Drawing the line: Road rage

If you tune into SABC 2 at 12h30 this Sunday you will catch the start of the second season of the morality debate/talk/game show Drawing the Line. The whole point of the show is to pose a question to find out where South Africans draw the morality/right-and-wrong line. This will be the case for the next thirteen Sundays.

My interest in the programme is that I am one of the permanent panelists. The show is hosted by poet and TV presenter Lebo Mashile. For the benefit of the weird people not glued to SABC 2 at lunchtime on a Sunday afternoon, allow me to explain the concept of the show briefly.

You have two debating teams comprising three individuals each. The red team is always led by SAfm’s Michelle Constant and the blue team is always led by yours truly. In each episode we are joined by two guest panelists who are mostly “experts” of some sort on the topic being debated. I use the word “expert” loosely to explain that the producers do not sommer grab a beggar off the corner of Stanley and Owl and force him to debate. Not in every episode in any case.

You have a team of very capable actors — Darren Maule, Kholeka Qwabe, Mongi Mthombeni and Stella Word this season. They come on and act out a scenario in the form of a skit. Then Lebo Mashile comes on to pose the question of the day before assigning both teams the side they’ll be arguing from. The teams are then supposed to start presenting arguments on either side of the debate. At the end of each round (three in total), the studio audience gets to vote on which side made the more compelling arguments. That’s the theory, at least. For some obscure reason, larger individuals will generally vote “No”, irrespective of the quality of arguments presented when the question is whether it is ever okay to discriminate against the fatties or not. And then based on the outcome of the preceding round, the actors come back and act out yet another skit, raising the ante each time.

I was co-opted into the show by one of the producers, Neville Josie, based on the hallucinatory ramblings contained in my first book and the content of this blog. I know, I know. That makes as much sense as appointing Blade Nzimande a cardinal because he already owns a purple shirt. Anyone who has ever read anything I have written can clearly deduce that I possess pretty crappy debating skills. This is because I tend to not be hampered by the need to make any rational sense at all during debates. The only reason I ever even get involved in debates at all (which is pretty much continuously, every day of my life) is to see how far I can mock and ridicule people before they snap. Okay, okay — and also to prove that I’m an intellectual giant compared to everyone I know.

My debating motto can pretty much be summed up by the line, “Why play the ball when the man is right there in front of you?” During a debate I violate the line between making my point and being a generally disagreeable prick into a hazy blur. I treat that line like a Chinese sailor treats a R20-a-pop Esplanade streetwalker on a slow Tuesday early morning. I know no other way. That’s just how I roll.

But television does not allow me to showcase the full extent of my glorious debating skills. For starters, it’s pretty difficult for me to keep a straight face when that face is covered in powder. But the real problem is that TV producers have a problem with me making innocuous remarks like, “You sure do remind me of Mad Bob”. Especially if the comment is directed at the Reverend Paul Verryn on the opposing panel. So my contribution in this programme is restricted to being the pot-bellied dude shouting, “You’re not making sense!” in every episode.

So join us this Sunday — and every other Sunday for the next thirteen weeks — as we ask South Africans where they draw the line. In this second season we tackle questions such as whether it’s cool to shoot criminals in the head, whether it’s okay for Msholozi should have a First, Second and Thirteenth Lady and so forth and whether people in monogamous relationships should wrap it up or ride bareback, etc.

Here is a summary of this week’s episode:

The scenario: Two dudes in a car. Two girls in another car. Driver dude changes lanes without indicating. Driver chick has to apply brakes violently to avoid a collision. Enraged girl starts castigating driver dude using colourful language.

The question: Should driver dude engage with the girl by stopping to apologise — or should he just walk away? The broader question is, in traffic situations, should one ever engage with other drivers thereby risking road rage incidents or whether one should ever get involved at all, thereby coming across as being rude?

To the three of you who will watch, I look forward to hearing from you.

[email protected]