Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:52 am

Prismatic567 wrote:The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.
Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
Asking you to demonstrate the truth of your assumption is not a request or demand for you to accept another position. It is precisely what it is: a request for you to defend your assertion.
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely 'assumptive' and useless.
The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:59 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.

It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.

Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?

Asking you to demonstrate the truth of your assumption is not a request or demand for you to accept another position. It is precisely what it is: a request for you to defend your assertion.

For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely 'assumptive' and useless.

The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.


Precisely the answers I wish I had given. Danke.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:24 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.
The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.


Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
Asking you to demonstrate the truth of your assumption is not a request or demand for you to accept another position. It is precisely what it is: a request for you to defend your assertion.
Point is why should I defend myself based on another's assumption which is unproven and illusory.
If I assume you kill X and demand you prove you did not kill X, there is no obligation on your part to prove you did not kill X. Whatever I assumed, the onus is on me to prove without doubts you had killed X.

Many theists commit a range of evils and violence [ kill and commit genocide] in accordance to the commands and in the name of their God. Surely these theists has an onus to prove their God exists as real to support their acts? It is evil to throw the onus of proof to the non-theists so they can get away and continue with murders and other evils.

For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely 'assumptive' and useless.
The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.
Agree.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:07 pm

Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?

Asking you to demonstrate the truth of your assumption is not a request or demand for you to accept another position. It is precisely what it is: a request for you to defend your assertion.

Point is why should I defend myself based on another's assumption which is unproven and illusory.
If I assume you kill X and demand you prove you did not kill X, there is no obligation on your part to prove you did not kill X. Whatever I assumed, the onus is on me to prove without doubts you had killed X.


The consciousness of other people and the existence of mind-independent objects purportedly represented by the brain in and translated into the objects and environments appearing to sensory perception are also 'unproven and illusory', given that the only existence that appears is the conscious experience of a single person. Yet most believe in the existence of other people's consciousness and mind-independent objects in the external world. Given that the only existence that shows itself is experience in the form of the subjective experience of a particular person, the existence of everything other than a person's own consciousness is a matter of faith, with any possibility or probability of their existence being merely the level of a person's belief in the existence of something outside a person's consciousness.

God is in the same boat as other people's consciousness and mind-independent, external world objects. One must have faith in his existence. For those asserting that he does not exist, one can argue that this is a prejudice based on the fact that, though God is in the same boat as other people's consciousness and mind-independent objects, the one making the assertion has a particular strong disbelief in the existence of God, and at the same time, believes in the existence of the former. Everything is ultimately about belief, disbelief, and the various strengths of belief and disbelief leading to estimations of the "likelihood" or "probability" of the existence of something that is not the consciousness of a person.

Many theists commit a range of evils and violence [ kill and commit genocide] in accordance to the commands and in the name of their God. Surely these theists has an onus to prove their God exists as real to support their acts? It is evil to throw the onus of proof to the non-theists so they can get away and continue with murders and other evils.


Some theists commit evil and violence in the name of God. Others are kind, empathetic people that wouldn't harm a fly and are better persons because of their belief. Again, proving God exists is as simple as proving other people's consciousness exist or that mind-independent external world objects exist.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:48 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.

Again, once you make an assertion, you get an onus.

Point is why should I defend myself based on another's assumption which is unproven and illusory.
Again, because you made an assertion.
If I assume you kill X and demand you prove you did not kill X, there is no obligation on your part to prove you did not kill X. Whatever I assumed, the onus is on me to prove without doubts you had killed X.
If Joe asserts there is a God, in a philosophy forum, in an academic setting, etc. someone noticing this can ask for justification and expect a response. If Jim asserts there is no God, the same onus arises there.

Many theists commit a range of evils and violence [ kill and commit genocide] in accordance to the commands and in the name of their God. Surely these theists has an onus to prove their God exists as real to support their acts? It is evil to throw the onus of proof to the non-theists so they can get away and continue with murders and other evils.
Did you not read that agnostics and even other atheists may expect justiication for your statement in a philosophical discussion setting? The evil of theists HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. We were talking about an ontological issue. With attendant epistemological issues. What evil acts has philosophical graffitte committed?

For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely 'assumptive' and useless.
The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.
Agree.[/quote]
Except you clearly did not, and continued to disagree in the rest of your post above.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:03 am

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
The consciousness of other people and the existence of mind-independent objects purportedly represented by the brain in and translated into the objects and environments appearing to sensory perception are also 'unproven and illusory', given that the only existence that appears is the conscious experience of a single person. Yet most believe in the existence of other people's consciousness and mind-independent objects in the external world. Given that the only existence that shows itself is experience in the form of the subjective experience of a particular person, the existence of everything other than a person's own consciousness is a matter of faith, with any possibility or probability of their existence being merely the level of a person's belief in the existence of something outside a person's consciousness.

