What constitutes hate?

Recently there have been a lot of people jumping up and down over various acts here yelling "Hate, hate!" Our TOS probihits "hate". Sometimes the slightest provocation seems to be enough to earn this moniker, such as making an av that resembles a certain historical individual or group. Other times quite shocking expressions of bigotry pass by without so much as a ruffled feather.

At what point does expression of opinion, or identifying oneself with a particular ideology, cross the line and become capital-H Hate? Consider the following acts, all of which have taken place in SL or on the forums recently:

-Stating one's opposition to a real life group.
-Making derogatory remarks about a real life group.
-Making an account name or avatar that ridicules a real life group.
-Making an account name or avatar or inworld group and using it to misrepresent a real life group.
-Posting links to websites that attack or are derogatory of a real life group.
-Violating the copyrights or desecrating the symbols of a real life group inworld.
-Expressing one's opinion about a group in a way that implies that the whole community is against it being here.
-Placing attack or derogatory objects inworld.
-Expressing dislike to persons inworld for their real life associations.
-Verbally harassing persons inworld for their real life associations.
-Attacking persons inworld for their real life associations.

I've tried to draw an escalating scale here. At some point on it things switch from being personal expression of opinion over to an act of hate. But at what point?

Another thing for you to consider: does something become an act of hate at a different point depending on the group in question? Are some groups more worthy of victim status than others? Look over the list again and consider it relative to some different groups. Each of the following has been attacked here but the response of the community has been wildly different depending on the group.

Gays, Jews, Furries, Athiests, Christians, Baptists, Scientologists, Democrats, Republicans, There members, Sierra Club, SomethingAwful members, Ku Klux Klan, Neo-nazis.

So, does your idea of hate depend on which group is under attack? Or is there a point at which behavior towards ANY group becomes unacceptable? Looking forward to your opinions.

Wow, power-packed question.

I think the word 'expression' is big here. Let me use a recent flame we had to illustrate what I mean: Gays

"I'm a deeply religous person. I believe in God and the teachings of the church as Truth. Therefor I personally find myself disagreeing with homosexuality. I realize that many argue that it's not entirely a choice, some argue that homosexuality might be from a basic difference in the structure of the brain. However, whatever the cause, I as a deeply religous person cannot agree with this lifestyle. Whether a personal choice or physiological difference, a person has to abide by the laws of God to reach Heaven. Though I feel this way, I do not feel it's right for me to force others to live as I do. Everyone os free to make their own choices in their life."

To me, the above can be a dissenting view of homosexualty and yet it's not "Hate speech". On the other hand we can also have:

"I'm a deeply religous person. I believe in God and the teachings of the church as Truth. The Truth is that these fags are going straight to Hell where they will roast for eternity. Why? Because God hates fags and so do I. They should have no rights. Look at them flaunting their so-called 'lifestyle', ruining our concept of family and righteousness. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because he hates faggots. They should all burn in hell."


The above is definately hate-speech. Not only does it disagree with homosexuality, but it stimatizes and degrades the homosexual as a person. Makes them less than human, and therefor far easier to push to the sidelines of humanity and opens the door to oppression or worse.

Now on to the hypocracy ...

I try to live my life as an easy going person. One who tries (tries, big important word) to treat each person as a complete human, with rights and feelings and all that. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with visiously hating people like the KKK or the neo-nazis.

Here, I'll prove it:

I Jellin Pico do hereby declare I think all neo-nazis and KKK members are viscious inbred red-neck motherfuckers and wastes of air, life and skin. I believe they should be outlawed. Further, I believe for the good of mankind they be rendered sterile to prevent their functional sickness from spreading and fitted with personal trackers, lojacks if you will, informing the authorities of their constant whereabouts and movements. Even more inflammatory, I feel the same way about multiple rapists, murderers and molesters.

I don't think it's possible to live without hating something or somebody, it just doesn't seem human to be without it. So in answer, I think the major difference is in the expression of hatred that makes the difference here. You can seriously dislike, disagree, not approve of and even outright hate any of the things you mentioned, but it's how you express it that makes something hate-speech.

On either hand however, whether they admist it or not, whether they even recognize it in themselves or not, everyone does hate something or someone. Do you use that hatred to merely express a personal opinion and choice, hoping that others may agree, or do you decide to vent that hate and derision and humilation and attempt not only hoping that others will agree, but that a movement to stop or harm the hated thing will start.

Morality should not be enforced. Not by a government and certainly not by a company.
Morality varies from culture to culture, and what's perfectly acceptable in some circles, would be absolutely sacrilegious in others. I, for one, am sick and tired of having silly americanisms forced upon me. Not that there's an awful lot I can do about it

I don't think I can do any better than Jellin's answer. I'd just add that in addition to how something is expressed being a determining factor that actions taken on behalf of opinions about such things as religion, sexual proclivities, and other such hot button issues can also make the difference. Stating a contrary opinion without vitriol (actual, not just perceived) is not hate. Harassing someone because they hold an opinion you don't like can be more easily seen as hate.

