'Hate Speech' is a Nonsense Word
What's all this nonsense about 'hate speech'
I think we need to take a step back and look at the current historical context wherein we are experiencing what is construed as 'hate speech'.
A person on his own will have his own ideas. And he will continue to think it fine till he encounters another from another clime with his own ideas. At this point, when they meet, they can have opposing ways of seeing and doing things. What can happen then is that the deem all criticism from each other as 'hate speech', or learn from what they other had learnt in his unique experience and take it as constructive criticism.
But now, constructive criticism is being taken as 'hate speech'.
Yes, there are some that can truly be deemed to be hate speech, like a person calling for the death of another race of people. But are they to be the excuse to silence all constructive criticism because it can fuel the view that an other ought to be exterminated?
All this is nonsense. Let's just look at the basic facts of the matter founding 'hate speech', or as mature adults see it, 'constructive criticism'.
Previously, globalisation largely meant two things. One, the economic interdependence of the world. Two, colonial plundering of the rest of the world.
Later, we moved onto informational globalisation, with the exchange of information throughout the world through the media, that was largely eurocentric.
Then, finally, we have come to interactional and migrational globalisation, where anyone could literally go and talk to anyone anywhere anytime. This isn't just interactional globalisation, but cultural globalisation.
Basically, that is when different people accustomed to doing things a particular way get together. What happens then is that there will be a comparison and contrast of different ways of looking at things emerging from different ways we have all been reared, and the difference in our priority list.
That is when 'hate speech' can come about where people look at each other and criticise each other's way of doing things. That isn't 'hate speech', but comparative speech, normative speech, counterfactual speech. That is natural, and indicates a mature mind that can put 2 and 2 together and ask why it amounts to 3.
But let's not forget that different ways of doing things can lead to the marginalisation or compromising of different people and their interests. That is when criticisms take place. That isn't 'hate speech' but 'redressive speech', where one seeks address and redress of grievances.
To target a group critically doesn't make one a 'hate speaker'. If so, then all criticisms of the Nazis can be deemed 'hate speech' can it not.
Big Tech is in no position to tell people what they can and cannot talk about. They are in it, and in anything, for the money. They aren't great humanitarians, intellectuals, philosophers, academics, but just a bunch of greedy people focused on making money, and making money quick, so they can make even more money, own more things, and make more money and power. They aren't elected. They aren't studied in what is going on in the real world between various cultural and classes of people, they aren't sociologists, they aren't psychologists, they aren't activists, they aren't anything but a means to make money.
For Big Tech to step in with 'community guidelines' is nonsense. We aren't a community. Not yet. In order to get to the 'community' stage, we need to duke it out and get rid of evils in each other's cultures that are compromising our interests; we need to iron out our differences; we need to point out each others deficiencies that are serving as a ceiling for our own proficiencies. That is what makes all this nonsense about 'hate speech' nonsense as that only favours those whom already have ascendency. So if the chinese are racist against others in asia and state that they ought to be the majority in certain countries, calling them racists is deemed 'hate speech'? If the jews in Palestine are imposing apartheid on the Palestinians and killing their people with western funding, and you call them terrorists, that is 'hate speech'? If one was to criticise China for its oppression of the Uighurs and tell them to upgrade themselves to human status and show some empathy, that is 'hate speech'? 
If you were to say that incest is wrong, that is 'hate speech' and presenting the incestuous as morally inferior? If you were to say that women shouldn't sleep around and be moral, that is 'hate speech' and presenting sexual promiscuity as morally inferior? Grooming schoolchildren to consider their own gender for sexual relations is ok, but telling them it's wrong is not?
To suspend moral judgement is to suspend morality in favour of the free and unfettered influence of immorality.
What Big Tech is doing is maintaining the evils that are already established, or in the midst of establishing itself, by silencing all criticism of it online as 'hate speech'. These profit-hungry businessmen are telling us that we are all equal and perfect, and there is no room for criticism of each other, and that if we do so, it infringes their 'community guidelines'. Nothing that is wrong can be said to be wrong, and all whom say it is are wrong. That is nothing but an attack on the human sense of comparison, consideration, and judgement, and which is the foundation of ethics, philosophy, morality, and all that divide is from the animal kingdom. THAT, itself, is an agenda, where, for instance, it is deemed moral to support abortion, but immoral to speak against it.