God is in the same boat as other people's consciousness and mind-independent, external world objects. One must have faith in his existence. For those asserting that he does not exist, one can argue that this is a prejudice based on the fact that, though God is in the same boat as other people's consciousness and mind-independent objects, the one making the assertion has a particular strong disbelief in the existence of God, and at the same time, believes in the existence of the former. Everything is ultimately about belief, disbelief, and the various strengths of belief and disbelief leading to estimations of the "likelihood" or "probability" of the existence of something that is not the consciousness of a person.

Many theists commit a range of evils and violence [ kill and commit genocide] in accordance to the commands and in the name of their God. Surely these theists has an onus to prove their God exists as real to support their acts? It is evil to throw the onus of proof to the non-theists so they can get away and continue with murders and other evils.


Some theists commit evil and violence in the name of God. Others are kind, empathetic people that wouldn't harm a fly and are better persons because of their belief. Again, proving God exists is as simple as proving other people's consciousness exist or that mind-independent external world objects exist.
You are conflating too many points here.

Note,

    1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
    2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
    3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being
    4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?

1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
The existence of human beings is easy prove via empirical testings.

2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
There are epistemological issues re existence Other Minds.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Despite the contentions, I believe the supporting arguments for the existence of other minds
are more convincing than the skeptics' view.

However, there are loads of research from the psychology and other philosophical perspective to support the existence and knowledge of minds/consciousness other than one's own. Note

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, knowledge, etc.—to oneself, and to others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind


It is not exactly easy, but it is not impossible to prove and convince the existence of other minds as above.

3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being.
I have argued God is ultimately and has to be a non-empirical being, i.e. an ontological God. There is no way a non-empirical ontological God can be proven with empirical methods.

If anyone claims their God is an empirical being then bring proofs to show God is an empirical being like a human being or any other mind-independent objects?

4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?
There are no evidence a non-empirical objects has a 'mind' like a human mind or even those of animals.
Therefore God as non-empirical cannot have a mind like a human mind.

Again, proving God exists is as simple as proving other people's consciousness exist or that mind-independent external world objects exist.
Against the above points, there is no way you can prove God exists.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:20 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.

Again, once you make an assertion, you get an onus.

Point is why should I defend myself based on another's assumption which is unproven and illusory.
Again, because you made an assertion.

My onus is I have exposed the implication of an assumption is his assertion.

If I assume you kill X and demand you prove you did not kill X, there is no obligation on your part to prove you did not kill X. Whatever I assumed, the onus is on me to prove without doubts you had killed X.
If Joe asserts there is a God, in a philosophy forum, in an academic setting, etc. someone noticing this can ask for justification and expect a response. If Jim asserts there is no God, the same onus arises there.
Note the sequence,
    1. Joe assert there is a God.
    2. Then only can Jim asserts there is no God.

In the above case Joe's assertion takes priority and thus Joe has the onus to provide proofs for his claim. There is no priority and onus on Jim to prove his claim in this particular issue.

However I agree if Jim decide to take the initiative to kill off Joe's claim, then Jim has the onus to prove his case.
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.

For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely 'assumptive' and useless.

The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.
Agree.

Except you clearly did not, and continued to disagree in the rest of your post above.

Note the focus should be on the primary claimant re God exists, not the secondary negating claim.

However, as an initiative and mentioned above;
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Greatest I Am,

Hate is good if well aimed. You mention issues where the aim is off the mark and a judge would make that clear for all the population.


What purpose, positive purpose, does hate serve? It is a very strong emotion which can get way out of hand and do a lot of destruction.

Can you give me an example of when and how *hate is good*. For instance, a scenario?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:17 pm

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:How does one prove God does not exist?


By taking a phrase like Freedom of Speech and equating it with a total lack of responsibility and consciousness toward whomever it addresses.

In other words, anything goes even if at some point it leads to the destruction of millions of Jews or African Americans or mentally ill or incapacitated children..........et cetera. We just NEVER learn do we?

God is not only dead but never existed in the first place.

We cannot stop a volcano from erupting but we can put a muzzle on lack of consciousness and stupidity.
I am all for allowing the censorship of hate speech. Perhaps those who are not do not understand the necessity for self-discipline and clear thinking.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:26 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:I am all for allowing the censorship of hate speech. Perhaps those who are not do not understand the necessity for self-discipline and clear thinking.
How would censorship lead to self-discipline? (wouldn't it undercut the possibility to some degree?) Can one not express anger and think clearly?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:24 pm

Karpel Tunnel

I am all for allowing the censorship of hate speech. Perhaps those who are not do not understand the necessity for self-discipline and clear thinking.

How would censorship lead to self-discipline?


This may not be a good example but think of the discipline of a *time out* that the parent gives the child for wrong and crazy behavior as a censorship. Do you not think that after enough of them, the child would come to some consciousness and self-discipline? Of course, it might also depend on the individual child.

Hate speech can be very contagious and before anyone knows what is happening, there is the mob, there is the unthinking Herd, there is the fanatic, there is the person just waiting for the excuse to kill someone or beat someone up. Hate speech can become so volatile. You hear some person on a tirade shouting ugly racist remarks about Jews and other anti-Semetics listening and become enraged. Suddenly someone spots a Jewish person and that person becomes physically attacked to an extreme degrees. It could be an adult or a child.

