Around the NHL 2019-20

[Eleven]

@dudacek thank you for posting the Strang excerpt.  I needed that perspective to see how this was anything other than just a stupid remark that added nothing.

[SwampD]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I'll ask this before I close my computer. What did his comment add to that game? His job is to be a commentator on the game and in what way did he provide any insight into anything? His comment was misogynistic trash because he remembers his youth when he would chase women and can't possibly comprehend them as equals. When ppl show you who they are, believe them. 

"Not even any women here to distract your concentration" because apparently the only thing a women can do in hockey is distract a male hockey player. 

 

Milbury never said that. He didn’t even imply it.

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

If I remember correctly, this was your stance with the Roenick comments too.  I think you have a blind spot.

Having said that, this certainly wasn't one of Milbury's worst comments on the air.  Is it deserving of backlash?  Probably.  Is it worthy of outrage?  Probably not.  It's one of his typical, juvenile, borderline comments he's made a career out of.

You are mistaken that I have a blind spot on this cancel culture mentality. I'm very aware of what my position is and why I hold to it. 

You are correct that my stance over Roenick is very similar. Both Milbury and Roenick are commentators who are hired not to be bland but to have an edge to them. Do they periodically go over the line? Undoubtedly yes. Milbury sometimes says foolish things. So what! When you are on the air for many hundred if not thousands of hours it is not surprising that foolish things are said. 

The bigger issue for me is that there is a growing mind-set that if someone says something controversial or stupid the morality mob is ready with the rope to lynch the offending party. Creating a climate of fear to express one's thoughts is a bigger problem than saying dumb things. Again, that is not a blind spot---it is something I am very conscious of. 

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

Milbury never said that. He didn’t even imply it.

I will disagree. 

[SwampD]

16 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I will disagree. 

It’s a strawman BS argument.

Edited August 22, 2020 by SwampD

[ubkev]

What have we here?

Is Fleury gonna be a distraction for Vegas now?

Seattle eyeing up a goalie?

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

It’s a strawman BS argument.

Ok, I stated what I thought and I disagree.

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ok, I stated what I thought and I disagree.

And I misspoke. It’s not a strawman, it’s a false dichotomy.

[ubkev]

You guys are saying a lot of words that I don't understand!

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Ok, I stated what I thought and I disagree.

You are making a comment that underscores my point. I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with a comment or even finding it to be distasteful. What I find tiresome is the notion that if someone says something that one disagrees with or is uncomfortable with then the reaction should be that the microphone should be taken away from that person. To me that is an overreaction. The comment that Milbury made was not a very bright or classy comment. It wasn't a crude comment but it could be taken as a boorish comment. In my opinion it didn't reach the level of disqualifying him from his job. 

As I have stated in other posts the bigger danger than listening to verbal gaffes is that an oppressive climate of judgment is being created that stifles speech and thought. I'm not a Milbury in the booth fan. But I don't think he said anything that was so outrageous that should have gotten him cashiered from his job. 

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

. The comment that Milbury made was not a very bright or classy comment. It wasn't a crude comment but it could be taken as a boorish comment. In my opinion it didn't reach the level of disqualifying him from his job. 

As I have stated in other posts the bigger danger than listening to verbal gaffes is that an oppressive climate of judgment is being created that stifles speech and thought. I'm not a Milbury in the booth fan. But I don't think he said anything that was so outrageous that should have gotten him cashiered from his job. 

A point Katie Strang made - that I agree with - is that Milbury’s commentary in general detracts from a broadcast more than it adds.
 

What qualifies him for the job? He’s not funny, or insightful, or folksy, or connected, or knowledgeable. He’s simply an unpleasant and unnecessary distraction and there are many other voices more worthy of listening to. Is that not enough to disqualify him?

[BagBoy]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

You are mistaken that I have a blind spot on this cancel culture mentality. I'm very aware of what my position is and why I hold to it. 

You are correct that my stance over Roenick is very similar. Both Milbury and Roenick are commentators who are hired not to be bland but to have an edge to them. Do they periodically go over the line? Undoubtedly yes. Milbury sometimes says foolish things. So what! When you are on the air for many hundred if not thousands of hours it is not surprising that foolish things are said. 

