If it weren’t for a Chris Rock joke, Will Smith’s life would be perfect, and he’d be a happy pacifist.
At least that’s what Smith and his apologists would like us to believe.
I’ve thought about the assault since it happened, and I’ve had a number of observations about it, and here they are:
In slapping Chris Rock in front of the world, over a tepid joke at his wife’s expense, Will Smith brought the spotlight onto him and his wife, and made it even more widely known that he allows his wife to sleep with other men, and that she publicly discusses, it and even parades in public with her lovers. So the thing that really enrages him about his life, the thing that was really behind his profane and violent outburst at the Oscars, is now more known than it’s ever been. So now Will Smith must be slapping the one person he should have slapped in the first place, himself.
As for the guys defending Will Smith’s alleged “defense” of his wife’s “honor” by slapping Chris Rock over a joke at her expense, I would ask if they and their significant other have an open relationship, and does she publicly discuss her affairs? Because that kind of self-inflicted humiliation can lead weak man to descend into violence at the drop of a joke, and get the support of other weak men.
That kind of self-inflicted and ongoing humiliation needs to be dealt with, something Smith clearly hasn’t done, and so he’s made himself believe that, because of his triple privilege—leftist privilege/black privilege/celebrity privilege—that he’s entitled to initiate force against others and get away with it. And the Hollywood cowards all around him do nothing but encourage him to do just that, and we saw some of them console him after he assaulted Chris Rock, instead of consoling Chris Rock, a victim who didn’t cry like his assaulter did. So a criminal who should be in jail is home free, with the support of his Hollywood community, whose collective cowardice gave him a standing ovation for winning an Oscar after he ruined the entire evening for everyone by assaulting a presenter. But despite the fact that Chris Rock chose to not press charges, as he was given the opportunity to do so from police who were at the event, Smith still criminally assaulted someone, and violated California law. He shouldn’t be able to walk away from this, but considering the wide support for a racist movement like BLM —which the once mild-mannered Smith has fully embraced, fancying himself to be like Malcolm X—he just might.
And then I hear talk of how Will Smith’s slap shows that “masculinity is back”. What a sick, twisted idea of the meaning of masculinity. Emotional fragility is not masculine. Sucker-slapping another man is not masculine. Letting your wife sleep with other men is not masculine. A masculine man would have simply taken the joke, just like Chris Rock took the slap. And a masculine man wouldn’t be blubbering after winning an Oscar, and burping out false platitudes about love and protecting people, literally right after acting out rage and violence. Will Smith is an extremely fragile person who needs professional help to deal with his problems. He’s not someone to celebrate.
As for the popular idea that this was a “stunt”; why the hell would Chris Rock agree to being smacked in front of the world? And why the hell would the Academy sign off on it?
Consider this scenario:
Academy: “Hey, Chris, we want you to get slapped by Will so we can increase our ratings.”
Chris Rock: “Why would I do that? I have no stake in your ratings. What’s in it for me?”
Academy: “Nothing, but I’m sure others can figure that out after the fact.”
Chris Rock: “Okay! I’ll Do It!”
I understand that people are so used to things being faked these days, from all around us in every way, but this is not one of those cases. People are faking themselves out about it to believe it’s fake. If anything, the only stunt-like thing about the slap is that Will Smith, being an actor who lives to play pretend, has likely rehearsed this scene in his weak mind for a while, and acted it out whenever the hell he felt like it, knowing he’d likely get away with it, as he strutted with a grin on his way back to his seat after his assault.
And for those who’ve made themselves believe that Smith was actually enraged at the joke: He was shown laughing right alongside everyone else who was laughing. And then, off camera, I can imagine that his humorless wife quietly told him that he had better slap Rock over his bald joke about her or she’ll slap him in front of everyone.
And this wasn’t simply an isolated attack, but something that’s been brewing regarding comedians and truth-tellers in our culture, where they’re physically attacked over words, as if in justified retaliation against them. Will Smith assaulted Chris Rock for exercising his free speech, and then Smith sat back down, consequence-free. Comedians had better be prepared for copycats, more than ever. As one Ross Noble tweeted, “…You are not permitted to get up on stage and hit a comedian unless you are at least Oscar nominated.” Funny, and damning.
And based on what I’ve been reading online, I wrote out these observations on social media:
“Making fun of someone’s wife crosses the line.”
“How about assaulting someone?”
