Gay Patriot Header Image

The brand new politically correct meaning of hate

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:25 pm - June 27, 2013.
Filed under: Free Speech,Gay Marriage,Misrepresenting the Right

Perhaps the greatest difficulty of having a civil debate about gay marriage is the readiness of all too many (but fortunately not all) gay marriage advocates to label those who oppose gay marriage (or just state recognition thereof) as “haters,” or recalling Prop 8, h8ers.

Today, in a post at pjmedia (the Glenn linked), Roger Kimball finds that gay marriage advocates aren’t the only ones to define their ideological adversaries as haters. Reporting on the decision of the government of the United Kingdom to ban Pamela Geller and Robert Geller from visiting that nation, Kimball comments:

A spokesman for the Home Office welcomed the ban on Geller and Spencer, explaining: “The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.” Hmm — “who promote hate.” Query: do Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer “promote hate”? Or is that just a rhetorical epithet employed by ideologues bent on advancing a certain politically correct agenda in order to stifle criticism? (Another question: what is a “hate crime”? Is a crime more of a crime because it was committed by someone who dislikes the victim? Or is it like the term “social justice,” a piece of rhetorical legerdemain intended to lend gravity to a noun by the act of prefacing an emotionally charged but irrelevant adjective?)

The point is that the metabolism of liberal democracy depends upon the free exchange of ideas, which means, in part, a vigorous circulation of competing ideas. No less a figure than John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, pointed out: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” There is plenty to criticize in Mill, heaven knows (and I’ve done my bit to criticize him), but he was surely right that liberal democracy depends in part upon fostering the “collision” of competing ideas.

Emphasis added to elucidate the brand new politically correct definition of hate.

Read the whole thing.



  1. Like “racist”, “hater” is completely empty of content, just another way of saying, “Shut up and go away.” Like monkeys throwing their poop.

    Comment by EssEm — June 27, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - June 27, 2013

  2. I’ve been called both names, and each time I simply say this:

    “You can say it all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. If this is what you consider ‘racist’ or ‘hateful,’ then make the most of it. Now, let’s discuss the issue here.”

    Most of the time they are simply dumbfounded and can’t respond.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 27, 2013 @ 3:43 pm - June 27, 2013

  3. “Hater”, just like “Fascist” or even “Commie”, has lost all true historical political and meaningful social approbation.

    Now it’s just a “sound” hurled in impotent frustration….like shrieking monkeys flinging their own poo.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 27, 2013 @ 3:49 pm - June 27, 2013

  4. Of course they were denied entry to Great Britain. Don’t you know that Great Britain lost WWII and was overtaken by the NAZIs. In reality, Winston Spencer Churchill is turning over in his grave or least he should be over this gross injustice.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 27, 2013 @ 4:44 pm - June 27, 2013

  5. “The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.”

    And yet the UK hosts Muslim imams who call for death to gays, IIRC.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 27, 2013 @ 5:45 pm - June 27, 2013

  6. Churchill lost his mind in his addled old age. We are enormously fortunate that we have his wisdom preserved in his speeches and writings.

    Here are three of my favorite Churchill aphorisms:

    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

    “The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.”

    “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

    England has lost its soul. Churchill could have predicted as much. I worry that he may have been entirely wrong in one of his postulations:

    You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.

    We may have surrendered to the evil of mediocrity, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the comfort of failure. It is easier to be a victim and place blame than it is to hold your head up and put your shoulder to the wheel.

    Ferreting out the offenders of social justice is typical of the mob. The Jacobins in the French Revolution unleashed the Reign of Terror after their much vaunted Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen became too cumbersome and under the Republic of Virtue slogan they viciously purged (“cleansed”) Paris and the National Convention of its “disloyal” members. With the mob calling for more and more heads, the Jacobins tore themselves apart from within.

    This is how Britain castrated itself and how the United States is running pell mell to follow in its footsteps. Wimping out with only a whimper. Posterity be damned.

    The Demonizingrats know the mob too well. They know that the mob will sell its soul for half a chance to pet a unicorn and feel empowered and noble while doing it.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 27, 2013 @ 5:55 pm - June 27, 2013

  7. Spencer and Geller are in good company. It was back in 2009 when Dutch MP Geert Wilders was turned around at Heathrow because he was their, in the words of the Guardian, to “attend showing of his film about ‘fascist’ Qur’an at House of Lords”. (I assume he was invited by the members of the House.) He was later admitted.

    ‘fascist’ and ‘his film’ Fitna.

    If he were their to attend a screening of a movie negative towards Christians or Jews, they’d have rolled out the red carpet.

    Watching what’s been happening in Europe and now watching the immigration fiasco in DC one doesn’t need to see black helicopters to believe that the elites really do have it in for the rest of us.

    The only mystery is “why”.

    Comment by KCRob (SoCalRobert) — June 27, 2013 @ 6:17 pm - June 27, 2013

  8. Who needs Black Helicopters when you have the NSA, the IRS and the Telecoms providing 24/7 surveillance…

    Is anyone else following the assassination “accidental death” of Michael Hastings by the remote-hacking of his car’s onboard control-module? Who needs a drone-strike when the CIA/NSA/FBI now has “death by On-Star“?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 28, 2013 @ 8:58 am - June 28, 2013

  9. I had a local gamer call me ‘racist’ for saying that it’s possible that George Zimmerman is not guilty. She said I could only hold that opinion if I hated black people.

    After I stopped laughing I asked her why she hated Hispanics. After all, the only reason she could have for thinking he’s guilty, by her logic, is that she hates Hispanics.

    That shut her down.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2013 @ 12:55 pm - June 28, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.