The Freedom to Hate

My opinion on hate.
You can hate anything and anything you want. You can express it and make it known. But there comes a point where a lot of people express their hate so much that it becomes harassment. No one has the right to harm another person, or to make their life difficult, or to treat them any different due to who they are, where they come from, or anything else that they can't controle.
Using the example of rape already noted, you can hate someone who commits rape or hate their action and not the person... that is completely up to you. You can imprison them and put limitations on them in an attempt to make them learn from their past. But you can't lock someone up and put limitations on them because you hate them. No matter what they have done the frame of mind of those doing the punishment (for lack of a better word) is what matters.
You can hate as much as you want so long as it doesn't infringe on others. You can express it but you can't impose it upon others.

Now I pose a question, Should we hate?
I believe the answer is no. All hate brings is pain to ourselves and while that is your choice it is just a form of self harm and people should strive to help you from it much like drug abuse. Also people who hate a person or group tends to hurt them in some form like denying transgender people from changing their ID, refusing to make wedding cakes for same sex couples, refusing a loan to a person of color, and so on. 99% of that kind of thing is done because either the hateful person doesn't see them as deserving of said service (thus imposing their hate) or because they want the person or group to feel degraded or experience negative emotions (thus harming their well being),

Warmed_By_Chai wrote: My opinion on hate.
You can hate anything and anything you want. You can express it and make it known. But there comes a point where a lot of people express their hate so much that it becomes harassment. No one has the right to harm another person, or to make their life difficult, or to treat them any different due to who they are, where they come from, or anything else that they can't controle.
Using the example of rape already noted, you can hate someone who commits rape or hate their action and not the person... that is completely up to you. You can imprison them and put limitations on them in an attempt to make them learn from their past. But you can't lock someone up and put limitations on them because you hate them. No matter what they have done the frame of mind of those doing the punishment (for lack of a better word) is what matters.
You can hate as much as you want so long as it doesn't infringe on others. You can express it but you can't impose it upon others.

Now I pose a question, Should we hate?
I believe the answer is no. All hate brings is pain to ourselves and while that is your choice it is just a form of self harm and people should strive to help you from it much like drug abuse. Also people who hate a person or group tends to hurt them in some form like denying transgender people from changing their ID, refusing to make wedding cakes for same sex couples, refusing a loan to a person of color, and so on. 99% of that kind of thing is done because either the hateful person doesn't see them as deserving of said service (thus imposing their hate) or because they want the person or group to feel degraded or experience negative emotions (thus harming their well being),

The baker you refer to, wasn't expressing hate. He was expressing his freedom to refuse service to the couple, simply because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity.

Denying trans people the ability to change the sex on their ID also is rarely about hate. For some, it's fear based. For others, it's enabling and normalizing mental illness.

I wasn't intending the baker example to be about any specific event. I've heard of several incidents and used it as a generic.
As for the ID debate with transgender people. I agree that fear is a common reason but I disagree that transgender people have mental illness (I'm not sure if you were alluding that they do or using an example). I live in a state where transgender people can change their ID and I do remember protest and discussions with people who did oppose it purely out of hate. I'm not trying to say that most people who oppose those things out of hate but instead that at least some do.

so by much of your own logic, it's perfectly reasonable that you get put in the corner so often.

regarding your behavior, it doesn't have to be a rule or law for a group, at large, to not want you around if you tend to make so many unhappy by your presence. You are responsible, just as much as whoever pushed the ban button, this is the logic you've expressed on other topics in this thread.

TOTJO purports itself as a religious community first; by your latest presented logic, it is perfectly reasonable to ban someone for consistently criticizing the temple and aggressively bucking against it's teachings and ideas and such. If credible argument can be based on readily available information as to why your presence is disruptive or otherwise unwelcome, that's not sjw mob-rule, it's the same logic as allowing christians to refuse service to a gay couple.

You're own logic counters your arguments, at face value. Your own arguments and stance also seem to present everything as being equal, and that too, is a flawed perspective. Hating a skin-head for attacking you is not on the same level as the skin-head hating you on the grounds of being Jewish; the assertion that some things thrown into the camp of "hate" are the same is not only a self-serving over-simplification, it's a false equivalence, and ignores situational context that can make one response demonstrably more appropriate than another.

At the end of all of these threads of yours, the fact remains: This Temple and adjacent space connected to it is not what you want it to be, nor has the temple collectively shown much, if any interest in being what you want it to be.

There are places that can happily accommodate you, elsewhere in cyberspace. And, again, some of your own logic, here: instead of emulating groups you find so distasteful, and the perceived behavior you hold in similar regard, instead of all this, perhaps you might just move on, and find a place that can actually make you happy?

Nothing is making you stay here, you know your way to the exit.

P.S. Your implication that being transgender is a mental illness is factually incorrect.

S point in this discussion I have yet to see come up is the definition of hate. Manu touched on it with asking the why. Asking this why is very important, when we do this, when we ask ourselves this question to ourselves in the most honest way. We will often find our hate is not truly hate but more than likely other emotions we have attached ourselves to, to the point that we have embraced hate as a shield around them if you will.

Also, I want to mention one thing that I often consider, hate begets hate. Act in hate and it is what you shall get back, something people seemed shocked by these days.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: S point in this discussion I have yet to see come up is the definition of hate. Manu touched on it with asking the why. Asking this why is very important, when we do this, when we ask ourselves this question to ourselves in the most honest way. We will often find our hate is not truly hate but more than likely other emotions we have attached ourselves to, to the point that we have embraced hate as a shield around them if you will.

