Alopecia: Comedians “free speech” gluttony.

Ulysses Alvarez Laviada
17 min readApr 1, 2022


Hollywood is back at it again, the slogan is clear: We, comedians want “free speech” gluttony! When the hyper planned becomes unplanned we can no longer talk about fake entertainment even when it feels oxymoronically fake and natural.

Shark, shark, shark! It wasn’t a joke, but it was a joke! That was planned and produced by World Wrestling Entertainment(WWE), but not everything goes always according to plan. Is finally Will Smith allowed in the Oscars?

We are witnessing an increasing totalitarian tendencies of comedy in an era of exuberant irony. Chris Rock is a professional comedian, not a 24/7 comedian. At the Oscar, however, he was trying to pull his 24/7 comedian act. He shouldn’t have assumed that a 24/7 comedian act would always comes out right. He was at the Oscar as a presenter and not as a comedian. And yet, he was more professional handling Will Smith’s slap than actually joking about his wife alopecia.

Talking at this point of “anger management” and “character building” in relation to Will Smith is simply ridiculous. In another place Will Smith’s slap would have been something else and even more inappropriate. At the Oscar ceremony, in Hollywood, what better wake-up call for the jokey narcissism of a comedian and the Hollywood zeitgeist than a slap in the face?

For God’s sake, Will Smith is an actor, he has no anger to control. His slap was symmetrical, parsimonious and well calculated. In fact, it was a display of violence in homeopathic doses. The SLAP was given to deliver a clear message without hesitation. It was also a slap in the face of the chronic political correctness that streamflow and overspill all over Hollywood red carpets.

Ok, ok, I have rushed my judgment too quick. I will try to explain myself in more detail, but first we will have to make some things clear, otherwise, we will be speaking two different languages ​​in parallel in terms of our understanding of violence.

First, there is no need to rationalize violence. Violence can be a rational act or an irrational act or a mixture of both. All violence is not an irrational act. To say that Will Smith’s violence was an act of revenge is highly speculative unless any act of violent response is considered an act of revenge. If that’s the case, not every violent response is revenge.

No, Will Smith did not want to “punish some words that he did not like”. Will Smith reacted to some words that caused real emotional and physical imbalance in his wife due to her illness. In fact the chemical mismatch and actual pain in Jada from Chris Rock’s words was visibly stronger on her than Chris Rock’s slap.

Chris Rock reacted to the slap much better than Jada reacted to his crude joke. To take Will Smith’s slap as more violent than Chris Rock’s emotional violence on Jada is simply to indulge in the paranoia of emotional bullshit and to consider anything called emotional violence as bullshit. No, not everything that is called emotional violence is bullshit, although I could say without fear of misunderstanding that there is more emotional bullshit in this world than emotional violence. We cannot lose sight of that reality.

I also don’t believe that the environment in which Will Smith slapped is a “protected” environment. On the contrary, Chris Rock has clear evidence to accuse Will Smith. Receiving physical blows is not the worst danger that Will Smith had but being forced to pay a good fine or prison is. That’s worse than a fight without evidence, especially since it can affect Will Smith’s reputation.

It is not about legitimizing physical violence at all times to anyone who offends you. It is about being willing to act with a certain level of physical violence in the face of direct emotional abuse of a person with illness. The belief that the use of violence is always a sign of anger and lack of control in character is false.

It is not about rationalizing violence, although that can certainly happen too and I consider it wrong and criminal. Now using direct violence rationally and when it is inevitable is not rationalizing it. Direct violence can have a positive proactive value and is not always reactive and negative.

Will Smith and Chris Rock are not a distraction from the war in Ukraine and are not a distraction from the misery of the world. No, when a n slogan has gained popularity after the Oscars incident.

“There is NEVER a justification for VIOLENCE! Never ever ever!”

Beware of such false slogan. The statement above is based on a fundamental lie. Were it not for the kind of violence that fights back evil and the forces of chaos, we, as a civilization wouldn’t be here to indulge in the above slogan.

