Hate Facts versus Hate Speech

1  2018-05-04 by clovize

Hate Facts (also referred to as truth bombs) are uncomfortable truths that make people angry. The taboo nature of such facts trigger deep emotions in those who have been culturally conditioned to believe that the facts themselves, and those espousing them, are morally inferior. This self perception of moral superiority is enough to dismiss any and all factual claims through pejorative accusations while never actually addressing the facts themselves.

Hate facts are not to be confused with Hate Speech, although it is often labeled as such by those who wish to ignore the facts presented to them. Whereas hate facts are nothing more than factual information presented as an argument, hate speech is derogatory language used pejoratively with no intention of educating an individual or group. This creates a dangerous scenario since mainstream culture, which drives political discourse, is often in conflict with systematic realities. The suppression of dissidents attempting to spread factual truths to their fellow citizens are then suppressed through false accusations of hate, rendering society less flexible to correct its flaws early enough to avoid widespread harm. This is often easy to do, since many have been enculturated early on to believe that individuals who fit a political label are immoral and should be shunned.

There are several psychological reasons why individuals may act adversely to someone presenting factual claims. The first is that of conditioning, a psychological phenomenon discovered by Ivan Pavlov in his famous study of dogs. Pavlov discovered that the dogs in his laboratory would salivate when hearing a bell that rang. This bell was rung when the dogs were fed, and they began to associate the external stimuli (the bell) with food. This involuntary response is called a conditioned reflex.

Like dogs, humans are also susceptible to conditioned reflexes. From the time we are children, our schools, churches, media and other institutions bombard us with values and belief systems. Such repetition over long periods of time causes crystallization to occur in one's identity and perception of reality. While there is still much to learn about these mechanisms, recent research has discovered that when these views are challenged, increased activity in the default mode network—a set of interconnected structures in the brain, occurs.

Unfortunately, these values and beliefs often conflict with empirical realities. By the time an individual comes into contact with facts that place their worldview in opposition with reality, they are incapable of critical analysis and experience dissonance. Left with no argument to defend one's previously established worldview, accusations of "hate" are far simpler and less cognitively demanding.

39 comments

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

Pattern recognition is anti Semitic ;)

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

What's an example of a hate fact, and how is it different than a regular fact.

1  clovize 2018-05-04

Fact: Policies that promote mass immigration and multiculturalism don't take into account the long term effects they have on society. Diverse societies have lower social trust, less voluntary social interaction, and higher rates of political polarization and conflict.

Dismissal: Why are you so xenophobic John? What is it about foreigners that scares you?

(Again, the argument itself is not actually addressed. No claims are made that John is wrong and that his sources are illegitimate. Instead, the dismisser utilizes an ad hominem and insinuates that John has an irrational fear of foreigners)

1  williamsates 2018-05-04

Fact: Policies that promote mass immigration and multiculturalism don't take into account the long term effects they have on society. Diverse societies have lower social trust, less voluntary social interaction, and higher rates of political polarization and conflict.

This is not a fact. This is a rationalization for nativist ideology.

1  Nufalkes 2018-05-04

Considering also Clovize is probably American the irony is fucking hilarious.

1  clovize 2018-05-04

Nonsense, Google social trust and multiculturalism and you will find scores of studies and research on this very impact.

1  williamsates 2018-05-04

Yeah yeah,

After reanalyzing the same dataset used by Putnam, Abascal and Baldassari asserted that when it comes to distrust and diversity, most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities. In other words, greater distrust may stem from prejudice rather than from diversity per se.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-diversity-create-distrust/

1  clovize 2018-05-04

Yes they are merely pointing out the fact that most peoples prefer their own ingroup or kind. It is called natural metafavoritism- lots of reseach on that as well. I say say so what, quite normal, not abnormal behavior. Mohemmend Ali descibes it succintly.

1  williamsates 2018-05-04

Yes they are merely pointing out the fact that most peoples prefer their own ingroup or kind.

No, I was pointing out the specific fact that prejudice of white people is a better explanation of declining social trust, found in a Harvard study, than diversity. White people are neither an ingroup or kind.

It is called natural metafavoritism- lots of research on that as well.

This is what is referred to as equivocation.

nor does it refute the factual reality and validity of the social trust issue.

Current low levels of social trust are not what is being denied.

