Comment on 'Hate-Speech'

It’s not a thing (MLK Jr.)

Martin Luther King Jr. at a speech in the 60s. King wrote extensively on the dialectically simple-though-complex nature of love in his book of sermons  Strength to Love

Martin Luther King Jr. at a speech in the 60s. King wrote extensively on the dialectically simple-though-complex nature of love in his book of sermons Strength to Love

11/16/18, 6:36 pm EST

By John Corry, photo from Atlanta Jewish Times

Main contention: the concept ‘hate’, while an obviously real concept within itself (hate as a noun defined by Meriam-Webster: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury; as a verb: to feel extreme enmity toward to regard with active hostility) is not applicable to the concept ‘speech’ (as ‘hate’ and ‘speech’ imply different thought processes: hate as an avenue toward/from feeling/emotion, speech as an avenue toward/from open mindedness/understanding; the two being not diametrically opposed but more complexly related only going up the ontological ‘scale’), and that to argue otherwise is to actually degrade the concept ‘hate’ into something more resembling mere rhetoric or simplicity, rather than the actual ‘state-of-being’, or whatever, which the concept is meant to represent (the degradation to speech is inherent: Absolute leniency to the more simple concept-as-thought (in this case emotion) destroys any possibility of open mindedness or natural proclivity towards understanding).

“Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think is good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.” –Aristotle, ‘Politics’, translated by Benjamin Jowett

“Hate is rooted in fear, and the only cure for fear–hate–is love.” –MLK Jr.

‘Hate’ ‘speech’ is a thing.

It is a thing, probably most directly, in the sense that people can think with hate, or with a hateful bias, and then export those thoughts or feelings through words.

It is a thing that people act with hate, even live solely through hate, with nothing else dictating their perceptions of the world at all.

And it is a thing in the sense that people are hateful (duh).

But it is not a thing, in itself, as it relates directly to the concept of speech.

‘Hate-speech’ is not a thing.

That Aristotle quote was a starting point (…). Plato also assumed something similar (it’s almost what his whole philosophy was based on), and I would argue that Machiavelli as well had such an assumption, only so strong that he didn’t know what to do with it, given his interest in power and how that works in the-world #ThisCrazyWorld. A lot of people claim that because some of these ancient philosophers were ‘racist’ and ‘misogynistic’ (which, in many cases, they were), and because they owned slaves that they shouldn’t be listened to, but our civilization–however much of a pain this may be–is based just as much around their vices as it is their pros, so that’s redundant. They were there, that happened; we can ignore them and expect about the same result as if we were to ignore a cancer diagnosis. And just because Plato was idiotic in his thoughts on women doesn’t make his cave allegory or his general ontology any less potent.

That kind of thinking puts you…

/>

Still in the cave.

XD

Aristotle, Plato, and most philosophers since (ish), assumed that people act and think in a way congruent with what they find to be ‘good’. There was no debate over whether or not what someone considered ‘good’ was actually ‘bad’; it was an assumed possibility. We all do what we think is good. If what we’re doing is not ‘good’, it’s because our understanding of the concept ‘good’ is skewed. Unless you’re the Joker, of course (to which I say that there aren’t actually that many of those people (kind of the point of those movies (or at least one of them))).

In other words, acting in accordance with the ‘good’ is a state of ‘being’, not simple enough to be justly assumed by what someone says, or even does in any specific moment, as ‘full-action’ (all of the actions a person makes throughout her life, which are quite a lot) involves too many events to be quantified by one action or event (or tweet). Not only that, assuming the ‘good’ to be more in accordance with ‘love’, ‘bliss’ or ‘open-mindedness’ than ‘hate’ or ‘evil’, if there is any merit to the understanding that ‘love’ is something ‘more than words’ #Extreme #Pornograffiti #Nuno, ‘evil’, ‘fear’ and ‘hate’ are no different, as ‘love’ can be considered as just that more complex understanding of the concept ‘good’, just as ‘hate’, ‘fear’ and ‘evil’ are more complex understandings of ‘bad’. For reference: I define ‘hate’ as something in-between ‘evil’ and ‘fear’; it’s the primary fuel for evil, and is primarily fueled by fear–

Which is why ‘hate-speech’, as its own concept (currently assumed by the terrorists on social media and in mainstream news to most closely resemble intellectual violence as an Absolute (which it can’t be /> violence being one of the most, if not the most, primal example of the survival instinct, its encasing in intellectual thought is the most ontologically paradoxical, turning that violence from an Absolute in primacy to a relative in intellect)), is not a real thing.

‘Speech’ is the conflagration of spoken words meant to represent what one is thinking. ‘What one is thinking’ can never be fully put into words–as thought is inherently non-physical (Descartes (and everyone since))–(and hence the potency of metaphor), let alone the context through which ‘thinking’ is made possible: ‘being’.

