Many of you probably have no idea who Don Cherry is.
He is the old school caricature Canadian "hockey guy" on Hockey Night in Canada. He was a former Bruins coach, and a terrible one, if I remember right, and is best known for his flamboyant suits and blunt (and sometimes offensive) takes.
I was never a fan of Cherry, other than my 12 year old and I tuning in to Coach's Corner in between periods on Hockey Night in Canada on Saturdays to laugh/marvel at his obnoxious suits. Coach's Corner is the highest rated 7 minutes of TV in all of Canada.
Saturday night was one of his more offensive takes imploring immigrants to buy poppies in support of Canadian Remembrance Day:
| "You people love — they come here, whatever it is — you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey. The least you could pay is a couple of bucks for a poppy or something like that. These guys pay for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada. These guys pay the biggest price," |
Anyway, not going to miss him, but still not sure firing him sets the right example and yes, I view this as an example of cancel culture even if what he said was offensive.
Here is an example of a flamboyant suit he'd wear.
Quote:
From my perspective, suspending him and using this as an opportunity to explain why something is wrong to an 85 year old man and basically your whole country - who are the viewers, and how you pay for doing something wrong of this nature is how a civilized society works.
Firing him for it is how a mob works.
again, I won't miss him, but I just hate how one sentence, even if offensive, can end a career.
Also, I don't know the history. Maybe he's said other offensive things and been suspended before, I don't know. But if this was it I don't think they sent the right message.
People won't change their behavior IMO, they'll be resentful of the people who "caused" the firing (not even giving Cherry credit for his part in his own demise) - at least that's how I see it.
I would agree with you IF this was the first time Don Cherry had veered off the beaten path. This isn't a one sentence issue with him.
It's only mob rule if they asked him to either apologize or take a suspension, and he said FU.
Then firing him was justified.
But either way, Hockey Night gets to make the rules..........
Quote:
In comment 14675947 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
From my perspective, suspending him and using this as an opportunity to explain why something is wrong to an 85 year old man and basically your whole country - who are the viewers, and how you pay for doing something wrong of this nature is how a civilized society works.
Firing him for it is how a mob works.
again, I won't miss him, but I just hate how one sentence, even if offensive, can end a career.
Also, I don't know the history. Maybe he's said other offensive things and been suspended before, I don't know. But if this was it I don't think they sent the right message.
People won't change their behavior IMO, they'll be resentful of the people who "caused" the firing (not even giving Cherry credit for his part in his own demise) - at least that's how I see it.
I would agree with you IF this was the first time Don Cherry had veered off the beaten path. This isn't a one sentence issue with him.
It's only mob rule if they asked him to either apologize or take a suspension, and he said FU.
Then firing him was justified.
But either way, Hockey Night gets to make the rules..........
If they didn't ask him *
only I'm not a boomer, but you still make everyone out to be victims because it's an easy excuse for a life less than fulfilling. My comments would be the same for Cherry as they are for someone like Don Lemon who IMO did much worse (if allegations are true), yet still has a job and questioning that is beyond reproach. Imagine that. I wonder why Cherry's white wealth couldn't save him (as you claim it always does) but Lemon's white wealth could. Wait, what?
My point isn't Cherry deserves no punishment, and I certainly don't agree with what he said, but ending his career because of what he said seems excessive and "giving in" to the mob.
but...I don't know the history.
Let's not forget this is a country whose Prime Minister appeared in black face. Multiple times. without consequence. and that's not to claim whataboutism (because I don't care about Don Cherry), it's a about a standard and "the mob".
Just seems like a dangerous precedent.
Ahem, easy on us 85-ers.
Quote:
Like cancel culture. It’s shit like this that leads to the already tired “ok boomer” meme. Y’all are so invested in protecting yourself from any self reflection you’ll throw a hissy fit to back up any powerful white man who self destructs.
only I'm not a boomer, but you still make everyone out to be victims because it's an easy excuse for a life less than fulfilling. My comments would be the same for Cherry as they are for someone like Don Lemon who IMO did much worse (if allegations are true), yet still has a job and questioning that is beyond reproach. Imagine that. I wonder why Cherry's white wealth couldn't save him (as you claim it always does) but Lemon's white wealth could. Wait, what?
I’m not inventing victims- I’m arguing Cherry isn’t one. I’m also not going to defend Don Lemon. If you’re best argument against racial discrimination is that some rich black men get away with abhorrent conduct, you’re not doing a very good job. Who will you bring up next? Cosby? Michael Jackson? Outliers don’t erase decade upon decade of inequity.
