Sad very sad, a sad day for Canada

[Smallc]

What?

[wyly]

Why are you proud for such a blatant display of your own ignorance?

All of you whiners about the media - you can easily go and look up who has been listed for the award and read all about those people.

Use Google and/or pipl if you like.

Who knows, maybe if you spent more time doing this then you wouldn't be so enamoured with the media whoring that you just can't seem to keep your eyes off of.

CBC news lead in, eugene levy, trevor lindon, hayley wickenheiser get order of canada...hmmm any mds or researchers in that lead in?...

the award is cheapened to the point of worthless with the inclusion of celebrities...

normally i change the channel when the news sinks to reporting celebrity shite but the remote was buried between the cushions ...

[Tilter]

my thoughts exactly when I saw that tonight...I was watching with my daughter and my first thought was if was offered the order of canada I'd laugh at them and shut the door in their face...what a worthless piece of crap, being a minor celebrity is cause for an award... ..."hey look at me I'm a mediocre comedian who was in a mildly successful movie so I'm worthy of celebrity worship"...or "I played on a hockey team and almost won something once"...or "I played on a women's hockey and we crushed other teams that could barely skate! woo hoo I'm a hero and deserve the order of canada!"

ya the order of canada a standard of excellence to be proud of

Total crap, written by someone who never watched a hockey game in their life. The level of play in those games was at the NHL level by the vast majority of players. Perhaps, if Wyly watched a game it was between the Cuban & the Gabon teams

[msj]

normally i change the channel when the news sinks to reporting celebrity shite but the remote was buried between the cushions ...

Buried beneath the cushions or are you like that fat old lady who lost her dog?

[cybercoma]

Total crap, written by someone who never watched a hockey game in their life. The level of play in those games was at the NHL level by the vast majority of players. Perhaps, if Wyly watched a game it was between the Cuban & the Gabon teams

"The level of play in those games was at the NHL level by the vast majority of players," you say?

Is that why IOC President Rogge said, "[Women's hockey] cannot continue without improvement."

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/olympics/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Rogge-Women-s-hockey-cannot-continue-without-i?urn=oly-224531

Let's not forget the controversy of the women's team smoking cigars and drinking beer on the ice after their victory. Which I personally didn't have a problem with, but many did. They saw it as a distasteful move by people that whether they like it or not are role-models for young girls not only in Canada but all over the world.

[msj]

Let's not forget the controversy of the women's team smoking cigars and drinking beer on the ice after their victory. Which I personally didn't have a problem with, but many did. They saw it as a distasteful move by people that whether they like it or not are role-models for young girls not only in Canada but all over the world.

This is sexism at its most hypocritical.

If those were the male hockey players it would be all in good fun.

Like an old boys club, Haw, HAW!

But because it's "ladies" they "shouldn't behave" that way.

Oh, and Jon Montgomery can drink a pint of beer on camera in celebration and that's A OK. ¹

No, CC, you "didn't" have a problem with it but since others "did have a problem with it" then you will cow to the consensus and join the hypocritical sexist calls.

Pathetic.

----------------------------------

^{1 Isn't that interesting how according to the CBC/National Post: " Now there's some irony for you, especially since the last time Canadians who like to stay up late glimpsed Jon Montgomery was on the Olympic broadcast, chugging beer from a pitcher in Whistler Village. It was an iconic Canadian thing to do for a freshly crowned Olympic champion."}

^{Apparently it's only an "iconic Canadian thing to do" for freshly crowned male Olympic champions - women need not apply.}

Edited November 6, 2011 by msj

[cybercoma]

I'm sure the people that saw it as a distasteful move by the women's hockey team would have felt the same way about the men boozing it up and smoking cigars after the game as well. It was a moral objection to people who are supposed to be role models promoting "objectionable" behaviours. I don't find it objectionable, so frankly I don't care that they did it. Calling me sexist for saying that people objected to it is pretty damn insulting since I don't agree with it in the first place and if you knew my line of work you wouldn't even go there.

You can object to their objections as much as I do, but they still exist. You can even choose to ignore that part if you want. The point is that only the US and Canada have full women's hockey programs. The fact that our team stomped the competition is hardly an accomplishment deserving of the Order of Canada.

[g_bambino]

The fact that our team stomped the competition is hardly an accomplishment deserving of the Order of Canada.

