This notion, however, is more dogma than fact. Evil words do not necessarily beget evil deeds. Nowadays, one needs only to listen to hate speech to
see that he is repelled and not seduced by it. But in one particular analysis, Hate speech legislation was useless, if not contributing to the worst
crimes of mankind, in the one instance when there was real justification for it.
Saying "not necessarily" is cheap and simplistic. Why
- should be the question, as, for instance, in the methodology of scientists: when asking
"why", you need to distinguish one person from another person via an account of relational context and history
which for every person is
different, thus resulting in differences in affect-regulation.
Take the past and present and then expose a certain person (say, one with a history of abuse) to certain words/themes, and see how those words/themes
become reified in their minds, assimilated in the context of "what is necessary for self-regulation as a person" in a society with other's we seek
enlivenment from; then, place such a person with pathological needs for enlivenment, within a democracy, and watch, as radical libertarians have
shown, how people like this form a fifth column, towards the ultimate goal of undermining the very sorts of conditions which make for a
coherent/stable and happy society.
Something far more nuanced is needed to defend your concept of hate-speech than this, and I think it has to do with the way good/evil operate in our
brain minds. People need to know the difference between a solipsistic, individualistic, gnostic-based fantasy system, and a semiotic, evolutionarily
emergent understanding of human consciousness in terms of an intrinsic primary intersubjectivity, which develops into a transubjective relationship
with the world around us.
Again, I am for a certain degree of 'liberty", but I fear ignorance of important facts about reality, in interaction with the interpersonal needs of
human bodies (i.e. to elicit behavior in the other so that they come to "recognize" me, and sometimes secondarily, other times primarily, some
capacity) is very powerful in interfering with social-dynamics between humans.
I am, for instance, fairly relaxed when it comes to tolerating hate speech, so long as the society one exists within has an
epistemologically/ontologically realistic understanding of how our brains-minds-bodies work i.e. semiotically, and so granting a hierarchical priority
to positions informed by scientific methods over viewpoints that derive from fantasy (i.e. creationism, libertarian fantasies about individualism,
In the absence of such a situation, and as history has shown, the people who win or come to control society tend to be the "traumatizing narcissists"
i.e. people with a psycho-neurological disorder which makes them consciously unresponsive to facts in external reality (particularly those that
conflict with their ludicrous fiction that they are somehow "more important" than others), and so, willing to act against others in ultimately
damaging ways. If faith, or feeling, comes to be taken by the person as "higher" than reason, as happens so often in all sorts of cults, than
With that said, hateful speech is not and can never be treated as equivalent to science, inasmuch as a scientific methodology desires to keep semiotic
track of all sorts of objective influences on the deciding and judging process, whereas hateful speech is fundamentally careless, narcissistic and
fantasy-based (i.e. based in the false hope that my hateful speech will bring about a desired condition for myself and loved ones). In social terms,
there is only one right way to raise your children, and that's to seek to help them regulate their own affects - not traumatize them by holding them
to the same standards you were subjected to, and so generating in them the same egotistical needs. This "philosophy of being with others", which is
today being developed in so many fields of human knowledge, treats the human self as an emergent property of sign-relations between organisms.
We have delved deeper into natures semiosis than other's, which is reflected in emergent capacities like "astral travel". But to think, or imagine,
that climbing the ladder of being means a loss of the lower rungs, is a mistake: all levels remain connected/relevant to the structuring of higher
In all, the only way hate-speech can be inoculated against and allowed to be expressed is if a corresponding belief/knowledge can be recruited by the
brain-mind exposed to the hate-speech, and then neutralize, or process (make sense) how it is incoherent or harmful in some way.
Because the brain-consciousness dynamic is such that they mutually influence one another's organization, unless we build-in ways to make-sense of
false claims (i.e. hateful claims), society is doomed.
Libertarianism thus comes with the caveat of responsibility: we can only preserve the right to "be" or 'speak" in any way you want, without
dysregulating society, if we are responsive to how the world works, and so protect people/citizen from false views by educating them about
intersubjective, subjective and ecological processes in the world.
edit on 14-7-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)