dually directed attack (which I suppose is
better?). But hate speech is taken from false stereotypical ideas about
groups of people and intended to harm, opress, or in some way damage the
targets simply because of their birth.
Allright, thats all I will ramble about for now...
Challenging is different from banning. Banning merely allows
opinions to smolder and gain force over time. Banning also serves
those who are in power. It so happens that today university
administrations are typically liberal. The books or opinions that are
banned are called "hate speech." "Hate speech" is defined as
speaking derogatorily against minorities. The danger, however, is that
universities may not always be dominated by this type of thinking.
Perhaps speaking badly of capitalists will in the future be called "hate
speech." Speaking in behalf of Marx will not only earn disdain, it may
call for punishment. Since opinions about revolution, class warfare,
and the incorrigibe vices of capitalists have become banned opinions.
The danger is not in what people say, or how they say it. The problem is the
culture it helps to create. It becomes part of our socialization. For
example, my mom has never seen a commercial or read a magazine article that
said "You should be afraid of all black people", yet, if she's walking down
the street and a black person is coming in the other direction, her gut
reaction is going to be to reach for her purse and hold on to it just a
little tighter. There's no logical reason for this, but she does it anyway.
The danger with hate messages are the subliminal ones. It's the stereotypes
that we learn and internalize without even realizing that we're doing it.
Then again, for some, there is still danger in the explicit hate speech as
well. Take for instance, the attacks in Central Park....several of the
attackers were video taped chanting lyrics to songs such as "...