Are you not not going to watch the Oscars this year?
- The Argonaut
- I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
- Posts: 11809
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:53 pm
- Location: in the air tonight
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
You're painting Will Smith as some sort of hero for the downtrodden and the disabled. He's a kindergartner
Please consider voting for me
- Mickey
- Mind Your Tanners
- Posts: 9715
- Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am
- Location: Tristes Tropiques
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
That's just your brain-washed sense of objectivity speaking, Argo.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
- washing machine
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 15666
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 11:28 pm
- Location: Space City
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
Under the surfaceMickey wrote:If this was about resistance to ableism and not just ego-driven madness then I hope Will Smith would have summoned the courage to confront a bully no matter how muscle-bound his form.bada wrote:The question has been raised that if The Rock had made that joke instead of Chris Rock would Will have smacked him?
The ship doesn’t swerve as it heard how big the iceberg is
dimejinky99 wrote:I could destroy any ai chatbot you put in front of me. Easily.
- washing machine
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 15666
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 11:28 pm
- Location: Space City
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
Argo, do you take a similar stance when a ballplayer charges a mound?
dimejinky99 wrote:I could destroy any ai chatbot you put in front of me. Easily.
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13605
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
there shouldn't be shame, no; but if you're surrounded by a society who shames you for just that, and they have done since you were a child, you can't just decide actually everything's fine, you have no internalised shame actually, and nobody deserves a light tap on the cheektree_ wrote:If there is no shame in losing one’s hair, which there shouldn’t be, then there is nothing inherently insulting about pointing out your hair and comparing it to another hot woman with the same hair length.
- The Argonaut
- I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
- Posts: 11809
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:53 pm
- Location: in the air tonight
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I thought about this last night, actually. I see a difference. Athletes are in some real way already putting their bodies on the line and are in that mindset, so when sports turns physical it's different.washing machine wrote:Argo, do you take a similar stance when a ballplayer charges a mound?
It's a little bullshit in baseball, so I'm glad those fights rarely escalate. But I understand when hockey or soccer or basketball players who have been competing and physically pushing and struggling with each other start fighting. It's different than just sitting in a chair
Please consider voting for me
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13605
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I don't think he's that, but I did think he did a cool little thing here, knowing some complex reasons why the comment would have hurt his wifeThe Argonaut wrote:You're painting Will Smith as some sort of hero for the downtrodden and the disabled. He's a kindergartner
I don't think hes a "hero" or a "kindergartner"; he's a dude who slogged another dude who fucked around and found out
- tree_
- NEVER STOP JAMMING!
- Posts: 20152
- Joined: Thu April 04, 2013 6:27 am
- Twitter: twitter.com/uglyfurballz4life
- Location: Port Perry Lodge on voluptuous Lake Perry
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
You're interpreting a very simple joke if you just look at what was said, basically, your hair is short, so is that hot girl in that movie, in 18 different theoretical directions, assuming each one worse than the next, instead of giving him a shred of benefit of the doubt. He might as well had just said, "you're as hot as GI Jane", if you read it that way.Ms Harmless wrote:"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjectivetree_ wrote:Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theoriesMs Harmless wrote:if you think "reasoning" is not something I'm literally doing in this thread I've got nothing more to say to you, but a difference of opinion is not a "lack of reason"
you think any of us is in the position to go out and test our arguments and hypotheses here? absolute not; but some of us accept that we have feelings and opinions on the matter based on experience and exposure to ideas and experiences; others of us are deeply brainwashed into thinking we have the objective truth on everything
Last edited by tree_ on Mon March 28, 2022 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Jorge
- NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
- Posts: 36494
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
A cool little thing
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
- The Argonaut
- I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
- Posts: 11809
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:53 pm
- Location: in the air tonight
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I sure am glad RM is online and not real life. I would have been punched so many times by now!
