Don Cherry Fired by SN - Poll Added

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Corral

^^ exactly. And peters and Monahan are hardly speakers for the community. Lets hear from Gretzky Orr Etc. Except they know better, and won’t pile on cherry.

Hearing the Quebec premier talk about how he can now watch HNIC again..... total political garbage and that is now where this discussion is at.

Why are Gretzky's and Orr's opinions more valid?
They were among the best players to ever play but that doesn't mean they are experts in these issues, or that their opinions matter more.
I really don't give a frick about what Gretzky thinks about...well anything.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Ralph Klein’s Tories used to dominate the Provincial legislature, holding over 90% of the seats, and you think Alberta is becoming progressively more politically narrow? You’re going to have to explain that one.



"Toe the line." Sorry. I just don’t see a lot of evidence for critical thinking in your responses here. I am still waiting for a cogent defense of how Cherry’s comments can be construed as anything but racist. Some posters have suggested he probably didn’t mean what he said, despite his own fierce insistence that he meant every word. If you think Cherry is being unfairly treated and mislabelled, then convince me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you misread his comment on the first one - he said political spectrum has narrowed not who got votes ie: conservatives have shifted to the middle of the spectrum so in his point all the parties are to the left or sitting in the middle. In the past conservatives were to the right, Liberals were middle NDP were left. Now Conservatives are middle, Liberals are left, and NDP is far left. Again that is his opinion which he clearly stated in his post, obviously not yours.

As for your second point, no one here "has to convince you" this is a forum and not entirely about you. He is entitled to his position, as from your ~50+ posts on the subject it seems that you do not respect people with a different opinion than yours. I see numerous "you are wrong" in your return comments. Not the best way to start a conversation. You could instead ask, why do you think that?

I personally would like to give Cherry the benefit of the doubt, as much as he has done for the country, military, growing the game, (he has been on TV longer than the Simpsons), was listed as one of the most influential Canadians, has a foundation to help animals, and has brought joy to people across the country for numerous years. I think what he has done far out-weighs the interpretation that you took from his comments.

In my opinion you seem to take a bit too much joy in crucifying him.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

This situation sucks. I idolized Cherry growing up and watched Coach's Corner every week. I loved the way he talked, I loved the music, I loved that dog, and I always took his hockey advice.

As I grew older things changed. His views on hockey became less relevant, his views on European players were destroyed by Lidstrom and Malkin, and his Canadian patriotism drifted towards xenophobia. I still respected the man as an important piece of Canadiana but found my self watching him and agreeing with him less and less.

Now instead of having a legacy as one of the great Canadian icons Don will forever be a martyr for the I want free speech to spread hate crowd. Nice.

I am annoyed at Don for being so stubborn he couldn't issue a simply clarification or apology, I am annoyed at the CBC and Sportsnet for keeping this ticking time bomb on the air for years past his best before date, and I am annoyed at the Sun/Post media for stoking division and reopening wounds from the election by framing this as a PC/cancel culture/CBC/Trudeau issue instead of a business making a business decision. This sucks.

Trudat! Instead of him going out as another Canadian class act, he goes out as an old ranting a-hole!

[Jiri Hrdina]

What Cherry has really cost himself through all this is a proper send off.
And I'm sure that sticks in his craw.
I suspect this was his last season, but he would have been sent off with great fanfare and celebration.
Now he doesn't get any of that.
Which is his fault.
But after such a long career, that's probably a tough thing for him to swallow.
Not the storybook ending

[bax]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Meanwhile locally, one of the Flames Nation blog writers posted this:

Spoiler!

...and apparently worse (though her Twitter account is now private so can't verify). She got fired and now half the writers at FN have quit in solidarity.

Honestly, she's also a hateful piece of crap in the same vein of what Cherry has said. But I'm not surprised to see the hypocrisy and double standards coming out of the self-important little hockey blogosphere.

The backlash over her firing seems really strange to me. People are saying she was a great and talented writer who was fired for sharing her opinion on Don Cherry's comments.

