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.
And I'm a tree huggin' Lib.
But the comment is pretty ignorant.
Perhaps a suspension was more in order............
And I'm a tree huggin' Lib.
even if people found it offensive, I don't see it as being something a guy loses his job over.
I guess there is a history. I am not aware of other comments specifically though.
I don't know the story behind the poppies. Is there some phenomenon where immigrants don't buy poppies?
I think it's wrong and insensitive to make generalizations like this, but again, cancel culture is not something I support - for words.
Quote:
GODDDDDDDDDDD, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he said. No-thing!
And I'm a tree huggin' Lib.
even if people found it offensive, I don't see it as being something a guy loses his job over.
I guess there is a history. I am not aware of other comments specifically though.
Plus..we don't know all the details.
Hockey Night in Canada gets to dictate what kind of show they want. Perhaps they went to Cherry afterwards and said say away from that (their right). Maybe he said no way and they axed him.
Again though, I don't know the entire context of the conversation surrounding the quote. How does Cherry know whether or not imigrants are buying poppies?
But I think that's it, right? There is no phenomena....he's just pissed they don't seem to appreciate the country and used that as a symbol.
That's what I got from it anyway.............
Quote:
But that take was brutally offensive, and yes, he deserved to lose his job.
I don't know the story behind the poppies. Is there some phenomenon where immigrants don't buy poppies?
I think it's wrong and insensitive to make generalizations like this, but again, cancel culture is not something I support - for words.
I think what you just said is exactly the point. Look at the conversation it opens up:
- Do immigrants not buy poppies at a higher rate than citizens?
Is that a dialogue SportsNet really wants to open up?
Agreed. He could have used another analogy rather than these poppies. He just chose that....but he's certainly calling them out.
What you just described is Cancel Culture failing in it's intent, but in a way, actually validated its existence by doing so.
Quote:
It’s a bullshit concept. Louis CK is still making money. As is Shane Gillis. Don Cherry will be for too. Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein are true monsters and powerful people are still exploring how to open doors for them. Bad actions should have consequences but if your wealthy and white, they will be fleeting.
What you just described is Cancel Culture failing in it's intent, but in a way, actually validated its existence by doing so.
So you don’t agree that actions should have consequences? It amazes me that so many people who talk about cancel culture also support our carceral system.
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.
Yeah, sure, because Jussie Smollet isn't serving time because he's so white and wealthy. Wealthy, I agree with, wealth has privileges white is just victim culture pulling you down.
but this is getting the thread off track.
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.
Quote:
It’s a bullshit concept. Louis CK is still making money. As is Shane Gillis. Don Cherry will be for too. Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein are true monsters and powerful people are still exploring how to open doors for them. Bad actions should have consequences but if your wealthy and white, they will be fleeting.
Yeah, sure, because Jussie Smollet isn't serving time because he's so white and wealthy. Wealthy, I agree with, wealth has privileges white is just victim culture pulling you down.
but this is getting the thread off track.
I’m not gonna go down a smollet rabbit hole because 1) I have no interest in defending him at this time and 2) I truly don’t have a grasp on the details of that case but even if I concede the point that wealth can grant privilege to people who are not white, it doesn’t mean that itself does not come with privilege.
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.