Venting Examining Emotion & Political Correctness

[GideonVandaleur]

How come there's a concept of hate crime floating around but no concept of love crimes? The day they invent a law against self-loathing I'm completely fucked. Anyway, people who are obsessed with love annoy me because I think the over focus on love is turning their brains to mush. All the world needs is more love and less hate and then everything will be fucking great.

The problem of course is that none of these love spastics has realized that the more love you create the more hate is created in order to balance things out. Love and hate are basically different sides to the same emotional coin and you can't expand one side of the coin without expanding the other.

Making hate an illegal crime doesn't work because the justification for it is linear nonsense. Hate will lead to violence and violence will lead to genocide. That's such oversimplified drivel. First of all, that's not where the sequence starts, it starts with fear that then get's converted to hate. Second of all, people doing the genociding aren't doing it because they hate people, you can't really hate whom you don't really know. People aren't hating the accurate representation of say a brown middle easterner; They're hating the propaganda version of what they think a brown middle easterner is.

It's got more to do with business, acquiring resources, and power. And anyway, How exactly do they know that genocide isn't committed because of people's love of power? That's right, genocide can be a love crime. Are we going to make the emotion of love illegal too? That wouldn't work either. Maybe we should have fear crime instead of hate crime; That way we'd have something to get the fear mongering media on. Clearly there's more to solving world issues than policing emotion and language. Like developing an environment where behavior that's based on logic, reason, ethics, and morality is rewarded instead of shunned for example.

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

They want hate crime because the 1990s kumbaya Al gore utopia people imagined for themselves is failing.

Reality is harsh. There are legitimate reasons for hate. It's acceptable and normal to hate. I hate Islam and Christianity and those who follow it for being liars. No matter what law is passed I will always feel free to hate people that tells lies on that scale.

I'm just glad I'm not european or Chinese . It must be very stifling to live in a no free speech society

 

[Chinaski]

Al gore utopia

The what now?

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

The what now?

There was a certain political consensus that was popular in the 1990s and it has remained to this day. The ideology is that we would move into some kind of High tech egalitarian society and all sing kumbaya . It was very popular and still is quite popular in many western nations.

The political reality of the last 20 years has thoroughly debunked this ideology. Most of the world is actually backsliding in key metrics and things are reverting to tribalism in the rich countries.

A big reason the governments want hate speech laws is they are still trying to force this unviable theoretical "utopia".

 

[Al Cappella]

I've seen mosquito netting with fewer holes than this line of whatever that was…

 

[RainAndSadness]

A big reason the governments want hate speech laws is they are still trying to force this unviable theoretical "utopia".

Maybe. But maybe they just exist to protect marginalised people from abuse and harassement. People who complain about hate speech ususally aren't affected by cruel and targeted speech that invalidate their existence on a very fundamental level. And most of that speech enables actual physical violence. And I can tell you as a trans person that we have to endure incredibly hateful rhetoric every single day. We get treated like animals or pests outside of regulated and protected spaces - you can see a glimmer of that online where these laws don't get enforced as much. You can't even fathom the dehumanizing treatment we have to endure constantly in the internet. The internet is vicious and extremely destructive to minorities like us due to lack of regulation and laws. We have to deal with systemic discrimination every single day in real life, receiving the same hatred online can push people over the edge. It's really frustrating when you can't escape the constant pressure. Many of us use the internet to escape the hostile enviroment in our society but we have to stay in safe spaces and protect ourselves to stay sane. If you're openly trans on the internet, you'll get shit for no reason. Existing is enough to piss some people off that will lash out against you in ways you don't even know yet.

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

Maybe. But maybe they just exist to protect marginalised people from abuse and harassement. People who complain about hate speech ususally aren't affected by cruel and targeted speech that invalidate their existence on a very fundamental level. And most of that speech enables actual physical violence. And I can tell you as a trans person that we have to endure incredibly hateful rhetoric every single day. We get treated like animals or pests outside of regulated and protected spaces - you can see a glimmer of that online where these laws don't get enforced as much. You can't even fathom the dehumanizing treatment we have to endure constantly in the internet. The internet is vicious and extremely destructive to minorities like us due to lack of regulation and laws. We have to deal with systemic discrimination every single day in real life, receiving the same hatred online can push people over the edge. It's really frustrating when you can't escape the constant pressure. Many of us use the internet to escape the hostile enviroment in our society but we have to stay in safe spaces and protect ourselves to stay sane. If you're openly trans on the internet, you'll get shit for no reason. Existing is enough to piss some people off that will lash out against you in ways you don't even know yet.

