Is Chris Gayle some sort of perverted misogynist or can everyone just settle down?

[Coronis]

Yes, if he was made to feel uncomfortable. Glad that's out of the way.

If you truly believe that, then thats fine.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Hey can someone post that Sharapova video again and pretend it's an airtight counterargument.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ah yes, that would make more sense actually. Carry on.

Edit: Though I, myself, would continue to dispute the claim that the only rights at issue here are ones pertaining to free speech. There are a variety of others that could also be invoked, the potential dubious basis of those rights that you allude to notwithstanding.

I don't think he was making a legal positivist argument. I mean I'm still not entirely sure what he was saying but I definitely don't think he was making an appeal to legal authority.

 

[sledger]

I don't think he was making a legal positivist argument. I mean I'm still not entirely sure what he was saying but I definitely don't think he was making an appeal to legal authority.

Probably not tbf.

Seeing people start throwing words like "rights" around, particularly when they attach substantive elements to these purported rights (e.g. free speech), and making broad claims about the nature and scope of such rights is just like a red rag to a bull to me though. Typically such folk have a very limited appreciation of what it is they are actually talking about. The content of the post in question rather suggested to me that this was exactly what was happening here too.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't think he was making a legal positivist argument. I mean I'm still not entirely sure what he was saying but I definitely don't think he was making an appeal to legal authority.

Yeah, can't be sure. More often than not, when the "he had a right to do so" argument is made, it is done so with a view to conflating legal right and the moral side.

 

[GIMH]

Yet another list of things nobody cares about being discussed.

what a thread

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

But enough about the Ashes subforum.

 

[sledger]

Yet another list of things nobody cares about being discussed.

what a thread

chat **** get banged

 

[Dan]

Yeah, can't be sure. More often than not, when the "he had a right to do so" argument is made, it is done so with a view to conflating legal right and the moral side.

"I have a right to be a dickhead"

"Yeah, but you're still a dickhead. Do you really want to be a dickhead?"

 

[Ikki]

If anything it's Captain_Cook who ought to vote with his feet because the property owners attempting to sell their product to the public -- Ten, CA and the Melbourne Renegades -- have all sided with McLaughlin. If he doesn't like it he shouldn't buy it.

Where did Captain_Cook suggest Mel should be the one voting with her feet? I was under the impression that he was talking about the women who were offended. And it makes sense, like your above suggestion, so that the programmers know what will inhibit their viewership numbers.

And as a response to the article, his points are solid frankly. Listening to that ABC interview it was really damn weird to hear Melinda Farrell crying over this incident. And when Neroli Mathews says this will define McLaughlin's career (or other womens) I just had to turn it off. This **** just goes way too far. I care about how people feel but then there are instances where it just sounds too ridiculous to even entertain. Farrell said McLaughlin would be damned if she said or didn't say anything and that's why she's the victim. Nonsense. Just say you didn't appreciate the advance but that most of the others are professional and move on. You'll have 95% of people on your side. If this is news, it is because of the reactions of people to it rather than the actual harm the incident itself caused.

Gayle was a dickhead and a creep. Men who act like that don't need to be told it's not okay, frankly I'm pretty sure they know it's not okay. They should not get away with it, especially if the other person has told them they are not inviting or inclined towards the advances. But a lot of people, including women, aren't going to appreciate something they consider overdramatised and instead of concentrating on a discussion of "stupid people", it becomes a "man vs woman" argument and that's where the heat of the discussion comes from.

 

[Black_Warrior]

There's a huge difference between a debate over whether or not this is ***ist or ***ual harassment or misogynistic or whatever, and whether or not Mel McLaughlin found (or should find) it to be ***ist/***ual harassment/misogynistic. You're well and truly conflating the two here.

Ok my final thoughts on this matter.

Your initial issue to my original post was me saying she should have laughed it off.

Here's the thing.

I don't believe that what Gayle said was tantamount to ***ual harrassment, which is why I made that comment about laughing. You believe it was ***ual harrassment, hence for you it is abhorrent to suggest that.
Had I believed that what happened there was ***ual harrassment, I would never have made that comment, instead I would have suggested a legal recourse for McLaughlin.

This is fine. We can have a reasonable difference of opinion on whether or not it was ***ual harrassment.

The problem is though, by attacking me for my post, and suggesting that I assume some sort of authority of McLaughlin, you basically said that there can be no reasonable disagreement on the matter, and if I don't believe it is harrassment, I must be a woman hating prick.

McLaughlin might feel that it was ***ual harrassment and she is fully entitled to that, and however way she wants to respond to it. But me saying I disagree with her on this matter, is in no way assuming authority over her, or assuming some paternalistic "I know best" attitude as someone else remarked. It was me expressing my view on that matter.

