slug.com slug.com
31 7

How do you know if someone is projecting "hate" or "just venting"?

Anger and outrage seems to be at a post-millennial high... is it a sign of "hate" or "venting"? Does it matter if the statements are based on truth? Is one more dangerous than the other? Are actions of groups and protesters on the Left considered differently from those on the Right?

Admin 8 July 2
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

31 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

18

IN THE 90's... we seemed headed for great progress when it came to marriage equality, for race relations, for sex and gender issues. The pace of progress was slow but steady. Political opposites could debate and still remain friends. More compromise was inserted into political debate and the country seemed more even keel. There was always an element of identity politics. Even as someone on the progressive left I could admit to that but it was not at the same level--nowhere near where it is now.

Before 2014-ish the LGBT community was mostly interested in marriage equality and employment non-discrimination. We were more focused on showing the world that there was no difference between gay families and straight families and absolutely eschewed the idea of pedophilia and pedophiles in the community. Pedophiles weren't called "MAPS" and we rejected the connection between them and gay males. There was no QAII+ added to the configuration. In fact, "queer" was a slur. Prior to 2013 if you called a masculine lesbian "him" that would have been an insult. If you referred to a feminine gay man as a "she" that was an insult.

Then things changed. It happened around the time of Gamergate. Suddenly everyone was bisexual and genderfluid and it became cool to be part of the LGBT. We added "Q" then "A" then "I" then another "I" and then +. The order may be wrong but you get my point.

Seemingly overnight Cancel Culture was born and we began to tell people that how they used language was not only wrong but it ought to be illegal due to microaggressions. "Cis" got added without anyone arguing it, it just suddenly was in every type of media. If you didn't agree to all of this you were a homophobe, a transphobe, and a Nazi.

Around the same time BLM with Deray McKesson and Shaun King started to equate police brutality with racism. Not just racism in the police but racism in everyone. It couldn't POSSIBLY be because authoritarians go into the police force the way corrupted sellouts go into politics. No--America was super racist. Just because all the top entertainers that year were POCs doesn't mean white people like black people. Just because we elected a black president doesn't mean we weren't racist. We were racist and if we didn't believe we were racist then we were super racist. THAT was the tipping point, in my opinion, for the return to racial hostility AND for the "favorability" rating for the LGBT community to be down for the first time in a decade.

You simply cannot accuse someone of something and expect them to not protest. You cannot tell them that their protest is a sign of guilt. You cannot say that their internal dialogue is equal to external abuse and expect them to still like you.

Race relations are going backwards thanks to this attitude and quite frankly I am having a difficulty looking at this national tantrum and still having positive feelings towards BLM and the LGBT community. I think the BLM organization acts a lot like the mafia in how they extort funds out of people. I think GLAAD's treatment of JK Rowling looks a lot like the Gestapo. I woke up one day and no longer believe in any of the groups I used to belong to because if you don't ACT ethically and morally it makes no different what your goals are.

You cannot get to good ends with bad means.

So this long, LONG response is really a meandering walk through my own mind to answer your question. Most people are venting. They are venting because suddenly no matter what they do, if they don't capitulate entirely they're labeled the worst sort of person. They are seeing people get away with behavior that they couldn't get away with. They are angry because the media and social media are hypocritical and enabling violence and aggression under the flag of "peaceful protests."

The cure to racism, sexism, and homophobia isn't to make cis white males (and females) second class citizens. You'll just end up in the same spot in another 50-60 years only with differnt people in the protest marches. The cure is repentance and forgiveness, consistency and morality.

Thank you for sharing this. Your post contains nothing but good sense and humanity. Nils Carborundum.

Well said. I think if BLM really car3d about blacks, rather than power, it would address the obscene levels of black-on-black gang and drug violence killing thousands, rather than the 10 unarmed blacks killed by police in 2019.

In 2016, BLM stopped the Toronto Pride parade, supposedly, to protest the treatment of young blacks by the LGBT community in Canada’s most progressive city. So why didn’t they stop the city’s other big parade, Carabanna, which celebrates the homophobic Caribbean culture of countries like Jamaica, where young black gay people are openly persecuted, beaten and murdered? The incident reveals the true intentions of BLM.

