2022-23 NHL Thread
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
Kin
New member
Peter D. said:
I say this as a person who considers himself religious, albeit not terribly observant, but the idea that someone should be exempt from scrutiny or criticism simply because their stance is predicated on religious conviction doesn't really make much sense to me. Like, people who believe in things we all agree are bad or wrong have conviction. Sometimes it's religious. Slavery in the bible was used, by people who considered themselves religious, to justify slavery in real life. Whether we like it or not a lot of the nuttier religious fundamentalists are just taking literal interpretations of religious texts. Those Westboro Baptist lunatics, the guys running Iran...they are pretty genuine in their religious beliefs. But I'm more than happy to vilify them.
And I think the discussion that has emerged from this incident shows there is a good reason to still be talking about this stuff. I mean, ignore for a second the actual, literal, still happening in 2023 consequences when whole governments share Provorov's views let's just for a second get into what Pride Nights are about. They're not endorsements of specific sex acts or promiscuity. They're just blanket, anodyne statements that more or less boil down to "It's ok to be a gay person". If someone says "That goes against my beliefs" they're saying that it's not ok to be a gay person. That gay people shouldn't be able to live the same sort of happy, fulfilling honest lives that non-gay people do. That they don't "approve" of them.
That seems like a pretty reasonable thing for people to judge someone on. And, again, as a religious person, someone saying "Yeah but my religion says this thing is what I should believe" ignores the reality that any of us who use ancient texts to influence and shape our worldviews has to use some sort of a filter wherein we separate what parts of our religion we want to accept into our lives. Otherwise we'd all be murdering our neighbours for working on the sabbath.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Peter D. said:
But they're not appreciation or recognition nights. They're awareness building nights. These large organizations, with a large viewing audience, bear a responsibility to help build awareness for groups that have long been oppressed in society. Especially when you're an organization, such as hockey, that has a long history of being non-tolerant of these very groups.
Kin
New member
Peter D. said:
Well, let's be real about what these nights are. They're marketing. There are a lot of people who identify as LGBTQ or who are supportive of people who are and the NHL knows that sports in general have a problem with attracting those people as fans so long as there's a perception that they're tolerant of homophobia. The NHL, in addition to whatever genuine sense of civic responsibility may be at work, want those people as customers. It is saying "Hey people who have traditionally felt excluded, you are welcome(to buy things from us) here".
I'd never say you were obligated to agree with the way the NHL was trying to attract new customers but I think, at the very least, you can see why the NHL would see the headlines they're actually getting right now and think that maybe Provorov wasn't really being a team player.
Peter D.
Moderator
Yes, I agree. As I said on the onset, if I'm Provorov, I put the jersey on and avoid all this hoopla.
To OTH's point though, maybe this was a blessing in disguise because this brought more awareness to the LGBTQ community than if all players partook. Because I'm sure many others like myself would have had no clue the initiative took place that night had it not been for Provorov's stance/ignorance/non-conformity (whatever people want to call it).
To OTH's point though, maybe this was a blessing in disguise because this brought more awareness to the LGBTQ community than if all players partook. Because I'm sure many others like myself would have had no clue the initiative took place that night had it not been for Provorov's stance/ignorance/non-conformity (whatever people want to call it).
Peter D.
Moderator
Well, when Rielly was accused of using a homophobic slur during a game -- when he clearly didn't -- it set off a huge firestorm. He had to sit through an interview the next day about it saying he will help the cause. You Can Play jumped in saying they were going to use it as a teaching mechanism for the players.
So yeah, sometimes something gets unexpected publicity in a negative way that is turned into awareness and educational purposes.
So yeah, sometimes something gets unexpected publicity in a negative way that is turned into awareness and educational purposes.
Nik said:
I mean, if anything it just brought attention to Provarov and not enough attention to the actual cause.
Also as an aside, does anyone else find it so effed up that the precedent has been set to hide behind "religion" as a stance for not doing something in a professional sports league? Like what doors does this open now? I think everyone should take a knee at the next national anthem and say they're doing it on religious grounds in solidarity of whatever the case may be.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik said:
Same.
Kin
New member
Bender said:
I appreciate the idea that you could trip these people up by trying to expose them as hypocrites but the people who are most loudly supporting Provorov have long since established they are fine with blatant hypocrisies. The sort of people who loudly complain about their free speech being violated when kicked off a private website but who cheer on governments banning books.
Wendel's Fist
New member
So if there were a Trump fan appreciation night and some players chose to sit that one out, everybody here would be up in arms about that?
Or would you be a hypocrite?
Or would you be a hypocrite?
Kin
New member
Wendel's Fist said:
I can't speak for everyone obviously but it seems as though for most people here the issue is the specific stance Provorov took and the message therein, not that they had a problem with the concept of taking stances in general. If they judged someone differently for taking a different stance that would seem to be in keeping with the stated objection.
For sure I raised the issue of there being a general expectation that people put their personal beliefs aside in the name of professionalism but I suppose I assumed people would know I meant that within reason. I used the example of a Mormon or Muslim player not objecting to alcohol ads in a stadium but I would clearly think differently, and again I think this is pretty reasonable, if the team instead had a "Everyone on the team has to chug a six pack" night.
Wendel's Fist
New member
Nik said:
But if players opposed Trump fans, that would be the same thing as what Provorov did. According to the "right," that would mean that NHL players don't support anyone in the dressing room or anyone outside of it that supports Trump and may be bullied for it.
What's the difference?
In fact, Provorov's reason had more virtue and I bet there's a bunch of people reading this thinking.........you're damn right I wouldn't support that POS, with anger.
I'm Christian. If Atheist or Jewish players decided not to come out to wear a cross on their jersey during warmup, I'd respect that decision. It's just a warmup jersey. Who cares?
The last thing I would think is, kick them out of the country or fine them a billion dollars.
There's also a lot of gay people that aren't happy with the current alphabet agenda..........
https://twitter.com/DrP_MD/status/1615806611255136266?cxt=HHwWlMC4marjv-wsAAAA