Violence should never be rationalized and should never be justified and yet we will be violent and we would have no choice but to be violent if a bigger violence is forced upon us. Only in an ideal, false and lacking of any vital principle of life would let violence to abusively alienate us.

Violence shouldn’t always be responded with violence and, in fact, we should avoid such path, but at some moments in life we will be too weak to counteract violence with peace. At some point in life we will be forced into violence against a bigger violence. Letting violence alienates us in any shape or form is simply unacceptable. Not having at our disposal the peaceful way to neutralize violence shouldn’t lead us to rationalize any principle of absolute peace.

Please, do not make stupid analogies. Putin invasion to Ukraine is not to the OTAN what Will Smith slap is to Chris Rock verbal humiliation of Jada Pinkett Smith. Being on the side of Will Smith violence do not add up to being on the side of Putin invasion of Ukraine. The initiation of violence by Putin is utterly unacceptable and unjustified over the bases of being ignored or humiliated by the OTAN ruling policies.

Russia doesn’t suffer from alopecia nor any other known illness. Putin is not clinically derange even when he is a suspect criminal. Lack of a granular thinking leads straight into dumb ridiculous reasoning.

Hollywood and its troupes of media followers, as usual, gives us the wrong kind of message. It’s not so much Will Smith’s apology to Chris Rock and Chris Rock’s apology to Jada Pinkett Smith that is revealing. The focus of attention has not turned out quite well. This only shows that the violence of Will Smith, without being justified or justifiable, gained moral priority over the violence of Chris Rock. And that is utterly unacceptable. Alopecia should have been the focus of attention.

It is as much political correctness to censor offensive words which do not incite to violence as to censor physical violence more from the moral side than from the legal side. Physical violence alone is more serious than verbal violence in a world where the clinically ill not only do not exist but if they did exist would be discriminated against.

The myth of physical violence as a yardstick of real violence is as erroneous as the myth of emotional violence that condemns the slightest verbal discomfort. We need both, emotional discomfort and physical discomfort, but each of us has our own tolerance threshold, which no one is obliged to know but which it is useful for everyone to observe. The sick, the elderly and even non-adult people are an exception to these rules.

I would never be 100% in agreement with the law of any government in spirit even if the law, in its letter, were 100% right as I am willing to obey it 100% in its letter. That is what would allow a world of justice with certain acceptable levels of unlawfulness and violence. A world imagined as a world with absolutely no violence and disruption is an evil utopian world.

Between boxers and in extreme sports we have consented violence. Did everyone forgot that the right to punch another man is consented by words? Did everyone forgot that the federation of boxing and extreme cage sports do not sign contracts with violent words but with verbal and written agreements to punch and kick each other up to almost the edge of death under the risk of extreme permanent injuries?

Has anyone forgot that real violent in some sports is executed and performed for pure entertainment? Who are now the new brave snowflakes moralist who see Will Smith slap as a disgrace to civilized behavior (Jim Carrey) when those same people are ok with extreme violent sports or at least are not alarmed about the fact that there are not movements nor political activism to banned them, nor show interest in making those issues visible?

Oh, wait a minute. What actually decide the gravity of the violent act is not the act in itself and the nature of its violence but the agreement of those who engaged in it to make it for mere entertainment and the amusement of its audience. Is that how we defined violence?

Why Will Smith slap fills all the newspapers and media headlines and the daily beating of boxers and extreme violent sport is completely ignored? Is really consent what defines violence and the erroneous nature of violence? Please, next time you talk again about the extreme violent nature of Will Smith slap go and burry your moral head deep underground like a plucked ostrich.

Violence should never be made a pattern or a blueprint for any action that aim to bring and protect love and peace. Violence should be kept to a minimum, but violence shouldn’t be discarded for the dumb reason of being violence. Positive metaphysics is as toxic as negative metaphysics.

