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

[Coronis]

Well, after watching the video, here's my thoughts.

Obviously, asking out a news reporter who's doing an interview on you during a live broadcast isn't the best way of doing so, and as an athlete and role model, he should know better. By the way, I'm sick of people using the term propositioning in cases like these, there was actually nothing ***ual implied within the comments. The comments themselves aren't honestly that bad and are a perfectly fine way to ask a woman for a date. Personally, I wouldn't ask anyone out using those specific phrases but hey, each guy is unique.

If she felt offended by that, that's her prerogative and yes, the polite (and right) thing to do is to apologise, sincerely. Personally I think she's being overly sensitive but once again, everyone is different.

 

[Spark]

i mean it just shows how disingenuous the free speech argument is, when they focus on the absolutely non-existent "right" to be a total dickhead in public without any consequences whatsoever, then fail to recognise the actual chilling effect of undeserved social consequences for people who have the bad luck to be subjected to such bull****.

 

[sledger]

Well, after watching the video, here's my thoughts.

Obviously, asking out a news reporter who's doing an interview on you during a live broadcast isn't the best way of doing so, and as an athlete and role model, he should know better. By the way, I'm sick of people using the term propositioning in cases like these, there was actually nothing ***ual implied within the comments. The comments themselves aren't honestly that bad and are a perfectly fine way to ask a woman for a date. Personally, I wouldn't ask anyone out using those specific phrases but hey, each guy is unique.

If she felt offended by that, that's her prerogative and yes, the polite (and right) thing to do is to apologise, sincerely. Personally I think she's being overly sensitive but once again, everyone is different.

I rather get the feeling you are missing the point here.

 

[harsh.ag]

Well, after watching the video, here's my thoughts.

Obviously, asking out a news reporter who's doing an interview on you during a live broadcast isn't the best way of doing so, and as an athlete and role model, he should know better. By the way, I'm sick of people using the term propositioning in cases like these, there was actually nothing ***ual implied within the comments. The comments themselves aren't honestly that bad and are a perfectly fine way to ask a woman for a date. Personally, I wouldn't ask anyone out using those specific phrases but hey, each guy is unique.

If she felt offended by that, that's her prerogative and yes, the polite (and right) thing to do is to apologise, sincerely. Personally I think she's being overly sensitive but once again, everyone is different.

This really isn't about Gayle's courting technique. Now make your selection in the draft thread.

 

[Coronis]

I rather get the feeling you are missing the point here.

I'm not, she was offended by the comments, he should've apologised, he made an excuse, he's a dick. We shouldn't be lambasting him for asking a woman out.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

(Whether you are right or wrong has no bearing on what I am about to say.)

Dan you are an insufferably pompous ****.

 

[Captain_Cook]

you sound very upset by all this. what's the matter, can't take people disagreeing with you? where's that vaunted defence of ~free speech~ and ~just take it~?

Fool me twice... I was getting my hopes up for a counter-argument.

i mean, i don't know why anyone should take you remotely seriously when you honestly suggest that people should put their jobs and livelihoods to waste if they don't like blatantly inappropriate behaviour—as if it's somehow their fault—and then get furious, FURIOUS when someone suggests that you're white (you heard it here first folks, being called white is worse than being subjected to wildly inappropriate behaviour on live national TV), but you're welcome to try.

I hope this clarification isn't a waste. "Vote with your feet" was not exactly what I meant, I would revise this to "get out of the acute situation" (by walking away from the offender) and involve management if the situation arises subsequently.

As for being called "white", my response was exposing hypocrisy rather than a cathartic outpouring of rage.

let me suggest that you actually know ****-all about liberal values, which do not and have never included a moral imperative to be a dickhead just because you can. this sort of crass tedium is why it's become so difficult to be taken seriously by the broader public on legitimate free speech issues, because it's just wildly misplaced priorities when freedom of speech/association/political action was and has always been designed to empower the powerless and the marginalised, not to give people a free pass to make other people feel like ****.

A few things:

• I have never attempted to justify the actions of Chris Gayle. He was in the wrong but it was insignificant in the context of moral misdemeanours.
• Freedom of speech and social justice align only when the powerless and marginalised have their fundamental rights deprived from them. The vast majority of those battles have already been fought and won.
• There are good ideas and bad ideas and people's ideas don't have any rights. They are not living things and as such they have no legal right to be tolerated if they threaten the rights that millions of people have died to obtain.

 

[Coronis]

This really isn't about Gayle's courting technique. Now make your selection in the draft thread.

No, its about ***ual harassment. ***ual harassment is bullying or coercion of a ***ual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for ***ual favours. Doesn't sound like this is such a case. Doesn't mean he was right to do it, doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to be offended, doesn't mean he's not a dick.

 

[harsh.ag]

I hope this clarification isn't a waste. "Vote with your feet" was not exactly what I meant, I would revise this to "get out of the acute situation" (by walking away from the offender) and involve management if the situation arises subsequently.

Then we could have the "She was unprofessional in walking away from the interview like that" + some bs about women. Am not saying you would say that, but many others would. Plus, involving management is exactly what she did. She was absolutely cool.

 

[harsh.ag]

No, its about ***ual harassment. ***ual harassment is bullying or coercion of a ***ual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for ***ual favours. Doesn't sound like this is such a case. Doesn't mean he was right to do it, doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to be offended, doesn't mean he's not a dick.

