ASO demands apology from Bakelants after sexist remarks

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Yes, implying that women are being kept around just so cyclists can have sex with them whenever they want is totally fine and people are just taking out of context.

His team should have dropped him, straight away. Their statement is just as offensive as what Bakelants said.

SJW alert.

I have no idea what that means?

Social Justice Warrior.

Statements that his team should have dropped him immediately and his daughter should not see him anymore are totally exaggerated. People are way too sensitive these days and this political correctness crap is getting out of hand. Just an excuse so the upset people could sleep again seems right in place.

I didn't make that statement, kindly refrain from implying I did.

I'm unsure why pointing out how disgusting blatant sexism is is a bad thing? I will clarify I meant dropped from the Tour team. He's a middle of the road rider they can easily do with out and that would have been suitable punishment. AG2R's statement was just as bad as what Bakelants said.

Your last sentence tells me everything I need to know, consider our discussion over.

 

[Roku]

Re: Re:

Bakelants was unfortunate with those statements and obviously seems to be childish and a jerk but come on... Dropping him of the Tour because of that? We are clearly losing our minds.

Yes, implying that women are being kept around just so cyclists can have sex with them whenever they want is totally fine and people are just taking out of context.

His team should have dropped him, straight away. Their statement is just as offensive as what Bakelants said.

SJW alert.

I have no idea what that means?

Social Justice Warrior, people that overreact and extremely attack those who make comments which are not politically correct nowadays.

 

[Popchu]

Re: Re:

Maybe he is very successful on that, what do you know. I assume people can still have consensual sex right? Or do you think anybody who keeps a pack of condoms in his wallet thinks that women are being kept around him so that he can have sex with them?
Again, the joke was between very bad and full ***, but there's a limit...

Well this is just silly isn't it? If you can't see the difference between someone having a condom in their wallet on the chance they might have sex with someone and a professional cyclist announcing that they need condoms on a rest day because they will be sleeping with podium girls then there's pretty much no point in continuing this conversation.

Wow... you take everything in that interview way too serious. :lol: This whole interview was meant as a joke. Maybe a bad one, but still...

 

[RedheadDane]

Anyway. As requested, so done. His apology.

Love the fact that he doesn't go all "Oh... but it was just a joke!", in fact; it seems like he's implying that he realises that this was not funny.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I would point out false equivalence but there really isn't any point is there? Could you highlight a joke where those comedians have made sexism remarks against a specific set of individuals they interact with over the course of their work?

What specific set of individuals do comedians interact with over the course of their work? Just youtube Jimmy Carr offensive jokes if you want to find out where your limit is.

I think you're equating making a joke about a subject with someone's belief on a subject. I think that's a mistake.

I said specific. Bakelants singled out a specific group of people he is around and interacts with throughout the course of his work. If Jimmy Carr said that he always requests young, female venue support staff in case he feels like having sex with someone in the intermission then that would be equivalent to what Bakelants said.

Bakelants is not a comedian addressing an audience who have paid to go to a gig with the expectation of comedy and possibly offensive dialogue.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Anyway. As requested, so done. His apology.

Love the fact that he doesn't go all "Oh... but it was just a joke!", in fact; it seems like he's implying that he realises that this was not funny.

He needs to delete his first sentence.

 

[Echoes]

Bakelants is known as a big mouth. This is vintage him.

The ASO reaction is obviously nothing to make me watch the Tour of France again ... It seems like we are back in a very puritan period. In the sixties, this would have been no big deal. Shame he apologised.

 

[miguelindurain111]

I feel morally superior when I get offended on behalf of, well, this time, of podium girls.

 

[jaylew]

Re: Re:

Well damn, I guess every comedian in the UK that I've ever heard of is a terrible terrible person.

I will immediately ask for them to be removed from any media outlet.

Glad we're fixing problems together!

Sexism isn't funny, just like racism isn't funny.

His statements were inappropriate in this situation but when it comes to comedy, anything can be made funny. I've heard all kinds of offensive jokes by comedians that were absolutely hilarious. Of course, that's a different scenario where you know not to take anything said seriously and Bakelants is clearly NOT a comedian.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Well damn, I guess every comedian in the UK that I've ever heard of is a terrible terrible person.

I will immediately ask for them to be removed from any media outlet.

Glad we're fixing problems together!

Sexism isn't funny, just like racism isn't funny.

His statements were inappropriate in this situation but when it comes to comedy, anything can be made funny. I've heard all kinds of offensive jokes by comedians that were absolutely hilarious. Of course, that's a different scenario where you know not to take anything said seriously and Bakelants is clearly NOT a comedian.

