Around the League 2022-23 season thread - part II

[HBK27]

One more thing...

Nobody want to comment on the below article?


Well now.... that's certainly...something.

So the NHL is saying players can decide what causes to support.

It kind of puts a bit of a loose screw in things, I think.

Or at the very least, it shows that the NHL doesn't really give two s--ts about the LGBTQ+ whatsoever....Only what's in their bank accounts.

Okay I'm done with this subject.

I don't think it shows that - just that the players will not be forced to support one of their causes. Rather reasonable on the part of the NHL.

 

[glenwo2]

I don't think it shows that - just that the players will not be forced to support one of their causes. Rather reasonable on the part of the NHL.

Really?

Dammit.

I fell for clickbait, didn't I?

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[OmNomNom]

I don't browse the main board or reddit enough to give an opinion about what the general fan thinks of it.

I just hope he doesn't score it against us if he breaks it. I didn't like that our fans cheered for his 700th goal and I wouldn't have cheered anyone scoring against us, no matter what number goal it is for them, period.

I'm definitely in the minority that these days I really only care about the Devils and care f*** all about the rest of the league though.

sorry, i totally cheered

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

I don't browse the main board or reddit enough to give an opinion about what the general fan thinks of it.

I just hope he doesn't score it against us if he breaks it. I didn't like that our fans cheered for his 700th goal and I wouldn't have cheered anyone scoring against us, no matter what number goal it is for them, period.

I'm definitely in the minority that these days I really only care about the Devils and care f*** all about the rest of the league though.

I was at that game, the Devils were legit garbage that year and their fans got to see history. Not like they cheered for a goal while in the middle of playoff contention, lol. Also, Montreal fans cheered for Marty back in the day when he broke a record there, it's happened to our players as well. It's not that serious.

 

[Satans Hockey]

I was at that game, the Devils were legit garbage that year and their fans got to see history. Not like they cheered for a goal while in the middle of playoff contention, lol. Also, Montreal fans cheered for Marty back in the day when he broke a record there, it's happened to our players as well. It's not that serious.

I just don't care about league history and I also don't care much for Ovi. Don't blame people for cheering it but I didn't care for it all.

Not that serious for me either, all I did was complain here about it lol

 

[BahlDeep]

if your morals and beliefs include not accepting others, they suck.

The irony

 

[MasterofGrond]

The irony

Not accepting someone for being gay is not the same as not accepting someone for disliking gays. Because one of those is a choice you’re making and one of those is who you are.

If you can’t see that, I’m not sure what else to say on the matter lmao

 

[Bleedred]

I was at that game, the Devils were legit garbage that year and their fans got to see history. Not like they cheered for a goal while in the middle of playoff contention, lol. Also, Montreal fans cheered for Marty back in the day when he broke a record there, it's happened to our players as well. It's not that serious.

They actually even honored Marty on the screen for his 500th win in Philly at the end of the game, as well as when he broke the shutout record in Pittsburgh.

 

[Jack Be Quick]

Not wearing a sweater isn't a prejudice against anyone.

Of course it is.

Imagine if they decided to celebrate MLK day and he refused to partake in activities because of his beliefs.

No reasonably sane person wouldn't consider that racist.

 

[My3Sons]

Sure. And if I knew the guy we'd be having a talk about this over a few beers.

But I don't, so I don't have any opportunity or responsibility to educate him I get to simply be mad on a message board and maybe making a disparaging tweet.

You aren't wrong. That said, there are groups that could communicate with Provorov's reps about the issue if they wanted to.

 

[Satans Hockey]

They actually even honored Marty on the screen for his 500th win in Philly at the end of the game, as well as when he broke the shutout record in Pittsburgh.

That's cause he was from there more than anything else.

 

[HBK27]

Of course it is.

Imagine if they decided to celebrate MLK day and he refused to partake in activities because of his beliefs.

No reasonably sane person wouldn't consider that racist.

Maybe we should stop asking professional athletes then to do "X" in order to not be labeled as something horrible and just let them play the game.

I mean, that's a rather low bar when simply "not doing a thing" will get you branded as racist.

 

[Jack Be Quick]

Isn't ironic that I am more inclusive in my way of accepting different POVs/beliefs than someone who supposedly believe "hockey is for everyone" yet can't accept that people from different backgrounds have different POVs/beliefs?

If you want to be accepting of bigots in your life then bully for you.

Those people and their enablers can stay the f*** away from me and be ridiculed to perpetuity if they're impervious to reason.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Wow just catching up on this thread. Here I go...

Exactly. The irony is I don't go after people with different beliefs just like you are here.

I respect everyone's choice of believing in whatever they want to believe in, I don't actively try to debate and convince them they have the wrong POV.

Isn't ironic that I am more inclusive in my way of accepting different POVs/beliefs than someone who supposedly believe "hockey is for everyone" yet can't accept that people from different backgrounds have different POVs/beliefs?

