I'll support the players and the league if they decide to use their platform to speak out against police brutality. I'm also fine if they don't, and if certain individuals choose to, that's fine too.

Not too worried about it.

Speaking as a black man, you’re fine. I didn’t see the video, so excuse me if I’m way off base. What I’ve been told in detail was a white man was able to walk by multiple cop cars before firing and shooting a skateboarder at a protest. My question is, does this happen if the shooter is black? Does it even reach that point? Is the media to be blamed racism based on those actions? Should black people not be outraged once again?

If anyone can find me a link, that would be very helpful. If I have any off information, please fill in the details.
- SuperSchennBros

Seriously asking, so please don’t take this as a troll. As a black man, how do you feel about the NHL playing last night compared to other main sports boycotting?

Are you saying that Elliott is as good or better of a goalie than Carter Hart?

Edit: I don't disagreeing with starting Elliott, I could go either way. But I don't know if I'd say Elliott gives them a better chance in goal than Hart does.
- jmatchett383

I think Elliot needs to get a game at some point. Hart has already played 6 games in 10 nights. They could have 5 in the next eight days. So possibly 11 games in 18 days. That is too many games for Hart or really any goalie.

Seriously asking, so please don’t take this as a troll. As a black man, how do you feel about the NHL playing last night compared to other main sports boycotting?
- arichardson22

They are paid to do a job. I am at work. If I called out stating I was protesting. That will go over well. I also had to sign contracts at work about not being able to provide opinions to the media and personal info stuff and other things I can’t discuss.

I think Elliot needs to get a game at some point. Hart has already played 6 games in 10 nights. They could have 5 in the next eight days. So possibly 11 games in 18 days. That is too many games for Hart or really any goalie.
- mickel25

That's fine, and like I said, I don't have a problem with it. But saying that playing Elliott gives as "as much or better of a chance of winning" compared to Hart is where I strongly disagree.

They are paid to do a job. I am at work. If I called out stating I was protesting. That will go over well.
- Peter Richards

Are they getting paid for the games that they don't play due to protest?

I am happy the Flyers won, but honestly this feels like a loss to me, maybe I just live in the negative. Still the goals the Flyers scored in the first period seemed more about Varlamov than anything else, and its really concerning that the offense stopped after the first period and the Flyers let the Islanders back into the game. To give up two goals in the final 10 minutes of the game is inexcusable and demonstrates this team cannot lock the game down when they need to. I don't know, maybe they come out tonight and blow the Islanders away, just like Tampa did against Boston last night after an overtime win in game 2. But I am not optimistic about this Flyers team presently. The Islanders look faster and more skilled, and it seems the only way they lose this series is if their goalies fail. At last I can say confidently the Flyers have the advantage in net.

That's fine, and like I said, I don't have a problem with it. But saying that playing Elliott gives as "as much or better of a chance of winning" compared to Hart is where I strongly disagree.
- jmatchett383

I agree with you on that.

I am happy the Flyers won, but honestly this feels like a loss to me, maybe I just live in the negative. Still the goals the Flyers scored in the first period seemed more about Varlamov than anything else, and its really concerning that the offense stopped after the first period and the Flyers let the Islanders back into the game. To give up two goals in the final 10 minutes of the game is inexcusable and demonstrates this team cannot lock the game down when they need to. I don't know, maybe they come out tonight and blow the Islanders away, just like Tampa did against Boston last night after an overtime win in game 2. But I am not optimistic about this Flyers team presently. The Islanders look faster and more skilled, and it seems the only way they lose this series is if their goalies fail. At last I can say confidently the Flyers have the advantage in net.
- jd250

I agree with your sentiment here. While it dint feel like a loss. I don’t see it as a corner turned or anything. Islanders have way more room to operate in the offensive zone than the flyers do

I am happy the Flyers won, but honestly this feels like a loss to me, maybe I just live in the negative. Still the goals the Flyers scored in the first period seemed more about Varlamov than anything else, and its really concerning that the offense stopped after the first period and the Flyers let the Islanders back into the game. To give up two goals in the final 10 minutes of the game is inexcusable and demonstrates this team cannot lock the game down when they need to. I don't know, maybe they come out tonight and blow the Islanders away, just like Tampa did against Boston last night after an overtime win in game 2. But I am not optimistic about this Flyers team presently. The Islanders look faster and more skilled, and it seems the only way they lose this series is if their goalies fail. At last I can say confidently the Flyers have the advantage in net.
- jd250

Don’t disagree, but there have been times where the Flyers keep up or have shown they can take over. 2nd period game 1, and part of the 1st yesterday as well as 1st half of the 2nd. We must sustain consistent play and not have these collapses that allowed the Isles to find their game.

Which, in turn, illuminates how the media is slanted.
- KINGKENZO

Allow me to say that I strongly disagree with this temperament. It is intellectually lazy, incorrect and is doing immense damage to this country.

The media is made up of people. People have opinions, which will often seep into their writing. The media has never not been biased in the sense it is derided today. FDR was paralyzed from the waist down and was on a wheelchair for most of his life. The media almost never covered that aspect. Eisenhower had a murky affair with a British woman. Also almost never written about. I can provide gadzillions of such examples which in today's world would be seen as political bias.

Most professions carry with them certain temperaments which correlate with politics. Most people in Chamber of Commerce, or manufacturing, or military tend to lean right. Most intellectual professions: academics, journalism, lean left. Finance used to lean right, now it is moving towards left. Tech is largely left.

It is quite easy to separate opinion from fact before making one's own assessment. I provide an algorithm.

