The Slap

[Iniquitous]

Because every violent abuser I’ve ever encountered wants to shift the conversation away from what they did, and to move the conversation to why they did it.

You know what they say when you assume right?  You make an ass out of you and me.  There is nothing that even remotely says Will Smith is an abuser of any sort.  It's more telling of you to make an assumption than it is of the person you are making the assumption about.

[Thufir Hawat]

If Chris Rock made the joke thinking her haircut was a choice rather than because of her disease, he doesn't get a pass on it because intent is not magical, but it makes Smith's reaction even more inexcusable because he immediately went to the place of "Rock insulted MY WIFE because he's a bad person. Not because he didn't know any better. BAR FIGHT MODE ALPHA MALE BULLSHIT ACTIVATED."

...let's just say that comparing that slap to a bar fight is the same exaggeration as comparing a bar fight to the Troyan war !

4. On a more general note - I've seen some statements by various Hollywood people decrying Smith and saying they are "traumatized" by the situation. Uhm... seriously? These people claim to be traumatized by a sight of one guy slapping another guy? "Traumatized"... huh. People bombed in the Ukraine are traumatized. Survivors of muggings or shootings are traumatized. Not celebrities who witnessed a single - even if unexpected - slapping incident. Really, these Hollywood people should think on the language they use...

Yeah, those people are either too fragile, or prone to blow minor accidents out of proportions. Which I guess is par for the course in Hollywood, but still funny !
But then the whole outcry is blown out of proportions. A guy talks about another guy's wife and gets slapped...so what?
In real life, it's likely nobody would have batted an eye - the only reason this topic is somehow important now is that it was one rich guy slapping another rich guy.

[Twisted Crow]

Iniquitous covered a lot of what I had wanted to say earlier before we broke this discussion into fractured, convoluted discussions. And perhaps articulated it better than I could.

I have no interest in making this a moral argument. I think Will could have done better, but I understand why he reacted the way he did.

[BlueOrange]

Striking someone for saying something you don’t like is an act of violence, and it’s an act of abuse. I’m not saying that there’s a pattern of violence or abuse on Will Smith’s part. I am saying that people who hit folks that don’t deserve it are often upset about it afterwards, and they often talk about how they felt it was necessary.

Until they genuinely see that it’s not just wrong, but also unnecessary, they’re likely to do it again when they’re in the same situation next time.

I believe that his act was forgivable, and his motives understandable. But the motives are (almost) always understandable in domestic violence. Very few abusers are cartoon villains. Most of them are good, decent people who make a mistake. And if you don’t say “I don’t care about your reasons, you either think it was justified (and defend the reasons) or you think it was unjustified (in which case the reasons don’t matter)”, then you’re setting everyone up for a repeat performance.

Consider his son’s statement: “This is how we do.” When you justify the act, you’re saying it can be justified.

[Saria]

The slap absolutely was not assault. It was battery. Force was used, not just threatened or attempted. Minor semantic note.

An incorrect minor semantic note.

The slap absolutely was assault. It was also battery.

Assault is any attack on someone… even if it doesn’t succeed. Battery happens when the attack connects.

So if, hypothetically, Chris Rock had the reflexes of a jungle cat, and managed to dodge the slap at the last second—or maybe Will Smith has terrible eyesight and without his glasses misjudged the distance and whiffed the slap—it would no longer be battery (because no contact was made)…

… but it would still be assault.

Because the slap did connect, it was only assault from the moment Smith pulled his arm back, to the microsecond before his fingers made contact… and then it became battery. But it didn’t stop being assault; it became assault AND battery.

I am more concerned about the assault part, not the battery. In other words, even if Smith had missed, his actions would still be just as problematic.

Rock could also be guilty of disturbing the peace by using "fighting words," public statements likely to be injurious by their nature and/or likely to incite a person to violence.

Absolutely untrue. Certainly untrue in Canadian law, and as fucked up as American law is, I can’t believe it’s that fucked up.

I’d have to check the exact words, but they were something to the tune of hoping to see Jada in G.I. Jane 2. There is no sane interpretation of that joke as an incitement to fight with Will Smith (or Jada for that matter).

I honestly have no idea why this is being talked about constantly days later except that it was two celebrities.

I’ve seen a couple people say things like this, and I think they are missing the forest for the trees.

