Eichel Controversial Teenage Tweet

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Didn't see that article as an attack on Eichel at all.  To me, it read as an example of a culture that is in need of changing, nothing more.   It even said so right in the article. 

It's pretty clear to me that what the article is trying to do is get more high profile athletes like Eichel to publicly try to change the culture of boys using that kind of language.  Again, it says that very thing right in the article.  You don't even have to infer it.

I don't think anyone should be looking to pro athletes to lead the way. Parents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, teammates, coaches etc. have to do it. Jack showing up at a banquet and saying a few words will have minimal effect.

[pi2000]

8 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Nah,  if you are that offended go barricade yourself in the house and don't come out. The world is a cruel place and it doesn't care about your feelings.  Deal with it cupcake.

You're partially correct... The world is a cruel place and you need to deal with it.... But some people do care about others feelings... in fact I'd say most people probably do.    

[Weave]

34 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I don't think anyone should be looking to pro athletes to lead the way. Parents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, teammates, coaches etc. have to do it. Jack showing up at a banquet and saying a few words will have minimal effect.

 

My post wasn't what I think should happen.  My post was what the article was stating should happen.  I mostly agree with your point, family and people closer to the kids should be leading, and Jack's impact is likely minimal.

But there is no harm in Jack trying to send a message either.

I don't think Jack has any responsibility to "make it right" or send a message or whatever.  And I don't think the article conveyed that he has a responsiblity.  But the author would certainly like these stars to step up and try and change teh culture.  I'm OK with that.

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

 

My post wasn't what I think should happen.  My post was what the article was stating should happen.  I mostly agree with your point, family and people closer to the kids should be leading, and Jack's impact is likely minimal.

But there is no harm in Jack trying to send a message either.

I don't think Jack has any responsibility to "make it right" or send a message or whatever.  And I don't think the article conveyed that he has a responsiblity.  But the author would certainly like these stars to step up and try and change teh culture.  I'm OK with that.

Not sure I agree.

"Now the Sabres and Eichel have the opportunity to help undo the pain Eichel and other athletes like him have caused using this kind of language over the years. They have the chance to help stop the cycle of language in youth sports that led them to this very place.

The puck is on their ice."

That's the definition of passive aggressive.

[That Aud Smell]

8 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Not sure I agree.

"Now the Sabres and Eichel have the opportunity to help undo the pain Eichel and other athletes like him have caused using this kind of language over the years. They have the chance to help stop the cycle of language in youth sports that led them to this very place.

The puck is on their ice."

That's the definition of passive aggressive.

That is not the definition of passive aggressive. 

They’re being affirmative, not passive, in saying the Sabres oughta do something.

As I said upthread: I’m not sure whether this is the best way to go about matters, having read what I did from @Randall Flagg and perhaps @WildCard

[Randall Flagg]

You know what would have been effective? Have Brian Burke on, have Anders Nilsson on. Maybe make a panel. Have them tell you a story. Write the story. 

People just aren't going to respond to being lectured about this topic by sports writers who just finished combing a decade of tweets for that. 

[Randall Flagg]

9 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

That is not the definition of passive aggressive. 

They’re being affirmative, not passive, in saying the Sabres oughta do something.

As I said upthread: I’m not sure whether this is the best way to go about matters, having read what I did from @Randall Flagg and perhaps @WildCard

Without getting too political, I'll make the passive observation that the fact that some people see this as proper and reasonable conduct while others feel like they're being lectured at in a mildly condescending way explains far more about polarization between two groups of philosophy in America than one being dumb/evil and the other being righteous, as they each like to believe.

I think this one is a little of both - I think everything about the article is well-intentioned with a noble goal, and also have a taste like I was just scolded by somebody who has delusions of being my authority figure after reading it. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[That Aud Smell]

That’s the good sh1t @Randall Flagg

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

That is not the definition of passive aggressive. 

They’re being affirmative, not passive, in saying the Sabres oughta do something.

As I said upthread: I’m not sure whether this is the best way to go about matters, having read what I did from @Randall Flagg and perhaps @WildCard

Not to pick nitz, but they never said the Sabres ought to do something. They told us what they will do. They also told us that the Sabres have a chance to do something. They never said the Sabres should do something. It was all implied. Passive aggressive, imo.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Not to pick nitz, but they never said the Sabres ought to do something. They told us what they will do. They also told us that the Sabres have a chance to do something. They never said the Sabres should do something. It was all implied. Passive aggressive, imo.

I got no problem with fine toothed combs.

Passive aggressive here would’ve been something to this effect:

”I haven’t seen the Sabres do or say anything in response to this report. Same with Eichel. And I’m sure that’s because they are fine with saying nothing on the subject. If they cared, they’d speak out. But they won’t say anything. Just watch.”

It’s far from passive aggressive to say: “The Sabres ought to do something here. They have a chance to do so. Let’s see what they do.”

That’s stated in the affirmative. And it’s a nudge. A prompt.

Edited November 10, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[Peter]

If we are going to be judged as adults by the stupid things that we may have said or did as kids, we are all in trouble.

[Sabel79]

10 minutes ago, Peter said:

If we are going to be judged as adults by the stupid things that we may have said or did as kids, we are all in trouble.

Jack’s not being condemned.  Rather, he’s publicly being given the opportunity to affirmatively place himself on the right side.  I have no doubt he will (agents won’t let it slip).  

[hockeyhound]

9 hours ago, Weave said:

Didn't see that article as an attack on Eichel at all.  To me, it read as an example of a culture that is in need of changing, nothing more.   It even said so right in the article. 

It's pretty clear to me that what the article is trying to do is get more high profile athletes like Eichel to publicly try to change the culture of boys using that kind of language.  Again, it says that very thing right in the article.  You don't even have to infer it.

There is irony in being so sensitive that your first reaction is to express how overly sensitive you think this article was.

It's when the person determined what the response was going to be by Jack, the Sabres organization, and others that came off as bitter.

Yes, I believe there was an attempt to shame Jack Eichel into supporting the issue the writer feels passionate about. 

IMO, which doesn't mean much the article comes off (for lack of a better word) sort of emotional blackmail.

"Jack Eichel of the Buffalo Sabres is the latest in a growing string of professional athletes who have had anti-gay and homophobic tweets from their teenage years surface."

I'm sorry, does this writer actually know Jack Eichel is "Anti-gay"? Does he/she know in what context the word ***** is used in that text? To me, the writer is making a big leap declaring Jack Eichel as anti-gay and homophobic. What proof do they have other than one tweet?

There used to be a standard by which we judged someone. Standards like two or more witnesses, and supporting evidence such as a number of acts or actions of an individual that help prove he/she is guilty. One tweet?

Please prove to me that you know what was in Jacks' heart or in what context he used that one word.

I respect the individual for their passion to raise the level of consciousness on the issue at hand; however, I think it's irresponsible, and unprofessional to single out Jack Eichel over one tweet especially after admitting that he/she hadn't spoken to Jack.

I believe people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or sexual orientation.

I also believe people are innocent until proven guilty.

Please don't tell me that one tweet is the new standard for judging someone, possibly damaging their reputation, and in some cases ruining their career.

Libel - An untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.

[shrader]

I think it’s laughable to think that the team or Eichel would even bother to respond. I’d quote Frank Drebin and say that there’s nothing to see here, but there really is nothing to see here. 

[spndnchz]

And I think all that needs to be said, has been said.