Will Smith acts like a crazy person and slaps the Oscars presenter

Trump took a job that involves killing humans adversarially. While I agree that those types of person are also the most likely to, say, kill you, for mocking them.. if you can't mock a stone cold killer for a bad combover, then I don't think there is anything left.
 
Trump took a job that involves killing humans adversarially. While I agree that those types of person are also the most likely to, say, kill you, for mocking them.. if you can't mock a stone cold killer for a bad combover, then I don't think there is anything left.
I think "can't" gets way overutilized in some contexts, this one for just one example. By way of contrast, I "can't" survive jumping off the top of a 30 story building. I "can't" outrun a greyhound dog.

Consequences for a thing are not remotely the same as the thing being forbidden and/or impossible. Of course that's obvious, but what I think gets missed a lot, is that everything potentially carries consequences, of some kind or another, so the notion that you should be able to do a thing without any expectation of any consequence is... I don't know... myopic?
 
I think "can't" gets way overutilized in some contexts, this one for just one example. By way of contrast, I "can't" survive jumping off the top of a 30 story building. I "can't" outrun a greyhound dog.

Consequences for a thing are not remotely the same as the thing being forbidden and/or impossible. Of course that's obvious, but what I think gets missed a lot, is that everything potentially carries consequences, of some kind or another, so the notion that you should be able to do a thing without any expectation of any consequence is... I don't know... myopic?

"Can't in good grace."

But yes, I agree. Making fun of legitimate bad people is what is likely to get you hurt the quickest. It's what they do. Making fun of the best people sometimes makes friends.
 
I doubt people think Jada has a good personality either. Most of the jokes in the aftermath of Will's slap are about Will slapping the wrong person - instead of his wife's lover (some friend of their son).

i wonder how many of the **** memes about him he's seen. quite the pr disaster, though i don't think assaulting his wife's lover would be a good idea either. perhaps more justifiable in a sense than assaulting chris rock, but still not a good, nor legal thing to do.

the fact that his wife has a lover is an issue. in a better world, one that is solved by divorce with the outcome favoring the person who didn't cheat (if applicable). you know, the person who actually broke vows seeing some consequence for the dishonesty. same goes with other for-cause divorces (assaults on spouse or kids for example). though it would be non-trivial to define what is sufficient "cause", it would be worth doing compared to what we have now.

right now family court is a joke where evidence of this nature does not seem to matter as much as it should, or in some cases at all (in the case of cheating). similarly, some alleged things are weighed even when there is not sufficient evidence to support them (aka none other than claim itself in some cases where a spouse alleges assault w/o evidence).

so i can see why smith didn't drop her *** instantly. that is not a decision he can do lightly, or inexpensively. but a better world would not incentivize him to just put up with it.

I "can't" outrun a greyhound dog.

haha, this one might depend on the distance, the greyhound's conditioning, and your conditioning.

comes to mind because i once lost a 5k run to a guy who was obviously a distance runner. i passed him pretty late in the run, because his dog was tired/lagging behind him. he caught up to me and passed me again, while carrying his dog. i finished second.
 
Last edited:
the fact that his wife has a lover is an issue. in a better world, one that is solved by divorce with the outcome favoring the person who didn't cheat (if applicable). you know, the person who actually broke vows seeing some consequence for the dishonesty. same goes with other for-cause divorces (assaults on spouse or kids for example). though it would be non-trivial to define what is sufficient "cause", it would be worth doing compared to what we have now.
The breaking of vows is something that is literally personal to the couple in question. Projecting Christian (or I guess Abrahamic) morality onto what is essentially tabloid gossip ain't winning anyone any discussion points on the Internet.
 
The breaking of vows is something that is literally personal to the couple in question. Projecting Christian (or I guess Abrahamic) morality onto what is essentially tabloid gossip ain't winning anyone any discussion points on the Internet.

In their case, it isn't "tabloid gossip", since Jada revealed this on air, in a show she did with Will.
So it is more bizarre :)

Like it was noted pages ago, most people wouldn't even have known of these things (I didn't either), and then Will made them resurface due to the slap.
 
In their case, it isn't "tabloid gossip", since Jada revealed this on air, in a show she did with Will.
So it is more bizarre :)

Like it was noted pages ago, most people wouldn't even have known of these things (I didn't either), and then Will made them resurface due to the slap.
It is literally tabloid gossip, no quotes needed. For example, take Cosmopolitan - https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entert...nkett-smith-will-smith-relationship-timeline/. You can read it at your leisure, but "cheating" or "the breaking of vows" really doesn't seem to come up (spoilers, I guess).