And
Are all of Jada Pinkett’s lovers going to slap Chris Rock?
And then there’s the race issue here, with it being just the latest example of the epidemic of black on black crime, which is rarely broached in polite society, or even by so-called brave pundits, but it spilled over from the street to what is supposed to be the most glamorous stage of all. Those who can’t bring themselves to rightfully condemn Will Smith, no matter what race they are, are the real white supremacists, because they clearly expect nothing of blacks and everything of whites. And yes, if Tom Cruise or any other white move star of Smith’s caliber had done what Smith had done, he’d be in jail over it. We all know that, but that’s only being discussed underground, where the truth is now relegated to.
And not only leftists are in support of Smith’s unsupportable actions, but some conservatives are as well, with Steve Deace tweeting, “Most biblical moment at the Oscars in recent memory. Will Smith pimp-slaps a punk for dissing his wife…” For a religious conservative like Deace to be so taken by the moment that he overlooks the fact that Smith is dissing himself and his marriage by allowing his wife to sleep with others, and make a public show of it, tells you that emotionalism is run amok, left and right.
And then there’s the aspect of cancel culture in real time that Jason Whitlock discussed on his show, Fearless, that hit home the fact that Will Smith shut Chris Rock up by smacking him, and further shut him up by cursing him out to keep his wife’s name out of his mouth, to which Rock agreed. And for a big mouth like Chris Rock to be silent since then says a lot.
And right after the Academy condoned Smith’s violence, it tweeted that it doesn’t condone violence. Here’s how their tweet should have looked:
“The Academy does not condone violence of any form.”
And then I see that Will Smith’s son, or daughter, as he’s “gender fluid”, Jaden Smith, tweeted about his father’s assault, “And That’s How We Do It”. Since when is that how the Smith clan does it, as I don’t recall this happening any other time with Will Smith. Unless Jaden invertedly revealed his family’s usual way of dealing with things, through violence.
And then I hear Will Smith apologists asking, “What would you do in the same situation?” First, many people have been in the exact situation that Smith was, at the Oscars, where their significant others were made fun of by a comedian ontage, and None of them, in the history of the Oscars, walked up and smacked the comedian. Again, I have seen Will Smith, as well as a number of formerly mild-mannered black men, all of a sudden acting like they’re Malcolm X, and it’s embarrassing, particularly coming from very privileged and pampered celebrities. And my point is that the BLM wave has led to weak-minded black men to try to get in on it, to whatever extent that they can, in order to get some form of black street cred. But Will Smith wants it all ways; to act like a thug, and then, within minutes, cry over winning an Oscar, and talk about wanting to be a “vessel of love”, and presuming that he a right to lecture us about how bad violence is.
And then I see a conservative website called The Right Scoop calling Will Smith’s PR “apology” “sincere”. The violent Hollywood hack started his “apology” by lecturing all of us non-violent people about how “violence in all its forms is poisonous and destructive” and that “There is no place for violence in a world of love and kindness.” Will Smith is a 53 year old man, not a kindergartener, and it’s obscene to see suckers falling for it. Despite the fact that Smith hasn’t paid a price for his crime, there’s clearly a part of him that still thinks that there’s a chance that he might not fully get away with it, so he’s covering his bases, and telling his publicist to send out whatever he thinks he needs to in order to do some damage control.
This event has only made matters worse for those who tell jokes or who tell uncomfortable truths, and those applauding Smith’s thuggery today will have to remember their support for it when the next person is attacked over words. And they need to be reminded that they did their part to make matters even worse for free speech.
somehistory says
“Most biblical moment at the Oscars” That is baloney. There was nothing “biblical” about the violence committed against someone who was talking.
smith and his wife support the noi and have given at least one very large donation of funds to help it…and now he acts out violence, just as mozlums do who are “offended” by someone’s speech. Is smith a mozlum?
smith is a creepy thug and will pay for his actions; if not from the police and a court, at least in the realm of Divine Justice. For the violence he has committed, but even more for his support of the evils of islam.
gravenimage says
Somehistory wrote:
“Most biblical moment at the Oscars” That is baloney. There was nothing “biblical” about the violence committed against someone who was talking.
………………….
Agreed, Somehistory. Far from being “biblical”, this tawdry incident reduces the Oscars–which are supposed to celebrate achievment in motion picture arts–to a street fight you can find on any street corner in bad neighborhoods.
