2021-2022 NHL Thread

[groundskeeper willie]

For what it's worth, I think my central point has been less "That's on you, dumbass" and more "that doesn't really happen and that offending people 'by accident' is usually just an excuse used by people who offended people carelessly"

I don't know if this confirms or denies your statement but I can give an example from my personal life that might have resulted in this.

I think by now most people know the "traditional" name for the Romani or Roma people is considered inappropriate. Despite knowing this, for the longest time, I didn't make the connection between that term and the shortened form used in the common saying to refer to somebody who got the short end of a deal. That was just a saying I'd heard people use my entire life and never thought to question the origins of it. Where this saying falls on the scale of inappropriate and insulting things I don't know. I don't think I've ever met somebody of Romani origin, but I could have easily said it in front of somebody who would've taken offense to it.

Maybe I should have been aware of it, but I wasn't then, despite making sure I no longer use it. And I'm not trying to use my ignorance as an excuse, but it makes me concerned that there are more terms like this that I still say out of ignorance.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't know what to tell you man. I've had conversations with female co-workers that would make a dockworker blush.

Well maybe that is on me.  Like I said, I am socially inept.  Or maybe it's because I work in a field that has a stigma of being toxic for females to work in.

I was paraphrasing a bit to keep the piece short, and maybe add some levity, that's where the dumbass comment came from.

Anyways, you are right on the fact that this has diverged from a hockey perspective, so maybe it should be wrapped up.  I can move on.

 

[Kin]

I don't know if this confirms or denies your statement but I can give an example from my personal life that might have resulted in this.

I think by now most people know the "traditional" name for the Romani or Roma people is considered inappropriate. Despite knowing this, for the longest time, I didn't make the connection between that term and the shortened form used in the common saying to refer to somebody who got the short end of a deal. That was just a saying I'd heard people use my entire life and never thought to question the origins of it. Where this saying falls on the scale of inappropriate and insulting things I don't know. I don't think I've ever met somebody of Romani origin, but I could have easily said it in front of somebody who would've taken offense to it.

Right but you see how your story isn't about an actual person who felt offended by a loaded historical term used without malice but rather about how you used to use a term that potentially could have offended someone? That's the distinction I'm sort of trying to get across. I think it's great that you want to be more considerate of the feelings of other people but the suggestion that we're living in a verbal minefield where one wrong innocent step results in "How dare you say that to me!?! Don't you know that term sounds similar to one that was used in the 13th century about people from the particular region of Poland my family is from?!? I'm going to HR!" thing doesn't really hold true in any actual cases involving real people.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't know if this confirms or denies your statement but I can give an example from my personal life that might have resulted in this.

I think by now most people know the "traditional" name for the Romani or Roma people is considered inappropriate. Despite knowing this, for the longest time, I didn't make the connection between that term and the shortened form used in the common saying to refer to somebody who got the short end of a deal. That was just a saying I'd heard people use my entire life and never thought to question the origins of it. Where this saying falls on the scale of inappropriate and insulting things I don't know. I don't think I've ever met somebody of Romani origin, but I could have easily said it in front of somebody who would've taken offense to it.

Right but you see how your story isn't about an actual person who felt offended by a loaded historical term used without malice but rather about how you used to use a term that potentially could have offended someone? That's the distinction I'm sort of trying to get across. I think it's great that you want to be more considerate of the feelings of other people but the suggestion that we're living in a verbal minefield where one wrong innocent step results in "How dare you say that to me!?! Don't you know that term sounds similar to one that was used in the 13th century about people from the particular region of Poland my family is from?!? I'm going to HR!" thing doesn't really hold true in any actual cases involving real people.

I'm just glad you responded to this, because I said I was going to move on just as Groundskeeper Willie shares this secret from his past and I was kinda worried that he would think that everybody now hated him.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I've been watching this conversation, and like Willie, I do appreciate that everyone has been quite civil in this discussion.
I do care what happens to Jacob as a person, but unfortunately, it's up to him to know what he can and can't do. Ignorance isn't ever an excuse.

Much like the challenges of the indigenous in Canada and around the world, they will educate us, but we have to actually listen. They've been trying to, but we only choose to listen when we are caught doing something offensive. That's not good enough.

In regards to race and sex, we of privilege are guilty of reacting when we caught, as opposed to being proactive. There's way to educate yourself. Read a book. Listen to a podcast. Talk to your neighbour.