“Being and time determine each other reciprocally, but in such a manner that neither can the former–Being–be addressed as something temporal nor can the latter–time–be addressed as a being.” –Martin Heidegger, Being and Time

‘Thinking’ is a combination of the inherently individual thought process we know as ‘reason’ with the assumption–and the points that assumption makes about ‘the world’, or ‘reality’ (perspective)–of the existence of other individuals equally opportune to use this faculty. It can be ‘represented’ in many ways: ‘speech’ is one, metaphor is another, so is argument, ‘art’, and dialectic. Given what we know about the nature of consciousness (that it exists in space and time, and that it ‘thinks’ (or can at least formulate the capacity to)), ‘thinking’ is also a state of ‘being’, or at least may have something directly to do with a kind of ‘conscious-being’.

Which makes ‘speech’ simply too simple to be directly attached to any more complex indictment on consciousness #SimplyTooSimply.

Is hatred something which can be expressed in a just manner by mere speech? Speech is a rather simple way of getting your thoughts out to the world, and nobody is going to claim that things get easier when people do that (xD). That’s why we have governments and other institutions to try to mitigate the calamity (,|,). The part in that Aristotle quote, where the state and/or political community “aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good,” is particularly useful here, as he’s essentially saying that without some kind of “center” (like ‘speech’–a noun–different from ‘talk’, a verb (conceptually)) through which people talk their thoughts, chaos ensues; and not only that, but, worse (intellectually speaking), misunderstanding.

In fact, what I find the ‘hate-speech’ which most people reference in determination to simply point a finger is actually the much more justified… ‘stupid speech’. If anything: ‘hate’ is simply ‘stupid’ before it is anything else. Or is it ‘bad’ first? Is it ignorant, or is it dishonest? Moreover, when somebody does or says something stupid, is it because of their race or their gender that they may being stupid? Or is it because they’re… simply stupid??? Which matters more? Which is ontologically "“higher”, or more complex? Is there any aspect of this which may be considered, through a certain sense followed from a different dialectical path, through recognizing ourselves as an equally important third party (perspective) (Bohr)? There is hatred and there is stupidity, but it does come down to me to define those terms, or to accept other definitions of them. And which matters more: simple people or the things which people ‘are’? Like hateful, angry, white, woman of color, or whatever else?

In other words: which describes ‘me’ better: the content of my character or the color of my skin?

Hatred is embalmed in people’s psyches the same way evil is /> inherently. If people have the capacity for ‘good’, then they have the capacity for ‘evil’, but just as no person willingly goes against what she believes to be ‘good’, no person is trying to be evil, or hateful. Once again: the understanding is just skewed (probably because they keep being told that it’s possible to be ‘hateful’ through mere speech and speech alone (…)). But what is the difference between hatred and evil? As the in-action understanding of the term, hatred is more nuanced. Therefore the only way to battle it is through exactly what MLK Jr. thought:

Love #MoreThanWords #Extreme #Nuno #NunoBettencourt #ThatSoloTho.

Words and arguments can only do so much: the dichotomy between hate and love is complicated. To give an example, and I get that this may be tough, but I think we’ll be okay by the end (…): why does the trans community put such a potentially all-powerful emphasis on words-over-people? I understand that some piece of shit not calling you what you prefer to be called totally sucks and is what makes that person a piece of shit–we agree–but is ignoring the potency of that love-hate dynamic, and pretending, even forcing other people to believe, that it can be fully represented by abstract connection (emotion-to-though process) (rather than personal, or even by a law, really the way to go about changing that piece of shit’s mind? Or, more importantly, for preventing them from forming in the future?

Nobody likes to be told how to think, but if they can’t recognize that nobody likes to be told how to think (or: ‘Be’), why give this person the time of day? Why should you care what they think? Especially if all it does is provoke anger or resentment? (Not to say that that’s the only reason people are ever doing this, only that any amount of provoked anger or resentment is too much). And if they raise their kids to be pieces of shit, are those kids at all likely to see through the muck? Is it possible? Is ‘fighting’ any more potent than ‘understanding’, so long as one remembers that no one can understand everything? Will those ‘pieces of shit kids’ have any easier of a time not being a piece of shit whilst being told that their parents are ABSOLUTE pieces of shit–because their thoughts cannot be fully quantified by their speech?

‘Hate speech’ is a rhetorical term created from an ignorance of history (what thought, hate, speech, identity, and consciousness (maybe) are)), and only useful as the result of an offset of a misconceived logical predetermination of the dialectical relationships between fact and emotion, individual and society, thought and identity, etc., and which would need to be rectified in order to make any logical sense. It might exist as a ploy, or indirectly, but as it pertains to ‘reality’ (conscious human perception) it does not exist in itself /> and nor should we want it to, as that would degrade the concepts ‘hate’ and ‘speech’ to mere hyperboles.

You have the right to call out someone for being a piece of shit. The existence of, or the reliance on, any type of concept resembling ‘hate-speech’ is to destroy that right, as the concept is predicated on a simplification of reality to the extent that any ‘rights’ become mere words without meanings, any ‘emotion’ mere subjugation without understanding, and any potentiality for understanding void of the possibility for unity with any other understanding (which is the whole point of ‘understanding’ (to connect dots)). Times are hard and emotions are strong, but that’s no reason to arbitrarily substitute anger and reactionary, indeed just, hatred for your simple right to tell an asshole she’s an asshole.

That’s love’s job–

That MLK Jr. quote was an ending point (…).