Is Ron MacLean in trouble?

[Yamer]

Only knowing and listening to the OP I have absolutely no idea what's going on here.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think he's homophobic, no... You can make an atrocious homophobic joke without actually being a bigot.

Let's just pause for a second and be totally clear about what was said here.

https://streamable.com/gtdent

Bieksa: I'm probably the most positive guy on this panel, we can probably agree on that, with Kelly and Elliotte, but I don't like that play at all. And I guarantee you Staal will watch that replay and he won't like it either.

MacLean: You have photos -

Bieksa: What are you laughing at?

MacLean: You have a photo of a guy with his tarp off, you're definitely positive for something.

... And the photo in question is Anthony Stewart without a shirt.

[EN FUEGO]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Asking because I wasn't alive in the 80s, or the 90s for that matter. Could you explain what he meant and tell me what appropriate context he was trying to use?

A tasteless gay joke that would get tossed around back then without much thought, def. a reference to being HIV Positive. I was not defending what he said, there will be a "public shaming" price for him to pay for sure. I don't think he was out to hurt anybody, but it's way over the line by 2021 standards. If he had said that on HNIC in 1992, we would certainly not be talking about it. I think that's a good change when you get down to intent and inclusivity, etc., but it is a lot of change in a relatively short period of time for some. (like Ron)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It doesn't matter. One incident is all you need to be branded for life. And there is no such thing as forgiveness.

I wonder if some of you are new to the whole ‘Twitter mobs rule the world’ thing.

What’s your take here?

He didn’t make a Gay/aids joke
He did make a Gay/aids joke but it’s okay
He did make a Gay/aids joke, it’s not okay but not worth losing his job over?

It seems like you are more upset about people’s reaction to his comment but I’d like to understand what do you think about his comment.

I’m number 3 provided their isn’t a history that comes out of the wood work here but again I am not a member of the group he insulted. And he needs to at least apologize for it and explain what he meant and why he understands it’s not okay. I don’t understand the purpose of the comment. I’m confused more than anything.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GGG

What’s your take here?

He didn’t make a Gay/aids joke
He did make a Gay/aids joke but it’s okay
He did make a Gay/aids joke, it’s not okay but not worth losing his job over?

It seems like you are more upset about people’s reaction to his comment but I’d like to understand what do you think about his comment.

I’m number 3 provided their isn’t a history that comes out of the wood work here but again I am not a member of the group he insulted. And he needs to at least apologize for it and explain what he meant and why he understands it’s not okay. I don’t understand the purpose of the comment. I’m confused more than anything.

I think he wanted to make fun of Bieksa and made a gay joke (don’t think it was AIDS, he was just riffing on “positive”). Old school locker room “you know how I know you’re gay” stuff.

[DeluxeMoustache]

So if somebody says something we don’t understand, they should apologize and explain it so they can be judged properly?

What if they don’t?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think he wanted to make fun of Bieksa and made a gay joke (don’t think it was AIDS, he was just riffing on “positive”).

But what does "riffing on positive" mean? Why would he say that part if it wasn't a reference to AIDS?

EDIT: After thinking about it for like an hour - because I really am utterly baffled that someone with as much experience as this guy would actually say that on the air - the only possibility I can come up with is that it refers to positive for substances. But that doesn't make sense if you're making fun of someone for having a photo of a guy with his shirt off - it only makes sense if you're making fun of the guy with his shirt off.

So that's the only way you could give him the benefit of the doubt on this. If he meant to say, "If you're hanging around with your shirt off you're probably positive for something", meaning "on something". And that seems like more of a stretch than the other thing.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So if somebody says something we don’t understand, they should apologize and explain it so they can be judged properly? What if they don’t?

It doesn’t matter what he meant. It’s what people thought he meant. And it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The people who were affected by his comment are the ones who we need to think about. His legacy is tarnished and I think his career is finished. I’m positive we will never see Ron Maclean on tv again.

[dash_pinched]

It's David Amber time.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

It doesn’t matter what he meant. It’s what people thought he meant. And it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The people who were affected by his comment are the ones who we need to think about. His legacy is tarnished and I think his career is finished. I’m positive we will never see Ron Maclean on tv again.

