Don Cherry fired by Sportsnet

[Frank E]

I think it's very silly to make assumptions about it, and in this case I think it's prejudicial given the message there is "disagree with punishment=conservative leaning=bad person."

I was responding to someone directly attributing Cherry's firing to Liberalism. It's literally the  opposite of prejudicial.

And I wasn't responding to your statement, I was responding to Carlton's.  The prejudice in this case is the suggestion that if you feel a certain way about Cherry getting fired, you're labeled as a bad person.

I think some people are trying to frame this issue as having only 2 distinct groups:

Group "A" agree he should have been fired = tolerant = Liberal = good person
Group "B" don't think he should have been fired = intolerant = Conservative = racist 

I think those people are wrong to frame it this way.

I also think that some people are trying to frame this in another way:

Group "A" agree he should have been fired = PC perpetuator = Liberal = condescendor
Group "B" don't think he should have been fired = free speech defender = Conservative = patriot

I think those people are wrong to frame it this way.

I think this is a more nuanced issue, with lots of interesting conversations possibly stemming from it.  I think that would be constructive. 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I've had two people now say that I claimed supporting Cherry makes you a racist when I don't think that's anywhere in my posts. I said it likely makes you a conservative. That's it.

 

[Kin]

I think some people would probably be making better points if they said what they meant directly to the people they think are doing something they find objectionable and highlighted what they were referring to specifically

I haven't used the word "racist" or "racism" in this thread. What I said, specifically, was that I didn't understand why so many conservative people(and, yes, I was inferring that they were conservative from the things they said) wanted to paint Sportsnet's actions as being those of a liberal philosophy.

 

[Kin]

Like, genuinely, this is what I find so baffling about all this. I said, explicitly, earlier in the thread that I don't think Cherry really got fired for offending people or saying something mean and bigoted about immigrants. I think that Cherry got fired for a combination of reasons that included his history with causing controversy, his salary(and Sportsnet's clear interest in cutting costs) and the fact that when his employers found themselves in a tricky situation because of what he said he refused to toe the company line

The idea that so many people who are conservative, either by past statements or reasonable deduction, look at someone being fired for defying their bosses and putting their employer in a bad financial situation is "Liberal" or about Political Correctness is genuinely baffling to me. I'm not being sarcastic or ironic when I say that. I do not understand it. Putting profitability over human concerns and a deference to authority are as conservative as conservative gets in my books.

That's what makes all the charges of "hypocrisy" so hollow. Regardless of whether it's about Trudeau or the thing on Canadian daytime TV this week(and, boy howdy, do I regret having to think for a second about Canadian daytime TV) those people got in trouble and apologized. Cherry put his bosses in a tricky situation and outright refused to follow suit.

There's no double-standard here. Cherry almost certainly is still employed today if he said "You know how passionate I am about Veterans in this country and in the course of that I said some things I shouldn't have. I apologize to..." or whatever. Sportsnet doesn't want to be dealing with the fallout of firing Cherry and they're almost certainly still paying him. But saying what he did and then sticking to it, doubling down on it even, effectively gave his employers no choice but to finally act after years and years of comments that gave offense to people.

So when so many people associated with movement Conservatism want to very loudly and publicly look at Sportsnet's actions and say "Ah! Liberalism!" I am just entirely perplexed. It's like they're going out of their way to claim Cherry's comments as essential to their ideology.

 

[Frank E]

I've had two people now say that I claimed supporting Cherry makes you a racist when I don't think that's anywhere in my posts. I said it likely makes you a conservative. That's it.

I didn't mean to say that you said "disagreeing with Cherry getting fired makes you a racist".

You didn't say that.

I disagreed with the statement that your feelings about this particular old fart getting fired defines which political ideology you support...and honestly, I think vice versa.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think it's very silly to make assumptions about it, and in this case I think it's prejudicial given the message there is "disagree with punishment=conservative leaning=bad person."

I was responding to someone directly attributing Cherry's firing to Liberalism. It's literally the  opposite of prejudicial.

And I wasn't responding to your statement, I was responding to Carlton's.  The prejudice in this case is the suggestion that if you feel a certain way about Cherry getting fired, you're labeled as a bad person.

I think some people are trying to frame this issue as having only 2 distinct groups:

Group "A" agree he should have been fired = tolerant = Liberal = good person
Group "B" don't think he should have been fired = intolerant = Conservative = racist 

I think those people are wrong to frame it this way.

I also think that some people are trying to frame this in another way:

Group "A" agree he should have been fired = PC perpetuator = Liberal = condescendor
Group "B" don't think he should have been fired = free speech defender = Conservative = patriot

I think those people are wrong to frame it this way.

I think this is a more nuanced issue, with lots of interesting conversations possibly stemming from it.  I think that would be constructive.

I think this is well said; unfortunate, but seemingly true based on many conversations I've had with friends about this issue. This is how the issues are being framed.

I think Nik also does a great job of getting to the true heart of the matter. This is ultimately a private manner (in so far as it's an employer making decisions about an employee.)

My friend, who happens to be a conservative thinker/supporter, questions "how can Cherry get fired for his comments but Trudeau McBlackface is still prime minister?!" It is people who conflate these very different situations that tend to make this about politics, I find.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I disagreed with the statement that your feelings about this particular old fart getting fired defines which political ideology you support...and honestly, I think vice versa.

