Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The existence of god implies a violation of causality.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

SubjectAuthor
* Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.
`* Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.
 `* Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.
  `* Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.
   `* Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.
    `* Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.
     `* Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.
      `* Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.
       `- Commentary on entertainment media.B.H.

1
Commentary on entertainment media.

<79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=28826&group=comp.theory#28826

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr18014629qkh.333.1648507254576;
Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:83cf:0:b0:2ea:2f7:1a53 with SMTP id
t198-20020a8183cf000000b002ea02f71a53mr13204736ywf.302.1648507254373; Mon, 28
Mar 2022 15:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.62.250; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.62.250
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:40:54 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: B.H. - Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:40 UTC

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html

I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.

In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.

I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.

Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:

https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/

I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that...maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.

Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.

Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.

I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.

It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

<88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=28841&group=comp.theory#28841

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:285:b0:2e1:dcda:98fd with SMTP id z5-20020a05622a028500b002e1dcda98fdmr25621687qtw.625.1648514294434;
Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:dec7:0:b0:2e5:8265:f8bf with SMTP id
h190-20020a0ddec7000000b002e58265f8bfmr28383379ywe.299.1648514294210; Mon, 28
Mar 2022 17:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.62.250; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.62.250
References: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 00:38:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 105
 by: B.H. - Tue, 29 Mar 2022 00:38 UTC

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:40:55 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html
>
> I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.
>
> In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.
>
> I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.
>
> Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:
>
> https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/
>
> I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that...maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.
>
> Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.
>
> Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.
>
> I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.
>
> It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKla75GvK6c

I feel like commenting more, just because I feel like it.

Bylaws aren't US law. In general, the controversy and silly feel-good and very obvious commentary "Awww, this should have been about his big moment about as an actor, but instead the political point he was making took over!" is not intellectual enough for a major news network claiming to do "analysis" of art-related news. Lots of people could think of that point, that is not a competitively made point about the situation. (No wonder my story isn't in the news, there is very little serious thinking demonstrated on it!). Maybe it is just an obvious point that a lot of viewers wouldn't think of...I guess it's a way to be educational at least, I complained about HDRC not doing enough basic education in the 2016 election. Maybe she was just disqualified in a sense over her human trafficking thing, maybe that is the main reason why she lost.

The general other easy-to-see comment is: The "Academy" or whatever hasn't presented Will Smith with another way to address him being mocked. What is Will Smith supposed to do, write a song or a satire of some sort about Chris Rock? What else is he supposed to do about it?

The "awww poor guy" defense of Chris Rock seems absurd and like a dodge of what he was trying to do.

Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I see Will Smith as more of a non-evil person than, e.g., certain other media figures. I would admittedly probably have a different reaction if it had been Bill O'Reilly.

Maybe I am wrong though...I am still just kibitzing, as I would not do if I were liberated, because I have very little else to do and I still cannot talk because of loony CIA restrictions against my freedom, perhaps for reasons I'm not aware of [1]. As I said, I'm discussing morals, not adherence to laws...of course all US/state laws should be followed, even if they should be changed. Maybe assault/battery laws are what they are because they are supposed to be held to be simple; no one would want a "basic guide to behavior" that is as complicated as the tax code.

[1] (Are they saying this is "Treadstone," punitive, protection for people other than me, anti-competitive, some combination of these, or something else?)

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

<c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=28842&group=comp.theory#28842

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21a3:b0:441:35fd:920e with SMTP id t3-20020a05621421a300b0044135fd920emr23860273qvc.41.1648514642378;
Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:591:0:b0:2e5:cdb0:9363 with SMTP id
139-20020a810591000000b002e5cdb09363mr28525967ywf.265.1648514642171; Mon, 28
Mar 2022 17:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.62.250; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.62.250
References: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com> <88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 00:44:02 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 114
 by: B.H. - Tue, 29 Mar 2022 00:44 UTC

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:38:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:40:55 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html
> >
> > I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.
> >
> > In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.
> >
> > I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.
> >
> > Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:
> >
> > https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/
> >
> > I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that....maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.
> >
> > Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people.. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.
> >
> > Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.
> >
> > I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.
> >
> > It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKla75GvK6c
>
> I feel like commenting more, just because I feel like it.
>
> Bylaws aren't US law. In general, the controversy and silly feel-good and very obvious commentary "Awww, this should have been about his big moment about as an actor, but instead the political point he was making took over!" is not intellectual enough for a major news network claiming to do "analysis" of art-related news. Lots of people could think of that point, that is not a competitively made point about the situation. (No wonder my story isn't in the news, there is very little serious thinking demonstrated on it!).. Maybe it is just an obvious point that a lot of viewers wouldn't think of....I guess it's a way to be educational at least, I complained about HDRC not doing enough basic education in the 2016 election. Maybe she was just disqualified in a sense over her human trafficking thing, maybe that is the main reason why she lost.
>
> The general other easy-to-see comment is: The "Academy" or whatever hasn't presented Will Smith with another way to address him being mocked. What is Will Smith supposed to do, write a song or a satire of some sort about Chris Rock? What else is he supposed to do about it?
>
> The "awww poor guy" defense of Chris Rock seems absurd and like a dodge of what he was trying to do.
>
> Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I see Will Smith as more of a non-evil person than, e.g., certain other media figures. I would admittedly probably have a different reaction if it had been Bill O'Reilly.
>
> Maybe I am wrong though...I am still just kibitzing, as I would not do if I were liberated, because I have very little else to do and I still cannot talk because of loony CIA restrictions against my freedom, perhaps for reasons I'm not aware of [1]. As I said, I'm discussing morals, not adherence to laws...of course all US/state laws should be followed, even if they should be changed. Maybe assault/battery laws are what they are because they are supposed to be held to be simple; no one would want a "basic guide to behavior" that is as complicated as the tax code.
>
> [1] (Are they saying this is "Treadstone," punitive, protection for people other than me, anti-competitive, some combination of these, or something else?)
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

Also, speaking of "comparisons and substitutions"...I bet the media would have covered it like this if it was Kanye West slapping Chris Rock, but not if it was Matt Damon slapping Jimmy Kimmel or something like that. If it were two white guys, or Donald Trump calling a black woman some horrible crypto-racist name, it would be seen as a "Fox-turf story" that CNN journalists would step off of; it would be seen as "another bold and alarming move by a high-polling candidate" and his targets would be quoted saying "it was like a punch in the stomach...wow, he's so formidable...."

Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

<012c087d-14ad-45bf-9c72-8a65ce01924en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=28877&group=comp.theory#28877

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4512:b0:67d:52fc:4792 with SMTP id t18-20020a05620a451200b0067d52fc4792mr21670287qkp.458.1648583003626;
Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6191:0:b0:63c:92df:66c6 with SMTP id
v139-20020a256191000000b0063c92df66c6mr17399931ybb.242.1648583001931; Tue, 29
Mar 2022 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.62.250; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.62.250
References: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
<88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com> <c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <012c087d-14ad-45bf-9c72-8a65ce01924en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:43:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 179
 by: B.H. - Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:43 UTC

