Jump to content

Validity of the claim that Will Smith "could've killed" Chris Rock


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Pete Rose does not get the honor of being admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame due to his gambling on baseball games (a violation of the Standards of Conduct), but no one is claiming he didn't actually get 4,256 hits.

Pete Rose??? Try Shane Warne. 

29 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes. Someone cheats or violates a rule, which means that what SEEMED to be a winning score was not actually valid.

Yes, they have actually gained an advantage over the other participants and are "disqualified" when found out...eg; some chinese swimmer whose name escapes me.  Will Smith didn't gain any advantage. He won on the votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

He won on the votes.

He won before any of this happened. Transgressions should be punished after they happen. If the Academy wants to expel and blacklist him and never let him be nominated or attend another 'ceremony', that's appropriate. But taking away something that was awarded for actions entirely unrelated to the transgression is like rescinding a 20-year-old Nobel Prize in science for a political view.... Yeah. Sure. They can be just as vindictive as they want. It's their sandbox.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Transgressions should be punished after they happen. If the Academy wants to expel and blacklist him and never let him be nominated or attend another 'ceremony', that's appropriate.

There were two transgressions. Let the academy weigh up the circumstances and punish both with warnings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Jada P Smith rolled her eyes when she saw this clip

Or this one mocking gay people

Or is his comedy not subject to the same standards he holds other comics to ?

Remember the childhood saying ...

" Sticks, stones, AND SLAPS, will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" ?
When did we become so sensitive ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

There were two transgressions.

I'm not sure of the other. Striding up onto the stage to slap the MC is obviously a breach of protocol and good manners. (It's meant to be classier than the neighbourhood pub) Equally obviously, the Academy must be seen to have done something, so it doesn't happen again. Reprimand and censure seem appropriate, and maybe ending the practice of hiring some crass comedian as presenter. But once they've been hired, they ought to be paid, even if they crossed an invisible and unspecified line of good taste, and actors who win prizes for acting in movies shouldn't have those prizes clawed back for acting out at afterward. If Djakovik doesn't have trophies taken away for his racket-smashing tantrums, Smith shouldn't his taken away for this one.    

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Or is his comedy not subject to the same standards he holds other comics to ?

That looks like going back a ways. If somebody slapped him on the way out of the studio, it wasn't recorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

In any case, I am content with the answers thus far. It is possible, if unlikely, therefore Judd Apatow was technically right and therefore those making him out to be wrong were wrong themselves.

This reminds me that there's a game called "Kill Dr. Lucky" where you can attack him by just poking him with a finger for one point of damage, and that has a nonzero probability of killing him. (this would happen of you lacked a murder weapon, the collection of which is part of the game)

The thing is, that's not the question you asked. You already answered the question "is it possible" in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not sure of the other. Striding up onto the stage to slap the MC is obviously a breach of protocol and good manners.

He didn't do it for a thrill. Rock over stepped the mark of decency.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 If Djakovik doesn't have trophies taken away for his racket-smashing tantrums, Smith shouldn't his taken away for this one.    .

We are in agreement then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I watched the footage, two thing's struck me:

1. Will initially laughed at the joke.

2. Jada decided to take umbridge.

She must have known, that by coming out and wearing that hat with pride, that not everyone will be grown up about it; if she can't take an immature jibe she should have worn a wig.

In my view, she decided to be the victim in order to make her man fight for her, rather than with her.

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

He didn't do it for a thrill. Rock over stepped the mark of decency.

Much like a child stepped of the path and onto the grass; how strict are you going to be?

And yes, I am being cryptic; sorry if that puzzles you...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

She must have known, that by coming out and wearing that hat with pride, that not everyone will be grown up about it; if she can't take an immature jibe she should have worn a wig.

So, other people get to decide how she

 

dresses.
Well.... it's a point of view.
 

I prefer the version where the areseholes get called out for being areseholes.

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In my view, she decided to be the victim in order to make her man fight for her, rather than with her.


