• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

The Oscars - a different ethical view, a different media angle

BrachioPEP

Member
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Will Smith was wrong to hit Chris Rock and should be punished. According to the law if possible and according to any violations to the Oscars.

This is the part that I agree with and that I see in all the media. However, all aspects relating to Chris Rock seem to have nothing bad to say. So here is another, unseen side that I add to my first above statement.

Will Smith walked up to Chris Rock and used a controlled/restrained, open hand to strike him. He immediately turned round and left, returned to his chair and remained silent.

Chris Rock then tried to bring humour to lessen his embarrassment, (that was the biggest moment in TV history) to which Will Smith responded to clarify that he considered Rock’s abuse of his wife a violation. Rock tried to explain what was already known, that there was a reference to GI Jane. Smith again responded the same. Rock then seemed to accept/close this (I will obey).

Who struck first? Chris Rock. Smith’s wife very reasonably took offence. It used her skin/hair medical condition to attempt humour by combining it with a film. As soon as Smith realised (after initially following the grossly unfair, but expected protocol of clapping and smiling, (however offensive something is), he became the first person to break the mould and act. Had he merely complained after, it would have been lost and had no effect. This was a highly significant act which will hopefully bring about change, maybe legally, in protocols, in rules, in topics and content used by comedians and (if it doesn’t bring about legal censorship) will bring self-regulating censorship of what is acceptable, by who and how people respond.

The BBC quoted the suggestion that it was Chris Rock’s job to target famous people. If I walk up to a fat person and say they are fat or make a fat joke or fat shame them, I am likely to get hit. Nothing else really hits the target, long after the event. But people can lose weight and it MAY be justified in some people’s mind that it is a fair target/topic. I don’t believe so myself. If you target someone’s colour, sexuality or illness or disease or impairment, it is generally considered wrong…

Unless (apparently) you are a comedian.

‘Hey, fatty!’

‘I beg your pardon?’

‘It’s OK, I’m a comedian, look, here’s my card.’

‘Oh, OK.’

This is exactly what the media are implying and saying, by what the BBC mentioned and by ignoring the wrong that Rock did. This is no excuse. There is no excuse.

The primary attraction to the big draw comedians (Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown, Ricky Gervais, Jimmy Car, Chris Rock, Bernard Manning etc.) is the prejudice, not the humour. It is like they cannot draw the audiences without using this ingredient. There is surely plenty of scope for humour in life observation or topics that are not prejudiced.

Did you notice that all the headlines showed the response image, not the cause image?

If I were writing the headlines after this event, my main (and sadly, exclusive) angle would have been first blood, and highlighting the brute fact of how wrong it/he (Chris Rock’s remark) was. Given the unlikelihood of it going to court and all the costs involved and how it would then be trivialised; or the emptiness of raising it afterwards or the lose-lose scenario of trying to debate live with a king of homour and expert heckler handler, the only real option for action and change and making a point that hits the target, is exactly what Smith did – no more and no less. There is nothing else I can think of, even now, that will have the same equality of justice and desired outcome for change, other than what he did. The punishment will be the martyrdom he takes on behalf of all who follow and who might encounter the same. And his actions will be the trigger for the change that will force self-regulation or anything more substantial. It is a point in time where we can pause and say, ‘that was the moment’.

Now, let’s talk about the punishment that Chris Rock should take for his societal and Oscars wrong, regardless of what anyone else might have done before or similarly. I assume the Oscars also have a policy against (verbal or otherwise) abuse against medical conditions of individuals, live in front of millions? Let him also be a martyr and a test case and example to the world of what is acceptable and what is not. I hope he gets just punishment as Smith should for his actions and I hope the humiliation of Smith’s wife, live in front of millions, will serve as strong mitigation for Smith in the controlled and restrained way he acted.

