Will Smith vs Chris Rock

[Ken]

You're a far better man than I.

Not suggesting that, I just don't get it.

I'm honestly interested your response to the previous question. If you have decided that violence is okay in response to words, what level is okay and why?

I guess one test would be, would you want to live in a place where violence in response to words was encouraged? One where, if walking down the street and someone mishears what you are saying to the person next to you, it's not just appropriate but encouraged that the guy who thought he heard something different cold-cock you?

[Ken]

Again, no one has defended Smith, most everyone has mentioned he should have handled it differently. There's simply been mention of how we (I) understand how he could have chosen to react as he did. This discussion has evolved beyond the slap into something more in depth and far more serious.

I agree, just using that as an example as well. There are numerous ways to respond to being offended.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Not suggesting that, I just don't get it.

I'm honestly interested your response to the previous question. If you have decided that violence is okay in response to words, what level is okay and why?

Context. Everything has it's own set of circumstance. It depends on so many factors, but suffice it to say--my level cap will be far higher than most.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I agree, just using that as an example as well. There are numerous ways to respond to being offended.

Agreed, we simply disagree where the line is drawn--which is OK. If you can't understand my position or just think I'm wrong--that's OK too.

[Ken]

Context. Everything has it's own set of circumstance. It depends on so many factors, but suffice it to say--my level cap will be far higher than most.

That's avoiding the question.

How do you determine what level? When is it okay to permanently disable someone? Or how do you know if the guy you are punching has a rare disease and will bleed out if you draw blood?

How bout lets just follow the things we learned in Kindergarten and not put our hands on other people? Seems pretty easy. (And I don't mean that condescending towards you personally but rather towards the idea that violence is just this thing that you can dole out as you wish)

[Ken]

Agreed, we simply disagree where the line is drawn--which is OK. If you can't understand my position or just think I'm wrong--that's OK too.

But my point is that there is no line because I don't see how you can justify ever hurting someone, you haven't shown a justification for doing so or deciding how much pain to inflict. It is arbitrary.

Keep your hands off other people! It's really that simple. You never have justification to put your hands on someone else unless it is for a safety reason. Anger or offense is no justification.

In the moment I absolutely understand how someone could lose their temper and hit someone else. I could see myself doing it. I'm not at all saying I'm immune, I grasp the concept, I've felt that rage before when someone says something so offensive.

It's absolutely wrong to resort to violence though. There's no rationalization for following through and hitting someone.

Perhaps we're conflating the concepts of "do I think this person deserves to be punished" with "is it okay for me to be the one to perform that punishment and to do so with physical violence".

Those are two completely separate concepts.

[GwynnInTheHall]

That's avoiding the question.

How do you determine what level? When is it okay to permanently disable someone? Or how do you know if the guy you are punching has a rare disease and will bleed out if you draw blood?

How bout lets just follow the things we learned in Kindergarten and not put our hands on other people? Seems pretty easy. (And I don't mean that condescending towards you personally but rather towards the idea that violence is just this thing that you can dole out as you wish)

If you're asking would I condone killing someone--#1 Outside of self defense, Nazis and Fascist Dictators, I don't condone killing.

-However if a gay man, who'd been brutalized his whole life for being gay, was verbally assaulted by some homophobic asshat who was relentless in his barrage of slurs triggers that gay man who snaps and responds violently and kills the guy--I'd understand how it could happen. I'd say he could have acted differently, but I'd understand how it could happen and I'd assigning some of the blame to the man tossing slurs. And honestly--I wouldn't shed a tear for the bigot. You have to know by know I'm a big schadenfreude guy.

Words have power, they illicit responses, we see it everyday. Some responses, up to and including violence (which can potentially have deadly consequence) are justified.

I hope that clarifies it. Though you might find that take somewhat abhorrent. I'd understand if you do.

[GwynnInTheHall]

But my point is that there is no line because I don't see how you can justify ever hurting someone, you haven't shown a justification for doing so or deciding how much pain to inflict. It is arbitrary.

Keep your hands off other people! It's really that simple. You never have justification to put your hands on someone else unless it is for a safety reason. Anger or offense is no justification.

In the moment I absolutely understand how someone could lose their temper and hit someone else. I could see myself doing it. I'm not at all saying I'm immune, I grasp the concept, I've felt that rage before when someone says something so offensive.

It's absolutely wrong to resort to violence though. There's no rationalization for following through and hitting someone.

Perhaps we're conflating the concepts of "do I think this person deserves to be punished" with "is it okay for me to be the one to perform that punishment and to do so with physical violence".

Those are two completely separate concepts.

Could I see myself acting violently? Yes. Have I in the past? Only in response to being hit first. I've never had someone verbally insult me in person to the extent I got angry. If I had maybe I'd have a story to tell. Thing is, I don't lose it in public and I'm much more measured, as you know, in person. I can say what I think I'd do, but until I'm in that place--I don't really know--so understand is all I can do.

[Sour Masher]

But it's ignoring the valid point that some words do go too far. I absolutely don't think they did in this instance.