 

[princedpw]

https://twitter.com/grumblingspod/status/1487158900570955782?s=20&t=cJOD3yT2lXywdLNkgG7zpg

Is this satire?

 

[Joe S.]

https://twitter.com/grumblingspod/status/1487158900570955782?s=20&t=cJOD3yT2lXywdLNkgG7zpg

Is this satire?

Yes.

 

[Bullfrog]

I've been following along with this conversation and, while trying not to butt in, I'd just like to say how refreshing it is to see such a civil discourse on the subject. This kind of extremely sensitive topic usually causes explosions on the internet and it is so rare to see it handled so well by everybody on both sides. Kudos to everybody for keeping your emotions in check!

I want to echo what you've said here, except for one little quibble: there aren't two sides. That's partly why internet discussions often explode: there's a divide between us and them, their view/my view, etc. There's a reluctance to admit ignorance, or that someone knows more than you on a subject. Not to mention the numerous logical fallacies and biases that are prevalent and go unchecked or challenged.

People can disagree on a point and be civil. We all have biases, and we need to start becoming comfortable with that and comfortable with acknowledging it.

In a somewhat related story to IS, I took bias training where we did Hardvard's bias examination (can't remember what it's called.) EVERYONE was uncomfortable with their own results.

 

[groundskeeper willie]

I don't know if this confirms or denies your statement but I can give an example from my personal life that might have resulted in this.

I think by now most people know the "traditional" name for the Romani or Roma people is considered inappropriate. Despite knowing this, for the longest time, I didn't make the connection between that term and the shortened form used in the common saying to refer to somebody who got the short end of a deal. That was just a saying I'd heard people use my entire life and never thought to question the origins of it. Where this saying falls on the scale of inappropriate and insulting things I don't know. I don't think I've ever met somebody of Romani origin, but I could have easily said it in front of somebody who would've taken offense to it.

Right but you see how your story isn't about an actual person who felt offended by a loaded historical term used without malice but rather about how you used to use a term that potentially could have offended someone? That's the distinction I'm sort of trying to get across. I think it's great that you want to be more considerate of the feelings of other people but the suggestion that we're living in a verbal minefield where one wrong innocent step results in "How dare you say that to me!?! Don't you know that term sounds similar to one that was used in the 13th century about people from the particular region of Poland my family is from?!? I'm going to HR!" thing doesn't really hold true in any actual cases involving real people.

Sure, but that's the fear of many average people. That fear is what drives many of these discussions to devolve into sides that are both entrenched in their views of the other side being an enemy.

I'm a cautious person by nature so I tip toward the side that goes overboard trying to avoid offending people, just like SI's comment about avoiding complimenting a female co-worker's new clothes. But there are lots of average people who tip slightly the other way and suddenly they are now lumped in with the extremists and preventing society from moving forward and improving on the topic.

I'm hesitant to use this analogy, but it's a little like drunk driving. The punishments for doing it are harsh and they have to be harsh. From personal experience I am glad they are harsh, because there is a certain extremist part of society that just doesn't get it. But they are also harsh on the person who had one too many, legitimately thought they were fine only to blow over at a random check ride. That person thought they were good but still did something wrong, but without access to the proper tools to test themselves before hand how were they supposed to know? I react to that by only having one or two if I know I'm driving, but lots of others think they're good and then get punished the same as the extremists.

It's the (maybe irrational) fear of excessive punishment that pushes a lot moderates onto the side of the extremists and makes the extremists stronger and prevents society from moving forward.

 

[groundskeeper willie]

I don't know if this confirms or denies your statement but I can give an example from my personal life that might have resulted in this.

I think by now most people know the "traditional" name for the Romani or Roma people is considered inappropriate. Despite knowing this, for the longest time, I didn't make the connection between that term and the shortened form used in the common saying to refer to somebody who got the short end of a deal. That was just a saying I'd heard people use my entire life and never thought to question the origins of it. Where this saying falls on the scale of inappropriate and insulting things I don't know. I don't think I've ever met somebody of Romani origin, but I could have easily said it in front of somebody who would've taken offense to it.

Right but you see how your story isn't about an actual person who felt offended by a loaded historical term used without malice but rather about how you used to use a term that potentially could have offended someone? That's the distinction I'm sort of trying to get across. I think it's great that you want to be more considerate of the feelings of other people but the suggestion that we're living in a verbal minefield where one wrong innocent step results in "How dare you say that to me!?! Don't you know that term sounds similar to one that was used in the 13th century about people from the particular region of Poland my family is from?!? I'm going to HR!" thing doesn't really hold true in any actual cases involving real people.

