That Will Smith and Chris Rock thing

[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.

 

[Jarvis323]

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.

Or when they ALL think they are "untouchable little kings".

 

[russ_watters]

Sadistic definitely means literally exactly what I meant, and just doesn't happen to carry an embedded quantification in its severity.

If you only read a one-liner definition, sure. But you should do better than that and recognize there's an implied severity in the usage. It's the name of a mental illness! The Websters definition includes an example of sawing off a person's leg in sections! Please tell me you don't actually believe these are equivalent.

 

[russ_watters]

Or when they ALL think they are "untouchable little kings".

That isn't a response to what you quoted me saying.

 

[Vanadium 50]

ridiculously, massively, heinously bizarre hyperbole

And I've told you to knock off the hyperbole a million times!

 

[russ_watters]

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.

You are reading things - misreading - that they did not say. Heck, it's you who is trying to gloss-over or mix different contexts.

 

[Jarvis323]

That isn't a response to what you quoted me saying.

It's a response to your response to my response to another post (not by you), where somehow being "untouchable little kings" was said to be an important part of the context in the determination that they should be more open to insult and expected to be tougher handling it than ordinary people. If this is not a show of prejudice than I don't know what is.

 

[russ_watters]

It's a response to your response to my response to another post (not by you), where somehow being "untouchable little kings" was said to be an important part of the context in the determination that they should be more open to insult and expected to be tougher handling it than ordinary people. If this is not a show of prejudice than I don't know what is.

You've lost me here. Whatever. I'll reiterate: context matters. Severity matters. Word definitions and connotations matter.

The irony here is if you'd just tone down the hyperbole and stop putting words in peoples'mouths they didn't say (making inaccurate assumptions/interpretations), you'd probably find we aren't all that far apart. Under most scenarios of what happened (since we don't know for sure), I do think the joke went too far.

 

[DaveC426913]

... 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.

I can certainly imagine it from Chris Rock's point of view. It must have hurt like the dickens.

Because, you see, the question at-hand isn't about sympathizing with Will Smith, it is about sympathizing with the guy who got assaulted. Are you seriously suggesting he "deserved" it?

 

[phinds]

@Jarvis323 your vehement insistence on your own point of view and basically saying that you're right and all of the rest of us are wrong has turned this thread away from a discussion about the Chris Rock incident and into being a discussion about your point of view.

Take a deep breath.

 

[Jarvis323]

I can certainly imagine it from Chris Rock's point of view. It must have hurt like the dickens.

Because, you see, the question at-hand isn't about sympathizing with Will Smith, it is about sympathizing with the guy who got assaulted. Are you seriously suggesting he "deserved" it?

I never said he deserved it. I'm saying Will Smith and Jada deserve some empathy too. Realistically they are the ones suffering the most from the event. Of course that is on Will Smith, for the most part. But way people characterize Jada and Will Smith's roles in this is what I disagree with. It is human to be hurt by public humiliation about an embarrassing medical condition. Jada deserves to have shown that in her facial expressions when it happened. I don't know what Will Smith was thinking, but it is plausible he was acting based on empathy to his Wife's pain, and acted out of anger. He is human too. He made a mistake, and now he's paying a huge price for it. Chris rock triggered it all, but perhaps unknowingly. I am not condemning him, maybe he made a mistake too. Maybe all of this has an origin in a cultural trend and the corruption of the Oscars to serve as a spectator event for generating add money that appeals to the darker sides of humanity, rather than a ceremony to award artistic achievement. In any case, I don't think piling on criticism of Chris Rock, or Jada or Will Smith is part of a solution, its just a contribution to the overall problem as we participate in what I think is a toxic culture surrounding celebrity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Realistically they are the ones suffering the most from the event.

No.
Chris Rock was assaulted. That's a crime.

Get some perspective. Without it, your whole viewpoint has a credibility problem - no matter how many words you put in your essay-posts .

 

[Jarvis323]

You've lost me here. Whatever. I'll reiterate: context matters. Severity matters. Word definitions and connotations matter.

The irony here is if you'd just tone down the hyperbole and stop putting words in peoples'mouths they didn't say (making inaccurate assumptions/interpretations), you'd probably find we aren't all that far apart. Under most scenarios of what happened (since we don't know for sure), I do think the joke went too far.

Maybe I have exaggerated too much, or sound like I'm taking it too serious. But I find the comments like, "Actors get paid to be roasted", or "They can go home if they don't want to be insulted", or "they think they are "untouchable little kings", or "This is part of the job, and they get paid a lot to do it", to be unfair. They're people, that's it. They don't have special powers of human strength. To many females, losing your hair at a young age could be disturbing. It's literally a fairly common scene in horror movies and psychological thrillers. It's not easy for me to just write off her justification for being hurt, despite that she was at an event where being insulted is expected.

 

[DaveC426913]

But I find the comments like, "Actors get paid to be roasted", or "They can go home if they don't want to be insulted", or "they think they are "untouchable little kings", or "This is part of the job, and they get paid a lot to do it", to be fair.

