Jump to content

Devon Malcolm

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
9 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

Firstly - and I know youā€™re not intending to do this - I donā€™t think itā€™s helpful to bring up any ā€˜issuesā€™ she may or may not have had. That kind of approach is used so often to discredit assault and harassment victims. I know thatā€™s not your intent, but I donā€™t think itā€™s relevant.Ā 

It's similar to consistently suggesting Khan may be autistic to explain away some of his 'eccentricities'. It's an irrelevance, at best.

@Hannibal ScorchĀ I think you're overthinking this whole affair to the point of talking yourself into places you do not intend to go. And, again, I think it's because you're so heavily invested in wanting to view AEW through a positive lens. It's not the best of looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point I should have made, @Hannibal ScorchĀ - regarding Kylie speaking positively about AEW - she was answering questions in an interview; as far as Iā€™m aware, she didnā€™t just volunteer that opinion. Regardless, wrestling is an industry where it is frighteningly easy to get blackballed, or branded a troublemaker, not necessarily through any fault of your own. Kylie left prior to Speaking Out/Me Too, but even if she didnā€™t - sheā€™s not of a high enough status to make being anything other than diplomatic a risk free activity. If she was to speak negatively about AEW - with the added complication of the NDA - this might have made WWE, Impact or ROH less likely to take a chance on her. She risks tanking her own career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
1 hour ago, DavidB6937 said:

That's definitely what sticks out to me. I feel like he could've nipped it in the bud and literally came out and said "there's never been an investigation" or whatever. Why wouldn't you if that was the case? It was an opportunity to shut down any rumour or speculation and realistically he could've done that if that was the truth, no? I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't.

One reason would be that you'd effectively create a code where 'it didn't happen' means it didn't happen and 'I can't comment' means it did. Any good PR person would probably tell you to respond with whatĀ youĀ want to talk about instead - hence the safety record response. Anything to do with problems backstage means 'we have a great safety record, we have a disciplinary committee and people can come to me any time'.Ā 

At the same time, the fact he didn't deny it made it a story. Because the most likely interpretation is that itĀ didĀ happen, that Khan was aware of it, and he can't comment. And that's why it was actually refreshing to see journalists ask and follow it up. And the interest in it probably makes it more likely that there'll be more of that - there certainly should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
35 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

It's similar to consistently suggesting Khan may be autistic to explain away some of his 'eccentricities'. It's an irrelevance, at best.

@Hannibal ScorchĀ I think you're overthinking this whole affair to the point of talking yourself into places you do not intend to go. And, again, I think it's because you're so heavily invested in wanting to view AEW through a positive lens. It's not the best of looks.

Yeah I am obviously not explaining myself very well. @RedRoosterĀ is right, I was mentioning that in regards to timelines, not that her doing that should be seen as any way to discredit her at all. I know some people have, but they are normally MAGA twats (which i guess is his fanbase anyway).

Also, and I know I have said that I think Khan is possibly neurodiverse before and does explain some of his actions. But it doesn't give him a free pass on said behaviors (like going along with Toni Storm giving him the hat to wear, someone should have a word way before they did with that situation looming over).

But also, as much as I am an AEW fan, the whole situation stinks, there is no getting away with that. Jericho should have been sent home, or suspended pending an investigation into the claims, because all it does is make it look like you don't care about women's safety in your own company. Just because the only reason was because a berk made a comment on a podcast because he was upset, doesn't mean it should have been taken more seriously than it was. As others have pointed out, this screams of not wanting to think your mate is a wrong-un when it should be a boss doing what is best for the company until a decision can be made. If you want people to take you seriously as the owner of a company, make those tough decisions and act like a boss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

it's obviously a fucking mess.

I honestly don't really like seeing this framed as a "SpeakingOut" situation, because speaking out was about victims having the courage to speak up, and for the most part actually being believed and supported - we can debate the long-term impact of that, especially at the higher levels of the industry, but that's what it was - and that's not what has happened here. Nobody, as far as I know, has come forward and said that they were a victim of Chris Jericho. Nor was this an issue raised out of the concern for the safety of past or potential future victims, it was Nick Hausman trying to score points and win an online argument. So if thereĀ areĀ victims, whether that's Kylie Rae or anybody else, they're having a potentially traumatic experience relitigated and dragged out over social media through no fault of their own.