Of course, the Academy Awards have fallen short of their aim quite markedly in recent years, with its grim political correctness and lauding of movies almost no one actually wants to see–but *physical violence* is a new and very different low.
Few are even talking about the films–Belfast, CODA, Don’t Look Up, Drive My Car, Dune, Licorice Pizza, Nightmare Alley, the remake of West Side Story, or even about Smith’s own movie, King Richard. Instead, films greatest night has been reduced to a assault because of a joke. Beyond sad.
Rarely says
Hogwash.
Much ado about nothing.
In your analysis you do not mention if, as a baby, Smith was breast fed and, if so, by which breast. No less relevant than your arguments.
Absolutely no reason to believe the slap had anything whatsoever to do with his being black, a leftist or what lifestyle he and his wife have agreed to. Smith may have felt “privileged” as a celebrity but it’s a very long stretch to bring blackness and/or leftism into the equation.
Every indication is that it was simply a spontaneous response to what he perceived as a serious insult.
Brock didn’t press charges because (a) he understood that his “joke” crossed the line or (b) he guessed that the Academy would punish Smith or (c) Smith had damaged himself sufficiently or (d)…
There is really not much to read into this. No one died, no one lost an arm.
Wellington says
Blackness and Leftism had nothing to do with it? OK, imagine if Donald Trump Jr. or Eric Trump had done the same thing to Chris Rock as Will Smith did. The reaction would have been exponentially off the charts by now. Yes, Smith has been criticized by many, but ultimately he will get, at worst, some kind of slap on the wrist, but just consider the scenario I presented above about the Trump brothers.
Wake up, Rarely. Leftism and blackness are definitely a part of this “event.” They’re written all over it.
Rarely says
Wellington,
You’re welcome to your opinion of course but I just don’t see it.
Are you saying that Smith is getting a “walk” because he’s black and a leftist?
Wellington says
Yes, absolutely, Rarely. Again, imagine any known conservative doing the same thing Will Smith did, think the reaction and consequences would be the same?
If by now, Rarely, you don’t comprehend in the absurd age we live in being black and Leftist give you far more passes than being white and conservative, there is nothing more I can do for you.
Double standards exist. Recognize this. Here’s another example: If Trump as President had committed just 1/10th the gaffes Biden has, do you really think he would have been treated as Biden has been by the MSM?
Again, wake the Hell up. Conservatives are held to one standard and Leftists are held to another. Deny this and I know you live in either phantasy or mendacious land.
mortimer says
Will Smith is exercising ‘TOXIC MASCULINITY’ which is now winked at by the Left which condones black males who riot (mostly peacefully), burn buildings down, smash and torch police cars and break into shops and stores to loot.
Black lives matter … hence black on black violence like that of Smith is OK with the Left.
Smith is ‘mostly peaceful’ so assaulting a comic in front of millions of viewers is OK.
gravenimage says
This is true, Wellington. If Andrew Garfield or Benedict Cumberbatch–also “Best Actor” nominees and both white men–had assaulted African-American Chris Rock, would any of the audience have applauded? *Of course not*. They would have been universally condemned, not just of being thugs, but of being racist. (Of course, there is no reason to suppose that either of these men would ever have reacted like this).
gravenimage says
Rarely, there is no excuse for this kind of violence. Physical violence should only be resorted to in self defence.
Frequently Muslims claim they have the right to assault and even murder those who dare criticize Islam or the “Prophet”, because it supposedly hurts their feelings. Robert Spencer has long stood against this thuggery. Not sure where you stand.
Author of this piece Bosch Fawstin gets these sorts of threats all them time–so often that he has done two books on the death threats he receives:
http://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2019/02/peaceful-death-threats-will-be-on-sale.html
(By the way, the name is Chris Rock, not “Brock”).
mortimer says
GI writes: “Muslims claim they have the right to assault and even murder”.
More than that, GI. The Koran says that ‘fitna is worse than murder’. (Fitna means ‘disagreeing with Mohammed’.)
Islam’s greatest scholars say it is a duty for Muslims to kill those who verbally attack Islam … that is ‘WORSE THAN KILLING’, hence, Muslims have a moral duty to execute blasphemers.
Sharia law absolves Muslims who execute blasphemers … they have it coming to them.
gravenimage says
Good point, Mortimer.