'Community guidelines' forbidding 'hate speech' are only applicable in communities where all mutual antagonisms have been resolved, and in which case, it would make such community guidelines superfluous in the first place.
If one was to apply Corporate Social Media's standards across time, we'd have seen black slaves being silenced for 'hate speech' against their enslavers; women being silenced for their feminist 'hate speech' against men; Gandhi being silenced for his 'hate speech' against the British white supremacist colonialists (as he was for a while).
All in all, Corporate Social Media is standing up for the continued dominance of those groups, be they national, racial, or organisational, whom were already dominant. That is clear enough when they state that one cannot criticise another group as morally inferior. In other words, you can't say another is wrong. Those whom are dominant don't need to do that as they are already dominant. But those who question this dominance will have to do that in order to get rid of that dominance. And it is they whom fall into the net as 'hate speakers'. And that is why CSM's community guidelines is underhanded, insidious, and basically elitist.
Yes, there are those who criticise minority groups, and they are silenced too. But we need not be thankful for that, as all that is being done is that the more blatant of those oppressing the minorities are being silenced, whilst the minorities criticising their majority of oppressors are silenced as well.
Like in singapore, the chinese cannot hurl insults at the minorities, but the government can freely pursue racist policies that marginalise minorities and favours the chinese. That is like saying, 'we the government can wound them, but the chinese whom are favoured can't rub salt into their wounds or they're going to kick all our asses.' That is what is happening with Big Tech silencing 'hate speechers'. They'll silence those who call you a nigger, but they'll silence you when you criticise them as racists.
That just civilises the oppressors and teaches them to not call you names when they are oppressing you, whilst teaching you to put up with oppression so long as you're not called names whilst they're stamping on your face. That is exactly what Big Tech is doing. They are maintaining the status quo as is, and saying that everyone is perfect, and you better believe it or else. They are enforcing the law of the jungle, propping up the big dog, and deeming all cultural standards across the globe to be irrelevant in the face of the standards that have already been put in place by the dominant.
Hence, in effect, the Church itself is deemed an institution of hate in the face of those who want to present sin as 'sexual fluidity'. Indian culture is an institution of hate in the face of Eurofeminists who want women across the globe to get drunk and sleep around as evidence of freedom. Socialism is an ideology of hate against exploitative Capitalism (it's coming there). Palestinians are a race of haters for criticising the Jews for taking their homes and killing their people. I am a 'hate speecher' for stating that David Bowie got famous globally because of western cultural hegemony effected through the media that censors the cultures of the world in favour of MTV.
This whole idea of 'hate speech' as a catch-all terms for dissent against oppression, or questioning standards of any culture, has to end. It is an approach not unlike Listerine, that kills all the bad bacteria in your mouth, whilst killing all the good as well, and thus leaving it defenceless against the bad. It is designed to allay all criticism of those whom are already holding power and position over others, if not by intention, irrefutably in consequence.
The idea of hate-speech is an underhanded attack on 'free speech'. Just as free speech can certainly be used to do evil, it is the ONLY means by which evil can be undone as well. Getting rid of 'free speech' as the price of getting rid of 'hate speech' is tantamount to crucifying Christ in order to crucify the thieves beside him whilst Barabbas the true insurrectionist (the corporation) gets away scot free. One cannot be delivered from evil by killing the good. It only serves to enslave us to a greater evil.
When various cultures get together as they do through globalisation, not only is cross-cultural critique going to take place, but it MUST take place, or we risk taking on the bad elements of a dominant culture as our own. The fact of the matter is, we aren't even going to know that a cultural element is bad till we know of others, and engage in comparison and contrast of its effects. And that truly only happens when people start looking at each other. There is no such thing as a perfect culture, but there is such a thing as a culture of seeking perfection. 'Hate speech', or more accurately, 'cross-cultural comparative appreciation', is one of the means by which that can be achieved.
Big Tech is trying to stop all of this as it barges forward trying to get rid of all culture so that all can be turned into mindless consumers and a perpetual source of profit. When people start to crosscheck culturally, they are going to get smart, wise, gradually weed out the worst elements of each other's and their own cultures and form a superculture that makes wisemen of us all. That is inevitable. That is the value of the cohabitation of difference. And Big Tech is trying its utmost to stop it all so that culture itself can gradually be eradicated in favour of the 'pragmatic' aspects of it that just focuses on money and consumption.
They must be stopped. They certainly must be stopped.
edX
Comments
Post a Comment