Thank you for this commentary. You give me hope. And, I can't lie, I have been losing my hopefulness in recent weeks.

Great comment!

I think we are so sensitized because of how much online media consumption we all get daily. I feel like I wouldn’t know what you were referring to above if it wasn’t for all of that similar language that I see online. In my real, daily life I’m not confronted with this sort of obvious pressure that the internet relays to us. Ok I was born in 1996 so I was at the tail end of a phone-free culture, but I would like to say that prior to the daily dose of internet addiction (blame cell phones) my real life was my real life and using any sort of video game or online application put me in a bubble (GameCube, Wii etc.) Now I feel like its the other way around, where if I am on my phone I know way too much, see too much and think too much and it all feels so REAL. My daily real life sans cell phone feels like the bubble, where if I don’t look at my phone for the whole day, the only event I could tell you about is whether or not its raining or sunny (this is an exaggeration but you get the point.) Instagram came out when I was a freshman in high school, which would have been around 2011 and around the same time I got my first IPhone. Prior to 2011, I was still using a sliding QWERTY keyboard cell phone and the only game I had on it was this pinball game. It’s interesting that you mention that prior to 2014 stuff was still relatively slow but progressing. But once instagram hit and people at school started figuring out that the number of likes on their pictures must mean how popular they were, stuff started moving really fast. The internet has shown me amazing things but terrible things too... and might be moving us at a speed we can’t keep up with.

You consider yourself to be on the progressive left? You seem so... reasonable! Pleased to meet you!

@DaveO276 Used to be. I was in ANSWER and protested the wars, Code Pink, Greenpeace and Sierra Club, ate vegan, protested the G8-20 and IMF, canvassed for marriage equality, and held an Obama house party--I could go on but yep, that was me.

12

The word “hate” has been weaponized to shut down free speech.

Anything short of incitement to violence must be permitted in a free society. The best example — and today’s woke mob is completely ignorant of this — is the 1977 US Supreme Court ruling that allowed a march by members of the US Nazi party through the village of Skokie, Illinois. Not only is the thought of Nazis marching in public sickening, the parade was planned for a neighbourhood that was home to a large Jewish community and included survivors of the Holocaust. Was this hateful? Most certainly. But the America of more than 40 years ago placed a higher value on the principle of freedom, and that real freedom must be universal, even for the most despicable citizens imaginable.

The Skokie decision was shocking. But it was correct.

If we are to survive, we must stop submitting to the woke-progressive use of the word “hate”. The answer to the question, therefore, is that hate, while distasteful and ever hurtful, must not be outlawed. Criticize it, refute it, or mock it. But without it, true freedom cannot exist.

GeeMac Level 8 July 2, 2020
11

I think words are important. I think a thing should be called what it is. Hate speech is free speech. It is enshrined in The Constitution and all discussion about it begins and ends with the words,”Congress shall make no law...”

There is no wiggle room here. If you pretend to support free speech, BUT...” you don‘t believe in free speech. You are a liar, and at some point, sooner rather than later, you will become a propagandist and a censor.

This question is based on that lie, the notion that there is a spectrum of permissibility, and that some speech deserves, even requires that we give it special treatment, and that we can mystically intuit the motives of the speaker. “Just venting? OK, that’s cool. Oops, wait a sec: you just started hating. Sorry, gotta shut you down.”

I’m good with Ann Coulter’s definition: hate speech is anyone telling the truth about the left and the implications of their policies.

The English language is a beautiful thing. When used as intended, it is the most potent weapon ever devised in the cause of clarity, honesty, and its ability to describe with precision ideas and objects. Keep your fucking grubby paws off it.

9

I think this question could be worded better. Left-wing outbursts are the result of unexamined, unfocused anger. Few things piss me off more than people who do not focus their anger toward the source - toward those who deserve it. Those people who 'kick the dog' (an action that should be punishable by death) and what those who belong to certain generations would call 'taking it out on the kids' are unrefined low level thinkers.

The Left tweaks their constituents by preying on their (and most people's) inherent frustrations and feelings of inadequacy and then pivoting toward the White House and saying 'that guy is the cause of all your problems.'

