Out of Town Thread - New Year's Edition!

[Andy]

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?

Bingo.

Can the Staals believe what they believe? Yes.
Can the Staals express what they believe? Yes.
Can they continue to believe what they believe? Yes
Can people disagree with those beliefs? Yes.
Can people who disagree with those beliefs express their disagreement in speech? Yes.
Can people who disagree and express disagreement do so without asking for the Staals to change their beliefs? Yes.
Is to express disagreement intolerance? No.
Are all these points incommensurate? No.

i'm not sure it can get any clearer.

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.

Answer this question: What part of "Pride" is against the Christian Beliefs held by the Staals?

 

[ReHabs]

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???

Can you imagine that certain people might feel like Pride events have more meaning than “inclusivity and safety for all”? If so, you can imagine that certain people do not want to be compelled to endorse Pride events. That’s fair enough, isn’t it?

 

[River Meadow]

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.

Yeah.

Another way to look at it is..

Companies love to use Rainbows on their logos and whatnot during 'Pride month'.

In that way, it is HIGHLY politicized.

Does anyone think these companies give a damn about gay rights and etc?

 

[Ezpz]

Can you imagine that certain people might feel like Pride events have more meaning than “inclusivity and safety for all”? If so, you can imagine that certain people do not want to be compelled to endorse Pride events. That’s fair enough, isn’t it?

Nah. They're wrong. End of discussion. Young society has no tolerance for bigotry anymore and it's the best change possible.

 

[ReHabs]

Answer this question: What part of "Pride" is against the Christian Beliefs held by the Staals?

I don’t even have a working definition for Pride. Ask ten LGBT people and you’ll get eleven definitions.

It’s not up to me to argue from the religion of someone else.

You said a lot of things about the Staals, you’re welcome to substantiate those claims. Like the one where you said they think LGBT+ people are worth less than other people. I’d be sad to see it but also interested to see where you got that one from.

 

[Walrus26]

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.

This is fair.

However, I'm not sure that society has a right to criticise people's viewpoints as I feel that leads to acceptance of conditioning of opinion - which is something that's unarguably provable to be a thing. Individuals expressing their views on other people's views, however, is an unalienable right which is why I find the creeping narrowing of what - in law- constitutes a legally permissable opinion worrying.

To make a deliberately blunt example - it can only be right for me to be charged with a crime if I assault someone purely because of their beliefs or lifestyle choices, but should it be right that considering certain choices to be something I don't actively endorse consititues a possible crime against society or even the law? I know that no-one here is explicitly espousing this, but to me that direction of travel at a macro level is clear in many countries.

Belief systems, if you mean religious or faith - derived worldviews......well I'm with you 100% on the potential for bigotry (hyposcrisy, possibly?) there. However, I'd contend that any extreme-interpretation viewpoint of any philosophy or ideaology (religious, political, economic or social) is intolerant and certainly detrimental to more people than it's beneficial to.

 

[ReHabs]

Nah. They're wrong. End of discussion. Young society has no tolerance for bigotry anymore and it's the best change possible.

What is amusing here is that I don’t think you’re being sarcastic.

We have different views on the subject of tolerance and speech. I’m glad we can still find room to coexist and disagree. Maybe by the time this young society fully takes over and reshapes society in their image there won’t be space to coexist with different views on tolerance and speech. It’s likely I’ll be mercifully dead by then.

 

[Miller Time]

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?

oh no... not the "cancel culture" stuff... come on.

what typically happens in our current and past society, is that those with the least access to power and privilege regularly are "cast out, destroyed, barred from employment opportunity, pushed to poverty et." because of they don't fit the categories (be it phsyiological, gender, sexual orientation, religious/cultural beliefs, nationality et.) of the dominant group.

Staal & co. are not victims here, let's not go down that road

the antitode to the risk of being wrong, is to keep an open mind. Clinging to a narrow interpretation of a book written centuries ago, while actively ignoring large significant portions of it, is the behavior you are concerned about. So, probably pretty safe to call out that hypocrisy for it's hypocrisy.

Is being a hypocrite wrong?
Is being a bigot wrong?

that's up to you and your values. Only you can determine that for yourself.

They determined that this is the way they want to live. Right for them. Wrong for me. You do you.

 

[Andy]

I don’t even have a working definition for Pride. Ask ten LGBT people and you’ll get eleven definitions.