You can also think of the censorship of it as the water used to put a fire out before it causes damage.


(wouldn't it undercut the possibility to some degree?)


Would that not depend on the individual? Is a mob or a racist capable of self-discipline and clear thinking?


Can one not express anger and think clearly?


Sure. Someone who is stable, pretty well balanced, is aware of their feelings and can be in control of them and who knows what is at stake and realizes that there can be a far better way to achieve something.

But seriously, can an actual *hate speech* express anger and clear thinking without becoming volatile? What could go wrong there, given the right (or wrong) moment? This is not a love speech, it is a hate speech. Humans are imperfect, faulty, our emotions more than rise to the moment also in the wrong way.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:35 pm

I think we need a definition of hate speech.

I don't think a category based on an emotion is a good idea.

I don't think the current climate regarding speech is a good one. All sorts of things are being called hate speech when they may or may not have some anger behind thevm but do not seem to me racist, anti-semitic, etc.

I don't see censorship working very well.

My kid says something racist, we'd have a talk. I don't want to train him not to share his thoughts with me.

I do realize that asking for a definition is an easy request. I will try not to just jump on it. But see if you can define it and I will present then examples of what get called hate speech. Perhaps we will have similar objections to how it is currently used.

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.
I think these quotes tend towards limiting censorship.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:40 am

I think we need a definition of hate speech.

I agree.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:57 am

But seriously, can an actual *hate speech* express anger and clear thinking without becoming volatile? What could go wrong there, given the right (or wrong) moment? This is not a love speech, it is a hate speech. Humans are imperfect, faulty, our emotions more than rise to the moment also in the wrong way.


We present love and hate as opposites, often, but it seems to me they are often connected. Something I love is threatened, i may feel hate. Is it OK for Churchill to have hate in his speech against Hitler? MLK certainly focused on love, but in this last speech, the one before he was killed, you can hear the rage at what he was encountering. Of course hate can go wrong, but a loving speech can go wrong also. Telling us to love something that is damaging. A speech that glosses over. A speech where an ugly, hateful person presents themselves as loving to set up their opponent.

I think there is something wrong headed about focusing on emotion. And by the way, I think everyone should be nervous about that focus. Because once hou outlaw hatred in reaction, you make it easier for tyranny.

Because once those in power can damn y ou for reacting angrily to what they are doing, they are freer to do what they want.

The very term itself gives me chills.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:35 pm

Karpel Tunnel

I think we need a definition of hate speech.


I am aware that there may be at least a few. I am using the phrase *hate speech* to denote INTENTION, where the intent is to incite people to anger, rage, hatred AND to the point where the outcome and consequences of that speech could only result in the inevitable - destruction, murder, et cetera. Hitler and the Nazi's' false propaganda, white supremacist's speech which could incite people to murder African Americans and hang slaves - back then, hate speech which turns every good Muslim into a terrorist. I think that you get the idea.


I don't think a category based on an emotion is a good idea.


Why not? Hatred is built on emotion, is it not? Even if you would call hatred a mood, it is built on emotion and those kind of speeches are so capable of evolving into quite a conflagration.

I don't think the current climate regarding speech is a good one. All sorts of things are being called hate speech when they may or may not have some anger behind thevm but do not seem to me racist, anti-semitic, etc.


I suppose that I can agree with you in part here BUT I think that it has to be quite obvious when a speech is anti-semetic or racist or against gay people, ad continuum.

I don't see censorship working very well.


I realize that like everything there are many gray areas.

Bring yourself back to the Nazi regime. Perhaps there could not have been a law on censorship then, but what if there had been and it had succeeded. Would all of those people murdered because of the Holocaust ~men, women and CHILDREN ~~would they have survived the war, barring the bombs, if they had not had all of the Lies, Hatred, out-of-control emotions thrown at them? Would children have been shot in the head by Naziis if censorship was the thing back then?!

My kid says something racist, we'd have a talk. I don't want to train him not to share his thoughts with me.


That is a good thing. It is too easy a thing, I think, to be biased/prejudiced, to become infected by that so-called virus. It is all around us so just a simple thing like an accidental bump by someone, someone who we feel *is not like us* might offset us. Adults are not even sometimes consciously aware of when they are pushing the envelope so of course children would not be.

I do realize that asking for a definition is an easy request.


It is an easy request but not necessarily easy to answer.


I will try not to just jump on it. But see if you can define it and I will present then examples of what get called hate speech. Perhaps we will have similar objections to how it is currently used.


I look forward to it. Let us not forget that *hatred* can be insidiously subtle.


It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


I think these quotes tend towards limiting censorship.


