We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
If it is OK to hit someone who insults your wife, is it OK to hit someone who insults your religion? The controversy on Will Smith hitting Chris Rock after the latter made a distasteful joke about his wife’s hair loss is interesting because it cuts across party lines. Though most politicians have made statements disapproving of Smith, some traditional conservatives and radical left wingers have both spoken in support of him. To take but two of many examples:
– Representative Ayanna Pressley (D) said, in a now deleted tweet “#Alopecia nation stand up! Thank you #WillSmith Shout out to all the husbands who defend their wives living with alopecia in the face of daily ignorance & insults.”
– Simon Hoare MP (C) said, “Iād just hope if someone thought it in good taste to make a joke at the expense of a medical condition of my wife then Iād get up and lamp him.”
Me, I support Rock. His joke was cruel. Smith had a right to be angry. But I would rather not set the precedent – or rather go back to the precedent – that words justify violence. For why, see the title of this post.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, āPorcupinesā, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty FrĆ©dĆ©ric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
If your god is as small and defenceless as your wife…
Heās probably stressed by her betrayal with other men and his anger has manifested itself in a peacock display of machismo.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this bizarre event Mr Smiths Oscar will surely mark the end of his lucrative career. Hollywood may forgive him, it pretty much already has. Thereās very little short of voting Republican they wonāt forgive for one of their own – Roman Polanski and Harvey Weinstein (for way too long) being obvious examples. The box office will not.
Whether this results in his release from what must be the utter purgatory of his marriage remains to be seen. For his sake I hope it does.
Smith has always had a reputation as a nice, kind, decent guy. That ought to matter in this situation. Heck, I once punched a guy who made crude remarks about my wife, and I’m no violent monster. The biggest price I paid for that was the hangover after everyone who watched tried to buy me a drink afterwards.
And it’s all even more confused by the fact that Chris Rock is also known as a nice, kind, decent guy. I’d guess he made a quickly-considered joke, but didn’t realize that Smith was highly marriage-stressed at the moment.
Sad for all concerned, but that’s probably the only conclusion that ought to be drawn from this.
More on-point to the OP:
If I walked up to an individual Muslim and said to him “Mo was a pedophile!”, I would not be surprised – or offended on behalf of some effete concept of justice – that he punched me.
If I walked up to a Baptist preacher and said “Jesus was a pedophile!” – same thing.
Words aren’t violence, but I think it’s naive and unhuman to not recognize that some intentionally insulting words will provoke violence.
Would I accept that either situation should result in a killing? No, not at all. But a slap on the face crosses no such line for me. We are physical beings. There will always be physicality in relations.
I would think with the Dolby Theatre filled to capacity with luvvies, and Chris Rock having just uttered the name of the Scottish play, there are probably some 3400 actors and myriad assorted show crew who are really thankful that the worst thing that happened that night was Chris Rock being slapped.
That is exactly how i see it.
But i have not looked at the video yet.
PS: where did you punch that guy, bobby?
Physically? In his belly.
Situationally? At an outdoor Stevie Winwood concert. I was sober. He was not.
Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhy1_1sDENQ
It’s short.
Chris, Don Rickles would be proud of you! First time in years I’ve cared about anything to do with the Oscars.
Well ‘the Oscars’ is a woke freak show, haven’t given a damn about them or the vile creatures who attend for, oh at least a couple decades. But if someone insulted my other half like that, I’d put them on the deck.
Was it real or was it just a contrived piece of publicity? I mean seriously if you feel the need to clock some guy over insulting your wife a little sissy slap is hardly the way to go. Like I say, it looks like something cooked up for clicks. (And it is getting them, even here, among those of us who loathe the Oscars and all those ridiculous people.)
To the best of my knowledge believing in (as opposed to practising) Islam is a choice. Hair loss is not.
I suppose Biden could have paid him to do it. Not nearly as much internet talk about Alzheimers today. Or maybe it’s more like an in-kind campaign contribution from Will.
If they do withdraw Smith’s Oscar and award it to the next in line, will it be for being the second best actor? Now THERE’S a prize (not) worth having.
Words arenāt violence, but I think itās naive and unhuman to not recognize that some intentionally insulting words will provoke violence.
Context matters. This wasn’t some dude mouthing off at a bar, nor was it intentionally insulting. It was an emcee at the Academy Awards banquet, an event where the elite of Hollywood gather to celebrate themselves and give themselves awards.