Just from an HR perspective, as far as we know, nobody has directly accused Chris Jericho of assault, abuse, or anything else, or raised any kind of grievance. No company would be able to get away with suspending an employee based on social media gossip with no actual complaint. But wrestling isn't normal business, and they should have considered the optics of still putting Chris Jericho on a PPV after this story broke, even if purely for cynical image management reasons. They must have known that the reaction they got at World's End was probably theĀ best caseĀ scenario. The worst case is that the story snowballs into something worse and they're left looking very publicly like they did nothing.

I will be amazed if Jericho is on TV this week, I think that would be far more tone-deaf than putting Ric Flair on TV, keeping Jericho at World's End, or anything else that AEW have done. But I expect the likelihood is that he will be off TV for a month or two, maybe more, in the hope that this all blows over and, given that Hausman seems to be trying to backtrack somewhat already, unless some bombshell drops we won't hear any more of this, and people will have made their mind up that Chris Jericho is a sexual predator, but there won't be enough to substantiate that for anyone to meaningfully act on it, and nobody will be happy with any possible outcome.Ā 


For the avoidance of doubt - I think he probably has countless skeletons in his closet to say the least, he's a wrestler from the '90s with a sideline in pretending to be an '80s rock star, that all adds up to somebody I wouldn't let a friend share a taxi with. But in terms of taking any action, at this point it's more that - not knowing what knowledge they have at a corporate level, and assuming there's been no formal complaints against him - AEW should be taking him off TV out of an abundance of caution, rather than because there's enough weight behind this to justify sacking him off.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah we can all debate about whatā€™s happened but it isnā€™t going to matter one jot, is it. NDAs often have a ā€œFinancial Incentiveā€ attached so you break it, you lose that money.Ā 
Ā 

But even if, worse case scenario, Jericho was sexually inappropriate and Khan bought her off to keep quiet and all of this is confirmed, it wonā€™t make a lick of difference. People might express their disgust but is anyone seriously going to stop watching? The overall feel seems to be ā€œWell Jericho is on the decline anyway, and Flair is just embarrassingā€.Ā 
Ā 

Itā€™s way more easier to be glad someone gets shitcanned who is actually shit, but donā€™t dress it up like your concerns are centred around womenā€™s safety when youā€™ll still watch the shows, buy the shirts and shell out for Wembley.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

If everybody on this wrestling forum agreed they would never watch wrestling again would you be satisfied? Or would you prefer us to keep watching so you can keep reminding us what turds we are for doing so?

If we all stopped would you move on to meat eaters next, or people who watch Hollywood movies, or use Amazon, or Starbucks, or support a football team, or who participate in this late stage capitalism hellscape of ours in any way whatsoever without declaring ā€œof course Iā€™m a massive hypocritical cunt for this one ladsā€ every time they do so?Ā 

Everyone has to make their call on whether or not they can sleep at night, and scolding them on a daily basis doesnā€™t tend to have that positive an impact on their decision making. Iā€™m all for calling out the people responsible, but scolding consumers for failure to boycott is rarely productive.Ā 

I am against horse racing and donā€™t watch or support it. Iā€™m against greyhound racing, I donā€™t watch or support it, I have donated to greyhound rehoming charities and have adopted greyhounds myself. However,Ā Iā€™m not a vegan. Iā€™ve given it a go and Iā€™ve lacked the discipline for it. I donā€™t feel great about that. I might try again some time. I still like to think I give a shit about animals, but I guess in the eyes of some vegans I donā€™t at all. However, my vegan friends chastising me for it every time I fail would not help in any way and Iā€™m grateful to them for not doing so.Ā 
Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fair for someone to have an opinion on someone if they continue to watch/invest/buy etc if they feel its morally wrong.

It's also fair for someone who continues to watch/invest/buy etc to not give a shit about that person's opinion.Ā 

We all have a line, we all have things we'd rather didn't exist in things we enjoy.

I love Annie Hall. I love Manhattan. Woody Allen is a piece of shit. It's just the way it is.

I am almost certain that there are things Keith enjoys that are in someway problematic. But that is HIS line to choose, just as yours is yours and mine is mine.

Now shut up, I'm off to listen to some Lostprophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
3 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Also, and I know I have said that I think Khan is possibly neurodiverse before and does explain some of his actions. But it doesn't give him a free pass on said behaviors (like going along with Toni Storm giving him the hat to wear, someone should have a word way before they did with that situation looming over).

Ah, the time-honoured tradition of nobody stepping in to stop the boss putting his foot in it because he's the boss.