Quote:
Like cancel culture. It’s shit like this that leads to the already tired “ok boomer” meme. Y’all are so invested in protecting yourself from any self reflection you’ll throw a hissy fit to back up any powerful white man who self destructs.
only I'm not a boomer, but you still make everyone out to be victims because it's an easy excuse for a life less than fulfilling. My comments would be the same for Cherry as they are for someone like Don Lemon who IMO did much worse (if allegations are true), yet still has a job and questioning that is beyond reproach. Imagine that. I wonder why Cherry's white wealth couldn't save him (as you claim it always does) but Lemon's white wealth could. Wait, what?
Two things: 1)Lemon and Cherry (flavors lol) could both be assholes who deserve to get fired. Why this is set up as some kind of either/or choice is confusing. 2) Cherry's comments were on TV and are not in dispute. Lemon's situation happened at a bar and the events are in dispute. It's reasonable to think that CNN wait to see what happens before they fire someone. It's a false equivalence to connect the two.
My point isn't Cherry deserves no punishment, and I certainly don't agree with what he said, but ending his career because of what he said seems excessive and "giving in" to the mob.
but...I don't know the history.
Let's not forget this is a country whose Prime Minister appeared in black face. Multiple times. without consequence. and that's not to claim whataboutism (because I don't care about Don Cherry), it's a about a standard and "the mob".
Just seems like a dangerous precedent.
I like the pm’s politics. I like Ralph Northam’s politics. But I’m disgusted by their past behavior and would have no problem with them being voted out of office, even for a candidate I liked far less. But I don’t vote in Canada or Virginia, so I don’t get a say. The funny thing about free markets is we all get a voice for better or worse. And it appears that Cherry wasn’t worth the cost of his actions.
Saturday Night Hockey isn't going to be boycotted, but they certainly want people watching. I'm guessing the in between period performance, and also I think he did some pregame too, could suffer.
Cherry has no one to blame but himself for such comments.
Quote:
In comment 14675977 odunde said:
Quote:
Like cancel culture. It’s shit like this that leads to the already tired “ok boomer” meme. Y’all are so invested in protecting yourself from any self reflection you’ll throw a hissy fit to back up any powerful white man who self destructs.
only I'm not a boomer, but you still make everyone out to be victims because it's an easy excuse for a life less than fulfilling. My comments would be the same for Cherry as they are for someone like Don Lemon who IMO did much worse (if allegations are true), yet still has a job and questioning that is beyond reproach. Imagine that. I wonder why Cherry's white wealth couldn't save him (as you claim it always does) but Lemon's white wealth could. Wait, what?
I’m not inventing victims- I’m arguing Cherry isn’t one. I’m also not going to defend Don Lemon. If you’re best argument against racial discrimination is that some rich black men get away with abhorrent conduct, you’re not doing a very good job. Who will you bring up next? Cosby? Michael Jackson? Outliers don’t erase decade upon decade of inequity.
I am not arguing against racial discrimination.
I am arguing that cancel culture 100% exists and it's not something claimed as a result of wealthy white people self destructing. Chappelle is a recent hit to an extent, same with Kevin Hart, and more people who are not white.
And it's just as wrong for them.
Sometimes people do things that deserve firing, sometimes people do things wrong, that don't necessarily have to result in ending their livelihood.
I think we should live in a society where the price you pay for something you do wrong is commensurate with your "crime"
I also 100% believe that victim culture is a thing. And no, Cherry is not the victim here, but the people who are so offended by his words that there can be no possible consequence for his offensive words short of his firing to appease their frothy anger. they are the victims, the easily offended. the mob.
Quote:
In comment 14675989 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 14675977 odunde said:
Quote:
Like cancel culture. It’s shit like this that leads to the already tired “ok boomer” meme. Y’all are so invested in protecting yourself from any self reflection you’ll throw a hissy fit to back up any powerful white man who self destructs.
only I'm not a boomer, but you still make everyone out to be victims because it's an easy excuse for a life less than fulfilling. My comments would be the same for Cherry as they are for someone like Don Lemon who IMO did much worse (if allegations are true), yet still has a job and questioning that is beyond reproach. Imagine that. I wonder why Cherry's white wealth couldn't save him (as you claim it always does) but Lemon's white wealth could. Wait, what?
I’m not inventing victims- I’m arguing Cherry isn’t one. I’m also not going to defend Don Lemon. If you’re best argument against racial discrimination is that some rich black men get away with abhorrent conduct, you’re not doing a very good job. Who will you bring up next? Cosby? Michael Jackson? Outliers don’t erase decade upon decade of inequity.
