Group W’s Dilemma
and why “hate” is “not permitted.”
by David Sims
“…Hate is not permitted…” — Sheryl Sandberg, during a Congressional hearing on whether and how to regulate online social media to prevent politically motivated censorship.
THAT’S THE problem. Hate speech isn’t only speech meant to incite hate, which is quite rare; it is also speech that the moderators and policymakers of Facebook, Twitter, and the other online giants hate. Suppressing what these policymakers hate is by far the majority of censorship instances. Facebook uses “hate” as a fig-leaf to cover politically motivated censorship.
“What language actually leads to violence?” — Red Elephants
The truth can lead to violence — violence aimed at correcting an unjust situation.
If Group W has been deceived by Group J for years through, for example, Group J’s control of the mainstream media — and Individual I learns what Group J has been up to for all those years, and begins talking about it in such a way that Group W can hear and be informed, then Group J will say that Individual I is making “hate speech.” The term “hate speech” is a convenient label that appears to justify the censorship of Individual I by Group J.
However, in reality it is Group J oppressing Individual I so that Group W won’t find out that Group J has been deceiving Group W.
If Group W were to find out how Group J has been deceiving them, then there might be some sort of reaction. Some sort of justified reaction. A certain amount of violence might be understandable, perhaps even proper. But it would be bad news for Group J, so the J’s have a strong incentive to use semantic tricks, such as inventing and using the term “hate speech.” And so it goes.
Fellow W’s, the J’s are deceiving you.
* * *