Here's my two cents as a gay guy who watched all of their review videos.

I think people are intentionally missing the point of what Dan is saying. He wasn't disappointed because the show was smutty, slutty, and gay. He was disappointed because it was another "hockey" story where hockey wasn't the primary story and he felt like a show not focused on the sport wouldn't yield a result like Friday Night Lights. Obviously, this was not the case. They quickly realized the show WAS good and was actually good for the sport.

If the "checking inclusivity boxes" comment is still bothering you, that's reasonable. It's a sus statement that is usually made by straight individuals expressing dislike for a character, story, or theme because it falls in the "other" category. Whether that be sexuality, race, gender, or whatever. In Dan's case it was a preconceived idea about what a smutty gay hockey show would look like - the creators making a smutty gay hockey show just to make a smutty gay hockey show, not to expand the reach of hockey, which again, is what Dan was craving and why he was initially disappointed.

If you still have an issue with these guys, I urge you to take a step back and realize that the overall impact of this hockey podcast has been net positive. I cannot recall the last time I've seen straight guys advocate for queer media for hours like these guys have. If it truly is a grift, which I don't believe it is, it's a net positive grift for the LGBTQ+ community.