I am not arguing against racial discrimination.
I am arguing that cancel culture 100% exists and it's not something claimed as a result of wealthy white people self destructing. Chappelle is a recent hit to an extent, same with Kevin Hart, and more people who are not white.
And it's just as wrong for them.
Sometimes people do things that deserve firing, sometimes people do things wrong, that don't necessarily have to result in ending their livelihood.
I think we should live in a society where the price you pay for something you do wrong is commensurate with your "crime"
I also 100% believe that victim culture is a thing. And no, Cherry is not the victim here, but the people who are so offended by his words that there can be no possible consequence for his offensive words short of his firing to appease their frothy anger. they are the victims, the easily offended. the mob.
Hart and chapelle are both extremely successful and remain so in the face of “backlash” for saying shitty things. If they are victims of cancel culture is Kaep as well?
Saturday Night Hockey isn't going to be boycotted, but they certainly want people watching. I'm guessing the in between period performance, and also I think he did some pregame too, could suffer.
Cherry has no one to blame but himself for such comments.
Yes, he 100% has himself to blame for his comments.
My point is that there might be a middle ground for a punishment that could have been more effective.
In my view it seems like (and I hate the phrase) using this event as a teaching moment maybe would have been more effective than firing him.
but, he would not apologize, so I guess their hands were tied (if that was a condition).
It doesn't matter to me if it's Don Cherry (who I did not like) or whoever or what they said or what their views are, people are setting themselves up for standards they can't live up to or people they agree with philosophically can't live up to or they will wind up with a double standard.
Neither of which is good IMO.
That agenda being calling people out for being assholes.
Holding people accountable isn’t extreme. And to be frank it isn’t working. Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein are making moves to re-enter their fields and are still comfortably ensconced in their social circles. Mark Halperin just had a book come out (which is selling delightfully badly), and kavanaugh got a lifetime appointment.
Quote:
No. It's a way to describe something new. New phenomena arise in society all the time. When they do we put a name to them. Hence a new word or term. A certain part of society has chosen to adopt different views regarding behavior and how to define it. These views are extreme and deserve to be labeled so they can be identified for what they are. A means to accomplish an agenda.
Holding people accountable isn’t extreme. And to be frank it isn’t working. Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein are making moves to re-enter their fields and are still comfortably ensconced in their social circles. Mark Halperin just had a book come out (which is selling delightfully badly), and kavanaugh got a lifetime appointment.
Where you see a new phenomenon I see a shield protecting the people who get all the breaks in our society.
Quote:
In comment 14676040 Torrag said:
Quote:
No. It's a way to describe something new. New phenomena arise in society all the time. When they do we put a name to them. Hence a new word or term. A certain part of society has chosen to adopt different views regarding behavior and how to define it. These views are extreme and deserve to be labeled so they can be identified for what they are. A means to accomplish an agenda.
Holding people accountable isn’t extreme. And to be frank it isn’t working. Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein are making moves to re-enter their fields and are still comfortably ensconced in their social circles. Mark Halperin just had a book come out (which is selling delightfully badly), and kavanaugh got a lifetime appointment.
Where you see a new phenomenon I see a shield protecting the people who get all the breaks in our society.
that sentence epitomizes victim culture.
When you think that way you limit your opportunity and your potential.
and I mean you colloquially, not specifically.
Quote:
In comment 14676121 odunde said:
Quote:
In comment 14676040 Torrag said:
Quote:
No. It's a way to describe something new. New phenomena arise in society all the time. When they do we put a name to them. Hence a new word or term. A certain part of society has chosen to adopt different views regarding behavior and how to define it. These views are extreme and deserve to be labeled so they can be identified for what they are. A means to accomplish an agenda.
Holding people accountable isn’t extreme. And to be frank it isn’t working. Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein are making moves to re-enter their fields and are still comfortably ensconced in their social circles. Mark Halperin just had a book come out (which is selling delightfully badly), and kavanaugh got a lifetime appointment.
Where you see a new phenomenon I see a shield protecting the people who get all the breaks in our society.
that sentence epitomizes victim culture.
When you think that way you limit your opportunity and your potential.
and I mean you colloquially, not specifically.
Explain victim culture and how my sentence epitomizes it, please.
Your sentence epitomizes it IMO because you're focused on outing or "punishing" others not because of their specific incident but because of a perceived societal oppression by people "getting all the breaks". You are judging people by skin color, which is exactly the way you don't want people to be judged. But, go ahead and be the victim, it's a built-in excuse for....well everything.
Quote:
A culture of victimhood is one characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main form of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.
