Redefining Hate Speech
I encourage all conservatives to scream out "hate speech" anytime a leftist screams "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever. The more quickly we can redefine hate speech as any ad hominem attack, the sooner we can force the conversation to our winning side, the issues.
Leftists assert that anything they disagree with is 'hate speech'. Probably because it is all t hey have and it has worked so well on people not educated on 'street' wisdom. (i.e privileged white people). However, street wise people know that it is just a hustle, plain and simple. As such, allow me to propose a much more workable definition of hate speech.
I propose that 'hate speech' be defined as "the ascription to another person, the insinuation that their point of view is motivated by malicious intention". And of course, all ad hominem attackes are just that and nothing but that. People will always disagree with one another. Heck, even people who agree on most everything will disagree on some things. If another person is allowed to grant themselves the privilege or authority to shout down another person because they personally choose to judge that other person's point of view as being motivated by hate, this society is not long for this world.
I have no problem with another person addressing me in a manner that says "I presume that your point of view is motivated by a desire to achieve a superior result but I believe it is erroneous in its conclusions and therefore, I disagree that it is the optimum path forward". However, if another person screams at me and doesn't insinuate, but outright charges me with being a hateful person because they are so smart that they know that any point of view that challenges theirs is motivated by hate, then ultimately, it will end in blood. Two can play that game.
If the left continues to attempt to shut down the right with violence claiming we are motivated by hate, our response is going to be "Although I don't attribute your actions to hate, I do attribute them to extreme ignorance. Regardless, I will not allow you to shut me down just because you are ignorant. And if it comes to it, I will take you out before I will submit"
The only way to disagree with one another with an amicable outcome is to demand that both sides speak with the assumption that both sides are motivated by a desire for a superior outcome and that any ad homenim attacks are hate speech, pure and simple.
It is interesting that every single thing coming out of the mouths of the LSM and Hollywood is ad hominem attacks. Not a single word speaking to the issues. If we have the courage, we can win the argument that all ad hominem attacks are hate speech and that we as half the population will no longer accept having our motivations attacked. If we do this, every disagreement will have to begin with the assumption that we both seek the best solution and that the only conversation must focus on the merits of each other's proposal and that any degradation to insult and malicious motivation simply will no longer be allowed.
Leftists assert that anything they disagree with is 'hate speech'. Probably because it is all t hey have and it has worked so well on people not educated on 'street' wisdom. (i.e privileged white people). However, street wise people know that it is just a hustle, plain and simple. As such, allow me to propose a much more workable definition of hate speech.
I propose that 'hate speech' be defined as "the ascription to another person, the insinuation that their point of view is motivated by malicious intention". And of course, all ad hominem attackes are just that and nothing but that. People will always disagree with one another. Heck, even people who agree on most everything will disagree on some things. If another person is allowed to grant themselves the privilege or authority to shout down another person because they personally choose to judge that other person's point of view as being motivated by hate, this society is not long for this world.
I have no problem with another person addressing me in a manner that says "I presume that your point of view is motivated by a desire to achieve a superior result but I believe it is erroneous in its conclusions and therefore, I disagree that it is the optimum path forward". However, if another person screams at me and doesn't insinuate, but outright charges me with being a hateful person because they are so smart that they know that any point of view that challenges theirs is motivated by hate, then ultimately, it will end in blood. Two can play that game.
If the left continues to attempt to shut down the right with violence claiming we are motivated by hate, our response is going to be "Although I don't attribute your actions to hate, I do attribute them to extreme ignorance. Regardless, I will not allow you to shut me down just because you are ignorant. And if it comes to it, I will take you out before I will submit"
The only way to disagree with one another with an amicable outcome is to demand that both sides speak with the assumption that both sides are motivated by a desire for a superior outcome and that any ad homenim attacks are hate speech, pure and simple.
It is interesting that every single thing coming out of the mouths of the LSM and Hollywood is ad hominem attacks. Not a single word speaking to the issues. If we have the courage, we can win the argument that all ad hominem attacks are hate speech and that we as half the population will no longer accept having our motivations attacked. If we do this, every disagreement will have to begin with the assumption that we both seek the best solution and that the only conversation must focus on the merits of each other's proposal and that any degradation to insult and malicious motivation simply will no longer be allowed.
Comments
Post a Comment