[Report] Don Cherry Fired

[JM_]

Just now, Alflives said:

Which, to me, includes those who hate others speaking just because they disagree.  

its pretty interesting on the margins. We all us decide at some point as a society that something is criminally hateful, but up to then its free speech.

 

What Cherry said wasn't remotely close to something hateful. IMO it was bigot-adjacent and from another era and should have and could have been dealt with via a sincere apology from Don. 

[ilduce39]

On 11/15/2019 at 11:00 AM, Dr. Crossbar said:

Finally watched the segment today, plus the reactions, and statement.

 

The talk show woman's comments reeked of anger, resentment, and jealousy. The same divisive and inceniary components that fuel social media. 

 

But to then call Cherry "that type" is no different than Cherry saying "you people." Then she goes on to label, stereotype, demonize, and make wild assumptions, which, to me, is as disgusting and divisive as anything Cherry said. And to also say "that type" also includes climate change deniers takes the entire discussion to another level of social and political divisiveness.

 

And then the panel has the gall to say Cherry's comments only contributed to the divisiveness in the country, as if their behavior is somehow morally superior. I was really surprised that seemingly intelligent people didn't see their own level of hypocrisy.

 

The entire segment felt like a vomited barrage of conflated issues - race, freedom of speech, immigration, women's rights, inappropriate language, inclusion, toxic masculinity, economic inequality, sexism, climate change, culture, bullying, white privilege ... all in a 9 minute segment in which such complex social and political issues are impossible to explore. This by no means was a discussion.

 

The most revealing part to me was when she said hockey was "jammed down her throat" and how Cherry's comments possibly empowered young boys in her youth who were bullies. That revealing language suggests to me that she's angry about what she had to endure because of hockey and it suggests that she was bullied in her youth and university and still angry about it today. THAT IS a very valuable discussion to have in today's climate. She could have used her experience in a really positive way to give people a glimpse at what she experienced from the outside of hockey culture. 

 

Unfortunately, to me, that simmering anger overshadowed an opportunity to really make things relatable to both men and women so she could begin to heal and also contribute to a much more meaningful and productive discussion. She has a national platform to do that but instead chose to be angry, volatile, demonizing and divisive.

 

Do you really think the lady who made those comments - who seemingly neither of us can name - are going to cause rich, white hockey playing males to become marginalized, though?  Are they really going to be “divided?” No chance.  It’s also a daytime talk show where it’s her job to gab about crap like that. As opposed to a national program supposed to be about hockey. Nobody would have blinked at her comments if people weren’t reaching to manufacture a call for hypocrisy.
 

Meanwhile I can see people listening to Cherry and confronting a random non-poppy wearing POC, which to me would be terrible. 
 

I just don’t see the equivalencies at all.

[BPA]

Maybe the network finally had an excuse to fire Cherry.   Get some younger cheaper talent to replace Cherry.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Meanwhile I can see people listening to Cherry and confronting a random non-poppy wearing POC, which to me would be terrible. 

^ this is the part i was concerned about, that some dingus would go out and harass someone. Thankfully that didn't happen. 

[ilduce39]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

What?  Cherry, as stated by someone who knows him closely - Bobby Orr, is not a bigot or racist.  JT painted his face black on more occasions than he can even remember.  

Cherry has made his career ragging on pinkos, women, euros, frenchies and now immigrants.  He didn’t apologize.
 

Trudeau, as a rich spoiled brat, did some stupid things in his early 20s and now acts and speaks in a different perspective.  He also apologized.
 

I’m sure he could find a friend that would support that he isn’t into secret brown face all these years but wouldn’t that just be the dumbest thing ever...?

 

How is it even close?

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Do you really think the lady who made those comments - who seemingly neither of us can name - are going to cause rich, white hockey playing males to become marginalized, though?  Are they really going to be “divided?” No chance.  It’s also a daytime talk show where it’s her job to gab about crap like that. As opposed to a national program supposed to be about hockey. Nobody would have blinked at her comments if people weren’t reaching to manufacture a call for hypocrisy.
 

Meanwhile I can see people listening to Cherry and confronting a random non-poppy wearing POC, which to me would be terrible. 
 

I just don’t see the equivalencies at all.

This lack of trust in our fellow Canadians is where I see the PC police and the SJW’s going way too far.  Why should anyone, other than the law, get to determine what another Canadian gets to hear.  That’s telling me and other Canadians we are not wise enough to make good choices.  What gets taken away next, our right to vote?  

When children hear things that are preaching hate, that IMO crosses the line.  As for adults, we should be treated like adults.  

[ilduce39]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

^ this is the part i was concerned about, that some dingus would go out and harass someone. Thankfully that didn't happen. 

I know the camera phone generation has amplified this, but it sure seems plausible.  Also glad no one stooped there.  So many better, positive ways to promote that tradition. 

[ilduce39]

Just now, Alflives said:

This lack of trust in our fellow Canadians is where I see the PC police and the SJW’s going way too far.  Why should anyone, other than the law, get to determine what another Canadian gets to hear.  That’s telling me and other Canadians we are not wise enough to make good choices.  What gets taken away next, our right to vote?  

When children hear things that are preaching hate, that IMO crosses the line.  As for adults, we should be treated like adults.  

Cherry and that lady’s jobs weren’t decided by the human rights tribunal, though.  They were both business decisions 100%.  
 

IMO both could still be employed and it’s our job to decide whether what they said was correct or not... but letting Cherry go saves $ and obviously the opposite was true for CTV.

[RWMc1]

53 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Exactly.  Cherry represents a large group of Canadians.  Just because people have different opinions, doesn’t mean they are less Canadian.  In Canada we encourage people’s voices.  Or we should.  The PC police and SJWs want only their views heard.  And beyond that, which is evil, they want to dehumanize any voice that disagrees.  That is exactly what leads to terrible atrocities.  

You just de-humanized the people who have a different viewpoint than you again. Maybe they can't help themselves any more than you can.

 

If you said "people have a right to feel how they do about Cherry's comments but that doesn't mean he should be fired for it" instead of labeling all of them, then that would make your comments less hypocritical.

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

^ this is the part i was concerned about, that some dingus would go out and harass someone. Thankfully that didn't happen. 

But JM is the concern someone is going to act badly a reason to control speech freedoms?  Should we control which adults get to vote because we are concerned about their choices?  Is it really up to any citizen to decide what other citizens can do, because we’re worried it might not conform to what we prefer? 

If we are going to continue to have a free society then we are going to have to allow those voices we disagree with to speak, and trust our fellow Canadians to make good choices.  We cannot be selective in this way or we are saying some Canadians are superior.  People must be free to make bad choices.  

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

You just de-humanized the people who have a different viewpoint than you again. Maybe they can't help themselves any more than you can.

 

If you said "people have a right to feel how they do about Cherry's comments but that doesn't mean he should be fired for it" instead of labeling all of them, then that would make your comments less hypocritical.

People are entitled to their voices.  The PC police and the SJWs are the ones who want to quiet opinion.  If I said those groups don’t have the right to speak then that’s wrong.  I don’t believe I did though, did I? 

[RWMc1]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

People are entitled to their voices.  The PC police and the SJWs are the ones who want to quiet opinion.  If I said those groups don’t have the right to speak then that’s wrong.  I don’t believe I did though, did I? 

So where are the posters who have stated that you don't have a right to your opinion? Disagreeing with someone is not the same as saying that they don't have the right to disagree.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

But JM is the concern someone is going to act badly a reason to control speech freedoms?  

Yes, in some cases. We already have a law for this called 'incitement to hatred'. So Cherrry just putting his opinion out there wasn't anything like this. If Don had said at the end "...and now go find someone and punch them for it" then we have a big problem.

 

But people get inspiration from all kinds of things so you should be careful as a tv personality that maybe you're generating unnecessary anger.

 

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Should we control which adults get to vote because we are concerned about their choices?  

No.

 

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Is it really up to any citizen to decide what other citizens can do, because we’re worried it might not conform to what we prefer? 

depends, are they doing something that infringes on your rights? its so grey its hard to answer. 

 

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If we are going to continue to have a free society then we are going to have to allow those voices we disagree with to speak, and trust our fellow Canadians to make good choices.  We cannot be selective in this way or we are saying some Canadians are superior.  People must be free to make bad choices.  

I think in Cherry's case it was a corporate decision. I think most people would have been satisfied with a genuine mea culpa vs. an outright dismissal. 

 

Social media is driving us to more and more instant anger tho, that demands instant action. I'd like to see a rule where when things like this happen people get 3 days to chill and reflect and then come out with an apology, or not. 

 

 

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

So where are the posters who have stated that you don't have a right to your opinion? Disagreeing with someone is not the same as saying that they don't have the right to disagree.

Saying an opinion is ridiculous, disgusting, or some other insulting term is absolutely trying to make another opinion of less value.  It’s no different than a masked SJW shouting in the face of some other citizen in an attempt to stifle an opinion with which they disagree.  Again, all Canadians are entitled to their voice, and it’s not up to other citizens to decide anyone’s opinion crosses the boundary of our freedom of expression laws.  That’s the police and judicial systems responsibility.  And to hide behind the excuse that there is concern other Canadians hearing something we don’t like might become violent is totally wrong.  That’s saying we Canadians can’t make good choices, and need to only hear what is filtered by those who “know what’s best for us”.  That’s terroble because the message is controlled by a select few who deem themselves superior.  

[RWMc1]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Saying an opinion is ridiculous, disgusting, or some other insulting term is absolutely trying to make another opinion of less value. 

Actually, it is just another person expressing their opinion of whatever it is that was stated. Something you claim that everyone has a right to do.

[86Viking]

3 hours ago, HKSR said:

You people... 

vs.

You people that come here...

 

There's the difference.  Don should have just said 'you people' and left it at that.  Once he added the 'that come here' part, he singled out immigrants.  

My mom and her parents immigrated to Canada...they heard what Cherry said, didn't ruffle their feathers or make them want him to lose his job or go ranting about it as a racist comment. Guess some cultures or races can take something with a Grain of Salt while others take offense to any little thing that can be taken the wrong way.

 

 

[Dr. Crossbar]

56 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Do you really think the lady who made those comments - who seemingly neither of us can name - are going to cause rich, white hockey playing males to become marginalized, though?  Are they really going to be “divided?” No chance.  It’s also a daytime talk show where it’s her job to gab about crap like that. As opposed to a national program supposed to be about hockey. Nobody would have blinked at her comments if people weren’t reaching to manufacture a call for hypocrisy.
 

Meanwhile I can see people listening to Cherry and confronting a random non-poppy wearing POC, which to me would be terrible. 
 

I just don’t see the equivalencies at all.

No worries. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm also not naming her on purpose.

 

Your first question isn't something I said nor is it my point. Your second question is merely answering your own question to a point I didn't make. It's impossible to be wrong that way. So, no wonder you're not seeing the equivalences. 

 

That's the problem, like in the talk show clip, the people on the panel can't see their own hypocrisy.

[86Viking]

58 minutes ago, BPA said:

Maybe the network finally had an excuse to fire Cherry.   

This is the reason in my opinion 100%

[ItsAllOursBoys]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think there's a big difference tho, in that the current really vicious SJW/PC attackers are a pretty small group and also really don't come from a base of power like in Germany e.g. I actually think what you're seeing out of Trump is a lot closer to what you fear. He openly attacks and tears down people, and dehumanizes them (his use if "dog" when describing people he doesn't like) and he has nearly 1/2 the US backing him. The SJW/PC police are a far smaller group, pretty much campus commies for the most part imo. 

 

In today's world, size has nothing to do with the power these SJW wield. Through the use of social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram etc.., the virile attacks and influence of these people groups is magnified a thousand-fold. When 1% is able to wield so much power over the 99% that it leads to the attempted deplatforming, dehumanizing, and labeling of people like Trump, Alex Jones, Louis Farakhan, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Nehlen etc.., it shows their roots go deeper than we think. I do agree that if you follow the roots, they go back and are nurtured by the campus commies of our colleges and universities - commies which are influencing the movers and shakers of the next generation.

 

Wielding this influence in conjunction with the global platform given them through Fake News, the MSM and other Internet sites, their total power and influence is one hundred times greater than that of Germany.  Whether its antisemitism or all those poor misguided SJW's, the cartoon below has it just about right....

 

 

 

 

[Gaudette Celly]

"YOU PEOPLE!" -- 21 years ago, but nary a whimper.