The Sexist

Chris Brown Cries for Michael Jackson, Domestic Violence, Pelicans

MTV Shows

Since assaulting girlfriend Rihanna in February of 2009, Chris Brown has repeatedly tried, and failed, to convince the public that he is sorry. On Aug. 31, 2009, Brown told Larry King: "When I look at it now, it's just like, wow, like, I can't believe that that actually happened." On Nov. 16, he told Wendy Williams "the steps that I've taken to show that I'm sorry probably have been perceived wrong," adding later in the show that he loves women. And Brown's tribute to Michael Jackson at last night's BET awards failed to correct the public perception problem.

In case you missed Brown's performance, the R&B singer was tasked with performing a medley of Jackson's greatest hits on the award show. He started with "The Way You Make Me Feel," continued with "Smooth Criminal," and sailed through "Billie Jean" before finally arriving at "Man in the Mirror," at which point he collapsed in tears, fist-pumped the air, and exited the stage without finishing the song. Commenter Lizrd described the spectacle this way: "Chris Brown did the Michael Jackson tribute, and then proceeded to cry throughout 'Man in the Mirror' in what I can only assume is a delicious truffle filled with creamy irony, descended from heaven as a gift for me."

Today, commentators are speculating as to whether Brown's tearful denouement was authentic or staged (smooth criminal indeed). The real question is what on earth Brown is meant to be expressing sadness about here. Is it Michael Jackson's premature death? Pelicans covered in oil, which appeared on the big screen during the song? That he assaulted his girlfriend last year? Maybe it's Haiti.

The Washington Post's Celebritology column asks if whatever that was means it's time to forgive Brown for assaulting Rihanna. I can't tell the music-listening public when (if ever) it ought to extend its forgiveness to Brown. But I would suggest that the guy needs to do a little bit more than cry indiscriminately over an undetermined source of sadness in order to get our money back.

  • blunt

    @Melissa

    I already answered the holding question. I won't repeat myself. However I will add something new.

    Since generally men are physically stronger than women no man should ever hit a woman back who hits him. All men should just sit and take it, walk away, or hold them down like children. If those women just happen to continue hitting after the men let go well then the man should just take it some more because women are not adults who are intelligent enough to know that hitting someone will result in being hit back. No. Because they are significantly weaker they should expect to be lectured and have a finger wagged at them. Also, since men are generally stronger they should just know from birth and also have it ground into them through years of teaching that they should never hit back when attacked by a woman. It worked for Joe Biden. He just laughs now when he thinks of all the bruises and beatings he got from his sister.

    That pretty much what you're saying Melissa? I didn't think so.

    He was driving a car. Holding doesn't always stop hitting. No one should hit anyone.

    Damn. Wound up repeating myself anyway. Whatever.

  • Melissa

    But as several others have already said, there is a BIG difference between self-defense and beating someone to a bloody pulp.

  • blunt

    "But as several others have already said, there is a BIG difference between self-defense and beating someone to a bloody pulp."

    Yeap. Several people. Including me in agreement with them.

  • ginmar

    No, blunt, you already stated that she hit him first, and that you weren't interested in the truth-oh, wait, in anything that disabused you of the lies you want to believe.

  • blunt

    @ginmar

    Actually I stated several times that there was a bunch of different information out on what happened except for the LAPD website, which has no detailed release of anything that happened on it and said that if what I read elsewhere was true then so be it and if not then so be it. The truth, is known by the police and the parties involved. Not TMZ, or the smoking gun, or all the other sites out there that claim they have the truth.

    You, ginmar, obviously just read your information somewhere and do not care that it is contradicted elsewhere and want to claim it as the truth because anything otherwise would disrupt your worldview in my opinion. So you believe what you want to believe and that is fine. The only thing I said to you is not to try and force that belief on me.

    In short. Stop commenting at me. You are wasting both of our time.

  • Laura B

    blunt, I'm curious as to why you insist she started the 'fight' so much when you constantly admit yourself you have no idea what happened. You admit you know no more about this than the rest of us. Maybe he was defending himself, although he almost certainly used unecessary force in that case. Either way, he pleaded guilty to felony assault. Anything else is just allegations, as you pointed out yourself. Considering what we do know (he was unharmed, she was beaten to a pulp) it's worrying to me that you assume this was a case of self-defence.

  • blunt

    @Laura B

    Sheesh...for the I don't know how many times now. I do not "insist" that she started the fight if it was even a fight at all. The theme of almost everyone that has replied to me is that it was a brutal one sided beating when as you and I have both stated no one knows if that is true or if it was a fight.

