Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

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

Published

3 years ago

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. 

 

 

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
COVID-19 / 6 hours ago

‘That Science Should Not Have Been Done’: Former CDC Director Compares Fauci To Oppenheimer

Business / 7 hours ago

GOP Lawmakers Urge Coast Guard To Defend US Ports Where ‘Chinese Military Company’ Operates

Business / 10 hours ago

Google Dumps EU’s Anti-“Disinformation” Code, Defying Digital Services Act

COVID-19

‘That Science Should Not Have Been Done’: Former CDC Director Compares Fauci To Oppenheimer

Published on January 23, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Mariane Angela

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield appeared Wednesday on Newsmax to discuss Dr. Anthony Fauci’s preemptive pardon by former President Joe Biden.

“I hope that it gives Fauci an opportunity to try to be more honest and transparent about the decisions that he made and what he did. I’m not confident that that’s going to happen,” Redfield said during an appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight.”

“You know, I also think it’s odd for Biden to pardon him prospectively when he hasn’t been accused of any direct crime. I know if I was in that position that I wouldn’t like that because it does imply that I actually did something wrong.”

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield appeared Wednesday on Newsmax to discuss Dr. Anthony Fauci’s preemptive pardon

Redfield also talked about events portrayed in the 2023 film “Oppenheimer.”

The former director said he hopes — similar to J. Robert Oppenheimer’s eventual realization of his impact on global warfare — Fauci might come to terms with the ramifications of his decisions before and during the pandemic.

“You know, when I watched the ‘Oppenheimer’ movie and I watched the scenes when Oppenheimer finally realized what happened with the science that he gave to the world, particularly when President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb a second time, and he realized that he had opened up really a big problem in terms of giving science to create a weapon that could kill hundreds of thousands of people. I don’t know if Tony realizes, and he’s very sensitive to this issue,” Redfield said when asked if Fauci recognized his responsibility.

Redfield said he wonders whether Fauci acknowledges the full extent of his actions, particularly what Redfield said was Fauci’s role in funding gain-of-function research.

“I do think Tony did mislead the nation, and he did mislead the Congress. He did make some bad decisions when it came to funding the research and gain-of-function research in China,” Redfield said.

Redfield said he hopes Fauci would act transparent and accountable in his actions.

“I think it’s really important. If one good thing comes from this is we get a moratorium on gain-of-function research. I do hope Tony takes advantage of this opportunity to basically be more transparent and let people understand why he made the decisions he did and also admit some accountability for the negative consequences of those decisions,” Redfield said, adding “that [that] science should not have been done.”

During the last hours of his presidency on Monday, Biden issued preemptive pardons to Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, and the members of the Jan. 6 committee and said that they should not be subjected to “unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions.” The pardon spans back to 2014, encompassing Fauci’s role on the White House Coronavirus Task Force and his position as the chief medical advisor to Biden.

Accusations against Fauci include lying to Congress and circumventing requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Fauci has consistently described COVID-19 as a “natural occurrence” and denied any link between his agency’s subawards to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origins of the virus. Several experts have accused Fauci of committing perjury during his congressional testimonies, particularly in his denials that the viruses he supported could have evolved into COVID-19.

Continue Reading

Business

GOP Lawmakers Urge Coast Guard To Defend US Ports Where ‘Chinese Military Company’ Operates

Published on January 23, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Philip Lenczycki

Republican lawmakers urged the U.S. Coast Guard on Wednesday to take “decisive action” against a Chinese military company that has “expansive operations at major U.S. ports,” according to a letter exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The House Committee on Homeland Security and House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party sent a letter to U.S. Coast Guard Acting Commandant, Admiral Kevin E. Lunday requesting information and a classified briefing related to COSCO Shipping, a Chinese state-owned enterprise that the Department of Defense (DOD) recently added to its list of “Chinese Military Companies.” COSCO Shipping poses a “significant” national security threat to the U.S., ranging from “espionage, cyber intrusions, sabotage, and supply chain disruptions,” according to the letter.

“Permitting vessels and personnel affiliated with COSCO SHIPPING to operate within U.S. ports without adequate safeguards exposes the nation to unacceptable risks, particularly during times of increased geopolitical tension,” the letter states. “As the lead federal agency for maritime security, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) must take decisive action to mitigate these risks.”

The letter is signed by House Homeland Security chairman, Tennessee Rep. Mark Green, China Select Committee chairman, Michigan Rep. John Moolenaar, Florida Rep. Carlos Gimenez and South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) exploits “Chinese Military Companies” for intelligence and military purposes as part of its “Military-Civil Fusion Strategy,” the letter states.

Military-Civil Fusion “supports the modernization goals of the People’s Liberation Army by ensuring it can acquire advanced technologies and expertise developed by PRC companies, universities, and research programs that appear to be civilian entities,” according to the DOD.

Toward that end, China engages in “forced technology transfer, intelligence gathering, and outright theft,” and directs Chinese enterprises to “undertake classified military R&D and weapons production,” according to the State Department.

In addition to being a state-owned enterprise, the committee’s letter warns that COSCO Shipping vessels “frequently have Chinese Communist Party (CCP) political commissars embedded amongst their crews.”

COSCO Shipping’s website includes a section for “Party building” and states that its CEO, Wan Min, also serves as the Party secretary of the firm’s internal CCP branch. A “Party branch” is the smallest “grass-roots” CCP organization, and one must be established within any Chinese institutions containing three or more Party members, according to the Chinese government.

The committee’s letter also urges the USCG to intensify its protocols for “screening vessels, owners, and crew members associated with COSCO Shipping and other entities linked to the PLA or the PRC’s security and intelligence services.”

COSCO Shipping’s previous CEO, Xu Lirong, simultaneously served as deputy director of the China International Culture Exchange Center (CICEC), which former analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Alex Joske identified as a front for China’s premier civilian intelligence service, the Ministry of State Security, the DCNF previously reported.

“It is essential that biographical information for all foreign mariners, particularly those from the PRC and other high-risk countries, undergo comprehensive scrutiny utilizing the complete range of classified and unclassified data resources accessible to the U.S. government,” the committee’s letter states.

A USCG spokesperson told the DCNF it “routinely evaluates vessels before arrival within U.S. waters” and examines vessels “for safety and security” after arrival as well.

The committee’s letter also requests for USCG to provide answers to nine questions by Feb. 3.

More than half of the questions relate to the protocols, process, or datasets USGC uses to vet foreign vessels and mariners.

For example, one question asks: “What classified and unclassified datasets are used by the USCG to vet foreign mariners, vessel owners, and operators?”

Another question asks: “Is the USGC’s vetting and screening process for foreign vessels and mariners fully automated, partially automated, or primarily manual?”

Other questions concern USGC’s possible coordination with federal agencies, like the FBI, and inquire into whether or not USGC has conducted a risk assessment specific to COSCO Shipping.

“The USCG must prioritize the integration of both classified and unclassified intelligence, strengthen interagency coordination and collaboration, and leverage advanced technological solutions to enhance its ability to detect and deter emerging threats,” the committee’s letter states.

COSCO Shipping did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X