It’s not up to me to argue from the religion of someone else.

You said a lot of things about the Staals, you’re welcome to substantiate those claims. Like the one where you said they think LGBT+ people are worth less than other people. I’d be sad to see it but also interested to see where you got that one from.

So you are willing to interpret every posters intention in this thread, argue to the teeth with all of them, but won't interpret what the Staals meant when they said "we feel that by us wearing a Pride jersey it goes against our Christian belief."?

I don't think you are engaging in good faith and deliberately trying to avoid the obvious.

 

[DAChampion]

Nah. They're wrong. End of discussion. Young society has no tolerance for bigotry anymore and it's the best change possible.

That is not correct, there is plenty of intolerance it just takes on different forms. A lot of younger people have a deep hatred of all things Russian, make disparaging comments about China as well, and domestically they look down on people we who did not receive higher education.

 

[Andy]

This is fair.

However, I'm not sure that society has a right to criticise people's viewpoints a

Wouldn't such a logic also mean that the Staals don't have a right to criticize the pride movement and the LGBTQ community's viewpoints? Would you not therefore be arguing that they should just accept those views and participate?

Refusing to participate is a low-level, symbolic criticism of the movement, especially when you say it's because of your Christian beliefs.

I think you place yourself in the same paradox your are trying to describe of those who disagree with the Staals POV.

 

[ReHabs]

So you are willing to interpret every posters intention in this thread, argue to the teeth with all of them, but won't interpret what the Staals meant when they said "we feel that by us wearing a Pride jersey it goes against our Christian belief."?

I don't think you are engaging in good faith and deliberately trying to avoid the obvious.

I couldn’t be possibly more straight forward and blunt with my argument and angle.

If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine. As for bad faith, you made certain claims you won’t substantiate when asked to and you haven’t engaged with my argument at all, really.

I cannot speak on someone else’s faith. I think I know what they mean, and it is a robust enough argument, but it is far downstream from my argument.

 

[Miller Time]

Can you imagine that certain people might feel like Pride events have more meaning than “inclusivity and safety for all”? If so, you can imagine that certain people do not want to be compelled to endorse Pride events. That’s fair enough, isn’t it?

I can imagine a lot of things.

Some people imagine that the colour of a person's skin determines their quality as a human being.
Some people imagine that the sexual orientation of a person determines their quality of character and worthiness to ascend to heaven, or be thrown into hell.

It's fair enough for people to want whatever it is they can imagine. Lots of people want things that i consider to be awful...

If a person is asked to show support for inclusion and safety for all, and they decline because they state that it runs contrary to their beliefs, it says something about the quality of their character.

I value people and communities that aspire to things like social justice, equity, inclusion. Those that don't i don't consider to be of good character. Staals and Reimer don't. Stating as much is fair, isn't it?

 

[River Meadow]

That is not correct, there is plenty of intolerance it just takes on different forms. A lot of younger people have a deep hatred of all things Russian, make disparaging comments about China as well, and domestically they look down on people we who did not receive higher education.

Yeah, that's a very scary thought, when 'society' is so easily influenced...

Of course we all agree something like bigotry is terrible and whatnot, but it's very easy to slap a label on something/someone and condemn them, and who determines and influences what that means, and who's to determine what or who is actually right or wrong...

 

[ReHabs]

Wouldn't such a logic also mean that the Staals don't have a right to criticize the pride movement and the LGBTQ community's viewpoints? Would you not therefore be arguing that they should just accept those views and participate?

Refusing to participate is a low-level, symbolic criticism of the movement, especially when you say it's because of your Christian beliefs.

I think you place yourself in the same paradox your are trying to describe of those who disagree with the Staals POV.

Have the Staals publicly or privately criticized the Pride movement or the LGBT+ community at all?

You keep making statements that creep on and on. Next I expect to read that they lynched someone.

No.

They refused to wear a jersey. Stick to facts.

I can imagine a lot of things.

Some people imagine that the colour of a person's skin determines their quality as a human being.
Some people imagine that the sexual orientation of a person determines their quality of character and worthiness to ascend to heaven, or be thrown into hell.

It's fair enough for people to want whatever it is they can imagine. Lots of people want things that i consider to be awful...

If a person is asked to show support for inclusion and safety for all, and they decline because they state that it runs contrary to their beliefs, it says something about the quality of their character.