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:44:03 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:38:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:40:55 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html
> > >
> > > I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.
> > >
> > > In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.
> > >
> > > I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.
> > >
> > > Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:
> > >
> > > https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/
> > >
> > > I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that...maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.
> > >
> > > Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.
> > >
> > > Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.
> > >
> > > I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.
> > >
> > > It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKla75GvK6c
> >
> > I feel like commenting more, just because I feel like it.
> >
> > Bylaws aren't US law. In general, the controversy and silly feel-good and very obvious commentary "Awww, this should have been about his big moment about as an actor, but instead the political point he was making took over!" is not intellectual enough for a major news network claiming to do "analysis" of art-related news. Lots of people could think of that point, that is not a competitively made point about the situation. (No wonder my story isn't in the news, there is very little serious thinking demonstrated on it!). Maybe it is just an obvious point that a lot of viewers wouldn't think of...I guess it's a way to be educational at least, I complained about HDRC not doing enough basic education in the 2016 election. Maybe she was just disqualified in a sense over her human trafficking thing, maybe that is the main reason why she lost.
> >
> > The general other easy-to-see comment is: The "Academy" or whatever hasn't presented Will Smith with another way to address him being mocked. What is Will Smith supposed to do, write a song or a satire of some sort about Chris Rock? What else is he supposed to do about it?
> >
> > The "awww poor guy" defense of Chris Rock seems absurd and like a dodge of what he was trying to do.
> >
> > Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I see Will Smith as more of a non-evil person than, e.g., certain other media figures. I would admittedly probably have a different reaction if it had been Bill O'Reilly.
> >
> > Maybe I am wrong though...I am still just kibitzing, as I would not do if I were liberated, because I have very little else to do and I still cannot talk because of loony CIA restrictions against my freedom, perhaps for reasons I'm not aware of [1]. As I said, I'm discussing morals, not adherence to laws...of course all US/state laws should be followed, even if they should be changed. Maybe assault/battery laws are what they are because they are supposed to be held to be simple; no one would want a "basic guide to behavior" that is as complicated as the tax code.
> >
> > [1] (Are they saying this is "Treadstone," punitive, protection for people other than me, anti-competitive, some combination of these, or something else?)
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> Also, speaking of "comparisons and substitutions"...I bet the media would have covered it like this if it was Kanye West slapping Chris Rock, but not if it was Matt Damon slapping Jimmy Kimmel or something like that. If it were two white guys, or Donald Trump calling a black woman some horrible crypto-racist name, it would be seen as a "Fox-turf story" that CNN journalists would step off of; it would be seen as "another bold and alarming move by a high-polling candidate" and his targets would be quoted saying "it was like a punch in the stomach...wow, he's so formidable...."

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kareem-abdul-jabbar-will-smith-perpetuated-stereotypes-black-community-slapping-chris-rock-oscars-145518033.html

A quote from the article:

“By hitting Rock, he announced that his wife was incapable of defending herself — against words,” he states. “This patronizing, paternal attitude infantilizes women and reduces them to helpless damsels needing a Big Strong Man to defend their honor least they swoon from the vapors. If he was really doing it for his wife, and not his own need to prove himself, he might have thought about the negative attention this brought on them, much harsher than the benign joke. That would have been truly defending and respecting her.”

“This ‘women need men to defend them’ is the same justification currently being proclaimed by conservatives passing laws to restrict abortion and the LGBTQ+ community,” he continued, adding that Smith’s “self-serving acceptance speech” in which he talked about protecting his family in the same way his character in King Richard, for which he won an Oscar, was tone deaf.

“Those who protect don’t brag about it in front of 15 million people,” he explained. “They just do it and shut up. You don’t do it as a movie promotion claiming how you’re like the character you just won an award portraying. But, of course, the speech was about justifying his violence. Apparently, so many people need Smith’s protection that occasionally it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked.”

My responses to this legitimately presented argument are:

- Words can be very destructive; they can cause regime change in the US, war, and emotional abuse.
- No one has said that women can't defend men, too. Sometimes, obviously, men should be defended by women, using strengths women may often tend to have.
- It's not about "the vapors" and no one would swoon, it's about encouraging citizens in the general public to approach his wife and bother her in a particular way that Chris Rock has designed.
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and other critics are responsible for the negative attention; it was Abdul-Jabbar's choice to criticize Will Smith, not Will Smith's.
- No one has suggested that "women [only] need men [only] to defend them" is relevant except for Abdul-Jabbar.
- Actually, lots of people who are protective brag and advertise about their benevolent actions. Why shouldn't they? The Navy SEAL who killed bin Laden wanted to write a book, not that that is anything like this except that it is vaguely related to "protecting people" and it rebuts Abdul-Jabbar's point.
- Claiming that "[all] protectors" "do it and shut up" is a stereotype that encourages mild prejudice. The "anti-talking" element of the US media is rather ironic in a way.
- If he didn't try to justify what he did, his critics, including Abdul-Jabbar would speak more unopposed.
- "...it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked." Yes, it really does. Did you hear that Donald Trump won the Presidency??


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

<842b6f29-cf3b-4aaf-a8ff-024c39516056n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=28930&group=comp.theory#28930

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5889:0:b0:2e1:afa2:65a9 with SMTP id t9-20020ac85889000000b002e1afa265a9mr840165qta.268.1648664802101;
Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d9c5:0:b0:633:8d44:ee75 with SMTP id
q188-20020a25d9c5000000b006338d44ee75mr923529ybg.403.1648664801869; Wed, 30
Mar 2022 11:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <012c087d-14ad-45bf-9c72-8a65ce01924en@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.62.250; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.62.250
References: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
<88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com> <c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>
<012c087d-14ad-45bf-9c72-8a65ce01924en@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <842b6f29-cf3b-4aaf-a8ff-024c39516056n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:26:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 15244
 by: B.H. - Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:26 UTC

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:43:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:44:03 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:38:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:40:55 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html
> > > >
> > > > I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.
> > > >
> > > > In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.
> > > >
> > > > I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.
> > > >
> > > > Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:
> > > >
> > > > https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that...maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.
> > > >
> > > > Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.
> > > >
> > > > I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.
> > > >
> > > > It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image.. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKla75GvK6c
> > >
> > > I feel like commenting more, just because I feel like it.
> > >
> > > Bylaws aren't US law. In general, the controversy and silly feel-good and very obvious commentary "Awww, this should have been about his big moment about as an actor, but instead the political point he was making took over!" is not intellectual enough for a major news network claiming to do "analysis" of art-related news. Lots of people could think of that point, that is not a competitively made point about the situation. (No wonder my story isn't in the news, there is very little serious thinking demonstrated on it!). Maybe it is just an obvious point that a lot of viewers wouldn't think of...I guess it's a way to be educational at least, I complained about HDRC not doing enough basic education in the 2016 election. Maybe she was just disqualified in a sense over her human trafficking thing, maybe that is the main reason why she lost.
> > >
> > > The general other easy-to-see comment is: The "Academy" or whatever hasn't presented Will Smith with another way to address him being mocked. What is Will Smith supposed to do, write a song or a satire of some sort about Chris Rock? What else is he supposed to do about it?
> > >
> > > The "awww poor guy" defense of Chris Rock seems absurd and like a dodge of what he was trying to do.
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I see Will Smith as more of a non-evil person than, e.g., certain other media figures. I would admittedly probably have a different reaction if it had been Bill O'Reilly.
> > >
> > > Maybe I am wrong though...I am still just kibitzing, as I would not do if I were liberated, because I have very little else to do and I still cannot talk because of loony CIA restrictions against my freedom, perhaps for reasons I'm not aware of [1]. As I said, I'm discussing morals, not adherence to laws...of course all US/state laws should be followed, even if they should be changed. Maybe assault/battery laws are what they are because they are supposed to be held to be simple; no one would want a "basic guide to behavior" that is as complicated as the tax code.
> > >
> > > [1] (Are they saying this is "Treadstone," punitive, protection for people other than me, anti-competitive, some combination of these, or something else?)
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > Also, speaking of "comparisons and substitutions"...I bet the media would have covered it like this if it was Kanye West slapping Chris Rock, but not if it was Matt Damon slapping Jimmy Kimmel or something like that. If it were two white guys, or Donald Trump calling a black woman some horrible crypto-racist name, it would be seen as a "Fox-turf story" that CNN journalists would step off of; it would be seen as "another bold and alarming move by a high-polling candidate" and his targets would be quoted saying "it was like a punch in the stomach...wow, he's so formidable...."
> https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kareem-abdul-jabbar-will-smith-perpetuated-stereotypes-black-community-slapping-chris-rock-oscars-145518033.html
>
>
> A quote from the article:
>
>
> “By hitting Rock, he announced that his wife was incapable of defending herself — against words,” he states. “This patronizing, paternal attitude infantilizes women and reduces them to helpless damsels needing a Big Strong Man to defend their honor least they swoon from the vapors. If he was really doing it for his wife, and not his own need to prove himself, he might have thought about the negative attention this brought on them, much harsher than the benign joke. That would have been truly defending and respecting her.”
>
> “This ‘women need men to defend them’ is the same justification currently being proclaimed by conservatives passing laws to restrict abortion and the LGBTQ+ community,” he continued, adding that Smith’s “self-serving acceptance speech” in which he talked about protecting his family in the same way his character in King Richard, for which he won an Oscar, was tone deaf.
>
> “Those who protect don’t brag about it in front of 15 million people,” he explained. “They just do it and shut up. You don’t do it as a movie promotion claiming how you’re like the character you just won an award portraying. But, of course, the speech was about justifying his violence. Apparently, so many people need Smith’s protection that occasionally it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked.”
>
>
> My responses to this legitimately presented argument are:
>
> - Words can be very destructive; they can cause regime change in the US, war, and emotional abuse.
> - No one has said that women can't defend men, too. Sometimes, obviously, men should be defended by women, using strengths women may often tend to have.
> - It's not about "the vapors" and no one would swoon, it's about encouraging citizens in the general public to approach his wife and bother her in a particular way that Chris Rock has designed.
> - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and other critics are responsible for the negative attention; it was Abdul-Jabbar's choice to criticize Will Smith, not Will Smith's.
> - No one has suggested that "women [only] need men [only] to defend them" is relevant except for Abdul-Jabbar.
> - Actually, lots of people who are protective brag and advertise about their benevolent actions. Why shouldn't they? The Navy SEAL who killed bin Laden wanted to write a book, not that that is anything like this except that it is vaguely related to "protecting people" and it rebuts Abdul-Jabbar's point.
> - Claiming that "[all] protectors" "do it and shut up" is a stereotype that encourages mild prejudice. The "anti-talking" element of the US media is rather ironic in a way.
> - If he didn't try to justify what he did, his critics, including Abdul-Jabbar would speak more unopposed.
> - "...it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked." Yes, it really does. Did you hear that Donald Trump won the Presidency??
>
> At least the argument is sort of well-presented; it isn't completely empty and facetious like some of the argumentation you see in the media these days.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

