Scholarship table
The dichotomy in the reactions to this is fascinating. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's conditions or experiences, but people are really trying frame alopecia like its terminal cancer. Or like Jada lost her hair during chemo and Rock was going after her for that. Not to mention, I'm not sure GI Jane is really an insult.But above all else. He's a comedian. He made a joke. You may find it in poor taste, but its certainly not the first or the last. Just a wild reaction that I'm shocked is being applauded. Dude has been through a lot in his marriage in the last few years and is clearly mentally not doing great.In contrast, Denzel proving yet again that he is an absolute TITAN of Hollywood. Man can't look or act any cooler or classier
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
I'm admittedly not following this story that closely but I haven't seen a single person seriously applauding Smith for what he did. I'm sure they exist because everything exists on the internet, but the vast of majority of responses I have seen have criticized Smith.
Eh, a lot of Twitter was chastising Chris for the joke.
If someone is going to use negative, personal, put down humor towards someone else, that person needs to expect a possible negative response in return including physical when around that person.Violence is not okay, and it is not condoned. But if someone mouths off this way in unsolicited fashion, that person needs to be prepared that their words can and often will lead to a physical altercation. Perhaps it's best to not mouth off in this way in the first place.To say oh this person was just making a joke, or is a comedian so it's okay isn't good enough. There are lots of jokes and types of jokes and humor that don't involve that stuff. Plenty to choose from.
Is this how they do it in the Lou?That wasn't mouthing off. It was a joke, at the Oscar's. It's expected there. Should the Leo have gone up there and slapped Amy Schumer for her joke on the age of Leo's conquests? There is no defending what Will Smith did.
I don't think he is excusing Will's response. Just pointing out that sometimes actions have consequences.
Sure, but again, it wasn't "put down" humor. It wasn't even "oh you're fat". There are bald jokes about men far harsher or insulting. The reaction to the joke wasn't even "oooohhh sh**" like it was particularly edgy.By Will's standards last night, every roast should devolve into fisticuffs. Shoot's basically saying we should all stick to safe observational humor like Jerry Seinfeld otherwise people are justified in swinging at you, cause words have consequences and we should all be better.Im shocked Don Rickles lived to 90. Someone should have punched him in the face cause he could have resorted to much kinder and gentler humor.
But it is living in a sheltered dream world to think you can say anything you want to someone without it possibly leading to a physical altercation.
No. That isn’t what I said.What I said was actions/words have consequences sometimes. If that’s the world someone wants to live in, the possibility is always there that a person will respond, even physically. Specifics matter as every situation is a unique, individual situation. Taking the Oscars example, the biggest factor is that the comment was about Will Smith’s wife, not Will Smith himself. This increases the likelihood of a response of some kind. Consider the joke topic, and, that also increases the likelihood of a response. Consider the history, consider the joke earlier in the evening etc…and it isn’t all that difficult to see where it all ended up. Who’s to say Don Rickles has never been punched in the face a few times in his life? I’d be surprised if that were not the case. I have yet to say that violence is okay or condoned, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t easy to see when it might happen. It’s like the internet tough guy who forgets he isn’t on the internet some time when he’s saying similar things near a person/target. That’s the line that person chose to walk. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t also be consequences if necessary to the other person in a physical altercation. Both actions have consequences sometimes. That’s how it works.There are massive, vast, wide ranges to comedy. Time, place, circumstance also apply.
This all classic victim blaming. You're putting the onus on the person who was assaulted not to do something that might provoke an assault, no matter how unprovoked that assault is or how unreasonable the actions of the perpetrator.That's ridiculous.If a Marquette fan gets attacked for wearing MU gear at a road game, would you respond by saying that's simply a consequence of supporting your team? A person robbed at the ATM? That's the consequence of banking at night.A person should be free to tell a joke in a forum in which he was specifically hired to tell jokes
The difference of course is intent. When you say things intentionally trying to provoke a negative response, you will sometimes get a negative response.
So, you believe Rock told that joke intending to provoke a negative (violent?) response from Will Smith.Huh. Personally, I think he was just going for laughs.How has every Comedy Central Roast not devolved into a royal rumble?