in World

奧斯卡影帝Will Smith （港譯：韋史密夫）掌摑知名Talk Show（港譯：棟篤笑，另譯脫口秀）Chris Rock，事件引起熱話，但遺憾主流聲音留於譴責當事人動粗，稍稍深入的才指摘Chris Rock的不是，遺憾再無深入內容。無奈媒體吸引點擊率是首要任務，有點擊率有廣告費有收入才是核心，道德思考與理性批判卻於他們無益。也許因此而故意忽略了。

掌摑是暴力，固然要譴責。即使Will Smith行事原因情有可原，但也的確於法不合。此事無容置疑。只是，真正應該思考、在乎的不是這結果，正所謂治標不治本，真正應該在乎的是事件成因。於此事件即是「有甚麼事令Will Smith出手傷人」。

坊間有評論指，事件是奧斯卡頒獎禮劇本，掌摑時拍攝到兩人偷笑，兩人是好兄弟等。也許是，也許不是，但不重要。電影與故事尚可給予我們反思，何況此事是真實事件呢？是否真掌摑真的不重要。因為不妨礙我們追本溯源，思考事件本質：「言語暴力是否暴力」。

Will Smith的掌摑是物理暴力，客觀存在，只要確實接觸到Chris Rock，事實上可以傷害他（雖然影片中沒有明顯傷痕）。物理暴力傷害的極致是殺死，再由死亡造成死者家人的心靈傷害，屬於延伸傷害。所以物理傷害可見，可查驗，非死亡或重傷的話影響範圍多數限於個人。至少物理暴力有法律限制，有物理距離限制，事實上有機會躲避而不受傷害。萬一真的不能逃避施襲，才被逼用身體承受。

言語暴力呢？可知，可見，但沒有法律限制，更沒有物理距離限制。今時今日已可收到火星傳回地球的訊息了，何況是地球內的惡意取笑。而且這種所謂Talk Show取笑方式，很不幸得到人支持，成為所謂風格。當有人試圖為被取笑者辯護，竟會有人標籤辯護者「無幽默感」、「不包容」、「扼殺創作自由」、「思想落伍」等。本來，道德不應被任何其他價值觀取代，因為道德觀本應是其他價值觀的起源與基礎。但今時今日道德觀事實上被利益取代了，但利益披上了外衣，用以上種種標籤作為外衣包裝了。

真相是，道德本身可以成就長遠利益，但有時同樣也限制了利益，所以有人捨棄道德。

因為道德代表選擇拒絕做一些事。所以對於沒有道德的人，他們選擇做惡德的事來成就他們自私的長遠利益。所以道德就弱勢了，至少在主耶穌再來之前是弱勢。

要talk show中充滿笑聲，總有不同內容可成為笑話，難道非要揭人瘡疤，取笑人身患頑疾不可嗎？除了惡德之外，是否顯出了當事人江郎才盡呢？如果笑話材料滿然心中，卻故意只取笑病患者，除了惡德之外還有甚麼可形容呢？是甚麼道德標準可令人還要求受害者「包容及尊重創作自由」呢？畢竟受害者是病患尚且不得人尊重啊！

從網上影片見到面對Chris Rock諷刺Will Smith妻時，起初Will Smith與現場觀眾一同笑。我知道有人會說Will Smith與太太關係差的新聞，聲稱他們是表面夫婦等等。我知道，但無論耶些是否事實，都不能取代核心，就是「我們應否認同」。不知道有多少人仍然真心認為「我的快樂不應建立於他人痛苦之上」，但遺憾聽到奧斯卡頒獎禮現場的眾多笑聲，只能心存一絲希望Will Smith妻內心減少介意早日釋懷。

道德，於現世未免太弱勢。

如果說Will Smith的掌摑只摑到Chris Rock一人，距離短，傷害尚輕，影響有限，那麼Chris Rock的言語暴力則截然不同。言語暴力令受害人即使不在現場也可聽到，即使說話者死了也可留在受害者心中，而且因為沒有法律限制而可以一再出口傷人。更令人心中不安的是，社會主流對此包容變相鼓勵話種傷害行為，絲毫不能遏止動機，令社會繼續存在心靈傷害。今時今日竟然淪落到要求受害者內心夠強大來承受惡意攻擊，好比人被搶劫不應懲罰賊匪，反應怪責受害人自己不夠強壯保護自己。

也許Will Smith之後會改稱為Will Slap，Slap出兩種暴力，而Chris Rock的talk show卻仍然人如其名Rock一樣堅定不移。

The Oscar-winning actor Will Smith slapped the famous Talk Show’s Chris Rock in the face, which caused a lot of buzz, but unfortunately the mainstream voices only condemned the person involved for being violent, and only slightly went deeper to accuse Chris Rock of wrongdoing. It’s a shame that the media put first priority to attract clicks, and the core is to have advertising revenue from some hits, while moral thinking and rational criticism are not helpful to media. Perhaps this is why it is deliberately ignored.

