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.
From StosselTV
Many colleges no longer teach critical thinking. They teach censorship. And victimhood. These ideas make students depressed and anxious.
The new documentary, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” ( thecoddlingmovie.com ) tells stories of students who fell for the indoctrination.
Before college, Kimi Katiti was full of confidence. But at the Art Institute of California, she learned she was a victim. “I was introduced to microaggressions,” she explains. “This set of thought processes was really unhealthy and was making me miserable.”
Lucy Kross at Stanford was taught that Ben Shapiro’s ideas “put black, brown, trans, queer, and Muslim students at risk.” She found that embracing woke language made her more popular. “When I started to use the vocabulary of like, marginalized, intersectional, hegemonic…People just kind of smiled a little bit more.” Over time, she, and others, concluded that such ideas hurt her.
Our new video looks at their experience navigating campus indoctrination, and how they escaped it.
After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.
——————————————
Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.
Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.
Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.
Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club.
Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.
———
To get our new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscribe
————
From the Fraser Institute
Over the next weeks and months, there will be much discussion about Justin Trudeau’s legacy as prime minister. To provide some context, it’s worth comparing Trudeau’s fiscal record with that of another long-serving Liberal prime minister—Jean Chrétien.
In the early 1990s Canada’s federal finances were in shambles. Thanks to years of large budget deficits (and high interest rates), debt interest payments were consuming one-third of all federal revenue and the country stood at the brink of a full-blown fiscal crisis. Paul Martin, Chrétien’s finance minister, recognized the gravity of the threat and famously promised to eliminate the deficit “come hell or high water.” And that’s exactly what the Chrétien government did, thanks primarily to reductions in federal spending.
How’d they do it?
The government launched a program review, which examined all dimensions of spending in search of savings. The review led to a substantial reduction in federal government employment, which shrunk by nearly 15 per cent. While there were many components to the federal reforms of the 1990s, this reduction in the size of the federal bureaucracy clearly helped Chrétien and Martin eliminate the federal deficit.
Fast-forward to the present day and Justin Trudeau, who does not share his Liberal predecessors’ commitment to balanced budgets. Federal government employment has increased rapidly in recent years, with the Trudeau government adding more bureaucrats (in absolute and percentage terms) than were reduced during the Chrétien/Martin reform era.
Specifically, from 2015/16 to 2022/23, federal government employment (as measured in fulltime equivalents) increased by 26.1 per cent. By comparison, the Canadian population increased by 9.1 per cent over the same period.
Just as the reduction in federal employment contributed to the deficit reduction in the 1990s, the growth in federal employment has helped fuel the Trudeau government’s unending string of budget deficits since 2015/16. Incidentally, if during its nine years in power the Trudeau government had simply held the rate of growth in federal employment to the rate of population growth, federal spending would be $7.5 billion lower than it is today.
According to the Trudeau government’s latest projections, the federal deficit will reach an eye-popping $48.3 billion this fiscal year. And thanks to years of record-high spending under Trudeau, total federal debt will eclipse $2.15 trillion. Consequently, the federal government will spend $53.7 billion this year on debt interest payments—or $1,301 per Canadian.
Canadian history is clear—it’s difficult to predict the policy orientation of any premier or prime minister based on their political stripe. Prime Ministers Chrétien and Trudeau prove this point. Chrétien reduced federal employment with an eye on eliminating the federal deficit. Trudeau reversed this legacy by rapidly growing the federal bureaucracy. This is one important reason for the divergent fiscal outcomes between the two governments.
Under Prime Minister Chrétien, Canadians saw a string of balanced budgets. Under Prime Minister Trudeau, an unending series of deficits and massive debt accumulation, which Canadians must pay for today and for many years to come.
Ben Eisen
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Jake Fuss
Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”
When Potatoes Become a Luxury: Canada’s Grocery Gouging Can’t Continue
New Study Finds COVID-19 ‘Vaccination’ Doubles Risk of Post-COVID Death
In 2025 Critical Political Choices Will Define Canada’s Future: Clement
-
Business2 days agoTrump Needs To Take Away What Politicians Love Most — Pork
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoThe Authoritarian Legacy of Justin Trudeau
-
National2 days agoAfter a decade spinning in a maelstrom, we’re headed straight into a hurricane.
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoThe Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel
-
Daily Caller2 days agoTrump Calls Biden’s Drilling Ban ‘Worst Abuse Of Power I’ve Ever Seen’
-
COVID-191 day agoCalls for COVID-19 vaccine recall – FDA’s own study finds DNA contamination in Pfizer vaccines
-
National22 hours agoFormer Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall on working with (or against) Justin Trudeau
-
Daily Caller2 days agoMusk Completely Derails UK Political Establishment, Accuses PM’s Party Of Covering Up Muslim Rape Gangs