I'll repeat my reply from upthread. This is about singling out a specific group which he interacts with, not a general joke which people can either laugh at or not:

I said specific. Bakelants singled out a specific group of people he is around and interacts with throughout the course of his work. If Jimmy Carr said that he always requests young, female venue support staff in case he feels like having sex with someone in the intermission then that would be equivalent to what Bakelants said.

Bakelants is not a comedian addressing an audience who have paid to go to a gig with the expectation of comedy and possibly offensive dialogue.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

Anyway. As requested, so done. His apology.

Love the fact that he doesn't go all "Oh... but it was just a joke!", in fact; it seems like he's implying that he realises that this was not funny.

He needs to delete his first sentence.

Why? When you call something a socalled humouristic interview doesn't that imply that you mean that it wasn't funny?
If he'd said something like "... the people offended by a joke." Sure, but now he's stating that while he might have intended it as a joke, he realised that it - obviously - didn't come across as such.

---

Bakelants is known as a big mouth. This is vintage him.

The ASO reaction is obviously nothing to make me watch the Tour of France again ... It seems like we are back in a very puritan period. In the sixties, this would have been no big deal. Shame he apologised.

So, we should go back to the sixties instead?
Personally I'm pretty glad we live in an era during which comments like that are not accepted, and people - even if they don't mean to offend - are taken to task for their behaviour, and are able to face up to their mistakes.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Anyway. As requested, so done. His apology.

Love the fact that he doesn't go all "Oh... but it was just a joke!", in fact; it seems like he's implying that he realises that this was not funny.

He needs to delete his first sentence.

Why? When you call something a socalled humouristic interview doesn't that imply that you mean that it wasn't funny?
If he'd said something like "... the people offended by a joke." Sure, but now he's stating that while he might have intended it as a joke, he realised that it - obviously - didn't come across as such.

---

Because when you say something offensive you don't say "sorry if you were offended" unless you actually mean what you said. You say "What I said was offensive and I apologise".

 

[deValtos]

Yea the sixties comment, now that I disagree with. I wouldn't justify something by saying it was OK when times were considerably more sexist. That's no justification at all.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Well damn, I guess every comedian in the UK that I've ever heard of is a terrible terrible person.

I will immediately ask for them to be removed from any media outlet.

Glad we're fixing problems together!

They are comedians. Bakelands is not.

Even some comedians have found themselves in big holes to the point of almost ruining their lives (Michael Richards, Kathy Griffin) when they have made jokes "out of context" as well.

What was that about his parents and porn movies? that was weird!

 

[deValtos]

Re: Re:

Well damn, I guess every comedian in the UK that I've ever heard of is a terrible terrible person.

I will immediately ask for them to be removed from any media outlet.

Glad we're fixing problems together!

They are comedians. Bakelands is not.

Even some comedians have found themselves in big holes to the point of almost ruining their lives (Michael Richards, Kathy Griffin) when they have made jokes "out of context" as well.

What was that about his parents and porn movies? that was weird!

It was a bad taste joke for sure and people don't have to like the joke if they don't want to but it was still a joke and that's what I think he should be judged from.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

Anyway. As requested, so done. His apology.

Love the fact that he doesn't go all "Oh... but it was just a joke!", in fact; it seems like he's implying that he realises that this was not funny.

He needs to delete his first sentence.

Why? When you call something a socalled humouristic interview doesn't that imply that you mean that it wasn't funny?
If he'd said something like "... the people offended by a joke." Sure, but now he's stating that while he might have intended it as a joke, he realised that it - obviously - didn't come across as such.

---

Because when you say something offensive you don't say "sorry if you were offended" unless you actually mean what you said. You say "What I said was offensive and I apologise".

It might be a case of linguistically messing up, but it really does seem like he's not just saying "What I said was offensive and I apologise." but adding a "It was due to my lame attempt at humour."
Perhaps phrasing it as "Sorry I offended you by my socalled humouristic itw." Would have been better.

 

[Echoes]

Re: Re:

So, we should go back to the sixties instead?
Personally I'm pretty glad we live in an era during which comments like that are not accepted, and people - even if they don't mean to offend - are taken to task for their behaviour, and are able to face up to their mistakes.

Didn't you approve of the "women on bikes" thread?