Slapping is violence, and of course it should be condemned. Even if Will Smith’s reasons for acting are justifiable, it is indeed unlawful. There is no question about it. However, what we should really think about and care about is not the result, as the saying goes, treating the symptoms is not the root cause, what we should really care about is the cause of the incident. In this case, it is “what caused Will Smith to hurt someone”.

There are comments that the incident is the script of the Oscar ceremony, Will and Chris were smiled when slapping, the two people are good brothers, etc.. Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn’t matter. The movie and the story can still give us reflections, let alone this is a real incident? It really doesn’t matter if it’s a real slap in the face. Because it might be a good idea to go back to the source and consider the nature of the incident: “Is verbal violence violent?

Will Smith’s slap is physical violence, which exists objectively, and can actually hurt Chris Rock if it actually touches him (although there are no visible wounds shown in the video). The extreme of physical violence is to kill, and then by the death of the deceased to the family caused psychological damage which is an extended injury. So physical injuries are visible, verifiable, and most of the effects are limited to individuals if they are not fatal or serious injuries. At least physical violence is limited by law and by physical distance, so there is in fact a chance to escape without harm. In the unlikely event that one cannot escape an attack, one is forced to physically endure it.

What about verbal violence? It is known, it is visible, but there is no legal limit and protection, and there is no physical distance limit. Today, we can receive messages from Mars to Earth, not to mention malicious teasing on Earth. And this so-called Talk Show style of making fun is unfortunately supported by people and has become a so-called style. When someone tries to defend the person being made fun of, they are labeled as “humorless”, “intolerant”, “stifling freedom of creativity”, “outdated”, etc. Originally, morality should not be replaced by any other values, because morality is supposed to be the origin and foundation of other values. But today, morality has actually been replaced by profit, but profit is wrapped in a veneer of all these labels.

The truth is that morality itself can lead to long-term benefits, but sometimes it also limits benefits, so some people abandon morality.

Because morality means choosing to refuse to do something. So for those who don’t have morality, they choose to do evil things to achieve their selfish long-term interests. So morality is weak, at least until the return of Jesus.

For a talk show to be full of laughter, there are always different things that can become jokes, do we have to expose people’s scars and make fun of their diseases? In addition to the virtueless, does it show that the person concerned is not capable of doing anything? If there are full of jokes material in one’s heart, but deliberately only make fun of the sick, what else is there to describe but evil virtue? What kind of moral standard can one expect the victim to “tolerate and respect the freedom of creativity”? After all, the victim is a sick person and is still not respected!

As seen in the online video, when Chris Rock satirized Will Smith’s wife, Will Smith and the audience laughed together at first. I know some people will say there is news about Will Smith’s poor relationship with his wife, claiming they are a superficial couple, etc. I know, but whether it’s true or not, it doesn’t matter because what is important is “should we agree”. I don’t know how many people still truly believe that “my happiness should not be built on the pain of others,” but I’m sorry to hear the many laughs at the Oscar ceremony, and I can only hope that Will Smith’s wife will be less upset.

Morality is too weak in this world.

If Will Smith’s slap only hit Chris Rock, the distance was short, the damage was still light, and the impact was limited, but Chris Rock’s verbal violence was very different. Verbal violence can be heard even when the victim is not present, can remain in the victim’s mind even when the speaker is dead, and can be repeated because there is no legal limit to what can be said. What is even more disturbing is that the mainstream of society is so tolerant of this kind of violence that it encourages it and does nothing to stop the motivation, which continues to cause psychological harm to people of this society. Nowadays, it has degenerated to the point of asking victims to be strong enough to withstand vicious attacks, as if a person being robbed should not punish the thief, but rather blame the victim for not being strong enough to protect himself.

Perhaps Will Smith will later be renamed Will Slap, The Slap shew two kinds of violence, while Chris Rock’s talk show is still as determined as his name Rock.