How many of these things have you actually seen written here? I think I count one. You'll have to quote them if you insist.

They're people, that's it. They don't have special powers of human strength.

Necessary to withstand a one-liner roast meant in good humour?

...could be disturbing...

That's it? All this is because "could be disturbing?" That's a loooong way from "emotional violence".

...just write off her justification for being hurt...

Talk about the forest for the trees! Chris Rock was long-arm punched in front of the entire world.
Where's your empathy?

 

[Jarvis323]

Talk about the forest for the trees! Chris Rock was long-arm punched in front of the entire world.
Where's your empathy?

If the most of the world was bullying Chris Rock instead of Will and Jada Smith, then I would be focusing on standing up for him instead.

If you want a start on getting perspective and having empathy for more than one person at a time, you can read some articles about how people with alopecia feel.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katiecamero/people-with-alopecia-chris-rock-joke-oscars
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-rocks-alopecia-joke-was-my-worst-nightmare

 

[DaveC426913]

If the most of the world was bullying Chris Rock instead of Will and Jada Smith, then I would be focusing on standing up for him instead.

Nobody is bullying anyone. They're mad at Will Smith because he punched someone. That's a crime.

Your perspective is twisted.

 

[Jarvis323]

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.

So what? Do you suggest they should have skipped it to avoid the possibility of an insult, even though Will Smith was nominated and won an award?

I'm not even that old, but I haven't watched the Oscars in years, and I have no recollection of this tradition. The concept of a roast, as far as I know, was recently popularized by the comedy central ones, where celebrities agreed to be roasted (usually for publicity), and the roasts would be deeply personal and brutal. I don't know when the roast became part of a tradition for awards ceremonies where the attendees never explicitly agreed to it. In my recollection, the Oscars used to be more about celebration and people would try to be inspirational, and express gratitude and what not.

 

[Jarvis323]

Here is some more context.

 

[DaveC426913]

So what? Do you suggest they should have skipped it to avoid the possibility of an insult, even though Will Smith was nominated and won an award?

No. I suggest that, like all adults, they take responsibility for their decisions and actions. They chose to go to the Oscars; they know Oscar humour can be edgy; they went.

We all make such decisions every time we leave the house. We don't get to punch out the source of our ire just because it bumped into us.

 

[Jarvis323]

No. I suggest that, like all adults, they take responsibility for their decisions and actions. They chose to go to the Oscars; they know Oscar humour can be edgy; they went.

We all make such decisions every time we leave the house. We don't get to punch out the source of our ire just because it bumped into us.

Why don't you try to go around insulting people in the most hurtful ways you can think of while filming them, and then when they react aggressively you can just tell them, "It's just a roast bro, relax, I'm just being edgy." And then you can profit off of it on youtube. Maybe you can even get someone to slap you, and then you can get even more clicks, and also maybe even sue them.

 

[Jarvis323]

No. I suggest that, like all adults, they take responsibility for their decisions and actions. They chose to go to the Oscars; they know Oscar humour can be edgy; they went.

We all make such decisions every time we leave the house. We don't get to punch out the source of our ire just because it bumped into us.

So you mean yes then, not no. You can't have it both ways.

 

[DaveC426913]

You keep trying to spin this as if they're the victims here. He assaulted Rock.

So you mean yes then...

I do not.

Unlike you, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am only saying they are expected to adult. And that means take responsibility for themselves.

 

[Jarvis323]

You keep trying to spin this as if they're the victims here. He assaulted Rock.I do not.

Unlike you, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am only saying they are expected to adult. And that means take responsibility for themselves.

So they should be tough and just take it then?

Are saying that the cost of being an actor and going to the Oscars is that you might be insulted about a sensitive personal issue? If so fine. I wouldn't prefer it that way, but maybe that is how it is. But do you have any compassion for Jada in this circumstance nevertheless? Or is that just part of the job of an actor?

 

[DaveC426913]

You are saying...

Stop telling me what I'm saying.
No matter what follows "You are saying..." it is a straw man.
You can tell what I'm saying simply by using the scroll button.

But do have any compassion for Jada in this circumstance?

Yes. It must suck that she's losing her hair.

Do you have an compassion for Chris Rock, who got his face rearranged?

You have not answered how you feel about the crime of assault and battery. Why not?

 

[Jarvis323]

Stop telling me what I'm saying.
No matter what follows "You are saying..." it is a straw man.
You can tell what I'm saying simply by using the scroll button.

You keep implying these things. If you don't mean them then clarify, because otherwise you are unintelligible.

 

[phinds]

Stop telling me what I'm saying.
No matter what follows "You are saying..." it is a straw man.
You can tell what I'm saying simply by using the scroll button.

Yes. It must suck that she's losing her hair.

Do you have an compassion for Chris Rock, who got his face rearranged?

You have not answered how you feel about the crime of assault and battery. Why not?

It's a lost cause, Dave. Give it up. He's just going to keep spouting the same nonsense over and over.