I’d suggest to anyone who thinks this is “just a celebrity thing” to try reading the actual discussions happening, even just those here on E. What they will find, I think, is that no one is really talking about celebrity stuff. No one is discussing which of the three involved parties are more popular, what their current projects are, what they’re wearing, what their interests/hobbies/opinions are.

The stuff that is being discussed has nothing to do with the celebrity status of either of the Smiths or Rock. Instead, you’ll see discussions about the appropriateness of physical violence as a response to mockery, whether jokes about diseases are acceptable, the gender politics of a man “defending his woman’s honour”, and so on.

See? The fact that this started with a bunch of celebrities at an awards show is irrelevant. The popularity/notoriety of the incident really only serves to make it an easy touchstone for having important sociocultural discussions. It’s often the case that culture—even junk culture—can provide handy starting points for serious conversations.

Dismissing all those discussions merely because they started with some celebrities and an awards show is really missing the point.

[Azy]

Striking someone for saying something you don’t like is an act of violence, and it’s an act of abuse. I’m not saying that there’s a pattern of violence or abuse on Will Smith’s part. I am saying that people who hit folks that don’t deserve it are often upset about it afterwards, and they often talk about how they felt it was necessary.

Until they genuinely see that it’s not just wrong, but also unnecessary, they’re likely to do it again when they’re in the same situation next time.

I believe that his act was forgivable, and his motives understandable. But the motives are (almost) always understandable in domestic violence. Very few abusers are cartoon villains. Most of them are good, decent people who make a mistake. And if you don’t say “I don’t care about your reasons, you either think it was justified (and defend the reasons) or you think it was unjustified (in which case the reasons don’t matter)”, then you’re setting everyone up for a repeat performance.

Consider his son’s statement: “This is how we do.” When you justify the act, you’re saying it can be justified.

I think you're going down a dangerous road with that type of generalization.  It seems like you're saying because all elephants are gray, everything that's gray is an elephant.  Chris Rock was not some innocent victim in all of this.  No, Will Smith should not have hit him, but the man said something that brought about a strong emotional reaction.  I can't walk up to someone and insult them and expect there to be no consequences of any kind.  The joke wasn't just something that Smith didn't like.  It pissed him off.   

To clarify, Will Smith has publicly apologized and admitted what he did was wrong.  He lost his cool.  And honestly, who hasn't at least once in their lives?  No one is trying to condone violence.  We're only pointing out that it doesn't make him some kind of monster, just a dude who saw his wife upset and went into protective mode.  Also, that getting angry and feeling protective is a normal human reaction.  Anger, especially when it hits you hard, is not an easy emotion to just ignore.

I've been abused, I know what that is.  My ex was a manipulative lying son of a bitch.  Yeah, he used justification.  But then there was also a pattern of behavior.  As far as I know, Will Smith hasn't publicly hit anyone before this.  It might happen again, it might not.  Time will tell.  But there is a huge difference between someone losing their temper in the heat of the moment and an abusive personality.     

[BlueOrange]

I think you're going down a dangerous road with that type of generalization.  It seems like you're saying because all elephants are gray, everything that's gray is an elephant.  Chris Rock was not some innocent victim in all of this.  No, Will Smith should not have hit him, but the man said something that brought about a strong emotional reaction.  I can't walk up to someone and insult them and expect there to be no consequences of any kind.  The joke wasn't just something that Smith didn't like.  It pissed him off.

What's the difference between a joke you don't like, and a joke that pisses you off?  Being pissed off means you really seriously don't like it.

If I'm a comedian who has been employed to roast people (which Chris Rock was), then I will expect that if I insult them in a humorous way, they'll laugh.  Or maybe complain using their words.  It's a very realistic expectation in that situation.  And, indeed, if I'm a perfectly ordinary person and I make a single comment (with goodwill and humorous intent) then I can reasonably expect that person to use their words if they don't like it.  Even if they really seriously don't like it.  Because I don't live in a society that condones physical violence as a response to speech.

To clarify, Will Smith has publicly apologized and admitted what he did was wrong.  He lost his cool.  And honestly, who hasn't at least once in their lives?  No one is trying to condone violence.  We're only pointing out that it doesn't make him some kind of monster, just a dude who saw his wife upset and went into protective mode.  Also, that getting angry and feeling protective is a normal human reaction.  Anger, especially when it hits you hard, is not an easy emotion to just ignore.

True.  I didn't say he was a monster.  I said that he made a mistake that resulted in an act of violence, and that the violence was improper (given that it was improper, it was abuse).