Because the Left has been raised to learn not 'how' to think, but instead learn 'what' to think, this works.

I cannot remember if it was Gutfeld or Tucker who posed the idea that once the Left gets everything that they want (that they think they want) the world does not just go back to normalcy. These people have been cultivated for a dog fight. They are not all of the sudden going to turn into happy little pooches once they get ice cream for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Righteous anger is the antithesis of fear.

The Left puts imaginary obstacles in front of themselves to excuse their own inadequacies and pretends that 'these are the reasons' they can't do their homework. They don't understand that life is not fair.

The Right gets mad when unnecessary obstacles are put in their way because they want to do their homework, but there is a kid in the classroom who keeps crapping in his pants and nobody can get any work done.

RAZE Level 7 July 2, 2020

Once the Left have everything they want, they will also have everything they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will be stuck with it also. Pretty much what happened after every communist revolution.

7

Real simple, adults apologize for venting, recognizing that it is just emotional release not actually directed at the people around them.

Children scream their hate and are PROUD of it. No apologies, no understanding for the people around them at the time, just spewage.

Wouldn’t you say it always has to be a mix of both though? Children and adults?

5

hate and anger are closely related to one another. I believe when someone is angry they are likely feeling hate in their heart and mind toward the object of their anger. The problem with hate and anger is that they block out all other emotions - at least temporarily. I believe there are varying levels of anger - anger can and often does morph into rage and rage is expressed in destructive action. Hate on the other hand can be very stealthy - it can be omnipresent in a persons heart and mind yet go unexpressed - unseen by others. I will use an old computer tech expression - TSR - stands for Terminate Stay Resident. Some programs can be stopped or closed but they remain "resident" for rapid execution when called upon. Hate can be like that.
People who hate also are very good at rationalizing it - describing their hate as something else - because Hate is such an unflattering trait no one ever willingly accepts it as resident in their own heart and mind.
I think it is possible to Hate without acting on it - Anger/Rage is at the very least a temporary expression of Hate toward whoever or whatever it is that triggered the anger in the first place.

Human beings are also capable of self hate and self anger.

iThink Level 9 July 2, 2020
4

Stop buying into their narrative. Their anger is the result of nobody ever telling them they're supposed to eventually kinda take minimum slight loses. Send them to Mexico for 3 months without access to their first-world resources so they are forced to live by Mexican standards, and you should be fine.

A1fredo Level 8 July 2, 2020

@dd54 I've lots of space in my own house 😉 I was ready for y'all by yesterday!

@dd54 DuckDuckGo'ed the acronym... Er... Yeah, let's Give this Inmate Terrorist More Oppportunities! I'm all for that!! However, if you think I still have some of that sanity thing you mentnioned, you must be completely insane. But in a nice way. A very nice polite insane person. I appreciate it n_n Sigh... Don't mind me. My brain ain't... u know, braining right now... Tired... and stupid... lol I'll just go to.. u know, keep working a little longer. TTYL, buddy!

@dd54 Understandable, man. I'm here if I can help you in any way. Happy 4th of July!

4

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

3

First, one has to decide what "hate" means. Our society has degraded to the point that any disapproval of anything is considered "hate," particularly by those trying to destroy traditional standards.

Obesity is unhealthy and in my opinion unattractive. While there are a few exceptions in both place and time, almost every society of almost every time has viewed obesity as unattractive. Stating this truth doesn't mean that a person hates those who are obese. I'm obese, but I don't think someone hates me every time that person says that I'd look better or feel better if I lost forty or fifty pounds. Only manipulative and evil people would equate a preference for physical fitness to hatred.

I believe that the healthiest, strongest, and most stable societies are built on a more or less traditional, heterosexual family. While I don't define that family as rigidly as many do, that definition is not infinitely flexible. I don't hate people who aren't in this situation. I haven't been able to build this kind of family for myself. However, I'm opposed to holding up other situations as the model or ideal for our society. No, I'm not going to change a viewpoint that has been a part of thousands of years of Judeo-Christian heritage because someone wants to be homosexual or transsexual. I'm not interested in persecuting these people. They're just trying to make the best of their situation as many of us are, but I'm not going to applaud their choices. Again, only manipulative and evil people try to claim that it's hatred when someone sees the traditional family as the best building block for society.

