Jump to content
News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

aziz

Supporting Member
  • Content Count

    3,767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

aziz last won the day on April 25

aziz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,183 Excellent

About aziz

  • Birthday 06/04/1974

Profile Information

  • Location
    Virginia
  • Specific Location
    Richmond
  • Favorite Team
    Flyers
  • 2nd Favorite Team
    Wild

Recent Profile Visitors

5,103 profile views
  1. and, from what people in this thread have uncovered, were basically parody, making fun of the kinds of people that actually held the mentioned views. context doesn't matter anymore, though.
  2. this is it, exactly. there really is a movement afoot today that is seeking to put people back into boxes, to re-establish and reaffirm the hard lines that can be drawn around groups of people, and it is evil. it advertises itself as progressive and seeking equity (notably NOT equality), but it is reversing decades of progress made by the drift of perspectives towards "we are all just people". because that drift is real and it has taken us a long way from where we were in the '60s and '70s. to take away its energy, to re-emphasize things that shouldn't matter, resets a clock. humans are built to adapt, we have evolved to where we are because we can forget these tribal separations. we can come together across ethnic and religious and racial boundaries, have done so for thousands of years. we just have to redefine what we consider "our people". that only happens when we are allowed to stop seeing groups as "not our people". things like this are a fatal fly in that ointment: [Hidden Content] it just has to stop. there is no underlying difference between any of us. we should be seeking the places and moments and opportunities to share, not to create or rebuild divisions. we aren't there yet, obviously, and that means we have current impacts that have to be recognized and dealt with, but the overall solution is not to highlight our differences or separations. the solution is, to my mind, to encourage people to be "meh" about all of this. the solution is not to reflect on how your ancestry informs your current life, it is to realize how little your ancestry should mean, period. i read "main street" by sinclair lewis several years ago, and it struck home to me in several ways. first, it is the most boring book that has ever been written. second, there is a dude in the book that lives on the outskirts of town who is scandinavian. it is a really big deal in the book, no one will deal with him because he is one of "those". like, he was a complete pariah, anyone that interacted with him was met with a collective "ewwwww" from the townsfolk, as scandinavians were (apparently) seen as trash. it struck me because it never occurred to me that there might be a reason to dislike danish or dutch or norwegian people. they seemed about as milk toast as an ethnic group could be. except the book (written in 1920) made a HUGE deal out of it. sure, they were vikings way back, and vikings were assholes, but still, why hold that against a guy hundreds of years after the fact? but it happened. the book taught me that it happened for a long time. until, one day, we forgot to care about whether someone was from norway or not. and now it just doesn't mean anything. and that is how a society heals from these kinds of divisions. it forgets about them. it doesn't honor the divisions, it doesn't make a point of highlighting and elevating one group from another. it forgets that there is a difference. we are each individuals, and in a truly "equal" society, we let the individuals represent themselves. they are what they show themselves to be. the second we incorporate a gestalt concept of group identity and apply it to individuals is where we are ****ed. when we override the importance of the individual and insist on generalizations based on intersectional definitions, we have long term problems. as you say, the second we "aggregate" people into groups, and ascribe a common motive and thought process and life experience to every individual in said group, we are moving ourselves backwards.
  3. true, and well said. these things do have an impact on life today, and that counts. my point was that when presented with the choice to increase the importance of these differences or decrease them, we should choose decrease at every opportunity. the current movement towards increasing attention on these things, on self-segregation and evaluation of an opinion's worth based on the holder's skin color (or direct connection to whatever victim status is being discussed) takes us away from the goal of "meh". i don't mean to minimize anyone's struggles. i'm just trying to say that those struggles continue for exactly as long as this society puts people into these kinds of categories. the day white versus black (or vice versa) racism ends is the day everyone stops caring if a person is black or white, not before. we are programmed to act against differences so long as we feel the differences mean something. we need to stop letting them mean something.
  4. and i believe the above statement is part and parcel of the problem. what does where your ancestors lived hundreds or thousands of years ago have to do at all with the substance of anyone? i get that it impacts what a person's life is like right now, but isn't that because we continue to focus on it as Very Important? wouldn't it be better if everyone was all, "meh, i don't really care where your people came from long ago, i'm way more interested in you yourself and how you present yourself to the world"? if you see a person with red hair and a ton of freckles, do you say to yourself, "ah, their distant ancestors were likely from Ireland or Scotland, or possibly Wales, and that should influence how i perceive and interact with them"? humans are tribal. we automatically divide the world into "our people" and "not our people". always have, always will. xenophobia was a required survival trait for many millions of years and is a deep part of what we are. what all animals are, really. the definition of "xeno", though, is flexible. we are not hard coded to recognize any particular category of difference, only to separate based on whatever categories we currently deem important. we routinely abandon categories of difference as the process and progress of civilization moves forward. what was once seen as a vital difference between two groups of people becomes irrelevant trivia, possibly important for the individual and their personal identity, but meaningless in larger social context. Does it matter *at all* to you that a given person is of irish or scandinavian descent? or italian? or baptist? these used to be huge deals, and might be still for some individuals, but i don't even process "irish" when I interact with a red head with a last name of o'conner or something. it just doesn't matter to me in any way, shape, or form; they get a blank slate from me to fill in with their own character and value not derived from incidental genetics or stereotypes. "not seeing color" IS dismissive, and that is a good thing. so long as race is recognized as a primary attribute of people, it will be used as a primary means of separating people into "our people" and "not our people". once whether a person is african american, chinese, indian, hispanic, white, or whatever ceases to be seen as an important defining characteristic, it will cease to divide and we can begin to move past these issues. so long as it is held as vital and paramount, we will continue to have problems. this holds true for all dimensions along which we can draw lines around and between people. gender, age, race, religion, sexuality, hair color, eye color, height, handedness, whatever. so long as things an individual has no control over are used to categorize them, they will be used to separate. the only way forward is to stop caring about those things. not "understand and respect" them, but "stop caring". yes, this guy is a red head, and this girl is black, and this person is a catholic, and we shouldn't care about any of it; they are individuals, and we shouldn't let those other things inform our opinions or perception of them. /rant hi, everyone! bad day of sit-and-listen meetings, thought i'd type some. hope all is well.
  5. we generally think of the crease as the goalie's protected area, and it is that. but it also the area within which a goalie is allowed to intentionally cover the puck and stop play. it is supposed to be a delay of game call for covering the puck while not having some part of your body in the paint (not just falling on top of the puck and refusing to get up, i'm talking about reaching out with a glove and covering). also, if a non-goalie covers the puck in the crease, accidentally or not, it is supposed to be a penalty shot. my point is, the crease does things other than provide a protected area for goalies. of course, NONE of these things are consistently applied. because what would be the fun in predictable and evenly applied rules?
  6. @ruxpin @pilldoc hey, guys, thanks for the shout. things are going well. this whole post-hockey thing is weird after those 30 years, but definitely less stressful. stay strong, everyone
  7. i heard my name? not entirely sure with the current CBA (i haven't even watched a hockey game in two years at this point), but it would definitely be grounds for contract termination back when i knew what i was talking about. it's how LA got rid of Richards a few years back, when he got caught with oxy.