Will Smith’s action is not wrong because it was violent. Chris Rock’s action was more violent. Violence is not determined just by the physical nature of the damage, but also by its intensity. Will Smith’s action was wrong because he did not obey the principle of minimal use of violence when he had the opportunity to do so. Will Smith’s action is no more reprehensible than Chris Rock’s action.

If the Oscar Academy takes disciplinary action against Will Smith and not equally against Chris Rock, it will only show that minor physical violence against a healthy individual is more important than major violence against a sick individual when such violence is masked by the profession of comedy and the counter violence is physical. This is utterly wrong.

I seriously believe that Hollywood and its media troupes have created the wrong focus and visibility. It is far more relevant not to make a joke out of a person suffering from an illness than to slap to another man regardless whether is done in a red carpet or in the ghetto. I see on a daily bases extreme sports in America causing serious injuries to other people and hardly anyone complain about it simply because it is consented violence. An slap compared to the blood letting and brain injuries in cage boxing is far more vulgar and grotesque.

People suffering from illnesses and making visible that it is utterly unacceptable to make joke on their behalf and with their illnesses should have been the focus of attention regardless of how much I agree with uncensored comedy and how much I dislike both, Will Smith and Jada antics.

Those on the side of Chris Rock well -intended peaceful harmless “joke” to alopecia.

Those on the side of Biden and Europe well-intended peaceful harmless “sanctions” to Putin.

Those forerunner of poisonous peace only know how to onset evil forces and not how to stop them at their roots and by firm clear-cut actions.

Will Smith didn’t gave us the best action against the so called well intended peaceful harmless “joke” . Will Smith didn’t deliver the best actions against the Church of Hollywood and America toxic political correctness. That is crystal clear to me. Yet, Will Smith action is a loud blunt scream to stop the immorally masked and deliberately wishy-washy violence to people who are seriously ill.

My feud with the snowflake generation is due to the fact that many of them are not clinically nor medically ill. To extend the taxonomy of violence to people who are not ill is what is utterly unacceptable to me from the snowflake generation and from the political correctness culture.

This is a very poisonous conceptualization even inherited from all the cultural marxism learned and taught in many Critical Theory university syllabus which have as their main debtor, Michel Foucault.

Nothing show better this self contradictory Zeitgeist of liberals-progressives than one of Chris Rock most illustrious defenders, Jim Carrey, the so called “exposer” of the truth behind Will Smith slap is to the Hollywood Academy what Ana Hurtado is to the Cuban communist regime, namely, an absentminded embarrassment completely zoned out of his own poisonous personal reality.

It is ridiculous that Twitter now slams Jim Carrey for his non consented antics in his past. Following our illustrious defenders of Chris Rock, Jim Carrey non consented actions from his past were part of his comedy acts so they wouldn’t qualify as offensive nor violent to the Chis Rock logic defenders. It was just intended as a “joke”. Can you see now how poisonous and self contradictory are these progressives with their “let me do whatever I want” rationalized tantrums?

Please, don’t come back to me now with “we should cancel” Jim Carrey bullshit. I don’t participate in progressives poisonous antics. Jim Carrey is just part of the problem and a hypocrite.

What are we learning about Western Progressive culture with Chris Rock poisonous “joke”?

That a different kind of violence is hidden behind America’s political correctness. It is a violence that is not criminal and probably would never be and certainly should never be.

Yet, it is a violence more poisonous than the criminal violence even when it seems not more lethal. It is a “killing me softly” violence. It is the boiled frog syndrome type of violence with the difference that the frog never dies but it is continuously poisoned, endlessly and mindlessly until it dies by “natural” causes.

What are we learning about Western Progressive culture with the Oscars Academy asking Will Smith to leave and yet he refusing and staying?

That to do morally wrong while escaping crime, or rather, while making sure we follow the letter of the law even when we don’t follow the spirit of the law in a disingenuous way is not only ok but a fundamental pilar of our freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is not the freedom to be immoral even when the separation between the judiciary system and morality is a basic sign of civil liberties.