I believe that programs designed to help racial minorities are no longer necessary or helpful after fifty years. I'm in my mid-fifties, and at no point in my career has being white or male ever been an advantage. Some places really didn't care about the color of my skin and were focused only on my competence. Other places actively preferred someone who was part of a racial minority and only offered me a job because they couldn't find someone who improved their "diversity" numbers. I believe that the bigger problem of many racial minorities today is the belief within some of their communities that diligence, respectfulness, and good judgment are "acting white." I've never met a black person who felt this way or would tolerate his or her kid goofing off in school because studying hard was "acting white," but I don't doubt those who have run into this attitude. This attitude is what is holding back many people of color and not some prejudice against their skin color. To those who are caught up in pretending that racial identity is all that they are, my belief is "hate." To others of all skin colors, my belief is perfectly reasonable.

I realize that for many people, there is a projection at work. There are fat people whose resentment of the physically fit rises to the level of hatred. There are also fat people who occasionally get frustrated but aren't filled with hatred towards more physically-fit fellow humans. There are people who don't agree with traditional societal mores, particularly those values associated with Christianity, whose resentment of those ideas rises to the level of hatred. Again, there are also people who don't see the world through traditional mores but have no hatred of those who do. There are people who want to believe that all of their failures are the result of their skin color, so they blame all of their failures on racism and hate anyone of a different race. There are also people who still see value to the racial preferences who aren't filled with hatred towards those of other races. Within all of these groups, some believe that anyone who isn't just like them must hate them because they hate everyone who isn't just like them.

I reject all of these skewed definitions of "hate." A difference of opinion on an issue does not define hate. Expressing an opinion that disagrees with the current view does not define hate.

"Just venting" does matter and doesn't affect the definition at all. People can hold and express a position passionately without being full of hatred. A person can sound exactly like Mr. Rogers and be full of hate. A person can sound the opposite of Mr. Rogers and not have hate in his or her heart at all. We often fail to communicate any nuances when we are venting, but that doesn't mean that one's base position is hatred.

The truth of a statement matters tremendously, but the truth doesn't necessarily connect to hatred. There are manipulative people who lie in order to get what they want. Many of them are too self-absorbed to feel hatred or anything else towards anyone else. They just want to see the whole world cater to them or their views. That they are lying doesn't necessarily mean hatred, but that doesn't make their lies any less harmful. That some people are incapable of telling the truth politely doesn't mean that they are full of hate either.

I'm not sure what you are comparing when you talk about "more dangerous."

The actions of protesters need to be judged by what they are doing. I've never seen protesters on the right burning buildings, looting, attacking cars, or any of the other acts of war that the leftists have been perpetrating over the past few weeks and years. Student groups on the right haven't caused violent confrontations and hurt people to stop leftist or liberal speakers from appearing on campus. At Charlottesville, one guy in one car drove into a group of people on the street. There was no organized and massive effort by people on the right to attack those on the left. Eric Rudolph bombed some abortion clinics and the Olympics in the 90's, but he worked alone or nearly alone. There was no massive movement on the part of anti-abortion activists to commit acts of violence. Only the most delusional of the pro-abortion leftists would equate standing outside an abortion clinic and peacefully protesting with bombing the clinic. Anti-abortion protesters may speak to people approaching the clinic, but the ones who are violent or abusive in any way are the exceptions and are shunned by the rest of the group. These actions are in dramatic contrast to the leftist who attack cars and people.

At the rate things are going, we may reach a point where those on the right need to go from a footing of working within the system to try to solve problems to fighting the leftists with their own tactics. For now, there is a huge difference between the left and the right in terms of the tactics that they use and whether those tactics are within the bounds of the First Amendment or whether those tactics represent acts of war by a domestic enemy.

3

The cure is to go back to the original spirit and intentions of the Constitution.

People need to be treated as individuals and the laws needs to be applied to the individual.
Not a group. Not a demographic. Not a gender. Not rich or poor. Not famous or nobody.

