Membre depuis
10 mar 2017
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Sujets de discussion
Forum: NHLTue at 4:45 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>I'm not here to politicize this post or monopolize this discussion. I have an idea that I want you to mull over. This post doesn't exist to suggest someone is wrong for hating the idea of a prospective name change: play with this idea and draw your own conclusions.

Why do we make buildings wheelchair accessible?

There's a nonzero number of people in our society that physically cannot manage stairs, but a ramp allows them to access these businesses and/or facilities. It's about inclusivity: society is something we all do together, and excluding any portion of the group is counteractive to the thing as a whole.

The NHL's mandate of "everyone can play" fits this same ideology. Hockey isn't owned by any individual, group, race, whatever. Hockey quite frankly is for everyone. Really internalize the "everyone" part of this statement; you can really apply this to any recent professional sports name change. If there exists even one person that feels excluded or offended by the Blackhawks' name, the league and the club (specifically) owes it to however many people that fall into that category to change the team's name. If hockey is truly for everyone, then even the exclusion of one person contradicts the whole mandate. Hockey isn't for everyone <em>except</em> those that take issue with the Blackhawks' namesake. It's supposed to be for <em>everyone</em>. It's supposed to be inclusive.

There's absolutely going to be a crowd of people pissed to the core about any prospective name change, and they'll readily cite the notion of "history". But I look back on history and see nothing but examples from society to learn from and grow beyond. Some of our methods and ideologies used to be barbaric, even flat-out wrong. The moon is not made of cheese, the Earth is not the center of the universe, you cannot turn piss into gold. Cultural ideologies follow this pattern of growth too: I think rooting yourself in the ideologies of the culture from 1942 prevents you from growing and taking advantage of how society as a whole has progressed in the past 78 years. Things are not the same as they were then. What do we as fans stand to gain by blocking the idea of a prospective name change? What exactly are we preserving? Toews and Kane still led one of the most impressive modern-day dynasties we're likely to see. Hull, Mikita, Chelios, Esposito, and the whole crew are still hockey heroes to this day, and it's not because of the name on the front of the sweaters they wore.

I think the league has more to gain - fans, revenues, status - from adopting progressive name changes than doubling down on the past. That's their mandate isn't it? We celebrate those of colour who made it to the NHL despite so many roadblocks that culturally accompanied the sport, we celebrate players who embrace themselves and their identity, and we celebrate what makes us unique. Everyone in the NHL has something different they can bring to the table, and it's past due that we make sure the extra seats are available for those who may not have appreciated the Blackhawks' namesake growing up.

Hockey really is for everyone. If we're already so used to referring to Chicago's hockey team as the Hawks, and there are innumerate examples of names being used across leagues, is there really a conversation to be had here?</div></div>

Great post. A ton of great points you made. The one thing I will argue is that if anyone is offended by the name, I don't think they're excluding those people by keeping the name. There are people who are mad about the name, and there are people who will be mad if they change the name. And it's not to say that if you're offended by the name you're not allowed to go to the games.

Still, though, you made some great points. I'm not trying to say that calling them the "Chicago NHL Team" is a terrible thing to do, just that I found it a little odd.
Forum: NHLSun at 6:02 pm
31. Anaheim Ducks (Those look horrible IMO)
30. Detroit Red Wings (I don't think I have to explain this one)
29. Toronto Maple Leafs (a) it's pretty boring and doesn't look good, and b) the capitalization is wrong ... TOROnTO mAPLE LEAFS)
28. Pittsburgh Penguins (Nothing interesting about it)
27. New York Islanders (Boring)
26. San Jose Sharks (Just too boring)
25. Philadelphia Flyers (Doesn't look new at all)
24. Tampa Bay Lightning (Too similar to their old jerseys without much changed)
23. Ottawa Senators (Aren't these supposed to be their full-time jerseys?)
22. Nashville Predators (I'll say the same as I did for Tampa Bay's)
21. New York Rangers (It looks decent, but not great)
20. Chicago Blackhawks (Boring)
19. St. Louis Blues (Idk why but this isn't working for me)
18. New Jersey Devils (It's okay)
17. Boston Bruins (It's like I love it and hate it at the same time)
16. Dallas Stars (Not much to say about this one)
15. Buffalo Sabres (I like it)
14. Edmonton Oilers (Kind of simple, but still good)
13. Carolina Hurricanes (I love how it looks, but I'm not a big fan of going back to the Whalers jerseys for more than just a few games)
12. Colorado Avalanche (Same as Carolina, but it looks slightly better IMO)
11. Florida Panthers (Idk why I love this one, but I do)
10. Washington Capitals (Hard to explain why I love it but I do)
9. Calgary Flames (Too similar to the old Canucks jerseys but still awesome)
8. Los Angeles Kings (Just look at those jerseys)
7. Vancouver Canucks (Awesome!)
6. Winnipeg Jets (Idk why but it's awesome!)
5. Arizona Coyotes (The purple is awesome and I love the desert at the bottom)
4. Montreal Canadiens (The blue and red go together so well!!!!!)
3. Minnesota Wild (I LOVE the yellow/gold mixed in the logo)
2. Columbus Blue Jackets (Idk why but this is just incredible)
1. Vegas Golden Knights (I don't think I have to explain this one ... who doesn't LOVE this?????)
Forum: NHL20 nov à 12 h 05
Forum: Armchair-GM 9 nov à 1 h 38