On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:23:43 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:922a3597-7352-43ca...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> >> >news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
> >> >>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 1:14:39 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>> I can't bring myself to have a lot of sympathy for Chris
> >> >>>>> Rock. He should have realized that in this day and age,
> >> >>>>> making jokes based on alopecia is something our
> >> >>>>> society no longer accepts; it's viewed the same way we
> >> >>>>> view making jokes about someone with a disability or
> >> >>>>> an exceptionality.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thus, the movie Tropic Thunder was condemned for the
> >> >>>>> frequent use of what is now called "the R-word" within
> >> >>>>> it, with the intent to convey the same attitude towards
> >> >>>>> the word in question as the phrase "the N-word" does.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> So if Chris Rock winds up being "cancelled", well, even
> >> >>>>> if it is terribly unjust instead of serving him right,
> >> >>>>> it's only to be expected.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> But what about Will Smith?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> While it is true that it isn't really appropriate to
> >> >>>>> approve of his reaction, waxing eloquent about how
> >> >>>>> physical violence must never be condoned regardless of
> >> >>>>> the provocation... would be hypocritical, at least on my
> >> >>>>> part. Because I don't feel like waggilng my finger in the
> >> >>>>> same way at Dr. Edwin Aldrin, who lost his temper at
> >> >>>>> an advocate of the notion that the moon landings were
> >> >>>>> a hoax who called him a liar.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Edwin Aldrin and Will Smith are two unique human
> >> >>>>> individuals. So it would be untrue to say that the only
> >> >>>>> difference between them is that Edwin Aldrin is a real
> >> >>>>> astronaut, and Will Smith only played one in the movie
> >> >>>>> Independence Day.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> But I'm only going to note _one_ other difference between
> >> >>>>> the two of them. And no points for guessing which one of
> >> >>>>> those many differences it is going to be.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Because while what Will Smith did wasn't an evil act, and
> >> >>>>> it doesn't make him a bad man, it still will have evil
> >> >>>>> consequences.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Because, unlike Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Will Smith...
> >> >>>>> doesn't have white privilege? Maybe _that's_ not the
> >> >>>>> right way to put it; if Will Smith had been hauled away
> >> >>>>> by the LAPD, _then_ that would be a sequence of events
> >> >>>>> fitting that paradigm.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> But it's still something in that area.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Because to a lot of the white people who either saw what
> >> >>>>> transpired on the Oscars that night, or who just heard
> >> >>>>> about it, the incident will only serve as confirmation to
> >> >>>>> some of the most harmful racial stereotypes that have
> >> >>>>> been floating around for hundreds of years.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
> >> >>>>> one:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> You can put a suit and a tie on a black man, but you
> >> >>>>> can't change his "real" nature, said nature being that
> >> >>>>> of... an impulsive small child. A savage at heart, rather
> >> >>>>> than a civilized adult.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This is where a legitimate criticism of Will Smith needs
> >> >>>>> to start; not with hypocritical sanctimony about physical
> >> >>>>> violence, but with honestly facing the damage he has the
> >> >>>>> potential of doing to the fragile progress being made by
> >> >>>>> Americans of color.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> John Savard
> >> >>>> We now know from sports that even very mild head trauma
> >> >>>> can be dangerous, so we should be even less tolerant of
> >> >>>> attacks than before, regardless of excuse. As it happens,
> >> >>>> I find the reported joke entirely unobjectionable
> >> >>>> (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/mar/27/will-smith-pu
> >> >>>> nch- ch ris-rock-wife-joke-gi-jane-video-oscars). I find
> >> >>>> any culture that regards violence as the proper reaction
> >> >>>> to perceived so-called disrespect much more troubling.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>Every state in the US has some form of "fighting words" law,
> >> >>>wherein it is recognized that there are things one can say
> >> >>>that are *so* offensive that any reasonable person would
> >> >>>respond with violence.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Rock's joke did not rise to that level. It was, perhaps, in
> >> >>>bad taste (but most comedy is), and perhaps not particularly
> >> >>>funny, in context, but it certainly wasn't "fighting words."
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Smith's lucky that Rock doesn't want to pursue it in a legal
> >> >>>venue. I guess he's too busy booking more shows due to the
> >> >>>massive increase in ticket sales for his concerts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly. The free publicity is worth more than pursuing
> >> >> criminal action. Which might reduce the value of the free
> >> >> publicity.
> >> >
> >> >Plus, it was a slap. Technically, battery, but c'mon. Man up
> >> >and don't whine. Which Rock did. (I suspect that, while he
> >> >should have known that Smith's wife is bald due to a medical
> >> >condition, he probably didn't concsiously realize it when he
> >> >wrote the joke, which was apparently improved (if he'd
> >> >rehearsed it, it's likely somebody would have say, "Hey, dude,
> >> >remember . . .). In the moment, he was too surprised to react,
> >> >and by the time he gave any real thought to police reports, I
> >> >suspect he felt bad about the joke anyway.)
> >> We are, of course, overlooking the obvious point that these are
> >> /performers/ on /television/, meaning the whole thing could
> >> have been rehearsed beforehand and written into the script.
> >>
> >> The entire 50s (?) gaming scandal (contestants being fed
> >> answers when the audience was told they were not) could have
> >> been avoided by simply admitting that they were entertainment,
> >> and then scripting them. Basically, you would have a "sitcom"
> >> where the "sit" was advancing through the stages of a game show
> >> to the top prize.
> >
> > There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
> > game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
> > from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
> > celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
> > competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of
> > the players and MC.
> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
> answers.

Same idea.

Pt