Peterkin

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.

If that happened in a neighbourhood pub on any Saturday night between two half-crocked navvies, the landlord would show them both the door, the other drinkers would have a chuckle, and nobody would ever comment on it again. It was a dumb joke in bad taste at a non-combatant, and a yob's reaction to another yob dissing his woman. The other yob would consider that girly slap, rather than he 'punched the shit out of me'. But they were wearing expensive suits in front of national broadcast cameras, so it the scandal of the century... ... until somebody famous does something even dumber. and they will

From there: All I did was answer the questions as they were put and explain my reasoning and POV for that opinion; not trying to convince or educate anyone and certainly nowhere near invested enough to be called 'desperate'. I stated my position. I never expected to change yours.

Yukon, NWT, northern Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador. (Of course, every place in Canada is growing warmer, way faster than anyone's prepared for, so zones are pretty much a thing of the past.) Depends how long you're there, what you're wearing and whether you're lucky enough to have seven or eight Huskies hunkered around you. Eeeewwh, they put a little kid in the row of soft porn advertising at the bottom of this screen!

I'm always up for that, given an abiding interest in SF, both literary and cinematic. There is a whole separate language - I guess, more accurately, dialects - of symbology in fictional representations. It's made up partly of traditional emblems, partly of linguistic analogues (puns or homophones), partly of real-world association, partly of legend and folklore.

Thaqnks. I'll try to keep my inexpert fingers out of the machinery.

Thank you. This is all new to me; I've never done anything but copy and paste.

Do you leave the question mark?

On which continent? In which climate zone? I've slept outside in summer in Ontario lots of times. If you're near water, you get bitten by mosquitoes, so a tent is useful but a net is enough. Nocturnal birds are not interested in great big lumpy things like a comatose human: they're hunting mice and voles and little things that scurry. In the winter months, you freeze to death. In October, I've been so miserable with cold and damp and a pair of chipmunks having a fight overhead that I decided to walk at night and sleep in the daytime. I wouldn't choose a wooden surface, if I had a choice of sand or grass, but a groundsheet is a good idea against ants. If you're tired enough, you can fall asleep on anything.

Thank you all! I have been clueless all this time.

Thanks! So, it's still okay to superimpose it ^^ per link function into the text of a post? Just don't want to fall afoul by accident.

Well, I kind of puzzled out what it does, but how do I know whether I'm using one?

What is a URL shortener?

And if you were asleep on the ground, a bat wouldn't even be aware of you. Even if you fell asleep on the ground in South America, vampire bats would be the very least of the things you should worry about. https://www.realworldholidays.co.uk/blog/2016/06/27/dangerous-animals-south-america/ On the whole, I'd advise caution, re sleeping outdoors.

It's my list; "maybe" has been my steadfast answer throughout. It would remain my answer, even if I stepped back to third person POV, due to my previous acquaintance with investigative procedure and police personnel. We present our position; you present yours. There is no prize for winning. There is no ultimate necessity (or, indeed, possibility) for a consensus. This is where I do see an error: presenting those two acts as an either/or choice for you to make. They're not. The question isn't whether you would kill a thousand people rather than torture one. Somebody else has decided on the killing; an agent has been dispatched to place the bomb: one wrong has already been done. If the people are killed, somebody else - Anonymous - kills them, not you. But it is you, personally, voluntarily and purposefully, who inflict extreme pain on one human being, one flesh-and-blood - presumed guilty - boy or girl. You're not asked to choose between the killing and the torture, as if one cancelled the other; you're not asked to push the red button to detonate the bomb and kill those unseen people, or push the green button to cause agony to one unknown person while saving a thousand others. Although that's what such on-paper exercises seem like, in the real world, where we have to live out our ethics, it doesn't work this way.You are often forced to choose one course of action over another available course of action on your assessment of its probability of success.