Will Smith Reminds Us Why Words Should Not Be Equivalent to Violence
A wake-up call for the woke

Last night at the Oscars, Chris Rock made a dumb joke about Jada Pinkett Smith, which prompted her husband—Will Smith—to walk up on stage and slap him across the face. In the year 2022, we are unaccustomed to witnessing notable public figures engage in spontaneous acts of violence, and thus the slap is all anyone can talk about. My colleague, Eric Boehm, had this take.
I agree with him, but this is definitely a two-take event. Additionally, I would like to note that Will Smith has reminded everyone precisely why it is so dangerous to erode the critical post-enlightenment distinction between words and actions. This distinction was a social innovation that made violence less necessary and thus less common; woke liberals trying to reassert the equivalence between speech and violence are (perhaps inadvertently) harkening back to a more barbaric time.
For most of human history, people did in fact live their truth: Speech was violence, and anyone who said something offensive could invite reprisal. People who offended their neighbors would engage in blood feuds for generations. People who offended the political authorities could be dismembered. People who offended the religious authorities could be burned to death. Speech was not viewed as some special, separate category of behavior: Impugning another person's reputation could be considered a provocative act, the same as striking him in the face.
Letting people kill each other every time they get upset about something is not a great way to run a society. Thankfully, over the past three hundred years, many advanced civilizations have evolved cultural norms that delineate words and actions. It's not a universal rule, of course: People do still come to blows after quarreling, though the fact that they can be arrested for such conduct tends to discourage it. Over time, it has become less and less common to encounter reciprocal violence, outside of a few exceptional scenarios: prisons (which contain disproportionate numbers of anti-social people), schools (where kids are still learning how to socialize), and, sometimes, bars (where alcohol lowers inhibitions).
On Twitter, Bridget Phetasy says that Smith's slap shows that "we've reached the inevitable conclusion of 'words are violence.'" The Atlantic's Elizabeth Bruenig pushed back:
https://twitter.com/ebruenig/status/1508285291412533248
They're both right. People attacking each other is what results from a norm of "words are violence"—and we know this because it was the norm for most of human history. That's not so much the case now, but it always could be again. It's why a healthy level of contempt for Smith's behavior is the right attitude. Don't hit people, even if you dislike what they say.
And don't be this person.
https://twitter.com/yuhline/status/1508408203872243718
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Two stories from Reason, of all places, about petty celebrity drama.
It HAS to be a stunt with some kind of coordinated PR push to get the kind of traction it has. This is such a non-story.
It’s not like we have a drooling idiot in office or people are getting killed in the Ukraine of anything like that.
The adults are finally back in charge, so we have the luxury of indulging in idiotic celebrity gossip.
The adult diapers are in charge.
The adult diapers are full of shit and in need of changing.
That’s insurrectionist speech!
For The Team Struggling, that's just bedroom talk.
I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. ALK04 I never thought I could do it but cdc05 my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
For more detail.......... http://CurrentJobs64.Cf
* Walks and chews gum.*
And still zero stories about the laptop. Weird.
They’re waiting for orders on how to proceed.
They need to know who to genuflect to in the DNC before they can speak a version of truth about this.
They asked Charles Koch, but he said "No".
Well I know I haven't watched the Oscars for at least 40 years but I'll sure tune in next year.
Guess you can dress em' up but you can't take em' anywhere
I can't even see the Twitter responses to the voicesdefending freedom of expression and civilization. Must have been pretty bad.
Letting people kill each other every time they get upset about something is not a great way to run a society.
How about burning down cities?
For most of human history, people did in fact live their truth: Speech was violence, and anyone who said something offensive could invite reprisal.
For most of human history there was no police force, either. If you were robbed or attacked, you took the law into your own hands. Another social regression on the part of the left.
Not sure how that's gonna work out for them, as "honor societies" (think Watusi, Scottish Highlands, Wild West), where legal recourse was rare and distant have never before relied on mobs of pencil-necked, spaghetti-armed soyboys/girls/asexuals for the threat of retaliatory violence that (somewhat) constrained human behavior.
They can win Twitter arguments about the congruence of speech/violence, sure. But then there's the knuckle-hits-the-bone aspect of physical reality where "I'll just leave this here...", or "Be better." /= brutal beating.