I'm just glad you responded to this, because I said I was going to move on just as Groundskeeper Willie shares this secret from his past and I was kinda worried that he would think that everybody now hated him.

No worries! Sorry for jumping in late and extending a conversation that maybe should have naturally ended already.

 

[groundskeeper willie]

I've been following along with this conversation and, while trying not to butt in, I'd just like to say how refreshing it is to see such a civil discourse on the subject. This kind of extremely sensitive topic usually causes explosions on the internet and it is so rare to see it handled so well by everybody on both sides. Kudos to everybody for keeping your emotions in check!

I want to echo what you've said here, except for one little quibble: there aren't two sides. That's partly why internet discussions often explode: there's a divide between us and them, their view/my view, etc. There's a reluctance to admit ignorance, or that someone knows more than you on a subject. Not to mention the numerous logical fallacies and biases that are prevalent and go unchecked or challenged.

People can disagree on a point and be civil. We all have biases, and we need to start becoming comfortable with that and comfortable with acknowledging it.

In a somewhat related story to IS, I took bias training where we did Hardvard's bias examination (can't remember what it's called.) EVERYONE was uncomfortable with their own results.

Saying there are two sides was probably an oversimplification. There's a spectrum of opinions and all those opinions have calmly listened to the other opinions without getting defensive. In the age of the internet that is exceptionally rare and I just wanted to highlight how nice it was to not have extremists taking over.

 

[Kin]

Sure, but that's the fear of many average people. That fear is what drives many of these discussions to devolve into sides that are both entrenched in their views of the other side being an enemy.

Ok but I really don't know to what extent the fears people have of something that doesn't happen should play into a mature discussion of the subject.

I'm hesitant to use this analogy, but it's a little like drunk driving. The punishments for doing it are harsh and they have to be harsh. From personal experience I am glad they are harsh, because there is a certain extremist part of society that just doesn't get it. But they are also harsh on the person who had one too many, legitimately thought they were fine only to blow over at a random check ride. That person thought they were good but still did something wrong, but without access to the proper tools to test themselves before hand how were they supposed to know? I react to that by only having one or two if I know I'm driving, but lots of others think they're good and then get punished the same as the extremists.

Except that in no way shape or form resembles what our drunk driving laws are. Our drunk driving laws very much factor things in like "Is this a first offense" and "How serious a transgression was it?" to the point that the people who commit multiple violations are punished more harshly than someone who blows a .09 after a Christmas party and a person who smashes his car into another and kills people gets a harsher sentence than someone who just gets pulled over by the police because they were swerving a little. In fact, our drunk driving laws are a perfect reflection of how context is very much taken into question and an important factor when sentencing for the offense is decided and while there are minimums, they're not actually that harsh, especially for first offenses. 

So, in a way, it's a good metaphor because just like what we're talking about, the idea of wild overreactions to innocuous missteps don't exist in either scenario. Nobody is doing 30 years to life because they had two beers before driving home and ran a red.

It's the (maybe irrational) fear of excessive punishment that pushes a lot moderates onto the side of the extremists and makes the extremists stronger and prevents society from moving forward.

If I told you that I was going to drink as much as I wanted without any regard for the drunk driving laws(or whatever the "Extremists" do in your analogy) because of how harsh the drunk driving laws were would you think there was something wrong with society and how we treat the offense of drunk driving or would you think there was something deeply wrong with me?

I get that there are a lot of people out there whose worldviews are shaped by bad information. I'm reminded often of the court case where McDonald's was sued over the temperature of their coffee and it was soon forwarded in emails from Uncles everywhere about "What is the world coming to? Newsflash Coffee is Hot!" when in fact it was a very legitimate lawsuit where McDonald's was serving coffee over the legal temperature, had been warned multiple times, a woman suffered severe burns as a result and the high damages were because McDonald's is a big corporation that wouldn't feel a smaller award. I appreciate that we live in a world where many grifters want to turn our society into a 24/7 culture war but the idea that we live in a world where people are routinely tarred and feathered for saying "Gosh Carol, what a nice hat" to a co-worker...it just doesn't exist so I really don't know why we should be talking it in this situation like it's a real concern.

We've gone very far afield now but again I come back to just the truth that what you're describing bears very little resemblance to the world I see. I don't see hair triggers where one minor misstep results in excessively harsh punishments. I tend to see the opposite where many, many missteps tend to be met with a slap on the wrist and the anger people see is cumulative where we see the results of the proverbial straw breaking a back and a segment of the hockey world saying "But how could a straw break a back? It's so light."

