LTS

Over/Under on the number of players who get injuries that put them out week to week?

Meh... instinct might be the wrong word but I know what you are getting at. Example below. A young female walks down a mostly deserted street in a nations capital, 6 hours after darkness falls. She has earbuds in and is staring at her phone. Is this naive? In the United States, one might think so. However, when I was in Stockholm I saw this in reality. There was a street, the only person I could see on it was me and this woman walking toward me. She did not even look up. I don't think is naive but a testament to the difference of crime rates and social experiences. Similarly I navigated the Stockholm public transit system at 2:30am without even remotely feeling in danger. I would think many times over doing that in most cities. It's not so much the instinct but the educated understanding that things work differently here. The situation is pretty much identical except for the society it happens in. We learn to fear things because we live in a culture that supports the behaviors we need to fear. In small towns in the United States people don't lock their doors. They don't fear having their house broken into. Common sense does come from life experience. Life experience is highly different for people. Your experience tells you to always distrust others. It does not mean it's the correct behavior. For the number of people you "don't trust to value life" how many of them actually don't? There's no way to tell of course. But, you can play the odds by assuming others don't and so this lowers your native trust.. We see the news and hear about how many interactions between people end up in murder. What we don't put into scope is the number of interactions between people that day that did NOT end in murder. We focus on the negative, and without context it drives our perception.

The lack of an opposing viewpoint in this thread is noticeable. Is there any support for the actions of the Democrats here?

Generally, no. However, as a society we've built into our nature to focus on the negatives. Why do people like gladiator events? It's not for the charming kick-lines. We love violence. We crave it. As long as that's true tapping into the violent nature of people will not be hard to do. We also love power. And the promise of power or the use of power to dominate others remains a significant issue. There are rare cultures in history who didn't seek violence and desired to live in balance.

And yet you do it... why? Perhaps not snarking at each other is the first step to improving how we treat each other, especially those with a different view. You willingly say you don't take it seriously, then why antagonize others? Why participate in the escalation of hyperbole? Perhaps if people spent less time arguing with each other and more time understanding the lying that is engaged on by both sides it would help. For example: Protect the Constitutional freedoms is something both sides have raised up. However, then they argue which freedoms should be protected. First Amendment - freedom of speech - "YAY" Left wing, "BOO" Right wing. Second Amendment - freedom to arm oneself - "YAY Right Wing, "BOO" Left wing. It just boggles the mind how it's so obvious that the argument is not protect our freedoms, it's protect what "I believe" and not what "you believe".

As much as they spend on Youtube and other social media sources. Society is continually trained into a scenario of hate anyone not like you.

They also had a lot of celebrities calling them out as well. It's tough to make movies if you can't get celebrities to work with you. I'm waiting to see if there's suddenly something else that comes up that gets Kimmel off the air... I like a good conspiracy.

The question is... are you actually willing to sit around until that happens or try to stop it before it happens?

The suspension is. The reinstatement is what I am questioning. Clearly free speech was not what resulted in him being reinstated. So it's not really a win. The win for free speech would be ABC telling the government to stick it.

Your initial post was about Antifa being designated a domestic terrorist group and what's the point. This establishes the purview of the thread. Your later post asked a question "what's the long term goal?" The next post did not quote your post where your question about long term goals was posited. Instead it was commentary on the initial post you made. What is the point of labeling them? It's not like similar groups on the right have been labeled. It is hypocrisy. It was being called out. You assumed it was in reference to your question about long term goal. This would be on you, no one else. And there we have it. Then you proceed to take a nice passive aggressive swing at people, which isn't needed. You are engaging in the same behavior of "whataboutisms" and then talking about things unrelated to YOUR initial post. This thread is immediately derailed and I am locking it.

Is it freedom of speech or is it Disney got really worried about what it stood to lose? Personally if the people who spoke out about Disney didn't, I don't think much would have changed. It's still the all mighty dollar that rules. It's still a good thing he's back on the air. I will be curious how the rest of this story plays out.

Why would you feel that calling out Trump for hypocrisy is not relevant? Should it not be stated that the groups that perform similar actions but in support of a right-wing agenda are not equally culpable for their actions and as such should be labeled similarly? I see no difference other than the color of their flag.

This topic is locked.

Lovely little arrogant touch at the end with the small print "you're welcome". MSG has some of the worst coverage of hockey... there's nothing "welcome" about it.

Should we once again bring up the fact that the "low IQ easily brainwashed people" were more abundant in their voting than those you do not put in that group? Once the left controls everything we'll just be getting bent over by a different form of dictator. The belief that the left is somehow the "good guy" indicates just as much brainwashing as the people you are throwing shade at.

