Evander Kane arrested on misdemeanor charge for June nightclub incident

[Thorny]

No.

Now, if someone who was under investigation for a DUI offence, and had a reputation for having such issues in the past, liked a few social media posts that were LOLing about how O'Reilly did a little buzzed driving again -- THAT'D be closer to what we have here.

 

Pfffff

I am quietly preparing myself for being legitimately ambivalent when E Kane scores, etc. for the Sabres.

Maybe actual hockey will dissipate these feelings.

But the posts aren't LOLing about Chris Brown incidents. They are about the accusers in the case, and in regards to 50cent's, the media coverage involved, and what type of person he believes Brown to actually be.

 

Likes can be intended in many ways, but none of those can be discerned by anyone other than the person clicking like. People are going to read into it their own way, which may not be at all what the person meant. If you're going to like something that's controversial you better consider the angles if you're worried about your public (or communal) perception.If you want to make a statement, make a statement. If you're using a binary semaphore that's bound to be read the wrong way, you better find a post that says exactly what you want.

I agree with this, and to the bolded: that's they thing, I don't think he does.

Correct. Does anyone think there'd be any real criticism, if say, he had liked a story of the Duke lacrosse case? Or, hell, even a story about the other Kane and the fake evidence bag?

The point is that people can read into "likes" on a social media post in any number if ways. People will read into it however they want, in some cases influenced by their preconceived notions of Kane. Everyone has their own opinion on it and to each their own. MY point was I found the idea of "likes" on an Instagram post being viewed as the final "brief case slam, I rest my case!" notion a rather arbitrary one.

[darksabre]

Correct. Does anyone think there'd be any real criticism, if say, he had liked a story of the Duke lacrosse case? Or, hell, even a story about the other Kane and the fake evidence bag?

I'm sure someone would criticize it. But it wouldn't be me. The timing being that it is, for him to publicly nod to either of those incidents would imply a pretty clear message. A message that might be in poor taste, but not altogether alarming.

[Thorny]

For my part, I think there may come a time (if it's not already here), where having Kane on the team is more trouble than it's worth. As for who he is, he seems to be someone who has good qualities and possibly very bad ones, as well. We've read about his work with kids in need, and then stories like his bar incident. I'm not here to judge the man and I have no care to.

 

I care about hockey. If Kane is participating in criminal activity, and is therefore negatively affecting the team (and society), or is having a negative affect on the team for another reason (up to and including poor performance on the ice), I want him off he team. If he's breaking the law, I want him punished accordingly. If he's not, I want his name cleared.

 

I will say though that anyone hoping to be rid of him sooner than later is probably in for a long wait. If Murray and Co. wanted him gone strongly enough, he would be. Asset management be damned.

[TrueBlueGED]

The point is that people can read into "likes" on a social media post in any number if ways. People will read into it however they want, in some cases influenced by their preconceived notions of Kane. Everyone has their own opinion on it and to each their own. MY point was I found the idea of "likes" on an Instagram post being viewed as the final "brief case slam, I rest my case!" notion a rather arbitrary one.

Of course, we all bring our biases to the table. To your specific point, I agree in general, but I think considering the context here (Chris Brown's history) puts it being the final straw in a more favorable light.

[Thorny]

Of course, we all bring our biases to the table. To your specific point, I agree in general, but I think considering the context here (Chris Brown's history) puts it being the final straw in a more favorable light.

Probably true. Maybe I'm arguing the Instagram situation as an independent matter, rather than as within the context of the rest of Kane's affairs, as it should be. I don't know anymore.

 

The whole situation is a depressing one.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

Probably true. Maybe I'm arguing the Instagram siruation as an independent matter, rather than as with the context of the rest of Kane's affairs, as it should be. I don't know anymore.

 

The whole situation is a depressing one.

Ain't that the truth. Even if he's completely innocent and is in fact being targeted, I remain quite disappointed by his play on the ice.

[Thorny]

Ain't that the truth. Even if he's completely innocent and is in fact being targeted, I remain quite disappointed by his play on the ice.

