WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
However, when did we as a society decide that children had to be beaten in the public square to the point that their whole life is ruined for a mistake they made at 13 or 14?
So I think there's a few things there. One, I think that if we're going to come to a reasonable understanding here it's best to speak plainly. Usually the word "mistake" connotates some sort of statement about a lack of intent. If I'm not paying attention to the road and I'm going too fast and I can't stop in time before I rear end the car in front of me, that's a mistake. I'm going too fast and I see a car in front of me and I speed up thinking "Let's see what ramming a car is like" that probably wouldn't be described as a "mistake" so much as a conscious choice.
But heck, that's semantics mainly. Let's remove the notion of intent from the word. The real problem is describing a period of harrassment as "a" mistake. It wasn't. It was a pattern of them. That demonstrate something real about someone's character.
So let's be clear and not minimize what he did and re-focus the question. When did we, as a society, decide that someone's whole life could be ruined for a series of really bad things they decided to do at 14? Now, genuinely, I think that's a fair question. I like to think most of us believe in redemption and rehabilitation and so on and so forth.
But that's when we get to the real crux of things. Is not getting to play in the NHL really akin to ruining someone's life? Don't people have decent lives without making the NHL, even if they really wanted to make it? With all due respect, I think that if we knew of someone who's dream of playing in the NHL was dashed because of something that was genuinely not their fault, a broken leg for instance, we would of course feel sympathy for that person if they were deeply upset but as soon as we went back to being rational we'd probably see that person saying "their life is ruined" as a result was probably being a little dramatic.
The NHL is the peak of the peak of the peak. A very small number of people get to play in it despite many, many people wanting to. We're comfortable every day with those dreams being dashed because a young player isn't as good a hockey player as the NHL demands but if a player is judged not a good enough person(again, based on a series of decisions they made) to be a good representative of the league to its paying customers...that's the terrible injustice society is perpetrating? That's when we become a vengeful mob?
I think if you look at it in that context I'm not sure there's a real argument here. Imagine if we look at the NHL as akin to a young student really wanting to go to Harvard or another prestigious Ivy League school. Well, then again, re-focus your question. When did we, as a society, decide that the actions of a young man maybe would preclude him from getting to go to his absolute #1 choice university if they were indicative of being a crummy person? Forever. Would we have a lot of sympathy for someone who said their life was ruined because they couldn't get into a fancy school? I'm guessing not, even if the young person in question was very bright and academically worthy of entry.
The hard cold realism of the NHL is that it's not just about pure talent. The NHL is in the entertainment business and, sure, part of that is putting the best possible team on the ice. But part of that is also listening to fans about the kinds of people they want to spend their money on watching and cheering. I really don't think it's akin to some sort of terrible sin for large groups of people to look at this guy and say "pass" on having him associated with their entertainment dollar when, as herman points out, there's really not a lot there to make us think he's changed in a significant way.
