Depending on where on the bell-curve you perceive "woke" and "anti-woke", you could go from absolute pot stirrer to (more like where I place them, seeing both extremes as not affecting me at all... I don't even consider these terms.) Level headed, middle of the road.

No shit.

Ironically, this was the ONLY thing I expected to see.

They should remove the netting! That way when a fan gets unruly they can just deal with it.

The government is untrustworthy for making such decisions, has corrupt motivations and is very frequently completely wrong, and typically implements such penalties with unnecessarily cruel, ineffective and sadistic methods.

On the other hand, becoming so homicidally angry at capitalist robber-barons that you feel compelled to take lethal action against them is a perfectly justified and almost universally understandable situation that anyone who lives in said capitalist system has probably already fantasized about on occasion.

That would change the mechanics of the game. Why do you want to change hockey into a different game than it currently is?

It might improve the game, or it might not. It might provide new strategies for clearing the puck, for example, and maybe that will be good, or maybe it will be horrible. You're welcome to find a league that is willing to try it if you want, but generally, people (and the leagues) would prefer NOT to change the game unless you can supply a convincing reason it should change. The game is fine the way it was before the netting, except for occasionally smashing people in the face with pucks. The netting prevents people from getting smashed in the face with pucks, and stopping play maintains the game exactly as it was before the netting was implemented.

From my point of view, that's a win-win.

If you change the game because of the netting, then it turns into a win-maybe, which could either be a win-win or a win-lose. Since a win-lose would suck, and a win-win would probably be pretty similar to the current situation, I don't see how your proposal improves anything it just adds the option for it to potentially suck. Stopping play and keeping the game the same as it always was is probably the right call.

And one of the reasons that people think the state shouldn't have the power to kill people is that the system is broken.

Let's check

We need more Green Marios

It ages without him looking at it, it's his bad behaviour and natural aging that changes the picture. Also, he covers it because he doesn't want people to see it.

there is no such consensus. nice try tho.

15 and 16, high school

Nothing. In the book he dies because he actually stabs the picture with a knife. Looking at it presses home just how decrepit he should actually have become, but it isn't until he stabs it that he himself feels any actual injury.

For the same reason they don't keep playing after someone scores in basketball. Or football. Or soccer.

Yeah it sucks. Beans are good protein but don't necessarily go on a sandwich

Look, I get what you're saying. This new trend of patholgizing everything annoys me too. It's one of the reasons I generally deny "neruodivergence", as I said.

But no, the way I've experienced emotions is not typical of most people. I struggled intensely during my childhood and in periods of my adulthood because of it. I nearly lost my job last year because of how powerful these emotions are. My friend almost had me committed to a hospital at one point. That is not typical. It is among the human variation, sure, but it is absolutely not common.

It took me actually seeing and recognizing that I am a little bit different than people and it does make me struggle harder than others in order to accept myself and work within my nature instead of against it. I can work with it instead of just trying to clam up and behave like society has always wanted me to.

I had a hell of a lot of therapy since then and I am in a much better place in life than I have ever been before. I also take a medication that I'm not if it is really doing much or not, but I'm afraid to stop taking it just yet.

There is some credence to recognizing that some people may struggle more in life in X way, and others may struggle more in life in Y way.

It's not in the name of patholgizing for the sake of patholgizing. It's instead for, as I see it, two reasons:

1. Understanding what your roadblocks are and that they may differ from others. When you have a roadblock that someone else doesn't, obviously you then need to find a technique to handle said roadblock.

2. Compassion and understanding for those who struggle with things that you don't. You may not be aware how significantly and deeply you are affecting someone simply because you do not even know their struggle exists.

I hope that makes sense.

But the puck is kept in play with the netting.. so why not keep playing

IIRC, at least one person has died from taking a puck to the head at an NHL event. Slapshots have been known to go over 100 mph. The players all have helmets and sometimes facemasks, it makes sense to protect the spectators, regardless of where they're seated.

I remember seeing a woman take a puck in the face off a deflected Slapshot, before the netting was used. She might have ended up with a defensemans smile.

You were kind of expected to be able to take care of yourself if you had tickets behind the goal.

The girlfriend sounds really childish. To the point I’m wondering if these are very young people, like early teens. If so it isn’t that that don’t care, it’s that they’re very immature and don’t know how to deal with anything uncomfortable and just shove it out of the way and move on to what they can easily distract themselves with.

If this person is an adult, I’m very concerned about their maturity level, becuase it sounds really stunted.

Splinched

Everybody has already mentioned that, actually, neurodivergence isn't exclusive to ASD and ADHD!

As for your point about it being for everybody, that is definitely a heated argument. You could argue that neurodivergent conditions were created, in part, to separate them from the "normal" people (especially in earlier times), but you could also say that having a good classification means you can better help people who have these sorts of conditions (especially in modern times! We are in a golden age of accessibility!)

Speaking as somebody who was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome as a kid, now part of ASD :D

almost:

Neurodivergences include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, developmental prosopagnosia, developmental speech disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysnomia, intellectual disability, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), sensory processing disorder, synesthesia, Tourette syndrome, and more.[3][4]

part of the point of the classification is that neurodivergent individuals often have depressive or anxiety disorders only as a result of pressure from neuronormative society to fit in, and that care should focus on being resilient against such pressure instead of trying to eliminate the neurodivergence, e.g. trying to “cure autism”. things like depression and anxiety are not considered neurodiversity in themselves and are in fact what should be treated.

the inclusion of personality disorders is controversial (partly for similar reasons), but the inclusion of schizophrenia is unchallenged.

Dont worry, you can go blind from obesity related side effects too.

What the hell mate?!

i think it’s dangerous to say that something shouldn’t happen, but if it happened it was a good thing. c.f. appeasement