CDZ Hate speech leads to hate killings

The influence of evangelical churches in Africa is disturbing.

Jamaica is considered to be the most homophobic country in the world. This article links the growth of homophobia to the influence of "Christian" preachers.

The law went widely unenforced until the late 1980s and early ’90s, when the introduction of anti-gay rhetoric from televangelists Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart developed a hatred of biblical proportions throughout the devoutly Christian island. Homosexuality was labeled an “abominable” disease spread by pedophiles, purportedly linked to the spread of HIV and AIDS.

‘The Abominable Crime’ Spotlights Homophobia in Jamaica

While interviewing former Parliamentarian Ernest Smith, he said, “There was no violence against gays. That’s a lie. It is gays against gays.” So I interviewed people in the gay community and found that was not the case. Person after person had the most horrific tales. People were being killed with machetes and burned alive in their houses.

Jamaican Gays are entitled to political asylum in the UK because of the situation over there. Its not just the religion,the popular culture glamourises homophobia as well.



FYI, Homosexuality IS linked to the spread of HIV and AIDS.
But it is not "an “abominable” disease spread by pedophiles" which is just pure hate speech.



So, you admit that it is odd for the article to use the word "purportedly" in reference to Homosexuality being linked to the spread of AIDS?

I've run into leftists who have made that argument before. THey are very disconnected from reality.

More so even than most leftists.
Aids affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is spread primarily through unprotected sex. In that respect the bigots were highlighting one aspect and ignoring the whole picture.The point I was actually highlighting is that homosexuals are not paedophiles. A point which is a central pillar of homophobic hate speech.
 
Not exactly sure what you mean there.


YOu asked why make it about "one" group instead of combating it where ever it occurs.

One group's homophobia could be best addressed by one method, while another DIFFERENT group might require a DIFFERENT response.

Ok, now I understand what you mean.

Now, want to guess my opinion on the best way to address Islamic Homophobia?

Feel free to express it.

Deport the ones we can, and stop importing more of them.

As we can't do that with Christian native born Homophobes they require a different response.
What response would that be ?
 
The influence of evangelical churches in Africa is disturbing.

Jamaica is considered to be the most homophobic country in the world. This article links the growth of homophobia to the influence of "Christian" preachers.

The law went widely unenforced until the late 1980s and early ’90s, when the introduction of anti-gay rhetoric from televangelists Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart developed a hatred of biblical proportions throughout the devoutly Christian island. Homosexuality was labeled an “abominable” disease spread by pedophiles, purportedly linked to the spread of HIV and AIDS.

‘The Abominable Crime’ Spotlights Homophobia in Jamaica

While interviewing former Parliamentarian Ernest Smith, he said, “There was no violence against gays. That’s a lie. It is gays against gays.” So I interviewed people in the gay community and found that was not the case. Person after person had the most horrific tales. People were being killed with machetes and burned alive in their houses.

Jamaican Gays are entitled to political asylum in the UK because of the situation over there. Its not just the religion,the popular culture glamourises homophobia as well.



FYI, Homosexuality IS linked to the spread of HIV and AIDS.
But it is not "an “abominable” disease spread by pedophiles" which is just pure hate speech.



So, you admit that it is odd for the article to use the word "purportedly" in reference to Homosexuality being linked to the spread of AIDS?

I've run into leftists who have made that argument before. THey are very disconnected from reality.

More so even than most leftists.
Aids affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is spread primarily through unprotected sex. In that respect the bigots were highlighting one aspect and ignoring the whole picture.The point I was actually highlighting is that homosexuals are not paedophiles. A point which is a central pillar of homophobic hate speech.


AIDS does not affect both heterosexuals and homosexual equally.

It is the height of madness to ignore the Vectors of a Pandemic because of Political Correctness.
 
YOu asked why make it about "one" group instead of combating it where ever it occurs.

One group's homophobia could be best addressed by one method, while another DIFFERENT group might require a DIFFERENT response.

Ok, now I understand what you mean.

Now, want to guess my opinion on the best way to address Islamic Homophobia?

Feel free to express it.

Deport the ones we can, and stop importing more of them.

As we can't do that with Christian native born Homophobes they require a different response.
What response would that be ?

