Everyone has an opinion

by sizemik 38 Replies latest jw friends

  • sizemik

    In the modern world everybody wants to be "politcally correct"

    Because of that some never say what they actually think . . . but what they feel others want to hear.

    In a way . . . it's a kind of deception.

    Well . . . you can't accuse this guy of being deceptive . . . but is that good or bad?

    Why did the audience react the way they did?

    DON CHERRY, Canadian Hockey Commentator for CBC Television, was asked on a local live radio talk show, what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience. HIS STATEMENT: "If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel shagger will save just one Canadian life, then I have only three things to say:

    'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet."

  • paulnotsaul

    The more we evolve as a people the more senitive and sugar coated we become as a society. I never thought growing up I would see this day of 'political correctness'. What happened to the honest in your face tongue in cheek realness in conversation of the days of old. Everyones so dam afraid of offending someone. At my job the bluntness of honesty is refreshing. I've noticed sometimes this is a class/social thing. The more higher up you are education/status the more 'politically correct' you start to talk/act. Its sad that some people can't handle the realness and truth in conversation without having their presious feelings hurt. BOO-HOO! Good topic sizemike. I enjoy your topics and replies. Even if I don't agree with you, your always the calm voice of reason. peaceAll paulnotsaul

  • Nickolas

    Don Cherry has made a career of being outrageous, sizemik. He was an aggressive hockey player, an even more aggressive coach and is a no-holds-barred and eccentric commentator. He dresses in loud suits and baits and provokes listeners with his bald honesty. It is why he is a much beloved by many Canadians and is an embarassment to others. I met him a little over five years ago. We were both in the waiting room of a lawyer's office in Toronto. He was flanked by two big guys wearing Stanley Cup rings and you could hear him talking from across the building. Quite the character.

  • tec

    His being ejected could have had more to do with lawyers and the possibility of being sued if the station appeared to agree with him.

    Anyway, he wasn't just politically incorrect, he was also slandering. (camel shagger?)

    For me, I dislike WHAT he said as much as HOW he said it. The thunderous applause he recieved is a little...um... frightening. How much darkness is hidden by pc talk?



  • sizemik

    It raises a lot of issues doesn't it?

    Intellectual honesty - Diplomacy - prejudice - personality etc.

    I agree Tammy . . . his way of communicating his sentiments was offensive . . . but at least it's out in the open. I wonder how many lurk around with similar sentiments yet lack the balls to say it out loud. His message aside . . . I still feel a begrudging admiration for his honesty. But then . . . was he really being honest? . . . or deliberately provocative?

    The audience reaction was very interesting . . . but maybe their reaction was simply agreement with his intolerance of evil?

    Nickolas . . . The effect of his outrageousness seems to polarise and reveal opinion and spark debate . . . better than PC deceptiveness? Or is there some middle ground to be found? Lack of honesty forced by "sensitivities" seems rife Politically these days as paulnotsaul noted, and is now providing a curtain for deception.

  • cedars

    Hm, as with everything in life, I feel there's a balance to be struck. TBH, I couldn't help but find his remarks strangely humerous (is that really bad?!), but I agree that they were totally out of order, and I would never condone torture under any circumstances - neither would I call someone of any race a "camel shagger" or a "rag head" just because of the part of the world they come from. It's easy to say that torture is a good thing under certain circumstances until you find yourself the one being tortured for a cause you fervently believe in. Then I'm sure even Don Cherry would feel differently.

    I think there is a place for political correctness, especially on public media and TV etc, but I also feel that (as with anything in life) it is easy to go far. There is a very delicate balancing act to achieve. As Nickolas has observed, Mr Cherry has made a career out of flagrantly trespassing the wrong side of that barrier, but that doesn't make his words or his actions commendable.

  • cantleave

    This guy sounds like total asshole to me!

  • mindseye

    Since I don't have cable and I'm not Candadian, I had to google Don Cherry, and from the looks of it that was Don Cherry being Don Cherry. As far as political correctness, I agree that a balance needs to be struck. In my view, racial stuff way out of line. I'm from the deep American south, and "not being politically correct" down there means saying the N word and joking about hanging people. And if you call those type of people (*cough* rednecks) on it they will accuse you of "Being too politically correct." So yeah, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. A little political correctness is a good thing, it shows that we've advanced as a society. Believe me, I've seen the other side, and it's not pretty.

  • shamus100

    Anyone who takes Don Cherry seriously needs their head examined. It's part of his act - he's an opinionated guy, much like many people here who shall remain nameless. ** coughs because the monkey craps excellence **


  • Nickolas

    Don Cherry prides himself on not being politically correct, size. That he openly sneers at political correctness is part of his trademark personna. Sometimes when I watch the man in action I am amused, other times impressed, still others repulsed. He often appears on television with his longtime sidekick named Ron MacLean who at times just looks at the blathering old man with bald incredulity. Cherry's remarks above might have enjoyed a more supportive listening had they been couched in less inflamatory language, but then they wouldn't have thrust Mr. Cherry into the limelight that he loves so well.

    As to torture and the circumstances under which its use might be morally justified, we are getting into an area where the boundary is not clearly defined. We are citizens of countries that go to war, ostensibly to defend or protect causes that are right and noble and so important to us that we will cause some of us to give up their lives. By going to war our countries also acknowledge that there will be collateral damage, the unavoidable, heartbreaking maiming and killing of innocents caught in the crossfire, yet we nevertheless go to war. Where, then, is the line to be drawn in war? And what about a war that is being waged only in one's own personal sphere? If, for example, my grandson was kidnapped and hidden away in some dark hole in the ground, and by some circumstance I was able to apprehend a person who had in his possession a video of him raping and torturing the child, would there be any bounds to what I would do to extract the information I needed to locate the boy and rescue him? I submit there would be none. Where the line might or might not be drawn from my very personal perspective would be the aftermath.

Share this