I’m wasn’t saying last night was self defence, but many people on this thread have stated there is “never an acceptable level of violence” and I’m saying that’s not true.
Legally there is, and actually you can be excused in law (particularly in some states in America) for hitting someone because someone has insulted you/offended you. You can be excused in law for shooting someone for looking at your house wrong in some states. Not saying it’s right, but in law there is a tolerated level of violence up to and including death that doesn’t even require a physical assault from the injured party.
Then there’s a gulf between morally and legally acceptable isn’t there? The violence we saw from Will Smith last night may be bizarrely legal in some US states but worldwide exposure of it is nothing but harmful. Any celebration of that behaviour is harmful.
Imagine how much worse it would have been if Chris Rock had hit back?
Not many people would, I imagine, argue against proportionate force being used in existential self defence, but that is not a common situation and dragging into arguments about whether it’s acceptable to walk up to someone and punch them is a straw man. Ironically of course the people who most often suffer from this sort of toxic violence don’t exercise self defence often, and on occasions where they do, have ended up criminalised themselves.