I hope this will make comedians re-think their topics and audiences. If in doubt, check or ask. Also, I hope that actors and those involved in film, or any other medium where such awards or events are hosted, will also discuss the unwritten law of clapping and smiling, ‘because that’s just how it’s done’. This, written up and presented to the world, will also help to make comedians think twice. No job gives you a free pass to mock people. It may be a comedian’s job to make people laugh, as it is a parent’s job to bring children up. But there are many restrictions in the way that this is done. You don’t hit kids or embarrass them or humiliate them or pick on their deficiencies, especially if they cannot be helped. Comedian’s likewise.

And censorship. If we take the line that there should be no censorship or legally binding restrictions, then it relies on an apathetic public who are unlikely to stand up for what is right. Some family British red top newspapers still had (until recently and some may continue to have) topless women, women dressed provocatively in school uniforms (whilst condemning paedophilia), dwarf (small people) throwing and upskirt photos of celebrities (taken by small people - google the Sunday Sport with these key words). One might think that taking photos of women up their skirts is unethical (or not). The (red top at least) media tend to let the most unethical members of the low hanging pond life public scum decide and set that as their bar and continue until even they, public shaming, or the law, intervenes. I am just saying or calling for more people to stand up for what is right, be it intervening, writing, sharing on social media or whatever. Being famous does not make you fair game, e.g. to compensate for any good publicity. The press aren’t doing anyone except themselves a favour by any interest they have, be it good or bad publicity. Public interest is not the same as general nosiness by the public. Rich/famous folk may or may not deserve their status, but bringing some of the personal issues into public focus should generally not be acceptable, no matter how much bad they have done or how much you may dislike them. I do recognise public interest may overlap this. Making someone feel bad, whether it is because they are a certain weight, colour, ability, sexual orientation, education or whatever, this is an immature, prejudiced cheap shot for personal gain. Resist it and encourage anyone who does so to resist it or face the public disapproval. Making Images of the prophet Muhammed is not illegal in Britain or the US, but I notice a distinct lack of comedians touching this topic. I am not saying extreme threats are acceptable, but a sufficient one that makes people think twice is warranted, (maybe like Will Smith?) and that requires public support. I think and hope that Will Smith’s (wrong) actions, reveal how many of us feel and may even act in public under such conditions. And I hope, if you think of this, that it will bring you to think of the content that causes it and the false requirement and need to change, of the audiences like at the Oscars and whether they should continue to just smile and clap along, however hurtful the host is. Hopefully this is the first and last stand of its kind, because it addressed the need for change.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Chris Rock made a very bad joke it was not funny at all, with a good joke the one making the joke and the target can laugh about it. What Will Smith did was unacceptable to start with his or his wife where not in danger so he did not have to strike Chris Rock. The Oscars should punish Will Smith he hit someone in their event and Will Smith is a member of the Oscars. Also he had the audacity to stay when asked to leave i would have involved security and removed him from the event. After the event i would make an announcement that the joke Chris Rock made was not acceptable and bad taste. Will Smith apologized because he can see this is going to cost him. The issue is the two have so much money they can start lawsuits and Chris Rock has a high chance of winning, Will Smith wife can sue Chris Rock but he was doing his job making fun of celebrities it was a joke a bad one but still a joke.

The issue is jokes for one its funny for others it might not be, so now where in a grey area if you have 100 people 50 persons like the jokes the other 50 are horrified because of the jokes. What do you do now are you going to forbid the jokes or allow them, its never black and white.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Please consider any/all points raised before responding.

This seems to be a unique situation in many ways.

Some of us consider discrimination to be wrong. No-one seems to in the case of Chris Rock publicly humiliating a women’s condition live on TV in front of millions – not unlike sex shaming in public; showing naked images of a former partner on public forums). Yet we positively do so (discriminate), e.g. to allow more women or ethnic minorities into politics or on a vote or similar. We do so, to help bring a level playing field, where there currently is none.

‘But it is just humour’. So does humour get defined by whether people laugh or not? Does the content not matter, providing it is legal?

In a TV show, Bernard Manning noticed a black guy in the audience. A novelty in Northern England in the 1970s and 1980s. He asked if he enjoyed the club/show and asked if it was better than swinging through the trees. People laughed.

