Hoss

Leafs announced the Enroth signing. One year.

Well played :D

If you want a good idea on how not to discuss political correctness (and want to see that racism in Buffalo is a problem) go look at the comment section of anything race related that WGRZ posts on Facebook.

My name was "tank" and my avatar was representative of the tank for a while, so when the tank ended I wanted something the represented the end goal of it all.

Apology accepted.

When I was in third or fourth grade it was, for some reason, popular in my school to call things you don't like "Jewish." No sugar coating it or messing with the term. Just straight up "Jewish." Because of this we learned that one of our teachers was actually Jewish through a few older kids. We had a computer class that we all loved because we typed on computers and played the Oregon Trail all day. One day she asked us all to shut down our computers but I was *so* close to finishing the game. I got mad when she turned my computer off for me so I said "why are you being so Jewish?" She calmly sent me to the principal's office where she joined me and explained to me, calmly, why the use of "Jewish" in that manner offended her. After some haggling I understood and started telling my friends it wasn't okay to use it like that. "Timehop" is a popular app that allows you to see what you posted on social media in the past. It does a "this day in history" for your social media posts. I saw the other day that I had several posts six years ago where I referred to things I didn't like as "gay." Was somewhat surprised that just six years ago I was of that mind, but I went to a VERY small school where everybody was white and the entire population was willingly offensive. With that said, I'm very impressed by the percentage of my friends who wouldn't be caught dead speaking in such an offensive way today.

I think a part of the disconnect between those who want to be "politically correct" and those who rail against it is in the way people discover that a term is offensive and the way that people communicate why a term is offensive. When a person uses the term there are really only two reasons they'd be using it: they don't know that it is outdated and offensive to many or they do know and choose to use it anyway. Too often those in the "politically correct" group of people will respond to the use of a term assuming that the latter is the case. Because of this the response is often "Wow, you're a bad person and should feel bad for being the way that you are." Sometimes the person legitimately doesn't know the term they're using is wrong and, unless you have a good amount of previous experience with this person, you should always assume the first to be true. A proper response in that case would be to cut in and ask them if they realize that the term is offensive and/or to attempt to explain to them why the term is outdated and offensive if the setting is right. But this is where another communication issue often comes up. The person who originally used the term will more often than not respond with "we've become too politically correct as a society." In a perfect world the conversation would be: "How could they let a hermaphrodite run with the other women?" "Woah, that's not an appropriate term to use and doesn't define what she is." "No, that is the term I've learned to describe exactly what she is." "Well, the term used to be commonplace but over time it became clear that 'hermaphrodite' describes somebody with complete male AND female traits which is humanly impossible. The more acceptable term is intersex as it gives a better picture of what the traits possessed are." "Ah, I didn't know that. I'll attempt to use intersex from now on." "I appreciate that and will avoid being too aggressive if you slip up every now and then as learning new things does take time." Unfortunately it's not often the situation allows for such an exchange and it feels as though we've been conditions to dig into each other instead of bouncing thoughts off of one another. I agree with the notion that these things really aren't hard. If you find yourself on either side of the above conversation then try to understand why the other person would be saying what they are and give them a chance to explain where they're coming from. Really, I don't see a problem with using whatever term you want if you truly have never heard or seen a reasoning for it being offensive. But, chances are, if most people who hear you say something are telling you that it's wrong then there's a good explanation that would take all of 30 seconds (tops) to find. NOTE: the responses quoted above were intentionally generic to give a general idea as opposed to making it look like I'm making a fool of either group.

He barely had to slow up. The throw realistically could not have been better considering the rollout and setting his feet the second before throwing against his body: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebSknJ36AxA