And yet, you still haul out this red herring. Hayley Wickenheiser wasn't appointed to the Order of Canada because the women's hockey team won gold at the Olympics.

[spec]

Edited November 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[msj]

And yet, you still haul out this red herring. Hayley Wickenheiser wasn't appointed to the Order of Canada because the women's hockey team won gold at the Olympics.

[spec]

Yep, what g_bambino said....

Oh, and CC, you're still a sexist creep by my estimation - no matter what excuse you may come up with.

[cybercoma]

Piss off with the name-calling. Somehow I'm a creep because I mentioned what public perception was? That's ridiculous. I never agreed with the sentiment and I still don't. That guy who ran the luge or skeleton grabbed a pitcher of beer and chugged it on national television and was hailed as a hero, yet people feigned indignation when the women did it. I agree with your point. And more to the point, attacking posters on this forum, rather than their arguments is against the rules.

What I was doing originaly was responding to Tilter's comment that the level of play was on par with NHL hockey. It wasn't and the head of IOC said as much when he told the media they were considering pulling it from the Olympics unless other countries start improving their level of competition.

Moreover, the fact that I can't even refer to sexist objections made by the public following the game is absurd. I'm didn't agree with it and I still don't agree with it. I'm not sexist because I mentioned that this was the public sentiment. Would it be sexist talking about the arguments that were made in the past about women being able to vote or access to fertility drugs or abortion rights? Shutting down conversation by saying we should never talk about these things is a dangerous precedent that leads to the kind of thinking that ignores injustices of the past.

So you're right to say that the public's perception to the women's team drinking and smoking cigars was sexist and I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that the public had this perception, regardless of how wrong and sexist it was.

[cybercoma]

Yep, what g_bambino said....

Oh, and CC, you're still a sexist creep by my estimation - no matter what excuse you may come up with.

She wasn't appointed because of women's hockey, yet you're the one that posted:

Hayley Wickenheiser: For her achievements as an athlete and for her contributions to the growth of women’s hockey.

[cybercoma]

And all of that is completely aside from my original point that it seems to be easier to get the order of Canada if you're a celebrity, doing things that many, many other Canadians do. This devalues the award in my opinion. This isn't about Haley Wickenheiser, it's about Trevor Linden, Eugene Levy and Bob whatever his name is getting it too.

[msj]

Piss off with the name-calling. Somehow I'm a creep because I mentioned what public perception was?

No you're a sexist creep because you are trying to use a BS perception, that you supposedly don't agree with, to attack Wickenheiser for your own petty reasons.

It is intellectually dishonest to say the least. Also cowardly - "oh, I don't agree with this view but there it is" is a pathetic excuse.

If you don't agree with it then you shouldn't be using it in the first place.

That's ridiculous. I never agreed with the sentiment and I still don't. That guy who ran the luge or skeleton grabbed a pitcher of beer and chugged it on national television and was hailed as a hero, yet people feigned indignation when the women did it. I agree with your point. And more to the point, attacking posters on this forum, rather than their arguments is against the rules.

Then report me. My reasons for calling you what you are are now fully clear.

What I was doing originaly was responding to Tilter's comment that the level of play was on par with NHL hockey. It wasn't and the head of IOC said as much when he told the media they were considering pulling it from the Olympics unless other countries start improving their level of competition.

Moreover, the fact that I can't even refer to sexist objections made by the public following the game is absurd. I'm didn't agree with it and I still don't agree with it. I'm not sexist because I mentioned that this was the public sentiment. Would it be sexist talking about the arguments that were made in the past about women being able to vote or access to fertility drugs or abortion rights? Shutting down conversation by saying we should never talk about these things is a dangerous precedent that leads to the kind of thinking that ignores injustices of the past.

So you're right to say that the public's perception to the women's team drinking and smoking cigars was sexist and I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that the public had this perception, regardless of how wrong and sexist it was.

No, you just don't get it.

By trying to use other peoples incorrect perceptions as some kind of justification puts you in the same company as those sexist hypocritical creeps.

[msj]

She wasn't appointed because of women's hockey, yet you're the one that posted:

No, I agreed with g_bambino that she did not receive the order based on winning the gold medal.

In fact, the exact words I agreed with were:

Hayley Wickenheiser wasn't appointed to the Order of Canada because the women's hockey team won gold at the Olympics.

You are being intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

Edited November 6, 2011 by msj

[cybercoma]

To be honest, you're the one that's being intellecutally dishonest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people having a moral objection to someone that's going to be looked up to by children smoking and drinking beer on the front page of the newspaper. Like I said, I don't give a crap, but if people disagree with them drinking and smoking on the ice and they consistently disagreed with the skeleton gold medalist doing it, I don't see how it's sexist. Saying the women's hockey team doing those things in itself is not sexist. Criticizing them for doing it and not criticizing the men for doing it (the men's team didn't btw) would be. You're assuming that the men wouldn't be criticized. You're reading sexism into a criticism that is not inherently sexist.

[msj]

To be honest, you're the one that's being intellecutally dishonest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people having a moral objection to someone that's going to be looked up to by children smoking and drinking beer on the front page of the newspaper. Like I said, I don't give a crap, but if people disagree with them drinking and smoking on the ice and they consistently disagreed with the skeleton gold medalist doing it, I don't see how it's sexist. Saying the women's hockey team doing those things in itself is not sexist. Criticizing them for doing it and not criticizing the men for doing it (the men's team didn't btw) would be. You're assuming that the men wouldn't be criticized. You're reading sexism into a criticism that is not inherently sexist.

Um, I have already shown the sexism: the women's team took lots of flak while Jon Motgomery got little to none. In fact, what he did was what any iconic Canadian would do should they win Gold (well, apparently if they are male).

Where are the prohibitionist creeps coming out of the woodwork? Sure, they exist in small numbers. Small enough to be ignored.

My point stands: it is intellectually dishonest, and cowardly, to use as a point of reference something that not only is complete BS to begin with, but is so much BS that even you distance yourself from said BSness.

[cybercoma]

Honestly though I apologize for bringing it up. I see where you're coming from reading back through the thread. It does come across as sexist and seems as though I'm hanging my argument about her award on that. I'm willing to go through and edit my posts, but others have quoted it so it doesn't matter. My argument is not about her in particular, but about celebrities gettings these awards for doing things that many other people do.

[WWWTT]

Apparently, all it takes to get the Order of Canada is to have a profession that's highly visible, like hockey player or comedian.

Yep you smacked the nail dead square on the head with this thread!

Ultimately many of the "order of Canada" recipients have made very little/insignifigent contribution to society!

I am sure the people who dish out these awards are aware of this,but since 90% of people in the west are brainwashed,they probably feel that its neccessary to hand out these awards to celebrities.

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

And all of that is completely aside from my original point that it seems to be easier to get the order of Canada if you're a celebrity, doing things that many, many other Canadians do. This devalues the award in my opinion. This isn't about Haley Wickenheiser, it's about Trevor Linden, Eugene Levy and Bob whatever his name is getting it too.

Yet, the number of non-celebrities on the Order of Canada's rolls far outweighs the number of celebrities.

[cybercoma]

Yet, the number of non-celebrities on the Order of Canada's rolls far outweighs the number of celebrities.

Do you know what else bothers me for the same reason as this? Honorary degrees at universities. It's the same BS politics and it cheapens the degrees.

[Smallc]

Do you know what else bothers me for the same reason as this? Honorary degrees at universities. It's the same BS politics and it cheapens the degrees.

This isn't even close to the same thing. You should quit while you're behind.

[g_bambino]

Do you know what else bothers me for the same reason as this?

Before we get to that, you have to clear something up first: Initially, you said you're bothered by celebrities getting their charitable work noticed more because they're celebrities and they therefore are more likely to be nominated for induction into the Order of Canada. However, when I point out to you that the number of non-celebrities in the Order of Canada far outweighs the number of celebrities, you say that bothers you. Which is it?

[cybercoma]

Before we get to that, you have to clear something up first: Initially, you said you're bothered by celebrities getting their charitable work noticed more because they're celebrities and they therefore are more likely to be nominated for induction into the Order of Canada. However, when I point out to you that the number of non-celebrities in the Order of Canada far outweighs the number of celebrities, you say that bothers you. Which is it?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The proportion of awards doesn't bother me. I never made any claim that it's all celebrities getting these awards. I said that celebrities get these awards for doing things that are not very exceptional: many other Canadians do just as much charitable work if not more than the aforementioned celebs and are not recognized. It would appear that it's easier to get these awards as a celeb by virtue of your exposure to the public, otherwise the committee would be able to point to the extensive contributions they made. I just think it cheapens the award and adds to the ridiculous cult of celebrity.