In reality she tweeted "F*** soldiers" on Remembrance Day and was getting into flame wars with strangers. I don't believe she was even a paid writer and her only two articles were "Why Lucic is better than Neal" and "Why Gaudreau is better than McDavid".

Not too surprising a blog doesn't want to be associated with that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

I think you misread his comment on the first one - he said political spectrum has narrowed not who got votes ie: conservatives have shifted to the middle of the spectrum so in his point all the parties are to the left or sitting in the middle. In the past conservatives were to the right, Liberals were middle NDP were left. Now Conservatives are middle, Liberals are left, and NDP is far left. Again that is his opinion which he clearly stated in his post, obviously not yours.

If that's what he's saying, he's wrong. There's no way the Scheer conservatives are to the left of Mulroney's or Clark's conservatives. That's precisely why they lost the election. There's no way Kenny's party is to the left of Lougheed or Stelmach or Redford or even Prentice, for that matter.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Meanwhile locally, one of the Flames Nation blog writers posted this:

Spoiler!

...and apparently worse (though her Twitter account is now private so can't verify). She got fired and now half the writers at FN have quit in solidarity.

Honestly, she's also a hateful piece of crap in the same vein of what Cherry has said. But I'm not surprised to see the hypocrisy and double standards coming out of the self-important little hockey blogosphere.

She should get fired! People who doesn't know how to use punctuations cannot communicate what the heck they're saying, let alone that kind of crap she's spewing!

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If that's what he's saying, he's wrong. There's no way the Scheer conservatives are to the left of Mulroney's or Clark's conservatives. That's precisely why they lost the election. There's no way Kenny's party is to the left of Lougheed or Stelmach or Redford or even Prentice, for that matter.

I feel like you are really having trouble understanding the concept of a discussion. Again starting definitively with a "you are wrong" is not the best approach to understand why he or other people might have that opinion.

Saying there is "no way" so and so is left of so and is not a strong argument without producing facts on policies and understand the issues that he has with the political spectrum. Do you know what policies he is referring to? I didn't think so, maybe you should find that out before declaring him wrong. Maybe you should start with "What policies are you referring to that you think this the spectrum has shrunk?"

What I am hearing is his opinion is the spectrum is getting smaller and your opinion is that it isn't. You are both entitled to your opinions.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

I feel like you are really having trouble understanding the concept of a discussion. Again starting definitively with a "you are wrong" is not the best approach to understand why he or other people might have that opinion.

In his defence, you are, objectively, wrong.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by resolute 14

in his defence, you are, objectively, wrong.

lol

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

...As for your second point, no one here "has to convince you" this is a forum and not entirely about you. He is entitled to his position, as from your ~50+ posts on the subject it seems that you do not respect people with a different opinion than yours. I see numerous "you are wrong" in your return comments. Not the best way to start a conversation. You could instead ask, why do you think that?

I have asked cannon7 for clarification on the crucial points of his posts in this thread, yet have not received responses. And yes, when people type incorrect information, I will most certainly point out that it is wrong. The focus on Cherry's usage of "you people" without the critical qualifier, "you, that come here" is wrong. The narrow definition of racism to exclude prejudices based on region or nationality is wrong. There is nothing debatable in these points.

I personally would like to give Cherry the benefit of the doubt, as much as he has done for the country, military, growing the game, (he has been on TV longer than the Simpsons), was listed as one of the most influential Canadians, has a foundation to help animals, and has brought joy to people across the country for numerous years. I think what he has done far out-weighs the interpretation that you took from his comments...

My interpretation? I am happy to hear alternative readings of Cherry's comments singling out "you, that come here, you enjoy our milk and honey." What's yours?

I can give Cherry the benefit of doubt that he intended to draw needed attention to the fact that there does not seem to be many people in this country wearing poppies for Remembrance Day. But I will not excuse him for (probably unintentionally) scapegoating immigrants to make his case.