If we pass hate speech laws there is no way for us to criticize the Muslims and the Christians who are the biggest threat to the trans.

One law I sort of agree with is hate crime, but I don't agree with hate speech. I can get behind hate crime laws because it's a good way to further throw the book at convicted criminals.

 

[novem]

First let's define hate and love.
English is not my native language and I am not American. That is why i see fallacy in this term.
What you call hate is comprised of two emotions: disgust and competition.
Love can be interpreted as sexual attraction or as wanting to give or cooperate.

If my assumptions above are correct, than what they call hate in American culture is just competition fueled by disgust.
When you say

"the more love you create the more hate is created in order to balance things out"

it means the more one group cooperates together the more the other disgusted group is disgusted and tries to compete.
This proves that you are correct in your statement.

 

[Al Cappella]

If we pass hate speech laws there is no way for us to criticize the Muslims and the Christians who are the biggest threat to the trans.

One law I sort of agree with is hate crime, but I don't agree with hate speech. I can get behind hate crime laws because it's a good way to further throw the book at convicted criminals.

That's completely inaccurate. Canada has hate speech laws, and I'm completely free to criticize Islam and Christianity all I want. What I can't do is target a group of people for violence, or claim they're inferior (pick your pejorative here) en masse or individually with the sole reason being they belong to a particular ethnic group, gender, affiliation—whatever.

Now what's happened is you get these dog-whistle tactics that claim speech is being curtailed or squashed, calling efforts at inclusion/diversity political correctness or, these days, woke.

 

[Chinaski]

If we pass hate speech laws there is no way for us to criticize the Muslims and the Christians who are the biggest threat to the trans.

One law I sort of agree with is hate crime, but I don't agree with hate speech. I can get behind hate crime laws because it's a good way to further throw the book at convicted criminals.

Wait so hate speech is to be tolerated because it protects trans people, are you serious here, what the fuck is this website

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

Wait so hate speech is to be tolerated because it protects trans people, are you serious here, what the fuck is this website

Hate speech is to be tolerated always.

That's completely inaccurate. Canada has hate speech laws, and I'm completely free to criticize Islam and Christianity all I want. What I can't do is target a group of people for violence, or claim they're inferior (pick your pejorative here) en masse or individually with the sole reason being they belong to a particular ethnic group, gender, affiliation—whatever.

Now what's happened is you get these dog-whistle tactics that claim speech is being curtailed or squashed, calling efforts at inclusion/diversity political correctness or, these days, woke.

Laws about inciting violence have been on the books for a long time. We don't need new ones. If I can't say Muslims and Christians are inferior because they spread fake news , that's an example of an Orwellian system. If someone tells a lie and you can't say it's a lie, that's straight up Orwell.

Inclusion and diversity aren't always desirable or necessary if you want a stable civilization. There are some groups who are not able to play well with others. Much better they are ostracized and kept where they belong.

Examples:
Pedophiles
Muslims - for denial of basic biological and scientific facts critical to the functioning of a modern nation state
Christians - same as for Muslims
Fundamentalist conservatives

But again, all of this is really theoretical. Your 1990s Al gore kumbaya worldview is failing more and more by the day. And there won't be a damn thing you'll be able to do about it once the remaining oil wells deplete :). With every tick up in the price of crude your apartheid western false utopias slip further and further away.

 

[Al Cappella]

inclusion and diversity aren't always desirable or necessary if you want a stable civilization. There are some groups who are not able to play well with others. Much better they are ostracized and kept where they belong.

…and that risks simply showing you're bigoted. And bigotry is just really weak, in my opinion.

as for pedophiles, true, no one's going to say anything if you go about saying they need to be fed into wood chippers, you'd be pretty safe. Does it make you noble? Probably not.

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

…and that risks simply showing you're bigoted. And bigotry is just really weak, in my opinion.

as for pedophiles, true, no one's going to say anything if you go about saying they need to be fed into wood chippers, you'd be pretty safe. Does it make you noble? Probably not.

