In Defence of Hate

Hate is a complex set of emotions commonly associated with disgust, offence and fear, and it is thus something that many people seem to have become obsessed with. The people who have gotten obsessed with this are, guess who? The Social Justice types.

Hate is normally a genuine and at least partially justified reaction to an extremely unsettling stimulus. We tend to hate murderers, thieves, breakers of marital vows and of course, and this is important, people who have differing political opinions to ourselves.

This, to me strikes me as a glitch in the otherwise normally functioning system. What caused this glitch?

The only answer I can conjure is that informed by the present climate we are within, which is a climate of division, as are most historical climates, but we don’t just live in such a climate, we are participants within it. We are responsible for our own biases.

The media has done a fantastic job, too of amplifying these biases to such a degree that the only voices we hear now are those which shout back from within our little isolated strongholds. Then there are those whom act as vessels for all ideas they encounter.

These people are representative of your average person, who has not enough time, effort or patience to understand and debate an issue or topic. Some would call these people sheep, but they are more like nodes, passing on information from one end of the divide to another and never processing nor really debating a topic internally or otherwise.

So between the partisan politics, the echo-chamber media and the general push towards a belief that all hate is bad, it becomes vital to defend such disgust mechanisms towards those whom deserve it.

To be disturbed by a horrific act is fine. A horrific act is definable and is viewable through the lens of our own currently living, breathing society culture and history as positive or negative. But to artificially generate horror and outrage over acts deemed ‘hateful’ is to attempt to do nothing more than gain political, social and/or economic power.

These ‘rights activists’ have no want nor desire to include anyone, their goal is exclusion, and the result of said exclusion is a net loss in logical adherence for the entire society.

My evidence for this is their policies, which seek to umbrella certain members of society with bestowed rights and privileges, such as members of the LGBT community, whom by virtue of being gay or whatever need to have entitlement to counselling, therapy dogs, etc. but none are provided for people in opposition of such things and indeed non-LGBT people.

Hatred towards such groups is defined extremely loosely, too. Anything from snide remarks, a disapproving glance, or the giving of the cold shoulder, to physical violence are seen as hatred. Under all laws circa ten years ago, such things weren’t classed as hate under the legal definition, with slight exception to the latter.

But now, all are treated with vitriol, anger, outrage and in cases of which your ideological alignment is not uniform with those in your place of work, punishments up to and including the firing of yourself from your job, could be enacted should you ever dare to question these ‘protected groups.’

These acts are, depending on where you reside, are either proto-hate-speech laws, or are fully fledged hate speech laws that are backed by either precedent or by the law in totality.

The result of the support and enactment of such hate speech laws is mass arrests of innocent people whom are hurried away into police vans, forced through the legal system and discarded in terms of their worth and utility to society for the sake of ideological misalignment.

Meanwhile, extremist Jihadis are able to walk the streets in the UK, and under hate speech laws, criticism of such people in an overly negative tone is against the law.

So let me insist that hatred is a perfectly normal and natural response towards extremists, rapists, killers, cheaters, thieves and even the most reprehensible elements of the political system.

The solution to such hateful elements of society is to allow them to speak, and allow them enough rope to hang themselves with. The solution to so-called ‘hate speech’ is free speech.

This does, however have limitations regarding government secrets and plans, legal cases, incitement to crime and intent to do a crime.

Under none of these limitations is one’s right to hate hindered, so long as your intention isn’t to kill someone, which I think is a fair limitation because we live in a society built upon due process and justice, not mob-rule.

We need to remove these hate speech laws. It’s as simple as that, and without their removal, we risk doing serious damage to society and free discourse.

Thank you for listening.