A comedian made the following ‘joke’. A spastic (a person with cerebral palsy) won a dancing competition. She only got up for a bag of crisps. People laughed.

One could mock people with Down’s syndrome, cancer, a missing limb, an abnormality or a skin condition. As long as you also include something funny, is it OK?

When public exposure like this occurs, there is no fair or equal justice. The stigma and humiliation stays with you for life and in the unlikely event of any prosecution, which is costly, a VERY minor response is given. Because such emotional trauma (non-physical abuse) is not yet fairly considered in law.

3 years ago, an Australian radio host, publicly called up (pranked) a nurse who worked for a member of the royal family, pretending to be someone else and saying they had made a mistake with a Royal. The person committed suicide. Had the person not committed suicide, nothing more would have been done and the prank would continue each week and amuse people. It was only the consequence that made everyone (the laughing public, the radio hosts and station, the media, the deceased lady’s family etc.) stop and think and change. Remember that the prank act did not change and was no different to anything that occurred before or elsewhere. It was only the consequence that woke people up to how it affected people.

And in this case. It is ONLY because Smith acted (and this was wrong), that (hopefully will) put a spotlight on exactly what Rock did and what every comedian does. I hope comedians and hosts will; now consider exactly what they are saying AND the personal effect it has on individuals before looking for a cheap shot for popularity.

I thought it was very brave of Smith to do what he wrongly did, which is why I see it as like a martyr action, as he will take the wrap for change for everyone after him, so they hopefully don’t have to repeat it.

Of course no-one’s life was in danger that caused Smith to act, but he took the only action that would bring about focus and change. Nothing else, legal or complaining would, because it would all be forgotten and belittled.

It is a little like the corporal punishment argument. Some things (some will argue) justify (or will only be effective) if/when done immediately. If I don’t ‘force’ my child onto the plane for our holiday, my alternative is a lost cost of thousands and the inability to meet family and so much more. The potential price of this loss is worth (for most people) to have a child cry, be dragged or smacked in order to get her/him on the plane. If the child does not get on the plane, s/he wins, but doesn’t really understand, and everyone loses such a lot. This is not equality or fairness. No-one says, ‘well at least I did the right thing, Charlie didn’t want it, so we didn’t get the plane’. And likewise, to NOT slap Chris Rock would have been like not smacking the child, and the abuse of his wife would go unpunished and ignored, not just for the couple, but for all those afterwards, because it would change nothing.

Likewise, if left a moment longer, NOTHING would have brought about the change which I hope will be made. Currently, the media have not latched on to this angle, but I hope they do/will. Abuse is not ONLY physical. Rock was abusive (and first). Fortunately, his abuse may have not been illegal, though it is probably against Oscars policy. Smith’s abuse (a stinking slap with no injury) is physical and considered illegal. Maybe the goalposts need moving or the playing field levelled, in the same way that mental health needs to catch up with physical health issues.
 
arg-fallbackName="Akamia"/>
I don’t think Chris Rock was wrong to make his joke. I don’t believe it was based in prejudice or anything like that. It seemed like a compliment.

Did you watch G.I. Jane? I bet Mr. Rock did. If he didn’t, he at least knows what the movie was about; just enough to know that a comparison to the protagonist is definitely not an insult.

There’s some additional elements that your statements aren’t accounting for. I’ll have to come back later for a more comprehensive reply; however, while there is a discussion to be had regarding the limitations of humor and mockery, I don’t believe this is it.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
To be fair, Chris Rock may not have been targetting (or may not even have known about) her hair problem, and motive is a factor. I still think this is a wake up call generally and Smith's wife may still have felt violated.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
I don't particularly care that someone slapped someone else, this happens every day and I have very little patience for celebrities, even the ones I quite like in general.

