Red Mosquito

You're painting Will Smith as some sort of hero for the downtrodden and the disabled. He's a kindergartner

That's just your brain-washed sense of objectivity speaking, Argo.

Mickey wrote:

bada wrote:The question has been raised that if The Rock had made that joke instead of Chris Rock would Will have smacked him?

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.

Under the surface
The ship doesn’t swerve as it heard how big the iceberg is

Argo, do you take a similar stance when a ballplayer charges a mound?

tree_ 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.

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 cheek

washing machine wrote:Argo, do you take a similar stance when a ballplayer charges a mound?

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.
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

The 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 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 wife

I don't think hes a "hero" or a "kindergartner"; he's a dude who slogged another dude who fucked around and found out

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms 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"

Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theories

"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjective

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'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.

A cool little thing

I sure am glad RM is online and not real life. I would have been punched so many times by now!

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms 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"

Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theories

"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjective

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'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.

it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it was

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

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms 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"

Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theories

"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjective

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'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.

it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it was

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

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.

The Argonaut wrote:

washing machine wrote:Argo, do you take a similar stance when a ballplayer charges a mound?

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.
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

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...)

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.

Mickey wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Mickey 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.

why? there are many issues here about power dynamics beyond rich and poor; I don't stop caring about ableism when a target has money

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.

"as a whole"?

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

washing machine wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:

washing machine wrote:Argo, do you take a similar stance when a ballplayer charges a mound?

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.
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

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...)

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.

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 show

I’m not sure why mr. Smith all of the sudden has a problem with who’s mouth jada has been in.

*ducks*

lol

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms 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"

Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theories

"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjective

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'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.

it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it was

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

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.

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?

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

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms 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"

Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theories

"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjective

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'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.

it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it was

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

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.

aren't you making assumptions about his intentions? while completely ignoring the racial undertone of the joke?

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms 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"

Your reasoning is not based on reality, it’s based on silly theories

"reason" is theory; and "silly" is subjective

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'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.

it wasn't a simple joke; it wasn't simple at all; it was loaded; and Chris knew it was, and Will knew it was

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

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.

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?

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

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.