Post-Game Talk: gamble

[tlk]

In an ideal world everyone would just do it. Live in an ideal world, we do not.

It's a reminder of why there's a Pride Night.

scratch the player who wasn't going to participate

Please stop.

 

[Machinehead]

Please stop.

No. We're not having this non-debate.

Go to the main boards where it's allowed and bump the Provorov thread if you're feeling expressive.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Please stop.

Grow up. Machine and I are discussing something. I wasn't aware we were asking for your input.

 

[Chytilmania]

8 days till the next game….

View attachment 643503

Argue about Pride jerseys.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

No. We're not having this non-debate.

Go to the main boards where it's allowed and bump the Provorov thread if you're feeling expressive.

Hah. Or Reddit.

 

[Leonardo87]

Argue about Pride jerseys.

Have been dealing with the Zegras and Stecher incident, so have been occupied. lol.

 

[TopShelfSnipes]

This tells me that somebody was going to pull a Provorov and the Rangers decided to avoid that disaster.

Hate to say it, but it's probably for the best. Could you imagine? In an ideal world everyone would just do it. Live in an ideal world, we do not.

It's a reminder of why there's a Pride Night. I understand freedom of expression and all that, but whether or not LGBTQ folks should have rights and feel safe shouldn't be a personal opinion.

I disagree with this because the issues are inherently made more complex and political than they have to by current events.

If this is just about allowing gay people to play sports, not discriminating against them, hockey players not chirping opponents by using the "F" word, I doubt there'd be a single person against it.

But right now, donning a rainbow anything has become a fraught political statement that indicates blanket support for an entire movement, which is not a monolith.

Case in point:
-Do you support puberty blockers, which have unknown health effects and have not been tested large scale to determine that they are safe, being given to children who are not of a legal age to consent?

-Do you support sex reassignment surgeries for minors?

-Do you believe that male and female are the only genders (regardless of whether or not you accept transgenderism?)

-Do you believe that biological males who have lived through several years of puberty, should be allowed to transition and join women's teams where they have significant physical advantages?

These are all fraught issues, with no clear solutions, with clear headed and rational people leading the debate on both sides, and we as a society do not have one answer on these questions, and we certainly don't know what's correct.

The bottom line is, like it or not, because of how political all of these issues have become, and how the rainbow has come to be seen as a symbol not just for gay rights but for all of these other movements as well, a player who is inclined to think deeply about how their support may be interpreted to be seen as support of something else, MAY come to the conclusion that not wearing the jersey is in keeping with their values.

You cannot support the freedom of expression of players who choose to opt out of visiting the White House (Braden Holtby) during the Trump years, or who kneel during the national anthem, and simultaneously believe that coercing the wearing of a jersey which is inherently tied to multiple movements that a player may or may not support, does not deny them the same expression. Invariably, in this day and age, someone opting out will lead to scrutiny and hate by "activists" so the team chose not to force the issue. They donated to the causes, they spotlighted the activists working for inclusion. But the bigger issue is how they chose to go about it by promising to do something and then reneging, but I don't think they should have been forcing players to wear anything other than a Rangers jersey in the first place.

BLM is a similar issue. Outside of actual racists, I doubt that you will find many people who don't believe Black lives should be valued equally to White lives. I doubt you'll find many people who think America has held up the Constitutional rights of Black Americans, and you'll probably find a plethora of suggestions and paths forward that would create greater equality - some of which are liberal in nature and others of which are conservative in nature, but all of which their proponents believe would advance Black equality. But I guarantee you if you told everyone that expressed support for the equal treatment of Black lives that they had to wear a BLM shirt with a raised fist out in public for one day, you would get a LOT of pushback because the movement is about many more things than that. The rainbow has similarly come to be complex, and the LGBTQ community is not a monolith that all thinks the same on LGBTQ issues - not the least of which is the inclusion of "Q" which many gay people still consider a slur.

I hope that this will force teams and the league to reconsider how they go about these promotions and do so in a tactful way that supports the specific issue at hand - inclusion of everyone in the game of hockey, rather than linking an issue to a broader political movement with many points of contention nearly all of which exist outside the game of hockey, and thinking that forcing players to wear a jersey or use special tape on their sticks is in anyway advancing the national discourse.

EDIT: Disregard if we're considering the issue out of bounds.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

delete

 

[Machinehead]

I disagree with this because the issues are inherently made more complex and political than they have to by current events.