Also, I want to mention one thing that I often consider, hate begets hate. Act in hate and it is what you shall get back, something people seemed shocked by these days.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Very good point, definitions are very important (one of my room mates and I debate them all the time). I define hate as any strong negative emotion that is accompanied by anger or desire to do harm. I can be disgusted with someone who eats pickles and not want anything to do with them. But if accompanied by anger or the desire to slip a laxative in their food for liking pickles it becomes hate.

Kobos wrote: So, I think this leads to an interesting question in the idea of a public forum of any type. However, the implications online are more interesting due to the nature of services. One should be able to express their beliefs open and freely if they do not lead to violent expression, however, in a public forum of the past, say a square with soap boxes, people can just walk away. Eventually over time those espousing the hate would begin to see their preaching as a waste of time as no one congregates near them. Second the person in the square preaching will no doubt suffer consequences for their speech such as vendors in the area not wanting to do business, drawing the ire of their neighbors ect.

Now we get to the paradox involved in online, the internet allows a high level of anonymity this can in itself allow more free expression but can also allow for the escape of consequence for said freedom to speak, which is also an inherent to the cost of free-speech. Second the time investment into the posting of these ideas is much different than in days previous, meaning people are much less likely to give up on them when they are not received well to the public. Often times leading to more sensational attempts to get it noticed, which over time often skirts the line of inciting violence to get the point across. The combination of these factors tends to lead people to appeal to authority. This then leaves the authority in a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. Its a difficult paradox, one I don't have a solution too besides issuing warnings watching the discussion evolve and once a line is crossed it has to be shut down. The issue is finding that line. Another issue involved is figuring out which side crossed the line and when. It's a real pickle.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I think Kobos touched on something important. Consequences.

It seems to me that there is an assumption made in this thread; that speech on an internet forum is just like public speech and should be treated as such. However, what if that is a false equivalence?

In there real world, for example, there have been people that confronted someone else based on their race or religion or nationality. These confrontations often lead to monikers and although these people were fully able to say whatever hateful thing in their head, they also suffered the consequences of how people in their lives would react to it. People have lost their jobs because of things they've said. One of the latest videos I saw this guy's young son, just a child, was pleading with his father to stop. His father was confronting a black man who he didn't think belonged in the building and was threatening to call the police. His young son agreed with the black man and begged his father to stop.

People use the internet as a means to dodge these very real world consequences. So even if one has the freedom to say whatever they want WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM MERELY THINKING IT... no one said you should have the freedom to say it in a way that protects you against the consequences. Let's be real. Many people are COWARDS who want to say things online they would NEVER use their freedom of speech to say in public because they're afraid of the consequences. Guess what? More people would rob banks if they weren't afraid of the consequences. And yes, robbing a bank is illegal. But the point is removing the consequences makes it so that COWARDS can spread their hate in a way that protects them from any real consequences while at the same time contributing to a particular climate; to a particular social environment that is hostile to other groups.

It amazes me how entitled some people feel. As much as they complain about other people they don't realize how spoiled and entitled you'd have to be to expect that you should have some right.... "right".... not simply to life or liberty or to pursue happiness... but also force those around you to listen to your "expression". No.... you have the right to speak, NOT TO BE HEARD! That is an important distinction and should be understood. A lot of people have great things to say; things that would possibly even change social consciousness in a positive way but guess what? If that person couldn't find a way to be heard then that's on them. No one NEEDS to hear you. That's not part of freedom of speech. And if someone just wants to express themselves, that's fine, but there is no requirement, law or otherwise, for anyone to be on the receiving end of that expression. But cowards like to get online and "express themselves". Of course its not really "themselves" they're expressing, but rather an untempered caricature of who they wish they were and what they wish they could say if they weren't afraid of other people. But that's a personal problem. No one has the right to be heard. That's not a thing that exists.

And so when we talk about what you can and cannot do on a public forum... its not the same as what you can do in your own home. You can walk around naked in your own home. Why? Because we assume that anyone in your home wants to be there and that's your property. You don't have a legal right to show your (other word for butt) in public. On your property? Yes. On TOTJO's property? No. If you want to express yourself by going nude, find a community where that's acceptable. It exists. By the same token there are online communities where hatred is encouraged. There, it's okay. But it's not a right. No one has to give you a platform. No one has to pass you the mic. No one has to put you on TV, radio, quote you in newspaper or magazine articles. No one has the right to be heard. Sorry, if I'm coming off pretty harsh. Personal journals, and even access to the forums here on TOTJO is a benefit, not a right. These things need to be understood.

I"m confused...transgender, or Gender dysphoria as described by The American Psychiatric Association(https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria) is not once described as a mental illness. Where are we getting the idea that it is?

I may be incorrect but I do believe that the designation was changed in the last few years. I personally agree with the current APA designation because it is not a stand alone mindset, either due to or coinciding with though tend to be paired with depression/anxiety issues (a theory behind the high suicide rate within the trans community).

Much Love,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: I may be incorrect but I do believe that the designation was changed in the last few years. I personally agree with the current APA designation because it is not a stand alone mindset, either due to or coinciding with though tend to be paired with depression/anxiety issues (a theory behind the high suicide rate within the trans community).

Much Love,
Kobos

There is an entire 28 page thread about this. Can you move this discussion there?

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/122801-transgender-an-identity-issue