This statement is a contradiction. You can't claim to be "inclusive" while supporting ideas/people that do not promote inclusivity. Now the counter to this could be - "well I don't think Provorov's actions fail to promote inclusivity" - but that is giving Provorov a benefit of the doubt he hasn't earned, because he hasn't offered any kind of detailed explanation of his choice. His claiming that he couldn't wear the shirt due to "religious beliefs" begs the question - what belief precisely are you referring to? It can be inferred from this that he means "it's a sin to engage in homosexuality" as that is the typical religious belief at play. Which then begs the question, "how can you claim to have respect for a group of people and don't treat them any differently when you believe that the way they conduct themselves is sinful?" The real root argument here is whether or not having this belief is itself compatible with being "inclusive" and "respectful". I would say it isn't. If I believe something is morally reprehensible personally - for example, someone who engages in deception to steal from people - it would be very hard to make a convincing argument that I am nonetheless OK with those people doing it or that I don't treat them any differently than anyone else. And why would I want to make that argument? It's contradictory to the entire premise of my belief that it's morally wrong. So the "hate the sin, love the sinner" trope is really nothing more than an illogical copout cover, IMO.

If there's more to his so-called religious beliefs than "I think it's a sin"...then he should articulate that publicly. But I very much doubt it. I can't think of any explanation that wouldn't be contradictory to the idea that he does in fact respect and treat everyone the same.

Toleration is the allowing, permitting, or acceptance of an action, idea, object, or person which one dislikes or disagrees with.
Link form Wikipedia
Toleration - Wikipedia

I accept gay people and orthodox people, Provorov as he said, accept gay people, but doesn`t want to act in specific action. You, Zajac and other people doesn`t accept orthodox people.

That`s it. I`m done.

Again, you can't be tolerant of something that is itself intolerant. That is not a logical, rationale position.

Not supporting and believing in something doesn’t mean you hate it. How does that have to be said. Just because he didn’t want to wear a jersey representing something against his beliefs doesn’t whatsoever mean he has a problem with others doing it or what it represents.

It’s only weird to someone who doesn’t understand the importance in these discussions or understand that there’s a middle ground and would rather just assume the worst of anyone with controversial beliefs.

The event in question does not represent being homosexual, it represents the idea that they should feel welcomed and included. That's an important distinction. Deciding to not partake in the symbolism implies that you don't support the latter.

I assuming he hates the sin and not the sinner. That seems to be the Christian methodology with the gay question.

See my explanation above about how this is BS copout. Hating the action but not the person, 1) not a very believable argument to begin with, 2) is an irrelevant distinction. It would be like saying "I hate that this person eats only vegetables and I think it's morally repugnant, but I totally respect their decision to do it." You don't see the dilemma there?

Correct, Chilling Dissent. Very effective tactics.

The same exact thing can be said about anything else big corps show support with. I think the entire spectacle of the national anthem at the start of games is absurd, and on principle alone I often times don't want to participate. But when I'm at the games I always do. Why? Because I feel compelled. I don't want to attract attention to myself. I don't want to be attacked. I don't want people to make certain assumptions about me based on that.

So...I do actually agree that it's problematic that big corporations whose only true interests are putting ever increasing wealth into the hands of the few are now the arbiters of moral messaging. I don't believe for one second they have any actual moral interest in any of these causes. That's a symptom of a very broken system, IMO. And if Provorov came out and said THAT is the reason he decided he didn't want to wear the rainbow shirt, then that's a valid conversation to have. But that's not the explanation he offered.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Not accepting someone for being gay is not the same as not accepting someone for disliking gays. Because one of those is a choice you’re making and one of those is who you are.

If you can’t see that, I’m not sure what else to say on the matter lmao

Who hasn’t accepted someone for being gay. This keeps getting brought up yet is completely baseless and unsubstantiated. Also who doesn’t like gays? Is there some new development I missed or just more people jumping to the unsubstantiated extreme assumptions because they disagree with what he did?

 

[Call Me Al]

i cheered when he scored 700 and i cheered when he scored this one just because it was so impressive:



i’m a die hard devils fan but i’m also a fan of hockey and sometimes displays like that are worthy of appreciation regardless of what team you root for. ovechkin is an amazing player

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Wow just catching up on this thread. Here I go...

"it's a sin to engage in homosexuality" as that is the typical religious belief at play. Which then begs the question, "how can you claim to have respect for a group of people and don't treat them any differently when you believe that the way they conduct themselves is sinful?" The real root argument here is whether or not having this belief is itself compatible with being "inclusive" and "respectful". I would say it isn't. If I believe something is morally reprehensible personally - for example, someone who engages in deception to steal from people - it would be very hard to make a convincing argument that I am nonetheless OK with those people doing it or that I don't treat them any differently than anyone else. And why would I want to make that argument? It's contradictory to the entire premise of my belief that it's morally wrong. So the "hate the sin, love the sinner" trope is really nothing more than an illogical copout cover, IMO.