Well, the Scots and Wild Westerners weren't exceptionally big or strong, and as of Samuel Colt's creation of "The Great Equalizer," they didn't have to be.
Hence, even if they are puny, the Woke Mob still are dangerous and freedom-loving people still need to be ready to retaliate in kind.
Chris Rock made a dumb joke about Jada Pinkett Smith, which prompted her husband—Will Smith—to walk up on stage and slap him across the face.
I hear now he's moving to his auntie and uncle in Bel Air.
I broke up some allergy conjestion laughing at that one! You win the Internet for the day! 🙂
I have been told not fully acknowledging a guy with a swangin dick is a female is LITERAL violence.
So Chris rock therefore did a racism, ableism, hate crime violence.
Last night at the Oscars, Chris Rock made a dumb joke about Jada Pinkett Smith,
Was it?
It actually was a pretty lame joke. Half the people in the audience were probably too young to even get the reference to a quarter century old critically panned box office bomb that lost 2 million bucks. His last poke at Jada Pinkett Smith about her Oscars boycott in 2016 was leagues ahead.
Or a cruel joke. Perhaps he could get a laugh out of a marine who lost an arm - to be slapped by the one that's left.
Today is the 169th anniversary of Great Britain declaring War on Russia for... some reason.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
It has widely been noted that the causes, in one case involving an argument over a key,[5] had never revealed a "greater confusion of purpose" but led to a war that stood out for its "notoriously incompetent international butchery".
Sound familiar?
"Publicly, European politicians made broad promises to the Ottomans. Lord Palmerston, the head of British diplomacy, said in 1839: "All that we hear about the decay of the Turkish Empire, and its being a dead body or a sapless trunk, and so forth, is pure and unadulterated nonsense. Given 10 years of peace under European protection, coupled with internal reform, there seemed to him no reason why it should not become again a respectable Power".[15] Needless to say, nothing like this has happened after 10, 20, or even more years."
Sound familiar?
"Britain's immediate fear was Russia's expansion at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. The British desired to preserve Ottoman integrity and were concerned that Russia might make advances toward British India or move toward Scandinavia or Western Europe. A distraction (in the form of the Ottoman Empire) on the British southwest flank would mitigate that threat. The Royal Navy also wanted to forestall the threat of a powerful Russian Navy.[23][page range too broad] Taylor stated the British perspective:
The Crimean war was fought for the sake of Europe rather than for the Eastern question; it was fought against Russia, not in favour of Turkey.... The British fought Russia out of resentment and supposed that her defeat would strengthen the European Balance of Power.[24]"
Sound familiar?
"Because of "British commercial and strategic interests in the Middle East and India",[25] the British joined the French, "cement[ing] an alliance with Britain and... reassert[ing] its military power".[25] Among those who supported that point of view was Karl Marx, in his articles for the New York Tribune around 1853. Marx saw the Crimean War as a conflict between the democratic ideals of the west that started with "great movement of 1789" against "Russia and Absolutism". He described the Ottoman Empire as a buffer against a pattern of expansionism by the Tsar.[26] Other statements by Karl Marx were accusations against the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and then the head of the Cabinet of Ministers, Palmerston, that he played along with the interests of Russia and that he was "bribed by Russia".[27] Today, these accusations are completely ignored by historians."
Sound familiar?
"Mikhail Pogodin, a professor of history at Moscow University, gave Nicholas a summary of Russia's policy towards the Slavs in the war. Nicholas's answer was filled with grievances against the West. Nicholas shared Pogodin's sense that Russia's role as the protector of Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire was not understood and that Russia was unfairly treated by the West. Nicholas especially approved of the following passage:
France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year England annexes another Indian principality: none of this disturbs the balance of power; but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, albeit only temporarily, that disturbs the balance of power. France occupies Rome and stays there several years during peacetime: that is nothing; but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. The English declare war on the Chinese, who have, it seems, offended them: no one has the right to intervene; but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission if it quarrels with its neighbour. England threatens Greece to support the false claims of a miserable Jew and burns its fleet: that is a lawful action; but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen its position in the East at the expense of the balance of power. We can expect nothing from the West but blind hatred and malice.... (comment in the margin by Nicholas I: 'This is the whole point').
