Hate Speech

All of us at one time or another use "hate speech" to describe groups unlike ourselves. We use "hate speech" to demonize the "other".

Today in the political environment "hate speech" has replaced civil discourse. On the internet when differences in political ideology come in contact with each other the use of "hate speech" by both sides dominates the conversation which essentially shuts it down.

Who are those that want it shut down and why do they not want the two main political parties talking to each other?

Recently the main issues being discussed on line revolve around Iran, health care, and the economy but this is what you see when you read comment threads.

DUMBOCRATS, DEMONCRATS(DEMS)

STEAL FROM THE WORKER AND GIVE TO THE LAZY LIBERAL WELFARE BREEDERS

Impeach Obama and his American SS hate groups.

The only people who watch NBC are nitwits, numbskulls, perverts, and a few demoncrats that have learned how to understand English.

Liberals= SOCIALISTS really scary word on AOL

GREED OVER PEOPLE, WINGNUTS(GOP)

YOU STUPID RED STATE REPUBLICAN HICKS SHOULD LEAVE OUR GREAT BLUE STATE NATION

CEO's losing billions and taking millions in bonuses for incompetence. That's really working hard all right, AT BEING A THEIF.

FAUX NEWS(Fox News)

The only people who watch FOX are nitwits, numbskulls, perverts, and a few wingnuts that have graduated from high school.

Right Wing=FACISTS really scary word on HUFFINGTON POST

The above is just a fraction of what poses as internet comments.

Demonization works to keep the ideologically pure on both sides hating each other.

But is it necessary?

And how do both sides stop it?

All of us need to realize that demonizing anyone relegates them to the "EVIL ZONE".
Once you have been categorized as "EVIL" nothing you say is heard. So why don't the powers that be want us to hear each other?

Because if we do listen to each other then we can't be controlled.

Is morality a social construct?

There are many that believe it is morally right to send teenagers(children) to prison for life.
There are many that believe it is morally right to kill adulterers.
There are many that believe it is morally right to circumcise women and men.
There are many that believe it is morally right to torture.
There are many that believe it is morally right to hang a criminal.
There are many that believe it is morally right to go to war.
There are many that believe it is morally right to abort a fetus.
There are many that believe it is morally right to kill an intruder.
There are many that believe it is morally right to collect data on all citizens.
There are many that believe it is morally right to engage in extraordinary rendition.
Hitler believed it was morally right to exterminate the Jews.
Stalin believed it was morally right to assassinate his enemies.

There are many that believe it is morally right to____________________________.
fill in the blank.

If we don't agree on what is morally right then there must not be any universal moral standards.

The Anthropological Argument for moral standards is as follows:
1. People in different societies make different moral judgments regarding the same action.
2. If people in different societies make different moral judgments regarding the same action, they must accept different moral standards.
3. If people in different societies accept different moral standards, there are no universal moral standards.
4. Therefore, there are no universal moral standards.

Think about points 3 and 2 are they accurate? What is the difference between moral judgement and moral standards and do moral judgements depend upon moral standards?

To understand the difference one must consider facts and belief and ones view about the nature of reality.

According to Emmanuel Kant our experiences are mediated through the human mind which universally structures perceptions in accordance with our relative time and space. Others have argued that our experiences are mediated by our culture....realizing that "our culture is the center of the universe," and "our culture" can be vastly different for peoples living in the same country.

Theodore Schick Jr. says: One's cultural focus may take obvious forms, in which one consciously believes that one's people's arts are the most beautiful, values the most virtuous, and beliefs the most truthful.
This is known as ethnocentrism...all culture's have it and it can be a problem when trying to understand ourselves and others.

Marcus and Fisher claim that in using portraits of other cultural patterns to reflect self-critically on our own ways, anthropology disrupts common sense and makes us reexamine our taken-for-granted assumptions.

Theodore Schick Jr. says

"It is widely believed that there are self-evident truths in logic, such as the statement that everything is identical with itself. But are there any self-evident truths in morality? Consider the statement, "Unnecessary suffering is wrong." This statement does not say that suffering is wrong or that no one has suffered unnecessarily. What it says is that whenever one is made to suffer unnecessarily, a wrong has been committed. To anyone who understands what suffering and wrong are, this statement should be self-evident.

If you do not believe that this statement is true, the burden of proof is on you to provide a counterexample. If you are unable to do so - if you cannot cite a situation in which unnecessary suffering is right - then any claim that it is false is irrational, for you have no good reason to make it."