Maybe we have not done the best job of doing this in the past, but it does not mean we scrap this idea.
As a sovereign individual myself, I am always appalled when I see the identity politics so prevalent and popular today. I never did and never will allow myself to be labeled and assigned to any identity group.

Virtually everything in politics, media, entertainment, education, business is obsessed with Race.

This needs to stop and we need to get back to respecting the individual based on his or her character.

Until this happens, we will continue in this endless loop of destruction and hate.

3

I see these kinds of questions as symptomatic of a culture obsessed with language.

People who use Twitter excessively have become hypersensitive to language and the ideological component of words and phrases. I'm one of those people. I don't like it, but I also can't imagine living in the real world and not being aware of the ideological baggage that certain words carry, especially amongst the millenial and post-millenial generations.

Ted Kaczynski wrote about language in the Unabomber Manifesto. He claimed that minority activists move to change language on the basis of certain terms carrying generally negative connotations, such as "primitive", used instead of the more desirable "nonliterate". They are paranoid about minority groups and cultures being viewed in a negative light, and react violently to the language directed at them. Because language is our primary mode of expression, through which immediate thoughts can be transmitted and received.

We observe, now, the appearance of "coded" language amongst young people wishing to express politically incorrect ideas or sentiments online and in real life. But we also see confusion, mixed-signals and misinterpretation, because real-life norms surrounding language are no longer applicable to online expression. Gonzo journalism, satire, irony and comedy are now centres of battle between those in the "culture war", precisely because they are vague and open to interpretation. One cannot read a joke and pretend to know anything about the joke-teller's ideological bent, regardless of its content. Yet this is exactly what a leftist does. They attack it as an ideological statement, because despite their obsession with nuance and connotation, the utterance of a single politically incorrect word is enough for them to denounce the utterer as an ideological "enemy". They wince and cry about words, because aside from interpretations of direct action, they are the only tool we have with which to divine the inner thoughts of our fellow human beings. As long as you espouse the correct opinions, your actions are largely meaningless to them.

Those on the nihilistic right see this game of language as an opportunity to muddy the discourse and taunt leftists into explosive displays of censorship, typically by associating themselves with violent fascism, race-based nationalism, or just Hitler and the Nazis. They laud figures like Mel Gibson, who say "nigger" and "oven-dodger", because they use extreme language, and see their popularity as a powerful symbol in the fight against leftism. Some of this is purely reactionary. Not many people want to exercise their freedom of speech to call someone an "oven-dodger" in day-to-day life. And yet it's hard to say how much you see online is in earnest and how much of it isn't, because both leftists and right-wingers interpret words in different way, and see jests and sarcasm as either harmless or indicative of deeply-held values and beliefs.

A couple of examples of how language has been twisted in online discourse:

  • Offensive terms/phrases that require a degree of familiarity with internet culture that many "normies" lack, such as "dindu", "we wuz kangs", "pay the toll", "thot", "simp", "cuck", being "red-pilled", references to kekistan or "kek", being "based" etc. These are all "codes", and effective ones. They could be used to express racism covertly, or merely as a means of provocation, and it's impossible to tell which is which unless you're intimately familiar with the speaker's character and intentions.

  • Words that can be read in several ways, like "globalist" (equated to "Jew" by the aforementioned paranoid leftist, and those who equate globalism with Jewish-ness), "cultural enrichment", used sarcastically in right-wing circles to refer to things like rape statistics surrounding so-called asylum seekers and migrants, "diversity", commonly read as a code for "non-white", "anti-racist", "anti-fascist" etc.

  • A common tactic is to extrapolate meaning where there is none from words that refer to political positions and opinions on social issues. Pro-choice = baby-killer, pro-life = misogynist is one of the most common dichotomies that encapsulates this phenomenon.

  • Terms that that can't be defined and when anyone attempts to do so they're attacked for being too lenient/strict in their definition, such as "toxic masculinity", "far-right", "systemic racism" etc.