— Mikhail Pogodin's memorandum to Nicholas I, 1853"
My 3 favorite wars of all time:
-Peloponnesian War
-Crimean War
-World War I
They were all extremely silly, yet horribly brutal and massively consequential. They were "accidental" wars that could've been stopped if one of any multitude of things had been done differently, but absurd incompetence overcame basic logic and common sense every time to push them to destruction. In all of these wars, at least one side had literally nothing to gain but rabidly escalated in a self-destructive frenzy.
I fear we are all about to be the victims of another such war.
Another good one is the Opium War(s), which were the national equivalent of that cliche scene in movies where the hooker wants to go straight so her pimp beats her and shoves a handful of drugs into her face.
Except afterwards the pimp in this case (British Empire) retired for tea and discussion of J.S. Mill, Darwin and Tennyson.
The Soviets made several demands, including that Finland cede substantial border territories in exchange for land elsewhere, claiming security reasons—primarily the protection of Leningrad, 32 km (20 mi) from the Finnish border. When Finland refused, the Soviets invaded. Most sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland, and use the establishment of the puppet Finnish Communist government and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact's secret protocols as evidence of this,[F 7] while other sources argue against the idea of a full Soviet conquest.[F 8] Finland repelled Soviet attacks for more than two months and inflicted substantial losses on the invaders while temperatures ranged as low as −43 °C (−45 °F). The battles focused mainly on Taipale in Karelian Isthmus, on Kollaa in Ladoga Karelia and on the Raate Road, in Kainuu, but there were also battles in Salla and Petsamo in Lapland. After the Soviet military reorganized and adopted different tactics, they renewed their offensive in February and overcame Finnish defences.
Hostilities ceased in March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty in which Finland ceded 9% of its territory to the Soviet Union. Soviet losses were heavy, and the country's international reputation suffered.[37] Their gains exceeded their pre-war demands, and the Soviets received substantial territories along Lake Ladoga and further north. Finland retained its sovereignty and enhanced its international reputation. The poor performance of the Red Army encouraged German Chancellor Adolf Hitler to believe that an attack on the Soviet Union would be successful and confirmed negative Western opinions of the Soviet military. After 15 months of Interim Peace, in June 1941, Germany commenced Operation Barbarossa, and the Continuation War between Finland and the Soviets began.
Sounds familiar.
Again, soldiermedic pops in to cosign Karl Marx and defend our political establishment's use of public funds to escalate conflict.
"Just ignore similarities to the incredibly destructive and pointless war that had the same issues and talking points on both sides 170 years ago, because putinmanbad and Slava ukraini!"
How is blaming Russia for invading Ukraine cosigning Marx? Am I calling for war against Russia? Nope. And once again Nardz is demagouging rather than addressing what I posted. Read it, the parallels between the Winter War and Russian actions today are just as pertinent as your examples. I can criticize Biden, Putin and the whole thing at the same time. It is possible, it just requires someone to dispassionately look at the facts. I didn't state your examples were wrong so much as incomplete. I gave you a counter example, straight from more recent history. The outcomes of the Winter War was not desirable for anyone, I doubt the outcomes from this war will be either.
You're trying to deflect from the parallels to idiotic wars that had horrible consequences to redirect attention to the establishment narrative of putinmanbad.
You're the furthest thing from dispassionate here. Did you actually read anything from the Wikipedia article?
The only parallel to the Winter War is territorial dispute, and it's not even an exact parallel.
Stalin, a Georgian leading the Soviet Union, was demanding territory unilaterally.
Crimea seceded then voted to join Russia. The Donbass republics voted to secede and be independent.
Why do you support Ukraine's aggressive war of conquest to subjugate people against their will?
Wait, you believe any vote that happens in a Russian-controlled territory? I bet you believe Putin actually gets 95% of the Russian vote.
Wait, you believe globalist press and politicians?
Crazy to think Russian speakers would vote to secede after the government they voted for was unconstitutionally ousted and replaced by people who outlawed the Russian language and massacred a bunch of people.
No, I'm sure the globalist political establishment's narrative is totes more likely...
I have about as much faith in Russian elections as I do American elections after 2020. Plus, you know, that little color revolution thing that happened in 2014 where the democratically elected government of Ukraine was ousted in an American-backed coup because the half-retarded children of the political class needed jobs and Ukraine was on the verge of negotiating a long-term deal with Russia over the disputed territories, abandoning their NATO ambitions, and committing to neutrality.
