On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 6:22:46 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:674b8862-8125-4c72...@googlegroups.com:
> > 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.
> >
> For that matter, most "reality" TV is far more about the
> personalities than whatever the contestants are doing.

The difference is that the British contestants were reliably
witty and entertaining, while most reality TV contestants
are raging narcissists and sociopaths.

Pt