Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T

[lawdog1]

No.

- Oscars been traaaaash. A shot in the arm would get everyone interested. #scripted
- Will wins for depicting a black man fiercely protective of his family... and then at the Oscars he proceeded to depict a black man fiercely protective of his family. Imagine someone playing a wizard then interrupting the Oscars in a full robe & wizard hat. Same thing. #scripted
- We been hearing all this 'Will ain't no bad boy like Pac, and she wanted Pac.' Real easy to create this scenario where Will plays the bad boy and swoons Jada. #scripted
- GI Jane joke didn't even hit THAT hard, then Chris is like "What? That was a good one." #scripted
- No security or nothing? Supposedly this man just walked on stage on his own, smacked Chris on his own, and... no security? I've heard people say "If Will had smacked a white actor he would have been tackled expeditiously." I completely agree, if it were unscripted. The problem here isn't that Chris is black; it's that it was #scripted.
- Will walked aaaaaaallll the way from his seat to Chris, after just laying down a joke about Jada, and Chris just cool af. Stands there hands behind his back, and even had his chin out a little. #scripted

I know you already read all that because you quoted it and responded, yet you still passive-aggressively asked if a single element was how simple I thought it was.

-foe

So you selectively chose to ignore my first post and now are calling me passive-agressive because I followed it up with another one?

Maybe if you answered the other questions I asked before the post you are now complainting about, and didn't passively-aggessively brush off CP's post with sarcasm, we'd be in a different place.
You can believe what you want, but pleae forgive those of us see it the other way for not appreciating you basically calling us gullible.

 

[noskey]

Until they come out and say it was staged - for all intents and purposes, it was a real issue and a real slap.


And the Oscar's couldn't have possibly imagined a better way to get their brand so much free marketing. They should build Will a statue.

 

[darthska]

The LAPD is involved man. Are they in on it?

"Everything is fiiiiine. The LAPD is involved" doesn't really do anything for me.

-foe

 

[darthska]

So you selectively chose to ignore my first post and now are calling me passive-agressive because I followed it up with another one?

Maybe if you answered the other questions I asked before the post you are now complainting about, and didn't passively-aggessively brush off CP's post with sarcasm, we'd be in a different place.
You can believe what you want, but pleae forgive those of us see it the other way for not appreciating you basically calling us gullible. didn't see my first response until I mockingly responded to you in my 2nd response?

Correct.

And I'm not responsible for your interpretation of being called gullible. I hate when people think they can interpret things however they want and then put the onus on the other person. Deal with what was said & ask questions about what wasn't said, or leave the debate.

-foe

 

[CP1708]

"Everything is fiiiiine. The LAPD is involved" doesn't really do anything for me.

-foe

What I'm sayin is, they givin statements on scripted fights? You know they couldn't be spendin time on nonsense like that.

 

[darthska]

they givin statements on scripted fights? You know they couldn't be spendin time on nonsense like that.

If they thought it was legit and weren't let in on it they would. They legit think one of the most recognized actors got slapped on national TV, and they do nothing? Naaah, they have to.

-foe

 

[CP1708]

I "hope" Will and Chris get right and present together next year.

Orrrrrrrrrr

Chris boutta LOAD UP on jokes for his comedy circuit and CLEAN, UP.

 

[elpablo21]

An all black production team isn’t scripting that. I’m sorry

 

[darthska]

I "hope" Will and Chris get right and present together next year.

Orrrrrrrrrr

Chris boutta LOAD UP on jokes for his comedy circuit and CLEAN, UP.

EYE hope for the 2nd one, if this is all totally real. Jokes on jokes. Let's gooooo!

-foe

 

[CP1708]

If they thought it was legit and weren't let in on it they would. They legit think one of the most recognized actors got slapped on national TV, and they do nothing? Naaah, they have to.

-foe

They might still. My guess is with Rock not cooperating, Will be donating to a charity or two and LA will move on with bigger issues.

 

[darthska]

They might still. My guess is with Rock not cooperating, Will be donating to a charity or two and LA will move on with bigger issues.

Like Vogel's theft?



C'mon, that was funny. You chuckled.

-foe

 

[CP1708]

Like Vogel's theft?



C'mon, that was funny. You chuckled.

-foe

Vogel got robbed???? Oh wait, you sayin someone gonna steal him.

 

[lawdog1]

Correct.

And I'm not responsible for your interpretation of being called gullible. I hate when people think they can interpret things however they want and then put the onus on the other person. Deal with what was said & ask questions about what wasn't said, or leave the debate.

-foe

I did deal with what was said. You're mad because you don't like how I did it. I am not responsible for that.

I am going to leave the debate though, because I don't think there really is one.

 

[darthska]

You're mad

False. Another interpretation of yours that you're married to and unwilling to take responsibility for before leaving. That's how assumers almost always do. "My assumptions are right because I'm not wrong but whatever. I'm out."

Good.

-foe

 

[darthska]

I did deal with what was said.

In part, yes. I didn't say you all were gullible, though. I didn't even hint at it. Didn't selectively ignore your first response to me, either. Didn't say I was mad, didn't imply it, nothing.

But you're right. I called you guys gullible, I totally ignored your first reply on purpose, and I'm heated. You're right, because you said so.

-foe

 

[lawdog1]

False. Another interpretation of yours that you're married to and unwilling to take responsibility for before leaving. That's how assumers almost always do. "My assumptions are right because I'm not wrong but whatever. I'm out."

Good.

-foe

In part, yes. I didn't say you all were gullible, though. I didn't even hint at it. Didn't selectively ignore your first response to me, either. Didn't say I was mad, didn't imply it, nothing.