Because it is. Yes, the two provinces voted for independence and Ukraine ignored that, but Russia invaded to force Ukraine to bend to their will.
As for the parallels to the Winter War, they're far more than just the justification but also for the outcome. And they're more pertinent and closer than the Crimean War. You're assuming I am backing Ukraine by confirming Putin for invading, this couldn't be further from the truth. I condemn both, but condemn Russia more for initiating a war to force Ukraine into doing what Russia wants. I condemn Ukraine for not living up to the 2014 agreement, but also condemn Russia for arming the break away provinces. I blame western governments, especially the US for interfering in Ukrainian politics not once but twice, while condemning Putin and Russia for tormenting rebellion in Russian speaking provinces in Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova. I condemn NATO leadership for their actions since 1991, while also believing they weren't a threat to Russian sovereignty. I condemn NATO for fighting a proxy war, and condemn the jingoism of our elites. I condemn Biden's actions from day one, while also condemning Putin's. In the end I think we all are losers and this could have been avoided. And pray that it won't consume us all. I thought Putin's actions initially were strategically brilliant, but once he expanded his offensive beyond the two provinces, he overstepped and we all are paying for his actions and our leaders ill advised response to his actions. He likely would have gotten away with taking the two provinces with few repercussions. Ukraine couldn't have stopped him, and the west wasn't likely to have done much more than a slap on the wrist, like in 2014. Now, they are able to shape the message, with the help of their sycophantic media.
Biden's talk of regime change, the talk of NFZ, the continuing ratcheting up of sanctions and arming of the Ukrainians I condemn because I believe it makes things worse rather than better. But in the same breath I blame Putin's war of choice (and it was, Ukraine wasn't a threat to Russia and neither was NATO really). This wasn't the 6 Day war, where the Arab League was building up forces, planning to invade Israel so Israel struck first. All parties involved have been meddling in Ukraine for decades, fighting a political proxy war.
As for Putin defending Russian speakers in foreign countries, that would be like Norway defending people of Norwegian decent in Minnesota and the Dakotas. It's weak sauce in my opinion. If they have dual citizenship, and they don't like the Ukrainian government they could always move back to Russia. Putin has used the same excuse in Georgia and Moldova as well. We have a large Russian speaking population in the US, should he have say in how we run our government too?
Ah, you're a believer in having your cake and eating it to.
Be as naive as you want, but showing such faith in globalist oligarchy isn't an accurate way to view the world.
If you really think the Winter War is a better parallel than the Crimean, then you're either woefully misunderstanding the history here or willfully blind because you're an ideologue who struggles with nuance.
But hey, successfully deflected from the disastrous thought process of Anglo globalist thinkers and policy makers.
Well done, David Frum would be proud.
You can't help yourself can you? You have to project your own myopia on to others. Why do I need to pick a side, when both stink like shit?
I condemned that thinking and you state I am deflecting it. What color is the sky in your universe? That's almost like accusing me of Marxian thought by pointing out actual Marxists used similar talking points as Putin to launch a war of aggression. We've interacted multiple times today, and yet you can't seem to understand or you keep forgetting, any of the arguments I've actually made, and have substituted your own wrong takes.
You responded to a series of posts showing the insanity/idiocy of anglo/globalist marching their alliance into war for no real reason, but using the exact same logic and rhetoric then as now, by bringing up the winter war.
The only reason to do that is to deflect from faulty thought processes that directly affect us and redirect the conversation to the globalist, warmongering russiamanbad narrative.
You did this in multiple threads.
It seems you're concerned that people might read the citations and start thinking about the similarities, thus you feel compelled to distract and obfuscate.
The winter war is utterly irrelevant to our political leadership's current imitation of 19th century imperial Brits.
No it's to offer a counterpoint. To show even if the narrative of the west is bad that starting a war is worse, and that Putin's rhetoric has also been used in the past. The fact that you only believe what you wrote about it being cover for globalist demonstrates how myopic you have become on this subject. If we aren't defending Putin we must be supporting the globalist. It's a fallacious argument and a false dichotomy.
