If someone thinks that because a person hears a second person speaking full of hatred, that person goes and damages or kills a third person because he heard the second person speaking in hate; and the person who spoke full of hatred is now censored and punished (next to the damager/killer), it would be right to censor and imprison the speaker as well, is not in his right mind.
For those who have killed, or
- stabbed,
- punched,
- hit eyes, nose, ears, stomach,
- pushed another to the ground,
- banged them to the wall,
- used fist and feet, and knife and club, and gun,
should be arrested and punished, but not because they spoke but they acted how above described.
Love your neighbour in the way you love yourself, can be understood very well, because hatred is a known emotion.
Censoring hate speech, however, does NOT suppress hate, it suppresses speech.
Someone who hates must be able to recognise that he is full of hate. Because if he chokes down this hatred, even though he feels it, where to express that hatred? Since it needs to be EX-pressed.
Now, hatred actually cannot be chocked down. What you choke down are tears not shed. Anger, not expressed. If too much tears and anger is being choked down they re-appear as having throat ache, literally. Or headache. Or heartache. Or stomach-ache. Or sleeplessness. Or restlessness. Or tiredness. Or fatigue.
How can a victim who swallows hatred become a victimiser?
Censorship, perpetrated with great pressure, causes the oppressed person to struggle with the self-denial of his feelings of hatred, since he is censored to say that he hates, he must channel his hatred.
Perhaps he manages to channel the hatred in such a way that it dissolves.
That might be the case for the most part.Perhaps he doesn't manage it and he channels the hate in such a way that he sells it to himself and others as love, in which case he lies to himself and others.
That might happen often enough.Perhaps he doesn't make it and his repressed hatred leads him to suicide.
That might be the result in some cases.
An act, that might save him from murdering someone else.Maybe he doesn't manage that either and murders another person.
That may be the result in very few cases.
Lawmakers "Acts on hate speech" seem to think it the other way around.
They seem to think that hate speech resembles No. 4 in result and No. 1 in numbers.
..and people_still_ fail to see this simple correlation - one that has been pointed out for millennia..silly people.
(I think Nietzsche's mind/body/soul(s), model, is a very good one).
Without some modicum self awareness hate (or any emotional pain), is rarely channeled in productive ways (imo).
...This is why those who are 'high scoring' in narcissistic traits are, for the most part - 'lost causes' - imo... (unless external forces 'crack the psychosis' in some way).
Very true. Though one must be careful. You do the shock or provocation with a good heart. If you cannot do it out of benevolence, it will backfire.
Many years ago we were friends with neighbours and later, when they had moved away, we found out that the man had hanged himself in the attic. His wife was so aggressive and crazy that I suspect he did it because of her. She not only tormented him, but also their young daughter. She ran with her from one doctor to another even though she was perfectly healthy. Until one day a paediatrician told her that there was nothing wrong with her child, but that she should look after herself.
She was so angry about this that she could hardly get her head round it.
Unfortunately, her husband and rarely anyone else stood their ground, because she would have had to hear the same from everyone else. I was too stupid at the time and this episode in my life made me realise much later how to deal with it on a personal level.
You don't do people any favours if you treat them gently and considerately because it's a bottomless pit. If they get your little finger, they want the whole hand. It is never enough.
You learn something through pain. But I think, that only works on a personal level, it doesn't work on a government-people level.
..then it must be malicious or ....? (can it be anything else?)
...getting people to think/provoke thought etc - from a malicious perspective - Is Machiavellian game playing, with dark dimensions...
I.e - the very characteristics in people that I detest.
This is why it's important to challenge this kind of pathology - without delay - at ever opportunity. (the butterfly effect of dealing with shit straight away is nothing like as destructive as 'leaving it be' , and letting the mind cancer spread)..
....I can do that ! lolol
..and if you don't - you need some more pain, until lesson learned ! lolol
(this, I can also do! lol)
I guess so. It would be, for example, a persons temporarily felt inability to find benevolence somewhere inside them. Only disgust, despair, frustration, you name it. Then it would be better to abstain from that practice. (Texting online, you cannot read facial and body expressions, so it's often not possible or too difficult to interpret a human being on the whole.
Right. But it's a learning process. I myself am often enough so perplexed when I happen to meet a situation like this that I fail to react immediately. You gotta practice it. Though it's a two way street. Letting myself being provoked and provoking others. Now, one needs not always to use aggravation or provocation. It also can work with surprising someone. Depends on the person and situation.
Not everyone is a victim of pathology, though. You can also become a victim of pathologisation yourself if you pathologise everyone you meet from the outset, ... another phenomenon.
I therefore work on my skill to differentiate between situations and people. Every person has pathological traits, but not in every situation. Except, one mind has gone utterly crazy. But this kind of mind would not be able to communicate in any familiar way.
Don't be so eager. LoL
....You're far too nice.... lol...