I think the word "aligns" better sums up my thoughts than "defines". A genuine question though: if you polled 1000 people who voiced support for Cherry through this incident, you don't think a majority of them would say they voted conservative in the last election?

edit: And when I say voiced support I don't mean people who are outwardly saying "yeah immigrants are bad". Just people who are siding with him in a general sense.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I think what was most eye rolling wasn't the actual statement, but the way he tried to walk it back later without taking any responsibility - by saying it was the "you people" in his quote that did him in when him meant "everyone". It was crystal clear in the context of the milk and honey statement he was talking about new Canadians, and trying to deny it later is pretty pathetic,  almost trumpian. Blech. If you're going to put yourself out there on the moral high ground, stand by it.

Anyway, Coaches Corner has needed to be reworked for a long time, so politics aside, if this forces Rogers to put quality ahead of money, maybe it'll be a good thing for hockey fans.

 

[Frank E]

I disagreed with the statement that your feelings about this particular old fart getting fired defines which political ideology you support...and honestly, I think vice versa.

I think the word "aligns" better sums up my thoughts than "defines". A genuine question though: if you polled 1000 people who voiced support for Cherry through this incident, you don't think a majority of them would say they voted conservative in the last election?

edit: And when I say voiced support I don't mean people who are outwardly saying "yeah immigrants are bad". Just people who are siding with him in a general sense.

I don't much like speculating on things like that.  I saw a thing on the news, they were wandering around a city asking what people's opinions were on Cherry's firing, and I was surprised at some of the responses. 

And just to clarify my statement above, the vice versa meant that I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

I think, like Nik said, that some people are doing a terrible job trying to connect certain opinions to certain political parties or ideology, or both.

 

[Kin]

I think speaking in absolutes tends to be a bad idea for the most part(although, in keeping with that, that isn't absolute) but there's really no denying that the reaction to this has been very different in Conservative media vs. more left leaning press.

If "#Notallconservatives" is the point, despite nobody saying the contrary...ok. I suppose having a view on this isn't necessarily indicative of larger political ideologies but I think it's pretty hard to argue that thinking Cherry shouldn't be fired isn't indicative of a view on what Cherry said and the acceptability of those statements within the public discourse.

 

[Courtnall]

I think it's very silly to make assumptions about it, and in this case I think it's prejudicial given the message there is "disagree with punishment=conservative leaning=bad person."

I was responding to someone directly attributing Cherry's firing to Liberalism. It's literally the  opposite of prejudicial.

Assumption after assumption. Tell me more about what I posted.

I posted it in reply to your ?Right Wing nutjob? comment.
Are all cons nut jobs? Or is only Cherry because of his ?you people? comment? Are we taking his past comments Into account? Or does only our PM get a pass for past actions? Why does Jess Allen not face repercussions?
I stand by my original statement.

 

[Kin]

I posted it in reply to your ?Right Wing nutjob? comment.

You mean this one? Where I said that depicting Cherry just as a right wing nutjob is an inaccurate narrative?

Because it feels like the narrative that's being presented in the international media is that for about 40 years, Canadians have listened to some right wing nutjob yell his poorly informed racist nonsense at us in the intermissions of HNIC and that feels like such an oversimplification of things.

Or does only our PM get a pass for past actions? Why does Jess Allen not face repercussions?

Luckily, I also explain this:

That's what makes all the charges of "hypocrisy" so hollow. Regardless of whether it's about Trudeau or the thing on Canadian daytime TV this week(and, boy howdy, do I regret having to think for a second about Canadian daytime TV) those people got in trouble and apologized. Cherry put his bosses in a tricky situation and outright refused to follow suit.

 

[KW Sluggo]

Leaving aside whether Cherry's comments were objectionable or merely politically incorrect, or the final straw in a cumulative career of misstatements (FWIW, I found the comments objectionable so flame away) this is all good news for Rogers.

This past summer they paused significantly before extending Cherry

Although they are on a cost cutting tear, forcing Cherry out would have been been a rather unpopular move. Cherry has done them a favour by running his mouth (again) thereby giving Rogers the pretext to dismiss him.

As Bob McCown found out, ratings alone are not enough, it's demographics that count.

The real bonus here is that without Don they sure as hell don't need the overpaid and overrated Ron and another salary will be saved.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Cherry is but one of many:

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/braun-open-mouth-insert-foot-don-cherry-not-alone

 

[herman]

Cherry's gonna start a podcast and it's going to be sponsored by ColdFX.

I was being facetious
https://twitter.com/simondingleycbc/status/1196562088778436608

 

[WAYNEINIONA]

Well that's easy enough to avoid.

 

[Zee]

The podcast route did wonders for Dean Blundell

 

[hockeyfan1]

HNIC viewership down:

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-dumping-don-cherry-hurting-hnic-ratings

 

[Highlander]

HNIC viewership down:

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-dumping-don-cherry-hurting-hnic-ratings

pretty academic, fire the top sports personality in the country (for right or wrong) and don't expect most of your viewership to like it.  He should have died in his Hockey Coach's Corner chair with Ron tugging on his colourful jacket saying "Don, wake up its time to sign off". 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The last two weeks of available data show that HNIC viewership is up compared to the previous year. So using the Toronto Sun's excellent logic that means more people are now watching because Don Cherry was fired.