Having the emcee crack jokes about the members present goes back to at least Bob Hope in the late 1940s. This violent reaction is just a small step removed from punching the speaker at a roast.
Sure, but this is not really about Will Smith’s wife’s alopecia or not, is it?
It’s about Will Smith being outed as a literal cuckold and not divorcing her. That makes him a chump as well, which in turn often leads to toxic masculine behaviours to try and re-assert his masculinity.
It’s a vicious circle that can only be resolved by divorce. If he’d done this when Jana first admitted she was a cheating whore and made Will an unwilling cuckold then all of this drama could have been avoided.
This had nothing to do with the baldness of the woman. All Hollywood knows that the women is sleeping around – and making Mr Smith look absurd.
That is what the slap was really about, and the tears as well.
“I sneeze in threes” had the truth of the matter.
As for religion – Christianity is regularly insulted, especially by the fanatical haters of Western Civilisation who dominate Hollywood and Corporate America (hello Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street – “Death to Liberty!” might as well be the motto of these Social and Environmental “Governance” Corporate State organisations – along with the banks and-so-on). Christians do not tend to hit people who insult Christianity.
Islam? An interesting example – as the people who pretend to respect it (Central Office, Disney-Marvel and so on) despise all its principles.
Ironically I, who was punished for “Islamophobia”, have far more respect for aspects of Islam that the modern “liberal” elite do – as they (in private) despise all aspects of Islam, belief in God, opposition to abortion, traditional gender roles, strong families, belief in family owned business enterprises, opposition to Credit Bubble banking…..
The real attitude of Disney-Marvel towards Muslims is not shown by them pushing a Muslim superhero (“Miss Marvel”) in a television show – their real attitude is their support for the policy of persecution against Muslims by the Communist Party Dictatorship of the People’s Republic of China.
And it is a lot more than “turning a blind eye” to the PRC policy of trying to wipe out Muslims – the Disney Corporation (which is so supportive of “Trans Rights” for VERY YOUNG CHILDREN) gave an official message of thanks for the “help” (the Muslim slave labour help) the Communist Party dictatorship of the PRC gave the Disney Corporation in the making of the terrible live-action “Mulan” film – filmed in the specific province where the policy is being carried out.
Hollywood (and Corporate America in general) is covered in blood – the victims of the People’s Republic of China Communist Party Dictatorship that it so fanatically supports, and it does not even make good films any more.
Even the “Environmental and Social Governance” system of Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street (and the banks and Federal Reserve – and the other Central Banks and vast financial corporations of the Credit Bubble Western World) is very selective – as it is just directed at destroying AMERICA and the rest of the West (which the “liberal” establishment hate and despise) – they have no problem at all with CO2 emissions (or racism) from the People’s Republic of China.
Mr Smith was crying for himself (over his own humiliation by his wife) – but he might as well have been crying for the Western world in general.
People who make their living portraying (and normalising) hair trigger violence get preachy when one of them indulges in hair trigger violence. Aaaaaand this year’s hypocrisy Oscar goes to……….
It’s really quite funny seeing all those illustrious pundits on this site who have spent the last month claiming “Mr Putin is evil ‘cos he uses violence’ now defending their own (hypothetical) use of violence if someone said something unkind about their wife.
Principles, what principles?
Pray tell, what degree of violence IS acceptable by these sages: a broken nose? fractured skull and minor brain trauma? bullet to the knee?
Where does it transition from “He was asking for it” to “Dr. Evil”?
An unkind word about your wife is not a clear and immediate threat to you and your dependants’ safety. The only justifiable mitigation.
OK for me, but not for thee… Oh please.
Tim the Coder: sure, it’s a transgression of the non-aggression principle. But as these things go a fairly forgivable one. I’d also forgive someone crossing my lawn without permission in an emergency. We’re not robots.
I wonder if it was staged, to make the Oscars a show to watch? Can’t get Ricky Gervais to host- have a punch-up!
@mkent
Context, absolutely.
It’s not so much what Will Smith did, but the way he did it given the setting, and I do believe he is (or was) friends with Chris Rock.
Given how totally – and publicly – he has been cuckolded by this woman, I am not without sympathy
@John Galt
Very true, but one wonders what it would take to make him divorce her. He’d be taken to the cleaners without doubt, but what’s that against the sort of degradation he has had to suffer?