Considering how Homosexuals are already a protected class, and already heavily advocated for by Society from nearly top to bottom, I don't consider addressing Christian HOmophobia a priority issue.
 
The influence of evangelical churches in Africa is disturbing.

Jamaica is considered to be the most homophobic country in the world. This article links the growth of homophobia to the influence of "Christian" preachers.

The law went widely unenforced until the late 1980s and early ’90s, when the introduction of anti-gay rhetoric from televangelists Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart developed a hatred of biblical proportions throughout the devoutly Christian island. Homosexuality was labeled an “abominable” disease spread by pedophiles, purportedly linked to the spread of HIV and AIDS.

‘The Abominable Crime’ Spotlights Homophobia in Jamaica

While interviewing former Parliamentarian Ernest Smith, he said, “There was no violence against gays. That’s a lie. It is gays against gays.” So I interviewed people in the gay community and found that was not the case. Person after person had the most horrific tales. People were being killed with machetes and burned alive in their houses.

Jamaican Gays are entitled to political asylum in the UK because of the situation over there. Its not just the religion,the popular culture glamourises homophobia as well.



FYI, Homosexuality IS linked to the spread of HIV and AIDS.
But it is not "an “abominable” disease spread by pedophiles" which is just pure hate speech.



So, you admit that it is odd for the article to use the word "purportedly" in reference to Homosexuality being linked to the spread of AIDS?

I've run into leftists who have made that argument before. THey are very disconnected from reality.

More so even than most leftists.
Aids affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is spread primarily through unprotected sex. In that respect the bigots were highlighting one aspect and ignoring the whole picture.The point I was actually highlighting is that homosexuals are not paedophiles. A point which is a central pillar of homophobic hate speech.


AIDS does not affect both heterosexuals and homosexual equally.

It is the height of madness to ignore the Vectors of a Pandemic because of Political Correctness.
Hmmmm, whatever. The point being that Aids/Hiv is not a disease that is exclusive to homosexuals. That is just a fact.
 
Ok, now I understand what you mean.

Now, want to guess my opinion on the best way to address Islamic Homophobia?

Feel free to express it.

Deport the ones we can, and stop importing more of them.

As we can't do that with Christian native born Homophobes they require a different response.
What response would that be ?

Considering how Homosexuals are already a protected class, and already heavily advocated for by Society from nearly top to bottom, I don't consider addressing Christian HOmophobia a priority issue.
I think that American homosexuals are under more threat from Christian homophobes than Muslim ones. Far more threat.
 
FYI, Homosexuality IS linked to the spread of HIV and AIDS.
But it is not "an “abominable” disease spread by pedophiles" which is just pure hate speech.



So, you admit that it is odd for the article to use the word "purportedly" in reference to Homosexuality being linked to the spread of AIDS?

I've run into leftists who have made that argument before. THey are very disconnected from reality.

More so even than most leftists.
Aids affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is spread primarily through unprotected sex. In that respect the bigots were highlighting one aspect and ignoring the whole picture.The point I was actually highlighting is that homosexuals are not paedophiles. A point which is a central pillar of homophobic hate speech.


AIDS does not affect both heterosexuals and homosexual equally.

It is the height of madness to ignore the Vectors of a Pandemic because of Political Correctness.
Hmmmm, whatever. The point being that Aids/Hiv is not a disease that is exclusive to homosexuals. That is just a fact.

NO, the point is that Homosexuality IS linked to the spread of HIV and AIDS, and it is utter madness to ignore that fact.


Do you want to accept blood from a homosexual donor?
 
Now, want to guess my opinion on the best way to address Islamic Homophobia?

Feel free to express it.

Deport the ones we can, and stop importing more of them.

As we can't do that with Christian native born Homophobes they require a different response.
What response would that be ?

Considering how Homosexuals are already a protected class, and already heavily advocated for by Society from nearly top to bottom, I don't consider addressing Christian HOmophobia a priority issue.
I think that American homosexuals are under more threat from Christian homophobes than Muslim ones. Far more threat.

I'm sure you would think that. In your mind, America, Christianity, the West, ect. are by definition the bad guys.

Muslims? Never.
 
Not exactly sure what you mean there.