[quit]
I've been abused, I know what that is.  My ex was a manipulative lying son of a bitch.  Yeah, he used justification.  But then there was also a pattern of behavior.  As far as I know, Will Smith hasn't publicly hit anyone before this.  It might happen again, it might not.  Time will tell.  But there is a huge difference between someone losing their temper in the heat of the moment and an abusive personality.     
[/quote]

That's very true.  This (apparently) isolated act of abuse doesn't not mean that Will Smith is a fundamentally abusive person.  I've had a car accident where I had a head-on collision with someone.  On that particular occasion, I was driving somewhat recklessly.  However, given that I've had one car accident in 30 years of driving, I don't think it would be fair to call me a reckless driver.

You're arguing against something more extreme than what I've actually said.  Which is fine, it's important not to go too far with these things, and justice requires moderation in our responses.

The question I was answering is "Why don't you care about his motives?"  And the answer remains the same: my interest in this conversation is to make a very clear statement that it's not OK to hit someone because you're unhappy with what they said (no matter how unhappy you are). I also think that it's important to be realistic about the constraints we put on speech: the degree of sensitivity that many people are demanding from the world these days is (in my view) unrealistic, and the expectation gets people hurt.  There are people who want to talk about how difficult it is to have alopecia, and that's a legitimate concern if they want to talk about it.  There are also people who want to talk about unrealistic standards being applied to the behaviour of black people - and they have a point.  (It would be interesting to know how much attention was paid to John Wayne when he had to be held back by six security guards to prevent him from rushing the stage at the Oscars.  I would hope that his career was far more damaged than Will Smith's would be.)

Another point that can be made is that this was very clearly not the first time Chris Rock had to deal with a violent member of the audience.  He was so professional and so smooth about the whole thing that I'm convinced he's had practice at being in this situation.

[Rosenrot]

I think the conversation around Jada's feelings and Will's actions like they're our own and we have any business judging them because it happened publicly is weird. There's societal implications to discuss, like toxic masculinity and male conditioning or the way POC are perceived, not to mention women and specifically black women and hair... but the way people talk about it, those seem like a second thought, something to tack on and justify why you like Chris Rock or Will Smith or, in more popular opinion I've seen online, why you hate Jada Pinkett Smith.

All I know is I hope they actually left Scientology in 2015, otherwise they'll have to pay the 'Church' a shitload of money because of this.

[Iniquitous]

What's the difference between a joke you don't like, and a joke that pisses you off?  Being pissed off means you really seriously don't like it.

If I'm a comedian who has been employed to roast people (which Chris Rock was), then I will expect that if I insult them in a humorous way, they'll laugh.  Or maybe complain using their words.  It's a very realistic expectation in that situation.  And, indeed, if I'm a perfectly ordinary person and I make a single comment (with goodwill and humorous intent) then I can reasonably expect that person to use their words if they don't like it.  Even if they really seriously don't like it.  Because I don't live in a society that condones physical violence as a response to speech.


True.  I didn't say he was a monster.  I said that he made a mistake that resulted in an act of violence, and that the violence was improper (given that it was improper, it was abuse).

[quit]
I've been abused, I know what that is.  My ex was a manipulative lying son of a bitch.  Yeah, he used justification.  But then there was also a pattern of behavior.  As far as I know, Will Smith hasn't publicly hit anyone before this.  It might happen again, it might not.  Time will tell.  But there is a huge difference between someone losing their temper in the heat of the moment and an abusive personality.     


That's very true.  This (apparently) isolated act of abuse doesn't not mean that Will Smith is a fundamentally abusive person.  I've had a car accident where I had a head-on collision with someone.  On that particular occasion, I was driving somewhat recklessly.  However, given that I've had one car accident in 30 years of driving, I don't think it would be fair to call me a reckless driver.

You're arguing against something more extreme than what I've actually said.  Which is fine, it's important not to go too far with these things, and justice requires moderation in our responses.

The question I was answering is "Why don't you care about his motives?"  And the answer remains the same: my interest in this conversation is to make a very clear statement that it's not OK to hit someone because you're unhappy with what they said (no matter how unhappy you are). I also think that it's important to be realistic about the constraints we put on speech: the degree of sensitivity that many people are demanding from the world these days is (in my view) unrealistic, and the expectation gets people hurt.  There are people who want to talk about how difficult it is to have alopecia, and that's a legitimate concern if they want to talk about it.  There are also people who want to talk about unrealistic standards being applied to the behaviour of black people - and they have a point.  (It would be interesting to know how much attention was paid to John Wayne when he had to be held back by six security guards to prevent him from rushing the stage at the Oscars.  I would hope that his career was far more damaged than Will Smith's would be.)

