Will Smith slaps Chris Rock at Academy Awards Ceremony

[Magna]

My opinion: THAT was NOT toxic masculinity. Defending a loved one is not,...in any way,..."toxic". It could be a mother defending a child, a sister defending a brother,...not "toxic" behavior,...but totally acceptable and excepted behavior. A man defending his wife,...absolutely,...and I would expect nothing less. In fact,...NOT defending your wife,...would show a LACK of character. Now, as a comedian, it IS Chris Rock's job,...literally, his job,...to push the boundaries of what is considered acceptable for the purposes of a laugh. Clearly, as every comedian knows,...not all jokes are going to be received well.

Chris Rock crossed the line,...and Will Smith did exactly what he should have done. Furthermore, a public slap in the face,...quite a measured and restrained response.

Are there no other ways to "defend" a loved one other than physically assaulting someone? Physical assault is "not,...in any way,..."toxic" if the assailant believes they are "defending a loved one"?

There was an after-party. What would have been wrong with Smith confronting Rock there and talking to him about the offense taken and ask Rock to make a public apology? There would have been no shortage of media there to capture the exchange.

Where's the line in "defending" a loved one drawn? In this instance it was a reaction to an insensitive joke. "totally acceptable"? What if someone looks at another person with an expression that, for whatever reason, offends the other person? Beat downs ok to "defend" their loved one? Taking offense is a subjective thing. What offends one person might not offend another person at all. Can we do that? Can we go around beating on people at work, the grocery store, the gas station, the restaurant, the doctor's office, an awards show, anywhere if we think they're being offensive?

Would it be ok for Chris Rock's loved ones to defend him against Will Smith? If Chris Rock had a brother who was much larger than Will Smith, would it be "totally acceptable" for the brother to get up on stage and beat on Will Smith? The brother would be "defending a loved one."

In ethics courses it's taught that laws are the absolute minimum level of acceptable behavior that people should adhere to; laws are not the standard of behavior that society should strive to reach. Meaning, people are actually supposed to act in ways that are above or far above what is considered illegal. It's illegal to physically assault someone.

 

[OkRad]

Who are Will Smith and Chris Rock?

 

[Metalhead]

 

[Judge]

I didn't watch the Oscars. Haven't for years. Many years ago it used to be a wonderful special event, where you got a distinct sense of all these great movies. Something that stopped happening decades ago.

Though in reading and seeing the incident, I guess I saw a different response take place. That it wasn't about Chris Rock or Jada Pinkett Smith. This is just minutes before a critical moment for Will Smith. One more chance for an Oscar, which isn't something that has happened more than once up to that moment. With bitter feelings about having been "robbed" given his fine performance in the film "Concussion".

Will Smith is a big-name star in Hollywood. Consequently he's totally locked into the system. In essence, that little statue they hand out probably means more to him than anything- or anyone else. And then this happened in the last minutes of an agonizing wait for Smith. Seeing him initially laugh at Rock's comments made me think he probably wasn't even listening. But then he turned to see the look on Jada's face, and he went into autopilot. Married to Jada? Hell, he's married to Hollywood- big time.

He simply lost it at a critical moment in his career. Understandable under the circumstances, at least to me. Listening to his contrite statements to the Academy in particular seemed to reinforce what I believe actually happened. Though the incident might cost him another chance at such professional glory. After all, Hollywood can allow you to be on top of the pyramid, or cast you out of Egypt just like Moses. Those "powers that be".

 

[Fino]

Apparently, I get my news from here. Thanks, y'all!

 

[SimonSays]

I watched an uncensored clip. It was an extremely strange thing to see. Whether CR 'crossed the line' or WS had to 'defend his wife's honour' isn't the strange thing to me. Clearly WS was mad, especially with what he shouted at CR after he sat down. Being mad is one thing, but getting up, walking onto the stage of the oscars, which is being shown live to millions, commit an act of violence, then return to his seat, has such an entitled arrogance to it. As has been said, he could've confronted him afterwards...CR was only making a bad joke, but he got up and slapped him, without anyone stopping him or reacting to him. That was just ridiculous.

Imagine if an outraged fan of Jada Pinkett had done that. I'm sure security would have been all over him, or maybe even taken him out. Yet the soon to be announced 'best actor' could.