<5a54684a-b45b-42a7-8d5e-e3ebdde01f83n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29412&group=comp.theory#29412

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:6:b0:2e1:e793:b93b with SMTP id x6-20020a05622a000600b002e1e793b93bmr718441qtw.530.1649114860774;
Mon, 04 Apr 2022 16:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:ac1:0:b0:63d:9fd4:ebf4 with SMTP id
a1-20020a5b0ac1000000b0063d9fd4ebf4mr582781ybr.648.1649114860554; Mon, 04 Apr
2022 16:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 16:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <842b6f29-cf3b-4aaf-a8ff-024c39516056n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.62.250; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.62.250
References: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
<88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com> <c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>
<012c087d-14ad-45bf-9c72-8a65ce01924en@googlegroups.com> <842b6f29-cf3b-4aaf-a8ff-024c39516056n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5a54684a-b45b-42a7-8d5e-e3ebdde01f83n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 23:27:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: B.H. - Mon, 4 Apr 2022 23:27 UTC

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 2:26:43 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:43:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:44:03 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:38:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:40:55 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.
> > > > >
> > > > > In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that...maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.
> > > > >
> > > > > It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKla75GvK6c
> > > >
> > > > I feel like commenting more, just because I feel like it.
> > > >
> > > > Bylaws aren't US law. In general, the controversy and silly feel-good and very obvious commentary "Awww, this should have been about his big moment about as an actor, but instead the political point he was making took over!" is not intellectual enough for a major news network claiming to do "analysis" of art-related news. Lots of people could think of that point, that is not a competitively made point about the situation. (No wonder my story isn't in the news, there is very little serious thinking demonstrated on it!). Maybe it is just an obvious point that a lot of viewers wouldn't think of...I guess it's a way to be educational at least, I complained about HDRC not doing enough basic education in the 2016 election. Maybe she was just disqualified in a sense over her human trafficking thing, maybe that is the main reason why she lost.
> > > >
> > > > The general other easy-to-see comment is: The "Academy" or whatever hasn't presented Will Smith with another way to address him being mocked. What is Will Smith supposed to do, write a song or a satire of some sort about Chris Rock? What else is he supposed to do about it?
> > > >
> > > > The "awww poor guy" defense of Chris Rock seems absurd and like a dodge of what he was trying to do.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I see Will Smith as more of a non-evil person than, e.g., certain other media figures. I would admittedly probably have a different reaction if it had been Bill O'Reilly.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I am wrong though...I am still just kibitzing, as I would not do if I were liberated, because I have very little else to do and I still cannot talk because of loony CIA restrictions against my freedom, perhaps for reasons I'm not aware of [1]. As I said, I'm discussing morals, not adherence to laws...of course all US/state laws should be followed, even if they should be changed. Maybe assault/battery laws are what they are because they are supposed to be held to be simple; no one would want a "basic guide to behavior" that is as complicated as the tax code.
> > > >
> > > > [1] (Are they saying this is "Treadstone," punitive, protection for people other than me, anti-competitive, some combination of these, or something else?)
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > Also, speaking of "comparisons and substitutions"...I bet the media would have covered it like this if it was Kanye West slapping Chris Rock, but not if it was Matt Damon slapping Jimmy Kimmel or something like that. If it were two white guys, or Donald Trump calling a black woman some horrible crypto-racist name, it would be seen as a "Fox-turf story" that CNN journalists would step off of; it would be seen as "another bold and alarming move by a high-polling candidate" and his targets would be quoted saying "it was like a punch in the stomach...wow, he's so formidable...."
> > https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kareem-abdul-jabbar-will-smith-perpetuated-stereotypes-black-community-slapping-chris-rock-oscars-145518033.html
> >
> >
> > A quote from the article:
> >
> >
> > “By hitting Rock, he announced that his wife was incapable of defending herself — against words,” he states. “This patronizing, paternal attitude infantilizes women and reduces them to helpless damsels needing a Big Strong Man to defend their honor least they swoon from the vapors. If he was really doing it for his wife, and not his own need to prove himself, he might have thought about the negative attention this brought on them, much harsher than the benign joke. That would have been truly defending and respecting her.”
> >
> > “This ‘women need men to defend them’ is the same justification currently being proclaimed by conservatives passing laws to restrict abortion and the LGBTQ+ community,” he continued, adding that Smith’s “self-serving acceptance speech” in which he talked about protecting his family in the same way his character in King Richard, for which he won an Oscar, was tone deaf.
> >
> > “Those who protect don’t brag about it in front of 15 million people,” he explained. “They just do it and shut up. You don’t do it as a movie promotion claiming how you’re like the character you just won an award portraying. But, of course, the speech was about justifying his violence. Apparently, so many people need Smith’s protection that occasionally it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked.”
> >
> >
> > My responses to this legitimately presented argument are:
> >
> > - Words can be very destructive; they can cause regime change in the US, war, and emotional abuse.
> > - No one has said that women can't defend men, too. Sometimes, obviously, men should be defended by women, using strengths women may often tend to have.
> > - It's not about "the vapors" and no one would swoon, it's about encouraging citizens in the general public to approach his wife and bother her in a particular way that Chris Rock has designed.
> > - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and other critics are responsible for the negative attention; it was Abdul-Jabbar's choice to criticize Will Smith, not Will Smith's.
> > - No one has suggested that "women [only] need men [only] to defend them" is relevant except for Abdul-Jabbar.
> > - Actually, lots of people who are protective brag and advertise about their benevolent actions. Why shouldn't they? The Navy SEAL who killed bin Laden wanted to write a book, not that that is anything like this except that it is vaguely related to "protecting people" and it rebuts Abdul-Jabbar's point.
> > - Claiming that "[all] protectors" "do it and shut up" is a stereotype that encourages mild prejudice. The "anti-talking" element of the US media is rather ironic in a way.
> > - If he didn't try to justify what he did, his critics, including Abdul-Jabbar would speak more unopposed.
> > - "...it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked." Yes, it really does. Did you hear that Donald Trump won the Presidency??
> >
> > At least the argument is sort of well-presented; it isn't completely empty and facetious like some of the argumentation you see in the media these days.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/academy-promises-appropriate-action-over-032624716.html
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Hudson
> https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/27/oscars-rule-changes-not-political-correctness-academy-bosses-boone-isaacs-hudson
>
>
> Some troubling Dawn Hudson quotes:
>
> “The Academy is tradition-bound, it is rule-bound, it is not trying to be politically correct, never has been,” Hudson told the Hollywood Reporter.
>
>
> “You can’t win an Academy award if your film is not greenlit,” she said. “You can’t win an Academy award if you weren’t in a particular role in a movie. So it is about opportunity from the very beginning of this process and the inclusion of different voices from the very beginning.”
>
>
> When asked about best actress nominee Charlotte Rampling’s statement that the uproar over a lack of black nominees was “racist to white people”, Hudson said the actor’s comments were mirrored by the disgruntlement some older members’ responses to the new membership criteria.
>
> “Some of these things are generational, they just are,” she said. “And that’s what we’re talking about with the whole Academy. When you pick the best of the best, they are members of our Academy; you just have to make sure, as this generation grows older, you’re bringing in the best of the best of the next generation, and sometimes there is a lag and sometimes there’s not as much reaching out into the next generation.”
>
>
> - - -
>
> My comments:
>
> If it isn't "trying to be politically correct," then what kind of correct is it trying to be? I worry that given some older people who have described racism of the past as more or less "just what was done in the past, it happened all the time" and "generational," I worry that appeals to times gone by are appeals to racially insensitive times gone by.
>
> The idea that "the best of the best" doesn't include many black people because large portions of film audiences demand white characters in all their viewed films' roles is absurd; if film economics alone can't cause film awards to be given to highly talented people from different backgrounds, then serious acting award granters still have a responsibility to ensure that talent is awarded, not just "appropriate skin color to get a big and high-potential part so you can get a chance to demonstrate your talent to audiences." I think an "acting GRE-like test" would be better than the current system; why not have a closed-door acting competition to determine who has the most talent, if the movies alone don't afford the opportunity to give out awards fairly?
>
> Ultimately, it is up to film industry leaders, not individual rank-and-file actors, to make sure that "reaching out" or whatever happens, and opportunity to win awards is available to all top-notch actors, regardless of skin color or other non-talent-linked demographic characteristics. Of course, there are consequences, such as "driving smart actors and actresses to want to be lawyers to avoid a prejudiced industry," to failing at this important and fairly easy task.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