YOu asked why make it about "one" group instead of combating it where ever it occurs.

One group's homophobia could be best addressed by one method, while another DIFFERENT group might require a DIFFERENT response.

Ok, now I understand what you mean.

Now, want to guess my opinion on the best way to address Islamic Homophobia?

Feel free to express it.

Deport the ones we can, and stop importing more of them.

As we can't do that with Christian native born Homophobes they require a different response.


There are problems with that. For one, people are free to think and believe what ever they wish. As long as they don't act on it outside of the law, it's no one's business.

As far as immigration is concerned, is there some sort of "homophobe test" you have in mind?

What is your solution to the problem of native born homophobes?
 
YOu asked why make it about "one" group instead of combating it where ever it occurs.

One group's homophobia could be best addressed by one method, while another DIFFERENT group might require a DIFFERENT response.

Ok, now I understand what you mean.

Now, want to guess my opinion on the best way to address Islamic Homophobia?

Feel free to express it.

Deport the ones we can, and stop importing more of them.

As we can't do that with Christian native born Homophobes they require a different response.


There are problems with that. For one, people are free to think and believe what ever they wish. As long as they don't act on it outside of the law, it's no one's business.

As far as immigration is concerned, is there some sort of "homophobe test" you have in mind?

What is your solution to the problem of native born homophobes?

Sure. People are allowed to believe and think what they wish.

And as nations we have ever right, even a duty to consider whether we share those views and if we want those views to become more represented in our societies.


So, deportation and immigration bans are completely "no problem".

Native Born? As society is already majority advocating for homosexuals, to the point of forcing bakers to make them cakes, I would say that issue is well covered.
 
Honestly, it doesn't seem any of you understand what hate and killing is about.

We could actually have 20+ pages of a constructive and productive discussion about it, but to this point it seems no one in this thread has been able to inform another consistently while everyone here is still groping for a simple understanding of those two approaches to life and its continuity while it apparently slips away for each of your failed attempted impositions of personal emotional opinion.
 
I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

.

You missunderstood.

I am talking about the target of the speech rather than the speech. People being targeted for factors beyond their control is an entirely different matter than their being targeted for their own decisions.
No. Fear and loathing is fear and loathing. If people want to slap a label on something to justify their hate, they will. As you are doing. Being right or wrong about that label isn't the point, though I know of no instance where that label was right. Nothing said about a billion and a half people can be rational, and therefore is always wrong. The question of "choice" in religious and cultural affiliation is irrelevant, but FWIW, also completely wrong. You do not choose your cultural affiliations. There are many who believe sexual identity is a choice because they believe that fact can be weaponized and used to harm gay people, whom they fear and loathe.

We've morphed from discussing the relationship between hate speech and violence to a conversation about whether hate speech against a religion can be justified because religion is a matter of choice. No social criticism can be valid if it fails to recognize that all countries are different and that within each country a spectrum of people exists. Some are primitive and seek to drag us backwards. The 20% of Trump supporters who believe abolishing slavery was a bad idea, for example. Many are forward thinking. Most are in the mushy middle and don't care that much. I am highly critical of the culture which predominates in Muslim countries. I recognize the difference, however, between blanket condemnations and targeted criticism. None of this has anything to do with hate speech and the incitement of violence. That is, frankly, a subject of such absurd obviousness that I find it difficult to believe anyone could argue for the opposite. The scapegoating of minority groups and the horrible bloodbaths that have resulted from this are, I would imagine, as old as humanity itself.


If you import a significant population of that culture of which you are highly critical you are actively pursuing a policy of making the culture part of your culture.

"Targeted criticism" does not change that, and indeed, is mostly a distraction from that important point.
I couldn't agree more. Why any country would allow immigrants who are not likely to improve that country is a mystery to me. We didn't ask for "huddled masses" for no reason. We did so because we had a country to build. Now it's built.

Refugees are a different topic. Refugees are not immigrants. They have neither the preparation nor the qualifications that we should be looking for in immigrant candidates. There's also more of them right now than at any time in recorded history. It's truly twisted to me. 50% of Syria is displaced from their homes because of that horror. Shall we take them all in? Why? How? Europe is quickly being forced to realize that they cannot manage that situation. We can't take the attitude that if people can flee far enough from that mess that they become "one of us". This is not "The Running Man". There are pragmatic limits to compassion, and we've reached them.

