That Will Smith and Chris Rock thing

[DaveC426913]

Was it a legit question, or was it a test of honesty?

^{(The logician's answer: Yes.)}

 

[Drakkith]

If one grew up such that it is expected for words to be met with violence, that's someone who has not been prepared for polite society yet.

Your version of polite society maybe. I know plenty of very nice, very polite people who wouldn't hesitate to lay hands on you if you insulted them or their family the right way. I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that the society you imagine we're all in is in reality a bunch of different societies that people spend various amounts of time in.

I am not sure how to interpret this any other way:

I certainly wouldn't interpret it as 'rough'. That's more like growing up poor and in a bad neighborhood, or in a family with an abuser, in my opinion.

Then you're not really volunteering your honest view.

Sure I am. I honestly do think Will Smith could have handled things better. He absolutely overreacted. He could have done nothing, or talked with Chis Rock after the show, or shouted something out instead of getting up and slapping him. But I also feel, in some part of my brain, that Smith's actions were justified, at least a little. Especially when I see his wife's reaction at Rock's joke. Call it a clash of societies if you will.

Where I'm from, you don't screw with another man's wife. Period.

Am I justifying his actions? Perhaps. I certainly can't say I'd never do something similar if my GF was really bothered by something someone said about her. Especially if I just laughed at what was said before realizing it had hurt her.

 

[Bystander]

you give the 'Air Force answer'.

"The right way, the wrong way, the Army way, and MY way," to quote one of my first sergeants?

 

[nuuskur]

As I see it, whatever reasons for it, mission accomplished - people are talking about it.

 

[pinball1970]

As I see it, whatever reasons for it, mission accomplished - people are talking about it.

It was a mistake too.
I accidently put the post in jokes and was only interested in the analysis of the body language!

 

[Mondayman]

In the Bible, god sent a couple of bears to rip apart a few young lads who make fun of a bald guy.

2 Kings 2:23-25

 

[StevieTNZ]

Just in:

The motion picture academy on Friday banned Will Smith from attending the Oscars or any other academy event for 10 years following his slap of Chris Rock at the Academy Awards.

-- https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/04/08/will-smith-gets-10-year-oscars-ban-over-chris-rock-slap/

 

[Drakkith]

@DaveC426913 After reading what I wrote after a little time has passed, I think I'm coming off in a way I don't mean to. My initial post was aimed more towards some of the more 'extreme' posts that passed sweeping judgements on him. I failed to make that clear in the post. My apologies.

I absolutely think Smith overreacted and his apparent ban is entirely justified.

 

[sbrothy]

<Moderator's note: Thread split off. You guys take your fight outside (the jokes thread) >

A body language analysis gives an interesting breakdown of this.
Not a moral judgement, just whether it was staged or not in his opinion.

These ultra-rich attention whores are payed millions to play make-believe and still people are surprised when they disassociate from reality?

 

[hmmm27]

I'm a bit surprised Will Smith hasn't been called out for contextual misogyny : his action denies her inclusion in the strata of the highest grade A-listers : those that get roasted by the warmup guy.

Face it : if Smith had lost half a leg or something, Rock saying "see you in 'Long John Silver'" would have gotten the same crowd laugh, and the retort would have been either something clever or a mild raised-middle-finger and a fake scowl from the "victim".

 

[Tawanda]

Gosh! Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words…”?

It’s a pretty fundamental tenet of a free society that anyone - especially comedians - should be able to say whatever they like without fear of physical violence.De-escalation?

You think emotional violence is cool but physical violence isn't? Comedians have gotten away making a living at the expense of their victims.

 

[DaveC426913]

You think emotional violence is cool but physical violence isn't? Comedians have gotten away making a living at the expense of their victims.

That's kind of a strawman. This is not about comedians in general, or making a living in general; this about this one incident.

It's not "emotional violence", it's roasting. It is an Oscar tradition to hire (they are paid) edgy comedians to MC the awards - and what comedians do is roast celebrities. They knew this going in.

 

[Jarvis323]

That's kind of a strawman. This is not about comedians in general, or making a living in general; this about this one incident.

It's not "emotional violence", it's roasting. It is an Oscar tradition to hire (they are paid) edgy comedians to MC the awards - and what comedians do is roast celebrities. They knew this going in.