What on Earth are you talking about? Are you inferring that hockey players do not have any control over their lives and decisions? What does idolatry have to do with anything? If anything the player is even more drawn to playing hockey because of it, but it remains their choice. It sounds like you are indicating they have choice.

Hmmm. I read that as Adams is saying that Tuch has indicated he wants to be here and not that Adams thinks Tuch wants to be here. And so.. even then, it's all still nothing. Yes, but each day he doesn't sign is one day closer to a trade deadline. So people are going to watch this, just like every fan watches every pending UFA on every team, every year. It's nothing different.

So Adam Mair doesn't own the responsibility for choosing a career path that would see him exposed to higher than normal head contacts and injuries? And, they hired him as Director of Player Development. So it's not like they cut ties. He had a job. Do I blame my employer for hiring me to a position that requires me to sit on my butt for prolonged periods of time thus increasing the chances of health issues related to higher than average sedentary positioning?

That's about the most generic statement one could write. Not even ChatGPT could be that generic.

Tuch is day to day waiting on a contract extension offer... or a trade. 🙂 He has a thing.. he is tired of losing.

I agree. This is a natural byproduct I think of the Internet. Not that I've studied things but it seems logical that throughout history when there is an invention that brings large groups of people together who, until then, had been separated the difference of cultural norms will cause great friction. The Internet opened most of the world to instant communication as it has evolved. It is easier than ever to find people who agree with you or be influenced by others so that you agree with them. The traditional societal norms are not there to inhibit that behavior as it might have done in the past. Tack on perceived anonymity and certainly the safety of distance between those attacking and being attacked and it sets the stage for the behaviors we see today. Because corporations reflect the desire of the people they pick up on it and it snowballs. So, we have sensationalistic marketing, news, etc. That grows into even worse behaviors and here we are. I just hope there is a shift because the escalation is ramping up exponentially.

It is strange because people spend more time looking at what everyone else does wrong versus spending that energy on critically analyzing themselves. It's easier that way I suppose. That said, mistakes have varying degree of significance and that's where the debatable line occurs. In this case it's not like he a registered a .08. He registered a 2.0. That's not accidentally overdoing it, that's blatantly going all out. Sure, I'd love for him to get help, but he should have gotten it before this happened. People around him should have taken a stronger stand if they knew it was going on. But it didn't happen and now he very much has to deal with the situation. He's in charge of player development, players who are routinely going into their legal drinking age. It's not a good sign to have the person overseeing that demonstrating a reckless drinking behavior. It's even worse to do it with his kids in the car. If he's willing to do it with his kids then I am sure a 19 year old player might be less of an obstacle. Overall that's the way it is. We are held accountable for our actions. He'll be held accountable for his. We'll see what happens.

Enough. Take it to PM if you must. You both COULD contribute useful stuff here rather than taking pot shots at each other. I'm tired of it. The continued antagonizing of each other does not need to be carried out in the public forum. Not from continued eyerolls nor the comments about getting the eyerolls. No more warnings.

This would be why it might be helpful to post what your thought on the message in the video was. People aren't going to watch a long video.. or they might if they have some sense of what is in it. Overall, I think wanting harm to anyone is bad. It shouldn't happen. He should be allowed to speak his views and influence those who would listen and believe. But, there is a debatable point I think about when what someone speaks of might influence those who listen to cause harm to others. It's a very slippery slope. Are we to be held responsible for another person's actions because of what we might have said? Should Clark Griswold be held responsible for Cousin Eddy being stupid and kidnapping Clark's boss? (Yes, I use that as a bit tongue in cheek, but I feel the concept is there.) The bottom line to me is that both sides need to stop encouraging people to be so intolerant of those with different views. We should not be talking about violence against a corporate CEO any more than we should be talking about violence against someone for the sexual identification. Sadly we are on the path of escalation. I am hoping there's a shift in direction without there first being a seismic event that triggers it.

Why is it not reasonable? These are the very real consequences people face for their actions. It can happen to anyone and has. We've seen people fired from their jobs when their name makes it into the public and people begin associating them with the company they work for. The company has every right to protect its brand from its employees bad decisions, whether they occur on company time or not. Perhaps he should have recognized this before he made the decision to drink and drive. I'm not following the situation that closely but are we assuming he has an addiction or has it been stated? Just because someone blows a .2 does not mean they are an addict. That said, it doesn't change things. If you are someone who has a close relationship with a person who has an alcohol addiction then I would hope you've taken steps to make sure they aren't driving drunk and absolutely not with their kids in the car. Even then, you can't prevent people from making bad decisions 100% of the time. Bad stuff is going to happen. In this case he's not even fired right? He's on leave. So, are people just making all kinds of assumptions about the situation or did I miss some facts?