Rarely says
I missed something here. How did islam become relevant? Is Smith a muslim and Rock an infidel?
somehistory says
smith and his wife donated a huge bunch of cash to noi and he supports mozlums.
he must be learning how it can be okay to use violence against words…from mozlums, who claim it as a “right’ against anyone who *insults* them or their ‘prophet.’
gravenimage says
*Of course* Islam is relevant here, Rarely.
If someone has the moral right to assault someone as a response to what he perceives as a serious insult, then why would this end with Will Smith?
Muslims *regularly* claim that they have the right to assault and murder anyone who insults their creed and their “prophet”? *Surely* you’ve noticed this, as long as you have been reading and commenting here at Jihad Watch. How are they wrong if Smith was right?
This is a core philosophical question–whether it is moral to initiate physical force except in the case of self defense–pretending that it only has relevance to a single incident is disengenuous.
How can you condemn the actions of Jihadists on any moral basis if you condone behavior on the same basis elsewhere? At that point this becomes about incidentals, like not liking Chris Rock’s humor or disliking guys with beards and skullcaps–both incidentals.
In the stance against the savagery of Islam we have the moral highground–Islam is a repulsive, repressive, unjust creed. If we lose that it is just about a fight between rival bands of thugs, like that between rival prison gangs.
Infidel says
Rarely
This is one of those rare occasions where I agree w/ you. As I noted in the thread about Biden and Doocy, Chris Rock was an absolute thug, and I for one was pretty glad to see him slapped. Whether it was by Will Smith or anyone else is immaterial
mortimer says
Don Rickles made jokes about other celebrities that were much more biting and his targets laughed at it and took his jests bravely.
Not today. It’s a different era and cancel culture is destroying comedy.
With your attitude, Infidel, there will soon be no more humor in public.
gravenimage says
Yes–every comic–every commenter–is at risk if this thuggery is embraced.
Rarely says
Don Rickles lived beyond the edge. He was terribly offensive even for the time.
Free speech? Perhaps but no one needed to give him a platform for his garbage.
gravenimage says
Rarely, you can well argue that no one should have given Don Rickles a platform for his humor–although many people, even those on the receiving end, really enjoyed his stuff.
But it is quite a different matter to think that anyone had the right to assault him.
And it is notable that no one ever did–not even someone like Frank Sinatra.
That comics are being assaulted *at the Oscars* is *not* a good development, no matter what you might think. This normalizes violence, and this is not good for us or our society.
Infidel says
Mortimer, have you seen his ‘jokes’? I understand that taste varies, but this specimen of human debris used to make wisecracks about date rape. I don’t think the public arena would be the poorer if such ‘jokes’ disappeared
I’d hardly insult Don Rickles or other legendary comedians by putting them on the same pedestal as Creep Rock
gravenimage says
Infidel, Chris Rock may be a lot of negative things with his humor–a creep, a jerk, unfunny, etc. But *a thug*? He did not assault Will Smith; Will Smith assaulted him.
This is like Muslims who attack you and them claim to be the victims.
Infidel says
I’m referring to what he did in the 90s, when he glorified date rape. Yeah, that does make him a thug, in my book
gravenimage says
I can’t even find that joke now–just some references to it.
But speach, no matter how vile, does not incite physical violene.
I am a rape survivor, but I still wouldn’t have the right to assualt someone for a date rape “joke”, no matter how offended I might be.
Not a suitable Academy Awards host, though–although that is a different matter.
Don McKellar says
Only somebody completely screwed up in the head and a puppet cuckhold like Will Smith would jump up on stage and do something like that. Any normal person would frown and glare at Chris Rock if they didn’t find it funny at most or remain expressionless because they are aware of where they are and the big picture. Maybe — maybe have a word with him in private afterwards, but very unlikely.
Your analysis is correct.
tim gallagher says
I agree with your comment, Don. The level of out of control rage that smith displayed in such a public forum was amazing. The look on his face as he swore at Rock and told him not to mention his wife displayed extraordinary anger. What surprised me was that applause that the crowd gave Smith when the wanker got up to receive his award. I suppose quite a few in the audience would not have applauded, but most seemed to applaud the violent clown. At an award ceremony like that, or any such event, actually getting physically violent with another person seemed to me to be stepping way over the line. It was atrocious behaviour.
Don McKellar says
A lot of the bizarre response to Smith comes from the position he holds (held) and the position Chris Rock holds in the community they come from.
