De Smarlitonibus eloquentia.
While furious wars are waged in Ukraine, I see that the story of the two guys who had complaints and slapped in the face during the night of the Oscars, in the USA, is going crazy.
And since feminists can't keep their tongues in check (then they complain that men can't keep it in their pants) ridiculous interpretations are flocking to the net, ranging from "toxic masculinity" to bullshit that doesn't have a name for so much I would call them absurd.
First of all: throwing a slap in the face while trying to keep it at low intensity is definitely not "toxic masculinity". Will Smith has a certain size, and regardless of throwing a slap can 'well sit a person.
Unless you limit the intensity of the thing. The slaps, or "Smarliton" according to the Hokuto school of Piazza Ariostea, "Macchiunata" according to the Nanto school of Contrada Settefarine, are not completely harmless. Sure, they're unlikely to break anything, but if you get one well placed by a guy in his 90's, you'll end up sitting on the ground.
So no, Will Smith limited himself.
But then the feminists arrive and say that "a woman defends herself". Which in principle can also go, but in fact, the lady didn't do a shit at all but be irritated.
Okay, a woman defends herself: it would be nice if that happened, though.
And to say it all, what could he really do? The truth is that in such a situation a woman who has a visible medical problem (while remaining a notable fan, let's face it without any opportunistic cowardice ) can do NOTHING about it.
And here is the point that I stink a little bit: if on the one hand it is true that things can also be resolved with a woman who reacts elegantly, or who reacts with a joke, in that case her intervention was not even foreseen. . He had no word. How could he defend himself?
So, who else could intervene, if not her husband, since no one has deigned to show the miserable cowardice of the "comedian" with a whistle?
Here the problem is not that Jade Pinkett was "his" woman (more on this later): the problem was that no one, except Will Smith, could intervene in her defense.
And if we doubt the possibility, or the necessity, for a human being to come into defense of another human being who cannot defend himself and is harassed (moreover, practically in front of the whole world), then the problem goes MUCH further. to “toxic masculinity”, the problem is the demolition of that obligation of solidarity which is at the basis of the social congress.
Will Smith was right to slap the asshole, he was right to do it worldwide, and he was right to do it because a fucking bully was bullying a woman who couldn't defend herself.
Now comedians are going to start complaining that satire is satire and if people reacted violently to comedians then they'd be full of comedians in ambulances.
Or, we would also have comedians who are funny.
Because it is true that during middle school, when the bully got up and did the splendid calling the fat girl in the class a whale, everyone laughed . But it must be clear that if we define "comedy" or "joke" any bullying gesture makes a 12-year-old laugh, at the expense of a person who cannot defend himself and has a physical problem, something is going VERY wrong with "comedy". .
Because this is what happened: the funny guy in the class got up and made everyone laugh by insulting the fat girl. Multiply by about eight billion.
Except that "the wit" is a high-end wit, and the fat girl is a bald girl instead. And now, as there are also girls who suffer from alopecia in schools, I would like you to explain something to me:
if in a middle school class there is a girl with alopecia, is the witty of the class allowed to stand up and take the piss in the name of the fact that the rest of the class laughs? Is it satire? Is it comic?
So you are all the time talking about feminism and inspiration, but all you see is the mistake of the alpha male (?) (More on this later) who stands up and slaps him. Interesting how from tomorrow no girl with a problem of alopecia will have the courage to go to an American school for fear of the witty on duty, because in the end, the problem apparently is not the splendid one that makes the class laugh. teasing the fat girl: no, the problem seems to be who should get up and slap him and tell him to shut the fuck up.
Oh, sure, now you will tell me that the best thing instead is to report him to the authority, which then administers the punishment. Aside from the fact that this fetish for authority is the perfect recipe for building an authoritarian state to the core , the point is that so-called authority would have brought up freedom of speech, expression, and so on, and he wouldn't do anything.
Will Smith was right to slap the asshole, he was right to do it worldwide, and he was right to do it because a fucking bully was bullying a woman who couldn't defend herself.
But now everyone's going to start saying he was a comedian and that's the job of comedians. Apart from the fact that I do not find written anywhere exactly what the work of comedians is, and if you have some cultured quotes you can stick them in your ass as that pompous idiot named Luttazzi should have done, the point is that there is an insurmountable limit beyond the which you cannot go, even if you are a comedian.
Here the Reductio ad Hitlerum is DUTY: would you have tolerated Buchenwald, if only someone had told you that it made you laugh?
Of course you will tell me that no, Buchenwald was a concentration camp and was not funny. What the fuck do you know about Nazi humor? Maybe it made them laugh. What if it made you laugh? Joke: "but there are people who pay to stay on a diet". Ha ha ha. And now?
What I mean? I mean there are insurmountable limits . And one of them is human dignity. You can't violate human dignity. Not even if it's funny. Not even if you're right. Not even if the law allows it. It is the red line that distinguishes people from worms.
Standing up and pissing off the hairless girl in the class overcomes this limit if it happens in a classroom, and overcomes it even if it happens at the Oscars, worldwide.
In my opinion, the categories of professionals who can humiliate others in the name of some SACRED principle of democracy are proliferating:
- apparently journalists can humiliate anyone by exposing their private life, in the name of the "right of the masses to know", a right that is not enshrined in any constitution.
- apparently comedians can trample anyone's dignity, as long as it makes people laugh, in the name of the sacred principle that "satire" is more important than human dignity.
- … .. and again, and again.
too many categories, in the name of a presumed sacredness of some absolute value, are rising above human dignity, guaranteeing themselves the right to trample it.
there are too many "values" that are becoming more important than human dignity.
And in such a context, a (all in all) harmless slap in the face is not only the solution to stopping this trend, but also becomes salutary on a value that is ALSO more important than democracy, namely simple human dignity.
