Dirk Hayhurst, moral poseur

So, former short-time big leaguer Dirk Hayhurst, allegedly worried about his job, waits a full five years after the end of his MLB career, and three after the end of his minors career, but not too long after latching on to a writing gig at Sports on Earth, to write a piece accusing some of his teammates of gang-rape, and a bunch of them of sexual lowlife cretinism.
 
And gets NBC's Craig Calcaterra, probably a good neolib type on issues of social justice, to give him a big wet-kiss tout.

One commenter fawningly says of Hayhurst: 

Hayhurst is on his way to becoming the H. L. Mencken of sportswriting. 

Not hardly.

If he thinks that's true, it's a sad sign of the decline of literature, and the decline of literary style, and the decline of how high the bar is set. I prefer Sinclair Lewis. Author of “Elmer Gantry,” a story about a road-show revivalist taking advantage of some people’s naive religious beliefs.

Now, whether Hayhurst is Lewis, or is Gantry? I’d say the latter is a definite possibility. More than the former, or more than H.L. Mencken, who isn't all that some crack him up to be, anyway.

And, why would I say that?

• Waiting 3 years after fears of “losing your job” to write the story is interesting. 
• But, waiting not long at all until after joining a sports website to write the story is also interesting, especially when you've managed to write four books in that time and be a TBS broadcaster as well as joining Sports on Earth. 
• Hiding players’ identities without actually hiding their identities that much is also interesting. 

One can be a liberal, even a left-liberal of sorts, as I am, and still be skeptical about people and their motives. Especially when those possible motives involve moral apple-polishing, money-grubbing, or a mix of both.

That includes, as one commenter notes, the fact that if Hayhurst were really that concerned way back when, he could have at least warned women who were about to become trapped, exploited. or worse, about what was allegedly about to happen. So, per that particular comment, no, it makes him look worse. Or, as another commenter notes, that Eugene, Oregon, had a Crimestoppers program in 2003 and Hayhurst apparently never thought to call him.

Per the three bullet points above, it makes it look like he’s trying to burnish his sports-writing career. Add to that the fact that he talks favorably about ending his career with the Durham Bulls of semi-fictionalized "Bull Durham" fame, even as he writes a piece about minor-league players who, other than the rape allegations, don't sound that much different than those in "Bull Durham."

And, fact is, an actual sports mag, or sports section of a daily paper, wouldn’t have published that as written.

And, given that Hayhurst has done other things, like accusing Clay Buckholz of cheating, and what else I've gleaned about his character, am I surprised? Er, no!  Add to it the Jim Bouton-esque martyrdom that he affects, and the picture is complete.

Hell, for all we know, Hayhurst is the next Chad Curtis. 

Beyond that, to all of Hayhurst's defenders? (Not counting the first #mansplaining spouter who arrived on the scene.)

First, one can allow that he's broadly telling the truth while questioning his fiduciary, or limelight, reasons for doing so now, in the way he is.

Second, one can also, on the issue of women getting drunk with the possibility of having sex, then changing their minds, tell men to stop being Neanderthals while also telling women to stop getting themselves blotto. It, too, is not an either/or. 

Even more than SJW women, I "love" SJW males who seemingly have a compulsion to reject out of hand, without discussion any factual evidence that would challenge their compulsion to go along with SJW women in attacking ideas that might be considered mansplaining.

Cognitive dissonance: It ain't just for wingnuts.

Nor are attempts to stifle discourse, as Massimo Pigliucci discusses in detail.

Your mileage may vary, but do NOT attempt to tell me what my mileage may be.