Please consider voting for me
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13605
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it wastree_ wrote:You're interpreting a very simple joke if you just look at what was said, basically, your hair is short, so is that hot girl in that movie, in 18 different theoretical directions, assuming each one worse than the next, instead of giving him a shred of benefit of the doubt. He might as well had just said, "you're as hot as GI Jane", if you read it that way.Ms Harmless wrote:"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjectivetree_ wrote:Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theoriesMs Harmless wrote:if you think "reasoning" is not something I'm literally doing in this thread I've got nothing more to say to you, but a difference of opinion is not a "lack of reason"
you think any of us is in the position to go out and test our arguments and hypotheses here? absolute not; but some of us accept that we have feelings and opinions on the matter based on experience and exposure to ideas and experiences; others of us are deeply brainwashed into thinking we have the objective truth on everything
you can't be a good comedian and demand that your audience just turn their brains off and refuses to have a variety of interpretations to what you say; if you want a "death of the author / death of the comedian" solution, where all that matters are the words that were said and not the intention behind them, then you have to accept that all the power in your "jokes" comes from audience perception and reaction
- tree_
- NEVER STOP JAMMING!
- Posts: 20152
- Joined: Thu April 04, 2013 6:27 am
- Twitter: twitter.com/uglyfurballz4life
- Location: Port Perry Lodge on voluptuous Lake Perry
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
See, you don't know that though. You're making all kinds of assumptions about his intentions. I'm pretty sure he was just calling her hot. If he wanted to insult her he could have called her Shrek.Ms Harmless wrote:it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it wastree_ wrote:You're interpreting a very simple joke if you just look at what was said, basically, your hair is short, so is that hot girl in that movie, in 18 different theoretical directions, assuming each one worse than the next, instead of giving him a shred of benefit of the doubt. He might as well had just said, "you're as hot as GI Jane", if you read it that way.Ms Harmless wrote:"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjectivetree_ wrote:Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theoriesMs Harmless wrote:if you think "reasoning" is not something I'm literally doing in this thread I've got nothing more to say to you, but a difference of opinion is not a "lack of reason"
you think any of us is in the position to go out and test our arguments and hypotheses here? absolute not; but some of us accept that we have feelings and opinions on the matter based on experience and exposure to ideas and experiences; others of us are deeply brainwashed into thinking we have the objective truth on everything
you can't be a good comedian and demand that your audience just turn their brains off and refuse to have a variety of interpretations to what you say; if you want a "death of the author / death of the comedian" solution, where all that matters are the words that were said and not the intention behind them, then you have to accept that all the power in your "jokes" comes from audience perception and reaction
- washing machine
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 15666
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 11:28 pm
- Location: Space City
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I see the difference. There's no real "consent" in either instance, but pro athletes do at least have that idea that they could enter a fight during a game in their mind and there are unwritten rules of engagement (ie don't bring a bat, don't actually hurt someone, benches must clear...)The Argonaut wrote:I thought about this last night, actually. I see a difference. Athletes are in some real way already putting their bodies on the line and are in that mindset, so when sports turns physical it's different.washing machine wrote:Argo, do you take a similar stance when a ballplayer charges a mound?
It's a little bullshit in baseball, so I'm glad those fights rarely escalate. But I understand when hockey or soccer or basketball players who have been competing and physically pushing and struggling with each other start fighting. It's different than just sitting in a chair
In the real world, like in baseball, you can easily get dinged for saying something stupid -- and that's what happened. Baseball players know this in games, but adults should know this in life. Chris Rock handled himself very well. His non-reaction is the measured, adult response to Smith's childish, reactionary move. I do believe, however, that he was shocked because he as a Hollywood celeb got a small taste of the real world consequences for "offensive" speech as opposed to the decorum that "should" have happened. I can't get over people being surprised by any of this.
And now that I think of it, Will Smith's reaction is a lot closer to a pitcher being petty and throwing at a batter for something that happened earlier in an at-bat/game/season/career.
dimejinky99 wrote:I could destroy any ai chatbot you put in front of me. Easily.
