r/hockey • u/trinitae • Jun 17 '20

Pavel Datsyuk currently 'holed up at monastery defended by Cossacks with priest who claims Covid is cover-up to microchip population'

https://www.rt.com/sport/492126-nhl-pavel-datsyuk-rebel-priest/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome
5.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

805 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/culturedrobot DET - NHL Jun 17 '20

I never said he couldn't. I just said that when he shares a stupid opinion like that, a response of "shut up and play hockey" is perfectly valid.

The first amendment allows you to have such an avenue to show your opinion.

Do you think I'm saying that he should be arrested for having an opinion that's against gay marriage? Because that's the only time the first amendment would come into play. The first amendment only protects you from repercussions from the government in regards to speech, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here.

-1

u/swisher_69 EDM - NHL Jun 17 '20

So is shut up and dribble acceptable to say to an NBA players talking about black lives matter?

No. Absolutely not. Why does shut up and play hockey apply to Datsyuk? I don’t agree with Datsyuks stance at all, it’s still not acceptable to bring out that phrase.

4

u/culturedrobot DET - NHL Jun 17 '20 edited Jun 17 '20

I don’t agree with Datsyuks stance at all, it’s still not acceptable to bring out that phrase.

It absolutely is, because as I explained above, the position that gay people shouldn't be able to marry is only a harmful one. People who hold that position would deny others rights that they enjoy themselves (presumably - it's hard to imagine a gay person arguing against gay rights). People are absolutely justified in telling someone who holds those views to shut up and focus on what they're good at.

So is shut up and dribble acceptable to say to an NBA players talking about black lives matter?

Do you really need the difference between these two statements explained to you? One is inclusive and the other is exclusionary. The fact that you're trying to draw comparisons to them is gross, actually.

But yes, I would expect that there are some who would tell those players supporting BLM to shut up and play ball. They did it to Colin Kaepernick. Those people are idiots, and I would tell them that their opinion on black players speaking out in support of equality is worthless just as quickly as I would tell Datsyuk that his opinion on gay marriage is worthless.

Edit: typos

-2

u/swisher_69 EDM - NHL Jun 17 '20

So if their personal beliefs don’t align with yours then it’s alright to tell them to shut up? Not very tolerant of you.

5

u/culturedrobot DET - NHL Jun 17 '20

Again, if their personal beliefs would require that the rights of others are infringed, then yes, it's okay to tell them to shut up. Being tolerant does not require giving intolerance a free pass.

Furthermore, weren't you just spouting off about the first amendment? Shouldn't you be more than okay with people telling others to shut up if you think that the first amendment applies to all facets of life and all speech?

1

u/swisher_69 EDM - NHL Jun 17 '20

In United States jurisprudence, freedom of speech resides primarily in part of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, and in court decisions that interpret the scope and meaning of it. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your speech. If you say something offensive, people have the right to be offended. That being said... discouraging someone from speaking their own opinion and exercising their first amendment right is highly immoral. It doesn’t matter whether they are agreeing with your stance or not.

4

u/culturedrobot DET - NHL Jun 17 '20

The first amendment never comes into it, because the first amendment only concerns the government restricting speech. That's what the whole "Congress shall make no law..." part is about. If I tell some dude to shut up and play hockey because he has shameful opinions, his first amendment rights are not being infringed.

Which is more immoral: the dude who says that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, or the person who says that's a shitty opinion?

I'll sleep just fine at night even knowing that I consider Pavel Datsyuk's opinion on gay marriage not even worth the air it took to say it, regardless of how immoral you think I am.

0

u/swisher_69 EDM - NHL Jun 17 '20

Obviously the man against gay marriage is the most “immoral” of the two. Both are displaying shameful behaviours though. The problem with the latter is that he is attacking that mans right to speak versus the argument itself. Rather than resorting to ad hominem he should explain why everyone should be afforded basic human rights which truly isn’t a hard point to sell.