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

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If I said to Zapatos, "hey, they are auditioning for the Yul Brynner part in the remake of The King and I, you should go and apply" it's not ridiculing his bald head, the joke is my assumption that a bald head is all it takes to get the part. 

 

I happen to agree with you that the Chris Rock joke did not cross some red line. On the other hand, I can see why some do not like those types of jokes.

But just like I stay away from horror movies, those who do not like that type of comedy are free to avoid venues where those jokes are told.

And if you don't want people to talk about you in the news, or take pictures of you in public, or tell jokes at your expense during awards programs, then don't put yourself in the public eye. Celebrity is not a one way street where you get to decide how the public responds to you once you put yourself up for display. You are knowingly taking the risk that someone will publish an awkward picture of you eating a hamburger, or tell a joke about you that you don't care for.

We all have a point at which we think a joke has gone too far, but unsurprisingly that point varies from person to person.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Chris Rock's joke was exactly like thousands of others, the joke is on the joke teller,

But it wasn't. The joke wasn't about Chris Rock. So it's not "exactly" like that. It's not at all like that.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I happen to agree with you that the Chris Rock joke did not cross some red line. On the other hand, I can see why some do not like those types of jokes.

And one should also note that the joke wasn't directed at you or your spouse. It's not like other people were jumping up onto the stage.  

[ScienceNostalgia101]

On 3/29/2022 at 8:13 AM, swansont said:

 

It's not a haircut. It's a medical condition called Alopecia and making a joke about it was crass and IMO an example of "punching down"

I wasn't aware that Judd Apatow had medical training that would make his pronouncement have any weight at all.

Sure you can Google these statistics and find this information.

I was hoping some people here had already heard of it. Like, if someone in the physics forum had asked "what is the probability that atoms don't exist" I'd have said "akin to the probability that you could shoot a bullet at a piece of tissue paper and have it fly right back at you" because that's exactly how my professors in my undergraduate years summarized the findings of the gold foil experiment. I was hoping the life sciences had their own analogues to that.

 

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.

 

. . .

 

Oh, and Phi For All, as a type 1 diabetic myself, I'm far more offended by things that cause us actual harm than by mere insensitivity.

[MigL]

Whether it was a good joke, or not, or even whether it was funny or offensive is not the issue here.
There have been plenty of bad jokes made by comedians, and plenty of insensitive ones; those are all subjective for the audience.

What is not subjective is Will Smith's response; there is no argument that can be made to justify it.

Does this really warrant further discussion ?

[beecee]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

"Jokes at my expense are a part of the job, but a joke about Jada's medical condition was too much for me to bear and I reacted emotionally,"

 I  love a good joke, and don't mind them even at my expense, but I would certainly have not done what Rock did. I don't make jokes at other people's misfortunes and/or medical conditions. That is the height of insensitivity, and he was insensitive to say the least. By the same token, "I dips me lid" to him for his self control, in not retaliating and creating a donnybrook...Incredible self control!!!

On the other side of the fence, like Smith, if someone would have made a joke about my Mrs, I'm not at all certain what I would have done, but I certainly would not have been happy. 

In summing, both parties were at fault and I can see wrong on both sides, but as Smith has apologised (as per the quote) I hope to hell that the Academy and Rock can now let bygones be bygones. Rock should not have been so insensitive and Smith should have controlled his emotions.

ps: Will Smith played the part of Serena and Venus's Father impecably and deserved the award. Let's leave it at that.

But as per the thread title, to contemplate that Smith's slap could have killed Rock, is laughable and the height of stupidity.

Edited March 31, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

Teach the controversy, you mean?? 

No, I mean opinions differ, especially on whether or not a comedians joke is offensive, and there’s no objective measure in this regard about which may be more accurate. I’m saying you should stop pretending otherwise. 

[zapatos]

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

In summing, both parties were at fault and I can see wrong on both sides, but as Smith has apologised (as per the quote) I hope to hell that the Academy and Rock can now let bygones be bygones.