Knowing what I don’t know, I would have considered the word confident

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But what does "riffing on positive" mean? Why would he say that part if it wasn't a reference to AIDS?

EDIT: After thinking about it for like an hour - because I really am utterly baffled that someone with as much experience as this guy would actually say that on the air - the only possibility I can come up with is that it refers to positive for substances. But that doesn't make sense if you're making fun of someone for having a photo of a guy with his shirt off - it only makes sense if you're making fun of the guy with his shirt off.

So that's the only way you could give him the benefit of the doubt on this. If he meant to say, "If you're hanging around with your shirt off you're probably positive for something", meaning "on something". And that seems like more of a stretch than the other thing.

I think he meant positively gay or a perv or something like that. I’m not sure he connected to AIDS. Either way, not good.

[Lil Pedro]

Bad look for Ron

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think he meant positively gay or a perv or something like that. I’m not sure he connected to AIDS. Either way, not good.

Maybe he meant a couple of beers deep, or pro body positivity

You’re not sure he connected to AIDS. Nor am I.

It’s up to the individual to fill in the blanks in the manner they see fit and some seek the worst possible.

I suspect he’s still on TV tomorrow

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Maybe he meant a couple of beers deep, or pro body positivity

You’re not sure he connected to AIDS. Nor am I.

It’s up to the individual to fill in the blanks in the manner they see cut and some seek the worst possible.

I suspect he’s still on TV tomorrow

Again, none of those make any sense if you speak English.

There is no way to take the phrase "you're definitely positive for something" and connect it to being "body positive" or "drunk" - no one says "you must be positive for your body". No one says "you must be positive for alcohol".

Positive for drugs, yes. Positive for a disease, yes. And... that's it. End of list.

[troutman]

Maybe he chose “positive” because it has multiple meanings, but one meaning is unacceptable.

I’m not sure he should be fired, but an apology and suspension might be enough for me, and I don’t like Ron at all.

[Draug]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Maybe he meant a couple of beers deep, or pro body positivity

You’re not sure he connected to AIDS. Nor am I.

It’s up to the individual to fill in the blanks in the manner they see fit and some seek the worst possible.

I suspect he’s still on TV tomorrow

I honestly hope so, and I am not a huge fan of Maclean.

Maclean's actions, and the causes he supports over the past, as mentioned above, should count for more than an off the cuff bad joke. He should have chosen a different punchline to call Bieska crazy, one that couldn't be taken as negative to any minority group. It is too bad that actions of people aren't more of the defining metric by which they are judged!

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Again, none of those make any sense if you speak English.

There is no way to take the phrase "you're definitely positive for something" and connect it to being "body positive" or "drunk" - no one says "you must be positive for your body". No one says "you must be positive for alcohol".

Positive for drugs, yes. Positive for a disease, yes. And... that's it. End of list.

Unless he’s self-deprecatingly referring to Bieksa being there and them all being drunk / on drugs. Like one might be here:


Which I don’t think is entirely implausible. Either way, I’m not sure he survives this.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Again, none of those make any sense if you speak English.

There is no way to take the phrase "you're definitely positive for something" and connect it to being "body positive" or "drunk" - no one says "you must be positive for your body". No one says "you must be positive for alcohol".

Positive for drugs, yes. Positive for a disease, yes. And... that's it. End of list.

English being my first language, I believe I understand your intent here.

So much so, that I find that on a scale from zero to ‘you people’, this lands around ‘I’d put more effort in to wordsmithing that’

[DownhillGoat]

I can see it to mean "you're positively gay", but linking it to an AIDS joke is a pretty big exercise in mental gymnastics.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by DownhillGoat

I can see it to mean "you're positively gay", but linking it to an AIDS joke is a pretty big exercise in mental gymnastics.

How? How does this work? Who says "you're positive for being gay", or "you're positive for gayness", or anything of the kind? Again, the words he used were, "you're definitely positive for something".

I'm actually now past the original quote and just fascinated with how people are managing to interpret this the way that they are.