Opinion
Words are not violence – Why Will Smith was wrong to strike Chris Rock.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f09e9/f09e9d37cf28d8c75ed2f9860be2c193459eebe9" 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.
Business
DOJ drops Biden-era discrimination lawsuit against Elon Musk’s SpaceX
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/07af6/07af61567d8c9487b8e693f7faa9b9245bc1c71a" alt=""
MxM News
Quick Hit:
The Justice Department has withdrawn a discrimination lawsuit against Elon Musk’s SpaceX that was filed during the Biden administration. The lawsuit accused SpaceX of discriminatory hiring practices against asylum seekers and refugees. The move follows ongoing cost-cutting measures led by Musk as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency under the 47th President Donald Trump’s administration.
Key Details:
-
The DOJ filed an unopposed motion in Texas federal court to lift a stay on the case, signaling its intent to formally dismiss the lawsuit.
-
The lawsuit, filed in 2023, alleged SpaceX required job applicants to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents, a restriction prosecutors argued was unlawful for many positions.
-
Elon Musk criticized the lawsuit as politically motivated, asserting that SpaceX was advised hiring non-permanent residents would violate international arms trafficking laws.
Diving Deeper:
The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has moved to drop the discrimination lawsuit against SpaceX, marking another reversal of Biden-era legal actions. The case, initiated in 2023, accused SpaceX of discriminating against asylum seekers and refugees by requiring job applicants to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Prosecutors claimed the hiring policy unlawfully discouraged qualified candidates from applying.
The DOJ’s decision to withdraw the case follows a judge’s earlier skepticism about the department’s authority to pursue the claims. No official reason for the withdrawal was provided, and neither Musk, SpaceX, nor the DOJ have issued public statements on the development.
Elon Musk was outspoken in his criticism of the lawsuit, labeling it as a politically motivated attack. Musk argued that SpaceX was repeatedly informed that hiring non-permanent residents would violate international arms trafficking laws, exposing the company to potential criminal penalties. He accused the Biden-era DOJ of weaponizing the case for political purposes.
The decision to drop the lawsuit coincides with Musk’s growing influence within the Trump administration, where he leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Under his leadership, DOGE has implemented aggressive cost-cutting measures across federal agencies, including agencies that previously investigated SpaceX. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which proposed fining SpaceX $633,000 for license violations in 2023, is currently under review by DOGE officials embedded within the agency.
Meanwhile, SpaceX’s regulatory challenges appear to be easing. A Texas-based environmental group recently dropped a separate lawsuit accusing the company of water pollution at its launch site near Brownsville. The withdrawal of the DOJ lawsuit signals a significant victory for Musk as he continues to navigate regulatory scrutiny while advancing his business ventures under the Trump administration.
Business
PepsiCo joins growing list of companies tweaking DEI policies
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/295ae/295ae51c7ff61963d0c2e829bb2e7236a91ec155" alt=""
MxM News
Quick Hit:
PepsiCo is the latest major U.S. company to adjust its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies as 47th President Donald Trump continues his campaign to end DEI practices across the federal government and private sector. The company is shifting away from workforce representation goals and repurposing its DEI leadership, signaling a broader trend among American corporations.
Key Details:
-
PepsiCo will end DEI workforce representation goals and transition its chief DEI officer to focus on associate engagement and leadership development.
-
The company is introducing a new “Inclusion for Growth” strategy as its five-year DEI plan concludes.
-
PepsiCo joins other corporations, including Target and Alphabet-owned Google, in reconsidering DEI policies following Trump’s call to end “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”
Diving Deeper:
PepsiCo has announced significant changes to its DEI initiatives, aligning with a growing movement among U.S. companies to revisit diversity policies amid political pressure. According to an internal memo, the snacks and beverages giant will no longer pursue DEI workforce representation goals. Instead, its chief DEI officer will transition to a broader role that focuses on associate engagement and leadership development. This shift is part of PepsiCo’s new “Inclusion for Growth” strategy, set to replace its expiring five-year DEI plan.
The company’s decision to reevaluate its DEI policies comes as President Donald Trump continues his push against DEI practices, urging private companies to eliminate what he calls “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.” Trump has also directed federal agencies to terminate DEI programs and has warned that academic institutions could face federal funding cuts if they continue with such policies.
PepsiCo is not alone in its reassessment. Other major corporations, including Target and Google, have also modified or are considering changes to their DEI programs. This trend reflects a broader corporate response to the evolving political landscape surrounding DEI initiatives.
Additionally, PepsiCo is expanding its supplier base by broadening opportunities for all small businesses to participate, regardless of demographic categories. The company will also discontinue participation in single demographic category surveys, further signaling its shift in approach to DEI.
As companies like PepsiCo navigate these changes, the debate over the future of DEI in corporate America continues. With Trump leading a campaign against these practices, more companies may follow suit in reevaluating their DEI strategies.
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
With Carney On Horizon This Is No Time For Poilievre To Soften His Message
-
COVID-192 days ago
Red Deer Freedom Convoy protestor Pat King given 3 months of house arrest
-
Media2 days ago
Matt Walsh: CBS pushes dangerous free speech narrative, suggests it led to the Holocaust
-
illegal immigration2 days ago
Trump signs executive order cutting off taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens
-
Carbon Tax1 day ago
Mark Carney has history of supporting CBDCs, endorsed Freedom Convoy crackdown
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Bipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It
-
Health1 day ago
Trump HHS officially declares only two sexes: ‘Back to science and common sense’
-
International1 day ago
Senate votes to confirm Kash Patel as Trump’s FBI director