If this is just about allowing gay people to play sports, not discriminating against them, hockey players not chirping opponents by using the "F" word, I doubt there'd be a single person against it.

But right now, donning a rainbow anything has become a fraught political statement that indicates blanket support for an entire movement, which is not a monolith.

Case in point:
-Do you support puberty blockers, which have unknown health effects and have not been tested large scale to determine that they are safe, being given to children who are not of a legal age to consent?

-Do you support sex reassignment surgeries for minors?

-Do you believe that male and female are the only genders (regardless of whether or not you accept transgenderism?)

-Do you believe that biological males who have lived through several years of puberty, should be allowed to transition and join women's teams where they have significant physical advantages?

These are all fraught issues, with no clear solutions, with clear headed and rational people leading the debate on both sides, and we as a society do not have one answer on these questions, and we certainly don't know what's correct.

The bottom line is, like it or not, because of how political all of these issues have become, and how the rainbow has come to be seen as a symbol not just for gay rights but for all of these other movements as well, a player who is inclined to think deeply about how their support may be interpreted to be seen as support of something else, MAY come to the conclusion that not wearing the jersey is in keeping with their values.

You cannot support the freedom of expression of players who choose to opt out of visiting the White House (Braden Holtby) during the Trump years, or who kneel during the national anthem, and simultaneously believe that coercing the wearing of a jersey which is inherently tied to multiple movements that a player may or may not support, does not deny them the same expression. Invariably, in this day and age, someone opting out will lead to scrutiny and hate by "activists" so the team chose not to force the issue. They donated to the causes, they spotlighted the activists working for inclusion. But the bigger issue is how they chose to go about it by promising to do something and then reneging, but I don't think they should have been forcing players to wear anything other than a Rangers jersey in the first place.

BLM is a similar issue. Outside of actual racists, I doubt that you will find many people who don't believe Black lives should be valued equally to White lives. I doubt you'll find many people who think America has held up the Constitutional rights of Black Americans, and you'll probably find a plethora of suggestions and paths forward that would create greater equality - some of which are liberal in nature and others of which are conservative in nature, but all of which their proponents believe would advance Black equality. But I guarantee you if you told everyone that expressed support for the equal treatment of Black lives that they had to wear a BLM shirt with a raised fist out in public for one day, you would get a LOT of pushback because the movement is about many more things than that. The rainbow has similarly come to be complex, and the LGBTQ community is not a monolith that all thinks the same on LGBTQ issues - not the least of which is the inclusion of "Q" which many gay people still consider a slur.

I hope that this will force teams and the league to reconsider how they go about these promotions and do so in a tactful way that supports the specific issue at hand - inclusion of everyone in the game of hockey, rather than linking an issue to a broader political movement with many points of contention nearly all of which exist outside the game of hockey, and thinking that forcing players to wear a jersey or use special tape on their sticks is in anyway advancing the national discourse.

EDIT: Disregard if we're considering the issue out of bounds.

All of this is way out of the bounds of what we're discussing.

The missions statement of the Pride movement is equal rights. There are still 31 states with barriers to gay marriage. There still has never been an openly gay athlete in the NHL, NBA, or MLB, with emphasis very much on "openly." That's not equality. That's all it's about.

LGBTQ people use this forum and I have a responsibility to the entire forum. Equality will have blanket support here and I'm not going to like, ask people what they think about it.

If we're going to discuss this, those are the expectations.

If we're going to discuss the issue of coercing players into doing things, which I suppose is legitimate, then let's talk about how they're fined if they don't appear in a suit in public. They're expected to be in team uniform. It's simple as that.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

All of this is way out of the bounds of what we're discussing.

The missions statement of the Pride movement is equal rights. There are still 31 states with barriers to gay marriage. There still has never been an openly gay athlete in the NHL, NBA, or MLB, with emphasis very much on "openly." That's not equality. That's all it's about.

LGBTQ people use this forum and I have a responsibility to the entire forum. Equality will have blanket support here and I'm not going to like, ask people what they think about it.

If we're going to discuss this, those are the expectations.

If we're going to discuss the issue of coercing players into doing things, which I suppose is legitimate, then let's talk about how they're fined if they don't appear in a suit in public. They're expected to be in team uniform. It's simple as that.