The bigger issue for me is that there is a growing mind-set that if someone says something controversial or stupid the morality mob is ready with the rope to lynch the offending party. Creating a climate of fear to express one's thoughts is a bigger problem than saying dumb things. Again, that is not a blind spot---it is something I am very conscious of. 

There is indeed a growing mindset about being careful about the words and sentiments used to express ourselves and our views.  This is not a bad thing.  This is THE thing.  This is our current reality.  We are finally meaningfully and collectively rising up against racism, police violence, and multiple forms of intolerance and injustice.  It is no longer cool to say something is "gay" that you find distasteful like it was in 2005.  It is no longer cool to use the N word.  It is no longer cool to use the F word for gay males.  Confederate flags and memorials are finally being seen for their traitorous and anti-American nature.  And misogyny is no longer cool.  This leads me directly to your 2nd bolded sentence.   These previously accepted violations did exactly what you are bemoaning.  They created a climate of fear for the victimized.  The fact that you are resisting the progress that is happening now does not make you a victim.  It makes you an idealogue.

 

[LGR4GM]

32 minutes ago, SwampD said:

And I misspoke. It’s not a strawman, it’s a false dichotomy.

I don't agree with you. 

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't agree with you. 

I know. 

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, BagBoy said:

There is indeed a growing mindset about being careful about the words and sentiments used to express ourselves and our views.  This is not a bad thing.  This is THE thing.  This is our current reality.  We are finally meaningfully and collectively rising up against racism, police violence, and multiple forms of intolerance and injustice.  It is no longer cool to say something is "gay" that you find distasteful like it was in 2005.  It is no longer cool to use the N word.  It is no longer cool to use the F word for gay males.  Confederate flags and memorials are finally being seen for their traitorous and anti-American nature.  And misogyny is no longer cool.  This leads me directly to your 2nd bolded sentence.   These previously accepted violations did exactly what you are bemoaning.  They created a climate of fear for the victimized.  The fact that you are resisting the progress that is happening now does not make you a victim.  It makes you an idealogue.

 

You are without question missing my point. Milbury didn't make a comment that reached the disqualifying level that Brennaman said about gays while calling a baseball game. He should have been immediately relieved of his duties. There was nothing misogynistic about Milbury's comment. It certainly was an outdated view but no malice or crudeness was intended. Your comment about the confederate flag makes my point. I agree with you on your position but I disagree with you that just because someone has a different view and perspective on it that they shouldn't be allowed to express it.  

Your comment about me being an ideologue says more about you than it does about me. Based on your comment I'm clearly less ideological than you are because I'm willing to be receptive to other view points where you are less receptive to them. That is a classic attribute of an ideologue. 

[7+6=13]

On 8/21/2020 at 12:07 PM, LGR4GM said:

When Skinner had Kahun or Johansson (when Johansson was doing good), he produced. Skinner needs help and if you are going to play him away from Eichel, it's gotta be Kahun and that Center you bring in. 

Totally agree

[BagBoy]

 

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are without question missing my point. Milbury didn't make a comment that reached the disqualifying level that Brennaman said about gays while calling a baseball game. He should have been immediately relieved of his duties. There was nothing misogynistic about Milbury's comment. It certainly was an outdated view but no malice or crudeness was intended. Your comment about the confederate flag makes my point. I agree with you on your position but I disagree with you that just because someone has a different view and perspective on it that they shouldn't be allowed to express it.  

Your comment about me being an ideologue says more about you than it does about me. Based on your comment I'm clearly less ideological than you are because I'm willing to be receptive to other view points where you are less receptive to them. That is a classic attribute of an ideologue. 

Saying Milbury's comment was less greasy than Brennaman's is a pretty slippery slope for me.  But under duress I'd probably agree.  The fact of the matter is just because Brennaman's was worse doesn't excuse Milbury's.  And, yes, Milbury's comment was definitely misogynistic.  And it was outdated even if no crudeness or malice was intended.

I'm totally with you on people being absolutely free to express their heartfelt opinions.  I just think they should be held accountable for them when they do.

Edited August 23, 2020 by BagBoy

[Weave]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

You are mistaken that I have a blind spot on this cancel culture mentality. I'm very aware of what my position is and why I hold to it. 

