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

[Spark]

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

...

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

you seriously think i would talk about this stuff without already having extensive grounding in classical liberal theory? lol.

(you also haven't told me about what this supposed moral hierarchy is meant to be, by the way)

Free speech is an agent of truth not social justice.

who is the arbiter of said truth? the state?

It ensures that both good and evil can be held to account.

which is the purpose of social justice

There exists a movement eradicate the "byproducts" if they piss someone off. Sometimes the truth ruffles people's feathers.

yes, the truth like "misogyny and ***ual harrassment are serious issues in western society that need fixing"

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.

have you ever studied mccarthyism in detail? or are you conflating the right to speech with the right to not have mean things said about you?

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

got any empirical evidence that this is actually significant, and not just a deflection?

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.

well, your ideas are bad, and i'm criticising them, so


honestly, this debate is a complete sideshow, unless the police have been involved in a way i haven't seen. he was a dickhead, people got angry, people used their free speech to express said anger

 

[Spark]

look if you think the reaction has been overblown, say so, but for chrissake's stop making this a free speech issue, it isn't.

 

[Pratters]

So here's a question.

At what point did Gayle cross the line?

As soon as he said he batted well because he wanted an interview with her?
When he said something about her eyes?
When he asked her for a drink?
Or was it when he said 'don't blush baby'?

Interested to hear if people think the first bit in itself was straight away a problem, or only when he continued....

Apologies if it's already been discussed and I missed it in amongst the ****

He carries on after the blush baby remark as well saying some thing else later. That was the pits. The female journalist in the soundcloud clip I posted earlier also mentioned how he goes on about his 'jokes' which makes it cringeworthy. Same thing happened in the pitch remark. When he mad the pitch remark (which was obviously dire), the female journalist started laughing out very loud (the loudness may have some thing to do with shock as well), but then he made another 'joke' and you could here the whole bunch of journalists cringing.

 

[sledger]

He carries on after the blush baby remark as well saying some thing else later. That was the pits. The female journalist in the soundcloud clip I posted earlier also mentioned how he goes on about his 'jokes' which makes it cringeworthy. Same thing happened in the pitch remark. When he mad the pitch remark (which was obviously dire), the female journalist started laughing out very loud (the loudness may have some thing to do with shock as well), but then he made another 'joke' and you could here the whole bunch of journalists cringing.

How can you hear somebody cringing?

 

[Pratters]

groan/cringe/whatever.

 

[sledger]

groan/cringe/whatever.

Those words aren't actually interchangeable.

 

[Captain_Cook]

you seriously think i would talk about this stuff without already having extensive grounding in classical liberal theory? lol.

I have my doubts.

(you also haven't told me about what this supposed moral hierarchy is meant to be, by the way)

Utility as determined by happiness and suffering. My personal suffering ranking from most to least is: death-mutilation-battery-theft-threat-insult.

who is the arbiter of said truth? the state?

The state intervenes when speech crosses over into inciting violence or libellous statements or verbal discrimination (racial, homophobic etc.)

"misogyny and ***ual harrassment are serious issues in western society that need fixing"

Can you list a few specific problems you have in mind when you use the word "misogyny"? It is a very broad term nowadays.

or are you conflating the right to speech with the right to not have mean things said about you?

Please, I will name a few people who have been smeared as bigots but who are not: Sam Harris, Christina Hoff Summers, George Carlin, Majid Nawaz etc.

got any empirical evidence that this is actually significant, and not just a deflection?

There was some stuff on Christina Hoff Summers youtube channel. I'll try my best to find it.

 

[Spark]

I have my doubts.


Utility as determined by happiness and suffering. My personal suffering ranking from most to least is: death-mutilation-battery-theft-threat-insult.

and where was it decreed that i had to follow your hierarchy?

this is the fundamental problem with these kind of free speech arguments. they pretend that there is one, universal perspective on this issue, and deviations from it are anti-speech. it's seriously tiresome, and culturally blind.

The state intervenes when speech crosses over into inciting violence or libellous statements or verbal discrimination (racial, homophobic etc.)

this is not an answer to my question.

Can you list a few specific problems you have in mind when you use the word "misogyny"? It is a very broad term nowadays.

uh, people thinking it's appropriate to ask a professional reporter out in totally inappropriate circumstances on national tv, for example. that's the sort of thing you do if you don't see said reporter as fully human.

Please, I will name a few people who have been smeared as bigots but who are not: Sam Harris, Christina Hoff Summers, George Carlin, Majid Nawaz etc.

tough ****. people have a right to call them bigots too.

There was some stuff on Christina Hoff Summers youtube channel. I'll try my best to find it.

not interested, thanks. papers or nought.

 

[Ikki]

Huuuuuuuuge difference between "I'm offended, you shouldn't be a dick" and "I'm offended, you're not allowed to say that, you should actively be prevented from saying this."

Nobody has suggested locking Gayle up or deporting him, or denying him free speech rights as a result of this. Lots are saying he's a dick and that he shouldn't be one in the future.

Ironically, your 'deny the experiences of people because I've decided they're oversensitive' thing is much more akin to the ridiculously excessive US college stuff than anything the rest of us have been saying, insofar as you and the students alike want one side of the discussion silenced.

Heh, what? I'm saying certain people take things much the wrong way when they are oversensitive. I'm not saying they can't be oversensitive and speak their mind. I'm just saying we shouldn't listen to them unless it makes sense and not just because it offends them.