As a cis-het white male, the bold there really makes me happy and I am hopefully that HFB will fully embrace this as I think there has been some hesitancy in the past (you know what I mean - we don't need to go deeper than that obviously).

If we limit this to equality, which is precisely what we should do, we also eliminate all of the bullshit noise surrounding it.

So, well done and well said.

 

[Larrybiv]

I thought it was basically a draw too. I didn't know Cuylle could throw them like that. I could see him as a physical 3rd line guy in a year or 2.

That was the "big picture" plan, right? Get a bit tougher to play against. The talent is there as we know, but this is why we added Sammy, what a shame. Cuylle would be a nice add, if he can score a few now and again. We need that type, but need them to be all around tough, if you know what I mean.

 

[will1066]

That was the "big picture" plan, right? Get a bit tougher to play against. The talent is there as we know, but this is why we added Sammy, what a shame. Cuylle would be a nice add, if he can score a few now and again. We need that type, but need them to be all around tough, if you know what I mean.

Cullye and Othmann will be two peas in a pod when they're both here and help continue to steer the roster away from soft.

 

[TopShelfSnipes]

All of this is way out of the bounds of what we're discussing.

The missions statement of the Pride movement is equal rights. There are still 31 states with barriers to gay marriage. There still has never been an openly gay athlete in the NHL, NBA, or MLB, with emphasis very much on "openly." That's not equality. That's all it's about.

LGBTQ people use this forum and I have a responsibility to the entire forum. Equality will have blanket support here and I'm not going to like, ask people what they think about it.

If we're going to discuss this, those are the expectations.

If we're going to discuss the issue of coercing players into doing things, which I suppose is legitimate, then let's talk about how they're fined if they don't appear in a suit in public. They're expected to be in team uniform. It's simple as that.

Well, this will be my last post on the subject, if only to state that I am not saying anything to the contrary. And if the goal is equality, the following:

Take Ivan Provorov, for example. At some point in his life, he's probably had a gay teammate. Just statistically. Did he create a hostile environment for that player? Did he lobby coaches for that player to be kicked off the team or not play? These are the things that matter, and if he did any of those he should be punished. I'm going to assume he hasn't, because I haven't heard anything to the contrary, as in this day and age these things tend to come out (look at Akim Aliu's situation, for example).

Meanwhile, look at Sean Avery. In retirement, he supported numerous gay rights organizations after his playing career ended, yet during his playing career was one of the worst offenders for using the "F" word to chirp opponents.

So who's the better ally? The one that shuts his mouth, plays the game, seems to treat everybody pretty fairly, but won't wear a jersey that he considers to be a political statement he disagrees with? Or the guy that's an activist, but spent most of his playing career indiscriminately calling opponents the worst slur a gay person can hear?

The problem is the notion of tolerance has become distorted. Tolerance, loosely defined, is your ability to allow someone else to do something that you disagree with without protest. These days, tolerance and affirmation have been confused. Provorov playing with a gay teammate, becoming friends with him, while not condoning the lifestyle, would fit that category hypothetically. People can be friends and teammates without endorsing everything about the other person's lifestyle. Unrelated...I'm happily married and have friends who think marriage is BS...doesn't stop us from being friends even though I disagree with their perpetually single lifestyle.

The Flyers had an opportunity to have Pride night, to donate to charities, to have PA announcements supporting the cause, and to celebrate people who are working for inclusion. But because of what Provorov believes to be coerced speech in wearing a jersey, just as football players who are made to stand for the anthem despite their beliefs America is not living up to its ideal of equality, he pushed back. And that has now created a circus that has gay people who support hockey feel that things are moving backwards. All over an avoidable situation that could have seen the team voice support for the cause in a more tactful way. The Rangers were about to do the same thing, but upon seeing the potential for similar blowback, reneged at the last minute, but still held the event and supported the cause, which caused different blowback.

I mean, seriously. If you feel these jerseys had to be worn and rainbow tape used:
-Should athletes be forced to stand at attention for the national anthem (or both when a Canadian team is involved)?
-Should a player who has law enforcement in his family be forced to wear a BLM themed jersey because of a promotion?
-Is it OK for the team to force players to wear BLM jerseys on the day they give out the Steven McDonald extra effort award, with Steven's son in attendance?

IMO, these are all situations where the team can send a message without coercing something that can be perceived as speech from the players. Just my (final) 2c.

