Self hate may encounter free speech

The question:

references to particular ethnic or religious groups as “viruses” or “cancers” in need of extirpation are socially unacceptable, triggering immediate thoughts of genocide and mass murder.

Why, then, should it be acceptable to refer to all humanity in this fashion? Does widening the circle of eliminationist rhetoric somehow make it better?

Professor Reynolds wonders Who is responsible for Warmabomber’s violent agenda? and if it is related to the the currently stylish description “eliminationist rhetoric.”

There seems to be a lot of folks out there who think mankind is a cancer, a virus, or a disease that infests the planet. That opinion oozes out in discussion, in speech, and, sometimes, in action. Some actions are fairly benign while others are not.

The environmental movement needs to bring its hate-filled rhetoric under control, before it’s too late. There are too many potential James Lees out there, and some of them may be more competent than Lee was. Don’t encourage them through over the top rhetoric.

I would say “it’s for the children,” but I’m afraid they’d hear “the children” as “the filthy human babies.

Environmentalism is not the only issue. There are many where the boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not are being subject to moral equivalence. Every freedom comes with a responsibility. When that responsibility is abused then freedoms are lost. If responsibilities are not reinforced, then tragic consequences may result. The problem facing society is how to discriminate between hate mongering and its ilk and responsible political dialog. Whether it is climate warming or same sex marriages or race or religion, the evidence seems to indicate an intolerable tolerance and that creates stresses likely to cause fractures.

Comments are closed.