The college stuff is classic regressive left stuff and your sentiments to a T. The Silliman Halloween controversy mirrors this. Some got in an uproar because the master defended free speech rights and didn't want to put guidelines on what to dress at Halloween, even if some abused this the wrong way.

Point being, it's easy to be offended. You can go ahead and air out your grievances. But unless people think it makes sense or can relate they won't give a ****.

 

[Pratters]

Those words aren't actually interchangeable.

When people cringe at the same time, there is bound to be some sound, any ways by the movement of the head in disgust.

 

[Ikki]

jesus, you can think what you like, but at least try to pretend to be honest about it. 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 ****.

Hate to interrupt the circle-jerk over Captain_cook, but this is nonsense.

Free speech is for everyone. Yes, the rich and yes the powerful. Because once you start grouping people you want to marginalise you don't stop. Now, channel 10 can decide how they want to use the voice they have but free speech in general is precisely for saying things others don't want to hear, not about everything that is sweet to their ears. And if people can't make the distinction and take this ideal seriously then we're in a world of trouble and no doubt people adding the above kind of slant to it are contributing to that.

 

[Spark]

Hate to interrupt the circle-jerk over Captain_cook, but this is nonsense.

Free speech is for everyone. Yes, the rich and yes the powerful. Because once you start grouping people you want to marginalise you don't stop. Now, channel 10 can decide how they want to use the voice they have but free speech in general is precisely for saying things others don't want to hear, not about everything that is sweet to their ears. And if people can't make the distinction and take this ideal seriously then we're in a world of trouble and no doubt people adding the above kind of slant to it are contributing to that.

purpose. not implementation. purpose.

the reason that you protect free speech for everyone is because if you start restricting it to some groups then inevitably it will be used to suppress those at the bottom, which is the whole damn point.

and once again, all of this is secondary to the point that "don't be a dickhead" is not a free speech issue.

 

[Ikki]

purpose. not implementation. purpose.

the reason that you protect free speech for everyone is because if you start restricting it to some groups then inevitably it will be used to suppress those at the bottom, which is the whole damn point.

and once again, all of this is secondary to the point that "don't be a dickhead" is not a free speech issue.

No it's not. It's because it can be used to abuse anyone. Who determines the "top"? There is no "top" if being "top" gets you marginalised and means you have lesser rights.

Moreover, even if you are "bottom" and are exercising that right, it doesn't mean it has to be listened to. It doesn't automatically make you right, logically or morally.

 

[Spark]

i had a post but the forum ate it. oh well. last thing i'll say on this as well, because for the 1822482th time this is not a free speech issue

No it's not. It's because it can be used to abuse anyone. Who determines the "top"? There is no "top" if being "top" gets you marginalised and means you have lesser rights.

demonstrate an example of where those in a position of power have had their rights suppressed whilst remaining in a position of power. that seems...manifestly contradictory to me. you don't require, as a matter of life and limb, protection from the law when you write the law in the first place.

note: revolutions do not count. all bets are off there, obviously.

Moreover, even if you are "bottom" and are exercising that right, it doesn't mean it has to be listened to. It doesn't automatically make you right, logically or morally.

okay? i agree? how is this relevant to what i am saying, which is that free speech is most important to those for whom speech is the only form of political power available to them?

 

[Stapel]

I must agree with Spark that Free Speech is indeed not the issue here.

It's even quite ridiculous it has come up.

But that's what forum threads do. Drift away......

 

[Ikki]

i had a post but the forum ate it. oh well. last thing i'll say on this as well, because for the 1822482th time this is not a free speech issue

demonstrate an example of where those in a position of power have had their rights suppressed whilst remaining in a position of power. that seems...manifestly contradictory to me. you don't require, as a matter of life and limb, protection from the law when you write the law in the first place.

note: revolutions do not count. all bets are off there, obviously.

Why shouldn't revolutions or the pre-cursors not count? It would seem the exact kind of situation which could arise when there are free speech rights issues. And while it's more likely you'll be marginalised first to take away your property and your power, it doesn't make it any less important to have and exercise free speech rights before or after that fact. The utility is yours to decide.

Or just because it might be more important for the powerless, doesn't mean it can't equally be as important for the powerful. I just find the distinction unnecessary: everyone should have the same rights.

okay? i agree? how is this relevant to what i am saying, which is that free speech is most important to those for whom speech is the only form of political power available to them?

This I guess relates more to the discussion with Dan.

 

[Cruxdude]

Not sure if it has already been posted but surprise surprise fresh allegations are coming out against Chris Gayle.

Chris Gayle tried to ***ually harass Australian woman during World Cup 2015 : Cricket, News - India Today

 

[smash84]

Not sure if it has already been posted but surprise surprise fresh allegations are coming out against Chris Gayle.

Chris Gayle tried to ***ually harass Australian woman during World Cup 2015 : Cricket, News - India Today

He tried to ***ually harass somebody?

Interestingly, why was she going into the men's dressing room to get a sandwich?

 

[smash84]

Not sure if it has already been posted but surprise surprise fresh allegations are coming out against Chris Gayle.

Chris Gayle tried to ***ually harass Australian woman during World Cup 2015 : Cricket, News - India Today

She obviously didn't like the sandwich she was getting served

 

[_Ed_]

Wow, that was a whole lot of thread to catch up on.

You won't hear me saying people are wrong.....

It's just that I'm a bit amazed how ferociously people react to this.

I think a large part of the reason for that is the astonishing backlash.