I value people and communities that aspire to things like social justice, equity, inclusion. Those that don't i don't consider to be of good character. Staals and Reimer don't. Stating as much is fair, isn't it?

You can imagine a lot of things… but cannot imagine that for certain people Pride events could have a socio-political meaning beyond “inclusion and diversity” and that people could be entitled to not want to be compelled to endorse them.

Okay well I guess that’s our impasse.

 

[Andy]

I couldn’t be possibly more straight forward and blunt with my argument and angle.

If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine. As for bad faith, you made certain claims you won’t substantiate when asked to and you haven’t engaged with my argument at all, really.

I cannot speak on someone else’s faith. I think I know what they mean, and it is a robust enough argument, but it is far downstream from my argument.

You cannot speak for the Staals, but you can engage in deep interpretive debate with everyone you disagree with in this thread. It's for this reason that I don't think you are discussing in good faith.

I'll ask one more time, what issue does pride represent to christian beliefs? It's an important question because this is why the Staals did not want to participate.

 

[JoelWarlord]

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.

Sure! I do understand that they interpreted the pride flag in a political lens, just as I am interpreting their decision and comments through a political lens, and am expressing my personal distaste for their actions. We live in neoliberalism, it's all spectacle and it's all political.

I think compelled speech is a little dramatic. Even in a sport as team-first as hockey, they were permitted to do this and skip warmup and still play in the games and given a platform to express their beliefs in mass media. I understand the principle here, but it seems like a very awkward lens through which to organize a society. How is the conflict of compelled speech resolved when one of these guys has a gay teammate and declares that playing in any games alongside their gay teammate is endorsing a political movement they disapprove of?

It’s impossible for me to understand how someone who 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.

I'm probably done on this topic after this post since the edibles are kicking in and my pizza just got here, but I think we could have a reasonable discussion given that I fully understand where you're coming from, and I understand the argument you're making. You are arguing that someone can refuse to participate in a pride night without inherently being bigoted because they may have specific beliefs about the specific political actions and methods of pride as a loose organization while being wholly supportive of LGBT people's right to live their lives without facing discrimination.

That fully makes sense to me, and I agree with you, but that's not what these players were doing or talking about. They were talking about their Christian faith and their resulting inability to endorse certain lifestyles, the implication is clear.

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.

Once again, they were talking about lifestyles they can't endorse. I understand the point you're making with the argument about safety, but the particulars make all the difference here because the entire argument being made here is that they do not endorse a particular set of lifestyles. They aren't doing this because they believe pride creates division and robs true progress from LGBT people and that it should be replaced with some new paradigm of inclusiveness, it's the same old love the sinner hate the sin argument.

 

[DAChampion]

I'll ask one more time, what issue does pride represent to christian beliefs? It's an important question because this is why the Staals did not want to participate.

Seriously? There are many different types of Christianity , and nobody here has shown much knowledge of which kind the Staals follow.

 

[Miller Time]

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.

Well, having worked directly with the group that was a leader in helping Burke get the NHL to adopt this, i think my definition of the intent of the event may be more informed than yours.

as far as "most people" sharing those values... well, here i sadly might agree with you to some degree. Bigotry is far more prevelant in our society than most want to acknowledge. It's uncomfortable for the priviledged to recognize that luck, rather than merit, is the biggest reason they can spend 1000$ of dollars annually to watch sports and hang out with largely homogenized crowds.

The crowds are slowly shifting, as our the demographics of our communities... and that is giving more and more voice to those without the privilege so many in these environments have taken for grnted for so long, hence the "two steps back" DA speaks to... change is uncomfortable, especially when it's change that forces a person, a community or a society to start looking past the rosy picture that privilege allows.


What is too simplistic to be true, is the notion that freedom of speech or the right to not be compelled to hold a certain belief is incompatible with improving the inclusivity and safety of our communities for all. that is a very shallow and superficial take on those notions, one conveniently tossed around by those with something to gain from keeping the status quo that favors them and those who look/think and enjoy the privileges that they do.

 

[Andy]

Have the Staals publicly or privately criticized the Pride movement or the LGBT+ community at all?

You keep making statements that creep on and on. Next I expect to read that they lynched someone.

No.

They refused to wear a jersey. Stick to facts.