But you're right. I called you guys gullible, I totally ignored your first reply on purpose, and I'm heated. You're right, because you said so.

-foe

You might want to look at your other posts in light of the things you said about mine. Interpret that as you will.

 

[dontsteponmyshoes]

I think in the long run this hurts Chris more than Will. Wills career isn't based on performing in public venues. Hecklers gona be all over Chris now. After a 30+ year career he's reached the pinnacle of stand-ups he's hosting the Oscars but now He's always Gona be known as the dude that got slapped by will Smith. The embarrassment will wear off but he will have to talk about this or avoid talking about this for the rest of his life.

 

[darthska]

You might want to look at your other posts in light of the things you said about mine. Interpret that as you will.

Why on earth would I fall into your interpretation game?

I speak clearly, not in code.

I can assume you're saying something about not assuming things or something, but I'm not sure because you're not being clear, and still not taking responsibility for your own assumptions. If that is what you're trying to say, which you might not be so this might be wasted words: At least I'm clearly saying what I'm assuming about the Oscars. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Not "Well it was their fault for making it seem like that. They are responsible for my interpretation."

You are responsible for your interpretations.

You don't need to interpret anything I'm saying as you will, and actually I'd prefer you didn't. Speak on what was said & ask questions about what wasn't, or leave it alone... which you said you were doing. Still here making assumptions and deflecting responsibility for previous assumptions/interpretations.

And I'm falling for it.

-foe

 

[IATT]

I think in the long run this hurts Chris more than Will. Wills career isn't based on performing in public venues. Hecklers gona be all over Chris now. After a 30+ year career he's reached the pinnacle of stand-ups he's hosting the Oscars but now He's always Gona be known as the dude that got slapped by will Smith. The embarrassment will wear off but he will have to talk about this or avoid talking about this for the rest of his life.

this is either great for Chris and he laughs at himself and cracks/roasts will and jada.. cause dude next special going have a ton of views just to see how he addresses this.. or he becomes the joke of this thing since he got punk‘d

but the bigger problem now for will is other comedians, who i assume won’t just drop things

i hate when comedians run on about they should be allowed to say shh, ain’t no one stopping them from saying shh but that don’t mean your words don’t have consequences.. it’s like with white people and the N word, say it if you want just don’t be surprised when you gotta deal with consequences

but now whoever ends up hosting future events, there will be a ton of security which embolden whomever to pop off

 

[lawdog1]

Why on earth would I fall into your interpretation game?

I speak clearly, not in code.

I can assume you're saying something about not assuming things or something, but I'm not sure because you're not being clear, and still not taking responsibility for your own assumptions. If that is what you're trying to say, which you might not be so this might be wasted words: At least I'm clearly saying what I'm assuming about the Oscars. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Not "Well it was their fault for making it seem like that. They are responsible for my interpretation."

You are responsible for your interpretations.

You don't need to interpret anything I'm saying as you will, and actually I'd prefer you didn't. Speak on what was said & ask questions about what wasn't, or leave it alone... which you said you were doing. Still here making assumptions and deflecting responsibility for previous assumptions/interpretations.

And I'm falling for it.

-foe

OK. Let's look at some things you actually said -

It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they've been fooled.

What did you mean by this? Because to me the words "fool" and "fooled" have ver clear, specific meanings. You chose to add that sentence at the end of your reasoning for why the Smith/Rock incident was staged. Were you not intending to say that people who don't believe it was staged have been "fooled"?


P.S. You are already playing the "interpretation game", as made clear by your loaded rhetorical question responses to points CP made about Oscars security and the LAPD's involvement.



Here's something else you said -

I hate when people think they can interpret things however they want and then put the onus on the other person

Said by you describing something I posted. So you characterized something I did as falling into a category of things you "hate". What does "hate" mean to you? Does it not signify an intensely negative feeling?

 

[noskey]

You guys are getting really worked up over a slap. Can't we all just go back to admiring Jessica Chastain and Lily James and Regina King and Zoe Kravitz? Did I miss anyone?

 

[darthska]

I love that now you're asking questions you should have asked from the jump, but only as long as you soothe yourself by also telling me more of your interpretations.

You. Will. Not. Be. Wrong.

A clear... rhetorical question? What the... I can't. There are layers of errors there.

What did you mean by this?

I meant that it's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they've been fooled. Not a whole lot to read into there. Those are the words I said; those are the words I meant.

Were you not intending to say that people who don't believe it was staged have been "fooled"?

No.

That would operate under the assumption that I think my assumption is infallible and correct, and you all have been fooled for not having my interpretation of last night's events. That isn't true, and I never said it was. I just don't think everyone has to say "In opinion..." before their every opinionated reply. If someone says "Ketchup sucks", I don't ask them for proof. I'd ask them why they think so and go from there, fully intent on engaging, not arguing. Civil disagreement is my preference, but when people start off sideways, unfortunately I jump right into that, too.

Like now. You came at me sideways and passive-aggressively, I jumped in. See? No interpretation. Clear thoughts. Do I wish you would have asked questions like "What did you mean by this?" from the beginning? Yes, I do. My intention was that someone would ask questions like that and we could have a discussion.

And I do have an intensely negative feeling for people forcing others to take responsibility for their interpretations/assumptions.

-foe

 

[jayt1202]

You guys are getting really worked up over a slap. Can't we all just go back to admiring Jessica Chastain and Lily James and Regina King and Zoe Kravitz? Did I miss anyone?

Sydney Sweeney!

 

[noskey]

Sydney Sweeney!

Thank you! I knew somebody was missing.

 

[MajinZuub]