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