However, to the point -

Comedy is supposed to be funny - by definition. With this in mind, there will ALWAYS be some percentage of people offended by any even slightly edgy, riskee joke. Will Smiths wife doesn't have a special exemption from being the butt of a joke any more than you, I or anyone else does. The joke, whether it's funny or otherwise falls squarely within freedom of speech, something I value highly. There is no law against "offending" people, broadly speaking you can do it as much as you want provided it doesn't spill over into some sort of hate-speech and/or harassment which is covered by the law.

A case for assault of some description (common assault in the UK) could be brought and likely be successful IF it were taken seriously, but I doubt it would be in the first place. Technically assault? Surely. Assault worth getting in a twist over? No, not in my opinion. But I think assaulting people is absolutely fine IF they deserve it. I don't like Chris Rock, never really have, but taking the piss out of Smith's wife is something he has every right to do, even if the manner in which he did it is distasteful.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
I would very closely liken Rock’s assault/abuse/attack on Smith’s wife (a point totally ignore or rejected) to calling a spotty kid ‘Pizza face’. It is not harassment and may be legal. Like the radio host example I gave, YOU may not want to focus on the legality, but I am focussing on the morality and the consequences. How many suicides, if any, would it take for you to reconsider or contemplate a legal change? Should a spotty faced adult be more able to cope than a child, or does it matter or should we consider vulnerable adults too?

Even in law, if you slap someone and they die, you are responsible for their death. What this tells me, is that (and is my whole point) we should more carefully consider our actions/words and the potential consequences of them before carrying them out. If we choose not to, we should be more fully held responsible and accountable. I hope this sets a precedent.

Just because a black or disabled person is the butt of a joke and laughs along, this does not make it acceptable or suggest that s/he is compliant or doesn’t mind or can cope. Where there is no reasonable, natural self-societal regulation, action or intervention of some kind needs to take place, as has done (a little) with pornography in family reading material, racism and other forms of prejudice. You don’t have to wait for legislation to object or say it is OK or legal. You can be a forerunner and help bring about change and justice. Or you can just tow the line and follow the sheep and point to the law and take no part in trying to change it.

‘Hey look, a famous woman with a condition that makes her hair fall out.’ (No laughter, not acceptable).

(adds the following)

‘Maybe you should be in the next GI Jane movie’. (Laughter, acceptable?).

It seems the same as other excuses to make something that is unacceptable or illegal (like tax avoidance) legitimate by doing something to work the system.

It has nothing to do with who you like or how famous you are or whether you are being bullied in the classroom or on live TV. And it has nothing to do with whether you can cope or mind or think it is OK, as people’s views differ.

I do seem to be in the minority, if the media coverage is anything to go by and I am happy to see views and points that I am not familiar with, but so far, I haven’t really budged much, though, if all things are considered, I respect anyone’s view.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
I would very closely liken Rock’s assault/abuse/attack on Smith’s wife

I think this may be somewhere near the root of the problem. I've spoken to people who think there is such a thing as "verbal violence" - words are not violence of any sort, in any context no matter how upsetting the listener/recipient may find them. Hence the old saying, sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Plus, no matter how much of an idiot I think Chris Rock is, and how unfunny I have always found him, again comedy is supposed to be funny. He very likely intended it to be funny, even if it backfired and no one on the entire planet laughed. We've all been there and done that, dropped a clanger we thought would be a side-splitter only to discover we miscalculated.

to calling a spotty kid ‘Pizza face’

As someone who as a teenager suffered terrible acne and did indeed get called pizza face among other things, it's just part of life. Some will cope better than others and that's probably never going to change. Legislating against such things is overkill. We (you and I at least, not everyone reading) already live in a country drowning in legislation and red tape. A country where you need a certificate for just about everything, a "license" to watch TV and pretty much everything is already illegal. We need less legislation, not more.
My opinion and you are free to differ.

YOU may not want to focus on the legality, but I am focussing on the morality and the consequences

I'm not sure why you said that with such force, roughly half of my post was on the legal aspect.

How many suicides, if any, would it take for you to reconsider or contemplate a legal change?