You are correct that my stance over Roenick is very similar. Both Milbury and Roenick are commentators who are hired not to be bland but to have an edge to them. Do they periodically go over the line? Undoubtedly yes. Milbury sometimes says foolish things. So what! When you are on the air for many hundred if not thousands of hours it is not surprising that foolish things are said. 

The bigger issue for me is that there is a growing mind-set that if someone says something controversial or stupid the morality mob is ready with the rope to lynch the offending party. Creating a climate of fear to express one's thoughts is a bigger problem than saying dumb things. Again, that is not a blind spot---it is something I am very conscious of. 

Your blind spot isn't regarding any cancel culture.  It is in regards to an out of date acceptance of borderline misogynistic commentary.  You aren't seeing it for what it is, hence he defense of it.

And as so well put in the article posted earlier, it isn't about cancel culture anyway, it is about setting a standard for behavior in broadcasting.  Milbury no longer performs at that standard.

[SwampD]

10 minutes ago, BagBoy said:

 

Saying Milbury's comment was less greasy than Brennaman's is a pretty slippery slope for me.  But under duress I'd probably agree.  The fact of the matter is just because Brennaman's was worse doesn't excuse Milbury's.  And, yes, Milbury's comment was definitely misogynistic.  And it was outdated even if no crudeness or malice was intended.

I'm totally with you on people being absolutely free to express their heartfelt opinions.  I just think they should be held accountable for them when they do.

Boy talk about a slippery slope. We went from an offhand comment (which is most likely true), to thinking milbury doesn’t think women are good for anything else, to he hates women.

Good lord.

[BagBoy]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Boy talk about a slippery slope. We went from an offhand comment (which is most likely true), to thinking milbury doesn’t think women are good for anything else, to he hates women.

Good lord.

Semantics.  I don't believe Milbury hates women.  He just needs a refresher on why they are at least the equal of males.  Especially these days.

[Brawndo]

Milbury also made a comment that the empty arenas reminded Him of being at a a Women’s College Game. 

His commentary is not very insightful particularly for a National Broadcast Team.  

Anson Carter and Patrick Sharp provide a much better analysis from the studio and would be a much better option IMO. 

It’s best to move on from him 

 

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, BagBoy said:

Semantics.  I don't believe Milbury hates women.  He just needs a refresher on why they are at least the equal of males.  Especially these days.

All that is true. It has nothing to do with the fact that sometimes boys get distracted by girls. Pretty sure the reverse is true, as well.

[nfreeman]

8 minutes ago, BagBoy said:

Semantics.  I don't believe Milbury hates women.  He just needs a refresher on why they are at least the equal of males.  Especially these days.

But you accused him of misogyny, which literally means hatred of women.

You are right that his comments were out of line.  But not every offense is a capital one.  A meatheaded comment about men thinking about sex when they're around women is not the same as misogyny. 

[Eleven]

3 hours ago, ubkev said:

What have we here?

Is Fleury gonna be a distraction for Vegas now?

Seattle eyeing up a goalie?

This is much more interesting than the Milbury situation.  Fleury's agent is really stirring it up.  Thing is, though, Lehner had better stats this season and Fleury isn't exactly a spring chicken.

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, Weave said:

Your blind spot isn't regarding any cancel culture.  It is in regards to an out of date acceptance of borderline misogynistic commentary.  You aren't seeing it for what it is, hence he defense of it.

And as so well put in the article posted earlier, it isn't about cancel culture anyway, it is about setting a standard for behavior in broadcasting.  Milbury no longer performs at that standard.

If Milbury no longer performed at an acceptable standard then his contract should not be renewed. I have no problem with that. He has been on the air for years and he is a known quantity by the company he works for. His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. The comment he made about women not being in the bubble was in my opinion stupid but not malicious. It was an outdated view but far from being misogynistic. As I said in prior posts the more pernicious problem is creating an environment that stifles the free flow of views out of fear of be out of step of the prevailing way of thinking. People who are in the "talking business" are not always judicious in what they say. I'm not bothered by it as much as others. I have the ability to counter the view or ignore the view and tune out.