Posted on 10/16/2017 2:01:51 PM PDT by tjd1454
Given its prominence in current public discourse, one would think that hate, not love, is a many-splendored thing.
The perfectly good word, which oozes out of every media pore, is now so overused that it means next to nothing. Every time you turn around, someone is accused of “hate” merely for expressing disagreement.
This is not just a matter of semantics. It’s serious. When you cheapen a word, it discourages honest discussion and leads to more confusion and conflict, which is how the devil likes it. We have it on good authority that the underworld thrives on mayhem.
One large organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), has made hundreds of millions of dollars trafficking in hate. That is, they hatefully and falsely accuse others of hatred, even those whose only crime is to advocate traditional moral values.
The SPLC once performed a valuable service identifying genuine hate groups, such as neo-Nazis, and alerting the authorities to them. Now, it boasts a kitty of more than $300 million, stashes millions in cash in overseas accounts, and smears anyone opposing its increasingly radical sexual agenda.
In a full-page ad in The Washington Post this past week, the SPLC explained why it continues to label the Family Research Council (FRC) a “hate group” on its online “hate map.” The organization quoted from FRC statements that warn that homosexuality is “unnatural,” has “negative physical and psychological health effects,” and is being peddled to children. It doesn’t bother trying to refute any of this, because it can’t.
And the group doesn’t mention that a would-be assassin, inspired by SPLC’s hate map, tried to commit mass murder at FRC’s headquarters in 2012, thwarted only by heroic building manager Leo Johnson, who took a bullet.
While the SPLC spins out of control in its hateful obsession to criminalize Christian morality, it has plenty of ideological company that also plays the “hate” card. Name the cause, and if you’re not on the progressive side, you’re — what else? — a “hater.” If you oppose extreme environmentalism and think Al Gore’s a bit overcooked, you “hate” the planet. And Bambi.
If you think that NFL players should stand out of respect for the flag when the national anthem is played, you “hate” black people and want police to abuse them. If you believe marriage is as God ordained it — the union of one man and one woman — you “hate” homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals and polyamorists.
If you believe that America should defend its borders and have orderly, lawful immigration, you “hate” immigrants.
If you believe that militant Islam poses a serious threat, you “hate” all Muslims.
If you oppose the government takeover of the nation’s health care system, you “hate” poor, sick people.
If you support voter ID laws and other common-sense reforms that discourage vote fraud, you “hate” minorities.
If you oppose more government spending, deeper federal debt and higher taxes, you “hate” poor people. Conversely, if you don’t hate President Trump, you are a monster. And a bigot. And a hater.
As with any emotion, hate in and of itself is not wrong. In Psalm 119, for example, we’re told to “hate every false way.” There are plenty of other verses where that came from by which we are exhorted to hate evil and favor what is good. ..
bttt
Likewise the accusation of “racism”. Nowadays its use rarely involves anything to do with race; actually the usual targets of the term are demonstrably non-racist, with the accuser accusing solely based on the accused’s race, with the accused having commented solely on chosen behavior.
Good point - "racism" is another code word used to slander those who resist the leftist agenda.
Very scary. If the forces of evil prevail, “hate speech” will become a felony punishable by draconian fines and jail time (it’s already happening - as in the cases of the Kentucky clerk and Christian bakers and florists). If the oppression is allowed to continue, how long will it be before conservatives and Christians are consigned to the gulags?
Agreed. My analysis is that the defining characteristic of “liberals” is cynicism toward society, and—correspondingly*—a naive faith in government.* Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least.—Thomas Paine, Common SenseJournalists are cynical about society because:It follows from that analysis that skepticism toward society is sine qua non for the justification of any government at all - and that cynicism toward society would be a rationale for giving government carte blanche to regulate society autocratically.
Accordingly it is only natural for journalists as a class to be “liberals.”
- journalists are on the lookout for bad news about society to report. That is, journalists are systematically negative about society, and journalists know it.
- despite self-knowledge by journalists that they are negative, journalists claim to be objective.
- The implication of that claim is the conceit that negativity is objectivity. And you will be hard put to find a better definition of cynicism than that conceit.
Interesting analysis!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.