  8. not for nothing, but if the fear is that teams will claim stolarz, now is better than in a few weeks. right now, a ton of goalies (and several tons of position players) are being exposed, and stolarz isn't going to be attracting any particular attention. everyone has had all summer to put themselves in "i'm good with this" situations vis a vis their opening night roster, especially their goalies. two weeks later, when 3 starting goalies and 2 backups are on the IR and stolarz is the only goalie on a waiver wire consisting of 4 total players, you maybe run into some complications. i'm entirely out of the loop, but it sounds like hart might be for real, hart is really young, everyone else is kinda crap, and the team is still running on at least one flat tire, my thoughts: 1. do not put a 20 year old goalie with zero professional experience in a position where he is maybe expected to be a difference maker in the NHL. goalies are headcases by definition, you are rolling a die with 5 sides marked "1" handling him that way. yes, a few teams have rolled 6 in that situation (price), but bad odds are bad odds. don't take them if you don't have to. 2. playing him, and maybe playing him a little bit hard early in the season and then sending him down once a vet comes back from the IR is not expecting him to be a difference maker. my opinion, giving him 4-6 NHL games right there at the start, and then sending him to the A with a, "so, hey, that's how things work up here, that's the speed and environment you need to be able to handle, get to work and we'll see you before too long," would probably be a really good thing. 3. if he does very very well over those 4-6 games, you still send him down when the goalies you care less about become available. steve mason was amazing his freshman season. he was also 20. there is a lesson there. 4. if stolarz is someone you care about holding on to (though, i wonder: why, if you have your goalie of the future waiting behind him. decent backups are easy to find, so...who cares?), you send him down with the masses over the next 5 or so days. no one knows who he is right now. give it a couple weeks, a few goalies get knocked around and bounced onto the IR, one guy with a "G" next to his name on the wire will draw attention. so, yeah. hey, it's fun to type again! hope everyone is doing well!
  9. i don't care either way. just saying goalies who have 7 NHL games under their belt 6 years out from their draft day, and mediocre numbers in the minors to boot, don't tend to be coveted by opposing GMs, especially when everyone is working really hard to trim their rosters down to regular season size.
  10. sure, and brian bouche had a 5-game shutout streak, one time. you would hope no GM would make goaltending decisions based on a 7 game career, because goaltending has nothing to do with tiny tiny tiny sample sizes, it is all about consistency over extended periods. you could be right, someone maybe could want stolarz and grab him off the wire. it won't be because of his NHL career numbers, though. and, at this point, it also probably won't be because of his draft position. it's more likely the GM thinks his name looks great on the back of a jersey as much as either of those things. there will be 60+ goalies on waivers over the next two weeks. i am so very out of the loop these days, but i don't get the impression stolarz stands out from that crowd at all. he is one of the many.
  11. everyone with an NHL contract is assigned to the NHL club at the end of the season. 12 days before the next season starts, teams can start assigning players to their AHL clubs, but waiver-eligibility applies. so, EVERY AHL player with an NHL contract that is not waiver-exempt has to go through waivers to get to their AHL team at the end of the preseason. even if just claimed, no one with an NHL contract can be assigned to an AHL roster without *clearing* waivers (waiver-exempt players aside). so, yes, same situation.
  12. there is generally little to no buzz about any goalie that has 7 NHL games under his belt. i don't know what the habs' or rangers' situations are in net at this point, but i would be pretty very shocked if any GM in the league is licking his lips at adding an entirely unproven (but still 6 years removed from his draft day) goaltender to their roster. remember that goalies are not defensemen or forwards, you can only have 2 on your game roster. factor in 3 leagues (NHL, AHL, ECHL) per organization, and 2 goalie spots per team, things get logistically very weird with more than 6 guys. point being: teams don't add depth goalies suddenly (as in the situation of a waiver-wire report) or just in case. if he were waived soon, i doubt anyone would notice.
  13. that isn't my understanding. a player that has cleared waivers does not need to clear again for 30 days or 10 NHL games, so he can be recalled and sent down like a yo-yo. he doesn't HAVE to stay anywhere, though. he's just waiver-exempt for 30 days or 10 NHL games, whichever happens sooner. if a player IS claimed, the claiming team would have to either assign him to their NHL squad or re-expose him to waivers to send him to their own AHL team. i think. i don't believe there is any functional difference in waivers depending on when they happen, though. aside from the fact that there isn't an AHL roster during the offseason/preseason, so no where to send players once they clear waivers.
×
×
  • Create New...