Jechbi wrote: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"?
Jechbi wrote: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)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)
What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)