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

[thierry henry]

I think I get what you're arguing about TH, but I think what people mostly disagree with is that it's a bigger debate perhaps left for another thread, or at least that strikes me as such anyway. It's shifts the focus away somewhat from the issue at hand which seems to be revolving around whether what Gayle did was wrong or blown out of proportion.

Well looking at this thread alone, it was certainly both wrong AND blown out of proportion

 

[NZTailender]

Well looking at this thread alone, it was certainly both wrong AND blown out of proportion

Thing is, who blew it out of proportion? Was it Channel 10, by condemning Gayle's action literally minutes later via the comm box? Or the press who reported on the subject? or the thousands upon thousands of people commenting on Facebook and forums saying things like "err she should've gotten the joke".

The fact it's been blown 'out of proportion' just underlies the fact there's fundamental points and factors the great unwashed simply don't understand and things will continue to be blown out of proportion until it's more widely accepted that Gayle was being a dick and it was wrong.

I mean if everyone could agree on that last point, it would've been more of a non-event and died down already because very few people would have dissenting views.

 

[Spark]

There is always something worse that adds a little perspective.

now this, this is whataboutery.

 

[Dan]

Do you ever worry that your willingness to inhibit yourself to an unlimited degree in order to avoid offending people will gradually turn you into an incredibly boring person?

Yeah no risk of that; I'm incredibly boring already. Pretty sure that's independent of any belief in social justice too.

And I'm not inhibiting myself to an unlimited degree. 'Not being a dick' is remarkably low-cost. I don't see how not telling racist jokes, not misgendering people, or respecting other faiths makes me boring. Nor do I see how the inverse would make me interesting.

RTB's got it right with the whole social cues thing. We all do it subconsciously -- I bet you don't swear nearly as much around your mother as you would in a pub with your best mates. Communication adjusts depending on the context, because walking around intentionally upsetting people all day is generally not a good thing to be doing. And certainly doesn't make you much fun at parties.

 

[thierry henry]

Thing is, who blew it out of proportion? Was it Channel 10, by condemning Gayle's action literally minutes later via the comm box? Or the press who reported on the subject? or the thousands upon thousands of people commenting on Facebook and forums saying things like "err she should've gotten the joke".

The fact it's been blown 'out of proportion' just underlies the fact there's fundamental points and factors the great unwashed simply don't understand and things will continue to be blown out of proportion until it's more widely accepted that Gayle was being a dick and it was wrong.

I mean if everyone could agree on that last point, it would've been more of a non-event and died down already because very few people would have dissenting views.

I don't disagree with the overall thrust of what you're saying.

What we might disagree on is this: I would say that initially, the over-reaction stems from those condemning Gayle. I believe that this over-reaction exists as (a) a backlash to ***ism and (b) because we live in a time where these are hot issues. So, in my opinion, that's strictly speaking where the overreaction starts in relation to each specific case.

Now of course, it would be perfectly plausible to argue that the backlash by definition is a reaction to something that already exists (i.e. it's not the people condemning Gayle who truly started it but the hordes of misogynists that the backlashers must inevitably respond to) and that the backlash to the backlash is a wave of ***ism totally disproportionate to any OTT criticism of Gayle.

BUT...I still reckon that on average most anti-Gaylers are inclined to go over the top with their criticisms, which is a result of this whole backlash/making assumptions about the beliefs of others cycle, which is just unfortunate and not conducive to properly rational discussion.

But hey, I guess I'm never going to live in this context-less world I dream of so I should get used to it.

 

[cnerd123]

This has been a fun thread

FTR I don't subscribe to the 'Gayle's a dick because he's a misogynist' viewpoint. I see it the way PEWs does - Gayle's a dick because he intentionally made the reporter's job more difficult. His views on women is irrelevant to whether he was being a dick of not.

Having said that, the whole ***ism angle has really spiced up this thread and brought all the ***ists/people who don't understand social equality out of the closet. Love it.