Plenty of people hang onto these things. Public figures like celebrities aren't afforded any peace, regardless or not of whether they actually deserve it. The deserving is irrelevant - the new cycle demands content, so content is created. Often invented. Checking your sources extends to whatever reports you choose to believe on the lives of super-rich celebrities, because if we can't do that, then what's the point. We might as well publicise the thread as a brand-new magazine for the commission :D
 
Possibly because he seems to be the opposite of chill :/

It's not the first public slap he has given either:

Thanks Kyr. As soon as the incident occurred I reminded some of my family of this prior case of slapping, ie., "Will Smith no stranger to publicly slapping folks who offend him" Here is a video with the actual slap in question as opposed to still images and commentary on it:

"Can't in good grace."

But yes, I agree. Making fun of legitimate bad people is what is likely to get you hurt the quickest. It's what they do.
I'd say hurt the worst rather than the quickest. If the person is bad enough, they can and will patiently wait to inflict maximum harm after due deliberation and planning. Dish served cold... or something along those lines...
 
I disagree with you @Sommerswerd about Donny deserving his appearance being mocked.

There are so many things to mock him over that we don't need to stoop to that level.

Also, when you mock someone's appearance you mock all people who share that trait.

We can be better. There is never an appropriate time or situation to make fun of someone's appearance.
I was yas gurl'ing the whole post until the final sentence.

edit: and the third I somehow missed that one. But #1, #2, and #4 ya
 
Well I do feel number three is true ...

Say you make fun of someone for having red hair. You're saying that red hair is something to be ashamed of.

Would you make fun of Donny for having a nose? For having skin? For breathing?

No, you'd only make fun of him for thinks you feel deserve to be mocked. And when you do so, you're applying that to everyone who has them.

Why would it be embarrassing for Donny to have small hands and not for Jim who also has small hands?

etc
 
I have small hands, not offended. But am reminded.
 
when it comes to appearance there are things that can be controlled, and things that can't be. mocking either is rude, but mocking things that can't be controlled is worse.

i can envision some clothes that are sufficiently messed up, or some odd hair style choices where the context of mocking those is less bad than mocking someone for having a big nose or a medical condition where they lose hair
 
haha, this one might depend on the distance, the greyhound's conditioning, and your conditioning.
Like I said... I can't outrun a greyhound. ;) Not an average one at least. Now if the doggy was handicapped, or dead, that's different of course. As an aside... I lol'ed at the thought of some guy running past you while cradling his dog in his hands... must have been quite a spectacle... and so fun for the dog! :D
I have small hands, not offended. But am reminded.
Which goes back to my point about risking offense rather than actually offending. A big part of why the small hands joke gets used over and over against Trump is precisely because the word got out that it greatly irritates him. Which also goes back to the other thing I mentioned, which is the fact that Trump is a YUGE jerk, so it follows that people are eager to mock him and it also follows that people are going to be less sympathetic towards him about the mockery he receives.
when it comes to appearance there are things that can be controlled, and things that can't be. mocking either is rude, but mocking things that can't be controlled is worse.
On the other hand, sometimes, and for some people, it is easier to shrug off mockery based on things you cannot control, based precisely on the fact that you can't control it. I'm reminded of Tyrion Lannister's speech to Jon Snow about embracing being called a bastard like Tyrion embraced being called a dwarf. The reasoning being, you can't change it so don't let it bother you.

Whereas when people mock you for things you choose/control, it can sometimes be more hurtful to some people, because they are being mocked for something they decided to do, or that they thought was a good idea... your personal sensibilities/judgment/tastes are being mocked. What springs to mind is the difference between someone telling a kid that their (parent's) house is ugly versus telling them that the picture they drew is ugly. I'm thinking the latter might sting more, despite the fact that they have no control over the former. So in the case of Jada, Chris Rock wasn't mocking her for having (alopecia-related) bald spots, which she could not control, he was mocking her decision to wear a shaved head. I don't know which would have hurt more, but I can certainly see a scenario where the latter cut a little deeper.
 
As an aside... I lol'ed at the thought of some guy running past you while cradling his dog in his hands... must have been quite a spectacle... and so fun for the dog!

it was quite the sight. we were running a heart walk event, where many hundreds of people were participating and a smaller fraction (including some military guys) were running it for real. back then i could do sub-19 minutes easily, generally hovering around 18 minutes. only two of us were faster than the dog at that one, haha.

i got the impression based on both appearance and apparent tiredness that the guy carrying the dog would have not just won, but utterly torched me had he run the race seriously without bringing it along. ~18min is a fine time for a 5k casually (it's a bit faster than 6 minute mile average, so average speed is > 10 mph). but there are people out there who would have no trouble cracking 15min running a 5k, and IIRC best times are < 13.

for those who aren't familiar, keep in mind that each minute you shave off of runs like this is *much* harder than the previous. record-setting olympians are < 90s faster at the mile than my high school mile time, and i was not particularly fast at the mile by high school standards.

