Is it just me or is this piece by Fairfax sports columnist Andrew Webster actually arguing that the prospect of potential physical violence was a valid and reasonable option in a vocal argument, involving Australian cricketer David Warner?
I’m astounded that this piece could run in the Sydney Morning Herald, and therefore the other Fairfax mastheads. I honestly can’t work out if they were cynically aiming for outrage and inevitable clickbait, or if no red flags went up as it went through the editing process.
To be clear: GiantsAmongMen‘s position is that there is never an excuse for violence, or even threatening violence. Even if some dickhead cricket opponent says something unsavoury about your wife.
You’d think the cricket world, after the one-punch death of legend David Hookes, would know that better than most but, no, apparently not. And that Hookes link is from the SMH, reporting on how terrible that violent death was. It seems the paper has since forgotten. Amazing and wildly irresponsible. The message to younger, more impressionable men, as against us wise old sages, is a terrible one.
Am I over-reacting? Do other GiantsAmongMen think Webster is correct in saying threatening/moving towards violence was a completely reasonable course of action? Am I reading it incorrectly? I’d be fascinated to know your thoughts.
The piece is here.