In what regard? You mean people committing suicide because someone said a mean thing to them or made them the butt of a joke? No amount. I don't want jokes made illegal, or name calling. Too many things are illegal as it is, I don't want to add to that list. At least not for name calling and jokes anyway. There might be examples you could come up with of things that actually are legal that I think perhaps shouldn't be, so I don't want to rule that possibility out, but neither of those are examples of such.

Even in law, if you slap someone and they die, you are responsible for their death.

Actually no, not necessarily. I'm guessing you're thinking of involuntary manslaughter. But that's unlikely to stick if all you do is slap someone and for some reason they drop dead as a result of it. If you do it when they're stood on a cliff edge and the slap causes them to lose balance and fall to their death, yes probably but I don't think it would stand up in court in a case like that of Smith/Rock.

What about shouting at someone? What if it frightens them so much they have a heart attack and die? What if it startles them and they lose balance and fall into traffic and get squished by a bus? Do we ban shouting? Do we lob the "Hey, DUUUUUDE!" shouter in prison? No, I contend that we do (and should) not.

What about surprises? What about pranks? What about scary movies? I mean where will it stop?
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
(I meant want to focus on the legal, rather than ‘not’ want to.).

I don’t necessarily advocate legal changes or censorship. I just wonder how or if things would be different if a person/people started crying or walked out… maybe en-masse, to share their true feelings regarding such a supposed ‘joke’. Like in the days of blatant racism and other prejudices, where they just took it, (maybe also claiming it was legal or just a joke) finally people stood up and things changed because people spoke with their mouths and feet. Your ‘it’s just part of life’ was shocking and it took me back to the bad old days, where they said that, but have since introduced protection laws, and few disagree with them. Everything of course is on a spectrum and there are no hard and fast rules. I think your line on this spectrum is just a very long way from mine.

There is so much here that I cannot relate to or consider unaddressed, superficial or otherwise simply wrong, uncaring and one sided. Where I feel more should be done to support and protect the other (abused/harassed/vulnerable) side, not ignore them or try to harden or mould them, which you don’t even suggest. Respectfully, there is no bridge or possibility of light between our views in this discussion, only potential heat and two very different views – in my view.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
(I meant want to focus on the legal, rather than ‘not’ want to.).

I appreciate the correction, but that is nonetheless what your post actually implies, even if down to a typo (the inclusion of the word 'not' - you could have edited it)
feelings regarding such a supposed ‘joke’

Well, he's a comedian, having watched the clip it quite clearly WAS a joke, even if Smith's wife was offended by it. This point has been widely addressed everywhere, Will appears to laugh until his wife sort of rolls her eyes and there's many a chuckle in the audience. Here's an actual Barrister's take on it, with timer - some of his comments align with your view, some with mine.



Your ‘it’s just part of life’ was shocking

I'm not interested in how "shocked" you are, my statement is descriptively true and there isn't one aspect of it you can show to be wrong. You're "shocked" that kids calling each other names is part of life? You're "shocked" that kids, teenagers, adults, senior citizens and everyone in-between can be mean? What's the weather like on your planet? I wouldn't normally be so flippant but your faux exaggerated outrage is palpable.

it took me back to the bad old days,

Which ones? The ones where people are allowed to say words without fear of punishment? How terrible. You realise that's the primary reason this forum you're posting to exists in the first place? Except it's the same now in most places, as it should be. Cases of harassment and hate-speech notwithstanding, as reflected by law.

but have since introduced protection laws

Against what? Calling someone a name or otherwise taking the piss out of them? No, they haven't.

I think your line on this spectrum is just a very long way from mine.

With this I agree entirely.

Where I feel more should be done to support and protect the other (abused/harassed/vulnerable) side, not ignore them or try to harden or mould them, which you don’t even suggest

Except that making a (even unfunny) joke ISN'T abuse or harassment. What case law do you have to support this? It would have to be HIGHLY specific and an exception to just about every rule in the book regarding protection of free speech and even then would be an EXCEPTION. Exception doth not maketh the rule.

