Unethical Quote of the Week; Chris Rock

Shut up, Chris.

Shut up, Chris.

“You say the wrong thing — you see what happened to [Donald Sterling],” Rock said. “I’m not defending what Sterling said at all, but if that’s not the First Amendment then what the [bleep] is? And what did he say, ‘I don’t want my girlfriend hanging out with black basketball players’? Me neither!”

—Black comic and “truth-teller” Chris Rock, discussing the fear in Hollywood as a result of the Sony hacks.

Gee, Chris, that’s courageous, fair, perceptive and true.

What a shame you didn’t have the integrity or guts to condemn what happened to Sterling while every other black pundit, columnist, athlete, and celebrity was comparing him to Satan. You just allowed everyone to pile on the old, rich white guy, take away his team and make him the face of racism for telling his slutty black  girlfriend—in his own bedroom!—not to flaunt the fact she was only hanging with him for the money by showing up at his teams’ games with her real boyfriends. You Hollywood types are hilarious–as in disgusting— in your selective belief in rights, privacy and fair play. First Aaron Sorkin, who didn’t object to the media feeding frenzy over Sterling’s private remarks, suddenly argues that his friends and business associates’ equally damning comments shouldn’t be reported because they aren’t about crime and corruption, and thus aren’t news. Then you suddenly decide to defend Donald Sterling’s rights of privacy and free speech now, when there is no cost to you at all, and the damage is done and irreparable.

Here’s what’s unethical about your statement, Chris: it’s too damn late.

 

13 thoughts on “Unethical Quote of the Week; Chris Rock

  1. He actually said the exact same thing in June, as the joke is recycled from then:

    But Chris Rock showed he has lost none of his edge after mocking infamous Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling during his BET Awards monologue on Sunday.

    The comic and actor ripped into the billionaire during his spectacular opening at the city’s Nokia Theatre, making a slavery joke by claiming the first black person the Jewish businessman met was given to him as a festive gift.
    Rock said: ‘Let me get this straight an 83-year-old white man doesnt like black people. Is that news?

    ‘First of all a black man couldnt look him in the eye til he was 45.

    ‘The first black man he ever met he got for Christmas.

    He then joked about the recorded telephone exchange with V. Stiviano that landed him in hot water, where he told her not to bring black people to Clippers games.

    Rock said: ‘What exactly did Donald Sterling say? “I dont want my woman around black basketball players.” Me either! Are you kidding me?

    ‘Who in the hell wants their woman around black basketball players and I’m specific about black ball players.,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2674591/Chris-Rock-mocks-Donald-Sterling-edgy-BET-Awards-monologue.html#ixzz3MJ3KJ5fy

    People are paying more attention to Chris Rock recently because he has been making the promotional rounds for his new movie, but he isn’t a hypocrite, he has been fairly consistent, if not repetitive.

    • I don’t believe hypocrisy is necessarily the point being made here. While he is being hippocratic about his race, he is not regarding basketball players as he isn’t one (that I am aware).

      However, I can certainly understand why more people in his position don’t speak up or take that edgy position — here are some names of people who have —

      Martin Luther King
      John Kennedy
      Abraham Lincoln
      George Carlin

      and many more. I think it is obvious of the fate for those who are in a position to sway many people, what happens when they use that power to try (sometimes succeed, usually not though as people generally just rubber-band back to their bubble) to enlighten people (wake up) and to make a positive change. To right a wrong.

      Does the looming threat of a sudden end (survival) warrant this as unethical ? I believe the answer is yes, and that Jack is wrong in this statement : “NON-ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Powerful human motivations that are not based on right or wrong, but on considerations of survival and well-being, such as health, security, love, wealth, or self-esteem.” . As I do not believe these apply or matter when trying to improve the world. Sacrificing ones health, security, love, wealth, etc is becoming the norm as acceptable casualties in the fight to right wrongs, and if that is not ethics, then I really have no clue.

      I believe if you know that a wrong is being done, and do nothing, then you are lacking in ethic out of a poor excuse called self-preservation. How can the world change if everyone stands by while someone is being stabbed to death — if you want the change, you need to participate at any costs else it is just more blah blah on the internet and no real solutions. — Yes, I actively speak up / intervene when something is not right. There are ways this can be done in most cases where both parties walk away with a better understanding. So you walk up to the guy stabbing the other guy, and you find out, that guy is doing it because the other guy did weird stuff to one of his family members. Accepted. Or you find out it was because he just wanted a smoke and thought the other guy was lying about not having any . Not accepted: proceed with next part of intervention. Give the guy a pack of smokes.

      While somethings can be solved without violence, there are cases where people are just too dumb to understand basic logic, and violence is necessary — USA does it to countries all the time… literally, it has NEVER stopped. Beating up, bombing, killing, because their values are different — trying to force your ‘freedom’ on them. Ironic. Yet in your own backyard most just leave it alone and pretend it isn’t happening. Maybe come online and blog about it, but generally, LAZY. Awareness is great, but actions speak louder than words. If you don’t like the way things are, and find this is common dinner talk, then stop talking about it and do something about it.

      I respect this blog Jack, and all that you do. However I just wish that people would take what they learn here — be angry about it, because it is disturbing — and do something. However small. Just do something about it as nothing is getting better. There are the few of us who fight, but it’s a losing battle of a few against many. Most people will talk about this stuff, they understand what is happening, and the problems. … and recognize there is a problem, but they feel the battle is hopeless and do nothing — after which they soon forget anything is going on and go back to their little bubbles like ‘Reality Television’ or ‘Who’s who in Hollywood’ again — a bliss which those who are truly intellectual can not afford the time for (nor would we).

      USA is so full of opportunity to make change and in a lot of ways is much easier to sway than many other countries (including Canada). It just takes a bit of hard work, and good social skills. Sadly those who run your country have neither, but they have amazing social manipulation skills. I find it amazing that a system based on ‘election’ can put back to back liars in charge who are complete miscreants and more devious than manson (more murderous as well — i mean hell, that guy killed how many … and your presidents kill how many each ? … in a week ? month ? — ). If you know something is wrong, do something about it, or perhaps, those who are fighting may just decide to sit back and watch you destroy yourselves deserving everything your loyal leaders throw at you because of mass neglect of your DUTY as a citizen to keep those who govern in check. No one else will.

    • More importantly, does he have a responsibility to speak out against every injustice as soon as it happens? That isn’t his job — he is not an Ethics Professor, he is a comic. Jack doesn’t let people condemn him for what he chooses to write about and not write about: Chris shouldn’t be condemned either.

      • Jack has an audience, on a good day, of about 2000 people. If Jack had an audience and influence anywhere close to Chris Rock’s, Jack would have…oh wait! Jack DID make that point about Sterling—WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. Lost some followers too. It was brave Chris who waited until everything was over but the echoes to point out that Sterling was being wronged. He’s a hypocrite and a coward. You know, its pretty damning that self-proclaimed liberal will rationalize ANYTHING as long as a teammate is guilty of it. I have to believe eventually people will notice.

        “Every injustice” is a straw man. The Sterling controversy involved free speech, privacy and race—Rock’s domain. No, he has no obligation to speak up on the national debt, and I didn’t suggest that he did.

        • Why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person? And audience size does not matter, it is the principle. I don’t think you need to talk about every issue — and neither does he. He is a comic, period. He doesn’t have a greater responsibility to opine on everything. In fact, Chris Rock even has a routine about the fact that he doesn’t like to get involved in causes, controversy, etc.

          How you are reading this as rationalizing escapes me.

          • How you can miss the point mystifies me. Rock did not see anything wrong with Sterling’s private thoughts abd statements being used to destroy him, but now that it’s happened to his pals, he’s calling it out. What’s os hard to understand? It’s the height of hypocrisy. It’s “…then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew… When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.” Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller Rock wasn’t concerned about the implications to free speech until the threat got close to him.

            How much more do I have to spell it out?

    • Not the same statement. “Ripping into Sterling” is not pointing out that Sterling was wronged. he recycled the joke, but used it in a supportive rather than a mocking context. Try again.

      • He used the exact same joke. I dont see in either context it being particular mocking or supportive of Sterling, but rather making fun of the sexual stereotype surrounding black athletes, and the anxiety it produces in other males. Rock seemed to be making the same point in both contexts. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to justify it in other way.

        • I’m pretty sick of your unethical device of skirting the actual issue and diverting the discussion with cherry picking. The post is not about the JOKE. The post is about his protesting the attack on Freedom of Speech and thought by exposing private communications NOW, as Hollywood pals are being embarrassed. He did NOT condemn this in Sterling’s case. See the body of the quote, deery? Here, I’ll show you again: “You say the wrong thing — you see what happened to [Donald Sterling],” Rock said. “I’m not defending what Sterling said at all, but if that’s not the First Amendment then what the [bleep] is?” So he added an old joke to the main point—so what? I wrote:

          “What a shame you didn’t have the integrity or guts to condemn what happened to Sterling while every other black pundit, columnist, athlete, and celebrity was comparing him to Satan. You just allowed everyone to pile on the old, rich white guy, take away his team and make him the face of racism… You Hollywood types are hilarious–as in disgusting— in your selective belief in rights, privacy and fair play. First Aaron Sorkin, who didn’t object to the media feeding frenzy over Sterling’s private remarks, suddenly argues that his friends and business associates’ equally damning comments shouldn’t be reported because they aren’t about crime and corruption, and thus aren’t news. Then you suddenly decide to defend Donald Sterling’s rights of privacy and free speech now, when there is no cost to you at all, and the damage is done and irreparable.”

          I know you can read…so why do you respond as if the main point isn’t there? Rock decided that what happened to Sterling was wrong only after the same thing happened to his pals. Before that, it was something to joke about.

          • For Chris Rock, it is still something to joke about, then and now, unless you take his statement about black basketball players as sincere now, but not then, but I don’t see any indication of that. He’s a comedian, not a pundit, so he makes fun, and gets a few laughs.

            What a shame you didn’t have the integrity or guts to condemn what happened to Sterling while every other black pundit, columnist, athlete, and celebrity was comparing him to Satan. You just allowed everyone to pile on the old, rich white guy, take away his team and make him the face of racism…

            He said something mildly supportive of Sterling’s views six months ago, during the controversy. He repeats his statements now, with some 1st Amendment concerns wedged in there to make it current, and he’s unethical because he didn’t speak up then, except that he did? Ok. Clear as mud.

  2. Jack,
    I sent you an email earlier this week that it just now occurred to me you intentionally may not have read. It’s in regard to my father (who used to comment here). I didn’t and still don’t expect a response, I was just letting you know in case you hadn’t seen it.

    -Neil

    • I’m sorry Neil—I’m backed up on e-mail. I’ll check it out. Your phrasing worries me. To be honest, having just had to cope with the deaths of two close friends this year, i was waiting to be in a better state of mind. I’m hoping that the message isn’t going to upset me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.