I've been reasonably satisfied by his performance out there, notably due to the high energy he brings every shift. On purely a fan level I'm mostly just tired of having to hear about all this off-ice Kane stuff endlessly. It does become wearing.

[Hoss]

Evander Kane has now liked a fourth photo (three hours ago)

[That Aud Smell]

But the posts aren't LOLing about Chris Brown incidents. They are about the accusers in the case, and in regards to 50cent's, the media coverage involved, and what type of person he believes Brown to actually be.

The imagined LOLing isn't essential to the metaphor--it was just something that popped into my head as within the realm of the possible. The ROR posts I'm imagining could have taken the same righteous, "free Ryan OReilly tone" as those Chris Brown posts did. My point was only that what you'd posited about O'Reilly didn't come close to having any bearing on this situation.

Evander Kane has now liked a fourth photo (three hours ago)

/gallows chuckle

Edited September 1, 2016 by That Aud Smell

[PASabreFan]

Evander Kane has now liked a fourth photo (three hours ago)

From Las Vegas, Nevada, the flash, apparently official...

[Eleven]

FWIW

 

image1.PNG

 

image2.PNG

 

image3.PNG

 

I'm not really sure what the posts themselves add to the analysis.

That is to say: My issue was tied strictly to the fact that EK - given his current circumstances - elected to express support and sympathy for Chris Brown.

 

Ok, it makes absolutely no sense to me now.

[That Aud Smell]

Ok, it makes absolutely no sense to me now.

 

you've got an ambiguous antecedent there, sir.

[PASabreFan]

you've got an ambiguous antecedent there, sir.

You have a lot of nerve. Take it back.

[That Aud Smell]

You have a lot of nerve. Take it back.

 

A nervy thing to say - sure. But it's true.

[PASabreFan]

A nervy thing to say - sure. But it's true.

Listen, I have taken steam baths with the man. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Remember, it's not an homage to Perreault after all.

[That Aud Smell]

Listen, I have taken steam baths with the man. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Remember, it's not an homage to Perreault after all.

 

:blink:

 

:o

[Thorny]

The imagined LOLing isn't essential to the metaphor--it was just something that popped into my head as within the realm of the possible. The ROR posts I'm imagining could have taken the same righteous, "free Ryan OReilly tone" as those Chris Brown posts did. My point was only that what you'd posited about O'Reilly didn't come close to having any bearing on this situation.

 

/gallows chuckle

It has as much bearing on the situation as any exceptionally subjective inference you take from 3 (now 4) Instsgram "likes".

 

That is to say, none. Both are varying viewpoints with no real insight into the inner working of Evander's mind.

 

What I posited wasn't meant to be seen as a direct comparison, at all. It was an illustration of the fact that one can't pretend to know, in any concrete way, the specific reasons for why someone may "like" a social media post. Everyone would be free to interpret in their own way, but without being inside the person's head, who did like "liking", one can't posit their interpretation as fact.

 

Obviously that may neither be here nor there, as no one is claiming anything other than personal opinion in this case, as far as I can tell. I was merely pointing out that there are always varying interpretations.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Thorny

[That Aud Smell]

It has as much bearing on the situation as any exceptionally subjective inference you take from 3 (now 4) Instsgram "likes".

 

That is to say, none. Both are varying viewpoints with no real insight into the inner working of Evander's mind.

 

It is "exceptionally subjective" to infer that Evander Kane supports and/or sympathizes with Chris Brown's situation because -- during a period of time within which he did not so much as indicate a "like" for a song, pretty face, sandwich, or workout posted to Instagram -- he chose to like four posts that unequivocally expressed support and sympathy for Chris Brown?

 

[JJFIVEOH]

This season can't start soon enough.......

[Thorny]

My example was solid even if I contort it to a specific, more comparable situation:

 

If someone who is accused of drunk driving, likes a post praising Ryan O'Reilly's character despite his alleged drunk driving, (comparable to the 50cent post), does the accused drunk driver necessarily condone drunk driving? The answer is no. Not necessarily. The "like" could easily be interpreted as the person understands that there is humanity underneath the admittedly terrible act.