Please Start betting out on world peace erupting out in the Middle East tomorrow. Take all the puts you can on oil dropping to the floor.

Some groups of people do not get along. Serious people understand this. Intelligence agencies and geopolitical planners understand this. That's life. If you haven't realized it by now, I can't help you.

I'm bigoted against people who lie and tell me the earth is 6000 years old. If telling the truth makes me a bigot, I'm a bigot.

 

[Al Cappella]

Please Start betting out on world peace erupting out in the Middle East tomorrow. Take all the puts you can on oil dropping to the floor.

Some groups of people do not get along. Serious people understand this. Intelligence agencies and geopolitical planners understand this. That's life. If you haven't realized it by now, I can't help you.

I'm bigoted against people who lie and tell me the earth is 6000 years old. If telling the truth makes me a bigot, I'm a bigot.

Firstly, I'm not arguing that religion is, well ideal. I don't care for religions much. And even if I did, you could still have any go you want, no problem. Slagging an entire group of people (except pedophiles) is just ignorant. And your Middle East example is grossly reductionist—it's a hugely complex issue that does not boil down to just "Muslim".

And of course not all groups get along, I'm not daft. But so what? I'm not in the Middle East. But when a Muslim comes to Canada, I'm welcoming, as long as they obey the laws here. Same if you're trans, have different eyes, different customs—doesn't matter.

Fact is, more than one Muslim has come to Canada to escape the very Middle East you're talking about. And yes, there are Neanderthal dickheads chirping on about Canada turning to Shariah law or some such rubbish.

An enlightened society is inclusive, because it's actually good for that society.

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

Firstly, I'm not arguing that religion is, well ideal. I don't care for religions much. And even if I did, you could still have any go you want, no problem. Slagging an entire group of people (except pedophiles) is just ignorant. And your Middle East example is grossly reductionist—it's a hugely complex issue that does not boil down to just "Muslim".

And of course not all groups get along, I'm not daft. But so what? I'm not in the Middle East. But when a Muslim comes to Canada, I'm welcoming, as long as they obey the laws here. Same if you're trans, have different eyes, different customs—doesn't matter.

Fact is, more than one Muslim has come to Canada to escape the very Middle East you're talking about. And yes, there are Neanderthal dickheads chirping on about Canada turning to Shariah law or some such rubbish.

An enlightened society is inclusive, because it's actually good for that society.

You can have an inclusive society , but what you cannot have is a society that puts up with religious rubbish and pandering in the institutions.

For example , you can see many cases in France where Muslims attacked school teachers for telling the truth about the religion.
Not that this is only a Muslim thing - in US the bigger problem is the evangelicals from the dominant culture.

There should be no pandering to religion in public education or discourse. If you start passing laws that put offended religious people and their feelings above the truth, you're headed for civilizational disaster. That's how you end up with a George bush or a trump.

Muslims when they move to non Muslim countries do often start enforcing shariah law. In some countries they even set up their own parallel court systems - it's happened in the UK for example. Many right wing politicians overstate this to appeal to a domestic Christian base but it does happen.

 

[Al Cappella]

You can have an inclusive society , but what you cannot have is a society that puts up with religious rubbish and pandering in the institutions.

For example , you can see many cases in France where Muslims attacked school teachers for telling the truth about the religion.
Not that this is only a Muslim thing - in US the bigger problem is the evangelicals from the dominant culture.

There should be no pandering to religion in public education or discourse. If you start passing laws that put offended religious people and their feelings above the truth, you're headed for civilizational disaster. That's how you end up with a George bush or a trump.

Muslims when they move to non Muslim countries do often start enforcing shariah law. In some countries they even set up their own parallel court systems - it's happened in the UK for example. Many right wing politicians overstate this to appeal to a domestic Christian base but it does happen.

I don't have any problem with any of that. In my world there'd be no dogma, regardless of where it comes from.

 

[GideonVandaleur]

Wow it didn't take very long for this thread to spin completely out of control. There is so much to unpack here and I don't have the breath to even begin.

 

[odradek]

Wow it didn't take very long for this thread to spin completely out of control. There is so much to unpack here and I don't have the breath to even begin.

Don't be coy now, this thread started out of control by design.