That was my signature long before I entered this thread. It was kind of a reminder to me to try to keep an open mind and that the questions are at least as important than the answers, sometimes more so? How much it is working is *debatable*. :mrgreen:

As to your response, at first glance, that may be possible. At second glance, I will have to think more on it.
I might suggest that the quote tells us to try to see both sides of that coin very carefully, both sides, just as carefully.
Censorship would have to be well thought out logically, yes, and with compassion - to do no harm or what does the least harm.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:01 pm

Hmmm...then again, at the end of the day, there would be that so-called HATE SPEECH (unless you could think of another word or phrase for it) which has as its main INTENTION the fight toward raising human consciousness against people like the white supremacists and neo-naziis, the terrorists, the despots, among others, in a constructive, not a destructive way, where lives are physically destroyed.

But then again, even that would not be so easy, right, since there are always those fanatics looking and waiting for an excuse to destroy. There are really no easy answers where human beings are involved. lol
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:26 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:I am aware that there may be at least a few. I am using the phrase *hate speech* to denote INTENTION, where the intent is to incite people to anger, rage, hatred AND to the point where the outcome and consequences of that speech could only result in the inevitable - destruction, murder, et cetera. Hitler and the Nazi's' false propaganda, white supremacist's speech which could incite people to murder African Americans and hang slaves - back then, hate speech which turns every good Muslim into a terrorist. I think that you get the idea.
In practical terms it is very hard to censor based on intention. If we talk about the consequences, then a lot of politicians speechs can and do lead to destruction, but they need not contain much in the way of hate or anger, however they set down reality or 'reality' in such a way that it leads to death and destruction. I don't know what to look for with your definition.


I don't think a category based on an emotion is a good idea.


Why not? Hatred is built on emotion, is it not? Even if you would call hatred a mood, it is built on emotion and those kind of speeches are so capable of evolving into quite a conflagration.
I don't mean that one cannot have a category based on emotions, one can. What I meant was it's a bad idea in the context of human communication. 1) we have to determine intent, which is hard to do 2) strong anger (hatred) is a natural reaction to things like oppression. I wouldn't want to say people cannot scream out their anger at a protest, for example, or in an angry letter signed by many about a policy. 3) You can create documents that are calm and reasoned or 'reasoned' that are based on hate and have horrible intentions, but which contain nothing which demonstrates hate or horrible intentions. And I am not sure that forcing everyone to be Machievellian about this helps.

I suppose that I can agree with you in part here BUT I think that it has to be quite obvious when a speech is anti-semetic or racist or against gay people, ad continuum.
So, it is hate only at minority groups? How do we determine if an attack on Israel's policies is anti-semitic?

I don't see censorship working very well.


I realize that like everything there are many gray areas.

Bring yourself back to the Nazi regime. Perhaps there could not have been a law on censorship then, but what if there had been and it had succeeded. Would all of those people murdered because of the Holocaust ~men, women and CHILDREN ~~would they have survived the war, barring the bombs, if they had not had all of the Lies, Hatred, out-of-control emotions thrown at them? Would children have been shot in the head by Naziis if censorship was the thing back then?!
There was censorship, but it was run by the Nazis. The upside of the Nazis being as up front as they were - though they were also really quite cagey about what they intended and meant about a lot of things - is that it was clearer who they were and what they might do. The rest of the world did not react in time, but some people were convinced, like Churchill, I am sure in part based on what the Nazis were saying. It might have been harder to get people to prepare to fight the Nazis had they been ever cagier about who they were.

My kid says something racist, we'd have a talk. I don't want to train him not to share his thoughts with me.


That is a good thing. It is too easy a thing, I think, to be biased/prejudiced, to become infected by that so-called virus. It is all around us so just a simple thing like an accidental bump by someone, someone who we feel *is not like us* might offset us. Adults are not even sometimes consciously aware of when they are pushing the envelope so of course children would not be.

Sure, but my point was: that is not putting my child in time out. Time out might get my kid to be silent around me in the future, but it isn't getting at the issues.

I will try not to just jump on it. But see if you can define it and I will present then examples of what get called hate speech. Perhaps we will have similar objections to how it is currently used.


I look forward to it. Let us not forget that *hatred* can be insidiously subtle.
Hatred can be justified.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:55 pm

Karpel Tunnel

....I am using the phrase *hate speech* to denote INTENTION, where the intent is to incite people to anger, rage, hatred AND to the point where the outcome and consequences of that speech could only result in the inevitable - destruction, murder, et cetera.

In practical terms it is very hard to censor based on intention.


True, I understand this. But the reality soon becomes clear and evident and this is where censorship ought to step in, in my book. But I suppose that it might have to be the real exception to the rule or we begin to slide toward that slippery slope of a dictatorship.


Let us say that Hitler was alive today in 2018 as he was on August 13, 1920 when he gave his 1st major anti-Semitic speech "Why we are against the Jews" but as an American. What would this reveal to you?

