2022-23 NHL Thread

[herman]

https://twitter.com/HockeyDaily365/status/1638773049020366849
Great/good passes, but also using the exact same move after the first one missed lol

 

[Nik]

Chicago not having pride jerseys because they might upset their Russian players.  Trash organization

The NHL is just getting consistently and thoroughly killed on this issue. They look at best incompetent and at worst actively opposed to the sort of inclusion they're supposedly trying to put forth. I genuinely can't believe anyone at the League office thinks their response is going well.

 

[Arn]

Chicago not having pride jerseys because they might upset their Russian players.  Trash organization

The NHL is just getting consistently and thoroughly killed on this issue. They look at best incompetent and at worst actively opposed to the sort of inclusion they're supposedly trying to put forth. I genuinely can't believe anyone at the League office thinks their response is going well.

I made the mistake of reading some of the comments under the HNIC (I think) social media post about this.

Ironically about 90% of the posts arguing that we don?t need pride nights were proving exactly why we need pride nights.

I always enjoy when we get the question why we have a pride night and not a ?straight pride? night.

Particularly enjoy those suggesting we ?should keep politics and sport separate?. While simultaneously arguing that we should keep the military appreciation nights and national anthems.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/marklazerus/status/1638943512900300800
Oopie doopie

 

[OrangeBlack]

In regards to Pride Night, I think it's important to respect the fact that players shouldn't be forced to wear the jersey if they have strong religious beliefs.  We shouldn't judge the validity of their beliefs. Religion is a personal thing, & the strength & type of worship/beliefs vary from person to person. 

Hockey players as a whole are the most down to earth, real people out of the 4 major sports.  That should be embraced, whether you agree or disagree with them.

 

[Bender]

Chicago not having pride jerseys because they might upset their Russian players.  Trash organization

The NHL is just getting consistently and thoroughly killed on this issue. They look at best incompetent and at worst actively opposed to the sort of inclusion they're supposedly trying to put forth. I genuinely can't believe anyone at the League office thinks their response is going well.

I mean, it's almost worse that they tried the initiative without the express guarantee that all players involved would either take part, and those who wouldn't would be at minimum forced to sit out. Its crazy to me that you'd over promise and under deliver than under promise and over deliver. Like that's just optics 101.

 

[Bender]

In regards to Pride Night, I think it's important to respect the fact that players shouldn't be forced to wear the jersey if they have strong religious beliefs.  We shouldn't judge the validity of their beliefs. Religion is a personal thing, & the strength & type of worship/beliefs vary from person to person. 

Hockey players as a whole are the most down to earth, real people out of the 4 major sports.  That should be embraced, whether you agree or disagree with them.

Religious belief is a smokescreen and you know it. This is about inclusivity and saying "You're accepted here" and nothing to do with anything else. You could go down any logical rabbit hole as soon as you say you need to respect my seemingly arbitrary religious belief. We shouldn't be celebrating women in hockey because women are property, the Bible says so!

As an aside, I find it hilarious that there's some religious objection to being welcoming. I wonder what Christians (or any religious denomination) who are gay (and there are a lot of them) think about this.

 

[bustaheims]

In regards to Pride Night, I think it's important to respect the fact that players shouldn't be forced to wear the jersey if they have strong religious beliefs.  We shouldn't judge the validity of their beliefs. Religion is a personal thing, & the strength & type of worship/beliefs vary from person to person. 

Hockey players as a whole are the most down to earth, real people out of the 4 major sports.  That should be embraced, whether you agree or disagree with them.

That might be fair if they applied that standard to all of their religion's teachings - like, for instance, prohibitions on gambling - and not selectively.

Also, whatever happened to "love thy neighbor", "do unto others", and "love the sinner, hate the sin"? You know, the most important teachings of basically every major religion.

 

[louisstamos]

In regards to Pride Night, I think it's important to respect the fact that players shouldn't be forced to wear the jersey if they have strong religious beliefs.  We shouldn't judge the validity of their beliefs. Religion is a personal thing, & the strength & type of worship/beliefs vary from person to person. 

Hockey players as a whole are the most down to earth, real people out of the 4 major sports.  That should be embraced, whether you agree or disagree with them.

I'm not sure if I agree with that, and I'm a pretty devout Christian myself.  If you can't defend the validity of your beliefs, are they truly valid? *Everything* should be open to criticism, and that includes my faith (it's something that my partner and I had very frank discussion about early on in our relationship, as she is an atheist, so she wanted to make sure that we could co-exist).