Also FTR Spark, you could have saved yourself that whole Free Speech argument with Captain Cook by simply linking to the XKCD free speech comic:

And lastly I'm glad everyone is aware of what a boring, pretentious, racist, feminazi SJW Devon really is.

 

[thierry henry]

Having said that, the whole ***ism angle has really spiced up this thread and brought all the ***ists/people who don't understand social equality out of the closet. Love it.

I think what it has really brought out of the closet are all of those who are prepared to descend into popularly-supported bullying, ridicule and ad hominems when someone has "revealed" themselves to be broadly part of a class of people that the CW majority disagree with.

Overall I think it has reflected quite poorly on the forum and it has bummed me out.

 

[NZTailender]

I don't disagree with the overall thrust of what you're saying.

What we might disagree on is this: I would say that initially, the over-reaction stems from those condemning Gayle. I believe that this over-reaction exists as (a) a backlash to ***ism and (b) because we live in a time where these are hot issues. So, in my opinion, that's strictly speaking where the overreaction starts in relation to each specific case.

Now of course, it would be perfectly plausible to argue that the backlash by definition is a reaction to something that already exists (i.e. it's not the people condemning Gayle who truly started it but the hordes of misogynists that the backlashers must inevitably respond to) and that the backlash to the backlash is a wave of ***ism totally disproportionate to any OTT criticism of Gayle.

BUT...I still reckon that on average most anti-Gaylers are inclined to go over the top with their criticisms, which is a result of this whole backlash/making assumptions about the beliefs of others cycle, which is just unfortunate and not conducive to properly rational discussion.

But hey, I guess I'm never going to live in this context-less world I dream of so I should get used to it.

Actually the over-reaction in my opinion has been from those supporting Gayle. Before there were any 'omg Gayle is such a ***ist' articles popping up anywhere (actually I haven't seen that many) there were scores of people commenting wherever they could that 'oh here we go the feminists will be out in force' 'lol he was only joking'. The overreaction pre-empted the reaction.

If anything, it seems like everything since that initial period has been explanations as to why it was wrong as well as women coming forward to their similar experiences to explain why it was Mel felt uncomfortable and that she shouldn't have 'just laughed it off'.

So really, the overreaction has gone beyond Gayle's actions. Is Gayle some creepy predator serial-***ual-harassing misogynist? Maybe. Maybe calling him all those things is an overreaction. But have people misunderstood why Mel was uncomfortable and thought that she should've have 'just laughed it off'. Definitely. I think that's what needs addressing - the fundamental misunderstanding of why Gayle was wrong, as opposed to whether or not he was wrong.

 

[cnerd123]

I think what it has really brought out of the closet are all of those who are prepared to descend into popularly-supported bullying, ridicule and ad hominems when someone has "revealed" themselves to be broadly part of a class of people that the CW majority disagree with.

Overall I think it has reflected quite poorly on the forum and it has bummed me out.

I think you have just been arguing at cross purposes for the whoe thread tbh

When the discussion is centred around whether or not Gayle was a dick for what he did, naturally when you slip in and go "But there is mysoginism everywhere in sport!", it is going to look like an attempt to say "oh, this isnt so bad because there are worse things happening'. Or worse, people are going to see you using that as an excuse for Gayle's behaviour - "hey the whole system is mysogynistic, so what Gayle did is fine". Your problem was trying to enter an existing debate from an angle no one was looking at, and then getting offended when they figure your motives were one of the two above.

Just poor debating on your part IMO. Should have come in and gone "Gayle's a dick, but can we talk about ***ism in sport and media as a whole?" and then take it from there.

 

[Pratters]

How are Chris Gayle's comments now and his previous comments not ***ism?

 

[cnerd123]

How are Chris Gayle's comments now and his previous comments not ***ism?

???

What a weird question. What prompted this? Was there a post over here that said Gayle's comments aren't ***ism and you felt the need to reply to it with a question?

 

[social]

Gayle was a dick. Case closed.

Yep

Good wife saw it this morning and pretty much said the same thing but added "and on national tv so the whole world knows he's a dick so enough already."