I can totally understand the mental pathways of TK not connecting "woman playing a character offers me hat / should I play up to it and wear it" to "woman is my employee, am probably about to face tricky questions about sexual misconduct towards a former employee, also a woman." I speak as someone who gets tunnel vision about one particular detail and need reigning in because of wider context on a near-daily basis. It's like one gate is open or closed and he's oblivious to "If X = 0, Y = 1, Z = 0 / If X = 1, Y = 0, Z = 1" - he can't look past whether X is 0 or 1, if that makes sense. That's all that flashes through his mind in the half second whether to act/speak/react. Also explains some answers to questions that may be too open or come out differently if he takes a breath and thinks about it. Probably not explaining myself well, but I get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iā€™m saying that regardless of what actually happened, it wonā€™t make any difference to peopleā€™s viewing habits. The only line in the sand for most people is the quality of the product and thatā€™s absolutely fair enough. I just think itā€™s a bit rum to want safety for women backstage but still give a company that clearly doesnā€™t their continued patronage. It makes their calls for violence against women and girls a part time thing in my opinion. Sorry if you find that trivial.Ā 
Ā 

This is a unique case though, in the sense this happened at AEW on AEW time. Everything else can be seen as ā€œSecond chance for a past mistakeā€ while not on the books. This IS on the books and how itā€™s dealt with will be very important.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Posted (edited)

I donā€™t think itā€™s trivial. As my post outlined, we all undertake actions counter to our own values on a daily basis and have to decide which ones we can live with. I donā€™t think anyoneā€™s values or opinions are more or less valid than mine in that regard.

Campaigning for systemic change, engaging Ā in activism, donating to worthy causes, amplifying the voices of victims, making a stink on larger platforms to make the people involved more uncomfortable and hopefully more accountable. Going to a very small specialty interest forum and chastising people for their hobby is less effective than all of the above. Placing the burden of guilt on individual consumers helps the systems and elites more than it prompts change. Like the classic ruse of telling people climate change is their fault for boiling the kettle too often, rather than the never ending and ever increasing obsession with growth on a planet with finite resources.Ā 

I donā€™t deny that individual action helps. To use the greyhound racing example again, however, I think itā€™s more beneficial for me to support the greyhound trust and adopt greyhounds than it would be for me to go on a greyhound racing forum and tell the members what shits they are.Ā 
Ā 

To be clear, Iā€™m not campaigning for a ban or trying to suppress the opinion, I just fail to see how your crusade on this forum helps anything. If it makes you feel better itā€™s not for me to deny you that, but convincing Hannibal Scorch not to watch Rampage this week does not help Kylie Rae.Ā 

Edited by JLM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JLM said:

Placing the burden of guilt on individual consumers helps the systems and elites more than it prompts change

The only guilt is those who commit the crime and allow it to happen. Again, itā€™s not a matter of guilting. Itā€™s that I think itā€™s telling that because itā€™s Jericho and Flair, get rid as they wouldnā€™t be missed. The same wouldnā€™t be said if it was Kingston and Danielson at the centre of sexual assault allegations. Iā€™m just saying be honest, sure it matters theyā€™re wronguns but itā€™s not the number one reason to get rid.Ā 

Ā 

29 minutes ago, JLM said:

Campaigning for systemic change, engaging Ā in activism, donating to worthy causes, amplifying the voices of victims, making a stink on larger platforms to make the people involved more uncomfortable and hopefully more accountable. Going to a very small specialty interest forum and chastising people for their hobby is less effective than all of the above

Calling out sexual assault and wanting perpetrators to be brought to justice is not chastising people for their hobby. It makes no odds to me if someone watches a wrestling show, good on you if you enjoy it. Thereā€™s nothing like a live show and I bet Wembley will be a generational milestone like SummerSlam was. I bet being part of that will be a lifetime memory and why would someone begrudge that?Ā 

Ā 

35 minutes ago, JLM said:

Like the classic ruse of telling people climate change is their fault for boiling the kettle too often, rather than the never ending and ever increasing obsession with growth on a planet with finite resources.Ā 

One of the greatest PR moves ever was Shell et al getting is to focus on carbon footprints to take the spotlight away from them. Agreed.Ā 

Ā 

36 minutes ago, JLM said:

I just fail to see how your crusade on this forum helps anything.

Iā€™ve been involved with working / volunteering with VAWG organisations for decades. If anything is a ā€œCrusadeā€ then itā€™s that, not peopleā€™s viewing habits. As Iā€™ve said. I find it distasteful when people might make a token proclamation against sex pests and the like being added to staff, just like they have done before and will do again. Itā€™s like they donā€™t really care about it, but will use it against someone they donā€™t like.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...