It is if the allegations are simply that and he is not guilty of any charges, nevermind if charges are not even laid. Theres a very good chance Virtanen does not get another NHL contract because of optics.
There’s a very good chance Virtanen doesn’t get another contract because he’s not a good NHL player.
Name someone who didn’t do what they were accused of who’s been “cancelled”.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
Last I checked women are allowed to change their minds and that simply saying they want to hang out does not = sex. Amazing to see all the usual garbage being trotted out, "interesting timing, i wonder if she was after money", ya she really nailed that sexual assault timing just before his raise, mentions of cancel culture, she shouldn't have gone into the bedroom with him, it was her fault for leading him on. Wow. I certainly have a higher opinion of the choices that women make in this world, might be time to for some here to reexamine their views of the opposite sex.
You're spewing lines that were never said.
What helps a civil and good exchange is when people also don't make it so susceptible to unnecessary escalation by coming into it looking for anything that can be construed in a way that offends you.
It's a sensitive topic, one that isn't helped by jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers. Maybe try asking a person to elaborate on what they mean, which often leads to clarification and constructive discussion, instead of jumping full way to the girl yelling at the cat meme.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
Agreed to meet up and go to a hotel, which she obviously voluntarily walked into with him to get to where it happened. A crime is a crime and Virtanen doesn't seem bright at all, but she wasn't exactly putting herself in a good spot to get people on her side either. If you're not looking to confuse your signal, maybe refuse to go in there to begin with and insist on a coffee shop?
I dunno, this just has the Kane controversy written all over it.
What helps a civil and good exchange is when people also don't make it so susceptible to unnecessary escalation by coming into it looking for anything that can be construed in a way that offends you.
It's a sensitive topic, one that isn't helped by jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers. Maybe try asking a person to elaborate on what they mean, which often leads to clarification and constructive discussion, instead of jumping full way to the girl yelling at the cat meme.
"but she wasn't exactly putting herself in a good spot to get people on her side either."
Elaborate on that. What is a good position for a woman not to be susceptible to sexual assault?
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to flames_fan_down_under For This Useful Post:
What helps a civil and good exchange is when people also don't make it so susceptible to unnecessary escalation by coming into it looking for anything that can be construed in a way that offends you.
It's a sensitive topic, one that isn't helped by jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers. Maybe try asking a person to elaborate on what they mean, which often leads to clarification and constructive discussion, instead of jumping full way to the girl yelling at the cat meme.
"but she wasn't exactly putting herself in a good spot to get people on her side either."
Elaborate on that. What is a good position for a woman not to be susceptible to sexual assault?
Meaning what it looks like based on the summary of events provided doesn't look good if you're looking at convicting the guy 4 years after the fact.
Merely a statement on what it looks like from afar and that based on what's there, a mutually agreed upon rendezvous, that could mean it comes down to he said/she said, which would be unfortunate if indeed he is guilty of what is being accused. It would have helped *the story* if she had not willingly gone to a hotel with him in the first place. I wish she, like others who get into regretful circumstances where something like that happens, would have the wherewithal in this day and age with the limited vetting of online dating meetings to reject a proposition like that if it was a first meeting and try to stick to a place that is public for their own security. I say this because I've heard stories from women about sketchy characters at such meet ups who are expecting more than a casual hang out.
It doesn't mean hotels are a free-zone for such misconduct, it doesn't mean whatever happened after the fact was brought upon her by herself - we all make regretful miscalculations that put us in vulnerable situations, but doesn't make what happens as a result is at all ok. The point was, the story that's there doesn't look favorable from afar.
We also don't even know if what allegedly happened did, and have so few details, so much of such a discussion is a huge reach and useless to assume much with vague details. But Im not encouraged by what's there from her standpoint.
The term "cancel culture" is one of the worst things about society today.
Back in the 90s, nobody ever talked about "cancel culture" with O.J. Simpson even after he was acquitted.
What's worse than the term ‘cancel culture’ is the actual existence of cancel culture.
It's very common in my line of work for people to lose their careers because a Twitter mob decided they needed to be punished for having the wrong politics.