 

[Larrybiv]

What cup did they win? I'm sry was the goal to barely make an ecf once or twice?

It is too bad they did that i think bc it pissed away multiple runs for one or two half ass runs. Like last year where we barely made it to the ecf off pure insane injury luck. Which is why it died as soon as we faced tb.

You can keep hoping they didn't blow it completely, I'm not going to crap on you being hopeful if u don't crap on me pointing out the things they screwed up

While I don't agree with you about sending "everybody" out with huge contracts, I do agree that they made a huge mistake in what seems to be "rushing things". I didn't think Panarin would ever donn a Rangers jersey, and was BLOWN AWAY WHEN THAT HAPPENED. Just didn't seem to make sense. We were all thrilled to get him, but we really changed lanes on I-95, by getting him and Trouba. Not the players that hurt, but those huge contracts (ain't I the master of the obvious).
I look at it as "It is what it is". We've all enjoyed the last 2 years, correct? No, just getting to the ECF isn't "good enough", but it surely beats the hell out of 20 blind guys, leading the blind. It cannot be that way, and we still have a nice upcoming crop that should really mesh well, in what they are trying to do.
Panarin and Trouba will be gone, in due time. Now, is not the time. We have some winning to do.

 

[Machinehead]

Well, this will be my last post on the subject, if only to state that I am not saying anything to the contrary. And if the goal is equality, the following:

Take Ivan Provorov, for example. At some point in his life, he's probably had a gay teammate. Just statistically. Did he create a hostile environment for that player? Did he lobby coaches for that player to be kicked off the team or not play? These are the things that matter, and if he did any of those he should be punished. I'm going to assume he hasn't, because I haven't heard anything to the contrary, as in this day and age these things tend to come out (look at Akim Aliu's situation, for example).

Meanwhile, look at Sean Avery. In retirement, he supported numerous gay rights organizations after his playing career ended, yet during his playing career was one of the worst offenders for using the "F" word to chirp opponents.

So who's the better ally? The one that shuts his mouth, plays the game, seems to treat everybody pretty fairly, but won't wear a jersey that he considers to be a political statement he disagrees with? Or the guy that's an activist, but spent most of his playing career indiscriminately calling opponents the worst slur a gay person can hear?

The problem is the notion of tolerance has become distorted. Tolerance, loosely defined, is your ability to allow someone else to do something that you disagree with without protest. These days, tolerance and affirmation have been confused. Provorov playing with a gay teammate, becoming friends with him, while not condoning the lifestyle, would fit that category hypothetically. People can be friends and teammates without endorsing everything about the other person's lifestyle. Unrelated...I'm happily married and have friends who think marriage is BS...doesn't stop us from being friends even though I disagree with their perpetually single lifestyle.

The Flyers had an opportunity to have Pride night, to donate to charities, to have PA announcements supporting the cause, and to celebrate people who are working for inclusion. But because of what Provorov believes to be coerced speech in wearing a jersey, just as football players who are made to stand for the anthem despite their beliefs America is not living up to its ideal of equality, he pushed back. And that has now created a circus that has gay people who support hockey feel that things are moving backwards. All over an avoidable situation that could have seen the team voice support for the cause in a more tactful way.

I mean, seriously. If you feel these jerseys had to be worn and rainbow tape used:
-Should athletes be forced to stand at attention for the national anthem (or both when a Canadian team is involved)?
-Should a player who has law enforcement in his family be forced to wear a BLM themed jersey because of a promotion?
-Is it OK for the team to force players to wear BLM jerseys on the day they give out the Steven McDonald extra effort award, with Steven's son in attendance?

IMO, these are all situations where the team can send a message without coercing something that can be perceived as speech from the players. Just my (final) 2c.

It's estimated that about 1 in 20 people are gay. The Flyers have *checks notes* 23 people on the roster, so you know, statistically...

If you're outspoken about not participating because you don't "condone" it, then to me, that constitutes a hostile environment.

"I like you, but I don't believe in people being like you" is not un-hostile and we should stop pretending it is.

 

[DialUp]

In retirement, he supported numerous gay rights organizations after his playing career ended, yet during his playing career was one of the worst offenders for using the "F" word to chirp opponents.