Another point that can be made is that this was very clearly not the first time Chris Rock had to deal with a violent member of the audience.  He was so professional and so smooth about the whole thing that I'm convinced he's had practice at being in this situation.

I took some time to gather myself before responding because your posts have pissed me off.  Your generalization of abusers absolutely smacks of someone who has never been physically abused.  I have. Over a decade of an abusive relationship so I bristle when you call Smith an abuser from one incident of him losing his temper and imply motivation is not important.  My ex-husband's motivation for his abuse of me was definitely important.  It certainly was NOT because he lost his temper and my learning how to function in society and in relationships after him absolutely relied on understanding his motives.

The slap was abuse but that does not mean you can just throw out the word 'abuser' with all of its connotations willy nilly.  You cannot discuss the situation without discussing what motivated Smith to react.  The refusal to even look at his motivations means you see things in black and white without any room for the grey.  Life and this world are not black and white - and you cannot make it so just because you want it to be that way.

And for the second reason I took my little break.  It is WRONG.  Flat out, absolutely, emphatically WRONG to crack jokes at someone's medical issues. I  don't give a flying fuck if you are a comedian or the guy at the coffee shop, you do not pick on someone's medical issues.  And the fact that you are implying that such a sentiment is too much for society to accept gobsmacks me.  It is not too much to expect my fellow humans to have the common decency to not pick on their fellow humans for their medical issues. Would you be saying this if Jada was bald cause of cancer cause it seems to be an agreed-upon thing that you don't mock a cancer patient/survivor.  Just as it seems agreed upon that you don't mock little people for having dwarfism.  Just as it seems agreed upon that you don't mock someone with anorexia nervousa.  You even said earlier you wished people would joke about your illness more, so you have never been the butt of jokes that absolutely humiliated you.  Trust me when I say that it does not make you feel more human.  It makes you want to crawl into a hole and die.  It makes you hate your life just a little bit more than you did before.  It's like having a barely healed over wound that someone rips back open, pours salt into it, scrubs it raw with a dry, rough rag, and then laughs at you for.

It is not being too sensitive to expect my fellow humans to be decent. And while speech may be free, there are still consequences for opening your mouth.  If you are dumb enough to use someone's physical appearance, whether you know they have a medical condition or not, be prepared for the consequences.  As the saying goes, fuck around and find out.  Rock fucked around and he most certainly found out.  Now if he'd be the grown-up he is supposed to be, he'd make a public apology and own up to his mistake.  Smith did - and that is why I respect him so much more despite his violent reaction.

[Aethyrium]

Trust me when I say that it does not make you feel more human.

Are you an expert on all individuals in society with medical conditions and how they feel about having jokes made at the expense of those conditions? On what basis should you be trusted here? Because you're presenting your case as, "Flat out, absolutely, empahtically CORRECT" and it is, in fact, demonstratably incorrect. Even within this thread, you have at least one individual who does want those jokes to be made - and I'm sorry, but who exactly are you to tell them that's a thing that they don't want for themselves? Let alone the audacity to speak for all people with all medical conditions everywhere.

You personally might not want these jokes to be made, and they make make you personally want to crawl into a hole and die, or make you personally hate your life a little bit more than before. And you may even know several people who share those feelings. But that does not mean that is true for everyone - nor can you reasonably speak for a majority of people. You accuse BlueOrange of "seeing things in black and white without any room for the grey" in one breath, and in the next make a sweeping generalization that defines things in absolute black-and-white ways. I'm sorry, but what? Who are you to speak as the arbiter of what is right and wrong?

The situation is subjective, and how you debate it needs to reflect that. You cannot argue this case in absolutes, because there are none. Was Rock wrong? Was Smith? I don't know, I can't answer that for you or anyone else. But I can tell you that people looking at this are coming from their own places - and that doesn't mean they're wrong, or that you're wrong. But it does mean that you can't - I mean you can but that's not debate, or conversation, in which case why are you here? - dismiss the opposing views out of hand.

[BlueOrange]

I took some time to gather myself before responding because your posts have pissed me off.

