Jump to content

Around the NHL 2019-20


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Do you think Labatt felt like your posts were "careful?"  It sure looked like he got offended and left -- which has happened a number of times as a direct result of people (not just you) blasting away with politically-related ad hominem attacks in threads on the main board.  Neo left and now it looks like Flagg has done so as well.

If your point is that discussions of race relations aren't political, I think you're just splitting hairs.

There's a reason the politics club was formed.  Keep it there, please.

 

So, I think to be clear then. It should be stated that sports related, and more to the point, NHL related political issues do not belong in the primary forum but should reside in the politics club. So, when a player makes a political statement, or a network cans a personality over non-NHL related issues, it belong in politics?  I think the line has to be drawn because right now people are not sure. The idea is that athletes are becoming involved in political issues and as such you have the juxtaposition between sports and politics, so things kind of fit in both places.

12 hours ago, Eleven said:

Not everything related to race relations is political.  Most of this wasn't.  Whether someone likes or dislikes a part of a discussion doesn't render the discussion political, either.

LTS, I think.  I don't see the problem, either.

It was I who created the club. Shall we rename it?

10 hours ago, WildCard said:

If Flagg left, between him, True, and Hoss, that's a lot of good posters leaving because of politics, which is ***** dumb 

Well, people get fed up. You don't have to necessarily get to the "politics" of it, but it happened because the NHL dove into the "politics" of it.  I don't know about True and Hoss, but Flagg decided to go off on how non-intellectual people on here are and proclaim himself the superior.  Whatever.  As I said at the time, he was clearly hanging on by a thread every time the simpletons didn't understand the math.

3 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said:

After 9/11, the game between the Sabres and Rangers carried a lot of symbolism and weight. 

Im curious if people viewed that game as political?

And the Sabres vs. Bruins after the Boston Marathon bombing?  It was absolutely political. 100%.  Perhaps people feel there's a difference because it was a unified display of patriotism?  I don't know.  It's still political.  You are correct.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, LTS said:

 

And the Sabres vs. Bruins after the Boston Marathon bombing?  It was absolutely political. 100%.  Perhaps people feel there's a difference because it was a unified display of patriotism?  I don't know.  It's still political.  You are correct.

 

Thank you for pointing that one out as well, I’d forgotten about it. 
 

A unified display. Sort of like what people are trying to do now. Interesting. And somehow people were okay with the 9/11 and Boston Marathon unified displays, but not this current one. 

Edited by Andrew Amerk
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LTS said:

So, I think to be clear then. It should be stated that sports related, and more to the point, NHL related political issues do not belong in the primary forum but should reside in the politics club. So, when a player makes a political statement, or a network cans a personality over non-NHL related issues, it belong in politics?  I think the line has to be drawn because right now people are not sure. The idea is that athletes are becoming involved in political issues and as such you have the juxtaposition between sports and politics, so things kind of fit in both places.

It wasn't really the question of whether NHL players have the right to speak their minds.  Highly divisive and inflammatory stuff like race relations, which are intertwined with this shooting, should go in the politics club.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nfreeman said:

It wasn't really the question of whether NHL players have the right to speak their minds.  Highly divisive and inflammatory stuff like race relations, which are intertwined with this shooting, should go in the politics club.

 

 

"Race relations" is a highly divisive and inflammatory topic?

Do you not see the problem here?

"First they came ..."

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
oy78Px6r_reasonably_small.jpg
 
 
 
 
·
16h
 
Marchand on "not bringing politics" into sports: "That's one thing people continually mix up. ... That's not what this is about. We're not being political. "It's about people being equal and being treated the same."
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eleven said:
 
 
oy78Px6r_reasonably_small.jpg
 
 
 
 
·
16h
 
Marchand on "not bringing politics" into sports: "That's one thing people continually mix up. ... That's not what this is about. We're not being political. "It's about people being equal and being treated the same."

How about him always standing next to the post on PP? Why don't more teams do that? Or do they and just can't get the puck there? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nfreeman said:

It wasn't really the question of whether NHL players have the right to speak their minds.  Highly divisive and inflammatory stuff like race relations, which are intertwined with this shooting, should go in the politics club.

 

 

I understand the point you are making but the problem is there's a point in the discussion on the actions of the NHL players where you are saying it belongs in the politics club and I'm not sure that people agree with you on where that point is or where it should be, let alone agreeing with each other.

If we are to discuss "Around the NHL" then the players taking a stand against police violence is part of that discussion, because it's happening "Around the NHL".  This is why I suggested that if you want to draw the line you draw it at, discussion in the sports forum is strictly related to the sport on the ice and the business surrounding the sport on the ice and anything not related to actually playing the game (social issues, commercialism, etc.) ends up elsewhere.  I'm not saying I like the idea, but without that we are left with a subjective point to "migrate the conversation" and it will continue to ruffle feathers.