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13605
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
"as a whole"?Mickey wrote:Because you have abstracted from the material context in order to find an object lesson for your particular interests, one which is not reflected in the situation as a whole in any meaningful way.Ms Harmless wrote:why? there are many issues here about power dynamics beyond rich and poor; I don't stop caring about ableism when a target has moneyMickey wrote:Reading Will Smith smacking Chris Rock as "resistance" is exactly the sort of pigeon-brain take you end up with when you discount how much money someone makes.
maybe you need to explain the "whole" situation as my response is coming from a clearly partial faulty extrapolation of the meaning of a joke; I'm clearly biased
- The Argonaut
- I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
- Posts: 11809
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:53 pm
- Location: in the air tonight
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
There are rules of engagement in stand-up comedy, too. One of them is don't hit the performer. Don't even go up on the stage. Some degree of heckling is permitted, from one's seat. If Will Smith can't handle the rules he shouldn't go to the showwashing machine wrote:I see the difference. There's no real "consent" in either instance, but pro athletes do at least have that idea that they could enter a fight during a game in their mind and there are unwritten rules of engagement (ie don't bring a bat, don't actually hurt someone, benches must clear...)The Argonaut wrote:I thought about this last night, actually. I see a difference. Athletes are in some real way already putting their bodies on the line and are in that mindset, so when sports turns physical it's different.washing machine wrote:Argo, do you take a similar stance when a ballplayer charges a mound?
It's a little bullshit in baseball, so I'm glad those fights rarely escalate. But I understand when hockey or soccer or basketball players who have been competing and physically pushing and struggling with each other start fighting. It's different than just sitting in a chair
In the real world, like in baseball, you can easily get dinged for saying something stupid -- and that's what happened. Baseball players know this in games, but adults should know this in life. Chris Rock handled himself very well. His non-reaction is the measured, adult response to Smith's childish, reactionary move. I do believe, however, that he was shocked because he as a Hollywood celeb got a small taste of the real world consequences for "offensive" speech as opposed to the decorum that "should" have happened. I can't get over people being surprised by any of this.
And now that I think of it, Will Smith's reaction is a lot closer to a pitcher being petty and throwing at a batter for something that happened earlier in an at-bat/game/season/career.
Please consider voting for me
- Strat
- Waiting for HVAC Repairman
- Posts: 35407
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
- Location: Twin City Kisses
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I’m not sure why mr. Smith all of the sudden has a problem with who’s mouth jada has been in.
*ducks*
*ducks*
- tree_
- NEVER STOP JAMMING!
- Posts: 20152
- Joined: Thu April 04, 2013 6:27 am
- Twitter: twitter.com/uglyfurballz4life
- Location: Port Perry Lodge on voluptuous Lake Perry
- Contact:
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13605
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
you think Tree from RM has the right to tell Jada Smith what she should be insulted by? you think that because you think she's hot like a GI Jane doll, everyone should just relax?tree_ wrote:See, you don't know that though. You're making all kinds of assumptions about his intentions. I'm pretty sure he was just calling her hot. If he wanted to insult her he could have called her Shrek.Ms Harmless wrote:it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it wastree_ wrote:You're interpreting a very simple joke if you just look at what was said, basically, your hair is short, so is that hot girl in that movie, in 18 different theoretical directions, assuming each one worse than the next, instead of giving him a shred of benefit of the doubt. He might as well had just said, "you're as hot as GI Jane", if you read it that way.Ms Harmless wrote:"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjectivetree_ wrote:Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theoriesMs Harmless wrote:if you think "reasoning" is not something I'm literally doing in this thread I've got nothing more to say to you, but a difference of opinion is not a "lack of reason"
you think any of us is in the position to go out and test our arguments and hypotheses here? absolute not; but some of us accept that we have feelings and opinions on the matter based on experience and exposure to ideas and experiences; others of us are deeply brainwashed into thinking we have the objective truth on everything