Our relationship to the positive, to the creative, to the new and to the unknown shouldn’t be that of the immorally bipolar, masked and deliberately wishy-washy so that we are not caught in flagrante delicto.

We shouldn’t do “magic” with immorality as if the moral magicians were those who hide behind the smoke curtain of “comedy” to deceive and show as “playful magic” what actually poisons without warnings peoples emotions.

Magicians are not supposed to reveal their tricks for a good reason. There is a solid reality that we all know unveils their tricks and that reality is not poisonous, it is just the way things are. If what is behind comedy tricks is not a reality but a purposely manufactured ambiguity that hides immorality, deception and vicious offenses we are utterly at loss with the true value of comedy as an art and as a profession.

And this is without any attempt to cancel the immoral and distasteful. People by themselves would make such decisions without the need for any activism nor boycott.

On the other hand, our relationship to the negative, to evil forces, to utterly wrong things and to the unknown shouldn’t be that of masked and deliberately wishy-washy passive aggressive actions so that we are not caught in flagrante delicto with clear cut wrong doings but rather, if and when we are caught, with equally ambiguous and wishy-washy deeds. This is exactly what is happening right now with the Ukraine crisis and Putin.

Most of the positive answers to helping Ukraine are immorally masked and deliberately wishy-washy. Equally, most of the negative answers to Putin are deliberately wishy-washy passive aggressive actions.

The problem with this liberal-progressive ideology is that it equally reacts in an ambiguous wishy-washy passive aggressive manner as much for positives as for negative events for fear or rather false calculated caution to be caught in flagrante delicto not because they endorse the spirit of the law but because they dread the letter of the law.

When the “safe spaces” and “micro aggression” culture silence alopecia sufferers over a black-man-to-man-slap, and Chris Rock becomes the “victim”, it only means one thing:

Alopecia is not fancy, it does create much content it is harder to monetize and it performs poorly in the economy of attention.

“Toxic masculinity” and “black issues”, however, are fancy, easier to monetize and have high ranking in the current economy of attention. Is so hard to see the obvious?

Instantly, Chris Rock is the winner fake victim and alopecia the looser true victim.

The vulgar “dasein” of the indifferent capitalist economy crosses the whole political spectrum, left and right, center and sideways, like neutrinos in the buttery consistency of our rocky planet.

Jada Pinkett Smith.

Is violence an answer to a speech that someone doesn’t like?

For most of the cases, no, violence shouldn’t be the answer to a speech that someone doesn’t like.

However, the question above is deliberately put together to say no to all cases. The way the question is formulated associates any speech with minor irrelevant harm as if any speech in itself by default and by design were, when connected to violence, a neglectable violence. This comes straight from hardcore freedom fighter comedians and fake free speech progressives.

Let’s rephrase the question.

Is violence an answer to speech that threatens you to kill you?

Or even better.

Is violence an answer to a speech that reenacts the extreme trauma of someone diagnosed with an illness?

It is clear that violence shouldn’t be the first nor the only answer to an initial violence. If I respond violently to a humiliating behavior it is clear that I could have responded in a better way if and when possible, but that doesn’t automatically means that if I don’t because I feel that I can’t, it means in any way that my violent actions neutralize the initial violent action and shifts the focus of attention towards my violent reaction.

In the film, Gone girl, even when the main female lead ended up being the one committing horrendous crimes initially as a result of being played and cheated by her husband, her husband remained up to the very last moment the main source of damage and immoral behavior. This means that the forces of evil are still in the initial humiliation of the husband even when it unleashed the worst of reactions in the victim.

Reversely, in the film, Deep Waters, are the initial actions of the female lead are the ones carrying the forces of evil even when it unleashed the wort of criminal reactions in the husband as a victim.

Think, for instance, about Charles Manson murders. Manson was not the one executing the murders. Manson didn’t take part in the LaBianca and Sharon Tate killings, however, he was charged with murder on the grounds he had influenced his followers and masterminded the crimes.

