The radical regressive left is gaining more and more power in the western world by the month. For quite a long time it has not been limited to just some radical activist groups in university campuses, but (through mostly their indoctrination of university students, and influence on society thanks to this and their overall control of universities) they have been successful in invading more and more influential branches of society, such as the scientific community, huge megacorporations and, in many countries, even the government.
A consequence of this gain of power is the erosion of the basic human rights of citizens. Most prominently freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of congregation is being eroded at an ever-increasing rate. Presenting the "wrong" opinions will not only have social consequences in the form of harassment, but in many countries there is an increasing amount of legal consequences (which is an erosion of the right to free speech in all possible meanings of that concept.)
Many tech megacorporations and financial institutions are playing along, banning people left and right, and denying them even the most basic of services, even those that are necessary for survival in modern society, such as banking services. Governments are either slow to react to and put a stop to this, or outright unwilling to do so. This whole political persecution of political dissenters who express the "wrong" opinions is stopping being the exclusive domain of some fringe radical activist groups, and becoming legislated, de facto and, to an increasing extent, even de jure.
If you follow the rhetoric that all these people, politicians and megacorporations use, there is a myriad of words and terms that they constantly use, but in later years there is one singular word that seems to be used more than any else: "Hate". And not just as "hate speech", but just "hate", all in itself. In fact, it seems that using the word alone has become much more common than using it in the expression "hate speech". Whenever a corporation publishes an excuse for their latest series of bans, there's a 99% probability that the word "hate" appears there (often without the "speech"). When journalists and politicians advocate for more draconian restrictive anti-constitutional laws, the word "hate" is likely to appear several times. Nowadays it seem that word appears much more frequently than any of the other typical buzzwords.
And the funny thing is that that word, "hate", used in those contexts, is a complete blanket word, without a clear unambiguous definition, and completely malleable. And this is very much intentionally so. It can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean. There is no one singular clear unambiguous definition of it. It's just a fuzzy buzzword used to instill fear into people and to excuse whatever action or law proposal is being put forward.
Don't like what someone is saying? Just label it as "hate". Express worry about the current unrestricted mass immigration madness? That's "hate". Point out how society is becoming more and more oppressive and discriminatory against certain groups of people in the name of "progress"? That's "hate". Just write "men are not women"? That's "hate". Everything that they don't like, whatever it might be, is "hate" now.
Yet nobody can give a single unambiguous definition of what that word even means. Ask two activists and they are likely to give different answers. Ask the same activist in different contexts, and she'll probably give two different answers. And that's the beauty and power of that word: It's a blanket term that can be used for political oppression against anything or anybody you don't like, regardless of context. The meaning of the word doesn't matter. What matters is the power that it has.
The scary thing is that more and more people in power are starting to legislate this blanket term, to be used by law enforcement as they will. If law enforcement deems something as "hate", then well, to jail to go. It literally doesn't matter that you might have absolutely no way of knowing if something will be deemed "hate" or not, because the term isn't well defined. You may well be breaking these new oppressive laws without even knowing you are.
A consequence of this gain of power is the erosion of the basic human rights of citizens. Most prominently freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of congregation is being eroded at an ever-increasing rate. Presenting the "wrong" opinions will not only have social consequences in the form of harassment, but in many countries there is an increasing amount of legal consequences (which is an erosion of the right to free speech in all possible meanings of that concept.)
Many tech megacorporations and financial institutions are playing along, banning people left and right, and denying them even the most basic of services, even those that are necessary for survival in modern society, such as banking services. Governments are either slow to react to and put a stop to this, or outright unwilling to do so. This whole political persecution of political dissenters who express the "wrong" opinions is stopping being the exclusive domain of some fringe radical activist groups, and becoming legislated, de facto and, to an increasing extent, even de jure.
If you follow the rhetoric that all these people, politicians and megacorporations use, there is a myriad of words and terms that they constantly use, but in later years there is one singular word that seems to be used more than any else: "Hate". And not just as "hate speech", but just "hate", all in itself. In fact, it seems that using the word alone has become much more common than using it in the expression "hate speech". Whenever a corporation publishes an excuse for their latest series of bans, there's a 99% probability that the word "hate" appears there (often without the "speech"). When journalists and politicians advocate for more draconian restrictive anti-constitutional laws, the word "hate" is likely to appear several times. Nowadays it seem that word appears much more frequently than any of the other typical buzzwords.
And the funny thing is that that word, "hate", used in those contexts, is a complete blanket word, without a clear unambiguous definition, and completely malleable. And this is very much intentionally so. It can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean. There is no one singular clear unambiguous definition of it. It's just a fuzzy buzzword used to instill fear into people and to excuse whatever action or law proposal is being put forward.
Don't like what someone is saying? Just label it as "hate". Express worry about the current unrestricted mass immigration madness? That's "hate". Point out how society is becoming more and more oppressive and discriminatory against certain groups of people in the name of "progress"? That's "hate". Just write "men are not women"? That's "hate". Everything that they don't like, whatever it might be, is "hate" now.
Yet nobody can give a single unambiguous definition of what that word even means. Ask two activists and they are likely to give different answers. Ask the same activist in different contexts, and she'll probably give two different answers. And that's the beauty and power of that word: It's a blanket term that can be used for political oppression against anything or anybody you don't like, regardless of context. The meaning of the word doesn't matter. What matters is the power that it has.
The scary thing is that more and more people in power are starting to legislate this blanket term, to be used by law enforcement as they will. If law enforcement deems something as "hate", then well, to jail to go. It literally doesn't matter that you might have absolutely no way of knowing if something will be deemed "hate" or not, because the term isn't well defined. You may well be breaking these new oppressive laws without even knowing you are.
Comments
Post a Comment