 

[thierry henry]

When the discussion is centred around whether or not Gayle was a dick for what he did, naturally when you slip in and go "But there is mysoginism everywhere in sport!", it is going to look like an attempt to say "oh, this isnt so bad because there are worse things happening'. Or worse, people are going to see you using that as an excuse for Gayle's behaviour - "hey the whole system is mysogynistic, so what Gayle did is fine".

"It" isn't going to look like anything. People will make of it what they will. People applying their own prejudices or assumptions to my opinions, which stand on their own merits, is their own fault and problem. Stop victim-blaming me for people reading things I didn't write.

 

[NZTailender]

"It" isn't going to look like anything. People will make of it what they will. People applying their own prejudices or assumptions to my opinions, which stand on their own merits, is their own fault and problem. Stop victim-blaming me for people reading things I didn't write.

Tbf, I actually agree with you in terms of the problems regarding hiring attractive females because it'll potentially be good for ratings. Perhaps a thread could be started on the problems of male dominated sports wrt females employed in that industry. I mean it's such a damned if they do/don't situation where it seems like no matter what happens they're treated as 'woman commentator/journalist' instead of just 'commentator/journalist'.

 

[NZTailender]

I can't believe no one has said this yet but

It's about ethics in cricket journalism

 

[smash84]

is chris gayle in an open marriage?

 

[cnerd123]

"It" isn't going to look like anything. People will make of it what they will. People applying their own prejudices or assumptions to my opinions, which stand on their own merits, is their own fault and problem. Stop victim-blaming me for people reading things I didn't write.

Tbf no one actually ridiculed your stance. Spark outright said he just didn't want to talk about the broader issue with you but you wouldn't let it go. You also never said "Gayle's a ***ist dick" and got that out of the way; just kept hammering on about how ***ism and misogyny is rife in sport and broadcasting. You gotta be pretty naive to think that such an approach won't come off as attempting to excuse Gayle's behaviour because it fits the existing flawed structures and belief systems.

Either way I wasn't really reading your posts that closely. Just enough to know you weren't properly engaging with the topic on hand.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

is chris gayle in an open marriage?

Chris Gayle is currently in a committed long term relationship with Chris Gayle

 

[thierry henry]

Tbf no one actually ridiculed your stance. Spark outright said he just didn't want to talk about the broader issue with you but you wouldn't let it go. You also never said "Gayle's a ***ist dick" and got that out of the way; just kept hammering on about how ***ism and misogyny is rife in sport and broadcasting. You gotta be pretty naive to think that such an approach won't come off as attempting to excuse Gayle's behaviour because it fits the existing flawed structures and belief systems.

Either way I wasn't really reading your posts that closely. Just enough to know you weren't properly engaging with the topic on hand.

This is just patently untrue and that's why I'm annoyed. Spark wrote the same narrative way back in the thread and it's also a lie. Once again, I am not responsible for your false, fabricated perception of the discussion.

I made precisely 1 post about "the broader issue" to Spark after he indicated he didn't think it was relevant, and he responded to that one post by accusing me of "one of things (he) despises the most in the world". In response to that (imo offensive, unnecessary and seriously excessive attack) I made precisely 1 further post (is that really such a surprise when someone calls you despicable out of nowhere?) to which I was called a "weirdo". After that point I never once engaged Spark in a substantive conversation about the "broader issue" but simply tried to defend the very concept of "broadening a conversation" since I had effectively been accused of being a despicable weirdo for simply trying to do that.

I did however have plenty of perfectly good and enjoyable conversation on the broader issues at play with plenty of other posters and I don't apologise for that. I can assure you it was all highly consensual.

 

[Bahnz]

I think what it has really brought out of the closet are all of those who are prepared to descend into popularly-supported bullying, ridicule and ad hominems when someone has "revealed" themselves to be broadly part of a class of people that the CW majority disagree with.

Overall I think it has reflected quite poorly on the forum and it has bummed me out.

Oh don' be so sensitive swee'eart, it's just a laff! *pats bum*