Opinion
Words are not violence – Why Will Smith was wrong to strike Chris Rock.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3a8c6/3a8c6e39c37627d719091282ecf187ea52549458" alt=""
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.
Digital ID
Wales Becomes First UK Testbed for Citywide AI-Powered Facial Recognition Surveillance
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4931b/4931b79707383017f53581c6dc84c6ac0d57ec92" alt=""
National
Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3192c/3192c3f2f51b1da95242abb79b393bdfce3182df" alt=""
From the X account of Andrew Scheer
Mark Carney spent his entire life promoting the carbon tax.
Now he’s trying to scam Canadians out of billions and to do it he’s put a whole crew together.
It could be the biggest con job in Canadian history. Only YOU can stop it! pic.twitter.com/1DyywsynBN
— Andrew Scheer (@AndrewScheer) February 22, 2025
-
Health13 hours ago
RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B
-
Business2 days ago
Argentina’s Javier Milei gives Elon Musk chainsaw
-
Energy19 hours ago
Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean
-
Alberta2 days ago
Open letter to Ottawa from Alberta strongly urging National Economic Corridor
-
International2 days ago
Jihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
Addictions2 days ago
BC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam
-
Business19 hours ago
Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy
-
Daily Caller18 hours ago
Kash Patel First Statement As FBI Director, Tells Media ‘Bring It On’