Peterkin

And little children are unlikely to be interested in, or understand, either. (But I have to admit, I'm not sure I could depend on my own equanimity in the same room with Gervaise. So I just won't go there. )

Well, he's one to talk! The man who terrorized two continents, razed 3 cities of civilizations more advanced than his own, devastated another 70, assassinated rivals, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians, committed half a dozen genocides, enslaved, displaced and impoverished huge swatches of population that were never a threat to him. Yeah, apathy is the answer to that, just as it is to Putin.

Knowledge is never misplaced. Even if the purpose and focus changes over time, the more you learn, the more you can do with it. Just be careful you don't burn out - slow ans steady is the magic formula.

So, children's shows send mixed messages about violence and its justification. And children, especially school-aged boys, never watch anything less benign than My Little Pony. And children the world over are sweetly, blissfully unaware of war, terror, persecution, dangerous border crossings, refugee internment and domestic violence. But they do watch the incredibly boring Academy Awards ceremony and do understand a passing reference by a fast-talking comic to a movie they've never heard of and wouldn't have been allowed to see. That's what will influence them. And this will become a frequent occurrence in classrooms the world over. I pity the teachers, but blame the parents. Shouldn't let the small ones stay up so late.

I can't tell which quantities you're comparing.

1. It wasn't proposed as a discussion of specific philosophies 2. It was not a proposal to discuss Rationalism, what it holds as a test of knowledge (or even truth). 3. It was not proposed as a discussion of dogma or faith. It was a proposal regarding the foundations of a wide-spread social phenomenon that encompasses many kinds of institution in every civilization, in every period of history, in every form of governance. Each of those institutions was or is based in a rational purpose and organized on a rational system of administration. In every society, religion has served and does serve one or more rational purpose. It is not uncommon to reject religion of any kind. That decision is usually based on a rational reason. It is not uncommon to profess a religion one does not truly believe. That, too, is based on a rational reason. It is not uncommon to refuse to take part in any discussion in which the word 'religion' is mentioned. Nor is it uncommon to participate without contributing.

Just to be fair, it isn't referring to religion. It doesn't say "rational religion"; it says "rational foundations". As with other institutions, like nationalism and capitalism, the canon may sound outlandish, the practices may seem bizarre, but a function is served: somebody benefits.

Has anyone said it's "right"? It happens, that's all. And it's not a great big world-altering deal. The guy's apologized and resigned. What more do you want?

Another instruction? Okay. No judging, no dismissing. Just thought I'd offer a little solace, but won't do it again.

I'm confident that they will recover without intensive psychotherapy. Odds are, so will the schoolchildren. All the others can probably afford whatever therapy they require. Oh, come on! It's a teeny-weeny tempest in an overpriced champagne flute.

What? You mean the schoolchildren of the entire world have never before seen anyone hit anyone else? And now that they have discovered the joy of slapping, they will indulge it henceforth?

You don't know what's been going on in his head. He didn't just decide to make a public spectacle of himself and of the wife he was supposedly defending. Something's been struggling to get out for a long time, and this was a trigger moment - a high anxiety, high tension, high adrenaline moment - when the last chain broke. It's a nothing event: just another crass remark by a celebrity, just another outburst from a celebrity; neither is rare or special; it's not like this changed anything in the real world. But it happened on a big stage, on a day when people were eager to be distracted from war and the imminent end of the world - welcome fodder for gossip. Significant for the persons directly involved and nobody else.

He wasn't making a comparison. He was invoking a meme. Very small potatoes as cheap shots go, but certainly not a compliment; merely drawing attention to the most obvious feature. (Baldness, btw, was not Demi Moore's most attractive feature, the head-shaving was just the scene people remember.)

Not to me. It's for the principal to adjudicate this little schoolyard set-to. Such things have always happened, and will keep happening whether it has meaning or not - mostly not, except to the participants - even when everyone involved knows they shouldn't behave that way, and that consequences will ensue. It's simply human nature to forget our good manners sometimes and to lose our rag sometimes. No civilization has completely subdued human emotion. I don't know. Refinement in humour may be one indication of virtue, but I'm not convinced that it's sufficient indication. A peasant with a sharp tongue and a quick temper may be or may not be a better person than an aristocrat with impeccable deportment. There was then, as there is now, a vast range of tastes and sensibilities. I just don't think bald jokes were ever funny, no matter who is being joked about, so the comparison of one cheap shot with a bunch of other cheap shots doesn't prove anything except that comedians are one of those elements that hold constant: when they can't think of anything witty, they jibe at some vulnerability.