This wasn't Jordan Subban's first experience with racial abuse. Ask any minority hockey player about this issue and they'll say it. They've been saying so for years. It's why the NHL felt the need to establish their diversity committee. And, quite frankly, I think it shows just how protected people have been from this in the past that basically any serious consequences whatsoever is met from some quarters with "Woah, woah, woah, have we gone too far?".

 

[rdowdall]

Sure, but that's the fear of many average people. That fear is what drives many of these discussions to devolve into sides that are both entrenched in their views of the other side being an enemy.

Ok but I really don't know to what extent the fears people have of something that doesn't happen should play into a mature discussion of the subject.

I'm hesitant to use this analogy, but it's a little like drunk driving. The punishments for doing it are harsh and they have to be harsh. From personal experience I am glad they are harsh, because there is a certain extremist part of society that just doesn't get it. But they are also harsh on the person who had one too many, legitimately thought they were fine only to blow over at a random check ride. That person thought they were good but still did something wrong, but without access to the proper tools to test themselves before hand how were they supposed to know? I react to that by only having one or two if I know I'm driving, but lots of others think they're good and then get punished the same as the extremists.

Except that in no way shape or form resembles what our drunk driving laws are. Our drunk driving laws very much factor things in like "Is this a first offense" and "How serious a transgression was it?" to the point that the people who commit multiple violations are punished more harshly than someone who blows a .09 after a Christmas party and a person who smashes his car into another and kills people gets a harsher sentence than someone who just gets pulled over by the police because they were swerving a little. In fact, our drunk driving laws are a perfect reflection of how context is very much taken into question and an important factor when sentencing for the offense is decided and while there are minimums, they're not actually that harsh, especially for first offenses. 

So, in a way, it's a good metaphor because just like what we're talking about, the idea of wild overreactions to innocuous missteps don't exist in either scenario. Nobody is doing 30 years to life because they had two beers before driving home and ran a red.

It's the (maybe irrational) fear of excessive punishment that pushes a lot moderates onto the side of the extremists and makes the extremists stronger and prevents society from moving forward.

If I told you that I was going to drink as much as I wanted without any regard for the drunk driving laws(or whatever the "Extremists" do in your analogy) because of how harsh the drunk driving laws were would you think there was something wrong with society and how we treat the offense of drunk driving or would you think there was something deeply wrong with me?

I get that there are a lot of people out there whose worldviews are shaped by bad information. I'm reminded often of the court case where McDonald's was sued over the temperature of their coffee and it was soon forwarded in emails from Uncles everywhere about "What is the world coming to? Newsflash Coffee is Hot!" when in fact it was a very legitimate lawsuit where McDonald's was serving coffee over the legal temperature, had been warned multiple times, a woman suffered severe burns as a result and the high damages were because McDonald's is a big corporation that wouldn't feel a smaller award. I appreciate that we live in a world where many grifters want to turn our society into a 24/7 culture war but the idea that we live in a world where people are routinely tarred and feathered for saying "Gosh Carol, what a nice hat" to a co-worker...it just doesn't exist so I really don't know why we should be talking it in this situation like it's a real concern.

We've gone very far afield now but again I come back to just the truth that what you're describing bears very little resemblance to the world I see. I don't see hair triggers where one minor misstep results in excessively harsh punishments. I tend to see the opposite where many, many missteps tend to be met with a slap on the wrist and the anger people see is cumulative where we see the results of the proverbial straw breaking a back and a segment of the hockey world saying "But how could a straw break a back? It's so light."

This wasn't Jordan Subban's first experience with racial abuse. Ask any minority hockey player about this issue and they'll say it. They've been saying so for years. It's why the NHL felt the need to establish their diversity committee. And, quite frankly, I think it shows just how protected people have been from this in the past that basically any serious consequences whatsoever is met from some quarters with "Woah, woah, woah, have we gone too far?".

I know that I said I was going to move on.  In reading that post Nik, it has a frustrated tone to it, so I just wanted to jump back in and say that I took this conversation way out into left field.  I understand what you are saying Nik, and that you have had to say it over and over again which I think is leading to your frustration. 