Since you and I have butted heads about religion in the forums I'll repeat something someone said in another thread relating to the SA situation. Sorry, don't remember who it was. To paraphrase: "I'm personally not thrilled about organized religion in SL, but I know the difference between having an opinion and going to a Catholic mass and causing trouble."

Being exposed to contrary ideas is healthy because it forces people to re-evaluate their own thoughts on the subject. On the other hand, being harassed or griefed for it crosses the line.

We all have things we hate. It's normal. Things get ugly when hate stops being a noun and starts being a verb.

Let me put this in a bit more extreme terms, so as to spell out a little more clearly what I'm trying to find out from this community:

If you saw someone being harassed or beaten by a group of people; would you consider it an act of hate and injustice?

What if you knew the person was a Jew? What if you knew the person was a Scientologist? What if you knew the person was transgender? What if you knew the person was a neo-nazi?

What I'm trying to get at is this: if a person is attacked for what they identify themselves as, do you decide whether you like their group first or do you decry the attack regardless?

I personally dislike the whole idea that a heinous act is somehow more heinous depending on the reason it was done, or depending on the particular group that is being attacked.

Decry the attack. Always and forever.

Even though I find Neo-Nazi's and KKK members to be heartless fleshy bags of water that Mother Earth should be allowed to reclaim, I support thier *right* to freedom of thought and speech.

They serve as excellent tutorials in tolerance and ignorance. They also probably serve to show what higher education can help you avoid.

I *do not* support any harmful actions by these groups. Words, however cruel or hurtful, cannot be censored. If you start with censoring the most vile comments from the most vile groups, you set the wheels in motion to censor others. Once that takes place, who decides where we stop?

Freedom of speech has never been a license to always be allowed to say whatever you want. It does come with responsibility. As a society, we have moved in the direction of deciding that "hate speech", which is specifically derogatory speech leveled at an individual or group for purpose of demeaning and harming them, is unacceptable use of free speech (just as the yelling fire in a crowded movie theater or making a bomb threat is restricted speech).

This is not some massive censorship or violation of our freedom of speech, but a reflection of how society has evolved in dealing with some of the more troubling aspects of human nature. Is it a slippery slope? Perhaps. No one can ever stop you from saying a word or expressing a thought, but it does not mean that expression is without repurcussions.

Cristiano

Decry the act - always! Civil discourse is fine, as is expressing opposition to a group, a point of view, or anything else.

I'd have to say that in any case, only the first two items on your list consitute reasonable discourse, and the rest are unacceptable no matter what group is being targeted.

Ananda, for myself there are two main problems with your last questions. Things that make it hard to answer.

1. They lack context.

2. They are spoken and answered from cold analitical distance.

From a distance I would certainly say no one desearve to be thrashed by a mob for being who or what they are.

However, and I'm trying to be open and honest here. (Can't help it, I'm a Libra and always have to see both sides )

For the sake of argument, I come across a group kicking the hell out of skin-head neo-nazi. I would (keeping my personal safety in mind) try to stop it, call the police, etc. If I saw a group of people beating up a Jew beacause he were a Jew, I'd probably jump in on the side of the Jew. If, however, I saw a group beating a guy because he was caught in the act of say, molesting a child, I'd grab the nearest 2x4 and help out the crowd.

I find these types of moral questions to be slippery and hard to center. There's just too many "if's".

I think again this comes to a question of ethics not morals. Is it ethically correct to do what you are doing....now WWJD. Morals are based upon religious ideals...ethics are based on humanity and common sence. It is morally wrong to some to have sex before marriage...It is ethically wrong to have unprotected sex.

It is morally wrong to call someone a name and hurt thier feelings (do unto others thingy) though it isn't really ethically wrong it just makes you look stupid and people like that end up with bruises ....it is ethically wrong to slander a person and cause them harm financially or emotionally. When ever you feel you need to question your morals on something check the ethics of it....logic wins every time. Not that we shouldn't follow our own moral guidlines but I think that ethics prove more structured and well founded.

Morrally we should not kill anyone....we know this Murder=Bad
But ethically if someone has a gun pointed at me and I have a gun....ummm I think it is ok to kill that person. If I followed my morals I would be dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality should not be enforced. Not by a government and certainly not by a company.
Morality varies from culture to culture, and what's perfectly acceptable in some circles, would be absolutely sacrilegious in others. I, for one, am sick and tired of having silly americanisms forced upon me. Not that there's an awful lot I can do about it

Thanks for the replies - especially to Bodhi who took a look at the list of acts. I concur with you - the first two are acceptable discourse in a free society. The rest should probably have been reported. Thing is, taken individually most of them were pretty innocuous, it's only in the aggregate or if done in an organized fashion that they become worrisome.

Jellin, I'd agree that this was a coldly dispassionate look at these things. If I were confronted with that situation I would hardly be able to separate it out very analytically. I chose the analytical approach here because I'm a bit of a coward and decided I'd rather just play in SL, rather than try and correct the people who did the things on my list. Especially since none were knowingly directed at me.

I'm sorry if this got you curious - if things blow up you'll definitely hear more from me. But if they stay quiet you'll just have to leave it as a mystery.