Hate and hypocrisy

The issue of what people say / write keeps coming up. Whether cloaked as standing against hate / hate speech or other hand wringing over what people think, something basic is missing. Stifling ideas / speech causes what is stifled to blast out in ways commonly thought inappropriate. (Perhaps labeled as hate.) The imbalance of what is acceptable or not acceptable taints free expression.

Considerable pressure has been placed on all of us to say things in a politically correct manner. That has morphed into pressure to only say “acceptable” things. When people are banned from saying certain things, those feelings / ideas don’t go away just because it is frowned upon. Our nation’s founders knew that people need / crave / have the inalienable right to speak whatever they feel, think, believe. Thus the First Amendment became a lynch pin of our Constitution. The full privileges of applying the First Amendment are and have been eroding under the pressure of politically correct speech. With the ever narrowing scope of what is acceptable to be said, people haven’t stopped thinking, feeling, believing certain things, they have simply pushed their thoughts down.

Unsaid, those thoughts take on more power and covertly or overtly find a way to be expressed in a way that may emerge as “hate”.

Our vision and ability to be accepting of other peoples thoughts becomes more and more limited the more that speech of any kind is curtailed. The simmering antipathy will force itself out. We are seeing that in the greater degrees of overt hate.

Over the years of liberals espousing / demanding that only their idea of correct speech could be uttered, those who think differently suffered. When the suppressed folks voted for a brash, outspoken candidate during this past election, that went against the assumed / preferred out come of the liberals. Those petulant liberals who want to only think and hear their own beliefs parroted back to them acted out with protests, riots and worse. Yet somehow, Ms Duerr laments “hate” from those who believe differently than she does.

A dilemma faces those who are not hateful when they are assumed to be hateful, racist, bigoted for having the nerve to express, even in the most tactful manner, ideas different than the accepted ideas. How does one find an acceptable (to those who negatively judge anyone with different ideas) means to express themselves?

I disagree with almost every word from Tom Fulks. I defend his right to his opinions. The fact that the Tribune gives him free rein to spout his vitriol, yet censors commentary from those with equally strong opinion on the other side is the travesty.