Sam2: Yes there is a chiluk. But without a halachic source, it is not a ‘mechalek’. You must admit that it is at least very possible that Rashi (from Chazal) meant any form of non-Jewish entertainment even non-violent and non-salacious ones. Ergo, you have no right to create an arbitrary limitation on his words just because you can identify a difference.
Doing just that with no halachic backing is a slippery slope that can eventually lead to the Reform idealogy of rejecting any halachah that has no clear modern rationale – Rachmana Litzlan.
But this works in 2 directions as well. You can look in the opposite direction as well. to Quote Rav Shlomo Friefeld
“If the only way we can sell our children Torah is by forbidding everything else, then we are bankrupt.”