Added.

Maybe part of the problem of our growingly violent American civil society is that nobody can agree on what the rules really are anymore?

We have special speech rights for Black (uppercase Dominant) Americans over white (lowercase as in submissive) Americans with certain words off limits to some and generic conversation-filler to others in audible earshot of others;  -- special style usage rules in the national MSM (NYT, not WAPO); and perhaps most problematically right now, different gender rules for different genders.

Do we still think it's okay for men to beatdown men to "protect" women?  Define protection -- physical only?  Define woman.  Does it matter size -- who appears to be physically weaker?  But in the case of men, is the Dominant male still considered simply policing his territory when he "runs off" an interloping outsider?

Have we evolved more civilly, or with the male behavior, do we still accept the rutting practices of the Stronger over the weaker?  How far can one go to "protect" his own womanfolk -- does this cross cultures, as in, interracial consensual relationships?  Ethnically, some religions and cultures might not underrstand American laws -- do we even? -- about what societies and families and communities must accept for legally protected individuals.

If will smith is given a pass for his assault on public view in America last night over Chris Rock, the more civilized black man on stage, it will be telling about where America stands today on Rule of Law and the need to look the other way when weaker parties are victimized, and taught to accept the physical violence against them...

#StandUpforWhatIsRightEvenIfYouStandAlone

...and I wouldn't bother ask you to FightMyWars, and you should know that too, and you should know that's true...

-------------------

UPDATE:  The Academy has said they are awaiting results of will smith's drug test following last night's performance to determine if he still gets to keep his industry award.  Stay tuned...