Men resort to violence for all kinds of reasons, at the very top of that list being defence of their wives and daughter's honour. However they perceive it, however they perceive a threat to it. I don't have it both ways; cultural norms and standards of physical beauty have it both ways. Age does enter in, since very old women often lose their hair (and it would be in bad taste to joke at them) middle-aged women rarely do, while it's standard in middle-aged men. Who said Rob Reiner should be, or even in those less enlightened times, should ever have been insulted for his baldness? He might not have been offended by it, but I was. I have never, anywhere, suggested that anyone's physical characteristics should ever be the butt of public hilarity. All of that kind of humour is in bad taste. Who said hitting is an appropriate response to bad taste? I have never condoned loutish behaviour in the school playground or the celebrity playground. But it happens. In this instance, I'm merely pointing out that there is a gender bias involved, whether we approve of such biases or not.

And which famous women come to mind? In all of these examples, the 'people' referred-to are mature males, some of whom are considered sexy because of their shiny heads. The cultural standard, and more to the point in this case, the cinematic image of female beauty tends toward the Botticelli Venus type. Different POV for vanity. Different again, whether it's voluntary baldness or pathological.

I'm not sure of the other. Striding up onto the stage to slap the MC is obviously a breach of protocol and good manners. (It's meant to be classier than the neighbourhood pub) Equally obviously, the Academy must be seen to have done something, so it doesn't happen again. Reprimand and censure seem appropriate, and maybe ending the practice of hiring some crass comedian as presenter. But once they've been hired, they ought to be paid, even if they crossed an invisible and unspecified line of good taste, and actors who win prizes for acting in movies shouldn't have those prizes clawed back for acting out at afterward. If Djakovik doesn't have trophies taken away for his racket-smashing tantrums, Smith shouldn't his taken away for this one. That looks like going back a ways. If somebody slapped him on the way out of the studio, it wasn't recorded.

He won before any of this happened. Transgressions should be punished after they happen. If the Academy wants to expel and blacklist him and never let him be nominated or attend another 'ceremony', that's appropriate. But taking away something that was awarded for actions entirely unrelated to the transgression is like rescinding a 20-year-old Nobel Prize in science for a political view.... Yeah. Sure. They can be just as vindictive as they want. It's their sandbox.

Okay. I didn't say those specific words were ridicule; I earlier had considered the joke itself very mild. What I said was that being a member of the academy is not in itself sufficient reason for ridicule. Context matters, in all communication, including homourous banter. That's why you can say things to your spouse in the privacy of your home that neither of you would say in front of your friends, and things that can be said among friends that would not be appropriate to say in the workplace, and things that would be acceptable subjects in the lunchroom, but not from the pulpit. It's not only the words themselves that can hurt, but who utters them, in what style, with that intent, to whom, in what situation and from what platform, an the effect they have on other people. It you call attention to yourself (as I mentioned regarding two comedians who made fun of their physical peculiarities in performance), you are in control of the situation, how you are presented and regarded. Someone else making an entire room, plus cameras and by extension, the entire world, stare at you when you're unprepared, that can be unwelcome and uncomfortable. Humour is a subtile beastie; its deployment has variations and nuances. Not everybody perceives it in the same way. Evidently Will Smith perceived it differently from Chris Rock, as I perceived it differently from you.

The particular words "GI Jane" are neither mocking nor humorous. The appeal is to an association that people are expected to make to a familiar image. The objective is to draw attention to a physical feature which is somehow remarkable and worthy of special notice. Is that explained enough yet? BTW, the sentence you quoted "AFAIK, no other member of the academy was ridiculed for their physical shortcomings." was in response to a statement that she's fair game, due to membership in the Academy; many members of that august body have august bodies which were not centered out for public attention; she was only targeted for being the spouse of a nominee.

I also note the circumstances as being of a particular nature: mockery of anything about another person is quite different when done in private between intimates, or when done at a party among close friends, or done to person who has in some way invited comment (say, by accepting an invitation to a roast, or a nomination for a prize given at a gala traditionally hosted by comedians), and being centered out for attention when you're unprepared. I half suspected it was staged. But, hey, it got lots and lots of wholly undeserved attention!

Okay. If you hold a public performance, or make statements on a public forum, henceforth, I'll recuse myself from the jury. I won't even comment on you comment on my comment. I won't even vote if you run for public office. Can't say fairer'n't

If you make a joke in public, everyone who hears it rightfully sits in judgment. Taste is subjective; it doesn't need support. I considered that joke, while negligible in its level of offense, in bad taste and inappropriate, for the reasons given. BTW I also considered Will Smith's response, while negligible in harm done, excessive, loutish and inappropriate. A little decorum wouldn't do that annual celebrity-strut any harm.

In what context? These not-quite-kosher jokes were specifically aimed at spouses of nominees, not the nominees themselves. AFAIK, no other member of the academy was ridiculed for their physical shortcomings. Same thing, since Ricky Gervais.

It's in bad taste, not due to the severity of the joke (almost negligible) - but for two other reasons. 1. It's about another person's physical appearance. Louie Anderson's weight is not a secret; Joan Rivers' cosmetic surgeries were not a secret - and while they could make fun of themselves, a close friend making fun of them in private would be acceptable - a stranger doing it on national television is offensive. 2. It's at the expense of a non-participant. The celebrity being roasted is fair game but their family members are off limits.