I hope the academy follows their rules and metes out the punishment they have outlined. I don't think an apology should absolve Smith given the impact he had on the many people affected by what he did, including the award winners who had their hard-earned moment over shadowed by Smith's actions.

Unless Chris Rock walked into the audience and smacked Will Smith I don't think "bad people on both sides" is an accurate depiction of events.

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I hope the academy follows their rules and metes out the punishment they have outlined.

What punishment do you suggest? He made an emotional error of judgement...Rock was insensitive to the medical condition of Smith's wife. Both were in error. 

On 3/30/2022 at 2:27 AM, zapatos said:

Q. What kind of Wood doesn't float?

A. Natalie Wood

Do I really deserve to be hit for that joke? Many people here tell worse jokes in the "Jokes" thread, or in any Trump thread, for that matter.

Like I said, I'm a sucker for good jokes, and probably even that one. And although not as insensitive as Rock's insensitivity, along the same lines, as swonsont said, I would not tell it in front of Robert Wagner. Would you?

Again, Smith may have reacted emotionally and been out of line, but by the same token, and as per his apology, Rock should have been far more sensitive to Will's wife.

And I hope the Academy takes all that into consideration. Irrespective, like this year's televised awards, and the televised awards of past years, I won't be watching next years awards, or the Bastas or any others.

Edited March 31, 2022 by beecee

[koti]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Whether it was a good joke, or not, or even whether it was funny or offensive is not the issue here.
There have been plenty of bad jokes made by comedians, and plenty of insensitive ones; those are all subjective for the audience.

What is not subjective is Will Smith's response; there is no argument that can be made to justify it.

Does this really warrant further discussion ?

I think Tom Segura's comment on twitter was spot on:

"Fuck Will Smith's candy ass smacking a dude 4 inches shorter and 50lbs lighter. He's just in his feelings cause his bald headed bitch been fuckin around on him for years and he takes it. We all know who he wishes he could slap. #CuckWill"

Edited March 31, 2022 by koti

[zapatos]

59 minutes ago, beecee said:

What punishment do you suggest?

As I said, "the punishment they have outlined."

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I would not tell it in front of Robert Wagner. Would you?

Your implication that joking about the death of a man's wife and a man's wife shaving her head due to hair loss are comparable, is hardly reasonable.

33 minutes ago, koti said:

"Fuck Will Smith's candy ass smacking a dude 4 inches shorter and 50lbs lighter. He's just in his feelings cause his bald headed bitch been fuckin around on him for years and he takes it. We all know who he wishes he could slap. #CuckWill"

I've wondered if their tumultuous relationship influenced his reaction. 

[koti]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I've wondered if their tumultuous relationship influenced his reaction. 

„Burzliwy” „Wzburzony”

Thank you for this, I admit I did not know that word.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Oh, and Phi For All, as a type 1 diabetic myself, I'm far more offended by things that cause us actual harm than by mere insensitivity.

I'm not sure why you think this matters at all. Hasn't everyone involved in the thread disparaged the "actual harm" Will Smith caused? 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. 

Are you saying that, since you don't think you'd be offended by a Type 1 diabetes joke at your expense, nobody else with an autoimmune disorder should be offended by being made fun of? What's the difference between "It doesn't bother me" and "I've become numb to it"? One of them at least seems like a coping mechanism. 

I'm a dreamer, I guess. To me, attacking someone's physical shortcomings for comedy is like running out of good arguments in a debate and just yelling "Fuck you!" You're scraping the bottom of the barrel if that's all you got. Our society used to work children to death, and have touring freak shows and dog fights as entertainment. I like to think that as our compassion has grown, we laugh less at the physical disabilities of others. I hope this is a further evolution of comedy, and the lazy comics poking fun at disabilities will have to try harder next time to earn a laugh. 

