TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

An opinionated FAQ about the Will Smith slap, with a take on gender

tripu

March 30, 2022
7 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://blog.tripu.info/will-smith/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title An opinionated FAQ about the Will Smith slap, with a take on gender
Author

tripu

Upvotes 7
Comments 15
Date March 30, 2022 2:32 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ts7rqe/an_opinionated_faq_about_the_will_smith_slap_with/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/an-opinionated-faq-about-the-will-smith-slap-with.1109421
https://theredarchive.com/post/1109421
Top posts by tripu

Let's stop swallowing the term “patriarchy”

193 upvotes
August 23, 2021
/r/MensRights

Men 30%~50% more likely to die from Covid

50 upvotes
February 4, 2021
/r/MensRights

More feminism of the bad kind

7 upvotes
September 20, 2021
/r/MensRights

Pobres privilegios

1 upvotes
February 8, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]AsphaltCuisine 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, I agree with a lot of this. I agree that Will committed an act of violence, Will is in the wrong, and Chris did nothing wrong. And I agree that violence is always physical, and analogies to violence like "verbal violence" are not actually forms of violence.

The points I disagree with him on are:

  1. That something that happens in front of millions of people is inconsequential. Of course this matters, and of course it both helps clarify, and even helps steer, what the general culture thinks about minor acts of violence in defense of a woman.

  2. That this has nothing to do with masculinity and gender. Of course it does. It's not only about masculinity and gender, but it's about those things, too.

Authors like these do themselves no favors with the anti-intellectual stance "there's nothing to see here and talking about it is dumb."

[–]tripu[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I stand by what I wrote, but I admit the style is somewhat provocative.

Answering your first point above:

Lots of other much, much more consequential events are happening “in front of millions of people”, too: war, disease and famine mostly in the developing world; homicides, suicides, fraud, etc in our rich countries. If the Will Smith slap happened “in front of millions of people” just because there were millions of TV viewers… well, then Ukraine is happening in front of milliions of people, too! I'm arguing that just one Ukrainian losing a finger because of the war is (objectively) way more important, in moral terms, than Chris Rock suffering a slap… and both events are happening in public. We should calibrate our attention, efforts and outrage accordingly.

The significance of the incident is kind of paradoxical: if most event attendees, TV viewers and media commentators had reacted straight away in a sensible way (ie, by saying “Will Smith was an asshole, you just don't slap some no matter what that person said, let's move on”) then nobody would have paid much attention and there would be no “controversy” in the first place — but because there was so much noise and nonsense instead, people like me feel like intervening precisely to say the sensible thing and to point out that there is no controversy here.

[–]Icy-Start5536 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Not true.

This guys point is that violence can only be physical, all other forms of violence aren't violence.

Violence comes from Lation violate which means to violate. Therefore, every violation has a degree of violence. Otherwise the sentence "rights were violated" would make no sense.

On top of that, if you are in a workplace for 20 years and one keeps mocking your physical appearance 5 times a day, you don't have any other qualifications to score another job and after 20 years you die of a heart attack because of the rage well, that has just had a physical manifestation coming from a verbal utterance.

The point is not to excuse physical violence in the presence of verbal violence, the point is to punish verbal, behavioural, judicial violences as well... BUT... it's never gonna happen since we are in a gynocentric world.

After all if you locked up a person for slapping another and the other for saying something that hurts you reach the Paretian betterment point.

You don't insult me + I don't slap you is better socially than any other combination.

[–]AsphaltCuisine 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Violence comes from Lation violate which means to violate. Therefore, every violation has a degree of violence. Otherwise the sentence "rights were violated" would make no sense.

This is just terrible logic.

Muscle comes from the Latin mus which means mouse. Therefore, every mouse is, by definition, a human muscle. Therefore, to eat a mouse is an act of cannibalism.

See how ridiculous the logic is?

[–]Icy-Start5536 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

You didn't invalidate the point though. Just used a rather laughable "tu quoques" logic. What's your point exactly? That violence can only be physical?

If that's so then all doctors are trolling/lying when they talk about stressed-induced diseases or heart attacks. Is allegedly due to rage an act of suicide since violence can only be physical?

[–]AsphaltCuisine 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

My point is that you cannot define a word based on its etymology. When I call you a guy, I am not calling you a Catholic terrorist. When I refer to a ladybug, I am making no reference at all to the Virgin Mary.

If that's so then all doctors are trolling/lying when they talk about stressed-induced diseases or heart attacks.

Do you define "violence" as "anything that can cause stress or lead to a heart attack"? Is distilling vodka violence? Is crunching on a project violence? Is low-density lipoprotein violence?

[–]Icy-Start5536 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

No because things are not violating you, people possess the faculty of discernment and are naturally able to judge what can hurt or not, that's the principle the natural law adopts when you study law.

That being said, it shouldn't be up to the person to enforce what's hurtful for him/her lest people weaponise it BUT it should be up to what's commonly considered as wrong in this current era which may or may not change. In other words there should be a threshold which is defined but the current culture.

On top of that people in other (alledge) sciences like psychology talk about more forms of violence, how is that if there is only one?

[–]AsphaltCuisine 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

No because things are not violating you

If your definition of "violence" is "see:violate," then parking my RV on a residential street is an act of violence, as I have violated a local parking ordinance.

BUT it should be up to what's commonly considered as wrong in this current era

And this just means that standing up to any popular social idea is an act of violence. For example, if I say "Encanto is a rather sexist film," by your definition I have committed an act of violence against women.

I would argue that there are forms of verbal abuse that are analogous to violence - without actually being violent. But that saying that someone looks like sex symbol Demi Moore at the height of her career does not even remotely qualify as analogous to violence.

[–]Icy-Start5536 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're also mistaking violating a person('s health/integrity/reputation/mind) with violating a thing like an ordinance.

Also, the common sense should be based on truth and rationality, that's why we have a problem in our current era because it's all emotions over rationality.

[–]AsphaltCuisine 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not mistaking anything. It's you who has proposed an expanded but extremely vague definition of "violence." Something akin to "a violation, but only a violation of any social norms about the way people should treat each other, except, well, no, obviously not those ones."

I prefer "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Simple and straightforward.

[–]Icy-Start5536 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Ok last attempt to have an honest and constructive conversation. All you're doing is to desperately look for holes in my logic that's sophistry, not logic. If you fail to answer I will end it here: Do you believe that there are forms of violence apart from the physical, yes or no?

[–]AsphaltCuisine 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No.

[–]Icy-Start5536 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Ok so no point in debating. Let's not waste each other's time.

[–]AsphaltCuisine 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If you have a disagreement, there's no point in debating?

Sort of seems like that's the only time there's a point to debating.

[–]northseaview 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with your point. An act of violence can be any behaviours that materially damage the target. We are social, economic and political agents. Consider the action of a false accusation, which in isolation is only the use of words, spoken or written. However in the social context it can be extremely violent, with consequences including economic ruin, loss of liberty through imprisonment, isolation due to stigma, death by state execution or vigilantism, white knights. It is not irrelevant to include non-physical acts under the category of violence. The inclusion of trivial insults, or in the case of Chris Rock noninsults, by some bad faith actors does not invalidate your core premise.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter