BrachioPEP
Member
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.
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.