiding acknowledging this point because doing so would kill every argument you've made so far.

Evasion is the only thing you got here.

Yeah, I really don't mind if both sides want to fight, tbh.

As long as no one gets 'cancelled' over it.. which we have been seeing a lot of...

Which Staal brother got cancelled?

Obviously !

Yes, but it seems like the act of criticizing intolerance is somehow worse than the intolerant act itself for some.

 

[Miller Time]

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

only in a very shortsighted lens. nuance matters.

If you want an inclusive community, you can't turn a blind eye to bigotry... which means you are creating spaces where bigots don't feel welcome... which means you are excluding them. It's a paradox, to be sure, but that's life.

one important distinction is the notion of forgiveness and acceptance. Stop being a bigot, come on back in.

Acceptance doesn't have to mean passivism
Calling out bad actions doesn't have to mean casting someone out permanently.

 

[ReHabs]

If the Staals have the right to not support Pride because being gay is anti-christian, shouldn't folks have the right to not support the Staals belief system?

Do you think your right to not support their belief system continues all the way up to calling them bigots and homophobes because they didn’t want to wear a jersey?

To me, it is clear what the charge of bigotry is meant to accomplish. In today’s culture (and tbf to our parents, in their culture as well) bigotry is a highly antisocial trait and a black mark. It’s obvious from the discourse here that certain people would very much like it if everyone charged as a bigot would be excluded from the sport entirely. The problem I see is with how flippantly and loosely the charge is brandished and who does the charging.

 

[River Meadow]

Which Staal brother got cancelled?

None as far as I know.

I'm speaking in general terms, when I say 'no one' I mean literally, anyone.. not just the Staal brothers.

 

[ReHabs]

You haven't made any commentary on the religious beliefs because actually making a commentary will quickly require you to acknowledge that when the Staals say the event is not part of their christian beliefs that what they are saying is being gay is not part of christian teaching. And you're avoiding acknowledging this point because doing so would kill every argument you've made so far.

Evasion is the only thing you got here.

I defend the right that political speech cannot be compelled and endorsements cannot be forced. I want to insist on that because it’s quite important — much more important than some old dusty internet atheist stuff.

There was no intolerant act by the Staals. The most prominent bit of intolerance here isn’t coming from the Staals…

 

[Andy]

Do you think your right to not support their belief system continues all the way up to calling them bigots and homophobes because they didn’t want to wear a jersey?

To me, it is clear what the charge of bigotry is meant to accomplish. In today’s culture (and tbf to our parents, in their culture as well) bigotry is a highly antisocial trait and a black mark. It’s obvious from the discourse here that certain people would very much like it if everyone charged as a bigot would be excluded from the sport entirely. The problem I see is with how flippantly and loosely the charge is brandished and who does the charging.

When someone tells me that a community's gender identity and sexual orientation does not align with their Christian beliefs, they are specifically saying that these people are lesser humans in the eyes of God.

What then do you call ascribing different worth's to humans if not bigotry? And why is criticizing that belief somehow worse than regarding human beings as lesser for their gender identity and sexual orientation?

I defend the right that political speech cannot be compelled and endorsements cannot be forced. I want to insist on that because it’s quite important — much more important than some old dusty internet atheist stuff.

There was no intolerant act by the Staals. The most prominent bit of intolerance here isn’t coming from the Staals…

Where did I say that the Staals could not hold their view and that are not permitted to express that view in speech? And why can't that view be criticized?

 

[Miller Time]

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.

but what is it you are arguing for here?

THey weren't compelled to endorse a "certain political speech". They declined supporting a celebration of values that most decent human beings live by and that they themselves live by, just sadly only for a small ring of like minded people.

They are being criticized for their opinion. Not being compelled to change it (unless they want to stop being perceived as bigots... but hey, if you don't want to be seen as a bigot, perhaps not holding bigotted views is the right way to go).

you seem to be arguing against a non-existant problem in this case?

 

[ReHabs]

When someone tells me that a community's gender identity and sexual orientation does not align with their Christian beliefs, they are specifically saying that these people are lesser humans in the eyes of God.

What then do you call ascribing different worth's to humans if not bigotry? And why is criticizing that belief somehow worse than regarding human beings as lesser for their gender identity and sexual orientation?

This is a lot of construction on your part. I have no comment to make because it’s not relevant to my arguments or the argument whatsoever.

You’re welcome to continue this if you can show me one bit of evidence that any of these jersey holdouts said (or indicated to) that LGBT+ people are less than other people.

 

[Miller Time]

I defend the right that political speech cannot be compelled and endorsements cannot be forced. I want to insist on that because it’s quite important — much more important than some old dusty internet atheist stuff.

There was no intolerant act by the Staals. The most prominent bit of intolerance here isn’t coming from the Staals…

they did not tolerate supporting an endorsement of inclusivity and safety for all.

Fortunately, because the space is safer and more inclusive than it's ever been, they could display their intolerance and still be included.

seems like you should be celebrating the outcome

and what in the world does atheism have to do with this???

 

[River Meadow]

Calling out bad actions doesn't have to mean casting someone out permanently.

This is the main part I'm worried about specifically, and it's typically what tends to happen or what some people try to push for - casting them out, destroying them, no more job, no more money for you, because you have 'X' beliefs.

There's also the matter of, what if your interpretation is wrong or misguided.. but you're acting on that notion.

Who gets to determine who is right and who is wrong?

 

[ReHabs]

but what is it you are arguing for here?

THey weren't compelled to endorse a "certain political speech". They declined supporting a celebration of values that most decent human beings live by and that they themselves live by, just sadly only for a small ring of like minded people.

They are being criticized for their opinion. Not being compelled to change it (unless they want to stop being perceived as bigots... but hey, if you don't want to be seen as a bigot, perhaps not holding bigotted views is the right way to go).

you seem to be arguing against a non-existant problem in this case?

It’s right there in your second paragraph.

You think Pride Nights are a celebration of values that are shared by most people. I don’t think your definition is correct. For one, it’s far too simplistic to be true.