None of this justifies hate speech, nor inciting violence, as a solution. That only leads to more instability and makes the problems worse. What we need are solutions that emphasize the encouragement and protection of the rational elements in these cultures, the people who tried to get behind the Arab Spring. These efforts failed because they didn't have the strength they needed behind them. The armies and ways to control warlordism and corruption. Force.
 
What we need are solutions that emphasize the encouragement and protection of the rational elements in these cultures, the people who tried to get behind the Arab Spring. These efforts failed because they didn't have the strength they needed behind them. The armies and ways to control warlordism and corruption. Force.

We are able to get to the solutions through education. As you have mentioned, protection, encouragement and rationality are the goals we are to integrate from all the variety of cultures that sustain those basic principles of advanced civility, but we cannot use those same standards alone to achieve their functional establishment with continuous civil cooperation.

It is not strenght, control or force that will help to achieve it either, as you already stated. It is true, however, that strenght, control and force are indeed later integral (scientific) benefits for the whole of society after society has already been able to integrate the global variety of cultures.

So lets begin with finally comprehending hate and killing as past tendencies in human society (although of course they are not essential to what is truly human nature, as humans would generally select for the continuity of their experiences without unwanted disruption).

Hate is generally a sentiment, a feeling and an emotion caused to be expressed after long repressed. The expression can take either isolated form or exposed form. Isolated form has a tendency to end in self-harm if the individual is not in knowledge of the psycho physical nature of hate as energy absorbed and in need of appropriate release. Then there is the exposed form, with the tendecy to end in social harm if again the individuals involved are not knowing of the same psycho physical nature as previously mentioned to have an appropriate release method.

Killing is, as already posed, the extreme ends of innapropriately dealt hate. Eliminating hate is not the solution, the solution is creating spaces both psychological and physical for civilians to learn how to appropriately address the energies they are absorbing without putting themselves or others in risk of disrupting the natural continuity of life.

The title of the thread is not necessarily true. If we are able to appropriately deal with hate in any form whatsoever (be it speech or agitation) it does not need to escalate to violence and to killing. Speech should always be free (as it is in the amended constitution of the U.S.A.), inflated or not with hate or any other kind of possibly offensive connotations. The very reason offensive, hateful expressions are pursued and manifest is evidence of the energy therein unknowingly absorbed and withheld as it attempts (and often succeeds) to off itself because of their bothersome aspects to the vital essences of human nature.

Hate speech is in fact an excellent way to shortcut aggression so that it doesn't ever have to become physical aggression, violence, killing or murder. As the human being is fragile at the supernatural imminance (in relation to the natural human propensity to continue living) of these true and perhaps always underlying aspects of death and disorder within nature as a wordly whole inclusive of human nature, hate speech has and will be admitted within civil educational foundation for the establishment of normal functioning civilization in a planet wide scale. Within the standards for educational hate speech we should have solid grounds for neurolinguistic communication, spatial orientation and physical exercise (less and more strenous respective to the energy frequencies absorbed and released) to ensure no physical contact is actually necessary but that in case physical contact does ocurr (necessarily or not for the process of the cyclical energy in question) it will not be of a destructive harmful nature.
 
Here is a great example of hate speech.
‘Kill the gays’ pastor claims media has upset God by exposing link to Presidential candidates
Republican Presidential candidates attend ‘kill the gays’ rally
Pastor: Parents should drown kids instead of letting them read Harry Potter
This character is not speaking in a vacuum, he is making a good living from the hate game. Sad to say his comments have been legitimised by politicians who should know better.

We should be able to categorize hate speeches now to identify them accordingly to how they should be appropriately dealt with.

These cases you have provided are only literary examples of hate speech, as far as the articles are able to make evident. That is, the hate has proceeded forth beyond literature (as it is of energetic nature and will do so in any category), but it is strictly literature referred and incited, and so it should also be indicted through literature.

There are then other categories for hate speech, each with their assigned manifestation and appropriate tackling for the harmless continuity of human life.
 

Forum List

Back
Top