  • Invented words that refer to non-mainstream concepts and further divide minorities from mainstream society - see basically any word that refers to a new "sexuality". My favourite is "lithsexual". An old classic is "cisegender". By merely using the word "cisgender", you are acknowledging that being anything other than the sex you were born as is a real possibility. This is why I personally resent these terms and refuse to use them. See "non-binary", "trisexual", "genderfluid", "demisexual" etc. These terms are particularly exhausting.

  • Words that have ceased to have meaning and can be used in a limitless number of scenarios to refer to any person, statement, position, country, animal, plant, carbon-based life-form: "racist", "conservative", "queer", "progressive", "bigot" etc.

  • Slogans with either one direct meaning or a meaning that must be explained using more accurate terms, thereby defeating the purpose of a slogan: "Believe All Women", "Defund the Police", "Men are Trash" etc.
    One that seems resistant to corruption so far is "All Cops Are Bastards" - no-one has tried to qualify it by raising the point that some cops, or even one cop, is not, in fact, a bastard. They literally mean "all".

People will continue to fight about language because it's easier than fighting for the values they hold. People "rage" on twitter on the left and right because they are impotent. "Venting" and "projecting hate" can be one and the same thing on any given day, interpreted by any given reader. Mocking ugly women is "misogynist". Using racial epithets is "racist" (apart from those that refer to whites, of course). Advocating for a tight border is "xenophobic" and "racist". Praising motherhood is "sexist". There is no end to the vitriolic and ultimately pointless amount of debate and argument that the internet will generate around language. It's only going to get worse as time goes on. The line dividing "venting" and outright hatred will be impossible to draw.

I can only advocate what Jordan Peterson recommends: be precise in your speech. Stop using vague labels like "pro-life" and "progressive". Be exact and merciless. It'll help refine your own beliefs and distill the beliefs of others into something useful to attack, rather than leave them open to misinterpretation and exaggeration. Of course, none of this applies to trolling or sarcasm, which I find myself becoming unable to defend as time goes on. I love to troll, but it's highly unproductive and too much trouble to deal with if it grows into controversy.

Alternatively, look at a person's actions and make your judgments. Words are cheap. It might be best to denounce people based on their actions and largely ignore the sounds they produce with their vocal tract (or their restless fingers).

mirro Level 4 July 2, 2020

That’s a great list of twisted language tactics! I agree with the idea of using precise language, but, yes, it’s becoming more and more difficult because the goal isn’t discussion or conversation, but rather a game of trying to create confusion and muddy the waters.

<applause> I enjoyed reading your post. I found it refreshing and blunt. Not blunt as in something you'd roll to smoke, but blunt as in to-the-point. IMHO, you articulated the issue(s) commendably. Thank you.

3

If you're the one who's doing it, it is venting; when others do it, it is expressing hate.

Xtra Level 8 July 2, 2020

So pithy!

3

I avoid hate like the plague, but I do vent sometimes. The way I judge whether somebody is expressing hatred or anger is based whether or not they allow dissenting viewpoints. People who hate can hear only their own voice.

3

Taking the starting point from Aristotle, then emotional reasoning has began to replace ethical or logical reasoning, especially on the left. This is where "Hate" laws come from, this stuff has no place in reasoned dialog, trying to assume someones emotional position on an issue is a slippery slope. It has its place and problems, one being greater amount of errors as well the ability to emotionally inflame responses.

In part the source is lack of fortitude among men who have never taken risks with their lives, and entrenched wealth. With women it used to be the case of saying "put your emotions aside" when debating but emotions have also been elevated to the level of virtue. Emotional intelligence for example.

@dd54 I just recently learned what EQ is. I saw it in print somewhere and thought it was a misprint.

In my opinion, EQ is the answer to the generation who grew up with their faces buried in screens needs to be taught how to emulate normal human emotions because they do not know how to process emotions normally. This is obviously an advantage to the Left when they press their buttons and get them to react to something.