Perhaps the line is drawn at discussing the NHL players not playing but if the conversation extends to the event(s) which led to the NHL players not playing then it belong elsewhere.  In this case, we can discuss the impacts of them not playing the games, but if we want to cover the extent to which the police were justified/not justified in their actions that belongs elsewhere.  

I'm not sure of the right answer, but these events are likely to increase before they decrease so I'm just hoping to improve the forum understanding.

19 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

With the draft pushed to early October, does anyone see trades picking up in mid to late September?

I sure as hell hope so. The lack of strict hockey subject matter is has taken its toll on those of us who allow hockey news and events to have such significant value in our lives. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scottysabres said:

With the draft pushed to early October, does anyone see trades picking up in mid to late September?

September is the new June.

Just like 2020 is the new 1942.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I have 2 issues with this....

1) justification or not is not the "root" of the problem. The problem is the lack of morals, self responsibility,  and faith( other than 1hr/week). If this were to change there would be much less police inter-actions and maybe less need for them all together. There's an old saying...."if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

"Faith" meaning what? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LTS said:

I understand the point you are making but the problem is there's a point in the discussion on the actions of the NHL players where you are saying it belongs in the politics club and I'm not sure that people agree with you on where that point is or where it should be, let alone agreeing with each other.

If we are to discuss "Around the NHL" then the players taking a stand against police violence is part of that discussion, because it's happening "Around the NHL".  This is why I suggested that if you want to draw the line you draw it at, discussion in the sports forum is strictly related to the sport on the ice and the business surrounding the sport on the ice and anything not related to actually playing the game (social issues, commercialism, etc.) ends up elsewhere.  I'm not saying I like the idea, but without that we are left with a subjective point to "migrate the conversation" and it will continue to ruffle feathers., so I

Perhaps the line is drawn at discussing the NHL players not playing but if the conversation extends to the event(s) which led to the NHL players not playing then it belong elsewhere.  In this case, we can discuss the impacts of them not playing the games, but if we want to cover the extent to which the police were justified/not justified in their actions that belongs elsewhere.  

I'm not sure of the right answer, but these events are likely to increase before they decrease so I'm just hoping to improve the forum understanding.

 

As to the first bolded -- I agree with this description and would just add that determining the point at which a discussion should be moved is not something that's susceptible to mathematical precision.  In this case, things went well beyond a discussion of the players' reaction, and got pretty heated to the point where 2 good, long-time posters left, so I thought it made sense to move it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

 

As to the first bolded -- I agree with this description and would just add that determining the point at which a discussion should be moved is not something that's susceptible to mathematical precision.  In this case, things went well beyond a discussion of the players' reaction, and got pretty heated to the point where 2 good, long-time posters left, so I thought it made sense to move it. 

Did you read Randall's farewell love letter to SabreSpace? Did it seem proportional to the tenor of the discussion? If he left because the discussion was heated, he took it from low-medium to blowtorch before taking off.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wading into this discussion against my better judgement, but Randall was pretty clearly responding to things far beyond the scope of the preceding discussion in the thread.

And I certainly read Ruff’s farewell as about what is happening in professional sports, not what is happening on Sabrespace.

Edited by dudacek
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I have 2 issues with this....

1) justification or not is not the "root" of the problem. The problem is the lack of morals, self responsibility,  and faith( other than 1hr/week). If this were to change there would be much less police inter-actions and maybe less need for them all together. There's an old saying...."if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

2) Why aren't these players protesting the violence that's killing innocent people on the streets everyday causing the police to get involved? There are many more people getting killed in this fashion.

Just to add another point, I'm ok with equal justice system .  However, my conclusion is if there is an inequality in minority vs white sentencing, then raise the white sentencing to equal that of the minorities and not the other way around. I'm sure that would make everyone "equally" unhappy.

I responded in the politics board.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Did you read Randall's farewell love letter to SabreSpace? Did it seem proportional to the tenor of the discussion? If he left because the discussion was heated, he took it from low-medium to blowtorch before taking off.

Look at you getting the thumbs-up from @Eleven!

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eleven said:
 
 
oy78Px6r_reasonably_small.jpg
 
 
 
 
·
16h
 
Marchand on "not bringing politics" into sports: "That's one thing people continually mix up. ... That's not what this is about. We're not being political. "It's about people being equal and being treated the same."

That's exactly it. |Some are saying this is political and it is an issue being exploited for politics by some, but it shouldn't be viewed as politics. It's human rights. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Look at you getting the thumbs-up from @Eleven!

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Of course you commented on that, and not the point.  And what is the first word in the well-known maxim about "strange bedfellows?"  

But you won't self-censor, I'll bet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • SDS unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...