Yeah because belting someone who insults your wife is totally the same thing as shooting theromobaric warheads into Kyiv and Kharkiv.
Disconnected from reality much?
Putin is “evil” because he kills many people and ruins the lives of others, not because he “uses violence.” Smith is just fine, even though he lost his temper and slapped a man who has been (from what I read) doing insulting Jada jokes for six years.
“Uses violence” – what a phrase. Swat a fly, you’ve “used violence.” Sounds horrible. I’d draw the line – for me, personally – south of GBH. Proportionate response – response should never exceed the severity of the initial transgression – was invented by people who want to be able to limit me to the amount of damage they did to me first. I’d like them to worry a bit more than that.
But if they simply leave me alone, they never have to worry about it at all.
Damn, I seem to have lost a quite long comment. I’ll try to recreate it from memory.
Patrick Crozier writes, “To the best of my knowledge believing in (as opposed to practising) Islam is a choice. Hair loss is not.”
I don’t think that can be the dividing line. “Don’t be the first to hit” is a rule simple enough for everyone to understand. The rule “Don’t be the first to hit unless the insult relates to an involuntary characteristic, then it’s OK” is not a thing that an angry man can assess in half a second. Often the very point at issue is whether the characteristic is voluntary, e.g. in the current controversies around gender.
It’s not just a matter of simplicity of rules but of getting maximum “buy in” to the rules in advance from those groups likely to break them. I am thinking of Muslims responding to insults against their prophet. (As Paul Marks said, given that Christians are enjoined to “turn the other cheek” violent response to religious insults is less of a problem from them, though it still does occur.) Most British Muslims can be and have been persuaded that when living in the land of the infidel they should obey that land’s laws and customs, including the one about not responding violently to insults against Mohammed. But that won’t last long if it seems that insults against what they hold most dear must not be avenged while it is permissible to respond with violence to other insults.
Addressing those who say that in like circumstances they would have “lamped” Chris Rock, while still wanting to have some regard for the non-aggression principle, I think a better line to take is “I will/would break the rule and pay the price” rather than trying to argue the rule does not apply.
A further problem is that in societies where it is permissible for a man to respond violently to an insult against his wife or mother, it quickly becomes obligatory. The man who won’t fight is shamed, regarded as less than a man.
In a Libertopia of competing jurisdictions that wouldn’t be a problem, but that shows no sign of arising.
Shame it’s totally fake but hey there you go, now even Samizdata has got involved.
But then again that was the point of it all in the first place.
I still did not watch it and will not watch Oscars next year either š
I may have to take up this celebrity-watching crap. It’s been hilarious! Different world . . .
That this was done during the Oscars, on international television – shocking. But that someone slapped someone else over an insult – Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… MASS HYSTERIA! (Consider this a movie trivia quiz.)
Regardless of the religion, religious laws and prescriptions to do this or abstain from that do not override the law of the land.
This is not even a new concept arising from the very recent arrival of followers of Mohammed in our communities, it’s been applied most harshly to followers of Judaism since the rise of Christendom and Catholics since the Reformation.
Where laws conflict violently with religious observations such as military service in time of war we have found balance in the form of alternate service obligations when the alternative was locking up lots of Quakers and others for their pacifist beliefs.
I accept the point here, but if the followers of Mohammed decided en masse to respond whenever they felt their “prophet” was slighted then how long would it be before a slap across the face became beheadings in our streets as per their infamous demonstration placards advocating “BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM!”.
Cartoon protester guilty of encouraging murder
So, no. I don’t think either the behaviour of Will Smith in slapping some comedian that made a rude comment about his wife is acceptable any more or less than Islamists physically assaulting those who make offensive remarks about Islam / Mohammed / Muslims.
Both should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Perry:
I think that, in this case, the 2 words that you were looking for are: moral idiocy.
@BobbyB
Ghostbusters!
Bobby:
Thank you for your reply.
I asked because, in January this year, i was assaulted in a dark alley — but apparently it was meant as a prank. I heard somebody running, turned and saw a guy about my height and size (but less than half my age) running towards me. All what i could think of was pushing him off as he jumped on me with open arms. Then i stiff-armed him until i was convinced by his boyish smile that he was just fooling around. Didn’t try to talk to him because i didn’t know whether he speaks English.
(It says a lot about the benefits of my diet that i did not panic.)
For a moment i thought of hitting him in the throat, not in anger but to neutralize the threat. Glad that i didn’t.