That said, all things considered, I'd have no problem wearing a pride jersey on my end if it came down to it.  But that's just me.

 

[OrangeBlack]

In regards to Pride Night, I think it's important to respect the fact that players shouldn't be forced to wear the jersey if they have strong religious beliefs.  We shouldn't judge the validity of their beliefs. Religion is a personal thing, & the strength & type of worship/beliefs vary from person to person. 

Hockey players as a whole are the most down to earth, real people out of the 4 major sports.  That should be embraced, whether you agree or disagree with them.

Religious belief is a smokescreen and you know it. This is about inclusivity and saying "You're accepted here" and nothing to do with anything else. You could go down any logical rabbit hole as soon as you say you need to respect my religious belief. We shouldn't be celebrating women in hockey because women are property, the Bible says so!

As an aside, I find it hilarious that there's some religious objection to being welcoming. I wonder what Christians (or any religious denomination) who are gay (and there are a lot of them) think about this.

There is no reason for the gay community to think they are not welcome at hockey games.  In fact, some of the players who didn't wear the jersey said they welcome all fans.  On another subject, it's a shame that many people these days trivialize religion.

Rather than the player saying they aren't going to wear the jersey for religious reasons, would it be better for them to make up another excuse & miss the pre-game skate.....such as a lengthy bathroom visit, extra tape or muscle therapy in the training room, etc?

 

[OrangeBlack]

Chicago not having pride jerseys because they might upset their Russian players.  Trash organization

The NHL is just getting consistently and thoroughly killed on this issue. They look at best incompetent and at worst actively opposed to the sort of inclusion they're supposedly trying to put forth. I genuinely can't believe anyone at the League office thinks their response is going well.

I mean, it's almost worse that they tried the initiative without the express guarantee that all players involved would either take part, and those who wouldn't would be at minimum forced to sit out. Its crazy to me that you'd over promise and under deliver than under promise and over deliver. Like that's just optics 101.

Forced to sit out of what....the pre-game skate or the game?  If you're saying the game itself, that's rather authoritarian & not something that would go over well with many fans.  At the end of the day though, the players are just employees.  Hopefully it doesn't come down to that.

 

[Bender]

In regards to Pride Night, I think it's important to respect the fact that players shouldn't be forced to wear the jersey if they have strong religious beliefs.  We shouldn't judge the validity of their beliefs. Religion is a personal thing, & the strength & type of worship/beliefs vary from person to person. 

Hockey players as a whole are the most down to earth, real people out of the 4 major sports.  That should be embraced, whether you agree or disagree with them.

Religious belief is a smokescreen and you know it. This is about inclusivity and saying "You're accepted here" and nothing to do with anything else. You could go down any logical rabbit hole as soon as you say you need to respect my religious belief. We shouldn't be celebrating women in hockey because women are property, the Bible says so!

As an aside, I find it hilarious that there's some religious objection to being welcoming. I wonder what Christians (or any religious denomination) who are gay (and there are a lot of them) think about this.

There is no reason for the gay community to think they are not welcome at hockey games.  In fact, some of the players who didn't wear the jersey said they welcome all fans.  On another subject, it's a shame that many people these days trivialize religion.

Rather than the player saying they aren't going to wear the jersey for religious reasons, would it be better for them to make up another excuse & miss the pre-game skate.....such as a lengthy bathroom visit, extra tape or muscle therapy in the training room, etc?

1. You are literally wilfully ignorant thinking gays have no reason to think they aren't welcomed by the sporting community at large, especially one with the history that hockey does. How many openly gay players are there again? Right.

2. Nobody said anything about "trivializing" religion. I am saying using it as your reasoning is a cop out, especially the number of copycats recently. There's no way this is all for "religious" reasons, and even if it was, religion can be used to justify any non-inclusivity you wish. And you didn't address the fact that there are millions of gay people who believe and partake in organized religions that these players say they are against for religious reasons. It's completely nonsensical.

*Edit: You haven't posted since 2021 and you feel the need to chime in on this with this kind of take? Give me a break.

 

[Bill33]

I think that what the league tried to do is appeal to all sides of an issue in which all sides would object to anything but a committed approach.

Virtue signalling is a tricky business sometimes, specifically if it threatens the bottom line.

 

[Bender]

I think that what the league tried to do is appeal to all sides of an issue in which all sides would object to anything but a committed approach.

Virtue signalling is a tricky business sometimes, specifically if it threatens the bottom line.