These people are removed from normal ethical and moral behavior and were responding to Smith’s ability to be a sycophant to Islam and — to be completely frank and perhaps unpopular here — his blatant attempt to be a big pro-India fetishist with his bizarre Ganges river pseudo-Hindu “baptism” not long ago. That’s how these people think. Completely at odds with the conflicting realities. Huge Islamophile and huge Indiaphile sentiment in that audience.
But overwhelming that was the gigantic Cuckhold Movement in Hollywood to emasculate men. He is a huge hero in the anti-man movement there. That he acted full unhinged cuckhold while his abusive wife smirked, was gold to them.
Meanwhile, Chris Rock is an actual man in the most noble sense, and refused to bow to left-fascism not long ago. He resisted Cancel Culture. The applause to his slapping was completely natural to left-fascists, and those who resisted, let it all out when they could vent their admiration for Will Smith’s violence.
Will Smith is a cuckhold, an Islamic apologist, an India fetishist, the correct color, and now he’s slapped a “free man” who refuses to bow to the woke agenda. He is their hero. Their warped, twisted, dark insanity hero.
Wellington says
There is so much respecting what you wrote with which I am in agreement, Don McKellar.
We live in an exceedingly weird time. More disturbing is that we live in a very destructive time. Hollyweird affluence and its blindness to so much which is self-evident has contributed inordinately to the Age of Nonsense in which we live, evidenced by such nonsense words like “cis-gender” and “micro-aggressions.”
tim gallagher says
Your comments are probably correct, Don. I know pretty much nothing about Smith. I saw him in the first Men in Black movie and enjoyed it maybe mainly for the Tommy Lee Jones character, but I had no idea about any of Smith’s way of life. If Smith’s wife is screwing around, wouldn’t Smith just go off and do exactly the same. These people’s lives don’t interest me at all, but I thought that Smith has massive anger issues. They should play back the look on his face ( and make him watch it over and over) when he was sitting down again and yelling at Rock because that was one very ugly, almost murderously angry look he had on his face. As I mentioned above, I was amazed at the number of these Hollywood type jerks who applauded Smith when he went up get his award. As you say, these people probably have no normal ethical or moral behaviour. I agree, Wellington, about how weird and fucked up these times are in so many ways, at least among some people.
Rarely says
Sorry Don. I just don’t get it. I think you’re reading a lot into this that just may not exist. The reaction of these “weird” (I am being generous) Hollywood folks is not necessarily a show of approval of Will Smith’s supposed leftist, muslim-apologetic position.
Clearly the slap was wrong. However it was provoked and to the point that one could reasonably expect Smith to react or at lease respond. A scathing response in a later interview or, as it so happens, in his acceptance speech would have been more civilized and appropriate.
But to insist that this has anything to do with BLM, leftism or islam is a bit of a stretch.
revereridesagain says
The most sadly amusing reactions to events such as this are the smug assurances that Smith and his like will be smacked over the wrist with a galaxy sized ruler by the Big Hall Monitor in the Sky after they stroll through the Pearly Gates. It Comforts you so you don’t ever have to worry about “earthly” injustices.
Can’t you people ever grow up?
somehistory says
Evidently not, as to “grow up” according to your atheist definition, we would have to give up on Divine Justice and all that the important term means.
And a “stroll through the Pearly Gates,” is not going to happen for those who are evil. Something else awaits those who oppose our “Grand Creator.”
Of course, He will be the One to decide where and what each one *deserves.*
In the meantime, smith should be prosecuted for assault. but, don’t hold your breath too long for that.
Rarely says
LOL. I cannot imagine this slap as disqualifying Smith from getting through the Pearly Gates. If it did then almost no one could pass the entry exam.
somehistory says
If you actually knew anything about Divine Justice and just *who* will get eternal Life, you would know that Jesus said, “Cramped is the road leading to life….and …few…are …finding …it.”
Most of humankind is headed down the “Broad and spacious road leading to destruction and….many are the ones finding it.”
what will “disqualify” a person is up to the One Who grants life or sends one to destruction.
Those of us who believe have something for which to look forward. Better than only a dirt nap waiting for us.
Rarely says
Kinda presumptuous to believe that one will be of the chosen few.
I somehow think that in any final judgement we would be judged by our acts rather than our beliefs.
somehistory says
and, I never said that I am “one of the chosen few.”
You don’t have much reading comprehension, do you? I said that our Creator makes the decisions. I can only hope and pray that He allows me to have life, and I keep having faith as Jesus said to do.