If this is true then the Oscars is a toxic event by nature. Because attendence at a premier awards event for acting shoundn't have as a condition that you will be subjected to a roasting in which any form of insult may be directed at you from someone on stage so that your peers and the rest of the world can laugh at you and then watch you respond. And then you must take it with a smile no matter how personal and upsetting since by the fact that it is a 'roast', it is an exception to the norms of acceptable conduct, and any wrong reaction by you will have a chain reaction as it becomes amplified in the tabloids and social media. It's barbaric and sadistic quite frankly.

With that in mind, the injury from making fun of a celebrity's alpecia condition on that stage is much more of an injury than in a normal circumstance since it has a large side effect, including possibly affecting your carear, and would be sure to generate a ton of tabloid news and discussion in the world afterwards. She migh prefer people not talking about it and assuming her bald head is a fashion style rather than from balding. Try to put yourself in these shoes. Say you have a condition you're self conscious about, like being overweight because of a medical condition, and then to get some laughs for a show, someone makes fun of you about it with the whole world as the audience. And then they broadcast your emotional reaction to that, and then thousands of articles are written about your reaction making fun of or critisizing that. And your medical condition that you'd like to keep private is also now viral.

Keep in mind celebrities are basically likely to be traumatized already from being terrorized by paparazzi and tabloids and being unable to live a private life. So such an injury probably also may trigger such a person in a way you can't relate to. And then you have mental health and psychological trauma playing a role.

So I don't think it is so simple and easy. I think people have sadistic tendencies and should contemplate that. And I think people tend to get pleasure from seeing those they are envious of, such as celebities, suffer, and because they are oublic people, put them in a special class, essentially dehumanizing and objectifying them. Just because they are rich and famous doesn't mean they don't have feelings.

 

[russ_watters]

If this is true then the Oscars is a toxic event by nature. Because attendence at a premier awards event for acting shoundn't have as a condition that you will be subjected to a roasting in which any form of insult may be directed at you from someone on stage so that your peers and the rest of the world can laugh at you and then watch you respond.

And then you must take it with a smile no matter how personal and upsetting since by the fact that it is a 'roast', it is an exception to the norms of acceptable conduct, and any wrong reaction by you will have a chain reaction as it becomes amplified in the tabloids and social media. It's barbaric and sadistic quite frankly.

Well, yes. Because otherwise it's just a bunch of rich people patting each other on the back. It's the Academy's choice (and Smith was a member) that they wanted to sell/profit from the event, and one way to make it less distasteful to the less privileged is to knock the celebrities down a peg. It's like a dunking booth.

Yep, they are entertainers and yep, the lines between entertainment and exploitation/abuse can be thin.

But they are not near the line. They are not victims. They are willing, paid participants. The idea is if they let someone insult them, they'll make money.

With that in mind, the injury from making fun of a celebrity's alpecia condition...

I'm unconvinced that she has a anything worthy of being called a "condition". Moreover, Rock was apparently genuinely unaware of the implied condition. That makes it at worst an accidental injury. Worthy, perhaps, of an apology.

on that stage is much more of an injury than in a normal circumstance since it has a large side effect, including possibly affecting your career...

It's difficult to see how it could affect her career, but she always has the option to sue.

She migh prefer people not talking about it and assuming her bald head is a fashion style rather than from balding.

You've missed your own point:
1. She was public about it, but:
2. Rock apparently didn't know and assumed it was for fashion (and therefore not insulting a medical condition).

Try to put yourself in these shoes. Say you have a condition you're self conscious about, like being overweight because of a medical condition, and then to get some laughs for a show, someone makes fun of you about it with the whole world as the audience. And then they broadcast your emotional reaction to that, and then thousands of articles are written about your reaction making fun of or critisizing that. And your medical condition that you'd like to keep private is also now viral.

How much am I going to get paid for it? I can take a lot of insults if I'm making a lot of money from it.

 

[Jarvis323]

Well, yes. Because otherwise it's just a bunch of rich people patting each other on the back. It's the Academy's choice (and Smith was a member) that they wanted to sell/profit from the event, and one way to make it less distasteful to the less privileged is to knock the celebrities down a peg.