 

Edit - nice meme.

 

Double Edit - "Sympathizing" with one's situation is entirely different from condoning their actions.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Thorny

[Thorny]

 

Last point - I am not waging war on the idea that an opinion can be formed about Kane based on situations that have unfolded. I am merely stating that the analysis of someone's social media habits doesn't preclude only one valid interpretation. There are no facts in these interpretations and they would never be permissible as such.

[That Aud Smell]

My example was solid even if I contort it to a specific, more comparable situation:

 

If someone who is accused of drunk driving, likes a post praising Ryan O'Reilly's character despite his alleged drunk driving, (comparable to the 50cent post), does the accused drunk driver necessarily condone drunk driving? The answer is no. Not necessarily. The kind could easily be interpreted as the person understands that there is humanity underneath the admittedly terrible act.

 

Sorry - that analogy isn't solid and does not make sense.

 

Among other things (and I should've said it before now): Why try to equate Ryan O'Reilly (a good person who made a mistake! (thanks Sam Maislin (sp?)) with Chris Brown (a decidedly bad guy).

 

This is how your "example" would bear similarity to what went down here: Public Figure A (call her Lavender) is under investigation for a damaging DUI offense. She also has a reputed history of having some issues with drinking and driving. Then another public figure (Mike White), who has been caught drinking and driving on multiple occasions, goes off the rails with some drunken behaviour -- Mike wasn't driving this time; he just busted up his neighbour's patio in his stupour. But Mike hits the tabloids because of it. Mike's devoted fans take to social media and start talking sh1t about the neighbour being a liar and how Mike is in fact a really good guy. Lavender in turn likes a bunch of those posts.

 

My extremely subjective take? Lavender is an idiot.

[Thorny]

Because my example isn't to directly compare the situations. I don't know how many times I have/have to state this. I was using it to point out that no concrete facts can be drawn from the subject of "likes" on social media. I'm not comparing ROR to Kane or CB. I am arguing that interpreting social media likes is a subjective process. If you believe one can necessarily draw factual, indisputable facts about someone or their intentions because they liked a post, we aren't going to reach common ground.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Thorny

[That Aud Smell]

Because my example isn't to directly compare the situations.

 

Well. Hence my confusion, I guess.

 

I was using it to point out that no concrete facts can be drawn from the subject of "likes" on social media. I'm not comparing ROR to Kane or CB. I am arguing that interpreting social media likes is a subjective process. If you believe one can necessarily draw factual, indisputable facts about someone or their intentions because they liked a post, we aren't going to reach common ground.

 

I'm not sure why you are talking about concrete, indisputable facts. I'm not.

 

I've formed an opinion about the guy based on available information and my own common sense. 72 hours ago or so, I was of the opinion that E Kane is a douche bag with a drinking or drugging problem and a penchant for placing his hands on women or otherwise treating them in an aggressive or even harmful way. Then, then, E Kane liked some Instagram posts expressing support for Chris Brown after Brown was accused of pulling a gun on a woman in his home. That sort of behaviour tended to reinforce my opinion of the guy. That's all.

[Thorny]

That's all well and good and I've stated as such.

 

I've frequently stated I'm not arguing against the forming of opinions on Kane, and that specific interpretations of him or the situation at hand are completely valid opinions. To answer your question about how you aren't sure why I'm talking about facts: I am talking about facts because I felt like it, and I did state I was doing as such. It wouldn't be my fault if you didn't catch that when reading (or skimming :p) my posts.

 

My error here was wanting to argue the idea that there ARE varying interpretations as to why he might like a post on Instagram and no actual facts, when posters at this time were more interested delving into their (reasonably drawn) opinions on the matter.

 

That would be my cardinal sin, as this is a message board, and to post in a way that derails discussion would be folly. (Not sarcasm)

Edited September 1, 2016 by Thorny