    I established that I don't know for sure what happened, can't say the same for everyone else that wants to shoot their opinion out on the incident but I said that I decided to assume that it took more than just shouting at the man to get him to hit her considering all of the conflicting information surrounding the incident out there. But none of that info is on the LAPD website so I don't claim any of it as truth.

    Yes he did a significant amount of damage and as I already said I think three or four times now that I think he went overboard. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't provoked with physical violence from her.

    Like I said before where I work this kind of thing happens all the time between men and women, men and men, and women and women. However almost every time it is men and women, everyone wants to believe the brutal assault scenario when they have no idea what actually happened and all they saw was who was injured more.

    Common sense would suggest that if you pick a fight with someone stronger than you by attacking them then you are gonna come out of that fight more damaged unless you are some martial arts expert or something. That fact is why most of those men are released without incident because they did nothing wrong.

    So for hopefully the last time I didn't insist or claim anything. I am just being objective and putting in my opinion. The only time I refer to the incident as a fight is when it is referred to me as a beating. However, I keep stating that I do not know for sure which is true while most of everyone else seems to have been there and video taped the whole thing. But as I already said, dude plead guilty so it really doesn't matter if he didn't start it or he did. Case is over.

    By the way. I like you ^_^.

  • Melissa

    "Forgive him? I personally was never mad at him. Seeing as how he didn’t assault anyone. He hit Rihanna back after she hit him several times while he was driving"
    -blunt, June 29th

    "I do not “insist” that she started the fight if it was even a fight at all. I established that I don’t know for sure what happened."
    -blunt, July 1st

    Uh-huh. :)

  • blunt

    @Melissa

    "The only time I refer to the incident as a fight is when it is referred to me as a beating."
    -blunt, July 1st

    You really should get that read before you respond thing down. Nice try though.

  • Melissa

    Sure, I read that you said that. I also read what you ACTUALLY said two days ago. (Here's a hint: it's not what you're claiming to've said.) But hey, thanks for providing any other readers with more evidence. You make this way too easy.

  • blunt

    @Melissa

    "I also read what you ACTUALLY said two days ago."

    Yeah I know. You put it up there in the comment above my last one. What you ignored(something you do a lot) is the fact that if you look over all of my comments I only bring up the info describing the incident as a fight when contradicting the incident being referred to as a beating.

    Why...I even did that in my very first comment here because the blog post is in accordance with the info painting the incident as a beating.

    When Laura B (^_^) and a few others responded to me without claiming that they know 100% it was a beating I let it be known that there is tons of different information out on the incident and that I realize what I brought to the table might not be 100% true.

    Whoa...as a matter of fact I did that in my SECOND comment. So as I said before "The only time I refer to the incident as a fight is when it is referred to me as a beating.”

    "But hey, thanks for providing any other readers with more evidence."

    Of your incredible ability to knit-pick what you want then try and build an argument around it? (Ever thought of being a lawyer?)

    "You make this way too easy."

    I wish I could make reading easy for some of you.

  • Melissa

    "Of your incredible ability to knit-pick what you want then try and build an argument around it? (Ever thought of being a lawyer?)"

    Sure as long as you promise to never pursue a career as a spelling teacher.

    I was never building an argument--the others have taken care of that quite nicely. Me, I'm just undermining your credibility. Because I'm nasty like that.

  • blunt

    @Melissa

    We are down to quips about spelling now?

    "I was never building an argument–the others have taken care of that quite nicely."

    Actually no. No one has.

    "Me, I’m just undermining your credibility. Because I’m nasty like that."

    What you are doing is throwing a tantrum because someone disagrees with you and attacking his character because you can't refute what he disagrees with you about.

    Because you are nasty like that.

  • Melissa

    Why yes. A survivor of an abusive relationship getting really tired of the logical contortions that some people regularly resort to in order to excuse it? Being tired of fighting irrational notions like the idea that it is equally likely that Rihanna ineffectually hit Brown continuously the entire time he was bloodying her entire body, seeming to be such a big threat to him that he felt the need to send her to the hospital just to protect himself, and with such power and domination that he was incapable of escaping her as it is that maybe, JUST MAYBE, this was a genuine case of abuse? As the others in this thread have shown, logic and facts have absolutely no power against an argument like that. So I will resort to exasperated snark if I damn well feel like it.

  • blunt

    @Melissa

    "A survivor of an abusive relationship getting really tired of the logical contortions that some people regularly resort to in order to excuse it?"