Yep, they are entertainers and yep, the lines between entertainment and exploitation/abuse can be thin.

But they are not near the line. They are not victims. They are willing, paid participants. The idea is if they let someone insult them, they'll make money.

I'm unconvinced that she has a anything worthy of being called a "condition". Moreover, Rock was apparently genuinely unaware of the implied condition. That makes it at worst an accidental injury. Worthy, perhaps, of an apology.

It's difficult to see how it could affect her career, but she always has the option to sue.

You've missed your own point:
1. She was public about it, but:
2. Rock apparently didn't know and assumed it was for fashion (and therefore not insulting a medical condition).

How much am I going to get paid for it? I can take a lot of insults if I'm making a lot of money from it.

So what then, give up acting or suffer sadistic exploitation? Nobody can be a serious actor and also be treated well? You don't think that's barbaric? You think causing people to suffer is fine if they make enough money? And because they are rich you think they should put aside their natural emotions and hide them with a fake smile? And they deserve that because they are getting paid to suffer it?

 

[Jarvis323]

You've missed your own point:
1. She was public about it, but:
2. Rock apparently didn't know and assumed it was for fashion (and therefore not insulting a medical condition).

She was probably public about it because the tabloids were talking about it, and she wanted to end the madness and obsessive speculation about why she is bald. That doesn't mean she wanted it to be fodder for jokes at academy awards, and then see a resurgence of that.

 

[russ_watters]

So what then, give up acting or suffer sadistic exploitation?

What? How about: stay home?

Also, "sadistic"? These aren't gladiators fighting a lion. Dial it down and be reasonable about this.

Nobody can be a serious actor and also be treated well?

What? They live lives of luxury that would have made past kings blush.

You don't think that's barbaric?

Gawd, no. I don't think I'd use that term unless the "roasting" were literally on a fire. I think your characterization is off the rails.

You think causing people to suffer is fine if they make enough money?

No, I question the existence of the suffering.

And because they are rich you think they should put aside their natural emotions and hide them with a fake smile?

Not because they are rich, because they are on the job. This applies to any job. It's part of what professionalism is.

And they deserve that because they are getting paid to suffer it?

Again: disagree with "suffering". But I will say that Steve-O and his crew made a good living from actual suffering.

 

[phinds]

So what then, give up acting or suffer sadistic exploitation?

Some folks, myself included, will conclude that you are taking this WAY too seriously.

I think you must have been bitten on the ankle by a verbal bully when you were young and now you are overreacting.

 

[russ_watters]

BTW, when I opened this up I was expecting to see a reference to how this has affected Will Smith's career. Apparently he just lost his fourth project:
https://fanfest.com/will-smith-lose...022-this-time-its-apple-coming-down-on-smith/

 

[Jarvis323]

Some folks, myself included, will conclude that you are taking this WAY too seriously.

Or maybe way too truthfully, and maybe it jives with a lot of people's views, and their hidden biases, dehumanization, and objectification of the people they watch for entertainment on a screen. They are real people, and you might as well view them that way without trying to frame them as having a special circumstance (being rich) that somehow makes every human problem or emotion they might theoretically suffer irrelevant.

 

[russ_watters]

Or maybe...

What I mainly object to in your posts isn't the idea that insulting people is bad, it's the ridiculously, massively, heinously bizarre hyperbole with which you describe it.

 

[Jarvis323]

What I mainly object to in your posts isn't the idea that insulting people is bad, it's the ridiculously, massively, heinously bizarre hyperbole with which you describe it.

If you can point that out it will be helpful.

I personally think most people are oversimplifying it, by viewing the situation without context, using their own experience instead. After a joke about your baldness at the Oscars, there will be a lot of media buzz. And as a result there will be a lot of people chasing you around with cameras wherever you go, trying to catch glimpses of your hair loss, and trying to ask you questions about your balding. That being something you had already been through for several years, which has likely left you already traumatized. Maybe some people are strong enough that for them those issues are no big deal. Or maybe wealth makes it less a problem, they can just hide on an island somewhere if they want to get away. But many people are sensitive to this, and it does affect their mental health significantly. "It's just a roast" and they "signed up for it and got paid" is the hyperbole in my view.