And no the Winter War isn't and no it's not to deflect blame from us, since I've criticized our actions from day one. And I reposted it in multiple threads because you copied and pasted the same thing in multiple threads. I don't care if people read your citations, in fact I encourage them too. And read mine, and then decide if either, neither or both of us are right. I'm leaning to the latter. The difference is I want everyone to read both sides, condemn a war of aggression while also condemning the globalists who are using it as an excuse to talk us into a war we don't belong in.
I can condemn the actions of the west while also condemning Putin. I can condemn Ukraine's actions while also condemning Putin for starting a war that he chose to start. He wasn't attacked, and Ukraine wasn't mobilizing to attack him. Since neither occurred he didn't need to invade Ukraine. Yes, Ukraine isn't a bastion of Jeffersonian democracy and it is corrupt as hell, but so is Russia.
You seem to believe that it is an either or proposition. I refuse to play by those rules. I hardly am parroting globalist talking points. I am staying my own opinion, which is Putin didn't need to start this war, and since he did, he is the aggressor. That isn't an excuse to get us involved. And yes, we are hardly clean ourselves. But Putin chose to start a war. We shouldn't escalate it. I don't consider a war of choice justifiable anymore. I once did, with Iraq, and I learned my lesson the hard way. The US shouldn't be the world's police, but that doesn't excuse Putin for invading a neighboring country who wasn't a real threat to him.
You completely missed the point.
Funny, just yesterday this was about evil irrational Rooskie madmen invading Ukraine because they hate freedom and democracy. Seems the more often you get your cartoon villain caricatures stuffed up your ass the faster your goalposts move. They should be nearing the speed of light by the time your handlers finally get tired of this distraction and move on to a new one.
You're becoming Ken. But worse.
Ideas!
Considering you spent about 2 hours yesterday defending one of this site's oldest troll accounts that posted fucking child pornography, I don't think you're the guy for this job.
"You're becoming Ken. But worse."
Now you're just repeating Kremlin propaganda
Ken is synonymous with long screeds that no one reads. You do Twitter after Twatter until people are tired.
Relax.
Ideas!
Maybe I'm alone in this, but when I was a kid there was this expression: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
This is the problem with the Woke Left: They think words are equivalent to physical violence (you made Smith feel unsafe and he was just defending himself from your violence). This is the problem with the a certain segment on the Right: Stuck in an honor mindset that demands retribution for words (you insulted my woman therefore I must fight you). Both are coming from radically different starting points, but the end points are the same, words are equivalent to violence.
"This is the problem with the Woke Left: They think words are equivalent to physical violence (you made Smith feel unsafe and he was just defending himself from your violence)."
That's not a coincidence that they have labeled anything violence. Its so they have justification to burn your business down, bash your skull in, and have the govt debank you. Because you committed "violence" anything is justified as a response.
Reminds me of the Night Court eposide when Bull the bailiff responds with "Sticks? I don't need sticks."
Who knew Will Smith was a representative of a "certain segment of the Right".
I keep forgetting, are the religious bumpkins who believe in the teachings of a pacifist who suggested you should allow yourself to be hit in the face without retribution and demonstrated his philosophy by submitting to torture and getting himself killed raging psychopathic honor killers, or snake handling faith healers?
Now the saying goes
Sticks and stones may be dodged when thrown,
But words cut all the way through me
"It is violence to mock someone’s health condition and vulnerability.
It is violence to physically assault someone.
It is violence to not take responsibility for violent actions.
It is violence to allow and excuse violence.
It is violence to call for violence."
...
"Direct violence, structural violence, cultural violence.
Self-directed violence, interpersonal violence, collective violence. "
I wish someone would have replied to herself "kill yourself please". Her condition seems terminal anyways
You talking about the butt-ugly bald-headed old ho?
Letting people kill each other every time they get upset about something is not a great way to run a society. Thankfully, over the past three hundred years, many advanced civilizations have evolved cultural norms that delineate words and actions.
We called that Western Enlightenment liberalism. A push towards colorblindness, a [slow and grinding] move away from judging people based on their identity, the rule of law, the use of empirical standards of evidence in science, I could go on.
Guess who's actively trying to tear all of the above down, even going so far as to suggest those values are themselves racist and a product of white supremacy? Choose your friends very carefully.
"Thankfully, over the past three hundred years, many advanced civilizations have evolved cultural norms that delineate words and actions."
And over the last 4 we have devolved to "a bad thing happened so now we are going to light your city on fire, because racism or something"
"If you don't treat people differently based on their skin color, you're a racist."
Skin color is the most important thing.
"Skin color isn't everything. It's the only thing."
Vince Lombardi
Trump? Twitter says the punch was due to him.
Has/will the County District Attorney filed charges against Smith?
I suspect that won't occur if Soros financed the DA's campaign.
Probably not, because I doubt Chris Rock filed a police report.
LA police released a statement saying he declined to file charges, but they'd take a report if he called.
Since this was a staged PR stunt that they had rehearsed before showtime, that's probably not going to happen.
Yet another example of black on black crime in America.
At least nobody has claimed Smith's assaulting Rock was racist, which would have occurred if any white man hit him.
Oh fear not, they will find a way. If they have one power, it will be the grifter crew (Kendi, HannahJones, Joy Reid) promptly finding ways that this is, absolutely, racist. Give them a day
Chris rock has slightly darker skin, so totes racist.
Actually, Smith's assault only took place because of the climate of racism that grew exponentially under Trump, so yes, it was a manifestation of white supremacy. You know, the way black people beating up Asian women is yet another manifestation of white supremacy.
Too bad they can't use some of that creativity and imagination when they're destroying cultural icons and beloved Western traditions.
They could still destroy them, emasculating heroes and de-feminizing heroines, but also create something entertaining at least.
But noooooooo!
Last I heard the two of them were screwing other people like it was a competition. Why he should suddenly be possessive of a woman so many men have possessed while they were supposedly together is beyond me.
Cue the dozen troll replies about me. Wonder what they will talk about. Kid? Ex? Drinking? Sandwiches? Something they made up?
I look forward to the wall of grey that I won't read.
Ideas!
I, too, obsessively imagine what people whose words I can't see are saying about me.
Also try to keep track of your own lore. You've drunk-posted about your wife leaving you and taking the kids after credibly accusing you of abuse at a time when you were admittedly drinking, using drugs, and experiencing homelessness. Nobody would ever think to suggest you were cheating on your ex-wife. There was only one woman in history who could have possibly made that fuck up.
Also also, you copped this argument from me in the thread that was posted 5 hours ago. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery I guess.
Hi Mary.
Don't break your arm patting yourself of the back.
Some say it was staged.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10659349/Will-Smith-Jada-party-children-Jaden-Willow-Vanity-Fair-bash.html
I believe we are supposed to use the term "white supremacy" these days.
post-enlightenment refers to progressives who explicitly rejected the Constitution as a limitation on the unlimited government they wanted.
I'm listening to 'The Conservative Sensibility' by George Will in the car.
So far he's explained libertarianism and the rationale behind progresivism.
He makes a better case than "Deyr doopid."
Hilarious considering that you are quite literally one of maybe 5 or 6 people who post here that routinely, obsessively uses idiotic pejoratives like "Trumpista" to describe anyone to the right of Lenin, fully 2 years after Trump has been out of office.
same asshole, different name
Ideas!
You know who else deserved to be bitch slapped in front of a global audience?
Hitler?
Damn! I always screw this up.
Physical violence in response to mere words is never an appropriate choice.
Crap. That is a recipe for endlessly submitting to snarky wusses, just because they happen to be articulate. As the article notes, violent responses to words have been ubiquitous throughout human history, until the last fifty years or so. And the last fifty years can hardly be described as the pinnacle of "Western enlightenment liberalism" - more like its rotting phase.
Words are not violence of course, that's postmodern gibberish. But words can certainly be a justfication for retaliatory violence.
"Your money or your life!" might rise to that level. "Your wife looks like a character from a 25 year old movie that everybody besides me forgot about 25 years ago" doesn't. With the caveat that this was a PR stunt.
In principle, smacking the shit out of somebody simply because of something said is an appropriate part of social norms.
Rock's joke, however, was not a legitimate example of that.
There's also the fact (as per usual with the progtards) that treating "violence" as a binary rather than a spectrum is a gross conceptual error.
Slap in the face? Excessive in very few cases of offense.
Nuking entire cities? Excessive in all but a very few cases.
Note that there are degrees of violence between slap-in-the-face and "nuclear bombardment".
