Opinion
Words are not violence – Why Will Smith was wrong to strike Chris Rock.
This article submitted by Levi Kump
It is news to exactly no one, that Sunday night, Will Smith responded to a contentious, and arguably tasteless joke, by walking on stage at the Acadamy Awards and slapping the the offending party, one Chris Rock, across the face. Much has been made already about whether or not the incident was staged, though the ensuing furor has rendered that debate largely moot. Many people have chimed in on the issue, some saying the Smith was unequivocally wrong, and some, including no less than The National Post’s Barbara Kay, coming down on the the side of a face slap being fair play.
Let it be known, I believe Smith and Kay, are both wrong. First and foremost, because one of the tenets of civilization in general, is the old adage that, “ones right to get angry, stops at the next fellow’s nose”. Nothing new here. Setting aside for a moment that the slap was to the cheek/jaw area, I believe that notion still holds water. Genuine or not, this incident implies that there are some statements for which the only possible rebuttal, is the fist. The challenges with this way of thinking are legion, and until only a few years ago, seemed to have already been worked out in western society. Not the least of said problems is this: if words are violence itself, and answerable as such, then we no longer have any reason to use words. When one equates the verbal with the somatic, it is a very quick descent indeed, to using violence in any given situation. Why struggle for the ‘mot juste’, when one can move stright to a head kick?
Following this line of reasoning, we end up back, hundreds of years, to the time of, “might makes right”; which again, our civilization had once worked out, but now seems to be forgetting. One of the more common lines of reasoning for the “speech as violence” crowd, is that disparities in power give far more weight to some people’s words, than others. In the Smith/Rock debacle, this is hardly worth a mention, as both men are of the same demographic, read: multi-millionaires of the same skin tone. Though there are those who will point out, as did Barbera Kay, that the target of Rock’s joke, was not Will Smith himself, but rather his wife, Jada, who does in fact suffer from an auto immune disease, and whose hair loss is by no means her own fault. A powerful comedian making jokes about a/an (equally powerful?) woman’s physical condition should be off limits, or so goes the argument. The easy reply here is that there are
those, myself among them, who do not believe that anything should be off limits in speech.
Noting here that, not unlike our separation of words and action, society did away with the idea of ‘lese majest’ some time back. There are yet some who do not believe in this, and who think that the relative power of two parties (and exactly how do we quantify this?) matter to a verbal exchange. That the words of the more powerful party are in fact so weighty, that again, the only fair response, is a physical one. This begs the question, that if the words of the powerful are
unfairly weighted, how much more so are thier blows? It is to me, an untenable position. Slapping a man for speech only ends badly for everyone. Until very recently, we all seem to have understood this.
There was once a common convention, that words, for all their power, are clearly not violence. The fact that this is now somehow considered up for debate, does not bode well for society writ large. Any reasonable person will admit that words can be incredibly hurtful, damaging, and cruel. To deny this is foolish. Physical violence however, has all those dangers, along with a side order of split lips, contusions, and concussions. Indeed, whatever “damage” one suffers from words, one is still left with the ability to speak in rebuttal. A solid blow of any kind can not only dissuade retort, but neuter it completely. Perhaps this is what the proponents of violent response are after in the first place? If so, its disappointing. As I said, i thought we had worked this out.
Levi Kump is a former competitive international Muay Thai champion.
Quick Hit:
Village officials in Dolton, Illinois, have purchased the boyhood home of Pope Leo XIV, calling it a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to bring pride, attention, and tourism to the community. The historic acquisition comes just weeks after Robert Prevost was elected pope.
Key Details:
- The three-bedroom, 1,050-square-foot home was purchased by the Pope’s parents in 1949 and remained in the family for nearly 50 years.
- Initially listed for $245,957, the home was removed from the market after Prevost’s election and later sold directly to the Dolton Village Board at a “significantly lower” price.
- Dolton Mayor Jason House called the deal a major win for the community, with board members and residents already seeing increased interest and tour bus traffic.
Diving Deeper:
The childhood home of Pope Leo XIV has officially been purchased by the village of Dolton, Illinois, after a unanimous vote by the Village Board on Monday night. Local officials are celebrating the move as a historic acquisition that could serve as a source of civic pride and new economic opportunity.
As reported by the New York Post, the modest 1,050-square-foot home—located just south of Chicago—was originally purchased by the Pope’s parents in 1949 for a $49 monthly mortgage. It stayed in the Prevost family for nearly half a century.
After Robert Prevost was elected pope, the home—initially listed on May 5 for $245,957—was pulled from the market and briefly entered into an auction process. That plan was ultimately scrapped in favor of a direct sale to the village. While the final purchase price hasn’t been disclosed, attorney Burt Odelson, who handled the deal, said it was “significantly lower than what they thought they would get.”
