It's when the person determined what the response was going to be by Jack, the Sabres organization, and others that came off as bitter.
Yes, I believe there was an attempt to shame Jack Eichel into supporting the issue the writer feels passionate about.
IMO, which doesn't mean much the article comes off (for lack of a better word) sort of emotional blackmail.
"Jack Eichel of the Buffalo Sabres is the latest in a growing string of professional athletes who have had anti-gay and homophobic tweets from their teenage years surface."
I'm sorry, does this writer actually know Jack Eichel is "Anti-gay"? Does he/she know in what context the word ***** is used in that text? To me, the writer is making a big leap declaring Jack Eichel as anti-gay and homophobic. What proof do they have other than one tweet?
There used to be a standard by which we judged someone. Standards like two or more witnesses, and supporting evidence such as a number of acts or actions of an individual that help prove he/she is guilty. One tweet?
Please prove to me that you know what was in Jacks' heart or in what context he used that one word.
I respect the individual for their passion to raise the level of consciousness on the issue at hand; however, I think it's irresponsible, and unprofessional to single out Jack Eichel over one tweet especially after admitting that he/she hadn't spoken to Jack.
I believe people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or sexual orientation.
I also believe people are innocent until proven guilty.
Please don't tell me that one tweet is the new standard for judging someone, possibly damaging their reputation, and in some cases ruining their career.
Libel - An untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.