Eleven Posted November 12, 2019 Author Report Posted November 12, 2019 14 minutes ago, ... said: Of course. Nationalism can only be hatred and fear. That's a pretty big distortion of what I wrote. Cherry's comments have been rooted in hatred and fear for quite some time. That does not mean that nationalism is rooted in hatred OR fear, nor is Cherry necessarily a nationalist. 1 minute ago, ... said: Why not? All you're doing is saying censorship of thought is okay. So the perspective of a guy who has experienced the world being turned upside down and the results of that should be ignored? There is a maxim or two that addresses this. There's no censorship. He's welcome to say whatever he wants. No one is obligated to give him a platform on which to say it, however. Quote
... Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 minute ago, Eleven said: That's a pretty big distortion of what I wrote. Cherry's comments have been rooted in hatred and fear for quite some time. That does not mean that nationalism is rooted in hatred OR fear, nor is Cherry necessarily a nationalist. There's no censorship. He's welcome to say whatever he wants. No one is obligated to give him a platform on which to say it, however. What non-nationalistic comments has he made that are rooted in hatred and fear? What Shrader said is absolutely the fundamental of censorship. Essentially: that thinking is unwelcome, therefore that thinking should not be known. That's censorship of thought. Broadly, advocating the suppression of thought is censorship. Quote
shrader Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 minute ago, ... said: What non-nationalistic comments has he made that are rooted in hatred and fear? What Shrader said is absolutely the fundamental of censorship. Essentially: that thinking is unwelcome, therefore that thinking should not be known. That's censorship of thought. Broadly, advocating the suppression of thought is censorship. A broadcast network can air whatever they want. They're the message presenter, not the talent. If Cherry really wants to present these topics, there's a venue for it where it's not done on someone else's dollar, the dollar of someone who doesn't like that message. Quote
Eleven Posted November 12, 2019 Author Report Posted November 12, 2019 Just now, ... said: What non-nationalistic comments has he made that are rooted in hatred and fear? What Shrader said is absolutely the fundamental of censorship. Essentially: that thinking is unwelcome, therefore that thinking should not be known. That's censorship of thought. Broadly, advocating the suppression of thought is censorship. 1. You're missing the point if you're asking that question. That Don Cherry's comments are rooted in hatred and fear, and that Don Cherry's makes his comments under the guise of pseudo-nationalism, do NOT logically result in the conclusion that nationalism is rooted in hatred and fear. So there's a process flaw. There's also a premise flaw; I will point to his comments about native Canadians as non-nationalistic, yet still rooted in hatred and fear. You can google for them if you'd like. 2. No, that's not what shrader said. What shrader said is that Don Cherry is not entitled to a national broadcast to spout his thoughts. And he's right. Why should he be entitled? What makes him so special, as opposed to any other 85-year-old who lived through World War II? He was a poor to middling hockey player and a mediocre coach, and all of the sudden, his thoughts on Veterans' Day are supposed to be more important to me than the thoughts of an 85-year-old in Mississippi who was the son of a sharecropper? Or an 85-year old in Moscow who lost her father in the war? (And what happened to "stick to sports?" That seemed to be a popular mantra among his demographic not long ago.) Quote
... Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 minute ago, shrader said: A broadcast network can air whatever they want. They're the message presenter, not the talent. If Cherry really wants to present these topics, there's a venue for it where it's not done on someone else's dollar, the dollar of someone who doesn't like that message. Obviously, a private company is welcome to air what they choose, but yhat's not what you started this with. "That doesn't mean he should have a national broadcast to spout those thoughts. His time has passed and it's time to move on." You're not talking about the company not agreeing with Cherry, you're talking about Cherry's ideas. You're saying his ideas shouldn't be "spout" on a national broadcast. You're saying his perspective is no longer relevant. Quote
shrader Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 minute ago, ... said: Obviously, a private company is welcome to air what they choose, but yhat's not what you started this with. "That doesn't mean he should have a national broadcast to spout those thoughts. His time has passed and it's time to move on." You're not talking about the company not agreeing with Cherry, you're talking about Cherry's ideas. You're saying his ideas shouldn't be "spout" on a national broadcast. You're saying his perspective is no longer relevant. I suggest you go back and read the first portion of that post if you really think that's what I'm saying. Your relevance as a whole and as the main mouthpiece of a sports league are two completely different things. Quote
... Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Eleven said: 1. You're missing the point if you're asking that question. That Don Cherry's comments are rooted in hatred and fear, and that Don Cherry's makes his comments under the guise of pseudo-nationalism, do NOT logically result in the conclusion that nationalism is rooted in hatred and fear. So there's a process flaw. There's also a premise flaw; I will point to his comments about native Canadians as non-nationalistic, yet still rooted in hatred and fear. You can google for them if you'd like. I am not missing a thing, please don't change the focus here if you can't answer. Be honest and just say "I don't know". You said Cherry has exhibited "a pattern of commentary based upon hatred and fear". Do we have an example of such comments to examine that are not nationalistic? Quote
... Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 minute ago, shrader said: I suggest you go back and read the first portion of that post if you really think that's what I'm saying. Your relevance as a whole and as the main mouthpiece of a sports league are two completely different things. He was the main mouthpiece of the NHL? Since when? I don't think the NHL would ever admit that's true. He's been editorializing in the Coach's Corner for years and years. Why, all of a sudden, is the content of his editorializing worthy of all of this? Quote
Eleven Posted November 12, 2019 Author Report Posted November 12, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ... said: I am not missing a thing, please don't change the focus here if you can't answer. Be honest and just say "I don't know". You said Cherry has exhibited "a pattern of commentary based upon hatred and fear". Do we have an example of such comments to examine that are not nationalistic? You have a logically flawed syllogism resulting in some claim that I believe that nationalism is rooted in hatred and fear. You are missing something. You are missing the distribution of the middle term of the syllogism. That is, specifically, what you are missing. I gave you an example: His comments about native Canadians. Did you not read that part? He's also said stupid and hateful stuff about alcoholism and drug use, neither of which have anything to do with nationalism. Since you have declined my invitation to google that stuff for yourself, here's a SAMPLING: https://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/don-cherry-s-history-of-controversial-comments-1.4680505 Focus, maybe, on his comments about NHL enforcers. Feel free to pick those apart one by one while ignoring that this is hardly the full body of his work. And, again, why is his opinion so special compared to others who lived in the same time? Edited November 12, 2019 by Eleven Quote
shrader Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 minute ago, ... said: He was the main mouthpiece of the NHL? Since when? I don't think the NHL would ever admit that's true. He's been editorializing in the Coach's Corner for years and years. Why, all of a sudden, is the content of his editorializing worthy of all of this? He was one of the most iconic faces in Canada for so many years. It doesn't matter what the NHL might admit, he was essentially the face of hockey for an entire country. Maybe there's a bit of hyperbole in that statement, but I'm comfortable making it. Why all of a sudden is his editorializing worthy of all of this? That's the world we live in today. Quote
... Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Eleven said: You have a logically flawed syllogism resulting in some claim that I believe that nationalism is rooted in hatred and fear. You are missing something. You are missing the distribution of the middle term of the syllogism. That is, specifically, what you are missing. I gave you an example: His comments about native Canadians. Did you not read that part? He's also said stupid and hateful stuff about alcoholism and drug use, neither of which have anything to do with nationalism. Since you have declined my invitation to google that stuff for yourself, here's a SAMPLING: https://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/don-cherry-s-history-of-controversial-comments-1.4680505 Feel free to pick those apart one by one while ignoring that this is hardly the full body of his work. And, again, why is his opinion so special compared to others who lived in the same time? Well, finally. The comments in that article are based in hatred and fear? Let's examine one: “Why wouldn’t some kids feel like they haven’t gotten a fair shake in life?” MacLean asked. “Fair shake in life! Go out and get your own fair shake in life and work for it. Don’t give me that stuff,” Cherry replied. Which leaves out a decent portion of the exchange which could give it some context. "A lot of First Nations kids go to bed at night and wake up in the morning thinking they won't get a fair shake," MacLean said. "Until Chris accepts that he's getting a fair shake, the message won't sink in." "What?" Cherry said. "You're saying that natives have an inferiority complex when something happens to them?" MacLean then reiterated that some don't get a fair shake. "Fair shake in life?" Cherry responded. "Go out and get your own fair shake in life and work for it! Don't give me that stuff!" How is this hated and fear? Quote