Respectfully, there is no bridge or possibility of light between our views in this discussion, only potential heat and two very different views – in my view.

Respectfully, again you are correct. We aren't going to find middle ground nor would it be fruitful for either of us to seek any. I knew that before I even posted to this thread, but this isn't a soap box for just one of us to stand on, so you've aired your view, I've aired mine, as is the intended function of this platform.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
BrachioPEP said:

(I meant want to focus on the legal, rather than ‘not’ want to.).


I appreciate the correction, but that is nonetheless what your post actually implies, even if down to a typo (the inclusion of the word 'not' - you could have edited it)

I was caught up in double negative thinking. It was purely a mistake. I genuinely meant that you seemed more focussed on the legal, and I was (and am) not.


BrachioPEP said:

feelings regarding such a supposed ‘joke’


Well, he's a comedian, having watched the clip it quite clearly WAS a joke, even if Smith's wife was offended by it. This point has been widely addressed everywhere, Will appears to laugh until his wife sort of rolls her eyes and there's many a chuckle in the audience. Here's an actual Barrister's take on it, with timer - some of his comments align with your view, some with mine.

I accept that Chris Rock intended a joke and may (or may not) have meant anything bad or even knew about her condition. It may therefore be that this instance is not representative of a moral bad action, but how something is taken can be relevant. If a Islamic Iranian comes to Britain and claims his purpose is as a rich terrorist, this might be taken badly, regarding his opportunity for a Visa. If his English was poor and he meant tourist, the intent was pure, but the application bad. No-ones fault really.

Being offended isn’t always the point or relevant. I may not mind being called a retarded pizza faced black banana bastard who’s dead cancer ridden mum sucks cocks in hell. It’s (for me) about consideration and what is a reasonable thing to do overall, independent of whether the individual likes it or not. Setting a precedent for a better society. This example (to me) is very high up the spectrum. For you, maybe not, so who’s view do we take?

I am not even sure where or why you disagree with anything. We don’t push censorship or legality and argue that we should, within reason, be free to share our views and say what we like. I am only advocating that people stand up more and object, morally and try to persuade the public on a more universal societal standard of practise.

Will Smith laughing was not because he found it funny, it was a standardised and expected reaction. ‘You don’t grass on people’ is another alleged law written in stone that simply is not right and is not a good benchmark by most standards.

It is the universal acceptance of laughing at a comedian because it is a comedian, irrespective of what s/he says that I feel is wrong.
A good example (comparing Will Smiths laugh/clap) is with Borat’s ‘Who is America’ (amongst many other things he does): https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-news/borat-national-anthem-virginia-1064775/

Here he is at a US rodeo and we see how he dupes people into support, just because of the prior expectation. Finally (but often not in other examples) the audience realise they are being taken the piss out of.



BrachioPEP said:

Your ‘it’s just part of life’ was shocking


I'm not interested in how "shocked" you are, my statement is descriptively true and there isn't one aspect of it you can show to be wrong. You're "shocked" that kids calling each other names is part of life? You're "shocked" that kids, teenagers, adults, senior citizens and everyone in-between can be mean? What's the weather like on your planet? I wouldn't normally be so flippant but your faux exaggerated outrage is palpable.

Your trivialisation is also shocking and the way the put it (kids calling kids names/sticks and stones but not names hurting you). That is exactly the same shocking talk people made that this country and many others have fought to overcome. It isn’t a case of survival of the fittest anymore, it is protecting and making a more equal playing field for all. In China and India, disability and SEN are virtually unheard of, as is homosexuality in many (mainly) Islamic and some Christian countries. The numbers are no less, they are just ignored and subsequently suffer in silence. You just seem to be promoting it all. It would seem that if you lived in the 1970s, you would have been one of the first to poke fun and (when attitudes or laws changed) one of the last to drop it. I am saying that it would be nice if more people took a stand and were part of the change, not part of the crowd needing changing.