“Faith without works is dead, ” But, Jesus said, “Have faith in the Father; Have faith also in me.” Jesus said in prayer to God: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3)
It matters what we do and it matters what we believe. and, I’m not the one making those decisions; they come straight from Jesus Christ and His Father.
Having hope of a reward of life, and believing that life awaits the faithful, is what Jesus told us to do. ‘Raise yourselves erect and lift up you heads as your deliverance is getting near.”
Those who don’t believe in God or a life other than what they are living now, have only a dirt nap to look forward to. It is not presumptuous to hope I have something more.
somehistory says
The dirt nap that atheists look forward to is by choice. If one doesn’t believe in something better, doesn’t believe there is anything more than what they have now, it is by choice. If people, as the Bible says, “who have no hope and are without God,” come to have faith, then they can have the same hope of Life eternal.
And God decides who gets Life.
gravenimage says
Will Smith Should Be Slapping Himself
…………………
He *should* be slapping himself. He made an almost identical joke about a bald man in the audience some years ago. When some in the audience groaned, he said, “These are jokes, come on”:
“When Will Smith made fun of a bald man on TV, said ‘these are jokes, come on’. Watch video”
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/when-will-smith-made-fun-of-a-bald-man-on-tv-said-these-are-jokes-come-on-watch-video-101648717044598.html
No one assaulted him.
More:
And then I hear talk of how Will Smith’s slap shows that “masculinity is back”. What a sick, twisted idea of the meaning of masculinity. Emotional fragility is not masculine. Sucker-slapping another man is not masculine.
…………………
*Spot on*. Just as wife beating is not masculine, assaulting other men because of jokes is *anything* but masculine.
I’ve seen many of the death threats that Bosch Fawstin has gotten–threats to assault, rape, and murder him–because he draws cartoons criticizing and poking fun at Islam.
Is this *really* the kind of society we want to live in?
somehistory says
Freedom to speak should not be relegated to speech that never offends anyone. Otherwise, we have a very silent society.
Wellington says
Strongly seconded, somehistory.
Speech which is dictated, demanded actually, to never offend is totalitarian speech and nowhere near to free speech. With you again.
Modern Western Leftism wants to destroy free speech, as have other authoritarian belief systems like Islam, Nazism and Marxism.
The Judeo-Christian tradition and the democratic ideals created by ancient Greece work wonderfully together. This “combo” helps to explain the freest societies ever created by man—England in its prime (sorry, but England is past its prime), the Dutch Republic at its apogee, the Swiss Confederation, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, France in its own goofy French way, and most certainly the United States of America, which, with true liberty paramount, is indeed, a la Lincoln, the last best hope of mankind, but minus such liberty, which the present Democratic Party is trying to destroy (also Hollywood, academia, a totally biased and corrupt MSM, woke businesses aplenty, including, sadly, the NFL, et al.) mankind is in store for another dark age, perhaps the darkest of them all.
In brief, I’m with freedom, as you are, somehistory. Alas, there are so many, many forces working against this in our present ridiculous, iniquitous and stupid era.
somehistory says
Thank you, Wellington, for expounding.
You know, stupid shows so readily. If they have their way today, and everyone has to be silenced if not in total agreement, then tomorrow, someone else will be dictating what is proper and the ones having it their way today, will be like those they silenced. They tell themselves they are the winners and think nothing about what might happen tomorrow.
Someone, I don’t know who, said that, “The only thing permanent is change.”
Being a defender of the freedom to speak, even if it offends someone (and surely it will) leads others to be loyal to that defender, if they too, love and defend that freedom.
The intelligent thing is to allow others to speak and be heard. The reasonable, thinking person can then figure out what is true. And Truth is most important, supported by the freedom to speak it, write it and continue to believe it.
Thankfully, there are still some who are not afraid to stand and speak the truth against the stupidity, lies .and evil. To defend the Freedoms and Rights granted to us. The Truth has not been silenced; and I am positive, it will continue to be heard.
As you stated, there are many forces working for the dark side. But, light always comes and we have to keep on speaking, writing and advocating.
Wellington says
“The only thing permanent is change.”
This was Heraclitus, somehistory, in contrast to Parmenides who maintained that change is an illusion and reality is permanency per se.
The working out of this philosophical dilemma was engaged in by great ancient Greek philosophers after Heraclitus and Parmenides, including Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Plato did this by way of his “Ideals” and Aristotle by way of his “Pure Form” and ancillary aspects.