Your sentence epitomizes it IMO because you're focused on outing or "punishing" others not because of their specific incident but because of a perceived societal oppression by people "getting all the breaks". You are judging people by skin color, which is exactly the way you don't want people to be judged. But, go ahead and be the victim, it's a built-in excuse for....well everything.
Yeah, I've read Campbell and Manning. Their argument is born of the mindset of a societal elite chilled by the prospect of losing status and power based on their past bad decisions. On the one hand, there is a part of me that is sympathetic - i have said and done things I deeply regret in my life, and am partially protected by my lack of status. But my own hypocrisy does not make their diagnosis accurate. Their thesis values a system where underrepresented groups can not gain power. It advantages those who have and seek to maintain their power.
As for my statements on this thread, I don't know what you're talking about. Who am I judging for their skin color? Don Cherry? He is a stupid old white man, but that isn't WHY I think he is racist trash. I think he is racist trash because of the problematic garbage that comes out of his mouth.
Quote:
of the victim culture on an academic blog.
Quote:
A culture of victimhood is one characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main form of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.
Your sentence epitomizes it IMO because you're focused on outing or "punishing" others not because of their specific incident but because of a perceived societal oppression by people "getting all the breaks". You are judging people by skin color, which is exactly the way you don't want people to be judged. But, go ahead and be the victim, it's a built-in excuse for....well everything.
Yeah, I've read Campbell and Manning. Their argument is born of the mindset of a societal elite chilled by the prospect of losing status and power based on their past bad decisions. On the one hand, there is a part of me that is sympathetic - i have said and done things I deeply regret in my life, and am partially protected by my lack of status. But my own hypocrisy does not make their diagnosis accurate. Their thesis values a system where underrepresented groups can not gain power. It advantages those who have and seek to maintain their power.
As for my statements on this thread, I don't know what you're talking about. Who am I judging for their skin color? Don Cherry? He is a stupid old white man, but that isn't WHY I think he is racist trash. I think he is racist trash because of the problematic garbage that comes out of his mouth.
Good post.
I think you are judging all "non-victims" aka anyone not an official member of the "Oppression Olympics"
In this sentence you are claiming white people coined victim culture to protect or make excuses for their transgressions, at least that's what I took the last part of your sentence to mean.
The exceptions you have named in this thread, are the super wealthy, and also as you have noted in this thread, those exceptions cross race.
Quote:
In comment 14676171 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
of the victim culture on an academic blog.
Quote:
A culture of victimhood is one characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main form of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.
Your sentence epitomizes it IMO because you're focused on outing or "punishing" others not because of their specific incident but because of a perceived societal oppression by people "getting all the breaks". You are judging people by skin color, which is exactly the way you don't want people to be judged. But, go ahead and be the victim, it's a built-in excuse for....well everything.
Yeah, I've read Campbell and Manning. Their argument is born of the mindset of a societal elite chilled by the prospect of losing status and power based on their past bad decisions. On the one hand, there is a part of me that is sympathetic - i have said and done things I deeply regret in my life, and am partially protected by my lack of status. But my own hypocrisy does not make their diagnosis accurate. Their thesis values a system where underrepresented groups can not gain power. It advantages those who have and seek to maintain their power.
As for my statements on this thread, I don't know what you're talking about. Who am I judging for their skin color? Don Cherry? He is a stupid old white man, but that isn't WHY I think he is racist trash. I think he is racist trash because of the problematic garbage that comes out of his mouth.
Good post.
I think you are judging all "non-victims" aka anyone not an official member of the "Oppression Olympics"
Quote:
Where you see a new phenomenon I see a shield protecting the people who get all the breaks in our society.
In this sentence you are claiming white people coined victim culture to protect or make excuses for their transgressions, at least that's what I took the last part of your sentence to mean.
The exceptions you have named in this thread, are the super wealthy, and also as you have noted in this thread, those exceptions cross race.
I agree with you that the wealthy exceptions cross race. But the groups I’m “targeting,” which feels like the wrong word since I’m not actually attacking with any means that might cause damage or loss of status, are not where I focus because of the color of their skin, but because whiteness is the identifier that so often signifies who can succeed and who can not.
I know, I know this is identity politics rearing it’s ugly head, but identity politics has always been the norm. It was when the targets were Irish and Italian immigrants, and it is today. Identity informs who benefits and who does not. If you can’t recognize that this plays a role in societal power dynamics I don’t know how we can have a discussion that leads to a productive outcome. I’m fine with disagreeing on the cure, but I’m baffled when people reject the diagnosis.
