Monday November 11, 2019
'Gauging ‘Hatred’
In normal times, bemusement would be the typical response to a story like this, but these are far from normal, or rather usual times. Speaking via text on social networks has become fraught with confused misunderstanding. Particularly galling is being censored or silenced for “hatefulness.”
Given the ambiguity of inexact phrasing, this is a somewhat arbitrary, messy standard to determine. Some writers are acerbic, trenchant and censorious, me being one of them. How is it possible to resent the transgressions of propagandists and disseminators of lies without disdain? Do you say ‘please don’t do that’ when you have zero respect for their intellect and undertakings? Possessing a justified contempt for these deliberate liars does one need sugarcoat a remonstration? Furthermore, does such an objection actually constitute hatred? It is a source of disquietude for adept writers everywhere.
I observe many examples of statements that are clearly hatred (enmity, extreme dislike, antipathy, loathing) but yet they stand. Is this because they haven’t been reported, or is it attributable to the mindlessness of some algorithm that’s missed its programming to flag key-words, or moreover are certain users targeted for extra scrutiny. I know the latter is a plausible likelihood, and if anything more feasible.
The resultant mediocrity of this dumbed down criteria compels one to not write at all. I can tell you quite honestly and earnestly, what I hate is hate. It is the only thing I hate. For hatred can undermine and destroy you. To be accused of such abominable beliefs is a wretched libel and a demeaning diminishment of character. The irony is that that diminution is precisely the action motivating a harsh retort or refutation. To be accused of hatred by social medium platforms that countenance liars is sordid, insulting and a great disservice to all humankind. Surely it is easily more accurate to discern a lie than hatred, although a writer can be mistaken when asserting non-axiomatic facts, such as anecdotes.
What is passion for truth and honesty? Buddhism professes to “show respect for even the contemptible.” But that admonition pertains to real life (face-to face) interactions. This conduct is to maintain ahimsa and to effect no future karma. That is very noble, but it is also very idealistic. and unrealistic lest one be ensconced in a monastery.
And what of Jesus the Christ, the so called Prince of Peace. Allegedly the man that epitomized magnanimity and compassion was not reluctant to be forcefully angry, (righteous indignation) so much was his contempt for hypocrites, ostentatious vain pretenders of piety, and liars and thieves. Liars are doubly thieves of honesty. Regardless of the sermonesque didactic segue, it is pertinent to this argument.
Perhaps the crux of this examination is that political correctness is a strident reduction of free expression that stifles descriptive prose which results in a fatal sense of futility. Thusly, precious words fall away from their meanings: the very infraction that warranted a stern “hateful” rebuttal in the first place. Please do tell me of a polite way to inform someone that they are a destructive liar of venality, selling deceit to the malleable and gullible, indeed the innocent and undiscerning. I trust you can see the dilemma.
“These are the times that trouble
mankind's souls.” Thomas Paine
https://tinyurl.com/55ro9a4g ←a salient
example
Trump was the greatest threat to U.S. democracy. Now it may be Tucker Carlson
Tucker Carlson Is Stirring Up Hatred of America
Fox News host Tucker Carlson tells interviewer: ‘I lie’
Tucker Carlson Melts Into A Zombie On The New Republic’s Damning Cover
Bill Kristol: Buttigieg entitled to call Tucker Carlson a 'repulsive bigot'
New Republic
Acosta poses question to Fox News owners: Why are you doing this to us?