Is your view based on evidence?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, other people get to decide how she

 

dresses.
Well.... it's a point of view.
 

I prefer the version where the areseholes get called out for being areseholes.

The areseholes get called out for being areseholes, before the blow is struck; not for being childish...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Son :   "Daddy, there's a man at the door with a bald head ! "

Father : "Tell him I've already got one ! "

Sorry, that was tasteless and hurtfull to all the follically challenged out there. (including me) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And since comedians don't make jokes about type 1 diabetics (though at one time I'm sure they did), your lack of offense is no surprise.  

Bill Maher jokes to Republicans that "you will still have diabetes", and though I think he meant type 2 (he often jokes that Republicans are fat) the problem in my eyes isn't the insensitivity, but the actual harm done, by contributing to a misconception that falsely gets type 1 diabetics blamed for their own condition, contributing to the false perception that we brought this upon ourselves, and in turn, to lack of support for forms of research that could cure this condition already.

 

But more to the point. Does apolecia cause people to die statistically years younger than everyone else? (Wikipedia says it doesn't affect life expectancy at all.) Does it have any equivalent to sufferers spending every waking moment of every day not being sure if hypoglycemia could get them killed?

 

The whole thing just seems like a case of vanity. Plenty of people are ridiculed for their bald heads without resorting to violence over it. Rob Reiner comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Bill Maher jokes to Republicans that "you will still have diabetes", and though I think he meant type 2 (he often jokes that Republicans are fat) the problem in my eyes isn't the insensitivity, but the actual harm done, by contributing to a misconception that falsely gets type 1 diabetics blamed for their own condition, contributing to the false perception that we brought this upon ourselves, and in turn, to lack of support for forms of research that could cure this condition already.

This is the position Chris Rock takes in his documentary about black women's hair, almost exactly. Black women are blamed for damage done to their hair from relaxers and wigs and weaves designed to make their hair more palatable to employers and white society. They often feel guilty about their real hair and what's happened to it. They get blamed (and often blame themselves) for their own condition. I can only imagine someone with alopecia feels much the way you do, and sees the harm done by further misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The whole thing just seems like a case of vanity. Plenty of people are ridiculed for their bald heads without resorting to violence over it. Rob Reiner comes to mind.

And which famous women come to mind? In all of these examples, the 'people' referred-to are mature males, some of whom are considered sexy because of their shiny heads. The cultural standard, and more to the point in this case, the cinematic image of female beauty tends toward the Botticelli Venus type. Different POV for vanity. Different again, whether it's voluntary baldness or pathological.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

And which famous women come to mind? In all of these examples, the 'people' referred-to are mature males, some of whom are considered sexy because of their shiny heads. The cultural standard, and more to the point in this case, the cinematic image of female beauty tends toward the Botticelli Venus type. Different POV for vanity. Different again, whether it's voluntary baldness or pathological.      

Jada is 50 years old. So let's cut the crap with the "age" angle. It's about male vs. female.

 

Yeah, baldness can be attractive in a male; supposedly; though it's impossible to prove they're attractive because of said baldness and not because of it. A lot of guys find some women who happen to technically be overweight attractive; does that make cheap shots about a woman's weight fair game too? (Oh wait, guys get cheap shots about their weight all the time; see also Donald Trump.)

 

An insult to Rob Reiner's baldness is an insult to baldness, and in turn, a de facto insult to Vin Diesel's as well. The only way it isn't also an insult Jada Pinkett Smith's is if the sexes involved are relevant.

 

But more to the point... why would Rob Reiner be insulted about his baldness, other than because people find it unattractive? You can't have it both ways. If it's attractive, the insult makes no sense. If it's unattractive, then you're attacking them for an involuntary physical trait. If men don't resort to violence over cheap shots at their own baldness, they shouldn't resort to it over cheap shots about their wives' baldness.