<210c7b9b-7de4-46bf-8b09-d8f7419a408bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29837&group=comp.theory#29837

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2946:b0:67b:3047:6d9d with SMTP id n6-20020a05620a294600b0067b30476d9dmr17331877qkp.691.1649545633835;
Sat, 09 Apr 2022 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:154a:b0:639:fdd5:2f94 with SMTP id
r10-20020a056902154a00b00639fdd52f94mr19034736ybu.320.1649545633596; Sat, 09
Apr 2022 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5a54684a-b45b-42a7-8d5e-e3ebdde01f83n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
<88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com> <c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>
<012c087d-14ad-45bf-9c72-8a65ce01924en@googlegroups.com> <842b6f29-cf3b-4aaf-a8ff-024c39516056n@googlegroups.com>
<5a54684a-b45b-42a7-8d5e-e3ebdde01f83n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <210c7b9b-7de4-46bf-8b09-d8f7419a408bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2022 23:07:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 331
 by: B.H. - Sat, 9 Apr 2022 23:07 UTC

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 7:27:41 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 2:26:43 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:43:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:44:03 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:38:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:40:55 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that...maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKla75GvK6c
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel like commenting more, just because I feel like it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bylaws aren't US law. In general, the controversy and silly feel-good and very obvious commentary "Awww, this should have been about his big moment about as an actor, but instead the political point he was making took over!" is not intellectual enough for a major news network claiming to do "analysis" of art-related news. Lots of people could think of that point, that is not a competitively made point about the situation. (No wonder my story isn't in the news, there is very little serious thinking demonstrated on it!). Maybe it is just an obvious point that a lot of viewers wouldn't think of...I guess it's a way to be educational at least, I complained about HDRC not doing enough basic education in the 2016 election. Maybe she was just disqualified in a sense over her human trafficking thing, maybe that is the main reason why she lost.
> > > > >
> > > > > The general other easy-to-see comment is: The "Academy" or whatever hasn't presented Will Smith with another way to address him being mocked.. What is Will Smith supposed to do, write a song or a satire of some sort about Chris Rock? What else is he supposed to do about it?
> > > > >
> > > > > The "awww poor guy" defense of Chris Rock seems absurd and like a dodge of what he was trying to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I see Will Smith as more of a non-evil person than, e.g., certain other media figures. I would admittedly probably have a different reaction if it had been Bill O'Reilly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I am wrong though...I am still just kibitzing, as I would not do if I were liberated, because I have very little else to do and I still cannot talk because of loony CIA restrictions against my freedom, perhaps for reasons I'm not aware of [1]. As I said, I'm discussing morals, not adherence to laws...of course all US/state laws should be followed, even if they should be changed. Maybe assault/battery laws are what they are because they are supposed to be held to be simple; no one would want a "basic guide to behavior" that is as complicated as the tax code.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] (Are they saying this is "Treadstone," punitive, protection for people other than me, anti-competitive, some combination of these, or something else?)
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > Also, speaking of "comparisons and substitutions"...I bet the media would have covered it like this if it was Kanye West slapping Chris Rock, but not if it was Matt Damon slapping Jimmy Kimmel or something like that. If it were two white guys, or Donald Trump calling a black woman some horrible crypto-racist name, it would be seen as a "Fox-turf story" that CNN journalists would step off of; it would be seen as "another bold and alarming move by a high-polling candidate" and his targets would be quoted saying "it was like a punch in the stomach...wow, he's so formidable...."
> > > https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kareem-abdul-jabbar-will-smith-perpetuated-stereotypes-black-community-slapping-chris-rock-oscars-145518033.html
> > >
> > >
> > > A quote from the article:
> > >
> > >
> > > “By hitting Rock, he announced that his wife was incapable of defending herself — against words,” he states. “This patronizing, paternal attitude infantilizes women and reduces them to helpless damsels needing a Big Strong Man to defend their honor least they swoon from the vapors. If he was really doing it for his wife, and not his own need to prove himself, he might have thought about the negative attention this brought on them, much harsher than the benign joke. That would have been truly defending and respecting her.”
> > >
> > > “This ‘women need men to defend them’ is the same justification currently being proclaimed by conservatives passing laws to restrict abortion and the LGBTQ+ community,” he continued, adding that Smith’s “self-serving acceptance speech” in which he talked about protecting his family in the same way his character in King Richard, for which he won an Oscar, was tone deaf.
> > >
> > > “Those who protect don’t brag about it in front of 15 million people,” he explained. “They just do it and shut up. You don’t do it as a movie promotion claiming how you’re like the character you just won an award portraying. But, of course, the speech was about justifying his violence. Apparently, so many people need Smith’s protection that occasionally it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked.”
> > >
> > >
> > > My responses to this legitimately presented argument are:
> > >
> > > - Words can be very destructive; they can cause regime change in the US, war, and emotional abuse.
> > > - No one has said that women can't defend men, too. Sometimes, obviously, men should be defended by women, using strengths women may often tend to have.
> > > - It's not about "the vapors" and no one would swoon, it's about encouraging citizens in the general public to approach his wife and bother her in a particular way that Chris Rock has designed.
> > > - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and other critics are responsible for the negative attention; it was Abdul-Jabbar's choice to criticize Will Smith, not Will Smith's.
> > > - No one has suggested that "women [only] need men [only] to defend them" is relevant except for Abdul-Jabbar.
> > > - Actually, lots of people who are protective brag and advertise about their benevolent actions. Why shouldn't they? The Navy SEAL who killed bin Laden wanted to write a book, not that that is anything like this except that it is vaguely related to "protecting people" and it rebuts Abdul-Jabbar's point.
> > > - Claiming that "[all] protectors" "do it and shut up" is a stereotype that encourages mild prejudice. The "anti-talking" element of the US media is rather ironic in a way.
> > > - If he didn't try to justify what he did, his critics, including Abdul-Jabbar would speak more unopposed.
> > > - "...it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked." Yes, it really does. Did you hear that Donald Trump won the Presidency??
> > >
> > > At least the argument is sort of well-presented; it isn't completely empty and facetious like some of the argumentation you see in the media these days.
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/academy-promises-appropriate-action-over-032624716.html
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Hudson
> > https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/27/oscars-rule-changes-not-political-correctness-academy-bosses-boone-isaacs-hudson
> >
> >
> > Some troubling Dawn Hudson quotes:
> >
> > “The Academy is tradition-bound, it is rule-bound, it is not trying to be politically correct, never has been,” Hudson told the Hollywood Reporter.
> >
> >
> > “You can’t win an Academy award if your film is not greenlit,” she said. “You can’t win an Academy award if you weren’t in a particular role in a movie. So it is about opportunity from the very beginning of this process and the inclusion of different voices from the very beginning.”
> >
> >
> > When asked about best actress nominee Charlotte Rampling’s statement that the uproar over a lack of black nominees was “racist to white people”, Hudson said the actor’s comments were mirrored by the disgruntlement some older members’ responses to the new membership criteria.
> >
> > “Some of these things are generational, they just are,” she said. “And that’s what we’re talking about with the whole Academy. When you pick the best of the best, they are members of our Academy; you just have to make sure, as this generation grows older, you’re bringing in the best of the best of the next generation, and sometimes there is a lag and sometimes there’s not as much reaching out into the next generation.”
> >
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > My comments:
> >
> > If it isn't "trying to be politically correct," then what kind of correct is it trying to be? I worry that given some older people who have described racism of the past as more or less "just what was done in the past, it happened all the time" and "generational," I worry that appeals to times gone by are appeals to racially insensitive times gone by.
> >
> > The idea that "the best of the best" doesn't include many black people because large portions of film audiences demand white characters in all their viewed films' roles is absurd; if film economics alone can't cause film awards to be given to highly talented people from different backgrounds, then serious acting award granters still have a responsibility to ensure that talent is awarded, not just "appropriate skin color to get a big and high-potential part so you can get a chance to demonstrate your talent to audiences." I think an "acting GRE-like test" would be better than the current system; why not have a closed-door acting competition to determine who has the most talent, if the movies alone don't afford the opportunity to give out awards fairly?
> >
> > Ultimately, it is up to film industry leaders, not individual rank-and-file actors, to make sure that "reaching out" or whatever happens, and opportunity to win awards is available to all top-notch actors, regardless of skin color or other non-talent-linked demographic characteristics. Of course, there are consequences, such as "driving smart actors and actresses to want to be lawyers to avoid a prejudiced industry," to failing at this important and fairly easy task.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCtGNSqORc0
>
> Jim Carey, a good actor, states that Will Smith doesn't have the right to walk up on stage and slap someone for saying words.
>
> Maybe you could argue that it's different on a stage from how it would be in a social environment with no stage, although I don't see why.
>
> Certainly Jim Carey's perspective is popular and defensible; a lot of people would agree with that, maybe based on a "violence is never right [maybe except in war]" bedrock principle that many people subscribe to. Maybe Will Smith's conduct is illegal; the question is, should it be? Maybe he doesn't have the legal right, but that wasn't a huge amount of force being used.
>
> I think it did escalate, quite quickly...the innuendo and "invitation to people who know Will Smith's family" were pretty clear to me, it sounds like a maneuver to get Will Smith's family hurt.
>
> The perspective that "saying words" is never a reason to cause violence is one that is not highly informed by the very real and quite greatly present reality of emotional abuse in American life. It's not a joke and it's not some sing-songy shrill thing that weirdos with bizarre un-American political beliefs have made up; it's something that hurts thousands or millions of American adults and children every day, whether there has been something going on "inside them" or not.
>
> The clear question is, what can someone do in a situation like that, where someone might be attacking you with words--all Americans know who Donald Trump is and how he operates--and you might not know any good way to respond other than a simple smack. I don't think it's crazy; Jim Carey's firmly stated position, likely grounded in unshakeable values he has, is not one that can really be definitively rebutted, since lots of reasonable people would agree with him, since the assumptions and conclusion make sense. At the same time, I would object: What, exactly, is the solution for people, moving beyond the single case of Will Smith and Chris Rock, that feel somewhat or extremely threatened by words in a fight that these people didn't start? What can people do other than "wake-up call violence," what's the better answer, if we're not going to pretend that such concerns can be dismissed by the idea of "some mysterious thing going on inside people that we should not analyze or discuss" or by arguing that people should just "suck it up and not be too sensitive?" Emotional pain is real, sometimes verbal threats lead to death and other disasters, and I don't see the right perspective presented that would guide victims on how to respond to that.
>
> I just like talking about this for now, that is why I'm discussing it.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