[Johnny Makarov]

I watched his interview with global yesterday and it was so painful to listen to, i had to fast forward both parts. I used to love Don Cherry. Just enjoy retirement Don!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

I feel like you are really having trouble understanding the concept of a discussion. Again starting definitively with a "you are wrong" is not the best approach to understand why he or other people might have that opinion.

Saying there is "no way" so and so is left of so and is not a strong argument without producing facts on policies and understand the issues that he has with the political spectrum. Do you know what policies he is referring to? I didn't think so, maybe you should find that out before declaring him wrong. Maybe you should start with "What policies are you referring to that you think this the spectrum has shrunk?"

What I am hearing is his opinion is the spectrum is getting smaller and your opinion is that it isn't. You are both entitled to your opinions.

Yes, we both are entitled to our opinions. That doesn't make them equal. My opinion is he's wrong. I'm happy to give chapter and verse about why a PM who declared Medicare a scared trust, paid reparations to the Japanese-Canadians, entered into NAFTA, called the firing of federal employees discovered to be gay “one of the great outrages and violations of fundamental human liberty.” and who ratified UN climate change treaties and took strong stances on South Africa, Nicaragua and El Salvador (opposing Reagan and taking in refugees int he process) is left of a guy who said recognizing gay marriage was like saying a dog had five legs if you recognized the tail as a leg and has a close association with Rebel Media and anti-immigration groups. But this ain't the time or place.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Why are Gretzky's and Orr's opinions more valid?
They were among the best players to ever play but that doesn't mean they are experts in these issues, or that their opinions matter more.
I really don't give a frick about what Gretzky thinks about...well anything.

I don’t think anyone should be looking to the hockey community for experts on these issues. Indeed that is one of the problems here.

[PsYcNeT]

"Facts don't matter, because I feel like Canada has shifted hard left." is the most American argument I've ever seen.

[Manhattanboy]

I thought Paul Maurice had a good take, called the whole thing sad, which it is.

Cherry was a lot of things but he was not among the likes of Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose or Bill O'Reilly - reading some of the posts in this thread you might think he was.

As was pointed out this was likely Cherry's last year in any event. You hate to see any career of that length end that way.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Bukowski

We all know what Don Cherry said. It's all a matter of perspective and how you generally view the world is how you react to it. He can apologize all he wants and saying "I meant to say all Canadians.." doesn't jive with "..who come here for the milk and honey." It just doesn't. You have a leader in the US who says these things daily and a lot of you on Facebook, twitter and CP seem to want that in this country. The lead up to the election confirmed it and most of the people, I've noticed, who are agreeing with Cherry's comments didn't vote for Trudeau, and that's fine. 66% of eligible voters voted in this year's election - if only 34% more did, all your dreams could of come true.

You can make it about the poppy and disrespect for veterans but that's not what it was about. I agree. Wear the poppy, but why?? How is anybody supposed to know without education?

If you come to this country, you're probably getting away from poverty or civil war, because no one leaves a safe place to come get crapped on for doing it.

We are very lucky to live where we live, that if we had to go somewhere else, we'd have the ability to learn the language or customs first before we went. I don't think people realize this enough and just look down at an immigrant for being unable to understand the language, law or custom that we have. You just expect someone to understand everything right off the bat after they get here from a poverty or war-torn country? They're just noticing there are no tanks in the streets and the military isn't harassing them on a daily basis, just happy to be out of that only to be told to "go back home" or "speak English".

People like Don Cherry, who is 85 and probably won't change, just don't see this perspective and that's really sad.

Go Flames

I've talked to quite a few colleagues who are from the middle east countries, Cameroon, SE Asia, Moldova, and Ukraine where political wars pretty much ravaged their country and livelihoods. The first generations that come to Canada only come here with their families to escape dangerous circumstances. I also asked them what it's like during times when there is no war. All of them smile and say how good things were like and that if there was no war, their families would have remained in their own countries. We're definitely lucky there's no wars going on in North America.