42 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is the position Chris Rock takes in his documentary about black women's hair, almost exactly. Black women are blamed for damage done to their hair from relaxers and wigs and weaves designed to make their hair more palatable to employers and white society. They often feel guilty about their real hair and what's happened to it. They get blamed (and often blame themselves) for their own condition. I can only imagine someone with alopecia feels much the way you do, and sees the harm done by further misunderstanding.

You're missing the point. Chris Rock didn't smear people with alopecia as being at fault for their own condition. He just made a joke about it. Jokes about type 1 diabetes, as long as they don't spread misinformation, don't bother me near as much as even the most well-meaning ignorance someone takes without doing their due diligence to make sure they're getting it right.

 

Of course, none of this is cause for violence. The proper place to deal with the spread of misinformation is by refuting it; and if that doesn't work, too bad, so sad, that's the price of living in a civilized society. The proper place to deal with distasteful jokes is by condemning them. If the public doesn't share your condemnation, too bad, so sad, that's the price of living in a civilized society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

But more to the point... why would Rob Reiner be insulted about his baldness, other than because people find it unattractive? You can't have it both ways. If it's attractive, the insult makes no sense. If it's unattractive, then you're attacking them for an involuntary physical trait. If men don't resort to violence over cheap shots at their own baldness, they shouldn't resort to it over cheap shots about their wives' baldness.

Men resort to violence for all kinds of reasons, at the very top of that list being defence of their wives and daughter's honour. However they perceive it, however they perceive a threat to it. 

I don't have it both ways; cultural norms and standards of physical beauty have it both ways. Age does enter in, since very old women often lose their hair (and it would be in bad taste to joke at them) middle-aged women rarely do, while it's standard in middle-aged men.

Who said Rob Reiner should be, or even in those less enlightened times, should ever have been insulted for his baldness? He might not have been offended by it, but I was. I have never, anywhere, suggested that anyone's physical characteristics should ever be the butt of public hilarity. All of that kind of humour is in bad taste. Who said hitting is an appropriate response to bad taste? I have never condoned loutish behaviour in the school playground or the celebrity playground. But it happens. 

In this instance, I'm merely pointing out that there is a gender bias involved, whether we approve of such biases or not.  

Edited by Peterkin
sp + add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

You're missing the point. Chris Rock didn't smear people with alopecia as being at fault for their own condition. He just made a joke about it. Jokes about type 1 diabetes, as long as they don't spread misinformation, don't bother me near as much as even the most well-meaning ignorance someone takes without doing their due diligence to make sure they're getting it right.

I think you're the one missing the point. Chris Rock made a joke about a black woman's hair a decade after he made a documentary about how damaging misconceptions about black women's hair can be to their relationships and self-esteem. He made the goddamn film after his own daughter asked him, "Daddy, why don't I have good hair?" I think that elevates the situation above "He just made a joke about it". He had all the data at his disposal to make the decision that a joke about a black woman's bald head would be hurtful, but he did it anyway for a laugh. I'll take this same stance if Jon Stewart waits 10 years and then starts making fun of 9/11 first responders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The areseholes get called out for being areseholes,

Not in your world; they get allowed to carry on, and other people have to change how they dress in order to accommodate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In my view,

Much like a child stepped of the path and onto the grass; how strict are you going to be?

And yes, I am being cryptic; sorry if that puzzles you...

Don't be too sorry matey, I never watch your nonsense anyway, or take any notice of your poor philsophy.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In my view, she decided to be the victim in order to make her man fight for her, rather than with her.

 

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Is your view based on evidence?

Hush your mouth John !!!! Evidence!!! of all the gaul !!! 😅😉

16 hours ago, MigL said:

I wonder if Jada P Smith rolled her eyes when she saw this clip

Or this one mocking gay people

Or is his comedy not subject to the same standards he holds other comics to ?

Of course it is! But when was this interview? How long ago? Standards do change over time, mostly for the better. In my day, (50's and 60's) gay people were looked on mostly with scorn. 

