Philosophy – “Why Hate Speech has no Meaning” – 1/30/2021

“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.

Quote – “Receiving Hate, Receiving Criticism: Know the Difference” – 8/28/2020

“There are many who utter the line, ‘This receives too much hate’, when the sentence should read as, ‘This receives too much criticism’. For true hatred cannot be ‘too much’, as it just is, by itself, a destroyer. Hatred is a purpose in one’s life. Hatred is never ‘too much’, anymore than love is too much in this world. True hatred very much destroys the one who hates, faster than whoever is targeted by the hateful one. As it is the opposite with love, though also similar, that the person who is loved, is brought into growth. Those who are loved, grow along as equals, with the one who they love, in return.

Though, what of criticism? Can that be too much? Can the words of a person, in continuous repetition, enforce the madness that would merely remind a person of what they innately know, though are concealing? It would, as all repetition goes, make the person who hears it in its continuum, become maddened through remembrance of objective fault.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Racism is not an Act of Hate” – 7/24/2020

“When focus of fear occurs, it is knowledge that is gained of a broken people. Someone pulls the strings of fear, in the conquering of false competition and needless battle. Some puppeteer makes the dolls fight, in their trivial fights to be weakened.”

– Modern Romanticism

How often has a person been intimate with their “acts of racism”? Close in contact? They’d not be, unless they knew that person beyond the color of their skin.

For to know a person would mean to either love or to hate.

Hatred might blind the person. Though, so does love, to the individual who has a lover or a mother, or whoever else.

Do we know every dark secret? No. Though we must know something to enforce true hatred. Therefore, racism is impossible under the banner of actual hatred. It is true also that hatred cannot be of a collective. It is an emotion of loneliness, kept hidden, and only revealed at the mention of the specific individual. The fool who believes that racism is part of hatred, must deny that this suffocating emotion is a personal vendetta from individual to individual.

Whether love or hate, it is close, intimate, and understood. It goes beyond the shallowness of only noticing the skin color, to the heart of a person.

A Debunk – “Hatred cannot come in the Form of Speech” – 4/4/2020

Hatred cannot come in the form of speech, because hatred reeks of action, while love reeks of satisfaction. We are not satisfied, when we act. We are satisfied, should we be in true love. And when we are in that true love, we do not act, because we are satisfied.

Criticism, rather, is on the side of love, as well as care, and comes in the form of speech.

Hatred is the blow of a vendetta, against the person meant to be ended of their existence.

What one can do with words, is limited to just words, and nothing more. Should one utter a threat, out of hatred, but one does not commit to that dark and suffocating emotion, they are a coward. Or, they are impulsive, and still nothing more.

Criticism speaks out of intellectualism. Criticism betters a life, by encouraging the life to act.