Jews, he said, could not be judged as other men. They were creatures of alien and dangerous blood. doomed to corrupt everything they touched. The only defense against this peril was to seize the evil (the Jews) by the roots and to exterminate it root and branch. To attain our aim we should stop at nothing, even if we must join forces with the Devil."
The Holocaust, Hitler and Nazi Germany
Linda Jacobs

A bat is beautiful compared to the above ugliness.
(or at least cute when gazed on for a little while)
download.jpg
download.jpg (8.67 KiB) Viewed 2605 times



If we talk about the consequences, then a lot of politicians speechs can and do lead to destruction, but they need not contain much in the way of hate or anger, however they set down reality or 'reality' in such a way that it leads to death and destruction. I don't know what to look for with your definition.


https://georgelakoff.com/2017/09/14/wha ... te-speech/

I have been asked what hate speech is. It is not exactly hard to detect.

Hate speech defames, belittles, or dehumanizes a class of people on the basis of certain inherent properties — typically race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

Hate speech attributes to that class of people certain highly negative qualities taken to be inherent in members of the class. Typical examples are immorality, intellectual inferiority, criminality, lack of patriotism, laziness, untrustworthiness, greed, and attempts or threats to dominate their “natural superiors.”


The method of defamation typically includes:

Salient exemplars — that is, using highly rare and very ugly individual examples that have been sensationalized by the media and taking them as applying to the whole class. Examples: Trump’s racist attacks on Latinos and Muslims, attempting to stereotype all of them and smear entire classes of people on the basis of a handful of individual cases.



More examples of hate speech.
https://kristinbsse.atavist.com/hate-sp ... cial-media

Penny Sparrow

Phumba Zondi


I don't mean that one cannot have a category based on emotions, one can. What I meant was it's a bad idea in the context of human communication. 1) we have to determine intent, which is hard to do


I think that the words in many cases would determine the intent, would you not agree with that?

2) strong anger (hatred) is a natural reaction to things like oppression. I wouldn't want to say people cannot scream out their anger at a protest, for example, or in an angry letter signed by many about a policy.


Oh, I can certainly agree with you here but I do not consider this to be an example of hate speech. These are just people speaking out in defense of their human rights. On the other hand, I may be wrong here.
A hate speech does not necessarily have to be a negative thing as long as it stays within the parameters of not enticing people to violence.

I would not go along with censoring these kind of hate speeches.

The hate speeches of Penny Sparrow and Phumba Zondi is what I was addressing and the definitions by George Lakoff.


3) You can create documents that are calm and reasoned or 'reasoned' that are based on hate and have horrible intentions, but which contain nothing which demonstrates hate or horrible intentions. And I am not sure that forcing everyone to be Machievellian about this helps.


Can you give me an example of this from history?

I suppose that I can agree with you in part here BUT I think that it has to be quite obvious when a speech is anti-semetic or racist or against gay people, ad continuum.

So, it is hate only at minority groups?

No, gossiping can be hateful/full of hate and can do a lot of deliberate damage to the reputations of those it is directed towards.

Bullying is hateful and incites others to cause physical or psychic harm.

How do we determine if an attack on Israel's policies is anti-semitic?


I would think that when the individual[s] are the MAIN focus of the attack and not the policies. I may be wrong here but I think that that would be quite clear, right?
Words and phrases need to be examined.

I don't see censorship working very well.


Why? Can you give me an example of *where* it would work and *where* it would not work?

The upside of the Nazis being as up front as they were - though they were also really quite cagey about what they intended and meant about a lot of things - is that it was clearer who they were and what they might do. The rest of the world did not react in time, but some people were convinced, like Churchill, I am sure in part based on what the Nazis were saying. It might have been harder to get people to prepare to fight the Nazis had they been ever cagier about who they were.


https://phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.a ... ements.htm

Sure, but my point was: that is not putting my child in time out. Time out might get my kid to be silent around me in the future, but it isn't getting at the issues.


You spoke of your child saying something racist in the scenario. It would be obvious to me that included in that *time out* would be a verbal teaching, getting the child to see the light. Afterwards would come the silence.


I will try not to just jump on it. But see if you can define it and I will present then examples of what get called hate speech. Perhaps we will have similar objections to how it is currently used.


I look forward to it. Let us not forget that *hatred* can be insidiously subtle.

Hatred can be justified.


I can agree with this albeit it would be like beauty being in the eye of the beholder in a sense.
Hatred may be an emotional uproaring or a very calm emotion beneath but I think it can be seen as logical under particular circumstances (if that made any sense to you).
Christians are told to love the enemy, to not hate those who hate you or even inflict great harm on you. But is that even logical? We are human beings before we are anything else. We have a strong instinct to survive and toward personal freedom - unless, unfortunately, it has been deadened by constant abuse or the Big Lie, whatever that particular Lie may be. I wonder how many wonderful, I mean really wonderful, Christians have actually suppressed or "repressed" the hatred done to them?


I apologize for the delay.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:15 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:I have been asked what hate speech is. It is not exactly hard to detect.