It seems you're intentionally trying to destruct and distract. I am the first to admit that I fail to articulate well at times and many other posters have this ability far beyond my own, but the quotes you bolded aren't offensive. They're purely responses to the way you have spoken or acted in this thread. "So ignorance is your reasoning for being offensive? Yea, that's the entire problem in the first place." - Can you say that isn't true? Your long post about why you will continue to use whatever term you feel like using stated that most people don't even understand what hermaphrodite means (is that not the definition of ignorance?). You defend your uses of terms through other people's ignorance. I wasn't calling you ignorant. I wasn't even calling other people ignorant. I was taking your statements as fact to get a clear understanding of how you think despite my disagreement that most people don't know the term. And that is the problem with those who feel it is okay to use offensive terms in the first place. "I'm just glad you based your entire pro-offensive terms argument around laziness and ignorance so we can all understand you very clearly." - Most certainly a backhanded comment, but it is once again a reference purely to your words and actions and not a judgement based on the things you haven't controlled or a definition outside the boundaries of what you've opened yourself up for. The reference to "ignorance" here is a dip back into what I mentioned above. The reference to laziness was a jab at you saying you aren't going to put the effort into learning the most current terms (even if "intersex" has been around for nine years). "His entire post was predicated on how he feels entitled to being offensive to groups of people" - Why is this bolded? That's what your post was about so I don't really understand. You talked about how you currently talk and how you feel it is okay to do so and there is no need to act any other way. "will be the way he is" - Maybe I took your post wrong but aren't you saying you're simply not willing to change the way you talk? "This conversation could be meaningful, but i don't think it will be or has been due to your thoughts that you don't have to consider the feelings of others" - See the note above. You made sure to say you aren't going to change the way you speak. There is no progress if either side is unwilling. In this case I have a feeling both sides are unwilling to relent on most or all points. If nothing else I do thank you for forcing me to expand on the things I said. If I don't have the time to fully explain what I mean then I don't have time to say anything at all.

By "no one" do you mean the over ten people who have come to this thread to discuss it? :P I wanted to start a "what's next" thread for a while but I'm to lazy to do so haha.

https://twitter.com/SabresProspects/status/767444387378987008 Gustav Possler's first goal with Djurgårdens

To the bold: I answered the question before you asked it because N'eo called me out on the same thing. To the italics: lol, what a lame and inaccurate cheap shot. Often times I will walk away from a conversation that I feel is useless banter instead of productive conversation. No reason to subject the board to a ton of useless banter. This conversation could be meaningful, but i don't think it will be or has been due to your thoughts that you don't have to consider the feelings of others. That's your choice and you have a right to that choice. I disagree with it and view your reasoning as lazy (on your part) and using the ignorance of others as an excuse (due to you saying few people know what the term means). Smell seems to understand the distinction I was making between what I said and what you said:

Agreed. I don't really care that Buffalo becomes a free agent destination. I want them to become an extension destination.

From what I've heard I don't think much will save the experience of that movie. :)

I don't actually believe I was offending or going out of my way to offend you. It was a strong disagreement. I was being facetious towards N'eo in attempt to entertain his train of thought. The whole "why are people who preach tolerance act so intolerant towards the intolerant" is "weak sauce" (to borrow from N'eo). What I'm attempting to change in you is the things you do/say that have no benefit to anybody (except maybe yourself) but intentionally ignore the feelings of others, thus hurting others while having no benefit to anybody. There's no tolerance for that sort of stuff nor should there be. Quite frankly, though, I don't have the ability to explain it in such a strong and clear way that We've did above so refer to his post for any future questions.

This is a damn fine post. Good work.

Agreed. I have no interest in wasting more time hoping Foligno can be a top-six player. Or even hoping that he's a bottom-six player that can consistently fill a role next to a star center on a top line. I want to see Ennis get a full season with Eichel and/or O'Reilly.

Not sure if it has been posted here but worth a read: http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/when-will-idiots-other-end-political-spectrum-wake-53482

I wasn't being deliberately offensive. I was interpreting what JJ said which, to me, is hard to interpret in any other way. I mean JJ went out of his way to say he doesn't care and will be the way he is regardless of that.

Notice how I was able to (allegedly) offend JJ as an individual and not an entire race or gender or religion? That's the wonderful thing. You can be offensive towards an individual if you really feel like it but there are ways to do it without lobbying an attack on classes of people. If JJ is offended by what I said it'll be a whole load of irony, too. His entire post was predicated on how he feels entitled to being offensive to groups of people entirely because people don't know what the terms mean (ignorance) and he's unwilling to learn "new terms" (laziness).

I have zero plans of ever watching this movie but if you're not joking about the ending this should be in a spoiler tag.

So ignorance is your reasoning for being offensive? Yea, that's the entire problem in the first place. And if you're not willing to keep up with "terms created by the hour" how about terms created by the decade? Intersex has been around since 2006... I'm just glad you based your entire pro-offensive terms argument around laziness and ignorance so we can all understand you very clearly.

Not the best I've ever seen but a damn good fight. No doubt Conor won. 48-48 was due to Trowbridge giving Nate 10-8 in round 3 but if you give him 10-8 there you give Conor 10-8 in round one or two.

Heeeeey Comor McGregor! The Irishman shower up tonight

Intersex is the term most use now and is considered to be a medical term for the condition. Hermaphrodite actually means having FULL male and female traits which is impossible for humans.