You can imagine a lot of things… but cannot imagine that for certain people Pride events could have a socio-political meaning beyond “inclusion and diversity” and that people could be entitled to not want to be compelled to endorse them.

Okay well I guess that’s our impasse.

They didn't just refuse to wear a jersey. They refused to wear a jersey because "Pride" doesn't align with their Christian beliefs. To invoke christian beliefs as a reason why you can't support an event that represents a community that their faith has a problem with IS a criticism. It's a dog whistle and other christians know precisely what they are talking about.

So you can hide behind of very narrow view of this action, but the reason given, even if one sentence is very deep. And refusing to engage in any kind of more general interpretation of what they mean is not good faith debate.

 

[Schooner Guy]

To your sense of justice, not wearing pride colours (as part of a bloodless corporate initiative) is extremely relevant in assessing the character of a person but their long running and long praised charity is completely irrelevant.

Okay. Agree to disagree.

Nah. They're entitled rich jocks who were likely advised by their agent to invest in a charitable foundation as it would have good PR and tax relief benefits.

It's 2023 and these two knuckle dragging idiots won't wear a jersey with a few colours on it for 15 minutes. They use a book that they've likely never read as their shield. Their statement noted it goes against their Christian beliefs yet the older one wore a pride jersey TWO years ago in Montreal which he denied despite video and photographic evidence. I mean...you really can't make this shit up!

These two dumb rich jocks are so ignorant that they think we're stupid enough to believe it's because of their faith.

I bet some of their teammates had some interesting conversations about the two stubborn insubordinate old farts on the team today.

 

[Andy]

Seriously? There are many different types of Christianity , and nobody here has shown much knowledge of which kind the Staals follow.

Cmon DAC... the Staals never invoke their christianity for anything. When they did, they did it for Pride. What do you think that means? Don't be naive because doing so allows you to dismiss people in this thread you don't agree with.

Do they talk about Christianity and how it squares up with wealth? Do they talk about chrisitianity and drug abuse in the hockey community? Or Christianity and the treatment of women in the hockey communit? Or Christianity and adultery?

No, the Staals rarely ever speak up politically. They did once about Pride. And then invoked christianity as a reason for not participating.

Don't play dumb because doing so allows you to conveniently dismiss arguments.

 

[Miller Time]

Have the Staals publicly or privately criticized the Pride movement or the LGBT+ community at all?

You keep making statements that creep on and on. Next I expect to read that they lynched someone.

No.

They refused to wear a jersey. Stick to facts.

Fact - There were no NHL pride events in the age of Christ, or at any point in the writing of the bible.
Fact - The bible makes no mention of not wearing a rainbow jersey on a night of community celebration
Fact - The Staals engage in all sorts of behaviors that are directly against sections of the bible.


That makes them hypocrites based on the public statement they made. And Eric is flat out liar, from his post-game comments.

Not sure why any of that is hard for you to acknowledge or accept?

 

[River Meadow]

Fact - There were no NHL pride events in the age of Christ, or at any point in the writing of the bible.
Fact - The bible makes no mention of not wearing a rainbow jersey on a night of community celebration
Fact - The Staals engage in all sorts of behaviors that are directly against sections of the bible.


That makes them hypocrites based on the public statement they made. And Eric is flat out liar, from his post-game comments.

Not sure why any of that is hard for you to acknowledge or accept?

I think the point is..

They refused to wear the ribbon.

You can hate on them, call them names, be mad about it, that's your prerogative, but it shouldn't go any further than that.

They did not actively do anything to disparage anyone, they did not name call anyone, they literally didn't do anything, pun intended.

Are we going to condemn everyone who believes in the bible now?

 

[Walrus26]

Refusing to participate is a low-level, symbolic criticism of the movement, especially when you say it's because of your Christian beliefs.

I'm afraid that I see this as"if you're not with us, you're against us". You'll never get me onside to such a position.

I've never worn a pride ribbon in my life. I've actually never worn any similar symbolic ribbon or symbol in my life (unless you count sports merch!!) and am not about to start. Therefore, by your logic, I'm critical of LGBT people (and by extension many more groups or causes).

As I'm not, and live and work without angst in an environment where people are free to be their whole selves without judgement, I am proof that your logic is flawed. Not everyone is stressed by difference, nor discriminates actively or passively based on differences. Again, sports tribalism excepted ;-)