Hate speech

[Jechbi]

Hate speech 
–noun- speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

n. Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Should the term "hate speech" ever be used in discourse among professed Buddhists? Or should the term be completely expunged from usage, on the basis that its very usage implies judgment about another person's mindstate?

[David N. Snyder]

It is best to attack the message of those positions, not the messenger. We may not know fully how a person actually feels, except of course in some extreme cases of those stating their memberships in hate groups.

From the Terms of Service:

Members are expected to self-moderate, being mindful of the adage that 'behaviour breeds behaviour'. Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions.

[Jechbi]

Thank you. I'll be mindful to expunge the term "hate speech" from usage here.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Jechbi,

Should the term "hate speech" ever be used in discourse among professed Buddhists?

I find the concept of "hate speech" is a bit faulty because it's limited to specific targets. Have you ever seen the South Park episode where they talk about "hate crimes"?

Or should the term be completely expunged from usage, on the basis that its very usage implies judgment about another person's mindstate?

I think it's fine to talk about the mindstate of hatred, generally. What I'm not a fan of is inferring that other people's speech is being coloured by particular unwholesome mindstates, and then in turn using that as a Buddhist (i.e. anatta-aware version) equivalent of an ad-hominem attack. In other words, the argument that "your argument is baseless because it was presented with an unwholesome state of mind".

(P.S. I'd just like to point out that this wasn't written in relation to the thread that you asked to be locked... I hadn't looked at the latest posts there before typing this)

Metta,
Retro.

[Jechbi]

What I'm not a fan of is inferring that other people's speech is being coloured by particular unwholesome mindstates, and then in turn using that as a Buddhist (i.e. anatta-aware version) equivalent of an ad-hominem attack. In other words, the argument that "your argument is baseless because it was presented with an unwholesome state of mind".

Thanks, Retro. I can see how this is problematic and not conducive to helpful discourse. I do feel, however, that there are times when it is appropriate to call something by its name, and I do think there are times when hate speech should be pointed out for what it is. But sparingly, if ever.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

I think hate speech should be identified as such and pointed out to the person who is doing it. If possible, in a kind way.
And if it hurts the person who is using that sort of speech to hear it, perhaps it's the kind of hurt that can lead to insight.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I think hate speech should be identified as such and pointed out to the person who is doing it.

How can we confidently know it really was hate speech, though?

Is there any foolproof criteria by which such things can be known?

Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

Hi Jechbi

Sometimes the best thing that can be done (or said) is to do (or say) nothing.
What I mean to say is that some people have in inate ability to dig themselves deeper in the cesspit.
Also, remember that aversion cannot be conquered with more aversion.
Metta

Ben

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Greetings,

I think hate speech should be identified as such and pointed out to the person who is doing it.

How can we confidently know it really was hate speech, though?

Is there any foolproof criteria by which such things can be known?

Metta,
Retro.

Hi Retro,

I'm not sure yet. I'll think about it

Kindly,
Drolma

[Cittasanto]

Greetings,

I think hate speech should be identified as such and pointed out to the person who is doing it.

How can we confidently know it really was hate speech, though?

Is there any foolproof criteria by which such things can be known?

Metta,
Retro.

hi Retro,
good point, speech is speach, how it is used depends on the context!

I remember a Chris Rock film where he dies and is put in the body of a white old fat man, and sings a song being played on the sound system of the shop which has a certain word in it, repeated over and over, so got his but wooped.
there has also been examples of misperception of words here, somepeople like to see the bad in things rather than see things as they are.