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)
"Having understood name-and-form, which is a product of prolificity,
And which is the root of all malady within and without,
He is released from bondage to the root of all maladies,
That Such-like-one is truly known as 'the one who has understood'." (Snp 3.6)
"Whether I were to preach in brief, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach in detail, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach both in brief or in detail, Sāriputta, rare are those who understand." (A I 333, Sāriputtasutta)