Hate speech defames, belittles, or dehumanizes a class of people on the basis of certain inherent properties — typically race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

Hate speech attributes to that class of people certain highly negative qualities taken to be inherent in members of the class. Typical examples are immorality, intellectual inferiority, criminality, lack of patriotism, laziness, untrustworthiness, greed, and attempts or threats to dominate their “natural superiors.”[/b]

The method of defamation typically includes:

Salient exemplars — that is, using highly rare and very ugly individual examples that have been sensationalized by the media and taking them as applying to the whole class. Examples: Trump’s racist attacks on Latinos and Muslims, attempting to stereotype all of them and smear entire classes of people on the basis of a handful of individual cases.
It seems like, then, hate speech is not based on an emotion, but on what sorts of classifying and judging it does. It could be made in fear. It could be made coldly, clinically. Again, I think it is wrong to classify it based on emotion. Once you do that you open the door to censorship when people respond to abuse of power, the unjust killing of their children, political lies and much else.

I am still not clear that censorship is the way to go, but regardless I see no reason to classify it based on emotions.


I don't mean that one cannot have a category based on emotions, one can. What I meant was it's a bad idea in the context of human communication. 1) we have to determine intent, which is hard to do


I think that the words in many cases would determine the intent, would you not agree with that?
Not at all. I think hate can come with a smile. It can distract, pretend to be rational and calm. It can imply things but not state them. Context often determines the intent, not the words. When they are used, what is not said or responded to, what is implicit given the context.

Oh, I can certainly agree with you here but I do not consider this to be an example of hate speech. These are just people speaking out in defense of their human rights.
Then I think we need another name, because they often are pissed off, even hateful.

Can you give me an example of this from history?
The violence of pharma/psychiatry against emotions and those who have them. The way Monsanto reacts to the concerns of people who distrust government oversight of industry and gm products - they often call out their opponents as emotional, then prsent research they themselves generated to paint themselves as rational.

Tecumseh was in a meeting with some general who kept talking about how violent and irrational the native americans were. So Tecumseh slid closer to the general. The general slid away on a bench and Tecumseh just kept sliding toward him, getting inside his personal space. Finally the general exclaimed in rage. Tecumseh said something like 'Barbarian, primitive'

No, gossiping can be hateful/full of hate and can do a lot of deliberate damage to the reputations of those it is directed towards.
I meant more...is it OK against whites or men or whomever is or is perceived to be the dominant group?

I would think that when the individual[s] are the MAIN focus of the attack and not the policies. I may be wrong here but I think that that would be quite clear, right?
Words and phrases need to be examined.
INdividual politicians would be fine in my book. Their acts, policies, statements....

Why? Can you give me an example of *where* it would work and *where* it would not work?
Sure, in the European country I live in now if anyone questions immigration levels, they are labeled racist. It can cost you your teaching position. IOW, for example, there cannot be anyone concerned for economic reasons. If you have aproblem with immigration levels, you are racist and your position will not be printed or broadcast. The same goes for anyone uncomfortalbe with rapid societal changes brought about by immigration and the poor integration here. And people who were critical of Islam were treated like racists, which makes no sense. Islam is a belief system. It's like treating criticism of the republicans or nazis or democrats as if that is racism. You should be able to say that a religion is a pernicious ideology without being treated as a racist. Other ideologies get treated this way all the time. It is fine to treat fascism or communism t his way, except to the followers of course, because they disagree. But seeing ideologies and belief systems as problematic to dangerous to horrible is not like racism, but it is treated this way.

The result of the censorship and treating all this as hate speech....

The party against immigration is now either one or two, but sometimes is the largest party in the country. Treating everyone as if they should be censored, including racist opinoins and opinions that may or may not have some facet of racism in them as taboo HAS NOT WORKED. There needed to be a public dialogue, where even racist ideas could come out and be faced. And the racism of immigrants- against each other, against the native population. In my work with immigrants I could see that many were comfortable and certain in their racism in ways Europeans tend not to be. To many Arabs it was a given that blacks and gypsies were inferior. To many in these groups the natives here are cold fascists. This also needs to be aired.

Keeping all this off the table eliminates the ability to actually get to change.

The upside of the Nazis being as up front as they were - though they were also really quite cagey about what they intended and meant about a lot of things - is that it was clearer who they were and what they might do. The rest of the world did not react in time, but some people were convinced, like Churchill, I am sure in part based on what the Nazis were saying. It might have been harder to get people to prepare to fight the Nazis had they been ever cagier about who they were.


You''ll need to make an argument here. I know Hitler said many terrible things.

You spoke of your child saying something racist in the scenario. It would be obvious to me that included in that *time out* would be a verbal teaching, getting the child to see the light. Afterwards would come the silence.
I don't see the point of the time out and silence. Enforced silence. And that verbal teaching MUST include hearing why the child thinks what they think. Shutting them up, iow censoring them, is not useful. Unless we just want them to behave around us and not change learn be challenged, etc.


Christians are told to love the enemy, to not hate those who hate you or even inflict great harm on you. But is that even logical?
Logical, maybe, damaging as a rule, absolutely. One of the most damaging ideas we've gotten.

