The teams he's put on the ice for past 5 years should've had him canned alreadyIt means he’s being investigated for being an especially egregious asshole.
The teams he's put on the ice for past 5 years should've had him canned alreadyIt means he’s being investigated for being an especially egregious asshole.
Fear not, however, because she may be able to go away for six months and still come back to her $197K/year job:“For the protection of my own mental health, I had to quickly learn not to look at the social media comments while at the same time take a critical look at how the situation was handled,” Dana said.
Dana’s contract calls for her to receive 15 sick days a year, which she may accumulate year to year up to 175 days, according to a copy the district provided the Globe. The district may terminate her contract if she is unable to perform her duties for a continuous period of 90 days beyond her accrued sick days, the document states. Yea
Wow. He really said it the way? The NHL communication executive is probably thinking this was the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.More damning to me was this:
View: https://twitter.com/TaylorHaasePGH/status/1489739087225360384
They are so, so bad at even pretending to get it.
"If he had just kept his mouth shut none of this would have happened"More damning to me was this:
View: https://twitter.com/TaylorHaasePGH/status/1489739087225360384
They are so, so bad at even pretending to get it.
That’s exactly what it’ll take. The problem is NHL teams don’t have the discipline to hold that line. I mean, Logan Mailloux asked not to be drafted and the Habs took him in the first round. And at least he realized he did wrong.Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving World Junior players
This happened in 2018. What’s it going to take to get these kids to understand you can’t do this stuff…when the names come out (and they will) some careers could be ruined, and running to the KHL isn’t even an option anymore.
(Beat to the punch, but…) What’s it going to take? Here’s what it really is going to take…
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/scotiabank-sponsorship-hockey-canada-1.6504003?fbclid=IwAR2fPy_mjVMgQsOqsojwOOse8fchyGip8sZHf_qilqND5NjyuQfwyc6r4AU
Lets say that you were given the power to create a context, post hoc, that could make that sentence *not* really shitty. What would it be?Is there a clip or are we good to draw conclusions absent actual context?
Wait, it's shitty now to say that people like to watch attractive people do things?Lets say that you were given the power to create a context, post hoc, that could make that sentence *not* really shitty. What would it be?
No. It's shitty to say THE ONLY reason people watch people do things is because they are attractive. It's subtle, but there's a difference.Wait, it's shitty now to say that people like to watch attractive people do things?
Then it sure is a good thing the quoted tweet doesn't say that.No. It's shitty to say THE ONLY reason people watch people do things is because they are attractive. It's subtle, but there's a difference.
Just half is better, right?Then it sure is a good thing the quoted tweet doesn't say that.
You're being obtuse, although I suppose there are two ways to look at it:Then it sure is a good thing the quoted tweet doesn't say that.
You're the one mentally adding the word "only" to the comment to make it seem worse. What's closer to his point is that fewer women would watch if the men were less attractive.You're being obtuse, although I suppose there are two ways to look at it:
On one hand, he could have meant that half the women who watch hockey only watch it because they like the way the men look.
One the other hand, he could have meant that the main reason (a full 50% of the reason) that all women watch hockey is because the men are good looking.
Convince me of which one is less misogynistic.
Even though he didn't say that, I'm not sure that helps him. He shouldn't project his own viewing habits onto women who watch the NHL.What's closer to his point is that fewer women would watch if the men were less attractive.
Literally nobody is saying it isn't. That isn't remotely close to the discussion.I watch because they are handsome. My love for David Pastrnak is forever.
It's ok to watch things because of beautiful people.
Right, which is why it was meant to be light hearted.Literally nobody is saying it isn't. That isn't remotely close to the discussion.
This is also why I watch you watching David Pastrnak play hockey.I watch because they are handsome. My love for David Pastrnak is forever.
It's ok to watch things because of beautiful people.