I'm not saying responding with physical violence is excusable. Just that it is worthwhile to take a deeper look and have some empathy.

 

[vela]

Characterizing the joke as emotional abuse, the Oscars as a toxic event, Chris Rock as sadistic, etc. is what makes most people roll their eyes, and frankly, I think it's insulting to victims of real emotional and verbal abuse. It was a pretty mild joke that, at best, perhaps warranted an apology from Rock for inadvertently upsetting Jada.

 

[Jarvis323]

Characterizing the joke as emotional abuse, the Oscars as a toxic event, Chris Rock as sadistic, etc. is what makes most people roll their eyes, and frankly, I think it's insulting to victims of real emotional and verbal abuse. It was a pretty mild joke that, at best, perhaps warranted an apology from Rock for inadvertently upsetting Jada.

I think you just have a set of hidden biases and lack of imagination that clouds your perspective. You can't relate to their lives. And you disregard those things which you can't relate to as possible causes of trauma (which you claim can't be real), and at the same time you apply a special rule that you think should absolve the possible trauma or injury. And in so, I think, you are dehumanizing them, whether you are aware of it or not.

Besides, we don't know if Chris Rock, or the organizers of the Oscars knew about Jada's medical condition or not. It might well be they did, and were capitalizing on that with the intention of generating more media buzz. In all likelihood they did know, or should have, because these are scripted, planned, and rehearsed events.

Edit And to clarify I am not trying to characterize Chris Rock as sadistic. I am characterizing our culture and the concept of a roast as sadistic if it has no limits. A person could participate in the roast, and there could be an unwritten rule in which some respect and empathy is shown by the roaster so that they avoid inflicting emotional injury. The idea that people showing up to the awards are signing up for any sort of roasting on any personal issues and must either go home or potentially suffer emotional injury, is sadistic. I'm not saying that is how it is, but this seems to be how many people think it is and should be. Why does an awards show for artists need that? The answer is because people are sadistic, and like to see, especially, people who they are envious of suffer. And that engagement means more add money, for the show and the show business.

 

[vela]

I personally think most people are oversimplifying it, by viewing the situation without context, using their own experience instead, rather than taking the effort to imagine their context deeply.

By the same token, you're ignoring a lot of context as well. Jada was on national TV and actually seen all over the world that night with no hair. There's no need for the media to chase her around to see her hair loss. She's also talked about her condition earlier publicly. The only reason there was significant media buzz is because of her husband's overreaction to the joke.

 

[Jarvis323]

By the same token, you're ignoring a lot of context as well. Jada was on national TV and actually seen all over the world that night with no hair. There's no need for the media to chase her around to see her hair loss. She's also talked about her condition earlier publicly.

I did point out that she probably addressed the issue earlier because she wanted to end the constant questioning about why she is bald, and the tabloids speculating and getting photos of her hair falling out, and the paparazzi chasing her around driven by the speculation. So it would make sense she would be triggered when at a highly publicized event, that is a generator of tabloid media buzz.

The only reason there was significant media buzz is because of her husband's overreaction to the joke.

I doubt this. Maybe if she were able to hide her dissatisfaction in her facial expressions well enough it would be minimized. Even then, tabloids and talk shows would still be talking about it, asking whether Chris Rock knew she had alpecia.

 

[russ_watters]

If you can point that out it will be helpful.

I did. But in particular, "sadistic" and "barbaric".

After a joke about your baldness at the Oscars, there will be a lot of media buzz.

Not usually, no. Most of us would not have even heard the joke if not for Will Smith's reaction. Oscars' jokes do not usually have legs.

"It's just a roast" and they "signed up for it and got paid" is the hyperbole in my view.

You're not using that word (hyperbole) correctly.

 

[Jarvis323]

I did. But in particular, "sadistic" and "barbaric".

Not usually, no. Most of us would not have even heard the joke if not for Will Smith's reaction. Oscars' jokes do not usually have legs.

You're not using that word (hyperbole) correctly.

Things are relative and we can have our own opinions. Maybe there is a lighter word for sadistic and barbaric that is in the same spirit, coming from the same human tendency to enjoy watching people suffer except with some stricter limits. I don't know.

 

[russ_watters]

Things are relative and we can have our own opinions.