We are human beings before we are anything else. We have a strong instinct to survive and toward personal freedom - unless, unfortunately, it has been deadened by constant abuse or the Big Lie, whatever that particular Lie may be. I wonder how many wonderful, I mean really wonderful, Christians have actually suppressed or "repressed" the hatred done to them?
There is a lot of self-abuse involved in following the NT and a lot of potential abuse of others in following the OT.

I apologize for the delay.
No problem
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:50 pm

Karpel Tunnel

I have been asked what hate speech is. It is not exactly hard to detect.

Hate speech defames, belittles, or dehumanizes a class of people on the basis of certain inherent properties — typically race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

Hate speech attributes to that class of people certain highly negative qualities taken to be inherent in members of the class. Typical examples are immorality, intellectual inferiority, criminality, lack of patriotism, laziness, untrustworthiness, greed, and attempts or threats to dominate their “natural superiors.”


The method of defamation typically includes:

Salient exemplars — that is, using highly rare and very ugly individual examples that have been sensationalized by the media and taking them as applying to the whole class. Examples: Trump’s racist attacks on Latinos and Muslims, attempting to stereotype all of them and smear entire classes of people on the basis of a handful of individual cases.

It seems like, then, hate speech is not based on an emotion, but on what sorts of classifying and judging it does.

I am not sure how you are using the phrase *based on*. If you mean *arising from* then I cannot agree with you here - at least not in part. Wouldn't you agree that any kind of hate speech has its genesis in some kind of human experience/reality which is seen as negative, to say the least, and which causes emotion? I suppose though that you could also be correct. Someone who is not prone to being emotional, who is basically a cool cucumber, has a logical and reasonable mind, could approach it in the way which you suggest.

It could be made in fear.


I tend to see fear as a strong emotion and it can be a valuable human tool albeit also a detrimental destructive one.

It could be made coldly, clinically. Again, I think it is wrong to classify it based on emotion. Once you do that you open the door to censorship when people respond to abuse of power, the unjust killing of their children, political lies and much else. I am still not clear that censorship is the way to go, but regardless I see no reason to classify it based on emotions.

Perhaps you and I are both right. I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Censorship, for me, would be the only way to go, when people start shouting things like "hang them, burn them, shoot them". We all have a right to our thoughts and emotions but we do not have the right to act on them in a way that could harm or kill others unless in self-defense naturally. Words can be really powerful in both positive and negative ways. I do not know if you understand me a little there.

I think that the words in many cases would determine the intent, would you not agree with that?

Not at all. I think hate can come with a smile. It can distract, pretend to be rational and calm. It can imply things but not state them. Context often determines the intent, not the words. When they are used, what is not said or responded to, what is implicit given the context.

Yes, the psychopath, pretender, actor. I do understand what you say here and I can agree with you. Trying to read between the lines does not always make something clear. I might say that both logic and intuition enter in in discerning *hate* in certain circumstances. But could that, at the same time, not mean that below the surface there is strong emotion being concealed?
Oh, I can certainly agree with you here but I do not consider this to be an example of hate speech. These are just people speaking out in defense of their human rights.

Then I think we need another name, because they often are pissed off, even hateful.

I suppose that at second glance, I can see your point. I think that what is going on within my mind is a willingness to see the logic and justice within what these people are doing - their personal freedoms ARE being uprooted and denied them. But I suppose at the same time, as an example, the Southern racist[s] at the time of the riots and the marches, also thought that their personal freedoms were being denied, when for example, African Americans were fighting for the same rights as the white man. But there is a difference. The racist does not see things in a *true* light - only in the light of what he wants to hold onto, so-called white privilege, white supremacy, fear and hatred and continuing to set back the African American and denying him/her what they were always due - no more, no less, than any other human being - all men are created equal insofar as their inalienable rights are concerned.

Tecumseh was in a meeting with some general who kept talking about how violent and irrational the native americans were. So Tecumseh slid closer to the general. The general slid away on a bench and Tecumseh just kept sliding toward him, getting inside his personal space. Finally the general exclaimed in rage. Tecumseh said something like 'Barbarian, primitive'

lol Good for Tecumseh. So very many human beings with whom I would have loved to sit down and have a conversation with. Most of us are capable of things which we might never have dreamed of doing when pushed too far but we do not want to accept this. We believe that we are so good - our halos would never fall off, would never become tarnished.
That is the other side of us on a coin - we revert back to being barbarians and primitives.

No, gossiping can be hateful/full of hate and can do a lot of deliberate damage to the reputations of those it is directed towards.

I meant more...is it OK against whites or men or whomever is or is perceived to be the dominant group?

I think you posed a difficult question to answer ~ at least to me it is. If you are speaking *strictly* about gossiping as *discussion* as venting, as feedback against real injustice which is happening and how to plan legitimate pro-active movements, TO FIGHT EVIL, that CAN be very fruitful, and subjectively speaking, how can one do otherwise?

After glancing at my quote again, it could also refer to and be AGAINST people like the Naziis, racists, anti-Semetics and White Supremacy groups, et cetera so I suppose to my way of thinking, one would have to ask "What is the greatest Good" ~ if that made sense to you ~~ like Nietzche said: "Love is beyond good and evil". Sometimes one needs even four or five glances or even more.

