February 21, 2004
Political Hate Speech
David Neiwert, a freelance journalist based in Seattle, writes about political hate speech and it’s negative effects in an interesting essay on his weblog, Orcinus. It’s definitely worth checking out.
Talk like this has always been around, of course. But what concerns me is the volume and breadth of it. It’s ranging from everyday encounters and e-mails like this to “best-selling” pundits like Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. And I don’t expect it to improve if the Kerry-vs.-Bush poll numbers maintain their current status. Indeed, listening to right-wing talk radio, I’m beginning to detect a real fear, sometimes bubbling up in little frantic moments. This makes them, in my estimation, very dangerous.Posted by Anthony at February 21, 2004 01:06 AM
Fear becomes aggression if not relieved. I learned early in life that the most aggressive were the most afraid, and those who grew up afraid became some of the worst bullies to be found. Hate speech of the 60’s centered around fear of losing jobs to blacks, fear of losing housing to blacks, fear of losing color to blacks, and yes, the ultimate fear, that an underdog might demonstrate more courage, more intelligence, more motivation, more discipline, more success if given half a chance. And if that happened, what would it say of those afraid and bested?
Hate speech is inherently dangerous, it is an announcement that reason and tolerance have failed and only sufficient comradery is necessary to turn that hate into violence. Hate has one goal and one goal only, to eradicate the source of the fear.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2004 02:06 AMDavid:
I agree with your assessment of how hate speech has its roots in fear. I think in many ways it does. I also think that in today’s discourse, the level of discussion has dropped considerably and many people are reduced to hate speech much faster. It seems in this society of microwaving food, e-mail replacing snail mail, and solving major problems within a 30 minute tv show, society has become enamored with speed. And that speed shows up in commentary as well, with people ignoring the rational reasoned discussion and moving immediately into hate speech.
That having been said, I also must add that the term “hate speech” is now over and mis used. It sometimes now simply means speech that one group disagrees with. For example, if a person disagrees with gay marriage, and respectfully and intelligently puts forth a well reasoned thought process, that is sometimes called hate speech. Simple disagreements do NOT constitute true hate speech, yet in our society’s eagerness to neatly categorize everything into a package, disagreements often are touted as hate speech.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2004 07:24 AMJoe, I have yet to hear anyone “respectfully and intelligently” put forth a “well reasoned” argument against gay marriage*, but I agree that anti-gay-marriage arguments are far from hate speech. Hate speech, to me, is when one deliberately uses words to encourage other people to hate. I don’t think most people who oppose gay marriage are *intentionally* trying to oppress gays or to encourage homophobia.
-Cf
* Okay, I have heard one such argument: Michael Kinsley’s argument for the abolition of marriage entirely, gay and straight.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/
christopher:
Surely you could tell from my post that I was using the gay marriage issue only as an example, not as the focal point. The focal point is that many people interject their own opinions into the speech of others, and reach conclusions not in evidence.
For instance, watch what happens when someone puts forth the belief that homosexuality is wrong. The person is branded as either a homophobe or as a hater, and their speech is branded as hate speech. Do you see the conclusion leap there?
In my own opinion, I do not think homosexuality is an appropriate lifestyle. Yet I do not fear nor hate homosexuals. I abhor violence against homosexuals. I do not condone the discrimination of homosexuals. I treat homosexuals in the same manner as I would treat any other person.
Yet, my words would still be branded by some as hate speech. This method trivializes true hate speech.
Last two things: First, hate speech occurs in my mind on both sides of the political spectrum. It is presumed to be a “right wing” tactic, yet I see it from all sides. Second, much of what is called hate speech is simply a differing opinion, given in a reasoned manner. The “hate” is injected by those with an apparent ulterior motive.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2004 05:32 PMIncidentally the tactic is called an Ad Hominem attack.
The rhetoric of violence is certainly not contained to any political persuasion. I seem to recall a rant by Alec Baldwin screaming national television that he should kill congressmen and their families! You’re not hearing anything like that from the right.
I myself have received emails from ‘gentle readers’ who disagreed with me vehemently and forcefully. You might say in a rhetorically violent vein.
Here’s a few more examples to help you out:
Hate speech from the left.
Calling Bush a nazi…
Should I kill Bush?
Kill Bush
Kill Bush quickly
Don’t kill bush for me, do it for Jesus
It drives me nuts how the phrase “hate speech” has been twisted to mean any speech that suggests anger or hatred, whether or not the hatred is directed against someone because of their race, religion, etc. When someone says “I hate Bush” or “Bush is a Nazi”, they are usually referring to (what the they perceive to be) the content of his character, not the fact that he is white, evangelical Christian, or the like. Labelling such a statement hate speech is senseless, the adult equivalent of saying “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 21, 2004 11:54 PM>kill congressmen and their families! You’re not hearing anything like that from the right.
Ann Coulter wrote about “impeachment or assassination” being appropriate for Pres. Clinton.
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 21, 2004 11:58 PMI agree, Woody Mena, hate speech has been grossly misused. I was just trying to point out that the left trys to paint hate speech as only coming from republicans who are ‘fearful and phychologically fragile’. But in fact the left is just as guilty if not more.
In fact the left started using ad hominem attacks by labeling every argument to a liberal cause as hate speech.
Rebublicans propose a cut in the percentage of increase of liberal programs - the argument becomes, “Republicans hate and want to starve children!”
Republicans oppose affirmative action, the response is, “Of course because you’re a rascist!”
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Ad hominem attack.
When someone says “I hate Bush” or “Bush is a Nazi”, they are not making an argument of any sort, they are merely impuning the character of the person. It is a personal attack.
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. WordIQPosted by: Eric Simonson at February 22, 2004 02:56 PM
