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
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 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.
So, it is hate only at minority groups? How do we determine if an attack on Israel’s policies is anti-semitic?
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.
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.
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)
[tab][/tab]
[b]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]
[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.[/b]
I think that the words in many cases would determine the intent, would you not agree with that?
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.
Can you give me an example of this from history?
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.
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.
Why? Can you give me an example of where it would work and where it would not work?
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 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?
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.
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.
Then I think we need another name, because they often are pissed off, even hateful.
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’
I meant more…is it OK against whites or men or whomever is or is perceived to be the dominant group?
INdividual politicians would be fine in my book. Their acts, policies, statements…
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.
You’'ll need to make an argument here. I know Hitler said many terrible things.
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.
Logical, maybe, damaging as a rule, absolutely. One of the most damaging ideas we’ve gotten.
There is a lot of self-abuse involved in following the NT and a lot of potential abuse of others in following the OT.
[b]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]
[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.[/b]
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.
I tend to see fear as a strong emotion and it can be a valuable human tool albeit also a detrimental destructive one.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 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?
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…
True ~ masochism, mysogeny, homophobia, xenophobia, not to mention living in a fanciful matrix. lol
[/tab]