2013-2014 NHL Season Thread: EVERY GOALIE MUST BE TRADED, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[Izzy]

It would be p funny if every one of sep's post was replaced with:

BLACKHAWKS WIN

BLACKHAWKS WIN

BLACKHAWKS WIN

BLACKHAWKS WIN

[Selamis]

lol it'd be like the time Ragns did the April Fool's Joke a few years back where certain words came up as pony

[vagus]

Rehab stints in the minors usually means u lick ass David booth!. Some people think he still had a chance. Dude is a bust, just like Keith Ballard. Lol.

Are the coyotes for real? Or is mike smith just playing like a g o d?

[Izzy]

lol man i wish we could all agree on that. i really wish we could. just go back in the nfl thread and look, or check out the big spam thread (hellmode) to see them complaining

I can't believe the discussions in the other threads compared to this one. It's like you just took their freedom of speech away or something.

[Callisto]

Coyotes are the same team they've been the last few years, good enough to make the playoffs, not good enough to make the finals.

There's a few success stories of going to the minors and coming back, Redden and Souray weren't terrible upon coming back and were really only dropped because their contracts were albatrosses.

[Izzy]

It'll be a cold day in hell if they bring Kaleta back up from the minors now. They're really trying to punish him for the way he plays. Lindy used to love that shit, but Rolston seems to have 0 tolerance for goonyness.

It is what it is. But he's on the team to be an agitator. If you're not going to let him play that game, you might as well trade him off or drop him anyways.

[isladar]

(Man I have so many stupid comments about this)

ALSO, I think we can agree that no one thinks hate speech is a good thing, or is acceptable. Hate speech is just different to some people than it is to others. That's why the discussion is happening.

Well, consider this: We've tried it where the people who are now complaining the most were the arbiters of what is acceptable. And it was fucking terrible. So now other people are going to be making those decisions, based on a different criteria than catering to juvenile asshats.

I hate to keep quoting myself but it's almost as if I anticipated all of this bullshit beforehand because I know what the fuck I'm talking about:

There is an unfortunate tendency to think it's only racist when you say "nigger" with intent to be hurtful. This is what a dumb baby thinks! Racism is racism whether you're just kidding, saying it around 'cool' people [read: racists], or are pig-ignorant! HATE SPEECH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTENT.
[…]
Seems pretty cut-and-dry, I think. If it makes sense to you, congratulations! You're a decent human being who's pretty cool. If these rules bring to mind objections, but-what-abouts, how-comes, or thats-not-fairs, FUCK YOU

[Callisto]

It'll be a cold day in hell if they bring Kaleta back up from the minors now. They're really trying to punish him for the way he plays. Lindy used to love that shit, but Rolston seems to have 0 tolerance for goonyness.

That's not what his history being fined says!

[Izzy]

I hate to keep quoting myself but it's almost as if I anticipated all of this bullshit beforehand because I know what the fuck I'm talking about:

I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing with your or something. I was just taking a gander as to why all of these "grey area" questions are coming up now.

[isladar]

Honestly it's hard to tell. There's been a lot of "well meaning" comments telling me how I should be talking to people, and how [x] might go down better if I were more considerate of shitfucker's feelings.

But those "grey area" questions often come from a place that while may be well-meaning, effectively attempts to shut down what people are trying to do here. Which is to tell shitfuckers to get the fuck out.

[Xajii]

people arguing for the equivalence of "dick" "cracker" etc are not only wrong but have mired themselves into the trenches of principle rather than practical. stop trying to get a rise out of people and stir up shit for no other reason than that you see a way to stir it. no one wants it

[isladar]

I wasn't kidding about the Christmas card thing, dude.

[Selamis]

Wait, who's trying to do that, stir up shit and get responses from people? No one was calling anyone a cracker here, unless I missed something the past few pages. I just mentioned that the term didn't offend me, is all.

[Vaspinne]

Wait, who's trying to do that, stir up shit and get responses from people? No one was calling anyone a cracker here, unless I missed something the past few pages. I just mentioned that the term didn't offend me, is all.