Now if you're going to say I have no right to express my view on this matter because it is McLaughlin's matter alone, or because I am the wrong gender, then that should apply to everyone else posting on this forum including yourself.

As Kohli recently said, no one outside has a right to comment on his cricket.

CW should just shut down.

Just wanted to clarify as well since assumptions and judgement are being thrown around so easily.

I do not believe this incident was a case of ***ual harrassment. This does not mean that I believe ***ual harrassment is not a genuine or serious issue or doesn't happen. This also does not mean that I fail to acknowledge the considerable ***ism that professional women have to face on a daily basis. In fact, a case in point is this very thread where the holier than thou 'feminists' were suggesting that McLaughlin only got this job because of her appearance, and not because of actual skill. This is a far more serious form of misogyny than anything Gayle said or did.

 

[sledger]

Ok my final thoughts on this matter.

Your initial issue to my original post was me saying she should have laughed it off.

Here's the thing.

I don't believe that what Gayle said was tantamount to ***ual harrassment, which is why I made that comment about laughing. You believe it was ***ual harrassment, hence for your it is abhorrent to suggest that.
Had I believed that what happened there was ***ual harrassment, I would never have made that comment, instead I would have suggested a legal recourse for McLaughlin.

This is fine. We can have a reasonable difference of opinion on whether or not it was ***ual harrassment.

The problem is though, by attacking me for my post, and suggesting that I assume some sort of authority of McLaughlin, you basically said that there can be no reasonable disagreement on the matter, and if I don't believe it is harrassment, I must be a woman hating prick.

McLaughlin might feel that it was ***ual harrassment and she is fully entitled to that, and however way she wants to respond to it. But me saying I disagree with her on this matter, is in no way assuming authority over her, or assuming some paternalistic "I know best" attitude as someone else remarked. It was me expressing my view on that matter.

Now if you're going to say I have no right to express my view on this matter because it is McLaughlin's matter alone, or because I am the wrong gender, then that should apply to everyone else posting on this forum including yourself.

As Kohli recently said, no one outside has a right to comment on his cricket.

CW should just shut down.

Why are you determined to pedal the "I'm not entitled to have an opinion because I'm male" thing. Nobody has suggested this, but you seem determined to play it as a sort of victim card.

 

[Dan]

Where did Captain_Cook suggest Mel should be the one voting with her feet? I was under the impression that he was talking about the women who were offended. And it makes sense, like your above suggestion, so that the programmers know what will inhibit their viewership numbers.

And as a response to the article, his points are solid frankly. Listening to that ABC interview it was really damn weird to hear Melinda Farrell crying over this incident. And when Neroli Mathews says this will define McLaughlin's career (or other womens) I just had to turn it off. This **** just goes way too far. I care about how people feel but then there are instances where it just sounds too ridiculous to even entertain. Farrell said she would be damned if she said or didn't say anything and that's why she's the victim. Nonsense. Just say you didn't appreciate the advance but that most of the others are professional and move on. You'll have 95% of people on your side. If this is news, it is because of the reactions of people to it rather than the actual harm the incident itself caused.

Gayle was a dickhead and a creep. Men who act like that don't need to be told it's not okay, frankly I'm pretty sure they know it's not okay. They should not get away with it, especially if the other person has told them they are not inviting or inclined towards the advances. But a lot of people, including women, aren't going to appreciate something they consider overdramatised and instead of concentrating on a discussion of "stupid people", it becomes a "man vs woman" argument and that's where the heat of the discussion comes from.

Because lots and lots of people telling the programmers that this is **** and they don't want to see it, isn't indicative that continued Gayle flirting will inhibit their viewership numbers?

That or, "hmmm, our viewership dropped after Gayle stopped talking. Better let Gayle talk to Mel more! How funny was that date thing amirite guys?"

And to reiterate:
You. Do. Not. Get. To. Deny. Other. People's. Experiences.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

McLaughlin might feel that it was ***ual harrassment and she is fully entitled to that, and however way she wants to respond to it. But me saying I disagree with her on this matter, is in no way assuming authority over her, or assuming some paternalistic "I know best" attitude as someone else remarked. It was me expressing my view on that matter.

Now if you're going to say I have no right to express my view on this matter because it is McLaughlin's matter alone, or because I am the wrong gender, then that should apply to everyone else posting on this forum including yourself.

Ugh, your contrary opinion doesn't hold the same weight as the person who actually got harassed. This is different from the people in the thread who have the opinion that maybe we should take seriously the viewpoint of a victim of harassment rather than brushing it aside as not a big deal.

 

[Ikki]

Because lots and lots of people telling the programmers that this is **** and they don't want to see it, isn't indicative that continued Gayle flirting will inhibit their viewership numbers?