What is quite fascinating to me is that eventually Protestant Christianity adopted the Platonic model in this regard and Roman Catholicism went with the Aristotelian approach. Yes, at the deepest, most intellectual, roots of the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is the distinction between how Plato and Aristotle differed on this and dealt with this immensely important matter that is not replete just with philosophical repercussions but with theological ones as well.
After all, there is a tremendous difference between Calvin and Aquinas and these differences are well worth exploring—and have their etiology in the contrast between Plato and Aristotle, who in turn tried to reconcile Heraclitus and Parmenides. All part of the fascinating intellectual tradition of Christianity.
But I digress and apologize for doing so. Best to you and yours.
somehistory says
Very interesting, Wellington.
I enjoyed reading it. No need to apologize. History has a lot to teach us.
I recall my father, when he was not able to do much physical work any longer due to severe disabilities, he would sit for hours and read history books. We had a set of Funk an Wagnalls and it included several books on history alone.
I think he memorized them. I thought it was kind of amazing that he could read all of the fifty-cent words and understand it all. He never finished elementary school, but that didn’t stop his thirst for learning.
Thank you for the information on the quote. I may not recall the name later, as I do not believe I ever heard it before…unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. But, I’ll try.
Rarely says
Freedom of Speech invariably includes a right to offend. Without it the term “Freedom of Speech’ is meaningless.
What is at issue here is not Chris Rock’s Freedom of Speech and through it a right to offend but rather his gratuitously cracking a nasty joke expecting a free pass. At best he was verry rude and out of order. Certainly Will Smith overreacted but some response would not be out of order and could reasonably be expected.
gravenimage says
Rarely wrote:
What is at issue here is not Chris Rock’s Freedom of Speech…
…………
Actually, it is. If you can be assualted for speech–and yes, a joke, nasty or not, is indeed speech–then no one is safe from physical violence for saying something that someone might find offensive.
I ask again, if this is true, why shouldn’t Muslims have the right to assault or murder people whose speech offends them? Sadly, I imagine you will continue to ignore this question.
If this becomes the societal norm, then one’s only protection–such as it is–is to say nothing that they think will be considered offensive by the most violent people. No freedom of speech in such a society. Just try living under Shari’ah.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Somehistory and Wellington.
mortimer says
Rock should have pressed charges on behalf of his comic confreres.
Rock was approached by the LAPD to arrest and charge Smith, but Rock turned down the offer, just hoping it would die down.
I think that Rock did a disservice to other comics. Smith should be made an example so that copycats will not think they can slap or punch a comic or other entertainer on stage whenever they like and get away with it.
James Lincoln says
I’m not an attorney, but I believe – from research – that this is true:
When a victim does not want to participate in a prosecution, they may say they don’t want to “press charges”.
But it is not up to them to decide.
Prosecutors do charge people with crimes even when the victim does not cooperate in the effort.
Rufolino says
Civilisation cannot exist without self-restraint.
Self-restraint is an essential plank in the platform of civilisation. Civilisation doesn’t work without it !
By his action, which is thought acceptable by many because of his celebrity, this actor has contributed to the ongoing collapse of Judaeo-Christian civilisation and culture.
gravenimage says
+1
Major Tom says
For me….a non-event attended by non entities…..not worth a pause…..
Bulldog says
A cuckold and a slut, call it like it is, move on nothing important to see here!
gravenimage says
And then I see that Will Smith’s son…Jaden Smith, tweeted about his father’s assault, “And That’s How We Do It”.
…………
This reveals one of the most appalling consequences of this thuggery–that young people see that this brutality is condoned and even celebrated in some quarters. What will this do for freedom of speech going forward?
CogitoErgoSum says
Will Smith laughed at the joke at first but his wife didn’t think it was funny so he decided to make up for his laughter by slapping Chris Rock. It was such a dumb thing to do. He should have just told his wife to lighten up – it was just a joke. However, I have a feeling if Will Smith had done that he would have been the one getting slapped in the face, either then and there or a little later on the way home. If the devil was after Smith it was in the guise of a demon sitting at the table named Jada Smith. In my opinion she is the one who really comes out of this looking like evil itself and Will looks like the fool who sold his soul to the devil. The man and his entire family are really messed up. I hope they are able to realize they need help and are able to get it. The best thing I can say about anyone involved in the incident is that Chris Rock took it like a man.