Not this thread. This one has been incredibly civil about it all. The NFL thread and the Hellmode thread in spam

[Selamis]

Not this thread. This one has been incredibly civil about it all. The NFL thread and the Hellmode thread in spam

Ah, the places I haven't gone to lol. Gotcha.

[Vaspinne]

Ah, the places I haven't gone to lol. Gotcha.

lol, believe me, you're not missing much

[Obsidian]

Oh I'm all about a reasonable conversation as to what's permissible. The team has changed their minds before, and PMing mods/admins about any questions or concerns will almost always get you a clear response. But the thinking of, "well, I used to be able to say x y z and I've been posting here forever so fuck you" is not something I really care about.

If this is how I'm coming across then I apologize for my apparently woefully lacking writing skills. Precedent is never a good excuse for poor behaviour, I agree. I'm just attempting to clarify (for my own understanding and interest) why some comments are fair game and others are no bueno (as far as forum infractions are concerned, anyway. Whether or not they're socially acceptable is another matter). As far as gumming up the hackey thread with this stuff, I apologize but feel like the dialogue is better with more participants, and it's a decision that affects many of the folks here, so I think it behoves everyone to have the chance to participate and to see the thought process behind some of the decisions being made.

I'm glad you guys are having a discussion about this. It's evidently a new topic for a lot of folks, so while it can be frustrating for people who've dealt with it before to repeat themselves over and over, I really do want to put in the effort for awhile before I default to "shut up, that's why". Anyway, from another article:

No, cracker clearly doesn't have the sordid history that the N bomb is unfortunate enough to carry with it. However, after reading it twice, I cannot help but feel like the undertone of that article is that it's "okay" to call someone a cracker because it's never been used in an oppressive way on a group of people like the N-word has. To me, however, that's dismissive of how the word cracker can make other people feel (and while I am a poor white person, I don't really personally find it offensive). To say that a white person should not be offended by a term being used in a largely offensive manner because they've never been oppressed before is, to me, a form of oppression in itself, because that argument is completely dismissive of another person's feelings. So in my mind, we now have a situation where we have this train of thought that says it's okay to offend white people because they've never been oppressed so you're not really offending them, while simultaneously oppressing them by being ignorant (or worse: intentionally dismissive) of how they feel about being called a cracker. To me, this argument makes no sense. Indeed, it strikes me as... ironic? (For lack of a better word. This isn't the first time my vocabulary has failed me.)

All that said, please do not misunderstand me. I am in no way saying the continued intentional use of "cracker" (or any number of other words/phrases) is in any way, shape, or form equivalent to the systemic oppression of black people. If that's what ends up being taken away from the above, then I have failed utterly to properly articulate myself.

The "new rules" seem to be taking steps to create a more inclusive environment for everyone; this is excellent. My concern (again, I lack a more appropriate word) is that the "selective" (as far as which words/phrases are a no-go) enforcement of these new guidelines is striving for the inclusion of some people while leaving the door open for the continued abuse of others. Worse, they may be misconstrued as condoning that behaviour.

Edit: Nor is my observation (I'm not trying to make a point. For lack of a better way to put it, I think I'm just taking a different point of view for the sake of discussion) specifically about cracker, but more broadly about anything not explicitly stated as a non-starter in the post Isla made yesterday.

[Ratatapa]

BK will be happy since he was right, but Biron officially employed by RDS lol

[Callisto]

That was fast, didn't he retire like two weeks ago?

[isladar]

I can totally see how you might have gotten that impression. I don't think that article is advocating that kind of language. It's addressing the "BUT WHAT ABOUT [stupid term for whites that doesn't actually exclude or dehumanize]" argument that comes up so often that you can almost put up a countdown timer to when it's going to come up in a discussion about racist terminology.

Now I'm going to quote a friend of mine because goddamn there has been some good quotes today:

When someone asks "but what if someone calls me a cracker?" a great question for them to ask themselves is, "will I be offended by that?" and if they chuckle and go "hah no, that's just silly" there's you answer. If they go "that makes me uncomfortable and I wish you wouldn't call me that", why not just fucking stop saying it anyway?