With hindsight, i should perhaps have stopped him with a punch to the solar plexus, using his momentum when he jumped on me.
I sneeze in threes: Heās probably stressed by her betrayal with other men and his anger has manifested itself in a peacock display of machismo.
John Galt makes a similar point, and I agree. Smith’s wife has been making a fool of him, and he’s trying to handle it in a silly way. I fear for his state of mind. Much more of this and he is going to kill himself or turn bad. I am serious.
Also, if a “comedian” makes a crass remark about a wife’s appearance that she cannot help, that is bad, but the way to deal with it is not march up in a rage and slap the bloke, but quietly and without fuss take revenge (wait a few years, the victim will never suspect). Swearing like that, and generally losing cool, on what is after all a show watched by all sorts of folk, including young people, is unnacceptable.
Chris Rock was a jerk for what he said, but everyone knows he is a jerk. Just as Ricky Gervais roasted his Golden Globes audience a few years ago, telling the actors and actresses and their various producers and directors how venal, hypocritical and stupid they all are. Why do people put up with this at awards ceremonies? It might be fine for a Best Man at a wedding to share a few gags with the crowd, but there is a line not to cross, such as noting how ugly or fat the bride is, or how naughty his friend has been, etc. The same goes with things like this. No-one knows how to behave any more.
The broader problem is that much of Western culture and what passes for “glamour” is dead. Virginia Postrel wrote a whole book on glamour a few years ago. The days of the Silver Screen, of when actors and actresses such as Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman graced the films and conducted themselves with grace at events such as the Oscars, are over. In all walks of life, what I see is coarseness, ugliness and nastiness, whether it is Will Smith swearing his head off on live TV, various folk plastering their bodies in ugly tattoos, or whatever.
Also, it is hardly a great advert for African Americans in prominent positions in Western culture, is it? Will Smith is something of a role model to some black people, maybe. Well, how’s that looking today?
There are some things that are just a facet of civil society, or uncivil society as it sometime is, not everything is about laws and states and the ‘non-aggression principle’, and any world view that cannot cope with that is disconnected from reality.
Someone gratuitously insults someone else’s wife, they need to understand a fist in the face is a real possibility. And that is not always a bad thing, but of course context is everything. Why this surprises some people is for me itself surprising.
But all you’re really saying Perry is that the ultimate arbiter is force, which is both true and fundamental.
Break the laws of the state and you face the wrath of the legal/judicial system. Do so with enough violence and they will send the men with guns after you.
Step over the line as far as social norms are concerned and face the direct and immediate sanction of your peers around you.
If I’d made a crude remark about someone’s wife in a pub then I wouldn’t be surprised to get a punch in the face from her husband, even in this day and age of relative non-violence.
I guess the most surprising thing was the venue. Not the sort of behaviour you expect from The Oscars.
Things such as this should properly be left to the state?
Not necessarily, bobby b, but we are under no obligation to consider all societies where such things are not left to the state equally good. And although in general I would prefer societies where the state stayed far out of such matters (or the state did not exist at all) to societies where the state has a monopoly of force, some forms of societies where the state does not have a monopoly of force are worse than some forms of societies where it does. For instance some clan-based societies deal with slights to family honour by having blood feuds that last generations and spare neither age nor sex. I have been haunted for forty years by a photograph I saw in the Sunday Times some time in the 1970s showing the murdered body of a ten year old boy in Sicily IIRC. He had been the last survivor of a mafia clan that lost such a feud. Something similar in the ante-bellum South is depicted in Huckleberry Finn. The Grangerfords have been fighting the Shepherdsons for thirty years and not even children are spared.
Good responding question, bobby b, especially for this audience.
I think people see different things when they look at this incident. One viewer sees a man defending his wife from insult. Another sees a man casually cuckolded by his wife and ‘compensating’ absurdly. One viewer sees a black man undermining his role as role model. Another imagines a white actor striking a black compere for insulting a white woman at the Oscars and sees black privilege in spades. One viewer sees a mere slap being treated as if dogs and cats were living together in the end times. Another sees ‘an act of violence’. One person sees cruel mockery of an involuntary characteristic. Another sees an ordinary smart-set ‘roast’ (even if the custom today has degenerated into the absurd and the ugly – and above all, the unfunny – it’s still the custom and attendees know that). Etc.