The event in question does not represent being homosexual, it represents the idea that they should feel welcomed and included. That's an important distinction. Deciding to not partake in the symbolism implies that you don't support the latter.

What a load of bs. So you’re saying you can’t respect someone that does acts in a way you disagree with or in your words is sinful. I don’t think you need anyone to tell you that you can disagree with something someone does and still accept and respect them. How much so obviously varies with how badly you view what they do.

The event in question supports homosexuality. He says that goes against his beliefs. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t respect them or think they should still be included. He just doesn’t support how they live. He’s quite literally said the opposite of what you’re saying. And you’re just inferring some bs meaning onto his actions.

 

[Guttersniped]

I love these bullshit thought exercises, which are completely detached from reality, that people use to defend a political act of homophobia.

 

[Jack Be Quick]

Maybe we should stop asking professional athletes then to do "X" in order to not be labeled as something horrible and just let them play the game.

Maybe I'd like to decide who I choose to give my money to and a person's deplorable position(s) helps me along in making that decision.



Ice hockey has a diversity problem and I applaud NHL franchises who work at this knowing full well it will piss off some customers.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

What a load of bs. So you’re saying you can’t respect someone that does acts in a way you disagree with or in your words is sinful. I don’t think you need anyone to tell you that you can disagree with something someone does and still accept and respect them. How much so obviously varies with how badly you view what they do.

The event in question supports homosexuality. He says that goes against his beliefs. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t respect them or think they should still be included. He just doesn’t support how they live. He’s quite literally said the opposite of what you’re saying. And you’re just inferring some bs meaning onto his actions.

yes it absolutely f***ing does lol its semantics.

if it was such a non-issue as you're making it out to be, he would have worn the jersey and kept his mouth shut. It clearly IS a big issue to him, hence his actions.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Of course it is.

Imagine if they decided to celebrate MLK day and he refused to partake in activities because of his beliefs.

No reasonably sane person wouldn't consider that racist.

Do I actually have to explain the difference here?

Will put a disclaimer before I do that I don’t agree with this and think it’s pretty shitty and stupid but so many of you are failing to look at this realistically from other points of view.

Being born as a person of colour is something you have absolutely no control over.
While you also have no control over who you are attracted to you have control over your actions.
The basic purpose of religion is to teach people how to behave and with a lot of stuff how to suppress urges and act in a way that that religion considers good.
With that as shitty as it is to most of us religions that are against homosexuality would essentially in most cases believe that it’s essentially a bad urge that needs to be suppressed and a sin to act on.

So in the simplest sense it’s not necessarily being gay that is against some religions but acting on it.

There’s a difference between not supporting a race and not supporting people living and acting in a certain way.
As I said it’s shitty and stupid but there is a huge difference and that isn’t a good comparison whatsoever.

 

[guitarguyvic]

What a load of bs. So you’re saying you can’t respect someone that does acts in a way you disagree with or in your words is sinful. I don’t think you need anyone to tell you that you can disagree with something someone does and still accept and respect them. How much so obviously varies with how badly you view what they do.

The event in question supports homosexuality. He says that goes against his beliefs. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t respect them or think they should still be included. He just doesn’t support how they live. He’s quite literally said the opposite of what you’re saying. And you’re just inferring some bs meaning onto his actions.

Let's drill down on this, because I see you're making a common mistake when it comes to discussing sexuality. And that is...you're framing it as a choice, when in fact it's not. "Acts in a way". "Something someone does". "What they do". "How they live".

Sexuality is not a choice. It's an innate trait.

Imagine saying "I think people who eat vegetables because they hate the taste of meat are living a sinful lifestyle and I don't agree with it and I think it morally wrong." That in itself is a morally indefensible position.

Then imagine you were asked to don a jersey that symbolizes that your organization accepts and welcomes vegetarians...but you refuse to wear said jersey. And you justify it by saying you have nothing against vegetarians, you just think what they do is wrong. Does that infer to you that this person really does respect vegetarians?

You don't see the moral contradiction there?

 

[Captain3rdLine]

yes it absolutely f***ing does lol its semantics.

if it was such a non-issue as you're making it out to be, he would have worn the jersey and kept his mouth shut. It clearly IS a big issue to him, hence his actions.

It’s clearly something he feels strongly about yes. That doesn’t mean I’m any sense that he hates or doesn’t respect gay people.

 

[Oneiro]

The Torts quote re: Kaepernick and the one about Provorov spells out the sheer hypocrisy within hockey and outside of it. Either way, as a business decision, the winds are moving in the opposite direction of the past. The asset transfer between millennials and boomers is happening and that's exactly how league policies are going to go with respect to political flare-ups.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

It’s clearly something he feels strongly about yes. That doesn’t mean I’m any sense that he hates or doesn’t respect gay people.

what else could it possibly mean?