Some truth needs to be said. There are no men who want hate speech. If someone hates you, you turn to sarcasm: if sarcasm does not work the person is either stupid or violent, and you make darn sure that if he starts a fight you finish it. I knew that going to school on the rough side of Auckland. By the time I was ten.
William Briggs helps out here. Soyboys bleat about hate. Men ignore the insults and get on with it.
“Hate crimes” are effeminate. It isn’t that motive in crime is unimportant when considering crime, but calling “hate” a crime is absurd because it punishes thought, not actions. It’s not even the accused who gets to say what he thought. The accuser’s word is taken as sufficient proof of thoughtcrime.
“Hate speech” is therefore matriarchal because it’s all about feelz, and nothing else. To bar speech that might hurt feelz is toxic femininity.
And it is a lie. It is far better to tell the truth, though the effete and feminized soyboys will bleat about hate speech. It is not. Truth can be harsh, but it is not hate. It is your reaction to truth of hate that tells me how much you worship the lie.
Telling the truth is, in fact, an act of violence.
And that is a VERY GOOD THING.
Consider, brother, what happens when you tell the truth to someone trapped in a bubble of delusions. You have shattered, perhaps irreparably, that person’s self-image. He or she will never be able to go back to the comforting warmth of those lies ever again, and will instead have to face the cold, harsh truth.
That IS, absolutely, without question, an act of violence. You have quite forcefully and violently smashed your fist straight into someone’s illusions about the world.
There are at least two ways of looking at this. The way that you look at this act will largely depend on your personal psychology, and that in turn and inevitably comes back to the standard heuristic of r/K selection theory.
I have talked and written about this many times before, so I won’t go into the details yet again. Basically, if you have an r-selected mindset, one major consequence of that mindset is that you will seek to warp reality to suit your vision of a Utopian ideal. By contrast, if you are K-selected, one major consequence of the alternative mindset is that you will tend to accept things for what they are, and do your best to work within the established order that you see in the world around you.
Which do you suppose is the more productive, healthy, and useful attitude?
Furthermore, those who argue that you must not strip people of their delusions, are being downright stupid. Essentially, they are telling you that it is right, good, and just, to infantilise people and keep them in a state of permanent idiocy, dependence, and foolishness.
So who, then, is the more evil? You, or the person that you are keeping in that state by pushing that person to believe in lies?
A final note. Some may say that I’m being mean to Andrew Little, the current minister of health, previous minister of Justice, and the author of the Hate Speech Bill that Kris Faafoi is trying to get through parliament. But the image at the top of this came from his twitter feed., and this is the second time I’ve linked to it. He thinks that he’s funny, and that gagging kiwis who disagree with him is good.
I think he is trapped in his ideology, and needs some Truth that leads to godly sorrow and repentance.