BrachioPEP said:

it took me back to the bad old days,


Which ones? The ones where people are allowed to say words without fear of punishment? How terrible. You realise that's the primary reason this forum you're posting to exists in the first place? Except it's the same now in most places, as it should be. Cases of harassment and hate-speech notwithstanding, as reflected by law.

Not sure you are listening. The days where gay people were not sent to jail or vulnerable people abused instead of being supported. When sexual abuse in the Church and parts of society was far more prevalent and swept under the carpet and there seemed no need for any laws because people did not stand up and recognise how people were treated and felt. The days when the older people, only today, feel they can stand up and re-tell how they were mistreated and unprotected by an uncaring society with no moral interest in changing attitudes or laws.

Yes, these forums are where I am and want to share such things to change people’s minds. Again, I see no disagreement in principle, only in how you view certain moral things.



BrachioPEP said:

but have since introduced protection laws


Against what? Calling someone a name or otherwise taking the piss out of them? No, they haven't.

Homosexuality was illegal not so long ago, and well within my lifetime. It isn’t now. Slavery was legal (and presumably moral and common practise). Now it is not. Many Biblical values were and are supported. Racism was not a crime before. The film Kes and Scum, amongst many others are examples of treatment in the 1960s/1970s that is not acceptable now, but was. What people do AND say can drag a person down, hold them back, demoralise them. It wasn’t recognised as torture then, but it is now. These are examples of some things which have changed. Remember that nothing has changed in these things. Slavery, homophobia and racism are the same then and now, it is just our attitude and considered thoughts about it that makes us realise that it wasn’t the nicest thing to do. A gay/black/hair loss/disabled person cannot help being how they are, so better to avoid using those particular points in any unrelated capacity, with a joke or not. We are surely better than that. Again, I am not necessarily advocating for censorship, rather promoting more thought to what one says, over a cheap joke/shot. How we decide to act is a reflection on our societal ethical values.



BrachioPEP said:

I think your line on this spectrum is just a very long way from mine.


With this I agree entirely.

BrachioPEP said:

Where I feel more should be done, is to to support and protect the other (abused/harassed/vulnerable) side, not ignore them or try to harden or mould them, which you don’t even suggest


Except that making a (even unfunny) joke ISN'T abuse or harassment. What case law do you have to support this? It would have to be HIGHLY specific and an exception to just about every rule in the book regarding protection of free speech and even then would be an EXCEPTION. Exception doth not maketh the rule.

Again, I suspect you are focussing on law, not morality. A joke is maybe defined as what is funny.
Abuse and harassment CAN be part of, or included in a joke. It is not even where you draw the line. Each are separate and can be addressed separately and separated. A joke can never be the excuse or justification for a moral or legal wrong.

In the same way that we can condemn or dislike our partner for having an affair or being a secret neo-Nazi or whatever, we can also/equally stand up for bad taste. This is my only real point and I just aim to try to enable more people to see and join with this. Certain jokes about topics that were subsequently made illegal were still pushed, to test the moral compass of society. It is our moral compass that I am asking people to consider. Nothing more. But that moral compass also sometimes asks us to stand up for others, even when hard. Smith did it alone and no-one seems to have come to his rescue.


BrachioPEP said:

Respectfully, there is no bridge or possibility of light between our views in this discussion, only potential heat and two very different views – in my view.


Respectfully, again you are correct. We aren't going to find middle ground nor would it be fruitful for either of us to seek any. I knew that before I even posted to this thread, but this isn't a soap box for just one of us to stand on, so you've aired your view, I've aired mine, as is the intended function of this platform

I am not sure that you have addressed any/many of the key points I set out to make and have misunderstood my aim - which is not to enforce or bring legal change, unless necessary to protect people in greater danger or struggle. But you are right that our different and multiple views are here for all to see in their entirety.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
This isn't intended as a dig, but I think I need to re-write the tutorial on how to use this forum, from quotation stacks to emphasis, from links to colours.