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you saying that, since you don't think you'd be offended by a Type 1 diabetes joke at your expense, nobody else with an autoimmune disorder should be offended by being made fun of?

I think the point is that it is not necessary that NO ONE be offended before we tell a joke. If our standard is that NO ONE be offended by our speech, then we'd all better stop talking altogether as someone somewhere will take offense no matter what we say.

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

To me, attacking someone's physical shortcomings for comedy is like running out of good arguments in a debate

Well it's a good thing that's not what Chris Rock did then. 

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

lazy comics poking fun at disabilities

I guess I should take offense at you referring to hair loss as a "disability".

[beecee]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

As I said, "the punishment they have outlined."

A slap on the wrist will suffice. He won the Oscar fair and square.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Your implication that joking about the death of a man's wife and a man's wife shaving her head due to hair loss are comparable, is hardly reasonable.

I accept that to a degree....but there is some comparison. No one can be held responsible for their inherited or otherwise medical conditions. I have a good laugh at  myself, and my mates can have a good laugh at my expense also, as I often laugh at there's. Still It's another level to laugh about their Mrs in a room full of people, some of which, (other then Smith) may also have felt this comic went too far, and may also have welcomed Smith's intervention.

IMO, of course, what you seem to be saying, is that no one has any right to take offence at any jibe or crack about another's disability...Smith took exception, perhaps too far, but in his eyes, and probably others, Rock over-stepped the mark. They were both wrong.

Edited April 1, 2022 by beecee

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

He won the Oscar fair and square.

Who suggested he didn't???

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

IMO, of course, what you seem to be saying, is that no one has any right to take offence at any jibe or crack about another's disability

We can continue this discussion after you've actually read my posts.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Who suggested he didn't???

I did understand that part of the potential punishment "they outlined" was taking back the Oscar. 

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

We can continue this discussion after you've actually read my posts.

I read your post, at least the one I replied to. It hasn't though altered my opinion that he made an emotional error of judgement...Rock was insensitive to the medical condition of Smith's wife. Both were in error. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I think the point is that it is not necessary that NO ONE be offended before we tell a joke. If our standard is that NO ONE be offended by our speech, then we'd all better stop talking altogether as someone somewhere will take offense no matter what we say..

I agree!!! Who would ever be a politician? I mean really, they're damned if they do, (by one section) and damn if they dont(by the other section) Show business people also probably fill in that category as well as others. I told a joke (as I outlined earlier) at my expense, when I was about to get cataract surgery last June. Stephen Hawking told jokes about his own disabilities. 

Smith ( in his apology) has agreed that jokes at his expense are part of the job, but this was his wife. And in your opinion, how far do you go? You have already suggested in relation to the Natalie Wood joke that that would be too far. Like I said, (and I can really only speak for myself) I would never ever tell a joke or make any insidious comment about anothers disability...NEVER! Perhaps my moral standings need lowering. 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

I did understand that part of the potential punishment "they outlined" was taking back the Oscar. 

No one is suggesting they take back the Oscar because he did not win "fair and square". It is being considered because he struck another man, which is a violation of the Academy's Bylaws and Standards of Conduct, and California Law.

 

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Both were in error. 

Yes, reminds me of "very fine people on both sides".

Edited April 1, 2022 by zapatos

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No one is suggesting they take back the Oscar because he did not win "fair and square". It is being considered because he struck another man, which is a violation of the Academy's Bylaws and Standards of Conduct, and California Law.

That still doesn't detract from the fact that he won it first and foremost, in line with those same laws and standards of the Academy. That's like taking back the honour from Edmond Hillary for being the first to climb Mnt Everest because he pushed his sherpa out of the way. 

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, reminds me of "very fine people on both sides".

Punish one, punish the other.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I mean opinions differ, especially on whether or not a comedians joke is offensive, and there’s no objective measure in this regard about which may be more accurate. I’m saying you should stop pretending otherwise. 

Opinions differ. Perfectly true and obvious. So you are claiming that if SOME people find something offensive, then it is offensive, at least to some degree. So a scribbled picture of Mohammed IS offensive, just because some people choose to be offended. But that goes for pictures of Jesus too. And where the argument fails is that the same doesn't apply in reverse. Far more people DON'T think the scribbled pictures are offensive. But apparently that doesn't make them not offensive. 

In this case, it's the look on Jada's face that seems to have made it offensive. Will was laughing his socks off, till he saw that look. I think it was as much him roaring with laughter, as the joke itself, that got to her. And he knew it when he looked at her, and tried to make amends by getting outraged. 

I'd bet that without the look on Jada's face, and the slap, there would be probably just one person on the planet, who thought that joke was offensive, and that's Jada. And to be fair to her, she didn't slap anyone, or ask for anyone to be slapped.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So you are claiming that if SOME people find something offensive, then it is offensive, at least to some degree

Nope

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

That still doesn't detract from the fact that he won it first and foremost, in line with those same laws and standards of the Academy.

NO ONE IS CLAIMING OTHERWISE!

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's like taking back the honour from Edmond Hillary for being the first to climb Mnt Everest because he pushed his sherpa out of the way. 

That's right. It is taking back the HONOR bestowed upon someone by an organization that doesn't approve of their behavior. You are not reversing the facts of what happened. It is akin to taking back an honorary degree from someone who later turn out to be a real shithead. They still did the things that caused you to give them the honorary degree in the first place, you just no longer feel justified in bestowing an honor upon them.

Edited April 1, 2022 by zapatos

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Opinions differ. Perfectly true and obvious. So you are claiming that if SOME people find something offensive, then it is offensive, at least to some degree. So a scribbled picture of Mohammed IS offensive, just because some people choose to be offended. But that goes for pictures of Jesus too. And where the argument fails is that the same doesn't apply in reverse. Far more people DON'T think the scribbled pictures are offensive. But apparently that doesn't make them not offensive. 

I certainly wouldn't walk into the back of a church next Sunday, proclaiming jesus was a fraud, nor would I walk into the back of a mosque proclaiming similar about Mohammed. 

To be truthful, I also thought Smith was laughing, but he may have been laughing at something else....The camera then went off him, back onto Rock. I also do not know anything about any past interaction/s between the pair, other then a rumour or two I have read here. 

Like I said, we have a varience of opinions. In the beginning I was actually a fence sitter with regards to this. I'm still a fence sitter now but agree both were to some degree in the wrong. 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

NO ONE IS CLAIMING OTHERWISE!

Great. I'm saying that's it...end of story!

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That's right. You are taking back the HONOR bestowed upon you by an organization that doesn't approve of your behavior. You are not reversing the facts of what happened. It is akin to taking back an honorary degree from someone who later turn out to be a real shithead. They still did the things that caused you to give them the honorary degree in the first place, you just no longer feel justified in bestowing an honor upon them.

Seems rather contradictory to me. There are instances where Olympic gold medals are taken back and awarded to second place, and second place awarded to third, and third to fourth. The placings are revised, and of course in near all cases justified due to cheating of some sort.  

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

There are instances where Olympic gold medals are taken back and awarded to second place, and second place awarded to third, and third to fourth.

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

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.

Edited April 1, 2022 by zapatos

[mistermack]

I would send it back to the judges to vote on again. It was a disgrace that he wasn't ejected, so he should not have actually recieved the Oscar on the night. It's not likely that the judges would take the Oscar back. America generally forgives it's celebrities. Look at OJ Simpson and Mike Tyson. Celebrities can get away with murder. 

[TheVat]

Perhaps they can give Will Smith an asterisk, a la Roger Maris.  Won the vote, but the trophy is withdrawn because he shat on the ceremony with acting out his personal marital issues.

Better than performing a full Russell Crowe on him.  (i.e. the Academy just shuns him and the Oscar goes to someone else)