“If words involve thought, then how can hatred, which involves no thought upon its action, be involved with words, alone?”– Modern Romanticism
The usage of words revolves around thought, which is why a speech and successful negotiation should guarantee not a war. Out of war, there is risen hatred, come out of a person who knew it belonged within. Though, upon the actions involved in a war, nations rival nations, brother rivals brother, as the same blood is spilled with no difference in color. As rivalry extends itself, people comprehend themselves as strong. They level themselves to an arrogant superiority. Of hatred, within war, and it has always been the burial of it, until the beginning of such conflict. People knew of themselves with the hatred for another nation. Soon when war breaks out, that hatred rises to the surface.
As for words, it does involve thought. Though, out of hatred, there is no involvement of thinking. No one thinks, when they are hateful. How then, can speech be “hateful”, relating to the term “hate speech”, when words almost always involve such a critical sense of thinking?
The only time when a person is not intelligent with their words, is when they are an idiot. Idiotic thinking is the opposite of critical thinking. It’s the very difference between the intelligence that involves careful dissection of a whole, to a simple insult from the idiot that is very much like throwing a rock against a mountain with the vain idea that it will shatter.
Words cannot be hateful, because even from the idiot, there can be thought involved in the insult. Unless insult turns into rage, and rage turns into action, there is no hatred. Threatening a person, to never act upon it, is an example of cowardice. It is due to that being truly hateful, means a person has lost the ability to reason or think. We cannot be critical when we simply seek to destroy. For how can hatred be itself, if it does not follow the rule of non-thought, non-awareness, and non-mutual understanding of a flaw?
As it is, words only ever seek to remind a person of what they already comprehend of themselves. If words do this, then hatred merely reminds the targeted individual of such hate, of what is flawed with the hateful person. What words do, instead, is remind both parties of their mutual understanding to their flaws, instead of actual hatred being what only displays one-sided imperfection. For if love, the perfection, can lift the life free from the hatred, then it is to the imperfections of both sides that creates the understanding for a thought.
Clear, concise, understanding of a thought, made into words, is how people know each other, not by hatred, thought by the mind that is the home of love.