The Oscars

[ColinEssex]

But then there is the 'Deteriorata' from National Lampoon

http://web.mit.edu/~yandros/poetry/deteriorata

In its own way, it makes as much sense.

I am aware of that. But I didn't say it, I don't like it.
Col

 

[Isaac]

It depends on what you mean by "OK", because the term itself is vague. And OK to whom? Is it OK to eat meat - ask a Vegan.

If Will Smith punched someone else and in an unrelated incident a stranger punched Will Smith unprovoked, then I would agree. Punching is a criminal offence, whoever does it. The criminal law defines what is considered OK, at least in legal terms. But telling a joke is not criminal. Also, making fun of someone based on a lack of hair is just a joke by Will Smith's own standards. At least when *he* is poking fun at others.

To be fair, I don't know what you are referring to when you say "Golden Rule". And what is the reverse of the Golden Rule?

Edit: It is a good point you made that you should not always do unto others what they have done unto you. Because if your neighbour raped your wife, then reciprocating is not a good response.

I just meant this:
Even if Will formerly made the very joke that he now took offense to, that doesn't necessarily mean the latter joke was OK.

Of course I think his behavior was bad, I'm just making an isolated point.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Will probably slapped the wrong person, just saying.

 

[Jon]

I just meant this:
Even if Will formerly made the very joke that he now took offense to, that doesn't necessarily mean the latter joke was OK.

Of course I think his behavior was bad, I'm just making an isolated point.

I understood the first time and the point you made was a good one. Part of my response was really just saying, "Who says if the joke was OK or not?" It is a bit like the argument about hate speech. Who defines what is acceptable? It is not ok to say something racist to someone black, but it is fine to have white's constantly slurred with the label "white supremacist", "white privilege" and so on.

This reminds me of the debates about objective reality verses subjective reality, and the hate speech argument is closely related. Is there an objective definition of what is considered "hate speech", or is it all subjective, and based on each individuals viewpoint? If the latter, how can you enforce laws to cater to all sides?