<a6c19f07-c702-40bb-b520-4e62064f7cf2n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30331&group=comp.theory#30331

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2988:b0:69c:712c:6230 with SMTP id r8-20020a05620a298800b0069c712c6230mr611448qkp.278.1650059189742;
Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3a02:0:b0:641:68ce:1fe9 with SMTP id
h2-20020a253a02000000b0064168ce1fe9mr1109969yba.320.1650059189570; Fri, 15
Apr 2022 14:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <210c7b9b-7de4-46bf-8b09-d8f7419a408bn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
<88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com> <c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>
<012c087d-14ad-45bf-9c72-8a65ce01924en@googlegroups.com> <842b6f29-cf3b-4aaf-a8ff-024c39516056n@googlegroups.com>
<5a54684a-b45b-42a7-8d5e-e3ebdde01f83n@googlegroups.com> <210c7b9b-7de4-46bf-8b09-d8f7419a408bn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a6c19f07-c702-40bb-b520-4e62064f7cf2n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 21:46:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 353
 by: B.H. - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 21:46 UTC

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 7:07:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 7:27:41 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 2:26:43 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:43:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:44:03 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:38:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:40:55 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that...maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKla75GvK6c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I feel like commenting more, just because I feel like it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bylaws aren't US law. In general, the controversy and silly feel-good and very obvious commentary "Awww, this should have been about his big moment about as an actor, but instead the political point he was making took over!" is not intellectual enough for a major news network claiming to do "analysis" of art-related news. Lots of people could think of that point, that is not a competitively made point about the situation. (No wonder my story isn't in the news, there is very little serious thinking demonstrated on it!). Maybe it is just an obvious point that a lot of viewers wouldn't think of...I guess it's a way to be educational at least, I complained about HDRC not doing enough basic education in the 2016 election. Maybe she was just disqualified in a sense over her human trafficking thing, maybe that is the main reason why she lost.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The general other easy-to-see comment is: The "Academy" or whatever hasn't presented Will Smith with another way to address him being mocked. What is Will Smith supposed to do, write a song or a satire of some sort about Chris Rock? What else is he supposed to do about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The "awww poor guy" defense of Chris Rock seems absurd and like a dodge of what he was trying to do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I see Will Smith as more of a non-evil person than, e.g., certain other media figures. I would admittedly probably have a different reaction if it had been Bill O'Reilly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I am wrong though...I am still just kibitzing, as I would not do if I were liberated, because I have very little else to do and I still cannot talk because of loony CIA restrictions against my freedom, perhaps for reasons I'm not aware of [1]. As I said, I'm discussing morals, not adherence to laws...of course all US/state laws should be followed, even if they should be changed. Maybe assault/battery laws are what they are because they are supposed to be held to be simple; no one would want a "basic guide to behavior" that is as complicated as the tax code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] (Are they saying this is "Treadstone," punitive, protection for people other than me, anti-competitive, some combination of these, or something else?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > Also, speaking of "comparisons and substitutions"...I bet the media would have covered it like this if it was Kanye West slapping Chris Rock, but not if it was Matt Damon slapping Jimmy Kimmel or something like that.. If it were two white guys, or Donald Trump calling a black woman some horrible crypto-racist name, it would be seen as a "Fox-turf story" that CNN journalists would step off of; it would be seen as "another bold and alarming move by a high-polling candidate" and his targets would be quoted saying "it was like a punch in the stomach...wow, he's so formidable...."
> > > > https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kareem-abdul-jabbar-will-smith-perpetuated-stereotypes-black-community-slapping-chris-rock-oscars-145518033.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A quote from the article:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > “By hitting Rock, he announced that his wife was incapable of defending herself — against words,” he states. “This patronizing, paternal attitude infantilizes women and reduces them to helpless damsels needing a Big Strong Man to defend their honor least they swoon from the vapors. If he was really doing it for his wife, and not his own need to prove himself, he might have thought about the negative attention this brought on them, much harsher than the benign joke. That would have been truly defending and respecting her.”
> > > >
> > > > “This ‘women need men to defend them’ is the same justification currently being proclaimed by conservatives passing laws to restrict abortion and the LGBTQ+ community,” he continued, adding that Smith’s “self-serving acceptance speech” in which he talked about protecting his family in the same way his character in King Richard, for which he won an Oscar, was tone deaf.
> > > >
> > > > “Those who protect don’t brag about it in front of 15 million people,” he explained. “They just do it and shut up. You don’t do it as a movie promotion claiming how you’re like the character you just won an award portraying. But, of course, the speech was about justifying his violence. Apparently, so many people need Smith’s protection that occasionally it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked.”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My responses to this legitimately presented argument are:
> > > >
> > > > - Words can be very destructive; they can cause regime change in the US, war, and emotional abuse.
> > > > - No one has said that women can't defend men, too. Sometimes, obviously, men should be defended by women, using strengths women may often tend to have.
> > > > - It's not about "the vapors" and no one would swoon, it's about encouraging citizens in the general public to approach his wife and bother her in a particular way that Chris Rock has designed.
> > > > - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and other critics are responsible for the negative attention; it was Abdul-Jabbar's choice to criticize Will Smith, not Will Smith's.
> > > > - No one has suggested that "women [only] need men [only] to defend them" is relevant except for Abdul-Jabbar.
> > > > - Actually, lots of people who are protective brag and advertise about their benevolent actions. Why shouldn't they? The Navy SEAL who killed bin Laden wanted to write a book, not that that is anything like this except that it is vaguely related to "protecting people" and it rebuts Abdul-Jabbar's point.
> > > > - Claiming that "[all] protectors" "do it and shut up" is a stereotype that encourages mild prejudice. The "anti-talking" element of the US media is rather ironic in a way.
> > > > - If he didn't try to justify what he did, his critics, including Abdul-Jabbar would speak more unopposed.
> > > > - "...it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked." Yes, it really does. Did you hear that Donald Trump won the Presidency??
> > > >
> > > > At least the argument is sort of well-presented; it isn't completely empty and facetious like some of the argumentation you see in the media these days.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/academy-promises-appropriate-action-over-032624716.html
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Hudson
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/27/oscars-rule-changes-not-political-correctness-academy-bosses-boone-isaacs-hudson
> > >
> > >
> > > Some troubling Dawn Hudson quotes:
> > >
> > > “The Academy is tradition-bound, it is rule-bound, it is not trying to be politically correct, never has been,” Hudson told the Hollywood Reporter.
> > >
> > >
> > > “You can’t win an Academy award if your film is not greenlit,” she said. “You can’t win an Academy award if you weren’t in a particular role in a movie. So it is about opportunity from the very beginning of this process and the inclusion of different voices from the very beginning.”
> > >
> > >
> > > When asked about best actress nominee Charlotte Rampling’s statement that the uproar over a lack of black nominees was “racist to white people”, Hudson said the actor’s comments were mirrored by the disgruntlement some older members’ responses to the new membership criteria.
> > >
> > > “Some of these things are generational, they just are,” she said. “And that’s what we’re talking about with the whole Academy. When you pick the best of the best, they are members of our Academy; you just have to make sure, as this generation grows older, you’re bringing in the best of the best of the next generation, and sometimes there is a lag and sometimes there’s not as much reaching out into the next generation.”
> > >
> > >
> > > - - -
> > >
> > > My comments:
> > >
> > > If it isn't "trying to be politically correct," then what kind of correct is it trying to be? I worry that given some older people who have described racism of the past as more or less "just what was done in the past, it happened all the time" and "generational," I worry that appeals to times gone by are appeals to racially insensitive times gone by.
> > >
> > > The idea that "the best of the best" doesn't include many black people because large portions of film audiences demand white characters in all their viewed films' roles is absurd; if film economics alone can't cause film awards to be given to highly talented people from different backgrounds, then serious acting award granters still have a responsibility to ensure that talent is awarded, not just "appropriate skin color to get a big and high-potential part so you can get a chance to demonstrate your talent to audiences." I think an "acting GRE-like test" would be better than the current system; why not have a closed-door acting competition to determine who has the most talent, if the movies alone don't afford the opportunity to give out awards fairly?
> > >
> > > Ultimately, it is up to film industry leaders, not individual rank-and-file actors, to make sure that "reaching out" or whatever happens, and opportunity to win awards is available to all top-notch actors, regardless of skin color or other non-talent-linked demographic characteristics. Of course, there are consequences, such as "driving smart actors and actresses to want to be lawyers to avoid a prejudiced industry," to failing at this important and fairly easy task.
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCtGNSqORc0
> >
> > Jim Carey, a good actor, states that Will Smith doesn't have the right to walk up on stage and slap someone for saying words.
> >
> > Maybe you could argue that it's different on a stage from how it would be in a social environment with no stage, although I don't see why.
> >
> > Certainly Jim Carey's perspective is popular and defensible; a lot of people would agree with that, maybe based on a "violence is never right [maybe except in war]" bedrock principle that many people subscribe to. Maybe Will Smith's conduct is illegal; the question is, should it be? Maybe he doesn't have the legal right, but that wasn't a huge amount of force being used.
> >
> > I think it did escalate, quite quickly...the innuendo and "invitation to people who know Will Smith's family" were pretty clear to me, it sounds like a maneuver to get Will Smith's family hurt.
> >
> > The perspective that "saying words" is never a reason to cause violence is one that is not highly informed by the very real and quite greatly present reality of emotional abuse in American life. It's not a joke and it's not some sing-songy shrill thing that weirdos with bizarre un-American political beliefs have made up; it's something that hurts thousands or millions of American adults and children every day, whether there has been something going on "inside them" or not.
> >
> > The clear question is, what can someone do in a situation like that, where someone might be attacking you with words--all Americans know who Donald Trump is and how he operates--and you might not know any good way to respond other than a simple smack. I don't think it's crazy; Jim Carey's firmly stated position, likely grounded in unshakeable values he has, is not one that can really be definitively rebutted, since lots of reasonable people would agree with him, since the assumptions and conclusion make sense. At the same time, I would object: What, exactly, is the solution for people, moving beyond the single case of Will Smith and Chris Rock, that feel somewhat or extremely threatened by words in a fight that these people didn't start? What can people do other than "wake-up call violence," what's the better answer, if we're not going to pretend that such concerns can be dismissed by the idea of "some mysterious thing going on inside people that we should not analyze or discuss" or by arguing that people should just "suck it up and not be too sensitive?" Emotional pain is real, sometimes verbal threats lead to death and other disasters, and I don't see the right perspective presented that would guide victims on how to respond to that.
> >
> > I just like talking about this for now, that is why I'm discussing it.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> https://finance.yahoo.com/video/smith-banned-oscars-10-years-200223380.html
>
> "unacceptable and harmful"
>
> "University of Richmond," i.e., what if someone punched someone during a graduation ceremony during a speech at a university?
>
> Fine, it is a good point, and I hadn't thought of that. I take art seriously, and I see a lot of press about entertainment-media celebrities that doesn't present many of these celebrities as looking like highly erudite literary/art scholars. Perhaps it makes sense to take the awards as seriously, as, say the Nobel Prizes.
>
> I acknowledge it now that it is mentioned; Will Smith should have waited until the ceremony was over to comment, object, or perhaps offer to have a consensual "mutual combat fist/slap fight" somewhere else.
>
> My main point that remains unrebutted is that emotional abuse and invitations to this, perhaps cloaked as jovially told jokes, can be very painful, and finding solutions to that can be hard.
>
> If my lens was a bit clouded, it was partly because I am more used to watching Donald-Trump-related political events with unchecked, unchallenged racially-themed outrageous comments and insults; perhaps I saw him unchallenged and envisioned America as more anarchic and with a "new normal" as far as what happens on stage, in formal ceremonies for awards/debates/etc. and beyond.
>
> I *can* admit I made a mistake, exactly one mistake so far, and not a major factual mistake, in my argumentation. I didn't do it on purpose, I don't think of everything all the time.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Commentary on entertainment media.