1. Look at which publications have the most to lose by printing a story that could be false. Consider for example the WSJ. The editorial board is decidedly right of center (in the Pre-Trump sense). But it also bases the paper's reputation on accuracy. If it allows the opinion to seep too much into facts, and gets exposed, it loses intellectual credibility and readership. This is immensely important to the paper.

It is this intellectual prestige that someone like Murdoch covets and why he spent decades trying to buy WSJ before the family that owns it finally gave up it's resistance. It is why Trump called the NYT a "great, great, World jewel" after inauguration and said he has been a regular reader for all his life. It definitely exists and it is a useful tool to judge the likelihood of a paper printing a false story just to get clicks/readership.

2. Look if whether the story is being covered by other publications. It is one thing to have one paper manufacture something. Another to have all of them manufacture the same stuff.

3. Make sure to at least quickly scan the top news from all directions of political coverage. Look at NYT, Wapo, Fox, Breitbart, to be at least aware of what the issues floating around are.

4. Be careful of using a source that tends to validate what you want to hear. Fox has always made this its extremely overt business plan. To a lesser extent, CNN has seen the financial light and followed and is making a ton of money. Avoid Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc for anything other than just awareness.

5. Look at the nature of the story itself. How well researched is it? How many people have spoken on the record? What is the nature of the sources (are they high ups or just some disgruntled hacks?) Is the journalist who broke the story someone who has a reputation for being correct (Seymour Hersh/Bob Woodward and so on).

6. Never use Facebook or social media for anything related to news. If it is important enough, it will be validated by steps 1-2.

7.Look especially at some international agencies that are outside the left-right polarization in this country. The BBC, the Financial Times, the Economist are extremely quality news organizations. So, is the Globe and Mail in Canada and Melbourne Age and Sydney Herald in Australia. Those all cover US politics but don't have to do it in the heat of the moment.

8. Think who has the most to gain by painting the media as corrupt, biased etc.

9. Ignore the people who froth and fume and use MSM and so on. They are fighting a cultural fight, not an objective one. They are likely the same people who will use phrases like Deep State and Globalists and Elitist and so on. That is just 1-2 slippery steps away from Q-Anon. On the flip side, what news sources are intelligent, successfulpeople reading who have no skin in the game? Doctors, moderate politicians, CEOs, and so on.

10. Don't be taken in by people who equate intelligence with elitism. You can only ignore facts for the short run. In the long run, the facts will ignore your ignorance. Facts matter.

There’s a game tonight. Take politics to Facebook.

Anybody noticed the scary play that took place just seconds before the GWG by Myers?

Mayfield crosschecked Voracek in the back and Voracek hit his head right on the post, looked a little wobbly for a second there before getting up and going to celebrate with his teammates.

All i can say is thank god for his helmet or that could've done major damage

The optics would be bad. Whether or not you find what's going on to be right or wrong, if EVERY OTHER sports league protests except for the NHL, the optics will be bad.
- jmatchett383

So they are supposed to conform ? So if everyone else is doing it let’s follow.

God forbid an owner or league president takes a stand and says follow law enforcement commands instead of disobeying them.

There’s a game tonight. Take politics to Facebook.
- Peter Richards

Yes, I am no every sorry that I was a part of this. No more but hockey for me today.

So they are supposed to conform ? So if everyone else is doing it let’s follow.

God forbid an owner or league president takes a stand and says follow law enforcement commands instead of disobeying them.
- login

I will answer this via PM.

Some gambling sites have the series line, tied 1-1, currently at Isles -220 and Flyers +170. Thought that was pretty eye popping, isles have been good but they are not flat out dominating and the series is tied.
- ClaudeFather

Isles won a huge moral victory yesterday. I am surprised the odds are not higher in favor of the Isles.

There are some seriously conflicted Rage Against the Machine fans among us.

Let's go, Flyers!

Isles won a huge moral victory yesterday. I am surprised the odds are not higher in favor of the Isles.
- PT21

The Isles can have all the moral victories they want as long as the Flyers win 3 more games against them this year.

That's fine, and like I said, I don't have a problem with it. But saying that playing Elliott gives as "as much or better of a chance of winning" compared to Hart is where I strongly disagree.
- jmatchett383

I wouldn't go nearly that far. I think Hart is the better goalie but I don't think the difference in "chance of winning" between the two is large. I think their "chance of winning" is much more related to how the team in front of either one of them plays.

There are some seriously conflicted Rage Against the Machine fans among us.

Let's go, Flyers!
- countreeman28

Honestly, they may be my favorite 1990s band (sorry Nirvana).

There are some seriously conflicted Rage Against the Machine fans among us.

Let's go, Flyers!
- countreeman28

Ugh you bastard lol. I am still salty about their reunion tour getting canned from COVID

Anybody noticed the scary play that took place just seconds before the GWG by Myers?

Mayfield crosschecked Voracek in the back and Voracek hit his head right on the post, looked a little wobbly for a second there before getting up and going to celebrate with his teammates.

All i can say is thank god for his helmet or that could've done major damage
- Yosimar89

Yeah man I was worried after seeing replay but Jake’s reaction hopefully shows he’s ok. Never know though

I wouldn't go nearly that far. I think Hart is the better goalie but I don't think the difference in "chance of winning" between the two is large. I think their "chance of winning" is much more related to how the team in front of either one of them plays.
- Scoob

Well yeah, if you play like Boston did last night, no goalie is winning. But of two, I wouldn't say that Elliott gives as much or better of a chance to win than Hart; I'd say the opposite.

There are some seriously conflicted Rage Against the Machine fans among us.

Let's go, Flyers!
- countreeman28