Mayor Jason House praised the acquisition as a unique chance to put Dolton on the map. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” House said. “We can either seize this moment and move it forward, or we can let that moment go to an investor. I would like our community to get the benefits of this opportunity.”
Tourism has already begun. Within hours of Pope Leo XIV’s election, visitors started arriving at the home. Officials say that momentum has only grown. Trustee Edward Steave said the traffic in the area speaks for itself: “If you ever see the traffic over there, the constant busloads in and out of our town, this is a great opportunity for us. This is a historical thing.”
Peter Doocy asked directly, “What happened to the Epstein client list that the Attorney General said she had on her desk?” Here’s how Leavitt tried to explain it.
The Epstein client list was supposed to be SITTING on Pam Bondi’s desk for review.
But months later, the DOJ says no such list even exists.
Karoline Leavitt was just asked why there was such a reversal in so little time.
Her responses today are raising eyebrows.
On February 21st, Pam Bondi told the world the Epstein client list was “sitting on [her] desk right now to review,” explaining it was part of a directive ordered by President Trump.
Shortly afterward, she and Kash Patel pledged to end the Epstein cover-up, promising to fully disclose the Epstein files to the public, hold accountable any government officials who withheld key evidence, and investigate why critical documents had been hidden in the first place.
But ever since late February, it seems the cover-up wasn’t exposed but buried even deeper by those who promised transparency.
First, they handed out the so-called “Epstein files” to influencers like golden Willy Wanka tickets, only for everyone to discover that almost all of the contents inside were already public and contained no new revelations.
Fast-forward to May, and suddenly Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are declaring firmly that Epstein killed himself.
“I’ve seen the whole file. He killed himself,” Bongino stated bluntly to Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.
Today, the Trump-appointed DOJ and FBI released a new report that’s turning heads and raising plenty of questions.
They concluded that Epstein had no clients, didn’t blackmail anyone, and definitely killed himself.
FBI Concludes Epstein Had No Clients, Didn’t Blackmail Anyone, and Definitely Killed Himself
This article originally appeared on Infowars and was republished with permission.
They also released surveillance footage and claimed it showed no one entered Epstein’s cell area, supporting the suicide ruling.
But people aren’t convinced. Some allege the video cuts off, with a minute of footage missing between 11:59 PM and midnight.
Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to questions about the Epstein client list in light of these new DOJ and FBI statements.
A reporter asked, “Karoline, the DOJ and FBI have now concluded there was no Jeffrey Epstein client list. What do you tell MAGA supporters who say they want anyone involved in Epstein’s alleged crimes held accountable?”
Leavitt replied, “This administration wants anyone who has ever committed a crime to be accountable, and I would argue this administration has done more to lock up bad guys than certainly the previous administration.”
She continued, “The Trump administration is committed to truth and transparency. That’s why the Attorney General and the FBI Director pledged, at the president’s direction, to do an exhaustive review of all the files related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and his death. They put out a memo in conclusion of that review.”
“There was material they did not release because frankly it was incredibly graphic and contained child pornography, which is not something that is appropriate for public consumption,” she added.
“But they committed to an exhaustive investigation. That’s what they did and they provided the results of that.”
“That’s transparency,” Leavitt said.
Leavitt was also pressed about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s comments in February when she claimed she had the Epstein list “on [her] desk.”
Peter Doocy asked, “Okay, so the FBI looks at the circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. According to the report, this systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. So what happened to the Epstein client list that the Attorney General said she had on her desk?”
Leavitt responded, “I think if you go back and look at what the Attorney General said in that interview, which was on your network, on Fox News—”
Doocy pushed back, “I have the quote. John Roberts said: ‘DOJ may release the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients, will that really happen?’ And she said, ‘It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.’”
Leavitt explained, “Yes. She was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes, that’s what the Attorney General was referring to. And I will let her speak for that.”
“But when it comes to the FBI and the Department of Justice, they are more than committed to ensuring that bad people are put behind bars.”
So, after months of patiently waiting, the American people get a nothing burger that simply repeats the same old claims we heard under Bill Barr.
Even worse, it’s purported that this is what “transparency” and “accountability” look like.
The story went from saying the Epstein client list was “on my desk” to “actually, there is no client list.”
And the newly released video footage raises questions and, in the age of AI, proves nothing.
If there’s really nothing to hide, why does it still feel like they’re hiding everything?
And most importantly—who’s still being protected?
Thanks for reading to the end. I hope you found this timeline of events and recap helpful.
Subscribe to The Vigilant Fox
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
-
Business2 days agoWhy it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast
-
International2 days agoCBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview
-
Energy2 days agoIf Canada Wants to be the World’s Energy Partner, We Need to Act Like It
-
Alberta2 days agoPierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoHow Vimy Ridge Shaped Canada
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta uncorks new rules for liquor and cannabis
-
Canadian Energy Centre1 day agoAlberta oil sands legacy tailings down 40 per cent since 2015