And if they were recent interviews, were they conducted at a gay people's gathering? Or in front of an audience with known gay folk? I would raise the excellent "Natalie Wood and Robert Wood" analogy that someone raised earlier. Or if you like, there is a time and a place for everything.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think you're the one missing the point. Chris Rock made a joke about a black woman's hair a decade after he made a documentary about how damaging misconceptions about black women's hair can be to their relationships and self-esteem. He made the goddamn film after his own daughter asked him, "Daddy, why don't I have good hair?" I think that elevates the situation above "He just made a joke about it". He had all the data at his disposal to make the decision that a joke about a black woman's bald head would be hurtful, but he did it anyway for a laugh. I'll take this same stance if Jon Stewart waits 10 years and then starts making fun of 9/11 first responders.

I mean, if he called a policewoman who responded to the 9/11 scene "G.I. Jane" she might probably take it as a reference to her heroism anyway.

 

Offense is taken, not given. Plenty of people react to jokes about baldness non-violently.

 

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

Don't be too sorry matey, I never watch your nonsense anyway, or take any notice of your poor philsophy.

 

Hush your mouth John !!!! Evidence!!! of all the gaul !!! 😅😉

Of course it is! But when was this interview? How long ago? Standards do change over time, mostly for the better. In my day, (50's and 60's) gay people were looked on mostly with scorn. 

And if they were recent interviews, were they conducted at a gay people's gathering? Or in front of an audience with known gay folk? I would raise the excellent "Natalie Wood and Robert Wood" analogy that someone raised earlier. Or if you like, there is a time and a place for everything.

No, there's not. It's either wrong or it isn't. If standards were different in the 1950s and 1960s, the standards were wrong and failing to see how society was wrong is a moral failing. Just as future generations will one day see what we were wrong about.

 

Anyway, Will's only in his early 50s anyway, so it's not like he was around for either of those decades.

Edited by ScienceNostalgia101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

No, there's not. It's either wrong or it isn't. If standards were different in the 1950s and 1960s, the standards were wrong and failing to see how society was wrong is a moral failing. Just as future generations will one day see what we were wrong about.

I'm not supporting the bias that existed towards gay people in those times...it simply was. The same as I didn't/don't support slavery in the 1800's. No I was not about then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Who said hitting is an appropriate response to bad taste? I have never condoned loutish behaviour in the school playground or the celebrity playground. But it happens. 

"It happens" is the most meaningless response one could possibly give. What matters is who is at fault.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I'm not supporting the bias that existed towards gay people in those times...it simply was. The same as I didn't/don't support slavery in the 1800's. No I was not about then.

There were people even back then who knew it was wrong. Does that not, all else held constant, make them better people than most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

There were people even back then who knew it was wrong. Does that not, all else held constant, make them better people than most?

Of course! The same with equal rights for women back then. Enlightened people have always existed, albeit mostly in the minority. By the same token, not "every movement" for change is always good or desirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

"It happens" is the most meaningless response one could possibly give. What matters is who is at fault.

Not to me. It's for the principal to adjudicate this little schoolyard set-to. Such things have always happened, and will keep happening whether it has meaning or not - mostly not, except to the participants - even when everyone involved knows they shouldn't behave that way, and that consequences will ensue. It's simply human nature to forget our good manners sometimes and to lose our rag sometimes. No civilization has completely subdued human emotion.

41 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

There were people even back then who knew it was wrong. Does that not, all else held constant, make them better people than most?

I don't know. Refinement in humour may be one indication of virtue, but I'm not convinced that it's sufficient indication. A peasant with a sharp tongue and a quick temper may be or may not be a better person than an aristocrat with impeccable deportment.   There was then, as there is now, a vast range of tastes and sensibilities.

I just don't think bald jokes were ever funny, no matter who is being joked about, so the comparison of one cheap shot with a bunch of other cheap shots doesn't prove anything except that comedians are one of those elements that hold constant: when they can't think of anything witty, they jibe at some vulnerability.   

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.