I don't have the time, energy, or skill to press my thinking on
this in this medium. I will read anything you or others write, though
I've thought hard about such things for a very long time and, while I
think no harm was intended in its posting here, don't think I'll find
mitigating matters, as you do.
Thanks for the reply,
Ken Armstrong wrote:
> Marcia Karp wrote:
>> CR, do you really think it clever to make fun of people's accents?
>> Smart and deep play in language is another thing entirely.
> I don't think it's that simple, Marcia. I hadn't looked at the
> video until your comment came up, and then my response was that it
> wasn't funny, not because it "made fun of" an Italian accent in
> English, but because it shines a light on the obtuseness of people who
> won't/can't understand. With whom I personally haven't much sympathy
> and find the recreation of more stressful than entertaining. The bit
> was unreal, I hope, because you likely couldn't find that many people
> that stupid in succession who could not understand the meaning of "you
> no understand" followed by the clarifying detail. If anything was
> being played there, it was what happens when a "normal' person must
> face off with the unflinchingly dense.
> Do you think the old Marx Brothers bits hurtful? I'm not sure. I loved
> the old "viaduct" routine (I understand whya no chicken and whya no
> horse, but why a duck?) and others, but at least I always told myself
> it was the dynamics of the wordplay and character interplay that made
> it wonderful. Of course in these, Groucho was more the butt of the
> jokes than Chico, who controlled the destiny of the exchange to
> Groucho's consternation or resignation. In the Youtube video, there is
> none of that.
> I guess I want to think that there can be a difference between making
> fun of and making fun with. And I don't think the latter should be
> banned in order to insure that the former doesn't happen.
> But being a Calvinistic kind of guy, I didn't find the video funny.