| | In some cases, perhaps, where it's obvious that the person deserves it. But in other cases, it's fun only if you're a voyeur and a sadist. I don't enjoy seeing people humiliated on national TV, when it's not clear why it's being done.
JJ doesn't humiliate them, Bill. They end up humiliating themselves. I'm not saying she's never wrong. I've disagreed with her a few times myself, but I can't say she's out to humiliate people for the sake of making a buck. From where I sit, Judge Judy appears to care a great deal about forwarding the good, not hiding the bad.
Listening to her interviews on television, I'm convinced she's an exceptionally good, and confident person. We Objectivists talk about "trusting your mind," Judge Judy does it for real, and she isn't ashamed to speak it, either.
The video Sam posted, for example, of the two bully boys being sued for beating up and stealing from a shy, nerdy kid. She was well aware of one boy's prior conviction for theft in the case. Are you saying she was wrong for highlighting the fact of that conviction? Was her motive to humiliate for the sake of humiliation? I don't think it was. I applaud her decision not to hide the bad, just as I applaud her frequent decisions to highlight the good in people's actions on her show.
I wouldn't call it voyeurism to enjoy the sweetness that comes from having right and wrong so boldly expressed. Nope, I wouldn't. She's just another kind of Christopher Hitchens to me. Is it voyeurism to delight in Hitchens's tirades against stupidity and evil? Not to me.
Nothing good comes from the fear of exposing evil.
|
|