Some things, yes. But as I've pointed out, - in addition to the hyperbole - you've also described scenarios factually inaccurately. That and the hyperbole tells me you are reacting emotionally and not really applying fair/objective analysis. I'd be curious to know how you'd judge some of the dozens of other jokes told that night that targeted celebrities.

Maybe there is a lighter word for sadistic and barbaric that is in the same spirit, coming from the same human tendency to enjoy watching people suffer except with some stricter limits. I don't know.

Maybe? Really? How about "insensitive"?

The problem with hyperbole is it doesn't leave room for escalation if the situation gets worse. That way we don't have to use the same terms to describe a moderate insult as we would use for, I don't know, Russian soldiers amusing themselves by shooting civilians for practice. Perspective.

 

[Jarvis323]

Some things, yes. But as I've pointed out, - in addition to the hyperbole - you've also described scenarios factually inaccurately. That and the hyperbole tells me you are reacting emotionally and not really applying fair/objective analysis. I'd be curious to know how you'd judge some of the dozens of other jokes told that night that targeted celebrities.

Maybe? Really? How about "insensitive"?

The problem with hyperbole is it doesn't leave room for escalation if the situation gets worse. That way we don't have to use the same terms to describe a moderate insult as we would use for, I don't know, Russian soldiers amusing themselves by shooting civilians for practice. Perspective.

Fair enough, but the word you came up with is a far cry from what I meant. If there is no version of the word that means enjoying people suffer that separates bullying from mass murder, then sadistic along with clarification and sufficient context should have to do. Insensitive certainly doesn't capture that meaning.

 

[artis]

@Jarvis323 I think we need to see everything in proper context. Just few centuries ago you could have been "roasted" physically on a bonfire by the church for daring to speak your opinion on simple matters that nobody even notices in today's world. Now that classifies as real violence. Stuff that happens in Ukraine now is real violence, both physical , emotional, etc. Abuse in families or elsewhere is violence.

Here is what I believe is NOT violence. A bunch of people sitting by their tables being served food that costs more than my life insurance in a room/hall that only few ever get to sit in having the time of their lives, emotions and adventures most people will never be able to experience.
+ their actors, their job is to be willingly put into situations where they are abused and ridiculed. By this token Will Smith could as well start kicking A$$ on the film stage with anyone who has a script that tells them to make fun of Smith's character.
A stand up comedian on stage is not a random stranger insulting you in a bar or in the subway. A stand up comedian on a stage is essentially an actor. He is doing a job.

I think Smith made a very bad example of something that is very wide spread in modern US especially within youth. That is the idea that you are untouchable , like a little king and everyone should do only as you wish.
The only reason anyone will ever remember that mediocre joke about his wife's hair is because of the childish and foolish action he made.
If it wasn't for that action you could search the whole of internet and probably not find a single reference to that joke as it simply was an average mediocre joke that nobody really cared about.I think we need to have a clear separation of what is actual violence and what is acting done by professional actors in an event that celebrates actors and all of them stand to gain a ton of money and publicity from it.

 

[artis]

In a general sense I am against making fun of other people for how they look, even more so for their disability etc. I would never make fun not even find it funny to see someone in a position of suffering.
That being said there are exceptions to everything.
Someone working in police cannot complain about seeing violence, that is part of the job. A firefighter shouldn't complain about how he dislikes smoke, because that is part of the job.
A nurse should be fine with seeing blood, again part of the job.

A multi million dollar actor should be fine with being in the spotlight , asked tough questions and being made fun of to a certain degree, especially if done by fellow actors in an event that is made specifically for that purpose.

 

[Jarvis323]

@Jarvis323 I think we need to see everything in proper context. Just few centuries ago you could have been "roasted" physically on a bonfire by the church for daring to speak your opinion on simple matters that nobody even notices in today's world. Now that classifies as real violence. Stuff that happens in Ukraine now is real violence, both physical , emotional, etc. Abuse in families or elsewhere is violence.

Here is what I believe is NOT violence. A bunch of people sitting by their tables being served food that costs more than my life insurance in a room/hall that only few ever get to sit in having the time of their lives, emotions and adventures most people will never be able to experience.
+ their actors, their job is to be willingly put into situations where they are abused and ridiculed. By this token Will Smith could as well start kicking A$$ on the film stage with anyone who has a script that tells them to make fun of Smith's character.
A stand up comedian on stage is not a random stranger insulting you in a bar or in the subway. A stand up comedian on a stage is essentially an actor. He is doing a job.

I think Smith made a very bad example of something that is very wide spread in modern US especially within youth. That is the idea that you are untouchable , like a little king and everyone should do only as you wish.
The only reason anyone will ever remember that mediocre joke about his wife's hair is because of the childish and foolish action he made.
If it wasn't for that action you could search the whole of internet and probably not find a single reference to that joke as it simply was an average mediocre joke that nobody really cared about.I think we need to have a clear separation of what is actual violence and what is acting done by professional actors in an event that celebrates actors and all of them stand to gain a ton of money and publicity from it.

Can we get real and cut out the BS prejudices and biases and just look at people as people, and their situations worthy of individual, in depth intellectual treatment?

 

[Jarvis323]

In a general sense I am against making fun of other people for how they look, even more so for their disability etc. I would never make fun not even find it funny to see someone in a position of suffering.
That being said there are exceptions to everything...

A multi million dollar actor should be fine with being in the spotlight , asked tough questions and being made fun of to a certain degree, especially if done by fellow actors in an event that is made specifically for that purpose.

Why? Absent the money, being in the spotlight makes it exponentially worse. Money doesn't buy happiness or treat mental illness. Many celebrities are driven mad or even to suicide by the torture they endure once they become famous. Just because someone has money doesn't mean poor people can't show them empathy.

 

[artis]

Can we get real and cut out the BS prejudices and biases and just look at people as people, and their situations worthy of individual, in depth intellectual treatment?

So asking for a grown up 53 year old to have a little self restraint during an event in which people make fun over one another is "BS prejudice" ?

I totally get your point, you are seeing Smith's wife as any other woman in any other situation. But she is not any other woman in any other situation. She is a celebrity sitting at an Oscar event.

So back in school I had few theater productions and we sang in choir. I recall once my fellow at the choir was bit drunk and sang few notes really off key and it was funny as hell, some girls laughed etc. Sure enough it must have been unpleasant for him, would he have been excused for smacking them?

 

[Jarvis323]

So asking for a grown up 53 year old to have a little self restraint during an event in which people make fun over one another is "BS prejudice" ?

No dehumanizing people because they are different than you and putting them in a special class of people who are not worthy of empathy is BS.

 

[artis]

Why? Absent the money, being in the spotlight makes it exponentially worse. Money doesn't buy happiness or treat mental illness. Many celebrities are driven mad or even to suicide by the torture they endure once they become famous. Just because someone has money doesn't mean poor people can't show them empathy.

Yes but this is not the case. I again say it's a special event. And celebrities to need on average more than it takes , that is part of the job.
So what if someone is shy but wants to be a celebrity at the same time?
Should we all close our eyes and stop watching and hide in civil defense bunkers every time they are in town?

I hope you see my point Jarvis, I by no means advocate bullying I'm just all for common sense.
There needs to be balance. I think in this case it was Smith who destroyed the balance not Rock with his mediocre joke. There have been far worse jokes said that nobody cared for , I don't think this was worthy of that reaction

 

[DaveC426913]

You can't relate to their lives.

Neither can you. And yet...

And you disregard those things which you can't relate to as possible causes of trauma

...you presume to be able to speak for them.

You are objectifying them.

 

[Jarvis323]

Yes but this is not the case. I again say it's a special event. And celebrities to need on average more than it takes , that is part of the job.
So what if someone is shy but wants to be a celebrity at the same time?
Should we all close our eyes and stop watching and hide in civil defense bunkers every time they are in town?

I hope you see my point Jarvis, I by no means advocate bullying I'm just all for common sense.
There needs to be balance. I think in this case it was Smith who destroyed the balance not Rock with his mediocre joke. There have been far worse jokes said that nobody cared for , I don't think this was worthy of that reaction

Another person suggesting actors need to be tough or quit because they will be alienated unless they attend special events where people are filmed being made fun of on potentially person and triggering subjects for our entertainment.

 

[DaveC426913]

Another person suggesting actors need to be ...

