I can form a trivial argument for why almost any hot-button political opinion is "hate speech", even through the most charitable definition of "advocating violence or diminishing essential human dignity".
- Pro-Life: You don't respect women's bodily autonomy, because you believe women are "less-than".
- Pro-Choice: You don't respect the fetus's right to life, because you believe pre-birth infants are "less-than".
- Pro-War: You don't respect the sacrifices of American troop or those who died on 9/11, because you believe privileged Westerners are "less-than".
- Anti-War: You don't respect the lives of civilians who die in drone strikes, because you believe Muslims are "less-than".
Lately, I've been cross-referencing the language of dehumanization with how uncontroversial it is to express an opinion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "necessary evils". And perhaps they were (I've heard the arguments and I'm aware of the historical complexity); yet most Americans suffer little consternation to disregard the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, in a way that would be horrifying if it was (a) present day, and/or (b) the actions of some out-group rather than our own heroic Nazi-fighting forces.
All that said: I think it's also pretty naive to pretend that emotionally inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exist, or is inconsequential. Lately I've been thinking about a different category: while "hate speech" is shunned in most corners of polite society, our moral tribes largely tolerate (if not encourage) "fear speech": "[Trump / Antifa] is coming to get you". Each side's fear exacerbates the other in a positive feedback loop, akin to the Cycle of Violence.
The necessary evils bit is probably a way to relieve our cognitive dissonance. Anyways, do you have evidence to support your fear and hatred cycle, as well as its prevalence in western society?
- Pro-Life: You don't respect women's bodily autonomy, because you believe women are "less-than".
- Pro-Choice: You don't respect the fetus's right to life, because you believe pre-birth infants are "less-than".
- Pro-War: You don't respect the sacrifices of American troop or those who died on 9/11, because you believe privileged Westerners are "less-than".
- Anti-War: You don't respect the lives of civilians who die in drone strikes, because you believe Muslims are "less-than".
Lately, I've been cross-referencing the language of dehumanization with how uncontroversial it is to express an opinion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "necessary evils". And perhaps they were (I've heard the arguments and I'm aware of the historical complexity); yet most Americans suffer little consternation to disregard the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, in a way that would be horrifying if it was (a) present day, and/or (b) the actions of some out-group rather than our own heroic Nazi-fighting forces.
All that said: I think it's also pretty naive to pretend that emotionally inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exist, or is inconsequential. Lately I've been thinking about a different category: while "hate speech" is shunned in most corners of polite society, our moral tribes largely tolerate (if not encourage) "fear speech": "[Trump / Antifa] is coming to get you". Each side's fear exacerbates the other in a positive feedback loop, akin to the Cycle of Violence.