great post
I will say that I'm not saying proximity distance is that heavy a factor. I mean if I got someone's attention from across the room and called them a piece of crap its still bad. But it takes a special kind of man to look someone else in the eyes and consciously attack them. There is a spatial component to all manner of human interactions. From your "bubble" to the kinds of physical contact, it all radically changes based on the situation, cultural setting, and customs of the event. We know that there is a fine distinction between player and spectator, which is why we find actions that blur that line to be shocking at times, see Ron Artest. Fights happen every day in Detroit, but that was a special event because of the setting and its fine distinctions. Similarly we find Smart's interaction to be the same blur of that line. Now I don't in anyway mean to compare Smart to Artest, that would be stupid, but it was a situation where a fan had a negative interaction with a player because that proximity line had been blurred. To the lone actor I could see your argument if the actions were similarly comparable. Once again this draws a closer comparison between Rush/Smart than Orr/Smart. But chant being generic in design and target does change the situation. I think the comparison which is much hard to defend if you disapprove of the Smart/Orr is the deadbeat chant.
Personally I really don't buy the argument of group identity/race/personal characteristics that you might be making. Group identities are radically different than identities based on your humanity, whether it be race, sexual orientation, or gender. But I think we might be getting into the weeds of another conversation.
I do agree that we, the board et al, are pulling our arguments based on the reaction rather than the action itself in much of this thread.