@RAZE IME this goes back further than the current generation. When I was in HS in the early 80s we were being taught "deconstructionism" ie how to tear apart literature and ideas. In the case of the former, that tearing apart lead to the text meaning what the teacher said it did. In the case of the latter, all the meaning was sucked out of anything. I learned to tear things apart and nothing about how to actually build something. One of my classes was called "World Problems," in which we examined things like population, and pollution and all the causes and effects of these things. Nothing about actions, just a pile of hopelessness. (and never mind that these things were not actual problems) This went on into college and left me with an emptiness and low-grade anxiety that took years to figure out. The generation currently moving into the workforce is the long-range expression of that angst, not it's first.

@SelinaRif All the things you learned in the 1980s in HS and beyond were based on paulo Freier (sp) and Marxist Education Theory. We had much less of that in the 60s and 70s when I went to school, but it was still there.

IT IS PURE EVIL.

We started getting the Peer Review "Pass your papers around to other students for them to comment on/grade partially. It is designed to foment distrust. It is actually Freier's obfuscitorally stated intention that it should be so.

I believe he did not hate us all directly. I believe he loved socialism. And the emergent behavior of Socialism wants our love and HATES US ALL.

If you are an atheist, and are looking for a devil to believe in, socialism has all the same traits as the devil.

@SelinaRif Thank you for that post. I had an experience with 'deconstructionism' in college in the 90s. I was unaware of what was happening. I am not a dumb person, but I was very unaware of what instructors were doing. This is the phrase that you wrote that struck me - 'text meaning what the teacher said it did.' You perfectly described this female poetry teacher (I took a poetry class as an elective because it fit in with my schedule) and she completely tore apart classic works and many male poets. And the result is exactly what you said - it sucked all of the meaning out of everything. Thank you. I like when I learn something from other people's posts. Thank you.

I do read classic literature and I have noticed in ALL of the reprints of classic works that I have read written by white males there is a section of the forward that depicts the author as racist and a product of racist times. This is VERY disappointing.

@RAZE I did have a fortunate experience in college. For one of my required classes, we had to read Freud, Marx, and Romance Era poetry. The teacher was uniquly qualified in that he had both spent years on an analyst's couch and had been an ardent Marxist. Both things he had concluded were BS. When he tore those things apart, I got a very different view. But the way he taught poetry made me see the beauty in something I never previously understood. I can still hear his voice reciting Kubla Kahn.

3

Only the American and Western countries does leftist HATE rise to a fever pitch against their own country, color, culture, race, flag and self. None dare call it conspiracy.

3

I've long suspected a good portion of those talking politics and social issues on social medias are just venting. I draw the line on that when someone makes threats of violence or arson. There is a double standard present when it comes to judging the actions of protesters on the right and left, with the latter of the two getting a free pass most of the times.

2

(#1) When their anger is directed at what’s being done rather than the one(s) doing the wrong. (#2) It’s a sign of self-righteous piety. (#3) Yes & that’s the most important question you’ve asked. (#4) Hate without a doubt would be worse if not foundation-ed upon righteousness. It doesn’t belong to anyone to control the thoughts of another – that would be to deny them free will. Censorship is an attempt to control thought by controlling speech & venting ones frustration(s) is nothing more than thought. (#5) IN GENERAL protests by left leaning groups tend to be chaotic therefore prone more to violence; protests by right leaning groups tend to be somewhat more orderly therefore less violent. It should be strongly noted however that when and/or if right leaning groups decide to assertively protest it’ll be much much more decisive – I’m thinking of the “Boston Tea-party.”

Here’s an example of righteous indignation (anger) not focused upon the doers but the thing being done.

Just one person’s opinion as your post seems glued to the top of my screen. You have a good one (day), 19114wizard OUT

Jesus Film Jun 23, 2011
“JESUS, (English), Jesus Drives Out Money-Changers from the Temple”

2

It is a distinction without a difference. Both are speech. Both should be addressed by more speech, not by censorship. If someone says something with which you disagree, cite your reasons.

2

It would depend on the language used, the logic (or lack thereof) behind the statements, and whether or not name-calling was involved. If colorful metaphors are involved, that might add spice to the statements but spewing vile rhetoric just shows frustration and a lack of thought. It also indicates that the person "venting" doesn't have a valid argument but is letting the dialog dictate feelings as opposed to facts.
Stubbing my toe on an immovable object is likely to be followed by venting. Discussing opposing ideas and values might get passionate, but wouldn't (or shouldn't) necessitate screaming and swearing.

