I think a telling part in this vid is he starts off with he meant everybody (by you people) but then at about 18 seconds he says "I thought Ron would come back and say something but you know he didn't say anything" and then stumbles his words with "was that bad?". To me that implies he knew what he said in that moment and thought Ron would come back at him for it but didn't. If he really meant that he meant to imply everybody and thought to himself that "was that bad?" and Ron would have pushed back, he could have just corrected himself in that moment.
Also, why does everyone keep saying you people but leaving out you people "that come here and enjoy OUR milk and honey".
"Facts don't matter, because I feel like Canada has shifted hard left." is the most American argument I've ever seen.
Textcritic:
The narrow definition of racism to exclude prejudices based on region or nationality is wrong. There is nothing debatable in these points.
Would this comment be considered racist by your interpretation? PsycNet just claimed moral superiority using prejudices of an entire nation to back his point.
The context I took from this quote is "that argument is dumb, that is something an American would argue."
America being the nationality
American's are dumb with dumb arguments - the prejudice
Just curious on your take.
Thanks again
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dienasty For This Useful Post:
I've been really critical of what Don said, but I hope there's a path forward here where Don can be forgiven to the extent that he receives a proper send off from his colleagues and the hockey world. I don't think he is really in in broadcast condition enough to be on air these days anyways. But its a shame he went out like this (even though he was wrong in what he said) but if he can admit to the mistake and make amends it would be nice for him to be recognized properly for his contributions, and not just remembered for this. That way everyone can move on in a more positive manner.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
I've been really critical of what Don said, but I hope there's a path forward here where Don can be forgiven to the extent that he receives a proper send off from his colleagues and the hockey world. I don't think he is really in in broadcast condition enough to be on air these days anyways. But its a shame he went out like this (even though he was wrong in what he said) but if he can admit to the mistake and make amends it would be nice for him to be recognized properly for his contributions, and not just remembered for this. That way everyone can move on in a more positive manner.
I agree with this. First though he has to own it and not spin it, which is what he has done thus far. Going on Tucker Carlson, playing the victim while Tucker calls those people fascists (lol) is not helping that cause.
__________________
-- Are you my Caucasian?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Larry David For This Useful Post:
The narrow definition of racism to exclude prejudices based on region or nationality is wrong. There is nothing debatable in these points.
Would this comment be considered racist by your interpretation? PsycNet just claimed moral superiority using prejudices of an entire nation to back his point.
The context I took from this quote is "that argument is dumb, that is something an American would argue."
America being the nationality
American's are dumb with dumb arguments - the prejudice
Three words, 'they come here' is what shifted the spot from ok to awful.
I think it was more than just those 3 words - unfortunately, when you put the two words "you" and "people" together and depending on which side of racial fence you're on, you know the connotation. He pretty much made honey taste like vinegar and pretty much turned love into hate!
I don't blame Cherry so much as I blame sportsnet for squeezing 5 too many years out of him. 80 is too old for T.V and 85 is faaarr to old to have you opinions broadcasted.
Comments about Don Cherry, hockey on The Social spark outrage
Hockey IS a predominantly white sport. A lot of the teenage and young adult hockey players have their cliques and although they might not be physical "bullies" other young people view them as arrogant or obnoxious or holier than thou or whatever you will.
You know you can attack my ideas without making it personal, right? Saying "you're wrong, you don't know what that means, etc." doesn't push the discussion. I could counter with "neither do you", but I don't bother because it's equally pointless.
Sorry, I wanted to address this, what do you feel has crossed the line into "personal"? All my criticisms have been of your ideas, not you as a person. It is not up to me nor is it up to anyone else to walk you through why you're wrong, finding those answers is your responsibility, but people have certainly tried. Your ideas/points/opinions have ranged from false to complete nonsense.
You blamed the CBC and by extension the government for Don's firing, it was fully explained why this was wrong and didn't make sense.
You then mentioned "the chilling effect" which, again, is not true or representative of the situation.
You used an incomplete definition of racism, and when provided with the correct definition, you shrugged it off.
You've suggested immigrants don't care about this or that most don't even know who Don Cherry is. Not only is there evidence in this thread refuting the former, but you couldn't possibly know the latter.
