On 2022-04-05 5:23 p.m., Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 1:40 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-04-05 1:23 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:922a3597-7352-43ca-98a6-da8213539c3cn@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.
>>
>> Yes... ...there were a few examples of the sub-genre in the US.
>>
>> Hollywood Squares
>>
>> Password
>>
>> Match Game
>>
>> The $10K/20K/25K/50K/100K Pyramid.
>>
>> But the all had ordinary people as the actual contestants.
>>
>> The British shows dispensed with that and got straight down to letting
>> entertainers be entertaining.
>
> Hollywood Squares had civilian contestants but the people occupying the
> tic-tac-toe board were all celebs.
>

Yes. I know. I literally just acknowledged as much.

:-)