you can't be a good comedian and demand that your audience just turn their brains off and refuse to have a variety of interpretations to what you say; if you want a "death of the author / death of the comedian" solution, where all that matters are the words that were said and not the intention behind them, then you have to accept that all the power in your "jokes" comes from audience perception and reaction
you want your interpretation of "the text" -- an interpretation that was no more explained or unpacked by Chris Rock than mine was -- to "win" over my interpretation of the text, when in reality, we're just from wildly different perspectives in life
Last edited by Ms Harmless on Mon March 28, 2022 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
warehouse
- Rank This Poster
- Posts: 4993
- Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 3:34 pm
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
aren't you making assumptions about his intentions? while completely ignoring the racial undertone of the joke?tree_ wrote:See, you don't know that though. You're making all kinds of assumptions about his intentions. I'm pretty sure he was just calling her hot. If he wanted to insult her he could have called her Shrek.Ms Harmless wrote:it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it wastree_ wrote:You're interpreting a very simple joke if you just look at what was said, basically, your hair is short, so is that hot girl in that movie, in 18 different theoretical directions, assuming each one worse than the next, instead of giving him a shred of benefit of the doubt. He might as well had just said, "you're as hot as GI Jane", if you read it that way.Ms Harmless wrote:"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjectivetree_ wrote:Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theoriesMs Harmless wrote:if you think "reasoning" is not something I'm literally doing in this thread I've got nothing more to say to you, but a difference of opinion is not a "lack of reason"
you think any of us is in the position to go out and test our arguments and hypotheses here? absolute not; but some of us accept that we have feelings and opinions on the matter based on experience and exposure to ideas and experiences; others of us are deeply brainwashed into thinking we have the objective truth on everything
you can't be a good comedian and demand that your audience just turn their brains off and refuse to have a variety of interpretations to what you say; if you want a "death of the author / death of the comedian" solution, where all that matters are the words that were said and not the intention behind them, then you have to accept that all the power in your "jokes" comes from audience perception and reaction
- tree_
- NEVER STOP JAMMING!
- Posts: 20152
- Joined: Thu April 04, 2013 6:27 am
- Twitter: twitter.com/uglyfurballz4life
- Location: Port Perry Lodge on voluptuous Lake Perry
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
One perspective produces the benefit of peace, cooperation, understanding, friendship, while the other produces violence. Better be sure. I don't know his intentions any better than you, but probably better to be on the safe side.Ms Harmless wrote:you think Tree from RM has the right to tell Jada Smith what she should be insulted by? you think that because you think she's hot like a GI Jane doll, everyone should just relax?tree_ wrote:See, you don't know that though. You're making all kinds of assumptions about his intentions. I'm pretty sure he was just calling her hot. If he wanted to insult her he could have called her Shrek.Ms Harmless wrote:it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it wastree_ wrote:You're interpreting a very simple joke if you just look at what was said, basically, your hair is short, so is that hot girl in that movie, in 18 different theoretical directions, assuming each one worse than the next, instead of giving him a shred of benefit of the doubt. He might as well had just said, "you're as hot as GI Jane", if you read it that way.Ms Harmless wrote:"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjectivetree_ wrote:Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theoriesMs Harmless wrote:if you think "reasoning" is not something I'm literally doing in this thread I've got nothing more to say to you, but a difference of opinion is not a "lack of reason"
you think any of us is in the position to go out and test our arguments and hypotheses here? absolute not; but some of us accept that we have feelings and opinions on the matter based on experience and exposure to ideas and experiences; others of us are deeply brainwashed into thinking we have the objective truth on everything
you can't be a good comedian and demand that your audience just turn their brains off and refuse to have a variety of interpretations to what you say; if you want a "death of the author / death of the comedian" solution, where all that matters are the words that were said and not the intention behind them, then you have to accept that all the power in your "jokes" comes from audience perception and reaction
you want your interpretation of "the text" -- an interpretation that was no more explained or unpacked by Chris Rock than mine was -- to "win" over my interpret of the text, when in reality, we're just from wildly different perspectives in life