That or, "hmmm, our viewership dropped after Gayle stopped talking. Better let Gayle talk to Mel more! How funny was that date thing amirite guys?"

The moving with their feet part is to actually cause harm to the programmers. Just telling them may not have the desired effect. Behind closed doors Ten might like the short-term spike in attention because of the controversy, but it isn't going to work for them if in the long run they're seen as ***ist and they're losing viewership.

And to reiterate:
You. Do. Not. Get. To. Deny. Other. People's. Experiences.

I can do whatever the **** I want. It's called having an opinion. Peoples' experiences in themselves don't matter to me unless I think their reaction to it is proportional. And that's the crux of the matter IMO because if you want other people to care they have to agree/understand with where you're coming from.

 

[Stapel]

You. Do. Not. Get. To. Deny. Other. People's. Experiences.

Just curious.

I think you're right. But you seem to make it bigger and bigger. If we get this matter out of this incident, does it always apply? What I mean: Some people are easily offended. Some people experience unmcomfortability (for real), whereas others wouldn't. It's a simple fact that the impact of any sort of communication is dependent on the receiver. That raises the question whether there is some limit where we can conclude that the receiver is oversensitive.

I think there is (not saying that was the case in this CHG incident).

Do you disagree with this?

 

[Dan]

Ok my final thoughts on this matter.

Your initial issue to my original post was me saying she should have laughed it off.

Here's the thing.

I don't believe that what Gayle said was tantamount to ***ual harrassment, which is why I made that comment about laughing. You believe it was ***ual harrassment, hence for your it is abhorrent to suggest that.
Had I believed that what happened there was ***ual harrassment, I would never have made that comment, instead I would have suggested a legal recourse for McLaughlin.

This is fine. We can have a reasonable difference of opinion on whether or not it was ***ual harrassment.

The problem is though, by attacking me for my post, and suggesting that I assume some sort of authority of McLaughlin, you basically said that there can be no reasonable disagreement on the matter, and if I don't believe it is harrassment, I must be a woman hating prick.

McLaughlin might feel that it was ***ual harrassment and she is fully entitled to that, and however way she wants to respond to it. But me saying I disagree with her on this matter, is in no way assuming authority over her, or assuming some paternalistic "I know best" attitude as someone else remarked. It was me expressing my view on that matter.

Now if you're going to say I have no right to express my view on this matter because it is McLaughlin's matter alone, or because I am the wrong gender, then that should apply to everyone else posting on this forum including yourself.

As Kohli recently said, no one outside has a right to comment on his cricket.

CW should just shut down.

I have never said any of the bolded things. You're failing to comprehend my point, which is remarkably simple -- you cannot mark Mel McLaughlin's reaction to Chris Gayle's comments like an exam, there's no right or wrong way to react. By telling her that her reaction was wrong (which you did when you said she should have laughed, rather than been offended/embarrassed/humiliated etc.), you're completely denying her experience. If she found it traumatic, who are any of us to tell her that she shouldn't have?

There is a huge difference between saying "I do not think this is ***ual harassment" and "I do not think this is ***ual harassment, therefore Mel McLaughlin should have laughed instead of being offended". One is your opinion. The second is utilising your opinion to police someone else's reaction. The latter is not okay.

If you genuinely cannot distinguish between the two, I think it's time you close the tab.

 

[Prince EWS]

The moving with their feet part is to actually cause harm to the programmers. Just telling them may not have the desired effect. Behind closed doors Ten might like the short-term spike in attention because of the controversy, but it isn't going to work for them if in the long run they're seen as ***ist and they're losing viewership.

It's an interesting one though because of the response they've made to it. They released a statement absolutely panning Gayle and backing McLaughlin. If they start losing viewership, should they interpret that as people deciding not to watch because of the ***ism, or people deciding not to watch because they believe Ten's response to it was heavy-handed? I actually think I'd interpret it as the latter.

 

[Dan]

I can do whatever the **** I want. It's called having an opinion. Peoples' experiences in themselves don't matter to me unless I think their reaction to it is proportional. And that's the crux of the matter IMO because if you want other people to care they have to agree/understand with where you're coming from.

 

[sledger]

The moving with their feet part is to actually cause harm to the programmers. Just telling them may not have the desired effect. Behind closed doors Ten might like the short-term spike in attention because of the controversy, but it isn't going to work for them if in the long run they're seen as ***ist and they're losing viewership.



I can do whatever the **** I want. It's called having an opinion. Peoples' experiences in themselves don't matter to me unless I think their reaction to it is proportional. And that's the crux of the matter IMO because if you want other people to care they have to agree/understand with where you're coming from.

Yeah, "the views of other people aren't important unless I say they are".

And therein lies the problem.