I have addressed your pertinent points, the most significant in this discussion. If you want to point out something important which I failed to address, that's fine, but I could equally do the same. I'm not here to reply to every single word of every single post every single person writes.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Your trivialisation is also shocking and the way the put it (kids calling kids names/sticks and stones but not names hurting you). That is exactly the same shocking talk people made that this country and many others have fought to overcome. It isn’t a case of survival of the fittest anymore, it is protecting and making a more equal playing field for all. In China and India, disability and SEN are virtually unheard of, as is homosexuality in many (mainly) Islamic and some Christian countries. The numbers are no less, they are just ignored and subsequently suffer in silence. You just seem to be promoting it all. It would seem that if you lived in the 1970s, you would have been one of the first to poke fun and (when attitudes or laws changed) one of the last to drop it. I am saying that it would be nice if more people took a stand and were part of the change, not part of the crowd needing changing.

I also don't care about your assertion that I'm trivialising anything. And I can't possibly put into words how little I care avbout how "shocked" you are. If you find this "shocking" - this forum isn't a place you'll want to be. Your preferences don't matter, never have, never will. You're more than welcome to express them any time you like, but beyond that I have no idea what you want to achieve.

Well, I suppose I do, I just don't want your goals to be achieved.

Not sure you are listening. The days where gay people were not sent to jail or vulnerable people abused instead of being supported. When sexual abuse in the Church and parts of society was far more prevalent and swept under the carpet and there seemed no need for any laws because people did not stand up and recognise how people were treated and felt. The days when the older people, only today, feel they can stand up and re-tell how they were mistreated and unprotected by an uncaring society with no moral interest in changing attitudes or laws.

Is that so? You have addressed approximately 13% of what I wrote, from my first reply in this thread to this current one. You are wholly off topic, weird since you started this thread, and rambling about a big nothing-burger.
 
arg-fallbackName="ZoomZolomonZoom"/>
Hey,

American lurker here.

This whole debate about the ethics of derogatory jokes & name calling in general is interesting and I think has a lot of nuance to it, especially in the context of atomized social structures like schools, workplaces, etc. However, this isn't the topic at hand. What we're discussing is Chris Rock making a joke about well known celebrity at a televised event, these aren't comparable.

Celebrities are public figures who willingly put themselves into the limelight to be scrutinized by the public. In other words, judgement about their lives and physical appearance comes with the territory, it's as much a risk to them as being praised for the same features, and that's just gamble they willingly take by choosing to pursue acting. Nobody forced Jada to be an actress, if she was so sensitive about her physical appearance that jokes about it would be that damaging to her perhaps she should have chosen a different line of work then, one that isn't literally based on being a public figure open for everyone to critique.

Of course, people can still be free to condemn comedians if if you think they've treaded too far into bullying territory or crossed some sort of line, but shifting our culture to make any sort of jokes like that taboo for anyone to say ever, in any context, that's a bridge too far for me.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Who struck first? Chris Rock.

Wrong sir! Rock made a joke, and several minutes later, Smith walked up to him and hit him. Smith struck first. Now, if the context was different, in that Rock, Smith, and Pinkett Smith were standing next to each other and Smith reacted right after Rock made the joke, I could see an argument. I am not sure I would agree with it, but the context of what happened is critical.

I am not even sure where or why you disagree with anything. We don’t push censorship or legality and argue that we should, within reason, be free to share our views and say what we like. I am only advocating that people stand up more and object, morally and try to persuade the public on a more universal societal standard of practise.

That is precisely what happened before Smith hit Rock. Rock made a joke, and the crowd booed him. That should happen and what you advocate for, so why you act like that is not what happened is weird. The answer to speech is more speech, which was happening before Smith hit Rock. It is not like Rock was threatening them. It was a joke, and the crowd objected to it.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Like i said a joke is only funny when the one that the joke is about in the end laughs about it. Its unacceptable what Will Smith did and he is paying the price for it movies that he acted in are on hold and some canceled his appointments. What should happen is that the three of them talk and Will and Chris apologize to each other and Chris to Will Smith’s wife. After that make a one time statement with the 3 of them and its over.
 
Back
Top