<a688f6d5-d603-411f-9eb3-de13c0fa9853n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30616&group=comp.theory#30616

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:62c4:0:b0:69e:7b8a:e727 with SMTP id w187-20020a3762c4000000b0069e7b8ae727mr8584930qkb.691.1650379973795;
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1382:b0:63d:be0c:2e7c with SMTP id
x2-20020a056902138200b0063dbe0c2e7cmr15374521ybu.122.1650379973559; Tue, 19
Apr 2022 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a6c19f07-c702-40bb-b520-4e62064f7cf2n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.53.104.152; posting-account=X_pe-goAAACrVTtZeoCLt7hslVPY2-Uo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.53.104.152
References: <79d5903f-91d8-4b55-b7ae-ef1547e596cen@googlegroups.com>
<88466ed7-7aad-439d-80d6-a5c90c4d7e05n@googlegroups.com> <c9ac6674-f899-4366-a945-d27606c72cadn@googlegroups.com>
<012c087d-14ad-45bf-9c72-8a65ce01924en@googlegroups.com> <842b6f29-cf3b-4aaf-a8ff-024c39516056n@googlegroups.com>
<5a54684a-b45b-42a7-8d5e-e3ebdde01f83n@googlegroups.com> <210c7b9b-7de4-46bf-8b09-d8f7419a408bn@googlegroups.com>
<a6c19f07-c702-40bb-b520-4e62064f7cf2n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a688f6d5-d603-411f-9eb3-de13c0fa9853n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Commentary on entertainment media.
From: xlt....@gmail.com (B.H.)
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:52:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 395
 by: B.H. - Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:52 UTC