How is you deciding what they need any better?

 

[Jarvis323]

Neither can you. And yet...

...you presume to be able to speak for them.

You are objectifying them.

This logic doesn't make any sense at all to me, so I can't tell what your point is.

 

[DaveC426913]

This logic doesn't make any sense at all to me, so I can't tell what your point is.

That makes sense. You can only see you own point of view. That should raise some red flags for your perceptiveness.

Think on alternate views before returning with more visceral reactions.

 

[Jarvis323]

How is you deciding what they need any better?

I don't understand where you are coming from. Where did I impose a special requirement for being an actor without suffering specific consequences?

 

[artis]

Another person suggesting actors need to be tough or quit because they will be alienated unless they attend special events where people are filmed being made fun of on potentially person and triggering subjects for our entertainment.

Look I do not wish to end this like the Ukraine thread. I do respect your point Jarvis so please do not be offended by anything I say. But I cannot agree with your assessment. If we follow this path then essentially we will reach a point where staring at someone longer than they wish will be considered offensive and violent.
We are definitely heading that direction. I do not think it's a healthy place to be.

Part of being human is also learning how to adapt to the toughness of life. We are not perfect, we can offend someone sometimes just by mistake, have you never been in that situation?
Imagine if every time you made a mistake you got slapped in the face ?
Christ said "turn the other cheek", I think we do need to learn to forgive more and be less offended.

 

[Jarvis323]

That makes sense. You can only see you own point of view. That should raise some red flags for your perceptiveness.

Think on alternate views before returning with more visceral reactions.

My approach and suggestion is all about advocating stepping outside of your own shoes and trying to imagine things from other peoples point of view, treating them as individuals, and being honest and without bias. I don't know how you are able to turn that around on me.

 

[russ_watters]

Fair enough, but the word you came up with is a far cry from what I meant.

It's not my job to make your point, it's yours. There's a hundred other adjectives, and there's online thesauruses. If you can't find an appropriate one, you should pause and put more thought into your posts before posting them.

If there is no version of the word that means enjoying people suffer that separates bullying from mass murder...

Well, "bullying" isn't a descriptor you used before. It's a heckuva lot better than sadistic and barbaric.

Not that I agree that it is accurate. Bullying is typically intended to be coercive. But at least you've dropped to a more reasonable level.

 

[russ_watters]

Can we get real and cut out the BS prejudices and biases and just look at people as people, and their situations worthy of individual, in depth intellectual treatment?

It's not prejudices/biases, it's context. It matters a whole lot if the person insulting them is a stranger on the street vs a presenter at an awards show in their honor.

 

[Jarvis323]

It's not my job to make your point, it's yours. There's a hundred other adjectives, and there's online thesauruses. If you can't find an appropriate one, you should pause and put more thought into your posts before posting them.

Well, "bullying" isn't a descriptor you used before. It's a heckuva lot better than sadistic and barbaric.

Not that I agree that it is accurate. Bullying is typically intended to be coercive. But at least you've dropped to a more reasonable level.

Sadistic definitely means literally exactly what I meant, and just doesn't happen to carry an embedded quantification in its severity. And I'm honestly not sure if there is another word that has a lighter connotation. The thesaurus gives me these options, all which have the same problem but are less precise: barbarous, brutal, perverse, ruthless, vicious , fiendish. Maybe I should have said mildly sadistic. Anyway, I think you should be intelligent enough to get my point and understand what I mean, and I think you probably do. So there is no point to continue with an inconsequential debate about the semantics.

 

[russ_watters]

Another person suggesting actors need to be tough or quit because they will be alienated unless they attend special events where people are filmed being made fun of on potentially person and triggering subjects for our entertainment.

Nobody actually said anything like that.

BTW, you were right in another post when you said other celebrities have been bullied, and some have quit or done harm to themselves. Being roasted at the Oscars isn't that.

 

[Jarvis323]

Nobody actually said anything like that.

BTW, you were right in another post when you said other celebrities have been bullied, and some have quit or done harm to themselves. Being roasted at the Oscars isn't that.

It has been implied over and over again. At PF less so than elsewhere. Overall, this is a rampant implied sentiment. If the implications were in error, those statements should be clarified.