Eleven Posted November 12, 2019 Author Report Posted November 12, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, ... said: Well, finally. The comments in that article are based in hatred and fear? Let's examine one: “Why wouldn’t some kids feel like they haven’t gotten a fair shake in life?” MacLean asked. “Fair shake in life! Go out and get your own fair shake in life and work for it. Don’t give me that stuff,” Cherry replied. Which leaves out a decent portion of the exchange which could give it some context. "A lot of First Nations kids go to bed at night and wake up in the morning thinking they won't get a fair shake," MacLean said. "Until Chris accepts that he's getting a fair shake, the message won't sink in." "What?" Cherry said. "You're saying that natives have an inferiority complex when something happens to them?" MacLean then reiterated that some don't get a fair shake. "Fair shake in life?" Cherry responded. "Go out and get your own fair shake in life and work for it! Don't give me that stuff!" How is this hated and fear? Like I said, "feel free to pick those apart one by one while ignoring that this is hardly the full body of his work." I knew you'd pick and choose. I did not say that ALL of his comments, ever, over history, are rooted in hatred and fear. Another logic flaw, there. You also still haven't explained why Don Cherry's experience is so unique that his views on Veterans' Day should be important to the public at large. Face it... ELEVEN OOOOUUUUUT! Edited November 12, 2019 by Eleven Quote
... Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, shrader said: He was one of the most iconic faces in Canada for so many years. It doesn't matter what the NHL might admit, he was essentially the face of hockey for an entire country. Maybe there's a bit of hyperbole in that statement, but I'm comfortable making it. Why all of a sudden is his editorializing worthy of all of this? That's the world we live in today. Well, it's either true or hyperbole. I think it's probably more accurate to say he was the mouthpiece of certain viewpoint in Canada, a country whose national winter sport is hockey. Just because it's "the world we live in today" (which is not a fact, by the way, only a perspective itself) doesn't mean there's integrity or wisdom in acting on that. Quote
... Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, Eleven said: Like I said, "feel free to pick those apart one by one while ignoring that this is hardly the full body of his work." I knew you'd pick and choose. You also still haven't explained why Don Cherry's experience is so unique that his views on Veterans' Day should be important to the public at large. Face it... ELEVEN OOOOUUUUUT! Please, your lawyers' evasive tactics are weak and so anti-intellectual. Once again, you said Cherry has exhibited "a pattern of commentary based upon hatred and fear". Now you refuse to examine this claim. And then you bail. Good show, old chap. Quote
nfreeman Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 OK boys. Let's take this to the politics club please. Quote
darksabre Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 The time for that was many embarrassing posts ago 1 Quote
shrader Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 minute ago, WildCard said: The Ukraine is weak Playing Risk on the subway again? 2 1 Quote
WildCard Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 minute ago, shrader said: Playing Risk on the subway again? Only way to do it Quote
Eleven Posted November 12, 2019 Author Report Posted November 12, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, ... said: Please, your lawyers' evasive tactics are weak and so anti-intellectual. Once again, you said Cherry has exhibited "a pattern of commentary based upon hatred and fear". Now you refuse to examine this claim. And then you bail. Good show, old chap. I gave you a list. Not my fault if you (1) can't understand that not every comment will fit his pattern; (2) choose one example that doesn't fit the pattern from the list; and (3) cannot understand basic logic. Just take your lumps and move on, boomer. 1 hour ago, nfreeman said: OK boys. Let's take this to the politics club please. This isn't about politics unless you make it that way. It's about one person who can't control what comes out of his mouth, so they took his microphone away. Edited November 12, 2019 by Eleven Quote
drnkirishone Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Eleven said: It's about one person who can't control what comes out of his mouth, so they took his microphone away. Sounds like US politics. 1 Quote
nfreeman Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 57 minutes ago, Eleven said: This isn't about politics unless you make it that way. It's about one person who can't control what comes out of his mouth, so they took his microphone away. Or maybe it's about whether certain expectations of certain groups of people are reasonable, and about whether and how those expectations may be voiced, and whether those with whom one disagrees can fairly be dismissed as bigots or hate/fear-mongerers. All of these are political issues. And didn't you argue, during the not-so-glorious days of the debate over whether we should have a politics thread, that everything is political? 1 Quote
triumph_communes Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 Why are there so few Ukrainian hockey players? Quote
dudacek Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, triumph_communes said: Why are there so few Ukrainian hockey players? There were, but Zhitnik was the point man on the national team power play and they didn’t wear helmets. 2 Quote
shrader Posted November 12, 2019 Report Posted November 12, 2019 7 minutes ago, triumph_communes said: Why are there so few Ukrainian hockey players? I believe WildCard already answered your question. Or did Kramer answer it? I forget. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.