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:46:31 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 7:07:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 7:27:41 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 2:26:43 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:43:25 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:44:03 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:38:15 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:40:55 PM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/today-host-craig-melvin-says-will-smiths-oscar-incident-is-troubling-for-men-of-color-160712626.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was a little bit surprised when I saw the YouTube clip of this too, but I don't think Will Smith's behavior was bad.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In particular, it's basically the equivalent of someone slapping you at a party for having tried to disrespect his wife in a health-related and unwanted way. I have barely ever been to a party, but in general, it looks like Chris Rock is trying to publicly humiliate/mock Will Smith's wife by insulting her hair in a way that might control her image. That is my interpretation, at least.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would argue that a punch would qualify as assault. I think Will Smith knew enough about how to do the slap/smack that it wouldn't seriously injure Chris Rock, so I see at as like an "aggressive/hostile chest bump," not something designed to do lasting harm. I would think that a slap like that is gentler than a taser.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Based on a quick search engine search, it looks like it would be illegal in Virginia:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-assault-and-battery-laws-penalties-criminal-defense-attorney/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't know what the law says about the legality of that, but even if it is illegal, I would argue that it shouldn't be in a situation like that...maybe it is though, and I don't advocate for breaking existing laws, I'm just discussing my views on moral right/wrong and what should be legal, not what is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Americans have a free-speech right to criticize and insult other people. In general, I think slapping--like slapping a man who makes lewd remarks about you at a bar or something if you're a woman, or, frankly, even slapping a woman who goes too far in terms of, e.g., racist commentary, if the slap is "something that the target can take," should be legal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perhaps slaps are illegal because it is too hard to adjudicate what constitutes "across-the-line insults/commentary." Also, someone could you hit you too hard and say "it was just supposed to be a gentle slap" and then you get permanent damage and have to get some sort of surgery. In general, I'm a believer in the idea that a "slap that you can take" is not illegal to accept, if it is justified. If you stammer after being slapped or whatever, or want to yell back, or slap back, to me that is fine, in the sense of being "not morally wrong" if not necessarily legal or a good idea, as long as you judged the person's behavior and the gentleness of your slap properly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would never actually slap anyone though; I might throw a punch if I were in serious physical danger, but other than that, I'm a words/ideas-only-fighter, not a physical fighter.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It can be frustrating when people want to speak to alter your image. You don't want to be some Russian dictator, but you don't want to leave certain non-harmless comments about your loved ones unchallenged if they are untrue or unfair...that is why I myself would be a "mean typist" in a situation like that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKla75GvK6c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I feel like commenting more, just because I feel like it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bylaws aren't US law. In general, the controversy and silly feel-good and very obvious commentary "Awww, this should have been about his big moment about as an actor, but instead the political point he was making took over!" is not intellectual enough for a major news network claiming to do "analysis" of art-related news. Lots of people could think of that point, that is not a competitively made point about the situation. (No wonder my story isn't in the news, there is very little serious thinking demonstrated on it!). Maybe it is just an obvious point that a lot of viewers wouldn't think of...I guess it's a way to be educational at least, I complained about HDRC not doing enough basic education in the 2016 election. Maybe she was just disqualified in a sense over her human trafficking thing, maybe that is the main reason why she lost.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The general other easy-to-see comment is: The "Academy" or whatever hasn't presented Will Smith with another way to address him being mocked. What is Will Smith supposed to do, write a song or a satire of some sort about Chris Rock? What else is he supposed to do about it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The "awww poor guy" defense of Chris Rock seems absurd and like a dodge of what he was trying to do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I see Will Smith as more of a non-evil person than, e.g., certain other media figures. I would admittedly probably have a different reaction if it had been Bill O'Reilly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe I am wrong though...I am still just kibitzing, as I would not do if I were liberated, because I have very little else to do and I still cannot talk because of loony CIA restrictions against my freedom, perhaps for reasons I'm not aware of [1]. As I said, I'm discussing morals, not adherence to laws...of course all US/state laws should be followed, even if they should be changed. Maybe assault/battery laws are what they are because they are supposed to be held to be simple; no one would want a "basic guide to behavior" that is as complicated as the tax code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] (Are they saying this is "Treadstone," punitive, protection for people other than me, anti-competitive, some combination of these, or something else?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > > > Also, speaking of "comparisons and substitutions"...I bet the media would have covered it like this if it was Kanye West slapping Chris Rock, but not if it was Matt Damon slapping Jimmy Kimmel or something like that. If it were two white guys, or Donald Trump calling a black woman some horrible crypto-racist name, it would be seen as a "Fox-turf story" that CNN journalists would step off of; it would be seen as "another bold and alarming move by a high-polling candidate" and his targets would be quoted saying "it was like a punch in the stomach...wow, he's so formidable...."
> > > > > https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kareem-abdul-jabbar-will-smith-perpetuated-stereotypes-black-community-slapping-chris-rock-oscars-145518033.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A quote from the article:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > “By hitting Rock, he announced that his wife was incapable of defending herself — against words,” he states. “This patronizing, paternal attitude infantilizes women and reduces them to helpless damsels needing a Big Strong Man to defend their honor least they swoon from the vapors. If he was really doing it for his wife, and not his own need to prove himself, he might have thought about the negative attention this brought on them, much harsher than the benign joke. That would have been truly defending and respecting her.”
> > > > >
> > > > > “This ‘women need men to defend them’ is the same justification currently being proclaimed by conservatives passing laws to restrict abortion and the LGBTQ+ community,” he continued, adding that Smith’s “self-serving acceptance speech” in which he talked about protecting his family in the same way his character in King Richard, for which he won an Oscar, was tone deaf.
> > > > >
> > > > > “Those who protect don’t brag about it in front of 15 million people,” he explained. “They just do it and shut up. You don’t do it as a movie promotion claiming how you’re like the character you just won an award portraying. But, of course, the speech was about justifying his violence. Apparently, so many people need Smith’s protection that occasionally it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked.”
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My responses to this legitimately presented argument are:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Words can be very destructive; they can cause regime change in the US, war, and emotional abuse.
> > > > > - No one has said that women can't defend men, too. Sometimes, obviously, men should be defended by women, using strengths women may often tend to have.
> > > > > - It's not about "the vapors" and no one would swoon, it's about encouraging citizens in the general public to approach his wife and bother her in a particular way that Chris Rock has designed.
> > > > > - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and other critics are responsible for the negative attention; it was Abdul-Jabbar's choice to criticize Will Smith, not Will Smith's.
> > > > > - No one has suggested that "women [only] need men [only] to defend them" is relevant except for Abdul-Jabbar.