Lefties find the idea of contextualization or nuance problematic, as when they conflate "unwanted comment on appearance" with "brutal gang rape" under the category "sexual abuse".
^
Maybe if the words rise to the level of an actual threat. In response to an insult, it's just pathetic.
"the critical post-enlightenment distinction between words and actions. This distinction was a social innovation that made violence less necessary and thus less common"
Maybe the Enlightenment made some tweaks on the issue of *which* words should be punished.
I recall a quote from someone about Frederick ("The Great") II of Prussia, that you had free speech in Prussia if you criticized religion, but not if you criticized the state.
But at least Frederick made violence less common! /sarc
So shitty public indoctrination centers aren't the only thing we copped from Prussia.
Gay.
(For those who don't know the relevance of this comment, Frederick II of Prussia was almost certainly homosexual)
This picture is worth more than a thousand words. Haha
https://twitter.com/astoriablvdsbx/status/1508414269628506116/photo/1
Dont know whats funnier. The fact that AOC is likely the dumbest one in that room, or that hopefully she will realize she was never to have risen above the station of barista.
The blue-haired girl with the dispassionate look on her face is gold, as is Macauly Culkin in the man-bun. AOC is safe at home in a Starbucks.
Where's a jihadist when you need one?
9 times out of 10, Quantico, VA
She should spend her time getting Congress to unionize. Hopefully they'd all go on strike.
A game I sometimes play to cheer myself up is to ask: "How many descendants will the people in this picture have in 100 years?"
Lao Tzu, Epictetus and Jesus Christ would probably be rather surprised to discover that meeting personal insult with nonviolence was invented by "advanced civilizations" in the last 3 centuries.
Don't stop him, he's on a roll.
"Was pacifism over when the Japs drove the money changers out of the temple? NO!"
Will Smith was wrong. Period.
There is simply no excuse for getting violent with a comedian who is poking at you. That's their job. To make jokes, puncture the inflated egos in front of them--with humor--and make us laugh.
What we saw with Smith is the continuing enforced de-evolution of black men.
Without consequence they steal. They assault. They riot. And, in some places, they kill.
In our schools, they are not punished.
If you tell them 'no', they are encouraged to get violent.
And as so many intellectual asses insist, if you say a thing they don't like, they can, with impunity, respond with violence.
Where do you think this ends? With 6% of the population encouraged to think they can attack the other 94% whenever they like?
"Will Smith was wrong. Period."
Exactly. I expect the MSM to go off on tangent, not Reason. Well, given the current direction of this publication, maybe I should adjust my expectation.
What would writers here say if Donald Trump smacked a Mexican comedian for making fun of his wife? Pivot to some academic point about "words not equating violence"?
How is what happened here any different than mask warriors partying and drinking unmasked while normies around them are masked and face the consequences of being unmasked? Should injustice be diminished if it occurs on private grounds or events?
I don't get it. Sure, what Will Smith did isn't worse than war or state sanctioned violence. So what? We should call out hypocrisy when its this brazen. The woke puritans spent all night lecturing us, than clapped like trained seals when one of their own acted like a criminal. Literally, they applauded Smith when he came up to accept the award and apologized to everyone BUT Rock. This is a microcosm of American society.
But Will Smith is a private company!
More black on black crime.
Yawn.
calling for violence is not violence.
He did not hit Rock for his wife's benefit. Smith slapped him and cursed him out because he felt personally disrespected, using his wife as cover, the abusive coward. I am sure his wife was 100 times more mortified by her husband's infantile conduct than a lame joke.
I don't know about that. There's a lot of history to unpack with that event.
A little more context to the incident.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1v2SRyCj3xU/
This is a dangerous concept: "Will Smith has reminded everyone precisely why it is so dangerous to erode the critical post-enlightenment distinction between words and actions. This distinction was a social innovation that made violence less necessary and thus less common; woke liberals trying to reassert the equivalence between speech and violence are (perhaps inadvertently) harkening back to a more barbaric time."
In fact, the last century was the most violent in history, and that violence was rationalized, justified, promoted, and incited by words, hate speech to be exact. Words are action: they are the action that justifies violence.