Sure, and there are words that might drive me to violence, even though I think it would be a failure on my part if that happened. For me to be overcome by irrationality to that extent, it would have to be a really purposefully malicious string of words--not a joke, but something meant to hurt and provoke me in a deep and profound way. Like if I were one of the parents who lost a child in Sandy Hook and Alex Jones was shouting at me, calling me a crisis actor to my face, telling me my child did not get murdered, after his ditto heads have been calling and hairdressing me and my wife while we tried to cope with the lost of our child, I'd attack him. I'd probably try to kill him. I'd still deserve to be removed from the premises and prosecuted for my actions, because we do live in a society of laws, and we should all understand that is a good thing, even when we think the laws we break are for righteous reasons.

But I could never see being driven to violence by a joke from a comedian that clearly means no real harm. It is disturbing that many people defended Smith or thought Rock had it coming. And the idea that the measuring stick is one's personal level of offense is just crazy. That opens the door for all kinds of violence, all of the time, for literally anything. I'm offended, I get to hit you now!

[GwynnInTheHall]

Sure, and there are words that might drive me to violence, even though I think it would be a failure on my part if that happened. For me to be overcome by irrationality to that extent, it would have to be a really purposefully malicious string of words--not a joke, but something meant to hurt and provoke me in a deep and profound way. Like if I were one of the parents who lost a child in Sandy Hook and Alex Jones was shouting at me, calling me a crisis actor to my face, telling me my child did not get murdered, after his ditto heads have been calling and hairdressing me and my wife while we tried to cope with the lost of our child, I'd attack him. I'd probably try to kill him. I'd still deserve to be removed from the premises and prosecuted for my actions, because we do live in a society of laws, and we should all understand that is a good thing, even when we think the laws we break are for righteous reasons.

But I could never see being driven to violence by a joke from a comedian that clearly means no real harm. It is disturbing that many people defended Smith or thought Rock had it coming. And the idea that the measuring stick is one's personal level of offense is just crazy. That opens the door for all kinds of violence, all of the time, for literally anything. I'm offended, I get to hit you now!

How do you know Rock meant no harm?

What if Rock made a joke about Sandy Hook cuz like Maher said--It's Humor.

[Sour Masher]

How do you know Rock meant no harm?

What if Rock made a joke about Sandy Hook cuz like Maher said--It's Humor.

He could have made such worse jokes, but didn't. He was tempted after Smith slapped him, but he took the high road. And no matter what he said, if someone assaulted him, they should have been removed from the premises, whether they wanted to be or not. You don't get to hit someone, turn around, goo sit down, get an award, get applause, then go party all night long if you are a normal person in society, and that is a good thing for the social order. A culture that tolerates violence as a response to any perceived slight is not a better society to live in--that is basically how prison culture and gang culture operate.

[GwynnInTheHall]

He could have made such worse jokes, but didn't. He was tempted after Smith slapped him, but he took the high road.

None of this matters. #1 That he seemingly took the high road should and has been praised, to say he could have done worse but didn't is immaterial and no one but Rock knows why he reacted the way he did--he could have indeed taken the high road or simply have been stunned into silence--Rock has yet to clarify so we should not assume.

And no matter what he said, if someone assaulted him, they should have been removed from the premises, whether they wanted to be or not. You don't get to hit someone, turn around, goo sit down, get an award, get applause, then go party all night long if you are a normal person in society, and that is a good thing for the social order.

I agree, but it's long been established that the rich, famous and/or powerful have a different set of rules they live by--it's not right, but it's reality--to change that you have to change the entire socio economic culture of the world. You ideal of what society should be and how people should act is admirable, but I'm afraid has little chance of becoming reality.

A culture that tolerates violence as a response to any perceived slight is not a better society to live in--that is basically how prison culture and gang culture operate.

This is slightly Hyperbolic. We live in a society that tolerates massive amounts of abhorrent behavior. How many Athletes keep their jobs after infractions that would land us normal folk in jail? How many politicians get elected/re elected even though they have been accused of or convicted of crap behavior? (Gianforte body slammed a reporter--got elected). The subjugation of people by gender, race and class. Homelessness, abuse of force by law enforcement agencies and on and on.

We live in an imperfect society, violent reaction to verbal slights/insults is just one fraction of issues we all wish were handled in a more altruistic manner. I guess we should just hope for the best, but be prepared for the reality of it all.

Words have consequence--Is losing your job because of something you said more or less damaging than getting punched or slapped? Is a person of color at fault if they react to the N word with violence? And subjugated segment of society if they act to slurs with violence? As a white straight male, I'm not going to tell someone of whom I have no idea of their struggles they can't react in a certain way to something I've not experienced.

I'd love the world to be as you hope/expect it to be, but it's not--nor will it be any time soon--so until that social evolution happens we should all understand/accept--If you talk shit, you run the risk of getting your ass kicked/\.

Keep up the good fight. I'm rooting for ya.

[Steve 2.0]

This is slightly Hyperbolic.
.

Slightly Hyperbolic would be a good name for a band.

[DMT]

Slightly Hyperbolic would be a good name for a band.

I disagree.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Slightly Hyperbolic would be a good name for a band.

a fairly extraordinary name for a band, really