I have been caught in a fairly negative news cycle.  You are 100% correct in that I have lead a sheltered life when it comes to these sorts of social problems.  When stuff started coming to light a couple of years ago, it shocked me on how little I knew, and just how bad things were.  And I am still shocked.  In the last month I have been exposed to:

- A tik tok where an African American UPS driver is crying on screen because he took to long a stop sign, and an angry driver spit on him.
- A video of two girls who were terrorized by these two guys who wouldn't stop trying to ask them out, and then when they were told no they started insulting the girls.
- My friends 13 year old daughter and her friends being followed home from a Tim Hortons and continually being propositioned by older boys.
- Reading a particularly discouraging reddit channel that was comprised of female workers at grocery stores and best buys in which they talked about how they "dressed ugly" when they go to work to prevent getting hit on incessantly.
- One of sons school friends getting called the n-word.
- A story from one of my female co-workers who was explaining how one of her other female co-workers had to endure the manager constantly ranking her lip stick on a "sexiness scale" in a creepy fashion for over a year  at a coffee shop job they had when they were younger.

Then this Panetta thing.

And I am sure there is so much more.

Things feel bad for me right now.  I'm shocked at how bad the world is for some people.  I'll say it again, I am really misinformed, and I guess that misinformed-ness has really rocked my confidence on how well I really see the world.  That lack of confidence in my judgment is what lead this conversation down this path. 

Anyways, as everyone has said you move forward with:
- Check you biases
- Get informed
- Be self-aware
- Communicate
- Support where you can

And that's what you do.

Anyways, lets get out of this rabbit hole and go watch some hockey tonight, as this isn't the right forum to discuss this. 

 

[Kin]

I know that I said I was going to move on.  In reading that post Nik, it has a frustrated tone to it, so I just wanted to jump back in and say that I took this conversation way out into left field.  I understand what you are saying Nik, and that you have had to say it over and over again which I think is leading to your frustration. 

I swear I'm not trying to be argumentative but for what it's worth:

A) I don't feel especially frustrated.
B) Despite the fact that there are obviously tensions in society, I actually think we're in a much better place when it comes to talking about our differences than we've ever been and that things will only improve.
C) I actually think it's very good that we sometimes use this board to talk about issues around the game.

 

[rdowdall]

I know that I said I was going to move on.  In reading that post Nik, it has a frustrated tone to it, so I just wanted to jump back in and say that I took this conversation way out into left field.  I understand what you are saying Nik, and that you have had to say it over and over again which I think is leading to your frustration. 

I swear I'm not trying to be argumentative but for what it's worth:

A) I don't feel especially frustrated.
B) Despite the fact that there are obviously tensions in society, I actually think we're in a much better place when it comes to talking about our differences than we've ever been and that things will only improve.
C) I actually think it's very good that we sometimes use this board to talk about issues around the game.

Alright, but if there are any hurt feelings because of the shout outs to Herman, I want you to know:

-This conversation couldn't have happened without you.
- I think that you are also nice.

 

[L K]

I?m really enjoying the discussion here.

It?s amusing seeing the contrast of the Sportsnet/HNIC fawning over the debut of Evander Kane in Edmonton.  Not trying to equate the two issues but just a good reminder that ?it doesn?t matter if you play hockey well? is one of the biggest barriers to making positive change in the game

 

[groundskeeper willie]

We've gone very far afield now but again I come back to just the truth that what you're describing bears very little resemblance to the world I see. I don't see hair triggers where one minor misstep results in excessively harsh punishments. I tend to see the opposite where many, many missteps tend to be met with a slap on the wrist and the anger people see is cumulative where we see the results of the proverbial straw breaking a back and a segment of the hockey world saying "But how could a straw break a back? It's so light."

This wasn't Jordan Subban's first experience with racial abuse. Ask any minority hockey player about this issue and they'll say it. They've been saying so for years. It's why the NHL felt the need to establish their diversity committee. And, quite frankly, I think it shows just how protected people have been from this in the past that basically any serious consequences whatsoever is met from some quarters with "Woah, woah, woah, have we gone too far?".

You may very well be right on all of it Nik. I wasn't trying to defend people who think that way but rather try to explain why they think that way and what it'll take to get them to stop instinctively getting defensive and forcing them onto the side of the people who are really causing the problems.

Either way it's probably best to leave the discussion where it is now.

 

[L K]

Colorado just finished January by going 15-0-1

 

[Zee]

Colorado just finished January by going 15-0-1

Leafs are going 15-0-1 in May/June

 

[bustaheims]

Colorado just finished January by going 15-0-1

Peaking in January does feel like a very Colorado thing to do.