In the case of Smith, he justified after because the cause was already obvious, but in most cases, hate speech is the prelude for hate crimes, and, historically, genocide, if unchecked. the false distinction between words and action fails to recognize that both are human behavior, and our laws against libel and incitement indicated the recognition that words (including "fighting words) do actual harm, as well as justifying and encouraging more harm, such as physical attacks, discrimination, and depriation of rights. Hate speech is speech not that we hate but rather that promotes the denial of rights to others, and so it is not "free" speech but the enemy of free speech.
Without tolerance for Hitler publishing Mein Kampf or his hate speech at rallies, there likely would have been no 50 million slaughered in WWII. I ask those who claim hate speech is protected speech, would they, knowing what they know, defend Hitler's right to spout hate speech? Do they understand that hate speech is designed to hurt, both as speech and as a prompt for hateful actions such as discrimination or violence.
The First Amendment is not a suicide pact, for if hate speech is tolerated and defended, history teaches us it will, unchecked, lead to the destruction of human dignity and rights.
So someone needs to be prosecuted for walking around with a representation of Trump's severed head, because that may have helped provoke the Jan. 6th riot? Hindsight is not 20/20 vision and we don't need Top. Men. deciding what words constitute "hate speech" and deserve legal censorship.
You believe Mein Kampf actually helped Hitler? It's barely readable and actually made some of his supporters question their allegiance to him. The second world war was initiated at Versailles in 1919. If it wasn't Hitler, it would have been someone else in Germany.
Also, define hate speech.
Also, define hate speech.
"There is no such thing as hate speech. There are only those too stupid and lazy to debate the merits of an argument." - Me. Just now.
The First Amendment is not a suicide pact
You know what was? The Declaration of Independence. Every man that signed it was under penalty of death for treason against the Crown. You might want to check and see whose signatures were on that document and compare it to those who debated the 1st Amendment.
history teaches us it will, unchecked, lead to the destruction of human dignity and rights
I rate the likelihood that this is your original thought at 0%. Anything that follows, "History teaches us" is almost certain to be propaganda. You know who else engaged propaganda to get people to believe his populist rhetoric would not be used to against the innocent?
If I could, I would shove a copy of the Declaration down your throat and watch you choke on it. Just so you would understand the only way that words are going to do you harm.
Yeah the whole bullshit about Mein Kampf leading to the rise of Hitler shows how little familiarity he has with history. I believe your right, he borrowed that idea from someone else and didn't bother to verify it for himself. Marx could write, Hitler couldn't. It didn't even become a best seller until after he already won the Chancellory, and Hitler later regretted publishing it and dismissed it as rubbish. All critics almost uniformly agreed it was a poorly constructed book, aimed mainly at people who already were members of the Nazi Party (which was also Hitler's original intent in publishing it).
It's also debatable how many people actually read it as opposed to buying it because it was the current Schadenfreude.
A good point except the class of people I don't trust to define "hate speech" does NOT include you.
NOW how ya like it, bitch?
Effing double negatives..."The class of people I trust to define "hate speech" does NOT include you."
Who would've thought #OscarsSoWhite would lead to this?
mmm black people getting violent over mean words...are we sure this is news?
What would the reaction have been if, say, Jared Kushner showed up at an SNL show and slapped a cast member who was lampooning Ivanka?
Any retaliation would be labeled antisemitism.
Look, no jury would convict Will Smith or, for that matter, Chris Rock. And why should they? Neither of them have any Pryors…
And yes, I’m auditioning for next year!
Be sure to tip your waitresses, but keep off the stage!
But just the tip!
Thanks, Will Smith, for reminding us why words should not be equivalent to violence.
he got in one little fight and his mom got scared
I like your more realistic take a lot better than Eric Boehm's. Words shouldn't equal violence but they historically do, and they will continue to. That's just a fact of life.
Elizabeth Bruineg is not now, nor has she ever been right. You can slap her response on a defense of segregation or slavery and it would apply just as well. That bad things were done before is not a reason to do them now as she so badly wants when it comes to men protecting something that cannot be defined according to her ideology.
Imagine if Chris Rock had insulted the wife of a white man, and that white man had rushed up on stage and slapped/punched him. The screaming and allegations of hate that would be taking place.
But this, this is okay to everybody. Why?
Because they EXPECT black men, tuxedoed or not, to be violent.
Not that there's anything racist about THAT, of course.