Yeah, don't think it was ***ual harassment either. Now go make your pick in the draft.

Edit: Nice pick.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, don't think it was ***ual harassment either. Now go make your pick in the draft.

Already have, stop whinging.

 

[sledger]

I'm not, she was offended by the comments, he should've apologised, he made an excuse, he's a dick. We shouldn't be lambasting him for asking a woman out.

That's a gross oversimplification of the issue, and not why people are lambasting him.

 

[Spark]

Fool me twice... I was getting my hopes up for a counter-argument.

you would have to had made a point first, which you hadn't up 'til then.

I hope this clarification isn't a waste. "Vote with your feet" was not exactly what I meant, I would revise this to "get out of the acute situation" (by walking away from the offender) and involve management if the situation arises subsequently.

how on earth is she meant to do that in the middle of a live interview on national television? not to mention the inevitable social consequences of doing such a thing ("can't hack it" etc etc)

As for being called "white", my response was exposing hypocrisy rather than a cathartic outpouring of rage.

riiiight ok

A few things:

• I have never attempted to justify the actions of Chris Gayle. He was in the wrong but it was insignificant in the context of moral misdemeanours.

• 
  
  where exactly is this hierarchy of morality to which we are all supposed to refer, and where can i burn it
  
  

  [*]Freedom of speech and social justice align only when the powerless and marginalised have their fundamental rights deprived from them.

  social justice is the purpose of free speech. it's the whole damn point. it's not some nebulous entity gifted to us from on high, it is a tool to ensure that people do not have what is often their only political tool taken away from them, and that those without political and social power have some means of ensuring that they have some skin in the game, and that the powerful can't just trample them without any recourse. it is not about "getting better ideas" or "ensuring healthier discussions", those are merely useful byproducts.
  
  

  The vast majority of those battles have already been fought and won.

  where has this self-satisfied "liberalism" come from which feels content that these battles have already been "won" (as if such a state is permanent) for the "majority", which is overwhelmingly the already empowered, and how can i get rid of it?
  
  more to the point: when women feel afraid to report incidents of ***ual harrassment/assault because they fear the social consequences of doing so, that is a free speech issue, and that is an objective reality.
  
  

  There are good ideas and bad ideas and people's ideas don't have any rights. They are not living things and as such they have no legal right to be tolerated if they threaten the rights that millions of people have died to obtain.

  i was going to make a point re: abstract ideals and how they cease to become abstract and somehow devoid of their historical context once applied to the real world with actual people in it (unless you can point me to any rocks or trees which have come up with "ideas'), but that second paragraph is honestly the most anti-free-speech thing written in this thread thus far.

 

[harsh.ag]

Already have, stop whinging.

Yeah edited the earlier post. You never even said thank you for reminding you

 

[Captain_Cook]

That's a gross oversimplification of the issue, and not why people are lambasting him.

Only if you insist on warping the subtext to push an agenda. Some are acting like this is a social injustice (when it makes a mockery of the term).

 

[sledger]

Only if you insist on warping the subtext to push an agenda. Some are acting like this is a social injustice (when it makes a mockery of the term).

Irony.

Also, no, not "only" if you do that.

Also, stahp.

 

[Coronis]

That's a gross oversimplification of the issue, and not why people are lambasting him.

The issue is he's a dick, he once again offended someone, in this case a woman. He shouldn't have said it, and he's apologised.

 

[sledger]

The issue is he's a dick, he once again offended someone, in this case a woman. He shouldn't have said it, and he's apologised.

Reductionist logic at its finest.

 

[Coronis]

Almost forgot who I was talking to...

 

[Captain_Cook]

how on earth is she meant to do that in the middle of a live interview on national television? not to mention the inevitable social consequences of doing such a thing ("can't hack it" etc etc)

McLaughlin handled the situation well. The only improvement would have been a witty remark like "My eyes are up here, Chris." to punish him.

where exactly is this hierarchy of morality to which we are all supposed to refer, and where can i burn it

Burning books, how very liberal of you! I suggest you start with On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.

social justice is the purpose of free speech...
...it is not about "getting better ideas" or "ensuring healthier discussions", those are merely useful byproducts.

Free speech is an agent of truth not social justice. It ensures that both good and evil can be held to account. There exists a movement eradicate the "byproducts" if they piss someone off. Sometimes the truth ruffles people's feathers.

where has this self-satisfied "liberalism" come from which feels content that these battles have already been "won" (as if such a state is permanent) for the "majority", which is overwhelmingly the already empowered, and how can i get rid of it?

It is better to admit the battles are won then to look for Nazis or racists in people who aren't Nazis or racists. I reeks of McCarthyism which was a tragedy of free speech not a purification of it.

more to the point: when women feel afraid to report incidents of ***ual harrassment/assault because they fear the social consequences of doing so, that is a free speech issue, and that is an objective reality.

It is a big issue. There are caveats though like the equivocation of regret after a drunken hook-up and rape which undermines progress.

i was going to make a point re: abstract ideals and how they cease to become abstract and somehow devoid of their historical context once applied to the real world with actual people in it

If you don't think bad ideas should be roundly discredited (not silenced before you strawman me again) and criticised even if it offends people then you and I should draw a line right now.