2

Hate is the outward expression of fear. Does it matter if that fear is justified or imagined?

1

It would be hard to add to the many thoughtful post already made so I will go off topic a bit.

Over the course of evolution emotions or instincts for the most part must have increased fitness. What has to be remembered is that the blind clock maker is amoral. Good and evil are defined only by fitness over many generations.

In the case of the human species the intermediary between instinct and behavior is highly refined. It would be a mistake to think other animals do not love or hate or that they possess no imtermediater of consciousness that acts on instincts. It's a question of degree of mediation. We expect that adult humans beings, unlike their cousins the chimpanzees, to be highly skilled in meditating hatred.

The left has an odd history of embracing at once the primitive instincts that we are evolved to exhibit and the expectation that some of those instincts should be completely absent in a civilized human. The best way I have found to express the contradiction is in terms of fast and slow lifestyles.

It would be easy to see the socialist as the ultimate embrace of the ant like slow lifestyle. As a person willing to sacrifice everything including ego to the group. That has never been the case however because socialism has always revolved around the zero sum instinct of fairness. Civilization however is built on competence hierarchy. It is thus because civilization arises out of a harsh but stable environment that requires a slow lifestyle. A lifestyle of competent planning and forbearance, of strict cooperation and imagination, of competition to assure competence, the observation of law not fairness as instinctually understood.

Having evolved for a easy but unstable environment the instinct for fairness is perfectly adapted. In a world where no production or strict protection of resources is required, the world before agriculture and civilization, equal or nearly equal distribution increased fitness for a foraging social ape. If resources became depleted the group would just move on. Agriculture changed all that and so did the pastoral lifestyle to a lesser extent. Abandonment of a field or failure to strictly protect it became suicidal. The concept of property rights became essential as did the inequitable distribution of those rights based on competence.

In such a harsh but stable environment hating those that threaten property became a survival mechanism. Wondering tribes could afford to be more ecumenical towards strangers. Hate in this light can be seem as a protector of civilization. It coops anger to induce diligent defense. It also enhances group selection in an artificial environment.

I'm not trying to justify hate only pointing out that the left, especially as Marxism has become cultural Marxism, is on to something. In order to fully embrace the primitive instincts for an easy but unstable environment civilization has to be destroyed. The only way you can have near equal distribution is if there is no production. It would not be so if production was not so closely tied to competence but it unavoidably is. Unequal distribution is not about reward so much as control. As it turns out group control in the context of a harsh but stable environment will always be an idiocracy of the lowest common denominator.

wolfhnd Level 8 July 3, 2020
1

venting or hate. hmm. me expressing passionately about an intolerable life condition or superimposing my intolerance into physical malicious direction. its a tightrope. sane or insane. that is the question. whether this nobler to identify and correct or pledge iconoclast. hate is just drunkenness of the mind. venting can lead you there. blow the whistle too long, your amygdala fractures. cortisol is a steroid released by the adrenal gland in times of stress to heighten your senses. self inducing stresses for too long puts you on a steroid loop that induces roid rage. alot of people suffer from broken fight or flights. personally I am a no fly zone without a pause button, so I have to treat the fight response like a rabid pet wolf. and I am not quite ready for a lobotomy.

1

Anger and outrage is not exclusive to post-millenials, nor is "unexamined, unfocused anger" exclusive to the left. All age groups have their fair share of anger, as do all ideologies.

To the person saying the left uses imaginary obstacles to be angry, while the right is angry at real obstacles, you are flat out wrong. Hatred and injustice spans all communities, it isn't only justified when they agree with you.

0

Educate yourself to the facts and evidence of the subjects they speak of. and compare.

0

The way the word hate is used, it has a bunch of different meanings. A pejorative to knock someone down seems to be one of the most common. I don't have time to properly define it.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 142

Photos 127 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #government #liberal #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #friends #videos #Identity #FreeSpeech #Google #book #policy #vote #Police #conservative #evidence #culture #violence #reason #economic #USA #liberals #tech #Socialmedia #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,848Top

    Moderator