It’s time to talk about hate.
‘Hate’ is after all an intense dislike of something, which is not tempered by any recognition of a counterbalance. Of course, in popular usage, the descriptor of ’hate speech’ is typically applied to the unhinged musings of religious fanatics and right-wing nut jobs.
It has however for sometime slipped into the toolkit of other tools, namely our old buddies the unhinged Remain/Rejoin/pro-migration/trans rights/disability *delete as appropriate cabal.
Yes, they’re all the same motley crew of social antagonists, who flip-flop from one cause to another because that’s what defines them.
These hardened, hate-spewing slacktivists use their Twitter platforms to preach and spread the word of loathing without ever acknowledging the emerging strengths of any countervailing perspectives. An example of that was the deafening silence that met the Government’s successful vaccination programme.
Many of the hatemongers are EU citizens, who live here in the UK. You can only imagine that this apparent voluntary self-torture stems from a greater and essential need to gain energy and motivation from constant aggression. The Irish foghorns are the most entertaining because they still haven’t twigged that the EU has continually abused and rinsed them and would see the Troubles return in a heartbeat in order to protect and prioritise the Single Market.
Ultimately, there’s nothing wrong with opposition, but few of them ever engage in reasoned argument. It’s all about their overwhelming negative emotions and dislikes. That is, in case the penny hasn’t dropped, as close to a definition of ‘hate’ as you will get.
It therefore seemed somewhat rich to hear prominent campaigners respond to the killing of Sir David Amess with a plea for a kinder politics. After all, they have themselves been stoking division in their own way for the past six years. It all rather smacked of a recognition that their own actions had arguably long overstepped the mark.
We should of course be wary of the easy conflation that can be pumped into the political space when it come to the opinions of some psychos and the deeds of others. Nobody is suggesting that the murder was precipitated by the bonkers Brussels brigade that has sprouted up on social media, nor that the same headcases go out to incite violence. They just relentlessly pen their hissy, unbridled absolutism onto waves of social media outpourings that trigger and promote conflict that has no objective other than to spite others.
The boat’s sailed, chaps.
Just as they seek to keep this hatred under wraps, they also stow away any evidence of inherent contradiction. Probe just a little and see that a policy of migration control prompts calls from the soft-headed whimsy left about ‘dog whistles’, but we now have a heightened sensibility about any suggestion that their own hardline stance might have activated an immigrent killer of a Brexiter MP.
I wonder how the pro-migration, open-sesame body will reconcile this with their own rhetoric? They’ll probably ignore it because that’s what they tend to do when a key event fails to fit their narrative.
I’m not suggesting there’s a case for either, but you can’t have one without the other. In EU lingo, that would be, ahem, ‘cake’.
However, whatever your political persuasion, few can deny that the psycho, self-entitled, ‘social democrat’ faux left have – along with warped wing of the swivel-eyed Leave loon posse – contributed significantly to extensive division within our society where absolute rejection of anybody with a differing perspective represents the ‘new normal’.
They might not like their words described as ‘hate speech’, but that’s what it is.
Hate is out there in plain sight, but a section of our society can’t see it.
Because they represent half the people generating it.