On the other hand, sometimes, and for some people, it is easier to shrug off mockery based on things you cannot control, based precisely on the fact that you can't control it.

yeah, depends a lot on mentality of the person in question. it's generally easier as a matter of principle/practice to just not be rude at all, because then you don't have to figure out which one upsets someone less.

i think you are right that some people would be bothered more for being mocked for being fat or wearing ridiculous clothing as opposed to a skin condition, hair loss or height, though for some the other way around is true. i guess it comes down to whether one is comfortable with/willing to own the things they can control, and how much the things they can't bothers them.

interestingly, i bet that even in your example with the kid, different kids will be bothered more by one vs the other. some kids do not care about drawing, to the point that being called bad at it doesn't mean any more to them than being bad at "playing house" which the kid doesn't want to do...but might take their actual house being called ugly more personally because it's special to them

i don't know much about jada, so can't say which hypothetical hurts more. nor whether one would have upset will more than the other.
 
Whereas when people mock you for things you choose/control, it can sometimes be more hurtful to some people, because they are being mocked for something they decided to do, or that they thought was a good idea... your personal sensibilities/judgment/tastes are being mocked. What springs to mind is the difference between someone telling a kid that their (parent's) house is ugly versus telling them that the picture they drew is ugly. I'm thinking the latter might sting more, despite the fact that they have no control over the former. So in the case of Jada, Chris Rock wasn't mocking her for having (alopecia-related) bald spots, which she could not control, he was mocking her decision to wear a shaved head. I don't know which would have hurt more, but I can certainly see a scenario where the latter cut a little deeper.
Health related things that you cannot control frequently come with their own mental issues that could be made worse by this sort of joke. How many people were watching that joke while being daunted to go out because of their own hair loss, and have been further impacted by the joke?
 
yeah, depends a lot on mentality of the person in question. it's generally easier as a matter of principle/practice to just not be rude at all, because then you don't have to figure out which one upsets someone less.

i think you are right that some people would be bothered more for being mocked for being fat or wearing ridiculous clothing as opposed to a skin condition, hair loss or height, though for some the other way around is true. i guess it comes down to whether one is comfortable with/willing to own the things they can control, and how much the things they can't bothers them.

interestingly, i bet that even in your example with the kid, different kids will be bothered more by one vs the other. some kids do not care about drawing, to the point that being called bad at it doesn't mean any more to them than being bad at "playing house" which the kid doesn't want to do...but might take their actual house being called ugly more personally because it's special to them

i don't know much about jada, so can't say which hypothetical hurts more. nor whether one would have upset will more than the other.
Its clear in the video of the event that she is bothered by the joke. Her facial expressions and body language all support the notion that she was upset or at least very annoyed by it. When people are being roasted, particularly famous people that are used to being on camera, they will often genuinely laugh at themselves, smile at the jokes, maybe politely pretend-laugh/smile, or even sort of grit their teeth and give an obviously fake smile but show that they are trying to be a good sport even if the joke annoys them or gets under their skin. For Jada to react the way she did, I think it must have really bothered her.

FWIW, I have a different take on Will's initial laugh at the joke about Jada. I've read that Rock basically went off script with the shot at Jada, but what setup the joke was Rock joking that Javier Bardem would not want to win the Oscar if Penelope Cruz (his wife) did not also win, so he would be praying for Will Smith to win instead, the implication being so as not to make his wife jealous/upset that he won but not her. Then, having directed his attention to Will Smith, he took a shot at Jada. My hot take is that since Jada is also very famous, Rock did not want to ignore her, having just acknowledged both Bardem and Cruz.

I think that might be why he went off script in the first place and made such a hamfisted joke. I think he felt like he had to acknowledge Jada and he just said the first thing he could come up with since he had no prepared material. He even began his dig at her by pointing and saying "Jada, I love ya..." You could almost feel the "Oh crap there's Jada Pinkett-Smith! I've gotta acknowledge her too!" The fact that in response to some jeers from the crowd he immediately said "Aw that was a nice one c'mon" or something like that, indicates to me that he felt that the joke was a nearly innocuous throwaway line, that was simply intended to acknowledge Jada's presence since he just mentioned her husband.

In any case, going back to the original Joke about Cruz and Bardem, and the reference to Will Smith... Smith was laughing at that joke and I think that his laugh at the quick quip at Jada was an extension of that. I'm speculating here of course, but I think that Smith's laughter at the first joke was more polite laughter than a reflection of him thinking the joke was hilariously funny and I think that spilled over into the Joke about Jada. Will Smith may have been laughing, because that's what its polite to do when you are in the front row at the Oscars, and then when Rock made the joke about Jada, Smith just continued with the polite laughter, until the actual content of the joke hit him... like "Ha ha ha ha... wait a minute... WTF did you just say?" Then he looked at his wife, saw she was upset about the joke, then felt embarrassed for having laughed at it, and felt the urge to quickly do something to demonstrate to her that he was not OK with the joke.

All total speculation on my part of course, but again, that's my hot take.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom