• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

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

Chemotherapy baldness certainly implies illness. MPB does not.
  • Alopecia areata. This hair loss disorder is characterized by sudden loss of hair in one particular area. The hair grows back after several months. However, if all body hair is suddenly lost, regrowth may not happen.
Baldness is a disorder where hair disappears in a particular area and doesn't grow back, no one's quite sure why.

Not saying it's fantastic to make fun of someone's physical features (fat, skinny, short, bald, etc.) but she's not dying.

Homeboy initially thought it was funny but he clearly doesn't wear the pants in the family. His wife probably doing way worse to him than he did to Rock poor sob. It might sound chivalrous to act like you had to do some stupid **** because of your woman but if you really care about being a responsible stable man you will act w more forethought if you have loved ones depending on you. Guy shot himself in the foot and lost alot of opportunities now. Of course extra wealth @ his level not going to bring more peace of mind so there's less incentive. An up and coming Will Smith probably wouldn't have acted like this. Wisdom doesn't always come w age.
 
Last edited:
Shes not ill just embarrassed
Alopecia is generally defined as an illness and not comparable to something like baldness.

This is funny. Earlier in the thread it was "Rock couldn't know", and now it's "she isn't ill".

But Tyson was getting "harassed". Am I supposed to care for the millionaire? He most definitely isn't ill, so there's no nuance there. As usual, it's just more hypocrisy. You're not being a pacifist (which I'd respect even if I disagree). You're not against violence as a response to speech at all. You choose to defend it in some scenarios and condemn it in others.

Which, ironically, is close to my position. We just disagree over the particulars of the respective scenarios, is all. I don't mind that, but it'd be nice if you just admitted it.
 
I am large, I contain multitudes.

For the record I think Tyson should and will face legal consequences and troll get will get some financial compensation.

Also you're nuts if you think Tyson isn't ill.
 
Can't say I get how it is different/worse (or better) to make fun of someone due to areata (Jada) than to make fun of them due to more typical baldness. We aren't talking about chemotherapy, so the issue is cosmetic in both cases. Guess what, people with MPB can get hurt by jokes about their hair (which Will Smith did too :D )
 
Guess what! We're 27 pages in and two wrongs still don't make a right :D

Also you're nuts if you think Tyson isn't ill.
He certainly wasn't being mocked for any apparent condition he may or may not have been diagnosed with. But you continue defending him, it's definitely a good look.
 
Guess what! We're 27 pages in and two wrongs still don't make a right :D

Do you really want the thread to go away so that there will be even more posting in the hideous war threads? :p
Besides, Will was vile and violent, Rock only vile, so 2>1 and Smith is the worst thing ever :yup:
 
Do you really want the thread to go away so that there will be even more posting in the hideous war threads? :p
Besides, Will was vile and violent, Rock only vile, so 2>1 and Smith is the worst thing ever :yup:
I'm unfortunately sure that the denizens of this fine forum in 2022 have learned the art of multitasking ;)
 
Besides, Will was vile and violent, Rock only vile, so 2>1 and Smith is the worst thing ever :yup:

:lol: You use your own sentiment as measurement:

Rock is more likable and better in Character than Will, Will is wrong, Rock is the ultimate victim :yup:
 

Attachments

  • yup.gif
    yup.gif
    1.5 KB · Views: 19
  • yup.gif
    yup.gif
    1.5 KB · Views: 18
He certainly wasn't being mocked for any apparent condition he may or may not have been diagnosed with.
It's like teasing a mad dog.

It's more funny than Smith because it's more genuine.

Tyson had enuf and lashed out. It's nothing to aspire to but it has a humor to it like a clip of a boy hitting a bees nest w a stick and then being shocked when he gets stung by 50 bees. Smith's actions were contrived and premeditated rather than stemming from any genuine sense of aggrievement.

But you continue defending him, it's definitely a good look.
Not defending anyone, just explaining why so many people's visceral reactions to the two events are different.

And I don't gaf how I look. My aim is to state my opinion as clearly as possible not to impress.
 
Smith's actions were contrived and premeditated rather than stemming from any genuine sense of aggrievement.
Ah, I see, so Tyson reacting emotionally is lashing out, and Smith reacting emotionally is "contrived and premeditated". Mm-hm. Sure. That tracks.
Not defending anyone, just explaining why so many people's visceral reactions to the two events are different.
Except the consistency in both cases is violence as a response to non-violent behaviour (speech, in essence). You're valuing the responses differently, which is contradictory to say the least.

You've been pretty insistent that violence is completely unacceptable (as have others). If suddenly there's nuance to these kinds of events, it completely undermines every single time you've attempted to claim that violence is unacceptable. If I've somehow got you completely wrong and violence isn't completely unacceptable, then you need to be more tolerant of what is essentially just a difference in opinion :)
 
The well known political commentator, the Spiffing Brit, has commented on the incident at the Oscars ... using Skyrim as a ... metaphor? Yeah, metaphor.

 
Except the consistency in both cases is violence as a response to non-violent behaviour (speech, in essence). You're valuing the responses differently
I think they're both bad and should have similar legal consequences. One is just funny.

There's also a matter of personal space. Someone continually harassing a person from 1 foot away is worse than a joke about them from few hundred feet away.

Also dude was at his back and making a bunch of movements. Having someone inches from you carrying on and moving around feels threatening.. Obviously appropriate thing is do is get up and move seats but on an animal level his reaction is understandable tho not societally appropriate
 
Obviously appropriate thing is do is get up and move seats but on an animal level his reaction is understandable tho not societally appropriate
I think this is all people were saying about Smith's reaction, too. I say, 27 pages into this :D
 
The irony is that Will Smith acted really badly at the Oscars.
And when I say acted, I don't mean "take action", but being an "actor"

From the fake smiles and chuckles to all the jokes that evening, to the fake anger, to the fake weepy eyed so-called apology while receiving the Oscar.

Look at the man, he's clearly distraught.

Be careful at your highest moment, that's when the camera comes for you.
 
one interesting distinction is to what extent speech is considered provocative. i consider punch(es) in response to each of these to be different in meaningful way(s):
  1. insensitive joke
  2. getting in someone's face/repeatedly saying inflammatory things at them despite them trying to disengage or ignore
  3. yelling/using a megaphone to the point of causing physical discomfort even as they try to move away
  4. direct/credible verbal threat of immediate harm + postering to act on it
some of these are protected speech, others definitely are not. i don't think you can justify assault for #1 legally or ethically. imo #2 is still breaking the law/shouldn't be done, but i can better sympathize with it than #1.

for #3, i would strongly consider acquitting someone if they were charged with assault for it. it depends how many punches/how long they beat on the person with the megaphone before stopping. if you're yelling at someone in a megaphone close enough to where they can give you some sweet chin music, you were duly compensated for your "entertainment" in receiving it.

for #4, i would consider it self defense up to the point where the person issuing the threat is rendered incapable of acting on it.
 
I'd say if someone is so close to you without consent that you can smell their breath assault could be defensible. Assuming you gave them a verbal command to move.
 
Tyson bit him because Holyfield kept headbutting him in the ring. Now I’m not saying that justified it, but why was Holyfield not called out?
 
Tyson bit him because Holyfield kept headbutting him in the ring. Now I’m not saying that justified it, but why was Holyfield not called out?
If the choices are 1)being "called out"; or 2) getting a piece of your ear bitten off... I'm going with #1.

In other words... your question is kinda moot right? Out of the two "options" available... Holyfield definitely received the worse one... I think that was punishment enough.
 
Top Bottom