I love WS. I recently finished his autobiography as an audiobook, read by him...marvellous. Really. He is so talented. I don't much like CR. I don't enjoy his humour, delivery or style. His joke was in poor taste, yet far tamer than any of the material Ricky Gervais delivered at the golden globes...for several years running. By all accounts what he said there should have resulted in RG being beaten up on stage by a gang of outraged A listers.

Edit.. His acceptance speech was the most emotional and heartfelt. He'd regained his humility. Apologised to the academy (not CR).

 

[Luca]

Celebrity worship is in my view one of the most pathetic and decadent aspects of society in my view.

These people just are part of the process of creating media, maybe you enjoy some it, maybe you don't. And they get obscenely rich from it but it is what it is.

But what's their relevance beyond that? why does it matter that one told a joke and another was upset at it and reacted violently? none, nothing they do, say or are that's not strictly related to the media products they're producing has any true relevance at all.

It's just baffling.

For example, if I found a bakery I REALLY enjoyed then maybe I would visit constantly to get their products. But would I ever go to the baker to ask about their personal lives? why would that matter when all I care about is the product? it would be seen as deranged if one fixated on someone that way and celebrity worship isn't fundamentally different.

This is exactly what I wanted to say but I’m not articulate enough to say it properly. Thank you.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

All I know is that neither were right with what had happened but in a way Chris had it coming and he should have known that making fun of a man’s wife literally in front of them had a very high chance of it ending very badly. Jaida looked beautiful and there was no need to bring her down. I agree that Will shouldn’t have to apologize because it was Chris who started it and needs to apologize for making fun of women who are suffering from all kinds of hair loss. Even with Chris’ style of comedy that was really low even for him. Will doesn’t deserve to have his Oscar revoked over hitting Chris when there is a certain producer who did much worse things that still has his awards.

 

[Raggamuffin]

It's surprising Ricky Gervais didn't get slapped when he did his Oscar presentations.

Ed

 

[LadyS]

Can't wait for the follow up jokes in the next award show... the hosts will probably come on stage with full protective gear and boxing gloves.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

Can't wait for the follow up jokes in the next award show... the hosts will probably come on stage with full protective gear and boxing gloves.

How about someone making a joke about Cher and she walks out and smacks them and says, “Snap out of it!”?

 

[maycontainthunder]

Celebrity worship is in my view one of the most pathetic and decadent aspects of society in my view.

These people just are part of the process of creating media, maybe you enjoy some it, maybe you don't. And they get obscenely rich from it but it is what it is.

But what's their relevance beyond that? why does it matter that one told a joke and another was upset at it and reacted violently? none, nothing they do, say or are that's not strictly related to the media products they're producing has any true relevance at all.

It's just baffling.

For example, if I found a bakery I REALLY enjoyed then maybe I would visit constantly to get their products. But would I ever go to the baker to ask about their personal lives? why would that matter when all I care about is the product? it would be seen as deranged if one fixated on someone that way and celebrity worship isn't fundamentally different.

You have this spot on. You see these fools get excited... to me it's so exciting I can't contain myseZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Are there no other ways to "defend" a loved one other than physically assaulting someone? Physical assault is "not,...in any way,..."toxic" if the assailant believes they are "defending a loved one"?

There was an after-party. What would have been wrong with Smith confronting Rock there and talking to him about the offense taken and ask Rock to make a public apology? There would have been no shortage of media there to capture the exchange.

Where's the line in "defending" a loved one drawn? In this instance it was a reaction to an insensitive joke. "totally acceptable"? What if someone looks at another person with an expression that, for whatever reason, offends the other person? Beat downs ok to "defend" their loved one? Taking offense is a subjective thing. What offends one person might not offend another person at all. Can we do that? Can we go around beating on people at work, the grocery store, the gas station, the restaurant, the doctor's office, an awards show, anywhere if we think they're being offensive?

Would it be ok for Chris Rock's loved ones to defend him against Will Smith? If Chris Rock had a brother who was much larger than Will Smith, would it be "totally acceptable" for the brother to get up on stage and beat on Will Smith? The brother would be "defending a loved one."

In ethics courses it's taught that laws are the absolute minimum level of acceptable behavior that people should adhere to; laws are not the standard of behavior that society should strive to reach. Meaning, people are actually supposed to act in ways that are above or far above what is considered illegal. It's illegal to physically assault someone.

Where's the line in "defending" a loved one drawn? In my opinion,...there is no line,...I would consider NOT defending a loved one a character fault,...and in fact, would be a source of emotional distress by the loved one if they were not defended. My wife would be absolutely pissed at me if something like that happened and I didn't do something,...I'd never hear the end of it,...it may even cost me my marriage.