And I see something where if I started to write one of my pedantic, make-all-the-aspects-clear comments, it would be far longer than the post. š
Having started with a bobby b quote I’ll end with a Natalie one:
In a huge number of social customs, never mind this area, I’m generally in favour of everyone having ‘skin in the game’. If I want to protest at too high a price, I’ll choose an instance other than a Hollywood roast, a cuckolded husband in a marriage almost as ‘open’ as the Not-the-9-0’Clock-News sketch, and black privilege amidst a privileged elite. (For example, the woman whose car nudged an eXtinction Rebellion protestor sitting in the road, and who now has a driving ban.)
A society with more private sector, or just private, solutions as opposed to one size fits all state solutions, is more efficient. We think this of things such as regulation; why not also of criminal matters? Processing by the legal system is very inefficient, the process is stressful and usually very drawn out. Having that slap followed by the loss of the Oscar and maybe a fine, all done and dusted within days, seems like an ideal solution to me.
Part of it, also, I suspect, is that people grow up and reside in cultures with differing levels of physicality in their lives.
8 years of football, 10 years of wrestling, some boxing club, and just generally living and working with people who are in strong rude health doing physical things leaves me comfortable in a society full of roughhousing, wrestling, arm-wrestling, and maybe a physical conflict or two. Nothing outrageous in my view.
But, it’s a libertarian issue for me also. All societies have and need rules and mores and understandings. Most people learn them and comply. For some people, enforcement is needed. But it doesn’t have to be state enforcement for low-level violations – and in fact I think it’s best to keep the state out at that level.
Think of it as a community-imposed Broken Windows policy. When people understand the lines and actually see quick consequences, you have a civil society.
And I’ve not seen the slippery-slope danger described above come to pass anywhere I’ve lived. A physical conflict, it is understood, does not cause GBH, and if it does, then the state properly steps in.
But, yeah, at the dang Oscars on national TV . . . . wow.
Ghostbusters
One last question in a long thread:
Is it a violation of the non-aggression principle to deeply insult someone on international television, knowing that they and theirs are in the audience, on camera, and will be internationally ridiculed because of it?
(I just don’t think that Smith’s action was the initiating violation. It was reactive.)
(P.S. It’s nice to see that some people remember the classics.)
Chris Rock didn’t threaten anyone or perform any act of aggression (verbal or otherwise). He made a crass joke for which he later apologised. He probably would have done so even if Will Smith had retained his seat and his composure.
Crudity, irrespective of whether it is meant in humour or not is not violence or aggression, it is expression. Nothing more.
I’d argue that aimed public crudity that tends to harm the value of an asset (such as the Will Smith Corporation, his moneymaking persona) is aggression – just not physical – and I remember several discussions concerning whether one must act physically in order to violate the NAP.
In Kansas – and in most other states – simple battery is defined as “rude, harmful, or offensive touching” and is a Class A misdemeanor, with possible sentence of a year in jail and a $2500 fine. Usually, those convicted get a year of supervised probation and a court order to attend anger management classes – and fine, court costs, and attorney’s fees. Last case I pled out, the total to my client was about $4000.00 If damage – like broken teeth or nose happens, it’s aggravated battery, and that’s a felony.
Nah, still not buying it as it is not a physical asset that has been damaged by some act of violence, but rather something more akin to defamation, for which financial compensation is available through the legal process SHOULD IT BE PROVEN.
Even then I would argue that a defamation case would fail in this instance, since it would be relatively easy to prove that stars being roasted at an Oscars event is fairly common and has a long history and by attending they accept that risk, otherwise you are essentially making most forms of stand-up comedy illegal.
Meanwhile out in the real world, publicly insult my wife, it’s going to get physical. This isn’t a subject where talk about “non-aggression principles” means much.
Understandable enough, part of the unspoken bit in marriage is that the man’s strength protects the woman from violence and slights against her are slights against him as well.
Not that your average Plod would agree and just throws you in the slammer on a charge of battery. As for arguments about “provocation” these are only really considered in mitigation in court, so you still get done even if the sentence is reduced.
Almost like the Powers that Be don’t want plebs to have any excuse for using violence on their own account instead of calling on Plod.
When it comes to the state’s “Monopoly on the use of violence” she can be a selfish bitch.
Apparently, Smith slapped Rock (a woman’s blow), rather than punching him. Big girl’s blouse!
Fairly unlikely plod will get called in the places I drink unless someone gets stabbed.