He apparently poked his finger angrily at the camera and referred to immigrants as "you people" while implying they were not contributing enough to the country.
I couldn't agree more. Thank you.
No, that doesn’t fly. Not doing the right thing 30 years ago doesn’t mean you can’t do the right thing today. And a guy doesn’t get a lifetime pass because people neglected to stand up to him earlier.
Unfortunately, that won’t happen and cancel culture will only diminish when social justice warriors have their own weapons turned back on them and start losing their jobs or not getting hired.
Only a matter of time before social media posts become part of routine background checks. And most employers are not going to want employees who routinely accuse others of racism, sexism, sexual assault etc ... Its divisive, bad for company morale, will lead to endless litigation. Who wants employees like that? It hasn’t really started to happen yet, but it will
Sportsnet inherited him when they got the rights of Hockey Night in Canada from the CBC. The CBC never really did anything to keep Cherry in line. Rogers was not going to be as forgiving.
The only thing I can give him credit for is as a Carolina Hurricanes fan. He did more promotion for the team with one line "Bunch of Jerks" than the entire marketing and promotion teams of the Hurricanes did in the last 20 years.
I could care less that he is gone as I never watched him anyway, but the airwaves have one less asshole on it.
Don Cherry NHL coaching record. - ( New Window )
Don Cherry NHL coaching record. - ( New Window )
he was way before my time. All I read about here in Boston is how those teams had 6 (?) hall-of-famers and many fringe Hall-of-famers and he never won, and inherited most of it. I sort of view him (based on what I've read) like a Barry Switzer.
So, I will retract that statement since I can only judge his NHL coaching prowess by what I've read.
Quote:
He was well respected as a long time minor league coach and had 5 great years in the '70s with the Bs, losing 2 yrs. in a row to the powerhouse Canadiens in the Finals and from what I remember his players loved him. He had one terrible season with the awful Colorado Rockies (who became the NJ Devils) before moving on to TV.
Don Cherry NHL coaching record. - ( New Window )
he was way before my time. All I read about here in Boston is how those teams had 6 (?) hall-of-famers and many fringe Hall-of-famers and he never won, and inherited most of it. I sort of view him (based on what I've read) like a Barry Switzer.
So, I will retract that statement since I can only judge his NHL coaching prowess by what I've read.
I remember that era pretty well. The Bs biggest problem then was that the Canadiens were just too good. The Bs did have very good teams, but Montreal was just super natural back then.
Unfortunately, that won’t happen and cancel culture will only diminish when social justice warriors have their own weapons turned back on them and start losing their jobs or not getting hired.
Only a matter of time before social media posts become part of routine background checks. And most employers are not going to want employees who routinely accuse others of racism, sexism, sexual assault etc ... Its divisive, bad for company morale, will lead to endless litigation. Who wants employees like that? It hasn’t really started to happen yet, but it will
but clearly I didn't know the history.
@WR_Record
‘I don’t regret a thing.’ Don Cherry not backing down after being fired by Sportsnet
from an article....
"It's ironic I got fired on Remembrance Day, which makes it kind of strange," Cherry told the Star on Monday night.
"I could have stayed if I had wiped the floor with myself, and returned as a tamed person. I don't feel that the people who watch Coach's Corner deserve something like that. I would rather go out on my shield. I guess I am going out on my shield.
"Kind of tough not having a job halfway through the season, that's the way it is. I don't regret a thing. I said what I said, I meant what I said and I believe everybody in this country should wear a poppy, and buy a poppy to support the families of the servicemen, and that's the way I feel.
"If you notice, I never said 'immigrants,' I never said anything, I said 'you people' and they could have been Scottish, they could have been Irish, they could have been anything, but that's the way the world is today. They listened to those people."
No, you said "you people come here..." meaning you weren't here before you came here. Meaning.. you're an immigrant.
Sportsnet inherited him when they got the rights of Hockey Night in Canada from the CBC. The CBC never really did anything to keep Cherry in line. Rogers was not going to be as forgiving.
Quote:
From CTV News: The Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council has been so overloaded with complaints about hockey commentator Don Cherry's rant over the weekend that it hit the limit of the organization's technical processing capacity.
The only thing I can give him credit for is as a Carolina Hurricanes fan. He did more promotion for the team with one line "Bunch of Jerks" than the entire marketing and promotion teams of the Hurricanes did in the last 20 years.
I could care less that he is gone as I never watched him anyway, but the airwaves have one less asshole on it.
His comments over the years weren't just limited to their style, he explicitly complained about European hockey players coming here and taking jobs away from North Americans.