Post-Game Talk: #45 | Ducks at Flyers | January 17, 2023

[JojoTheWhale]

He scored 2 NHL goals. Can't find a video of either, though.

Excellent title here.

 

[Kelmitchell2]

Torts is dumb, this organization is dumb, Provorov is a fragile baby. If your religion teaches you to hate or discriminate it's a dumb religion.

What a fragile snowflake that you can't even put on a practice jersey that they heat pressed the numbers on 10 minutes before the game for a warm up.

Also torts is a hypocrite and should get heat for it.

See I don't have a problem with anyone for any reason, but the flyers and the media should have kept this shit in house and said nothing about it, they are looking to trade this man, why in the hell would you leak this shit out and kill his trade value

 

[Danko]

This is in celebration of the Hayes hat trick, right?

Risto goal

See I don't have a problem with anyone for any reason, but the flyers and the media should have kept this shit in house and said nothing about it, they are looking to trade this man, why in the hell would you leak this shit out and kill his trade value

From the media perspective It's a story though. I mean everyone noticed he wasn't out there for warm ups. Provy put himself in this position, but the organization or coach could have made a statement to practice what they preach.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Risto goal

From the media perspective It's a story though. I mean everyone noticed he wasn't out there for warm ups. Provy put himself in this position, but the organization or coach could have made a statement to practice what they preach.

The Flyers put themselves in the position by still playing him.

They could have easily not played him and avoided an obvious clusterf***. The story could have leaked eventually about him refusing but that’s a chance I’m taking if I’m running their PR.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Just say he had to make a doodoo

This team has zero problem lying their faces off. Maybe do it in this situation yeah?

 

[Kelmitchell2]

Risto goal

From the media perspective It's a story though. I mean everyone noticed he wasn't out there for warm ups. Provy put himself in this position, but the organization or coach could have made a statement to practice what they preach.

No I completely get that, but they could have said he was experiencing an equipment issue, hell he could have been taking a shit lol why would we be so stupid and be like "oh he didn't wanna show support on pride night"

 

[3mFlyers]

Holy hell. Hayes hat trick, Risto shortie, Frost between the legs snipe...

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Just say he had to make a doodoo

This team has zero problem lying their faces off. Maybe do it in this situation yeah?

Meh. Then you’re getting into blatantly lying and potentially turning off some of the players in the locker room because they know what really happened.

If he just didn’t play it likely isn’t even questioned.

 

[Kelmitchell2]

The Flyers put themselves in the position by still playing him.

They could have easily not played him and avoided an obvious clusterf***. The story could have leaked eventually about him refusing but that’s a chance I’m taking if I’m running their PR.

See that's what I'm saying, they could have made an attempt to save face with this issue, but now this is really gonna blow up in our faces, if he is traded, it'll be for pennies on the dollar

Yupp, only gonna get worse now

 

[FlyerNutter]

No I completely get that, but they could have said he was experiencing an equipment issue, hell he could have been taking a shit lol why would we be so stupid and be like "oh he didn't wanna show support on pride night"

Which is the frustrating part for me. Part of it anyway.

If he wants to do what he’s going to do so be it. He will live with that - but the team or whoever was I. Charge of communication was just stupid.

 

[Kelmitchell2]

You know the memes and photoshop is next, gonna see pics of provy in a Klan outfit by tomorrow, watch

 

[Beef Invictus]

 

[Chicken N Raffls]

Your point earlier about how this will affect his teammates was spot on. Regardless of how you feel on the subject, you have to know this is going to be a "controversy". There's already been reports of friction. This can't help that

 

[Beef Invictus]

I personally enjoy that this game was blacked out. And by enjoy, I mean the opposite of that. I hate Dallas Eakins' cheap AV knockoff hockey and seeing it get shredded brings fuzzy warmth to my meatflesh.

 

[BernieParent]

Using Religion is a lame ass excuse in 2023. Any religious person with a clue respects and supports gay people.

Are you sure about that?

 

[deadhead]

Actually, I support Provorov, imagine if there was a MAGA night.

Requiring players to publicly support political, social or religious positions and views they don't agree with is wrong, same way an employer doing that to any employee is wrong.

It's one thing to demand tolerance and manners, if he was calling players "Homophobic Slurs" or engaged in hostile behavior in any way, that should be strictly condemned and punished, but asking him to actually affirm behavior that goes contrary to his religious belief is also wrong. How would you feel if your company required you to put a MAGA sign in your front yard?

There's a difference between the right of Gay people to demand nondiscrimination, that is, they should have the same right as all Americans, to speak and live their lives freely without fear of punishment (economic or social) or violence. It's quite another to demand that those who have religious or cultural objections to such behavior to have to actively affirm that behavior as acceptable to them or lose their livelihood.

Freedom must extend to those whose believe differently than "we" do, or it's just a sham.
If we coerce people to "speak" only what we consider tolerable, we no longer believe in freedom of speech, but merely the freedom of politically correct speech.
Even hate speech should be protected, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

I would point out that this pendulum swung the other way for most of American history, that speech that didn't correspond to the norms of a different era was suppressed, which included support for Gay rights, civil rights, socialism, anti-war, separation of church and state and other unpopular beliefs, and it took a couple centuries to firmly establish freedom of speech, and the principle of free discourse as a social norm. There was a time when the ACLU fought those battles for both the Left and the Right to engage in unpopular speech.