For those who flee their countries due to unfortunate circumstances, the Canadian government has taken steps to provide a safe haven for families in our country. New immigrants are provided with the necessary education in order to become Canadian citizens. That usually takes time and it usually takes at least 5 years to have citizenship. During that time, I'm sure the parents would have to provide for their children and this may mean working several jobs, especially if they come to this great country with barely anything.

So, for Don Cherry to make his comment on national TV the way he did, it's a disgrace to all Canadians. I think if his comment was more in the lines of, "You Canadians who don't support our troops or haven't bought a poppy to support our veterans...", he would've walked off the show being a hero. But, being what he is, his words truly reflected his true nature. It is sad!

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by cannon7

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.

I know I'm largely wasting my time talking politics to posters who predominantly live in a country I left 25 years ago. Hell, I suspect my political perspective now is alien to most Canadians who have fully jumped on the speech code bandwagon. I generally avoid the non-hockey boards on this forum because, in my opinion, they only permit a narrow one-sided political perspective, which has become the norm in Canada. Which is fine, if you like having your views reinforced and unchallenged, then that's likely a safe space.

Canada, and especially Alberta, used to have a wide political spectrum. Every time I come back to visit, I find it a bit narrower than before. Not to say the same isn't happening elsewhere in the world, it most certainly is, but I still find it both sad and disturbing.

But if we all just want to tow the line and proclaim Don Cherry as a racist who should be made an example of and to hell with critical thinking, then that's fine by me. I don't come to this forum to convince you otherwise, so just as well.

Back to hockey talk.

Holy hell.

That's quite a powerful personal political spectral analysis tool to gather how an entire countries political beliefs are shifting in one visit!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CSharp

I've talked to quite a few colleagues who are from the middle east countries, Cameroon, SE Asia, Moldova, and Ukraine where political wars pretty much ravaged their country and livelihoods. The first generations that come to Canada only come here with their families to escape dangerous circumstances. I also asked them what it's like during times when there is no war. All of them smile and say how good things were like and that if there was no war, their families would have remained in their own countries. We're definitely lucky there's no wars going on in North America.

For those who flee their countries due to unfortunate circumstances, the Canadian government has taken steps to provide a safe haven for families in our country. New immigrants are provided with the necessary education in order to become Canadian citizens. That usually takes time and it usually takes at least 5 years to have citizenship. During that time, I'm sure the parents would have to provide for their children and this may mean working several jobs, especially if they come to this great country with barely anything.

So, for Don Cherry to make his comment on national TV the way he did, it's a disgrace to all Canadians. I think if his comment was more in the lines of, "You Canadians who don't support our troops or haven't bought a poppy to support our veterans...", he would've walked off the show being a hero. But, being what he is, his words truly reflected his true nature. It is sad!

Three words, 'they come here' is what shifted the spot from ok to awful.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Saqe

This is US politics in a nutshell (Canada too?). It's a form of tribalism where no matter how wrong you are, you can't admit it since it's considered a concession for the other side. Instead both camps dig deeper and use everything as ammunition against each other. It creates a toxic spiral which effectively ends any real discussion.

Timely article in the Atlantic yesterday.

The Dark Psychology of Social Networks

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/600763/

...The problem may not be connectivity itself but rather the way social media turns so much communication into a public performance. We often think of communication as a two-way street. Intimacy builds as partners take turns, laugh at each other’s jokes, and make reciprocal disclosures. What happens, though, when grandstands are erected along both sides of that street and then filled with friends, acquaintances, rivals, and strangers, all passing judgment and offering commentary?

...Human beings evolved to gossip, preen, manipulate, and ostracize. We are easily lured into this new gladiatorial circus, even when we know that it can make us cruel and shallow. As the Yale psychologist Molly Crockett has argued, the normal forces that might stop us from joining an outrage mob—such as time to reflect and cool off, or feelings of empathy for a person being humiliated—are attenuated when we can’t see the person’s face, and when we are asked, many times a day, to take a side by publicly “liking” the condemnation.