That Will Smith and Chris Rock thing

[pinball1970]

Split off? Where is the other part?

I posted a joke in the wrong place. I am very sorry about that !

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave there is some interesting biology. Psychology, physiology.

Yes, there was a whole sidebar about that earlier.

It may be fascinating as an academic exercise, and perhaps may shed light on the ... bona fidelity** of the incident, I'm not sure what it informs about the discussion.

** ^{I just made that up}

 

[artis]

We each of us like to think we are above it all, but we aren't really, are we?

I'll admit I sometimes take a sneak peek into the very movies I hate just to remind myself why I hate them.
As for above , well we are all human sure I've made my fair share of public mistakes.

 

[pinball1970]

Yes, there was a whole sidebar about that earlier.

It may be fascinating as an academic exercise, and perhaps may shed light on the ... bona fidelity** of the incident, I'm not sure what it informs about the discussion.

** ^{I just made that up}

A side bar from the tangent? We need a new word for that

 

[Jarvis323]

The slap was wrong and probably hurt. But the injury inflicted on Will, which we can all take part in, could be quite severe. Together we have a lot of power that we wield. We can trash a whole planet, drive a young singer into a mental hospital, ruin Will Smith's life. I just don't feel the need to contribute.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just don't feel the need to contribute.

The fight against the vestiges of toxic masculinity (and its cousin, rape culture) will last a long time yet. "I was raised to be a 'real' man. It's not my fault." is a part of toxic masculinity.

That's when I'll stop.

 

[Jarvis323]

The fight against the vestiges of toxic masculinity (and its cousin, rape culture) will last a long time yet. "I was raised to be a 'real' man. It's not my fault." is a part of toxic masculinity.

That's when I'll stop.

Condemning it is fine. But in the bigger picture, there is also toxic internet culture and cyber-bullying, and the like, which inflicts serious psychological damage on its victims, and can even take a life.

 

[Drakkith]

What legal terms? Assault and battery? That's not a "legal term". He hit him. We saw it. That's battery. Full stop.

I disagree, but I'll drop this part of the discussion if you will. Arguing over terminology is... frustrating. Even when you're right.

Will Smith has no business playing the "rough childhood" card. "I'm worth 350 million dollars but I never outgrew my poor childhood." He has proven that he is not defined by his childhood, and he certainly knows better than to do what was once "expected of men".

I never said anything about his upbringing being 'rough'. Mine certainly wasn't and yet most of my family would expect me to defend my wife in some fashion if she were insulted. Especially by another man.

I don't quite get your stance. You're saying we shouldn't be so quick to judge, but are you suggesting there are circumstances to this specific incident that somehow makes such violence acceptable in this day and age?

Some amount of violence is absolutely acceptable, even today. Why would you think it isn't? Many of our heroes, in history and in fiction, use violence. Many video games have violence. We let our children pretend to beat the crap out of people when they pretend to be ninjas, cowboys, wrestlers, or whatever.

As an analogy, let me use some of my military experiences. In the Air Force, when taking a formal test or answering questions asked by an inspector, you give the 'Air Force answer'. That is, the one that's taught by all the books and trainers and such. But that doesn't necessarily match what you actually would do in the real world.

Similarly, we are all taught that violence is bad and we try teach our kids that. Or at least that's what we say. In reality most of us would absolutely overlook an incident if we think the violence is justified. Yeah, I'll agree that Will Smith shouldn't have slapped Chris Rock. But that's mostly my Air Force answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

I never said anything about his upbringing being 'rough'.

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

... slapping the crap out of someone who made a joke at the expense of your wife would almost be expected, not merely tolerated. I don't know what kind of environment Will Smith grew up in, but it wouldn't surprise me if similar things were expected of men.

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. Violence is a behavior that has gone uncorrected (for over five decades) so as not to be a menace in public. After all, they throw people in jail for such things!

This is not some chance encounter on a street corner where there's no rules. There is an expectation that - when you are invited to an event of professionals, and you are all there in celebration, under one roof, cheek-by-jowl - everyone can be reasonably safe from physical harm and mayhem.

Mine certainly wasn't and yet most of my family would expect me to defend my wife in some fashion if she were insulted. Especially by another man.

With a fist?? (I hope you correct your family's destructive "expectations" of you!)

Some amount of violence is absolutely acceptable, even today. Why would you think it isn't? Many of our heroes, in history and in fiction, use violence.

This is a red herring. We are not talking about generic or contextual violence. We are taking about this incident, and what ten million people witnessed happening. I have nothing to say about what happens in some hypothetical military incident. None of us do.

Look at this incident. What ten million of us witnessed. What is fact.

But that's mostly my Air Force answer.

Then you're not really volunteering your honest view. There is a difference between

• I understand the reason why X did Y

and

• It was acceptable for X to do Y, because reasons.

 

[Klystron]

As an analogy, let me use some of my military experiences. In the Air Force, when taking a formal test or answering questions asked by an inspector, you give the 'Air Force answer'. That is, the one that's taught by all the books and trainers and such. But that doesn't necessarily match what you actually would do in the real world.

I understand 'Air Force answer' and that majority mindset and do not judge. I gave honest ethical answers as best I could. Honesty caused trouble and some hardship but kept me centered. Definitely a miniscule minority follow this path.

Sometimes social lies constitute the kindest response, but not when it counts. I recollect a USAF test in basic with ~250 participants. Everyone lied except me and one other person according to the post-test interview. I imagine most Vietnam war era veterans know the question.

I once struck a guy who said something disrespectful about a girl friend but I was an immature teenager and immediately apologized for hurting him.

Spoiler: The question where nearly everybody lied.

Something like, "Have you ever drunk alcohol outside the home, ever used marijuana, been anywhere where alcohol or marijuana were used, known anyone who ever drank alcohol under the legal age or known anyone who ever used marijuana?"

248 people either lied or only knew strict teetotalers. In 1970's America.

 

[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.