Comments on: Against ‘Hate Speech’

By: Getting back to roots: How I became a Semite | sydwalker.info

Getting back to roots: How I became a Semite | sydwalker.info — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:36:10 +0000

[...] Against ‘Hate Speech’ [...]

By: Kersasp

Kersasp — Mon, 25 May 2009 09:19:57 +0000

What hit me instantaneously wrt “why don’t we hear of ‘hateful speech’ and ‘hated speech’? Why were these more obvious terms overlooked?” is this: ‘hateful speech’: hateful *to whom*? ‘hated speech’: hated *by whom*? Hateful and hated both imply relativity and objectivity. But ‘hate’ is the absolute and root form of the concept; it is not a derivative word. That word does not raise to consciousness any subjectivity or relativity because no party is implied. The word ‘hate’ is absolute and objective, it exists on its own, and when combined with ‘speech’ it provokes no questions in most minds. I think these are the reasons the term was chosen.

I portend a marriage of sorts (after our generation is gone; these things are incremental). A marriage between the official catchphrase ‘hate speech’ and the unofficial term ‘thought crime’. Their progeny will be ‘hate thought’ (probably punishable by incarceration and death in the dystopia to come). It will be the first bastard birth that is lawfully born.

By: Kersasp

Kersasp — Mon, 25 May 2009 09:18:47 +0000

Very insightful little piece. Re:
–––––––––––––––––
Note 2: A thoughtful person, who helped me appreciate the inherent absurdity of the term ‘hate speech’ before I first wrote this item, provided further insight in subsequent correspondence.
He points out (how did I miss it?) more appropriate terms that might have been chosen in lieu of ‘hate speech’. These are the expressions ‘hateful speech’ and ‘hated speech’. In both cases, a genuine adjective is combined with the noun.
So why don’t we hear of ‘hateful speech’ and ‘hated speech’? Why were these more obvious terms overlooked?
Is it because the ambiguity of ‘hate’ as a faux adjective is useful to those who employ the term ‘hate speech’?
‘Hate speech’ can be construed as speech that’s motivated by hatred – and speech that is hated by others. It can be either – or both. The ambiguity helps sustain the insinuation that speech which is ‘hated’ must necessarily have been motivated by hatred.
–––––––––––––––––
What hit me instantaneously wrt “why don’t we hear of ‘hateful speech’ and ‘hated speech’? Why were these more obvious terms overlooked?” is this: ‘hateful speech’: hateful *to whom*? ‘hated speech’: hated *by whom*? Hateful and hated both imply relativity and objectivity. But ‘hate’ is the absolute and root form of the concept; it is not a derivative word. That word does not raise to consciousness any subjectivity or relativity because no party is implied. The word ‘hate’ is absolute and objective, it exists on its own, and when combined with ‘speech’ it provokes no questions in most minds. I think these are the reasons the term was chosen.

By: sydwalker.info » Blog Archive » A Pictorial Guide to Hate Avoidance

sydwalker.info » Blog Archive » A Pictorial Guide to Hate Avoidance — Sun, 17 May 2009 03:44:25 +0000

[...] Against ‘Hate Speech’ [...]