Reimer stirs the Pride pot

[Rylant]

Your strong feelings about this topic seem to be clouding your memory. This is what you wrote:

LOL I was talking about the tactics of you twisting my words and turning it into something that it wasn't. I have explained this. The fact that you are doing this AGAIN, is a clear indication that I am right.

You are ridiculous...

[chuckcouples]

I became a much bigger fan of the San Jose Sharks tonight. They are doing it right. They called Reimer out on his bigotry and forced him to face the media during the game (at which time he doubled down).

The Sharks' twitter feed has also spent the entire game giving facts supporting the LGBTQ+ community and not talking about hockey at all. It's a great idea and they are doing a terrific job at it.

[doulos]

He probably bangs dudes on the side.

[rataylor22]

Now how did you go from my saying people shouldn't care about this stuff to me "embracing" it? Talk about unjustified assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

How I feel about pride jerseys? I think they're unnecessary. Pride is a very misguided emotion to feel about one's sexuality. It's not like it's an accomplishment being gay. I understand that it is the result of historical injustice to this minority community but I don't agree that we as the large community should celebrate being proud of one's sexuality. Acceptance of people's different sexual preferences? I am onboard. Acknowledgement of past injustice? Count me in. No discriminations based on sexual orientation? Yes sir. But pride? Nope.

“People shouldn’t be proud of who they are” is quite the taek #OnHere. People’s sexuality is a large portion of who they are as a person. If you don’t agree it’s probably because you are a cis-heterosexual who has never been confronted with that identity, but it is regardless a large part of your identity whether that is conscious on your mind or not.

[audiopile]

Here we go again. Its ok to be yourself, in fact its encouraged, as long as it aligns with the movement.


With all this stuff its the same. Many people take issue with the requirements to participate, its not always about the subject of stance itself. Why is this so hard to understand?

[VincentVega]

LOL I was talking about the tactics of you twisting my words and turning it into something that it wasn't. I have explained this. The fact that you are doing this AGAIN, is a clear indication that I am right.

You are ridiculous...

What exactly do you think you are right about?

[VincentVega]

“People shouldn’t be proud of who they are” is quite the taek #OnHere. People’s sexuality is a large portion of who they are as a person. If you don’t agree it’s probably because you are a cis-heterosexual who has never been confronted with that identity, but it is regardless a large part of your identity whether that is conscious on your mind or not.

cis-heterosexual? More nonsense. Heterosexual is the word you are looking for.

Being proud of being gay or straight or whatever your sexual preferences are is like being proud of having blue eyes or curly hair or a third nipple. You were born that way and you did nothing to achieve it.

Things that you can feel proud of: raising responsible and hard-working children, being a good husband/wife, winning the Nobel prize, getting jacked, building your deck by yourself, you know, things you actually did something to accomplish.

In most things in life, and especially playing hockey, which the original post was related to, one's sexual orientation is completely irrelevant.

[Daydream Nation]

Here we go again. Its ok to be yourself, in fact its encouraged, as long as it aligns with the movement.

If you're an intolerant bigot that's not ok in my book.

[VincentVega]

If you're an intolerant bigot that's not ok in my book.

And why do you assume people who don't participate in pride events are intolerant bigots? Do you think it's not reasonable that there are people who are tolerant and open-minded yet choose to not partake in such events?

[Rylant]

Here we go again. Its ok to be yourself, in fact its encouraged, as long as it aligns with the movement.


With all this stuff its the same. Many people take issue with the requirements to participate, its not always about the subject of stance itself. Why is this so hard to understand?

LOL, except he didn't participate. There was no fine or punishment levied against him by the team for not participating. And so there was absolutely no "requirement to participate". The team decided to do an activity to support a marginalized group of people or other group which needs support or attention drawn to their plight. Teams do this kind of thing all the time. Meals for the homeless, Fight against cancer, Night of the Troops etc. Nobody is ever "forced" to do it, but it's something that the team feels is important and the ask their players, who generally have a pretty good living paid for by the community, to give back a little bit. He chose to not participate and is now receiving some backlash by the people who pay his salary, for doing it.

I would say, what is probably closer to the truth, is that you support his antiquated beliefs, and rather than flat out admitting that, you disingenuously claim that this is about him being required to participate, when he actually wasn't.

Rylant

[loppantorkel]

To some degree I hate getting drawn into discussions like these, but this isn't a major publication like the Athletic.

It's not Reimer who stirs the pot. The fact that people are enraged about one person in the team declines to participate and wear the jersey of their political movement will only lead to less sympathy toward the movement, and less trust toward the media who do what they can to force athletes in line. It is a despicable practice. Why not celebrate that 23 of 24 players or so, chose to participate? No... all must join in this voluntary event or face public humiliation and condemnation. The irony of it is mindblowing. If only the LGBTQ community had any experience of it. Otoh, I'm not sure they're the ones being upset about Reimer. Likely more other folks and media.

[doulos]

Wonder if Jason Kenney and James Reimer share friends.

[audiopile]

LOL, except he didn't participate. There was no fine or punishment levied against him by the team for not participating. And so there was absolutely no "requirement to participate". The team decided to do an activity to support a marginalized group of people or other group which needs support or attention drawn to their plight. Teams do this kind of thing all the time. Meals for the homeless, Fight against cancer, Night of the Troops etc. Nobody is ever "forced" to do it, but it's something that the team feels is important and the ask their players, who generally have a pretty good living paid for by the community, to give back a little bit. He chose to not participate and is now receiving some backlash by the people who pay his salary, for doing it.

I would say, what is probably closer to the truth, is that you support his antiquated beliefs, and rather than flat out admitting that, you disingenuously claim that this is about him being required to participate, when he actually wasn't.

Rylant

YOU are requiring participation. If it doesnt happen, you cast aspersions, not only on him but everyone who chooses to not get involved or have a different view about it than yourself. You can't deny it because you did it in the quote. That's not a very nice label you put on me, you don't even know me.

The rest is irrelevant.


---------------

How about this perspective. You get your way. Everyone participates, we all show how much we love/embrace/accept (not sure what you are looking for here) the movement. Suddenly someone who wore the plaque the day before at a rally decides to show themselves for who they are and do something counter to the movement and people see it and flip out. Is that better than abstaining int he first place? And its you drawing this line (not me, i dont want any part of it), the connection which assumes abstaining == not accepting the movement.
I just want to understand if its more important for you to see everyone acting like they care about ____________ or simply going about their life quietly and proving that they care by their normal interactions with people.

[Rylant]

YOU are requiring participation. If it doesnt happen, you cast aspersions, not only on him but everyone who chooses to not get involved or have a different view about it than yourself. You can't deny it because you did it in the quote. That's not a very nice label you put on me, you don't even know me.

The rest is irrelevant.

Nice deflection. I don't require him to participate at all. He absolutely has the right to not participate. Of course when he chooses to do this, everyone has the right to suggest that is poor behavior. It's called holding people accountable for their actions. Or should everyone be free to do whatever they want without anyone ever questioning it?

Rylant

[PrairieDog]

I'm wondering how many people who are actually LGBT care about this. I happen to be in that category and I wish the straight people would just shut the hell up. We don't care. Same with the whole race thing (yeah I fall into that category too).

Just stop, it's pandering and virtue signalling, we don't want special days or events, just treat us like you would a straight white person. Can you do that?