Another objection that I hear a lot is that "okay, but violence is always wrong". I'm talking about the same people who get up to applaud every time the Ukrainian resistance burns two or three Russian conscripts alive in a tank?
But then, is it true that "violence is always wrong?".
I'm sorry, but sometimes it's necessary. And often it is right: otherwise you would not be cheering for the Ukrainians while they kill Russian soldiers.
And this pisses me off, because instead of saying "this is one of those cases in which violence is not only necessary, but it is also right", they pull out these crap from half-saws, for which violence is always wrong.
Anyone who says that violence is always wrong is usually exactly the kind of half-saw who would stand up and take the piss out of the fat girl in the class, to make others laugh. And she feared the just violence of her boyfriend or her brother: pacifism is only cowardly opportunism.
Exactly the kind of person who has to take a hail of blows and swallow their teeth while screaming gurgling in their blood, for the world to be a better place for everyone. And that's why these subhumans are against violence: in a world of loud slaps, people like them don't allow themselves to do certain things.
Whoever calls himself a pacifist is, almost always, an oily coward and a little piece of shit, who does not want to be held accountable for his actions by taking a loud slap. Without the "pacifists", the world would be a far better place : the little piece of shit is afraid of only one thing, which all cowards fear, and that's when someone gets up and slaps him when he overdoes it .
I am very wary of "pacifists". Especially when they do not recognize human dignity as a limit against which ANYTHING must NOT prevail. Including "peace".
Even at the cost of burning yourself alive at eighteen in a fucking T-80B. And never mind if your mother cries in Moscow.
Vexata quaestio: the Popular Front of Judea came out saying nonsense, in the sense that "the alpha male" would have acted to defend "his" woman. And this would be, according to them, "to mark the territory as alpha males do".
Interesting. Until you tried to scold a child and found yourself against "his" mother defending "her" child: is the resemblance to an alpha male purely coincidental? Ah, but that's a woman. Oops, it seems that the story of the alpha male is completely made up! (unless you point to every mother on the planet!)
The truth is that it is perfectly in order to defend a person who feels closer than a complete stranger. I can only agree with you in one sense: if ALL the men (?) Present had stood up and slapped the "comedian", the world today would probably be better.
But this is marginal compared to another thing: in EVERY newspaper I have read, close to what happened, an (a) diligent journalist takes the opportunity to point out how the two are an "open couple".
Now, I'd just like to point out TWO things:
- it doesn't have a shit to do with what happened. But the cocksucker (journalist in short) from the village wants us to know that she loves gossip.
- in this case, bringing out the traditional alpha male is completely out of place: the “traditional alpha males” in the “open couples” tend to kill the rivals (and sometimes the partners as well).
And this makes you understand how much the feminists have understood about femicides: here, it is better NOT to propose "the open couple" to the alpha male. It's advice, huh.
But how the fuck can you see a man who considers "his" the woman to defend, in a guy who is part of an open couple? Talk about someone who comes home in the evening and hears his wife shouting “Yes! in the ass! in the ass! " come from the bedroom. And he goes to the kitchen to make himself a toast without a word. "His" woman in what sense, sorry?
Established that if Will Smith lives in an open couple he is NOT an "alpha male full of toxic masculinity", otherwise his spouse would have died and so would his boyfriends, the problem is: but why on EVERY article and EVERY newspaper that talks about this story also comes out the article where it is clarified that the couple has found stability as an "open couple?" Why is it necessary to explain and mention it all the time?
Because, feminist or not, whether you say you are, you are a pile of provincials, the same ones who run to the newsstands to look for the porno film their villagers made to see who they are, and in the end the Oscars are just as provincial, only that instead of serving excellent mortadella like at the Borlengo festival, they serve you a pink mud called “Bologna”. A 'iv studie' par far i busaun , they say in Bologna.
The Oscars are just a festival of fried dumplings, only they send it worldwide, and they have shit food, and the comedians look like the ones borrowed from the parish party. That's all.
It is not a "cosmopolitan" thing, at most it is "The Big Casalecchio of Reno". With shitty food and beer that I wouldn't use to clean the bicycle chain.
But if Will Smith had been an alpha male, or at least beta (he really looked like Omega to me, to put it a-la-Japanese), what would he have done instead?
- he would have closed his fist and ruined the asshole's face after he had knocked it out.
- he would have dragged him to his wife's feet and forced him to apologize (or experiment with another kind of fisting).
- he would have announced to the whole hall that he would not have apologized, and if the price of the Oscar also includes the humiliation of his wife in world vision, they could all shove it in the ass.
- he would have gone, belching, to get a beer in a better place, assuming that the liquid to wash bicycle chains, which in the US they call beer, makes sense.
- before leaving the room, a yellow-green “sputazon” to the “comedian”.
Too much testosteronic? Maybe. But:
- the level of comedy in the world would have improved a lot and from today we would have better comedians.
- the girls with alopecia the next day would go to school with a lighter heart: “ look, mom. A man! They weren't extinct then! ".
Will Smith's extreme softness of behavior, including tearful apologies, does not speak of Will Smith "alpha male", or full of toxic masculinity, for the simple reason that they do not speak of Will Smith full of masculinity to begin with . .
Ultimately, we have two problems:
- too many people who are on God's mission (journalists, comedians, etc) and therefore claim to be authorized to trample on the dignity of others.
- too many cowardly half-saws, slimy and despicable, hope to abolish violence so that they can play their pigs comfortably without risking a loud slap.
And so no, I agree with what Will Smith did, only he should have done it a lot harder.
And if you have problems with alpha male and toxic masculinity, you can stick them where not even your doctor has ever seen the light of day.