Why? Can you give me an example of *where* it would work and *where* it would not work?

Sure, in the European country I live in now if anyone questions immigration levels, they are labeled racist. It can cost you your teaching position. IOW, for example, there cannot be anyone concerned for economic reasons. If you have a problem with immigration levels, you are racist and your position will not be printed or broadcast
.
Now i can kind of understand how you feel about censorship. It is kind of like living in East Berlin behind the Wall but on the opposite side of that coin if I understand your meaning. Those who question too many immigrants coming in can pay a price (non-monetary). Or am I wrong?

A person does not have to be a racist in order to see how impractical and even dangerous it can be to feel so much humane compassion and sympathy without any thought toward the economy, the state of the nation, consequences to national security. Just opening up those flood gates and allowing anyone and everyone in is akin to allowing strangers to dinner but at the same time allowing your own family to go hungry and to be at risk. Atlas shrugs now and at some point he may just collapse under the weight of it all. His knees already buckle.

And people who were critical of Islam were treated like racists, which makes no sense. Islam is a belief system. It's like treating criticism of the republicans or nazis or democrats as if that is racism. You should be able to say that a religion is a pernicious ideology without being treated as a racist. Other ideologies get treated this way all the time. It is fine to treat fascism or communism t his way, except to the followers of course, because they disagree. But seeing ideologies and belief systems as problematic to dangerous to horrible is not like racism, but it is treated this way.


These are just my unintelligible musings here as I am ignorant (never having learned much at all in the first place about Islam and ISIS certainly does muddy the waters for Islam where there is already so much ignorance/misunderstanding/misinterpretation about it.
I have no idea who these people who are critical of Islam are as you stated. I have what may be an absurd question here. Is it possible that some Muslims do think of their selves in a sense as a separate race? I do realize that Islam is a belief system just as Judaism is but perhaps for these two religions there is much more of spiritual way of life than let us say for Christians. Can this be why speaking against Islam can be considered to be racist for those Muslims who may have that perception? Perception is everything and does form our beliefs and shapes our *realities*. I do not mean to muddy the waters here even more and I am walking down a very dark alley.

What we have no knowledge of and misunderstand we can fear and what we can fear we tend to fill in the gaps with all kinds of imaginings that the mind can conjure up without questioning and investigating.

Could you NOT see that there are some who are against Islam because they ARE racists and that the racist mindset is quite capable of revealing itself?

Do you think that any of the above is conceivable or valid?

Treating everyone as if they should be censored, including racist opinoins and opinions that may or may not have some facet of racism in them as taboo HAS NOT WORKED. There needed to be a public dialogue, where even racist ideas could come out and be faced.

Well, the unemotional logical part of me can certainly agree with this. Everyone needs to be heard. That is freedom of speech but I AM of the mind that ...lol...I stopped for a moment because I have a conflict of goods here. I recognize that all voices ought to be heard but at the same time when and where does a sense of responsibility toward freedom of speech enter in? Can we have the freedom to say whatever we choose ~~ is that necessarily part of our freedom in a democracy, even for a racist? As you can see, it is a gray area for me. But i can see that it is a very slippery slope. If we deny some a voice, before you know it,all voices can eventually be silenced...maybe.

And the racism of immigrants- against each other, against the native population. In my work with immigrants I could see that many were comfortable and certain in their racism in ways Europeans tend not to be. To many Arabs it was a given that blacks and gypsies were inferior. To many in these groups the natives here are cold fascists. This also needs to be aired.

I wonder why. We do see this in certain particular groups or nationalities against each other (not to mention any). Can it be because they actually sub-consciously identify more with one another - like "likes repel"? Or the survival of the fittest/the fight to determine who is the fittest and who is the weakest?

Keeping all this off the table eliminates the ability to actually get to change.

True. If we do not get to air our grievances, they fester like the leprosy of old.
But how simple can it be what with all of the anger, hatred, chauvinism, racism, hard-heartedness, fear of opening up and letting go? What kind of a human being[s] can mediate all of this? Sarek? lol

I don't see the point of the time out and silence. Enforced silence. And that verbal teaching MUST include hearing why the child thinks what they think. Shutting them up, iow censoring them, is not useful. Unless we just want them to behave around us and not change learn be challenged, etc.


I agree with you here, Karpel Tunnel. I am all for open communication and allowing the child his/her voice. Suppressing it would not change it. At the same time, do you not at times give yourself "quiet time" to reflect on what you have heard or learned?

Christians are told to love the enemy, to not hate those who hate you or even inflict great harm on you. But is that even logical?

Logical, maybe, damaging as a rule, absolutely. One of the most damaging ideas we've gotten.


Where is the logic in that for you? I can see what a waste of time it could be in hating someone simply because they hate you but...

There is a lot of self-abuse involved in following the NT and a lot of potential abuse of others in following the OT.


True ~ masochism, mysogeny, homophobia, xenophobia, not to mention living in a fanciful matrix. lol
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users