Taking offense is a subjective thing,...yes,...but when comments are directed towards a specific person,...it will likely be taken as a personal affront. Within this context, Chris Rock was not talking about a general topic,...it was personal,...and the cameras were on to capture the moment,...Jada's reaction,...which she did not appreciate,...it was humiliating, I am sure.

As I said in my previous post, Will Smith's reaction was quite measured and restrained given the public nature of the interaction.

Would it be OK for Chris Rock's loved ones to defend him against Will Smith? Context. Chris Rock created an unprovoked verbal attack, humiliating Will Smith's wife. Within that context,...I would say a slap in the face was probably an appropriate response. Chris Rock's loved ones probably will have something to say about the interaction,...but I would hope they have the sense to understand Chris Rock totally deserved what he got, as he crossed the line of decency.

As far as laws go,...yes,...legally, there was a verbal assault (Chris Rock) followed by a physical assault (Will Smith). Two wrongs don't make a right,...but in some specific cases, they may "cancel" each other out.

I am very "old school" when it comes to this sort of thing. I am not a violent person by nature,...but I will not hesitate to defend my family,...and laws, ethics, and public reaction be damned. I am not a pacifist,...and I do believe that sometimes, in specific cases, it does make you feel better to get those emotions out with physical retribution. Just me.

 

[Magna]

Celebrity worship is in my view one of the most pathetic and decadent aspects of society in my view.

These people just are part of the process of creating media, maybe you enjoy some it, maybe you don't. And they get obscenely rich from it but it is what it is.

But what's their relevance beyond that? why does it matter that one told a joke and another was upset at it and reacted violently? none, nothing they do, say or are that's not strictly related to the media products they're producing has any true relevance at all.

It's just baffling.

For example, if I found a bakery I REALLY enjoyed then maybe I would visit constantly to get their products. But would I ever go to the baker to ask about their personal lives? why would that matter when all I care about is the product? it would be seen as deranged if one fixated on someone that way and celebrity worship isn't fundamentally different.

I agree with what you're saying.

However the only way I'd tweak your analogy to the baker would be this:

Imagine the baker at the bakery you liked portrayed himself/herself as morally superior. The baker lived apart from the patrons, had his/her own security and was in a different class (financially, etc). The baker believed that he/she was in a different class of people (ie better than) the patrons; again, superior to others. The baker believed that he/she had a position, nay, a calling, to "teach" (ie lecture) the patrons about how the patrons should or shouldn't live and what the patrons should nor shouldn't believe in the patron's own private lives. Perhaps the baker, outside of the bakery and the actual purchase of the product, would lecture and blather to anyone/everyone and always from a perceived position of superiority. Now imagine the baker's actions related to something outside of the bakery illustrated the fact that the baker was certainly not superior to other people, the baker was flawed, troubled and possibly even the last person others should be listening to or taking advice from. Would the townspeople be worshipping the baker by talking about the baker? On the contrary. With this example, I'm thinking of celebrities in general rather than WS or CR specifically.

I have the opposite view of "celebrity worship". The entertainment industry seemed suspect to me for many years (ie not as morally pure as it purported to be). Once the Weinstein rock was turned over and the filth of Hollywood was exposed as well as the complicit cover-up and "look the other way and not talk about the atrocities" which many many celebrities were guilty of (which perpetuated the horrible sexual abuses of women, children and men), it was no longer gossip or conspiracy theory. Hollywood was and likely still very much is disgustingly and morally corrupt. About as far from something worthy of worship as anything could be. As such my respect for celebrities in general is zero. I tune out as a result anytime any of them get on a "soapbox" and lecture common people about how we should change what we do or what we think. They don't get a pass when they exhibit behavior that is objectionable; on the contrary, they deserve a higher level of criticism based on the position, the fantasy (lie), that has been built about them, because it's not reality.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Where's the line in "defending" a loved one drawn? In my opinion,...there is no line,...I would consider NOT defending a loved one a character fault,...and in fact, would be a source of emotional distress by the loved one if they were not defended. My wife would be absolutely pissed at me if something like that happened and I didn't do something,...I'd never hear the end of it,...it may even cost me my marriage.