While the physical killer, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel were sentence to life in prison, Manson, who didn’t put one finger in any of the killings was considered the mayor culprit of the crimes simply for masterminding them.

Hence, causing physical harm is not always the only nor the most important factor in deciding the nature of a crime.

To our own surprise progressives have two opposed liberal positions on violence. On the one hand they want safe spaces, cancel culture and all the shebang attached to it. On the other hand, they want absolute freedom of speech under the principle that violence shows as most evil when any type of physical violence is involved above any mental sophistry to achieve it.

Freedom of speech, however, is not freedom to insult even when I oppose most prohibition to insult. Freedom to insult is freedom to be stupid and I do not have objections to any verbal stupidity.

The only insult, in my opinion, that should be forbidden by the law is the insult to people with illnesses and insults which are a direct call to violence. An arm wrestling fight without blood or without marks in the body shouldn’t be considered more violent than highly distressing verbal insults to people affected by illnesses.

When a jury in a court case decides to give to convicted criminal the death sentence, that is a rationalized violent act without the victim being an immediate threat to anyone.

Hence, words do not have to be violent to cause deadly violence. Words in people suffering from illnesses can be more violent than certain type of light physical harm in people with high level of fitness and health. Thus, we need to be granular when analyzing violence in relation to physical and emotional harm.

When we order or give order to soldiers to kill, those are words which communicate and command violent actions. To think that words are absolutely harmless and to think that words always command weaker violence than physical violence is simple to be deceived bu the false idea that words cannot changed people’s for the worse or for the better.

During the Nuremberg Nazi war trials, the generals and high ranking commanders giving orders had higher sentences than the soldiers doing the killings directly.

Words which violate someone brain chemistry and words which manipulate and deceive people into believing things which can be proven false and harmful to others, are word which damage people’s live often much more than a slap, a punch or an arm wrestling without blood.

There is a kind of violence in which the person affected doesn’t require to be in imminent danger to inflict a lower level of violence as a warning. Violence response to violence aggression shouldn’t necessarily be taken as a last resort. Sometimes a proactive calculated lower key violent reaction is required to neutralize instantly the current internal unfolding of the damage in the victims.

There is a kind of violence that roast the victim while hiding all visible direct sign of awful distress. Why when violence is sugar coated no only with comedy but with beautiful speeches it is turned instantly into not violence?

Directly inciting extreme violence with words is unacceptable just as it is unacceptable to use a person with an illness to make jokes about the illness for the sake of freedom of speech and entertainment.

To assume that freedom of speech includes inciting to extreme violence with words or sugarcoating verbal or physical violence even if the person in question suffers an illness because words are just words is simply falling into the twisted trap of the progressive evil.

Words sometimes are more violent than physical violence particularly when physical violence is light and verbal abuses to people with illnesses are extreme.

For the most part I do believe verbal insults shouldn’t be criminalized nor forbidden but except when the verbal insult is addressed directly or under the coverup of comedy to a person with an illness about such illness.

The brain of people suffering from depression as a result of their illnesses is wired differently to the brain of people without depression as a result of illnesses.

When Will Smith said:

“Keep my wife name out of you fucking mouth.”

And when Chris Rock said:

“Jada, I love you. ‘G.I.Jane 2’, can’t wait to see it.”

Most of you probably would agree that Chris Rock words sound and feel less brutal and insulting than Will Smith words.

That only shows how much people need to be educated on how a person suffering from anxiety and depression and struggling to appear “happy” and “positive” as a result of an existing illness feel like.

For the person suffering from anxiety and depression Chris Rock words are actually far more brutal and distressing than Will Smith obscene language and action.

The reality however is that most people are more interested in making visible Will Smith “macho” “toxic masculinity” and the so much coveted “freedom of speech” for comedians than making visible the utter neglect towards the abuses inflicted on people with illnesses.



Ulysses Alvarez Laviada

Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights. Friedrich Hegel.