> > > > > - Actually, lots of people who are protective brag and advertise about their benevolent actions. Why shouldn't they? The Navy SEAL who killed bin Laden wanted to write a book, not that that is anything like this except that it is vaguely related to "protecting people" and it rebuts Abdul-Jabbar's point.
> > > > > - Claiming that "[all] protectors" "do it and shut up" is a stereotype that encourages mild prejudice. The "anti-talking" element of the US media is rather ironic in a way.
> > > > > - If he didn't try to justify what he did, his critics, including Abdul-Jabbar would speak more unopposed.
> > > > > - "...it gets too much and someone needs to be smacked." Yes, it really does. Did you hear that Donald Trump won the Presidency??
> > > > >
> > > > > At least the argument is sort of well-presented; it isn't completely empty and facetious like some of the argumentation you see in the media these days.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > > https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/academy-promises-appropriate-action-over-032624716.html
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Hudson
> > > > https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/27/oscars-rule-changes-not-political-correctness-academy-bosses-boone-isaacs-hudson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some troubling Dawn Hudson quotes:
> > > >
> > > > “The Academy is tradition-bound, it is rule-bound, it is not trying to be politically correct, never has been,” Hudson told the Hollywood Reporter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > “You can’t win an Academy award if your film is not greenlit,” she said. “You can’t win an Academy award if you weren’t in a particular role in a movie. So it is about opportunity from the very beginning of this process and the inclusion of different voices from the very beginning.”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When asked about best actress nominee Charlotte Rampling’s statement that the uproar over a lack of black nominees was “racist to white people”, Hudson said the actor’s comments were mirrored by the disgruntlement some older members’ responses to the new membership criteria.
> > > >
> > > > “Some of these things are generational, they just are,” she said. “And that’s what we’re talking about with the whole Academy. When you pick the best of the best, they are members of our Academy; you just have to make sure, as this generation grows older, you’re bringing in the best of the best of the next generation, and sometimes there is a lag and sometimes there’s not as much reaching out into the next generation.”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - - -
> > > >
> > > > My comments:
> > > >
> > > > If it isn't "trying to be politically correct," then what kind of correct is it trying to be? I worry that given some older people who have described racism of the past as more or less "just what was done in the past, it happened all the time" and "generational," I worry that appeals to times gone by are appeals to racially insensitive times gone by.
> > > >
> > > > The idea that "the best of the best" doesn't include many black people because large portions of film audiences demand white characters in all their viewed films' roles is absurd; if film economics alone can't cause film awards to be given to highly talented people from different backgrounds, then serious acting award granters still have a responsibility to ensure that talent is awarded, not just "appropriate skin color to get a big and high-potential part so you can get a chance to demonstrate your talent to audiences." I think an "acting GRE-like test" would be better than the current system; why not have a closed-door acting competition to determine who has the most talent, if the movies alone don't afford the opportunity to give out awards fairly?
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, it is up to film industry leaders, not individual rank-and-file actors, to make sure that "reaching out" or whatever happens, and opportunity to win awards is available to all top-notch actors, regardless of skin color or other non-talent-linked demographic characteristics. Of course, there are consequences, such as "driving smart actors and actresses to want to be lawyers to avoid a prejudiced industry," to failing at this important and fairly easy task.
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCtGNSqORc0
> > >
> > > Jim Carey, a good actor, states that Will Smith doesn't have the right to walk up on stage and slap someone for saying words.
> > >
> > > Maybe you could argue that it's different on a stage from how it would be in a social environment with no stage, although I don't see why.
> > >
> > > Certainly Jim Carey's perspective is popular and defensible; a lot of people would agree with that, maybe based on a "violence is never right [maybe except in war]" bedrock principle that many people subscribe to. Maybe Will Smith's conduct is illegal; the question is, should it be? Maybe he doesn't have the legal right, but that wasn't a huge amount of force being used.
> > >
> > > I think it did escalate, quite quickly...the innuendo and "invitation to people who know Will Smith's family" were pretty clear to me, it sounds like a maneuver to get Will Smith's family hurt.
> > >
> > > The perspective that "saying words" is never a reason to cause violence is one that is not highly informed by the very real and quite greatly present reality of emotional abuse in American life. It's not a joke and it's not some sing-songy shrill thing that weirdos with bizarre un-American political beliefs have made up; it's something that hurts thousands or millions of American adults and children every day, whether there has been something going on "inside them" or not.
> > >
> > > The clear question is, what can someone do in a situation like that, where someone might be attacking you with words--all Americans know who Donald Trump is and how he operates--and you might not know any good way to respond other than a simple smack. I don't think it's crazy; Jim Carey's firmly stated position, likely grounded in unshakeable values he has, is not one that can really be definitively rebutted, since lots of reasonable people would agree with him, since the assumptions and conclusion make sense. At the same time, I would object: What, exactly, is the solution for people, moving beyond the single case of Will Smith and Chris Rock, that feel somewhat or extremely threatened by words in a fight that these people didn't start? What can people do other than "wake-up call violence," what's the better answer, if we're not going to pretend that such concerns can be dismissed by the idea of "some mysterious thing going on inside people that we should not analyze or discuss" or by arguing that people should just "suck it up and not be too sensitive?" Emotional pain is real, sometimes verbal threats lead to death and other disasters, and I don't see the right perspective presented that would guide victims on how to respond to that.
> > >
> > > I just like talking about this for now, that is why I'm discussing it..
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > https://finance.yahoo.com/video/smith-banned-oscars-10-years-200223380.html
> >
> > "unacceptable and harmful"
> >
> > "University of Richmond," i.e., what if someone punched someone during a graduation ceremony during a speech at a university?
> >
> > Fine, it is a good point, and I hadn't thought of that. I take art seriously, and I see a lot of press about entertainment-media celebrities that doesn't present many of these celebrities as looking like highly erudite literary/art scholars. Perhaps it makes sense to take the awards as seriously, as, say the Nobel Prizes.
> >
> > I acknowledge it now that it is mentioned; Will Smith should have waited until the ceremony was over to comment, object, or perhaps offer to have a consensual "mutual combat fist/slap fight" somewhere else.
> >
> > My main point that remains unrebutted is that emotional abuse and invitations to this, perhaps cloaked as jovially told jokes, can be very painful, and finding solutions to that can be hard.
> >
> > If my lens was a bit clouded, it was partly because I am more used to watching Donald-Trump-related political events with unchecked, unchallenged racially-themed outrageous comments and insults; perhaps I saw him unchallenged and envisioned America as more anarchic and with a "new normal" as far as what happens on stage, in formal ceremonies for awards/debates/etc. and beyond.
> >
> > I *can* admit I made a mistake, exactly one mistake so far, and not a major factual mistake, in my argumentation. I didn't do it on purpose, I don't think of everything all the time.
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> My latest opinion is: Will Smith's conduct was "locally inappropriate," but given the big picture, it was probably fine and Chris Rock probably knows it.
>
> My sense of it is, Will Smith is seeking a position in a sense as "lead art-media-based commentator" on US political leader assassinations. I figure he understands what happened to Nicki Minaj's father and other victims, and essentially stepped down from the Academy, partly to criticize Dawn Hudson, apologize for not having criticized Biden/Obama sooner, and call attention to himself so that he could make it clear to fairly perceptive movie watchers what he is planning to do, assuming that an anti-Biden story comes out pretty soon.
>
> Typically, that kind of conduct would be mildly inappropriate, and I think Will Smith invited and accepts the punishment from the Academy. I think it is his way of saying goodbye humbly to a certain establishment media force that he doesn't trust any more and doesn't want to keep working with.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor