The Oscars Academy said it doesn't "condone violence” even though it did nothing after Will Smith slapped Chris Rock

Maybe they asked Chris Rock if he wanted Smith removed after the slap and he said no.

We don’t know what went on behind the scenes.


Why? It’s not like it was a beat down? It was a slap that came after yet another joke at the expense of Pinkett-Smith. For all we know, there might have been a private back and forth between the two of them over this, for a while now, and Rock just kept pushing anyway.

This not the worst crime that’s ever been committed, but some people do seem worked up about it (not you, just some in this thread).

If true, that might confirm that there has been discussions over Rock’s joke aimed at Pinkett-Smith prior to this?


Wouldn’t that be condoning the public mockery of women with alopecia?


Dragging Smith off to jail in handcuffs would have been a major overreaction but I think escorting someone out of the building is an appropriate response to a physical altercation even if there were no serious injuries involved.

I think of it this way: if I was hosting a party where one person slapped another person I would certainly ask them to leave, even if the slap was in response to an unkind joke. Then I’d try to talk out what had happened and smooth things through with both parties later.

But whatever. Everyone did what they did and now the academy is going to have to figure out what if any consequences they want to implement going forward.


I’m just wondering what the boingboing author is calling for as a solution here.

If Smith had assaulted a woman onstage, no matter what the provocation, I’m guessing things would have unfolded very differently. The fact that it was “only” a slap in the face, and that Rock is an ass, and a man…shouldn’t make any difference.


But he DIDN’T.

Such unfounded suppositions and irrelevant conjecture are disingenuous.

This is about what actually DID happen, not what COULD have happened; anyone commenting in good faith might want to refrain from engaging in needless whataboutism.


Citation needed.


Next on What If… Celebrity Edition:

“What if Buzz Aldrin had punched a baby in 2015 instead of that smug moon-landing-hoax conspiracy theorist?”


I wonder if some random seat filler would have rushed the stage and assaulted Rock if the academy would have let that person go sit back down?


Consistency is important here. For better or for worse Hollywood stars become role models for many people, and far too often I’ve seen “selective enforcement” in the organizations I’ve been a part of as a key factor in why people believe nothing will be done about harassment and abuse. On more than one occasion, a suggested remedy has been as simple as having those in positions of authority demand that the organizations of a policy be universally enforced as an indication that it would have affected the culture of the organization as a whole.

If there is a policy in place regarding behaviour, the Acadamy needs to consistently enforce it. The whataboutism doesn’t matter. It is “selective enforcement” on behalf of organizations like this, or Twitter/Facebooks of the world, or indeed, even here on the BBS, that would erode confidence in the organization as a whole.

IMHO, If there is a policy, enforce it. If there isn’t one, the academy should agree on one and enforce it universally.


This is getting more free press PR than the Nazi/GQP insurrectionists are getting or will get.


Fair point. It was from a link I clicked on last night trying to figure out WTF was going on. I can’t find it in the mess of 1000 articles posted since then. I maybe be mistaken and it was ad libbed. I’ll edit my post.


I notice there are two definitions of “condone.” One is to “accept and allow something to continue” the other is “give official permission for something.” Seems like in corporate speech, it’s always the latter, where “not condone” doesn’t even mean “condemn,” much less “stop it from happening.” In which context it’s really a fairly meaningless statement, and I always roll my eyes at any press release that uses the phrase because it indicates they’re not actually going to do anything but (pretend to) wring their hands and tut a bit. Often it’s just better that they not say anything at all, especially in situations like this where it’s not something they’re actively involved with.

I don’t think this actually did viewership any favors though, as all talk has been about the incident and not the movies or even the awards show itself, at a time when no one is going to see films (which in turn is driving lower viewership). When the event exists to act as a giant ad for movies, this was, if anything, counterproductive.

Still, I understand questioning the reality - upon first hearing about this, my immediate question was, “Was this a bit?” I’m still not entirely sure, even though it doesn’t seem to make sense when viewed that way.

Which apparently was censored in the US broadcast? (They have a “tape delay” for these kinds of incidents.)

Oscar nominations lead to box office bumps. (Not sure how that shakes out when most of the movies are on streaming, though… apparently very few people have watched Campion’s dog movie.)

I still say the baby had it coming.

Apparently their policy is to tut about it afterwards.


I presume the situation is complicated. Rock and Smith probably know each other, i don’t know how much of friends they are but i doubt Chris Rock would want to go after Will Smith in that way. What’s done is done though i hope that they can resolve things in private, as they should.


This lack of consistent or equitable enforcement of policies (or a complete lack of policies) the origin story for most “missing stairs”.


Sounds accurate to me. And I don’t see that as “whataboutism” because you aren’t deflecting an issue by pointing to another circumstance and saying “but what about”. Instead you are saying Smith needs to be held accountable and being consistent about it, saying that should apply no matter who he it.


Er, wrong. Moral reasoning of any seriousness requires one to move beyond the facts of the specific case at issue and consider the more general categories into which that case may or may not fall–and that inevitably means considering hypothetical counter-examples that include variables different from the case at issue. There is no straw man here, nor a straw woman either.


No, the Academy’s decision on whether or not to eject Smith is not related to whether or not they condone Rock’s joke. Declining to penalize Rock is what indicates that they condone his statement, and that would be true whether or not they took action against Smith.

1 Like

A joke about a woman’s autoimmune condition where her hair falls out was scripted? Wholey lawd … if a whole room of comedy writers wrote that joke, they all need to be open hand slapped.