Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Words are not violence – Why Will Smith was wrong to strike Chris Rock.

Published

6 minute read

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. 

 

 

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

conflict

Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding

Published on

From The Center Square

By

President Donald Trump broke from a meeting with his national security team Tuesday to share a series of social media posts signaling trouble for Iran.

The president announced control over Iranian airspace and knowledge of where Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s supreme leader, is being held while also calling for an “unconditional surrender.”

Trump claims Khomeini is “safe” for now but wouldn’t rule out killing the leader.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Israel has conducted five days of bombings inside of Iran an an attempt to destroy facilities housing its nuclear program and other military infrastructure. Iran has retaliated, bombing Israel, including civilian locations.

Before the president’s post on the Iranian leader’s whereabouts, he touted complete control over Iranian airspace.

“We have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA,” Trump posted.

It is unclear if the president was referring to U.S., Israeli, or a combination when talking about “we.”

Achieving control over Iranian airspace could be key to any U.S. involvement in carrying out missions to eliminate nuclear capabilities inside the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian Fordow nuclear site, located deep below a mountain, may only be penetrated by a Massive Ordinance Penetrator, also called a bunker buster. Currently, Israel is not equipped with a bunker buster and a B-2 bomber used to drop the explosive device.

The posts come as Trump swiftly returned to the White House early Tuesday morning, ahead of schedule, from the G7 summit in Alberta, Canada.

Upon returning to the White House early Tuesday, the president said he would head to the situation room. He argued that returning to the White House allowed him to learn more.

Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One earlier Tuesday that he wasn’t looking for a ceasefire but is seeking “a real end” with the Islamic Republic “giving up entirely” on their nuclear weapons program.

The president underscored previous comments regarding Iran not having nuclear weapons.

“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple – you don’t have to go too deep into it. They just can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters.

“I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate [with Iran],” Trump told reporters. “An end, a real end, not a ceasefire, real end.”

Trump posted an ominous message to Iran and its people Monday afternoon, warning them to evacuate.

“Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” the president posted to Truth Social.

He followed the warning with another post, reiterating that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

“AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” he posted later.

As the conflict enters the fifth day of fighting, Israel Defense Forces announced that it had “eliminated” another top Iranian military commander.

Continue Reading

conflict

Trump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command

Published on

‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER’: Trump Warns Iran as Israel Kills Top General

In a dramatic escalation Tuesday, President Donald Trump issued a direct and unprecedented warning to Iran’s leadership, stating that U.S. intelligence has positively identified the location of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and could kill him—though, for now, the U.S. is choosing not to.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump posted to his Truth Social account Tuesday afternoon. “But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Minutes later, Trump posted again: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

The remarks came after Trump met with top national security officials in the White House Situation Room, following fresh reports from the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies indicating that Iran is preparing further ballistic missile launches after Israeli strikes rocked key military sites in Tehran.

The president’s language—a blend of strategic ambiguity and a raw, public threat against a sitting head of state—appears unprecedented in modern diplomatic history, and marks the clearest signal yet that the United States is prepared to intervene militarily if Iran refuses to abandon its nuclear enrichment program or if American forces come under attack.

Meanwhile, Germany’s political leadership broke its relative silence with statements backing the U.S.-Israel alliance and condemning Tehran. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, still at the G7 meetings in Alberta that Trump abruptly left Monday night, said in a blunt interview with ZDF: “This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us. We are also victims of this regime. This mullah regime has brought death and destruction to the world.” Merz warned that unless Iran backs down, “it will mean the total destruction of its nuclear program — which Israel cannot achieve alone, not without the United States.”

The conflict, now in its fifth day, has reportedly claimed nearly 300 lives—about 240 in Iran and more than two dozen in Israel. Israeli military sources say a “third wave” of operations is underway, focusing on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps units and missile launchers in western Iran. The Israeli Air Force has reportedly conducted deep-penetration strikes using U.S.-built F-35 stealth fighters.

Meanwhile, Israel claimed Tuesday that it had killed another top Iranian military official, and international monitors said Israeli strikes had inflicted greater damage to a key Iranian nuclear facility than previously understood. Since Israel began bombing Iran on Friday, it has effectively crippled Iran’s military leadership—killing at least 11 senior generals—and disrupted command-and-control operations tied to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

On Tuesday morning, the Israel Defense Forces announced it had killed Maj. Gen. Ali Shadmani, describing him as the most senior military commander in Iran. Shadmani had reportedly been appointed to his position just four days earlier, replacing another general killed in an Israeli strike on the first day of hostilities.

While Israeli bombardment shows no signs of slowing, Iran’s retaliatory missile barrages appear to have diminished in intensity over the past 48 hours.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X