In my opinion this comment is a lot less worse than that thread! :Neutral:

The sixties in my language community has a lot to teach to us in terms of frankness and straightforwardness. Films of the period educated me. No hypocrisy, people say what is on their mind whether good or bad.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

So, we should go back to the sixties instead?
Personally I'm pretty glad we live in an era during which comments like that are not accepted, and people - even if they don't mean to offend - are taken to task for their behaviour, and are able to face up to their mistakes.

Didn't you approve of the "women on bikes" thread?

The original purpose of that thread: Women - in clothes - actually riding bikes, was cool.
What it sorta merged into: Woman - mostly without clothes - just standing awkwardly with bikes as if they've never seen a bike before, was just sorta weird.

As for Bakelant's comment; I'm not saying that he should be removed from the Tour, as some people suggest, just that it's a good thing that people are held accountable for their actions, and that he accepted the fact that he made a mistake.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Anyway. As requested, so done. His apology.

Love the fact that he doesn't go all "Oh... but it was just a joke!", in fact; it seems like he's implying that he realises that this was not funny.

He needs to delete his first sentence.

Why? When you call something a socalled humouristic interview doesn't that imply that you mean that it wasn't funny?
If he'd said something like "... the people offended by a joke." Sure, but now he's stating that while he might have intended it as a joke, he realised that it - obviously - didn't come across as such.

---

Because when you say something offensive you don't say "sorry if you were offended" unless you actually mean what you said. You say "What I said was offensive and I apologise".

It might be a case of linguistically messing up, but it really does seem like he's not just saying "What I said was offensive and I apologise." but adding a "It was due to my lame attempt at humour."
Perhaps phrasing it as "Sorry I offended you by my socalled humouristic itw." Would have been better.

No, it wouldn't be. The problem is implying it is the persons fault they are offended when you say something offensive and that still does. He could expand and say it was a rubbish attempt at a joke and he's sorry, but he shouldn't imply it is the offended parties fault.

By the way, I'm aware that English isn't his first language and that the intricacies I'm pointing to could well be lost/unknown to him so I'm not saying his apology is rubbish. I'm just highlighting it in a general sense.

 

[Samamba]

Isn't sexism saying stuff about women (or men) in general?

 

[Samamba]

Re:

It's only when we can't make jokes about different issues that we really have a problem.

Welcome to the world of today, sir. A world where safe spaces are a thing.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Isn't sexism saying stuff about women (or men) in general?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sexism

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

He needs to delete his first sentence.

Why? When you call something a socalled humouristic interview doesn't that imply that you mean that it wasn't funny?
If he'd said something like "... the people offended by a joke." Sure, but now he's stating that while he might have intended it as a joke, he realised that it - obviously - didn't come across as such.

---

Because when you say something offensive you don't say "sorry if you were offended" unless you actually mean what you said. You say "What I said was offensive and I apologise".

It might be a case of linguistically messing up, but it really does seem like he's not just saying "What I said was offensive and I apologise." but adding a "It was due to my lame attempt at humour."
Perhaps phrasing it as "Sorry I offended you by my socalled humouristic itw." Would have been better.

No, it wouldn't be. The problem is implying it is the persons fault they are offended when you say something offensive and that still does. He could expand and say it was a rubbish attempt at a joke and he's sorry, but he shouldn't imply it is the offended parties fault.

By the way, I'm aware that English isn't his first language and that the intricacies I'm pointing to could well be lost/unknown to him so I'm not saying his apology is rubbish. I'm just highlighting it in a general sense.

So, saying that "I'm sorry that I offended you." doesn't put the blame squarely on the "I"?
Similar to "I'm sorry that I punched you." Surely in that case it wouldn't be implying that it's the person who was punched who's at fault.
Or saying "What I said was really offensive/hurtful."

 

[May0maniac]

Jesus Christ, some people are way to sensitive. It was a bad joke, some people got offended by it and he had to apologise.
He tried to be funny and came up with a pretty bad joke, but people are just overreacting.
Riders defending the fact that the sport has podium girls and criticising the Tour Down Under for getting rid of them, that's something differnet and someone could really think that they are kinda sexist, but this one was just a bad joke.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

So, saying that "I'm sorry that I offended you." doesn't put the blame squarely on the "I"?
Similar to "I'm sorry that I punched you." Surely in that case it wouldn't be implying that it's the person who was punched who's at fault.
Or saying "What I said was really offensive/hurtful."

It's the second bit that feels like an attempt to mitigate the blame. Just a bog standard "What I said was offensive. I apologise", is always the best way to do things. No confusion, no mis-interpretation. Just hands up, I did something wrong, I'm sorry.