Taking offense is a subjective thing,...yes,...but when comments are directed towards a specific person,...it will likely be taken as a personal affront. Within this context, Chris Rock was not talking about a general topic,...it was personal,...and the cameras were on to capture the moment,...Jada's reaction,...which she did not appreciate,...it was humiliating, I am sure.

As I said in my previous post, Will Smith's reaction was quite measured and restrained given the public nature of the interaction.

Would it be OK for Chris Rock's loved ones to defend him against Will Smith? Context. Chris Rock created an unprovoked verbal attack, humiliating Will Smith's wife. Within that context,...I would say a slap in the face was probably an appropriate response. Chris Rock's loved ones probably will have something to say about the interaction,...but I would hope they have the sense to understand Chris Rock totally deserved what he got, as he crossed the line of decency.

As far as laws go,...yes,...legally, there was a verbal assault (Chris Rock) followed by a physical assault (Will Smith). Two wrongs don't make a right,...but in some specific cases, they may "cancel" each other out.

I am very "old school" when it comes to this sort of thing. I am not a violent person by nature,...but I will not hesitate to defend my family,...and laws, ethics, and public reaction be damned. I am not a pacifist,...and I do believe that sometimes, in specific cases, it does make you feel better to get those emotions out with physical retribution. Just me.

THAt's how I got through high school gave the attitude do not screw with me. I am not a pacifist.
respecting the law has it's limits. Nothing is absolute not even mathematics.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I agree with what you're saying.

However the only way I'd tweak your analogy to the baker would be this:

Imagine the baker at the bakery you liked portrayed himself/herself as morally superior. The baker lived apart from the patrons, had his/her own security and truly was in a different class. The baker believed that he/she was in a different class (ie better than) the patrons; again, superior to others. The baker believed that he/she had a position, nay, a calling, to "teach" (ie lecture) the patrons about how the patrons should or shouldn't live and what the patrons should nor shouldn't believe in their own private lives. Perhaps the baker, outside of the bakery and the actual purchase of the product, would lecture and blather to anyone/everyone and always from a perceived position of superiority. Now imagine the baker's actions related to something outside of the bakery illustrated the fact that the baker was certainly not superior to other people, the baker was flawed, troubled and possibly even the last person others should be listening to or taking advice from. Would the townspeople be worshipping the baker by talking about the baker? On the contrary. With this example, I'm thinking of celebrities in general rather than WS or CR specifically.

I have the opposite view of "celebrity worship". The entertainment industry seemed suspect to me for many years (ie not as morally pure as it purported to be). Once the Weinstein rock was turned over and the filth of Hollywood was exposed as well as the complicit cover-up and "look the other way and not talk about the atrocities" which many many celebrities were guilty of (which perpetuated the horrible abuses), it was no longer gossip or conspiracy theory. Hollywood was and likely still very much is disgustingly and morally corrupt. About as far from something worthy of worship as anything could be. As such my respect for celebrities in general is zero. I tune out as a result anytime any of them get on a "soapbox" and lecture common people about how we should change what we do or what we think. They don't get a pass when they exhibit behavior that is objectionable; on the contrary, they deserve a higher level of criticism based on the position, the fantasy, that has been built about them because it's not reality.

I do not waste my time following other peoples lives. more interested in living my own. They are just arts focused people and I appreciate, this part of thier lives. End of month time to check my dividends.

 

[AGXStarseed]

Can't wait for the follow up jokes in the next award show... the hosts will probably come on stage with full protective gear and boxing gloves.

I'd tune in to watch that - seeing the nominees literally competing in boxing matches to try and win the awards.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

My wife enjoys watching mixed martial arts, one of the few sports that I watch.

 

[Judge]

Can't wait for the follow up jokes in the next award show... the hosts will probably come on stage with full protective gear and boxing gloves.

More likely expect to see them drag Saul Goodman on stage with them.

- Lawyer Up, baby. It's Hollywood.

But it better involve something more than a smack a comedian can laugh off on stage.

 

[Magna]

As far as laws go,...yes,...legally, there was a verbal assault (Chris Rock) followed by a physical assault (Will Smith). Two wrongs don't make a right,...but in some specific cases, they may "cancel" each other out.

@Judge would probably be able to speak to this, but I don't think "verbal assault" is an actual crime from a legal perspective. Slander, defamation of character are legal issues, but I don't think the joke enters into those areas. I've also never heard of a legal situation where someone physically assaults another person as an aggressor in response to words, insults, etc and the words one says "cancel out" the crimes of assault and battery.