What is going on with Virtanen, I should clarify, bears no resemblance to that.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
We will have to wait and see what happens, it's an ugly situation all around for all involved. I am a big believer in these things getting settled in a court of law, far too often in today's world we are deciding things online, on Twitter or this other type of garbage and that isn't right. The whole #ibelieve and all that stuff all though great for headlines and all but isn't exactly a legal principle.
There are a million pieces of information we just don't know and that includes what happened and what evidence there may be. People have opinions one way or another, but the evidence and the court is what should guide us.
These type of situations for all involved can be tricky, not just for athletes but for all people no matter who you are. I have personally seen it first hand with people who take one side on this issue to the fullest extent possible and than switch sides when it's a relative and someone they love as the accused. It really can be interesting.
This may end up going to court and there could be some extremely damaging evidence on both sides that come out, we may not even know what happens. In the end, it will be very very hard for anything to be definitive if this all comes to a he/she said "No/yes". You can't prove anything one way or another.
Some men have real issues with these type of situations and get themselves into a lot of trouble cause they are morons and the worst of the worst.
The exact same scenario can be said of women in some certain circumstances. I have always found older women's take on these type of circumstances very interesting and a lot of times it's in completely different mindset. Best way to describe it as precautionary vs reactionary. True victims are true victims and they deserve justice. It's a bad world out there and all we can do is try our best to teach, learn, respect and continue to improve.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to curves2000 For This Useful Post:
Whatever you think of the phrase, it simply has no application in situations like this. OJ Simpson wasn't banned from the NFL for offending people with controversial statements - he murdered someone. It's not even part of the same conversation.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Cancel culture is nothing but celebrities and rich people being treated as though they were poor and nobody.
I've seen plenty of people get cancelled who were neither celebrities nor rich. The ones who suffer most are those who haven't got big bucks to spend on lawyers and PR firms. People have spent decades building a career only to see it go *poof* because, as I said above, someone thought they should be punished for their politics.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
More stories will be coming out. He's notorious for this kind of behaviour in Vancouver. The account that went public with the story is very credible, and has led to multiple offenders getting charged, and de licensed(in real estate) over here in Victoria. Good for this girl her guts to go public will lead to the other gaining the confidence to tell their stories as well.
This isn't "cancel culture" or "consequence culture", it's living in a country governed by the rule of law. If there is a credible allegation, the police can investigate it and may or may not lay charges against the person being accused of wrongdoing.
Someone up there mentioned the Patrick Kane allegations going nowhere - they didn't go nowhere. They went to the District Attorney, who declined to lay charges for lack of credible evidence. This allegation should be treated the same way, and the outcome should depend on what the investigation finds. There's nothing remotely controversial about any of this.
Most can agree that the law is ill-equipped to resolve a lot of these situations. There's no obvious way to fix that; so it is what it is.
Then there is the rumour/gossip side of things, which has become a lot more public. In the absence of better justice, it's a reasonable recourse IMO.
Defamation law is also a thing; perhaps also somewhat ill-equipped, but it is what it is, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
What's worse than the term ‘cancel culture’ is the actual existence of cancel culture.
It's very common in my line of work for people to lose their careers because a Twitter mob decided they needed to be punished for having the wrong politics.
What is going on with Virtanen, I should clarify, bears no resemblance to that.
Twitter mobs don't have firing power, bosses do. If you incite a twitter mob and your boss doesn't think you're worth the trouble to keep around, then tough titties.
You'll need to provide some more details of your so-called examples. I suspect you are euphimizing 'politics' in place of hateful behaviour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curves2000
We will have to wait and see what happens, it's an ugly situation all around for all involved. I am a big believer in these things getting settled in a court of law, far too often in today's world we are deciding things online, on Twitter or this other type of garbage and that isn't right. The whole #ibelieve and all that stuff all though great for headlines and all but isn't exactly a legal principle.
As I said, courts may be ill-equipped to resolve these issues.
Is mob justice any better or worse? I don't know, but in a world full of injustices, I have a harder time mustering sympathy for guys who get raked over the coals when there is only 'smoke' of their behaviour, and not a fire proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
A few totally innocent people may suffer. The world isn't fair. Character can be proven in the face of adversity. Some people may still hate you. That's life.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