Developing a framework for looking at domestic and international human rights issues through a lens not colored rosy might awaken us and help us create new methods for dealing with moral disagreements. It might provide common ground and encourage all to look at these disagreements from new perspectives.

First on the list may be understanding that we don't all agree on what is "morally right."

Go Ahead and Die

Tidbits

Years ago My Mom started a list of words she detested. Whenever i'd visit i'd ask her to get out the list and share her new ones. She never threw the list out she just kept adding to it. i love the time spent examining her list because it is always filled with lots of laughter while she explains why she just abhorred some word.

Well recently i've been thinking of making my own list and here are two:

Bipartisan
Kool-aid

Moving on.....today is a slow day as i have been working more on another project. i've been writing and tearing up passages, stopping to read when frustrated and thinking about why i really enjoy quotes, poetry and thoughts from other people. i collect them and keep them in a Miscellaneous file. Today i've dredged some up that i hope you enjoy. So to start...I'll go back in time.

One loyal friend is worth ten thousand relatives...Euripides

I don't know why I did it,
I don't know why I enjoyed it,
and I don't know why I'll do it again. Socrates

Demonization of anyone destroys the ability to think critically.

Is not general incivility the very essence of love?

All people, all over the world, be they rich or poor must establish their fundamental right to decent standards of living.

"Economic history is a never-ending series of episodes based on falsehoods and lies, not truths. It represents the path to big money. The object is to recognize the trend whose premise is false, ride that trend, and step off before it is discredited." George Soros

Peace does not necessarily have to be something humans might achieve "some day." They contend that peace exists in the present, we can create and expand it in small ways in our everyday lives, and peace changes constantly. This view makes peace permeable and imperfect rather than static and utopian.[5] From a "Call for Many Peaces" by Dietrich/Echavarría/Koppensteiner

Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, "Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts."- The real conclusion about the CRA and the mortgage meltdown is that laws and regulations did not make lenders engage in predatory lending, absence of oversight and lender greed did.

These people, the banks, the lenders, and the executives are the ones who are directly responsible for the crisis. Next in line are the politicians who are subsidized by these same big money interests who helped do away with responsible regulations and crippled regulatory agencies. All those who believe that the free market will properly regulate itself are the real culprits.

.
All told, according to statistics provided by the National Abortion Federation and not including this last murder, since 1977, there have been seven murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 175 arsons, 96 attempted bombings or arsons, 390 invasions, 1400 cases of vandalism, 1993 cases of trespassing, 100 butyric acid attacks, 659 anthrax threats, 179 cases of assault and battery, 406 death threats, four kidnappings, 151 burglaries, and 525 cases of stalking specifically directed at clinics, their workers, or their volunteers in the US and Canada. That's over 6,100 cases of terrorist activity by the "pro-life" movement. And that's just what was reported -- the actual numbers are probably much higher

And to end the piece i'll let Rahman Baba himself explain here:

Live not with thy head showing in the clouds,
Thou art by birth the offspring of this earth,
The stream that passed the sluice cannot again flow back,
Nor can again return the misspent time that sped,
Consider well the deeds of the good and bad,
Whether in this thy profit lieth or in that.

open arms

In the Virgin Islands we have a stairway that usually leads to the main entrance of the great house. Many refer to the shape of the stairway as one of open arms and are known locally as "welcoming arms."

These stairways reflect the beauty and grace of these islands. They begin wider at the bottom with curves like open arms welcoming all. Unfortunately, in the beginning, these stairways belonged to the owners of slaves and they did not "welcome all."

The United States of America began this way. Opening up its vast stretches of land to all who wanted a new way of life. One free of the restrictions they wanted to escape. "Empathy" helped the birthing of democracy in this land, that ability to "walk in another's shoes." Our laws were created from an understanding of empathy and the trials and tribulations that had gone on in other countries and our own that we didn't want to continue to repeat. We had a steep learning curve that we still do battle with. Our laws continue to evolve as we learn more about humanity and the way we all interact.

Today we find the word empathy mixed up with the word "emotional" and "feelings" as a negative attribute. "Emotional" dominates the airwaves and empathy now means the word emotion almost exclusively. Emotion is a negative word these days.

Sampling another's feelings, understanding them, walking in their shoes does not mean you "sympathize" with them.

Empathy means your understanding has another layer.

Our country's laws would not be what they are today without those original drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution having some form of empathy. Empathy is not racism. Empathy is the ability to walk in another's shoes which is sorely lacking in this country today.

So the next time you read or hear the word "empathy" see if you are being played and it is all about "emotion" and "feelings" instead of "walking in another's shoes."

Remember "empathy" means you have another layer of understanding....not sympathy.