    Hitting back is not abuse. Explaining why someone would hit back is not the same as excusing abuse. Setting aside the whole celebrity incident, those two facts are only other things I have been talking about. You being a survivor of abuse, if you actually are, gives you no trump card in being able to dictate what I or anyone else is saying or feeling or thinking.

    "Being tired of fighting irrational notions like the idea that it is equally likely that Rihanna ineffectually hit Brown"

    That is because as someone else already pointed out. People believe what they want to believe. As I said I take no sides, I only contradicted the other side.

    "As the others in this thread have shown, logic and facts have absolutely no power against an argument like that."

    Statements like that are why I remain objective and study the facts and use logic. Relying on emotion and ignorance is no way to judge a case. If that was the way things were done then millions more innocent people would be behind bars than those that are now.

    I already covered your weak argument of not relying on those silly things called facts when I described scenarios like this at my place of work. If the police just looked at the crying woman with bruises and ignored the fact that she (actually happened) grabbed a thick glass ash tray and threw it at a guy hitting him on the back of the head then continuously slapped and punched him before he finally hit her back a few times to stop her, if they just decided to ignore all of that and look at how

    "he was bloodying her entire body, seeming to be such a big threat to him that he felt the need to send her to the hospital just to protect himself, and with such power and domination that he was incapable of escaping her"

    then another innocent man would be in prison because the hits that she delivered didn't deal enough damage to make her attack as "abusive" as his. If someone attacks you then you can hit them back. If your blows deal more damage then that is their own fault for attacking you. And the only ones sued for assault in most of the cases I have seen including the one mentioned above was the woman who started the fight.

    But hey I guess because if someone decided to take a snap shot of that woman's bruises and post them on the web people who think like you would be fine and dandy with convicting the guy who did nothing wrong but fight back because he didn't follow his "being bigger and dominating" obligation to restrain his attacker and ensure her safety while she tries to pummel him.

    "So I will resort to exasperated snark if I damn well feel like it."

    And get nowhere by doing it. Since you already concluded that facts mean nothing to you, only photos and bruises, I think we can both agree that whatever the case may be regarding the celebrity incident, us continuing this conversation would be beyond pointless.

    Good day and good luck.

  • ginmar

    "Stop commenting at me."
    What are you, 12? I'll comment AT whomever I damned well please, and as long as you keep spreading lies, it's going to you, sport.

    You name no sites, cite no cites, just airily proclaim some sexist crap that has no basis and YOU get offended. This is not a logical mindset. It's the mindset of somebody who LOVES the idea of beating down a woman. Look at how you love the idea that she deserved it. You hang onto that thing like it's life preserver.

  • blunt

    @ginmar

    The request was for your benefit more than mine. But if you wish to continue making an ass of yourself then by all means comment away.

    "as long as you keep spreading lies"

    What lies might those be? None? That's what I thought.

    "You name no sites"

    Well first of all I said that I didn't want to get into a site citing war with anyone so that puts my site citing obligation at ummmm.....oh right, zero. I said that in my second comment.

    However, a while after that I think I cited the site to end all site cites (lol). That site would be the OFFICIAL LAPD WEBSITE, you friggin moron. So whatever site you, me, or anyone else wants to bring, celebrity gossip, blog, or whatever guess what? They don't matter cause I brought the only one that does.

    "you proclaim some sexist crap that has no basis"

    Sexist crap...? You mean the fact that women start fights just like men do and men have the right to hit back and it is sexist to feel men are obligated not to hit back?

    That sexist crap? Right -_-

    "It's the mindset of somebody who LOVES beating down a woman"

    This is also why I asked you to stop commenting at me. You make accusations about me that have no basis in reality. Where did I say I love beating down women? I believe I said if any PERSON were to attack me I would fight back. The only time I spoke specifically about women was when nitwits like you proclaimed that they should be free to hit any man they want and expect no repercussions.

    "Look how you love the idea that she deserved it"

    And I said this where? Oh right no where. Just another baseless accusation from some moron who can't disprove the person they disagree with so instead they attack character and make up ridiculous bullshit.

    Look, simpleton. What you say I am is not what I am. No matter how much you want me to be. I am not even if you want it reeeeeaaally bad. So give it up.

    I said my piece and there is not one hint of sexism or hatred towards men or women in any of it. Even though I know you only care about sexism and hatred towards women, I thought I would let anyone else who stumbles along this comment know that I have no hatred towards men either.

    Now if you are done lying and spewing your one sided morals all over this page I think we are done here.

    Good day and good luck.

...