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.

He is a trainer and owner of One Martial Arts, a fitness facility in Edmonton.

Related Topics:#LeviKump #WillSmithVSChrisRock #WordsAreNotViolence feature

Up Next

It would be great if the proposed Gondola did not costs the taxpayers more money

Don't Miss

Refugee crisis or opportunity?

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Elon Musk’s X will help fund COVID shot critic’s ongoing legal battle against Canadian university

Censorship Industrial Complex / 3 hours ago

Biden Agencies Have Resumed Censorship Collaboration With Big Tech, Dem Senate Intel Chair Says

National / 4 hours ago

Taxpayers Federation presents Teddy Waste Awards for worst government waste

Censorship Industrial Complex

Biden Agencies Have Resumed Censorship Collaboration With Big Tech, Dem Senate Intel Chair Says

Published on May 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By JASON COHEN

Agencies in President Joe Biden’s administration have resumed their perceived disinformation censorship collaboration with social media companies, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner told reporters at a recent security conference, Nextgov/FCW reported.

The administration stopped “misinformation” censorship collaboration with social media platforms after a July Missouri v. Biden ruling to prevent federal agencies from coordinating with social media companies, but recently restarted this work, Warner # reporters, according to Nextgov. He said the cooperation resumed as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, now called Murthy v. Missouri, in March, where multiple justices indicated they supported the Biden administration’s viewpoint that it has the right to work with platforms to combat what it believes is harmful content.

Democrat Senator Mark Warner says there’s a “voluntary agreement about disinformation and misinformation in elections” between “all 20 of the major social media companies” pic.twitter.com/YmIyAuJBrw

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 21, 2024

“There seemed to be a lot of sympathy that the government ought to have at least voluntary communications with [the companies],” Warner said, according to Nextgoc. He also reportedly called on the Biden administration to take strong action against any foreign countries that try to interfere in the 2024 election.

The agencies include the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), according to NextGov.

“If the bad guy started to launch AI-driven tools that would threaten election officials in key communities, that clearly falls into the foreign interference category,” he added.

A district court judge issued an injunction in July preventing certain officials in agencies from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the FBI from communicating with social media platforms to censor speech, characterizing the government conduct exposed by the plaintiffs in the case as arguably “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed concern during March oral arguments about restricting the government’s ability to persuade companies to take action when necessary, such as when terrorists disseminate speech on a platform.

The justices also questioned whether the plaintiffs could prove their platforms censored their speech as a direct result of the government.

Facebook executives believed they were engaged in a “knife fight” with Biden’s White House on COVID-19 censorship, according to a recent House Judiciary Committee report. Biden accused the platform of “killing people” in July 2021 for not censoring so-called COVID-19 misinformation, and unearthed WhatsApp messages between Facebook executives revealed that they were unhappy about the president’s remarks.

Warner, the White House and the FBI did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. CISA declined to comment, but notified the DCNF about an Election Security hearing in the coming weeks with the agency’s Director, Jen Easterly.

National

Taxpayers Federation presents Teddy Waste Awards for worst government waste

Published on May 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation presented its 26^th annual Teddy Waste Awards to CBC President Catherine Tait for handing out millions in bonuses while announcing hundreds of layoffs; the Mission Cultural fund for its sex-themed artistic performances; and the city of Regina for its Experience Regina rebrand fiasco.

“Because it spent buckets of taxpayer cash funding birthday parties and photo exhibits for celebrities, and making things awkward for countries around the world with sex-themed artistic performances, the Mission Cultural Fund earned the Lifetime Achievement award for waste,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director.

“Tait is winning a Teddy Award because she handed out millions in bonuses despite announcing hundreds of layoffs just before Christmas, only to turn around and beg for more taxpayer cash.

“The Alberta Foundation for the Arts spent tens of thousands flying an artist to New York, Estonia and South Korea so she could flop around on a futon for a couple minutes and showcase a painting that can best be described as ants on a pop tart.

“The city of Regina came up with snappy slogans like, ‘Show us your Regina,’ and ‘Regina: the city that rhymes with fun.’ After spending $30,000 and facing backlash, the city ditched the entire rebrand so it won a Teddy Waste Award.”

The Teddy, a pig-shaped trophy the CTF annually awards to governments’ worst waste offenders, is named after Ted Weatherill, a former federal appointee who was fired in 1999 for submitting a raft of dubious expense claims, including a $700 lunch for two.

This year’s winners include:

Municipal Teddy winner: The city of Regina

Regina spent $30,000 rebranding Tourism Regina to Experience Regina. But after facing backlash, the city scrapped the rebrand. And Regina taxpayers are out $30,000.

Provincial Teddy winner: Alberta Foundation for the Arts

The Alberta Foundation for the Arts spent $30,000 flying an artist around the world to produce art few taxpayers would ever willingly buy or pay to see.

Federal Teddy winner: CBC President Catherine Tait

Tait handed out $15 million in bonuses to CBC brass in 2023 as she announced hundreds of layoffs weeks before Christmas and lobbied the government for more money. Bonuses at the CBC total $114 million since 2015.

Lifetime Teddy winner: The Mission Cultural Fund

The Mission Cultural Fund spent $10,000 on a birthday party for Margaret Atwood in New York, $52,000 for a photo exhibit for rockstar Bryan Adams, $8,800 on a sex toy show in Germany and $12,000 for senior citizens to talk about their sex lives in front of live audiences.

You can find the backgrounder on this year’s Teddy Waste Award nominees and winners HERE.