What does "all sides would object to anything but a committed approach" mean to you though? What is considered "committed"? Not all teams participate in Pride night the same way.

 

[Bill33]

I think that what the league tried to do is appeal to all sides of an issue in which all sides would object to anything but a committed approach.

Virtue signalling is a tricky business sometimes, specifically if it threatens the bottom line.

What does "all sides would object to anything but a committed approach" mean to you though? What is considered "committed"? Not all teams participate in Pride night the same way.

When an organization modifies it's planned approach due to minority opposing viewpoints, it's not a committed approach. Mealy-mouthed team and league statements trying to placate all sides are lame and sad.

 

[Bender]

I think that what the league tried to do is appeal to all sides of an issue in which all sides would object to anything but a committed approach.

Virtue signalling is a tricky business sometimes, specifically if it threatens the bottom line.

What does "all sides would object to anything but a committed approach" mean to you though? What is considered "committed"? Not all teams participate in Pride night the same way.

When an organization modifies it's planned approach due to minority opposing viewpoints, it's not a committed approach. Mealy-mouthed team and league statements trying to placate all sides are lame and sad.

We are in agreement there, but does the extent of the planned approach matter? Is what the Leafs do considered a committed approach even though as far as I know they haven't warmed up in Pride jerseys?

 

[Bill33]

I think that what the league tried to do is appeal to all sides of an issue in which all sides would object to anything but a committed approach.

Virtue signalling is a tricky business sometimes, specifically if it threatens the bottom line.

What does "all sides would object to anything but a committed approach" mean to you though? What is considered "committed"? Not all teams participate in Pride night the same way.

When an organization modifies it's planned approach due to minority opposing viewpoints, it's not a committed approach. Mealy-mouthed team and league statements trying to placate all sides are lame and sad.

We are in agreement there, but does the extent of the planned approach matter? Is what the Leafs do considered a committed approach even though as far as I know they haven't warmed up in Pride jerseys?

I guess that's an individual fan"s decision to decide whether they've "done enough" to support a cause. Whether they have the whole team parachute out of an airplane holding a rainbow flag or do something more muted, I could care less, as long as they don't put themselves in a position to tacitly support opposing viewpoints which become the story and override any positives the occasion was supposed to promote.

 

[OrangeBlack]

I think that what the league tried to do is appeal to all sides of an issue in which all sides would object to anything but a committed approach.

Virtue signalling is a tricky business sometimes, specifically if it threatens the bottom line.

What does "all sides would object to anything but a committed approach" mean to you though? What is considered "committed"? Not all teams participate in Pride night the same way.

When an organization modifies it's planned approach due to minority opposing viewpoints, it's not a committed approach. Mealy-mouthed team and league statements trying to placate all sides are lame and sad.

We are in agreement there, but does the extent of the planned approach matter? Is what the Leafs do considered a committed approach even though as far as I know they haven't warmed up in Pride jerseys?

I guess that's an individual fan"s decision to decide whether they've "done enough" to support a cause. Whether they have the whole team parachute out of an airplane holding a rainbow flag or do something more muted, I could care less, as long as they don't put themselves in a position to tacitly support opposing viewpoints which become the story and override any positives the occasion was supposed to promote.

It?s not the individual player?s decision to
overshadow any positives.  The player isn?t choosing to make a loud social statement. It?s the media?s choice to blow the situation out of proportion & override the positives.  Simple solution, why doesn?t the media just ignore the situation, or just report the facts & decline to give any commentary.  All the unnecessary attention given to a player not wearing a pride jersey just needlessly makes some people upset & accomplishes nothing.

 

[Nik]

In regards to Pride Night, I think it's important to respect the fact that players shouldn't be forced to wear the jersey if they have strong religious beliefs.  We shouldn't judge the validity of their beliefs. Religion is a personal thing, & the strength & type of worship/beliefs vary from person to person. 

It has nothing to do with the validity of their beliefs or lack thereof. It's just the simple, basic truth that attributing your moral philosophy to your religion doesn't exempt you from the judgements we all face for our values and the effects they have on other people. If someone believed something almost universally agreed upon as awful, like adult men should be able to marry children, then it shouldn't matter if they believed that because of a deeply and perhaps genuinely believed religious conviction or just because they were a garden variety creep. It's still a terrible thing for them to believe and should be rightly condemned.

 

[Nik]

Simple solution, why doesn?t the media just ignore the situation, or just report the facts & decline to give any commentary.

So stop reporting the news and stop commenting on the news? So in other words, your solution is for the media to stop being media.