 

[GKJ]

Actually, I support Provorov, imagine if there was a MAGA night.

Requiring players to publicly support political, social or religious positions and views they don't agree with is wrong, same way an employer doing that to any employee is wrong.

It's one thing to demand tolerance and manners, if he was calling players "Homophobic Slurs" or engaged in hostile behavior in any way, that should be strictly condemned and punished, but asking him to actually affirm behavior that goes contrary to his religious belief is also wrong. How would you feel if your company required you to put a MAGA sign in your front yard?

There's a difference between the right of Gay people to demand nondiscrimination, that is, they should have the same right as all Americans, to speak and live their lives freely without fear of punishment (economic or social) or violence. It's quite another to demand that those who have religious or cultural objections to such behavior to have to actively affirm that behavior as acceptable to them or lose their livelihood.

Freedom must extend to those whose believe differently than "we" do, or it's just a sham.
If we coerce people to "speak" only what we consider tolerable, we no longer believe in freedom of speech, but merely the freedom of politically correct speech.
Even hate speech should be protected, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

I would point out that this pendulum swung the other way for most of American history, that speech that didn't correspond to the norms of a different era was suppressed, which included support for Gay rights, civil rights, socialism, anti-war, separation of church and state and other unpopular beliefs, and it took a couple centuries to firmly establish freedom of speech, and the principle of free discourse as a social norm. There was a time when the ACLU fought those battles for both the Left and the Right to engage in unpopular speech.

MAGA night and Pride night are not at all corresponding.

 

[landsbergfan]

I’m removing Provorov from my hotness rankings

 

[Maple Leaf]

I bet he's not even religious

 

[Magua]

Actually, I support Provorov, imagine if there was a MAGA night.

Requiring players to publicly support political, social or religious positions and views they don't agree with is wrong, same way an employer doing that to any employee is wrong.

It's one thing to demand tolerance and manners, if he was calling players "Homophobic Slurs" or engaged in hostile behavior in any way, that should be strictly condemned and punished, but asking him to actually affirm behavior that goes contrary to his religious belief is also wrong. How would you feel if your company required you to put a MAGA sign in your front yard?

There's a difference between the right of Gay people to demand nondiscrimination, that is, they should have the same right as all Americans, to speak and live their lives freely without fear of punishment (economic or social) or violence. It's quite another to demand that those who have religious or cultural objections to such behavior to have to actively affirm that behavior as acceptable to them or lose their livelihood.

Freedom must extend to those whose believe differently than "we" do, or it's just a sham.
If we coerce people to "speak" only what we consider tolerable, we no longer believe in freedom of speech, but merely the freedom of politically correct speech.
Even hate speech should be protected, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

I would point out that this pendulum swung the other way for most of American history, that speech that didn't correspond to the norms of a different era was suppressed, which included support for Gay rights, civil rights, socialism, anti-war, separation of church and state and other unpopular beliefs, and it took a couple centuries to firmly establish freedom of speech, and the principle of free discourse as a social norm. There was a time when the ACLU fought those battles for both the Left and the Right to engage in unpopular speech.

You’re out here talking in grandiose constitutional terms, so might I refer you to the landmark Supreme Court case of Ass v. Hole?

No one is talking legality. I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone saying he should’ve been forced to wear the jersey — and I’m not sure the Flyers have the power to do that, or to bench/suspend him, with which the union would probably take issue. But he exposed himself as a homophobic asshole, and that’s that.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Without getting into the back and forth on this particular issue, I've had enough Provorov for one lifetime.

I've had enough of the Flyers bollixing up the development of otherwise promising young Defensemen for several lifetimes.

Keeping this to the Hockey aspect of things, I think history shows that this is an Organizational problem- not a Provy problem- and it goes back a couple of (or a few) decades.

 

[VladDrag]

I've had enough of the Flyers bollixing up the development of otherwise promising young Defensemen for several lifetimes.

Keeping this to the Hockey aspect of things, I think history shows that this is an Organizational problem- not a Provy problem- and it goes back a couple of (or a few) decades.

I can’t read this in the dark theme.

 

[Rebels57]

I bet he's not even religious

Nah he's just a bigoted piece of shit, which doesnt surprise me at all.

 

[Petr Svoboda Mullet]

No I completely get that, but they could have said he was experiencing an equipment issue, hell he could have been taking a shit lol why would we be so stupid and be like "oh he didn't wanna show support on pride night"

This is where I’m at. If Provorov doesn’t want to wear the jersey, so be it. That’s his right. But could the Flyers PR staff have botched this any worse? Make up an excuse for FFS. This will only drive his trade value down and further drive a stake between the organization and Provorov.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

I’m utterly shocked to come on here this morning and see a manifesto that dives into topics no one is talking about and taking a mostly contrarian stance.

SHOCKED.