Capitals: Brendan Leipsic's Instagram messages are 'unacceptable and offensive'

[kenhodgejr]

I'm hearing Calgary is very interested in acquiring Brendan Leipsic. They like what they see in him 

[Toews]

11 hours ago, Kurisu said:

Leipsic wasn't smart, humble, or mature enough to stick with the Canucks.

Source? There is nothing to indicate that the Canucks got rid of Leipsic because of his immaturity or lack of professionalism. He is an undersized player with average skating, those guys are always a long shot to make it. I would wager his inability to stick with a team is due to his lack of ability rather than conduct. Just look at the New England Patriots, they surround their players with the right structured environment. They can fit in just about anybody, as long as the player can demonstrate that they can stick to the game plan. Hockey players are not perfect human beings and not every player currently on the Canucks is a choir boy and nor should they be expected to be. As Bill Bellichick says "Do your job".

Edited May 8, 2020 by Toews

[HerrDrFunk]

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by HerrDrFunk

[Ronaldoescobar]

In the words of Gordon Ramsay:

 

"What a shame, what a shame..."

[qwijibo]

19 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

 

There’s no way they were going to keep a fringe player who was caught bad mouthing current and former teammates.  (On top of all the other stuff). 
 

Leipsic made his bed. 

[Gawdzukes]

15 hours ago, Vanuckles said:

Is that a fact? Has that been reported?

No but if it was a hack why wouldn't they hack something that matters?

[Coconuts]

That didn't take long at all, there's no way he was gonna stick after badmouthing his teammates. Good on them for not letting it drag out.

 

Be interesting to see where he ends up, because it likely won't be the NHL for at least a couple years. I don't imagine a team's gonna be looking to take on bad PR in the form of a tweener. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Coconuts

[Coconuts]

I wonder how long it'll take him to end up on spittin chiclets. 

[cuporbust]

His brother was kicked off his college team as well.

[Qwags]

I wanna know what world you guys are living in. What makes you think privacy means immunity from punishment.

[Qwags]

1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said:

 

Well, well, well. If it ain't the consequences of my actions.

[Monty]

5 minutes ago, Qwags said:

I wanna know what world you guys are living in. What makes you think privacy means immunity from punishment.

If it's nothing illegal, then how much should someone be punished? If someone says something in a group text about me, that's their business. Whether it's true/untrue/flattering/unflattering, that's none of my concern.

 

Doing things in privacy that are illegal (ie: illegal drugs, beating spouse, see other criminal activities), then absolutely they should get punished. But when my brother texts something to his now ex-wife that's neither flattering nor true about my wife, and it ended up getting back to us, her reaction was, "Well, that's Ben (not real name). What else is new?"

[Monty]

Likelihood he'll play for Bill Peters in the KHL next year?

[Canadian]

I follow the Thumper rule-of-thumb, and it ain't got me in trouble.....

Edited May 8, 2020 by Canadian

[Fateless]

18 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

If Brendan truly believed the things he said and acted upon them I would call him a POS and wouldn't associate myself with him.  If I had a vulgar friend who liked to spout off in group chats sometimes(and I do) I would be okay with it cause it's not hurting anyone. 

 

So I can't lump all men into my argument but you can lump all athletes into yours?  

Where did I lump all athletes together? I simply said this is more common in sports culture, despite it being wrong and reprehensible. I did not say that all athletes act like Leipsic. I did not even say most do. 

 

Whether someone talks like this or acts like this, it is disgusting behaviour either way. You're okay with your friends consistently insulting women, degrading women, and talking as if women are just a tool for your pleasure? That's pretty f*cked up.

[Toews]

22 minutes ago, Monty said:

If it's nothing illegal, then how much should someone be punished? If someone says something in a group text about me, that's their business. Whether it's true/untrue/flattering/unflattering, that's none of my concern.

 

Doing things in privacy that are illegal (ie: illegal drugs, beating spouse, see other criminal activities), then absolutely they should get punished. But when my brother texts something to his now ex-wife that's neither flattering nor true about my wife, and it ended up getting back to us, her reaction was, "Well, that's Ben (not real name). What else is new?"

No one gave a F about a fringe NHL tweener nor his thoughts toward his colleagues and their spouses until some hacker decided to cause a stir and leak his private messages on the internet. People have nothing better to do with their time than get outraged at the contents of said messages. The media loves covering degenerates because we can't seem to get enough of them. Oh look some idiot is doing the Nazi salute in a grocery store. Quick, grab your cameras and lets proliferate the image of this doofus through Twitter all over the world for likes and retweets. 

[Quantum]

Fallout is swift on this one.

 

I expect Jack Rodewald to be waived by the Panthers in the next few days and Jackson Keane to be removed from the UND team too.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Quantum

[Fateless]

I'm honestly a little disgusted in how many people on these boards are saying that what they said in their private message group was perfectly acceptable because it was in private. There's a difference between legality and morality. Just because what they said was not legally punishable does not mean we should not hold people to a higher standard. People referencing that sports have become "soft" or "PC" because they no longer put up with reprehensible behaviour is a joke. Society is evolving and so are our social norms and expectations. Just because once up on a time these types of conversations were not only acceptable but expected does not mean that they should continue to be that way into the future.