You've claimed people who assume he was talking about immigrants of differences races are the racist ones, this ignores basic logic and Cherry's statement.
You've suggested we're in "thought crime" territory. This is false, the consequences were based on what he said, not what he might think.
You've repeated mischaracterized other posters points and ideas while suggesting people are mischaracterizing Cherry's. This is not only hypocritical, but it's one of the reasons why your contributions have not been effective. This includes framing someone who doesn't like intolerance as "intolerant" and suggesting that anyone has implied Canadians don't talk to immigrants.
So, I'm sorry, but if you want to "push the discussion" and not simply have people tell you that you're wrong, stop spreading false information, stop applying the wrong definition of things that are already defined, and stop mischaracterizing others with the constant, tiring, "no, it's actually you who is intolerant/racist/bigot" etc. etc. It's hard to have a discussion under these circumstances, so, do you actually want one?
Again, these are criticisms of your ideas. Who you are is and has been irrelevant to the conversation, so please stop pretending it's personal.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The narrow definition of racism to exclude prejudices based on region or nationality is wrong. There is nothing debatable in these points.
Would this comment be considered racist by your interpretation? PsycNet just claimed moral superiority using prejudices of an entire nation to back his point.
The context I took from this quote is "that argument is dumb, that is something an American would argue."
America being the nationality
American's are dumb with dumb arguments - the prejudice
Just curious on your take.
Thanks again
Generalizing and espousing negative stereotypes of the US and its citizens is something I have complained about before on CP. For me, it's not the hill I am going to die on since ultimately it says more about the speaker or writer than it does about the people they believe they understand.
Now I'm not sure what your point is more broadly, just pointing out that "anti-American" seems to be a pretty safe space here.
"I'll tell you why they picked him, you wanna know why they picked him? They picked him because he could knock plates out. Well, Hasek wasn't a plate."
Here we have Grapes' last good non-icing related hockey take. He's explaining why Marc Crawford selected Ray Bourque, a defensemen, to take one of the five shootout attempts against the Czech Republic in the 1998 Olympics.
Comments about Don Cherry, hockey on The Social spark outrage
The writer states this which I find a little confusing as the free speech goalposts continue to move to suit narratives;
Quote:
Her comments were offensive but the whole point of free speech is to be able to speak freely and not be ganged up on or fired for taking a position that might ruffle some feathers. Even Cherry defended Allen’s right to her view when I told him about this Tuesday.
Comments about Don Cherry, hockey on The Social spark outrage
Hockey is a sport of privilege, it costs a ton of money to play minor hockey. It costs even more to play 'elite' minor hockey, and it costs a whole whack of cash to get the equipment, and specialized lessons that make a player competitive.
Comments about Don Cherry, hockey on The Social spark outrage
Read the last few pages, it’s been addressed multiple times.
And just like Cherry she’s doubling down and revelling in the attention she’s getting. I don’t care what happens to her though because she’s irrelevant and Cherry at least was a celebrity and had a large audience.
She’s just glad that her name is trending.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Hockey IS a predominantly white sport. A lot of the teenage and young adult hockey players have their cliques and although they might not be physical "bullies" other young people view them as arrogant or obnoxious or holier than thou or whatever you will.
Again this is moving of the goal posts. Basketball is predominantly a black sport. If she instead says this regarding basketball players; “they all tended to be black boys who weren’t, let’s say, not very nice.” she's probably getting a pink slip the moment the cameras start rolling.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Some people think free speech is a one way street. I can say whatever I want and it's a violation of my rights if everyone says I'm an ####### because of it.
Generalizing and espousing negative stereotypes of the US and its citizens is something I have complained about before on CP. For me, it's not the hill I am going to die on since ultimately it says more about the speaker or writer than it does about the people they believe they understand.
Now I'm not sure what your point is more broadly, just pointing out that "anti-American" seems to be a pretty safe space here.
The difference of course between the undoubted freedom to make fun of Brits and Americans in our society and making fun or putting down immigrants or LGBT etc is no one is going to refuse to hire or rent an apartment or beat seven bells out of me as a Brit or an American due to some idiot thinking being a bigot is clearly ok if Cherry or some other media figure implies its ok to not like immigrants or some other marginalized group.
Technically none of it is ok but only one type of bigotry tends to cause harm.