You sure about that? Avery was probably the first to openly support the equality aspect of it and was openly disgusted when Simmonds chirped him years ago with the F-word with no retribution. So maybe I am wrong, but Avery had his limits, right or wrong.

Now, with that said, Avery's current take on this situation is pretty low-IQ (to me), unsurprisingly, since I doubt his IQ is very high. His view (and his general worldview) on the Provolov situation doesn't hold too much water with me.

But, there are a lot of assumptions being made about Provolov here that is quite worthless to the conversation. If you have been in a locker room on any level before say, mid 2010's, I think you might have known the kind of talk that goes on in there.

 

[Greg02]

I thought that The Athletic article made a good point– if players believe that it'd put their family at risk that's a reasonable objection.

Otherwise can't help but feel like they're being a baby.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

We're now scratching players for not wearing a particular jersey in practice?

 

[Fitzy]

There's obviously a big difference between social sanctions (shaming) for people who make choices we disagree with and actively looking to harm others for disagreeing with us.

All this is pretty much a non-issue. There have been social and political disagreements since the beginning of civilization. 200 years from now people will probably be looking back at us and judging the shit out of our moral values the way we do to slave owners today.

Does it matter? Yes. Is it worth arguing over a hockey forum? Not at all

 

[Megustaelhockey]

I just want my team to support me the way I support them, not try to duck a PR nightmare and create a new one in the process.

 

[Machinehead]

We're now scratching players for not wearing a particular jersey in practice?

Yes. Being in uniform is one of the most basic expectations in the workplace. Regardless if how you stand on the issue, I don't get the shock and awe over that expectation.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Yes. Being in uniform is one of the most basic expectations in the workplace. Regardless if how you stand on the issue, I don't get the shock and awe over that expectation.

My thoughts on the issue is that whenever a corporation does something like this it's 90% of the time performative. So I don't really see the outrage. This is true tenfold for the NHL. The NHL is made up of upper middle class and upper class white people from the sticks who mostly don't give a shit about social issues. Pride night is not some social justice cause it's a stodgy league trying to be relevant with young people in big cities. When the George Floyd killing happened it was painful watching the league pretend like they are cutting edge on social justice. I'm trying to keep this as politics free as possible. I just don't believe the Rangers or the NHL ACTUALLY care about these issues.

 

[Machinehead]

My thoughts on the issue is that whenever a corporation does something like this it's 90% of the time performative. So I don't really see the outrage. This is true tenfold for the NHL. The NHL is made up for upper middle class and upper class white people from the sticks who mostly don't give a shit about social issues. Pride night is not some social justice cause it's a stodgy league trying to be relevant with young people in big cities. When the George Floyd killing happened it was painful watching the league pretend like they are cutting edge on social justice. I'm trying to keep this as politics free as possible. I just don't believe the Rangers or the NHL ACTUALLY care about these issues.

I mean, I don't disagree with any of this.

The NHL wants to pretend they're for social justice while doing NOTHING about the literal r**** in Chicago, turning a blind eye to racial abuse, and partaking in the worst example of wage suppression in professional sports.

The thing is, I'll bet you anything that nobody refusing to wear the jersey is refusing because the NHL isn't doing enough.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I mean, I don't disagree with any of this.

The NHL wants to pretend they're for social justice while doing NOTHING about the literal r**** in Chicago, turning a blind eye to racial abuse, and partaking in the worst example of wage suppression in professional sports.

The thing is, I'll bet you anything that nobody refusing to wear the jersey is refusing because the NHL isn't doing enough.

Honestly, that last part is fair. But I don't know if it's the NHL's job to legislate politics or morals or what have you.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

My thoughts on the issue is that whenever a corporation does something like this it's 90% of the time performative. So I don't really see the outrage. This is true tenfold for the NHL. The NHL is made up of upper middle class and upper class white people from the sticks who mostly don't give a shit about social issues. Pride night is not some social justice cause it's a stodgy league trying to be relevant with young people in big cities. When the George Floyd killing happened it was painful watching the league pretend like they are cutting edge on social justice. I'm trying to keep this as politics free as possible. I just don't believe the Rangers or the NHL ACTUALLY care about these issues.

This actually isn't off base. But we should care more about the idea of equality than the idea that this is more of a virtue signal. If this type of thing grows the game and makes fans feel comfortable, it's worth it.

I don't think that many people are under the illusion that the league or other corporations that do similar things are motivated truly by doing good.