 

Do better. Be better. 

[Monty]

11 minutes ago, Fateless said:

I'm honestly a little disgusted in how many people on these boards are saying that what they said in their private message group was perfectly acceptable because it was in private. There's a difference between legality and morality. Just because what they said was not legally punishable does not mean we should not hold people to a higher standard. People referencing that sports have become "soft" or "PC" because they no longer put up with reprehensible behaviour is a joke. Society is evolving and so are our social norms and expectations. Just because once up on a time these types of conversations were not only acceptable but expected does not mean that they should continue to be that way into the future.

 

Do better. Be better. 

If people are saying that what they said was, "perfectly acceptable", well that's both on them and their own growth as a human. However, the question isn't, "Is what they said perfectly acceptable?" Because I think it's been pretty universally accepted that what was said wasn't. The question is, "Should what you said in private, that was never meant to be gone public, be used against you when what you are saying isn't illegal?" 

 

And you're 100% correct, there is a difference between legality and morality. What they said, and in Leipsic's case, indicates that he's a young man who has a lot to learn. All young men and women go through severe growing pains mentally throughout their 20s while they navigate adulthood. Some more than others; and athletes historically have a higher percentage of screwing up more. This isn't me making excuses for his behavior. Again, what he said, as I've maintained the entire time, is bad. But the majority of young men and women who learn lessons throughout their 20s and turn themselves around, growing mentally in ways they now view as childish, that stuff will never be made public, because nobody cares about regular Joe Schmo enough to post our private messages publicly. 

 

I'm agreeing with you that what he said was disgusting. My question is, when our own private texts and messages to our family and friends aren't made public (or in other cases phone conversations that were privately recorded and made public in owners/athletes cases), how far should society go? I'm not saying I side one way or another on this, actually. More a general question. If someone texts something to their family members while they had too much to drink one evening, should that be used against them, to the point where they no longer have a job? And if so, and again I'm not on one side or the other on this, but if the answer is "yes", then what is the acceptable "cutoff line" of what is "ok" to say and what isn't?

Edited May 8, 2020 by Monty

[Fateless]

36 minutes ago, Monty said:

If people are saying that what they said was, "perfectly acceptable", well that's both on them and their own growth as a human. However, the question isn't, "Is what they said perfectly acceptable?" Because I think it's been pretty universally accepted that what was said wasn't. The question is, "Should what you said in private, that was never meant to be gone public, be used against you when what you are saying isn't illegal?" 

 

And you're 100% correct, there is a difference between legality and morality. What they said, and in Leipsic's case, indicates that he's a young man who has a lot to learn. All young men and women go through severe growing pains mentally throughout their 20s while they navigate adulthood. Some more than others; and athletes historically have a higher percentage of screwing up more. This isn't me making excuses for his behavior. Again, what he said, as I've maintained the entire time, is bad. But the majority of young men and women who learn lessons throughout their 20s and turn themselves around, growing mentally in ways they now view as childish, that stuff will never be made public, because nobody cares about regular Joe Schmo enough to post our private messages publicly. 

 

I'm agreeing with you that what he said was disgusting. My question is, when our own private texts and messages to our family and friends aren't made public (or in other cases phone conversations that were privately recorded and made public in owners/athletes cases), how far should society go? I'm not saying I side one way or another on this, actually. More a general question. If someone texts something to their family members while they had too much to drink one evening, should that be used against them, to the point where they no longer have a job? And if so, and again I'm not on one side or the other on this, but if the answer is "yes", then what is the acceptable "cutoff line" of what is "ok" to say and what isn't?

Why should it not be used against you. It is direct evidence of your true character. I'd go so far as to call it the best evidence of Leipsic's character.

 

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the story of the Ring of Gyges in Plato's "Republic", but it is effectively the Ring of Power from Lord of the Rings which can turn  you invisible. The purpose of the tale in Plato's "Republic" is to pose the question about what someone would do if they had the ability to become truly invisible - would they allow their appetites enslave them (aka, become a thief, rapist, etc.) or would they remain rationally in control of themselves. It is an important question because what someone does in private, when they believe no one is watching, gives us the clearest picture of who they really are. 

 

So when we are confronted with evidence of someone's true self when they believed they were "private" or "safe", why would we turn a blind eye and not judge that person? The truth is that Leipsic is a misogynistic degenerate. That is plain as day. As a 28 year old lawyer, I don't buy into this whole "he's 25 and still growing" excuse. That is a cop out designed to continually propagate the "boys will be boys" argument. Just because there may be some further development to be had does not give him a "get out of jail free card" as a 25 year old. Sure he may change his ways over time, but anyone can do that regardless of their age. The fact is that Leipsic is who he is right now - and he deserves to be judged for that. Why would an employer want someone that is an HR risk and who could stain their reputation? Its called natural consequences. I'm working on natural consequences with my three year old right now. It seems like some people were never taught about them.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Fateless