And I respect that. It’s a smart move.

My opinions regarding our disagreement haven’t changed. I feel very strongly, having been on the receiving end of decades of abuse that was primarily mental abuse, with the occasional foray into physical abuse. When I compare my story to the other people in the PTSD support groups, it’s plain that the physical component of my experience was extremely mild. (I didn’t take many beatings.)

So yeah, when I compare a slap against what people who have suffered horrible physical abuse have suffered, a slap is nothing. And you’re also right when you point out that there are abusers who are not well-intentioned at all. I generalized from my own experience, and it’s only when prompted that I remember the kinds of deliberate cruelty that others have suffered.

I can understand why someone who has endured intense physical abuse would prefer to have had someone with good intentions. The weird thing is that the intensity of the abuse doesn’t reliably predict the severity of the PTSD: just like the severity of a cut doesn’t predict the intensity of a subsequent bacterial infection.

I can understand that you don’t like being joked about. In many ways, I don’t like being joked about either. But my diagnosis is Dissociative Identity Disorder. That’s the diagnosis Norman Bates was given in Psycho. It’d be a relief to be joked about: last I checked, people don’t go around saying “These horrible murders can be explained by the fact that the killer had alopecia.”

[Azy]

Okay, so, a friend of mine told a story about calling his mother a bitch to her face when he was 14.  He said she smacked him so hard for that that he was not joking when he said he was surprised a tooth didn't pop out.  That was the only time she ever really hit him.  Was he an abused child?  He doesn't think so.  He does have PTSD, but that's from serving our country in the Gulf War, not from that one incident.  The lesson learned that day was don't call Mama a bitch, at least not in ear shot of her. 

My abuse was mostly mental and emotional.  I would take a smack to the face for mouthing off over what was done to me any day.  True abusers desire control.  I may not have gotten the degree, but I did go to college and studied Psychology.  What happened on that stage wasn't much different than a bar fight.  The main differences are that the men involved were celebrities, and it was a formal event.  Man A dissed the wife of man B.  Man B hit man A in the face.  The same scenario probably played out in a dozen bars across the world today, and will again tomorrow.  Is everyone on the planet who has ever gotten into a fight an abuser?  No. 

What you referenced was a pattern of behavior.  Abusers systematically isolate you and break you down.  And generally speaking, personality disorders are not something to joke about.  When the movie Psycho came out personality disorders were not that well understood.  The 5 Factor Personality Scale wasn't put together until something like 2009.  I'd have to look t up again, but I did an entire term paper on this subject. 

I wouldn't want to be the butt of a joke either.  A big part of the reason I have Borderline Personality Disorder to begin with is because I was teased a lot in school as a kid.  Being abused by my ex really didn't help, but I was an easy target because I wasn't on stable ground to begin with because of not funny jokes about my weight or being a little weird.  Words can hurt.  It's easy to sit there and say you wish it was joked about more, but if it was, you might find it actually isn't very funny.  If your abuse was mental, you should already know words can hurt more than a fist.  My injuries from the physical abuse healed in about a week.  It's been almost 4 years since I left the bastard, and the emotional wounds from the words aren't healed yet, not completely. 

[BlueOrange]

Are you telling me that Will Smith wasn’t trying to control Chris Rock, and that it wasn’t an abusive act for that reason? Because he was trying to control Chris Rock.

As for the rest of it, yes, words can harm. Teasing can harm. And a professional adult who chooses to attend an event hosted by a comedian is not a small child who is required to attend school.

[Chulanowa]

• Chris Rock engaged in verbal abuse of Jada Smith. This has been an ongoing thing from him since the 1990's.
• Jada's Husband, Will, walked up and smacked Chris Rock open-handedly. Chris was not significantly harmed by this.
• Will later gave a pretty sincere apology for his action, which as far as I'm aware, was accepted by Chris Rock.

For starters... no one really needs to have an opinion on this. It's one dude fucking up, resulting in another dude fucking up, and the only problem I'm seeing from the outcome is that, so far as I know, Jada has not received an apology from Chris.

[CriminalMindsFan]

I like comedy and comedians but will admit some of the jokes I've heard over the years has had me wondering when someone will kill someone over a joke. This wasn't one of those moments and I thought the joke was fine since someone unaware of his wife's condition would probably think it was fitting joke under the circumstances of her having a shaved head. I also didn't have any problem with Will slapping Chris.