1  clovize 2018-05-04

that prejudice of white people is a better explanation of measurements of declining social trust

Just to make sure we are discusing the same word: Definition of prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

If you are white- have you ever been in predominately black or Latino neighborhoods? They can be pretty hostile especially after dusk. I got my ass kicked pretty good by black gangbangers at old Sicks Stadium in Seattle. Here is a sampling of a black hood at night. Tell me what the "lack of reasoning" is in being on guard about this? The same would apply to socio-economics- I might feel the same about some white trailer hoods.

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

Okay, let's say I agree that that is a fact, or at least have the backing of evidence. What is the benefit of calling these hate facts?

From a purely linguistic sense, it doesn't follow the same construction as hate speech or hate crime, in which the person carrying out the speech or action is motivated to do so out of hatred (or so the theory goes). In the case of hate facts, are you saying you believe them to be facts because of your hatred for someone? I'm just not sure why you need the word hate here at all.

1  clovize 2018-05-04

For starters I would suggest your are overreacting (by conditioning) to the word hate. In the English langauge, at least until it was politicized, it was not that viserial and certainly not criminal.

Hate ;feel intense dislike for.

synonyms: loathe, detest, dislike greatly, abhor, despise, execrate, feel aversion towards, feel revulsion towards, feel hostile towards, be repelled by, be revolted by, regard with disgust, not be able to bear/stand, be unable to stomach, find intolerable, shudder at, recoil from, shrink from

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

Crime statistics that include race.

The genetic nature if IQ.

Quotes from the Koran concerning the justification of the rape of non Muslim women.

The fact of genetic racial differences.

College admissions practices (more of a black pill than a hate fact tho).

Sodomy causes rectal cancer.

Tattoos cause thyroid problems. Again a borderline black pill rather than a hate fact... But the line is grey.

Pollution by continent is a hate fact.

Gay pride is celebrated as progressive but pride in your European ethnicity is hate speech. This contradiction is a hate fact.

There are more.

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

Why the use of the word "hate," then? I get that there's a contradiction in how two claims are adjudicated and perceived by society or some subset of society, but I fail to see how "hate" is an accurate or useful modifier for "fact," either grammatically or rhetorically.

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

It's a play on words. The "alt right" uses the term hate facts because of how "liberals" react to them. They can't even address them because they trigger cognitive dissonance that if addressed would shatter their delicate world view. This is when the person using "hate fscts" is labeled a bigot or anti Semitic for just laying out an observable trend or a uncomfortable fact. It's a way to dispel the power of words like "hate speech".

I see "hate facts" as a very powerful memetic term that if used properly can change the frame of a discussion.

It shows that some people won't look at empirical evidence because their world view won't allow it.

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

Yeah, I get that, I just find it rhetorically ineffective.

The utility of "hate speech" as a concept is that a culture or subculture can effectively censor certain types of speech by deeming them "hateful," and creating a conditioned response to accusations thereof. It conditions people within the culture to censor others' speech for being "hateful," as well as a self-censorship of the same. And it's quite effective.

"Hate facts" as a concept seems to be a satire of "hate speech" turned on itself, but fails IMO because 1) the analogy is not accurate, and 2) it does nothing to point out the actual flaw in the idea of hate speech. It's the rhetorical equivalent "nuh uh, you too!" It might rally one's own side, but will persuade almost no one from the other side and few onlookers either.

A much more effective rhetorical strategy would be to call these "proscribed facts" or "blacklisted facts." This gets to the heart of why the concept of hate speech is so dangerous to free speech, because it censors ideas not based on their truth, but because of their alleged implications. It also gets someone who agrees that hate speech should be proscribed to consider their own cognitive dissonance over why something should be proscribed if its true, or could be true.

1  asdf2100asd 2018-05-04

he didn't name it, he is just explaining the OP's view as requested. so why is he being downvoted.

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

;) you're lucky I'm even talking to you right now, thot police.

1  10minutebans 2018-05-04

Why are they a mod here?

1  Nufalkes 2018-05-04

Take your bullshit close-minded bullshit and take it else where.

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

Take your bullshit close-minded bullshit and take it else where.

Care to actually address the "hate facts" I presented.

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

You see this example of their reaction /u/celinehagbard?

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

Sure, someone took the bait and got upset. Now what? Did you change their mind? Did you cause them to question their own cognitive dissonance? Did you cause any onlookers to reconsider their positions?

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

I don't have to change their mind. Once they result to attacks they are showing the irrational nature of their position. it's not about changing "liberal" minds. It's about making "liberals" look insane to those who are not particularly political.

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

to those who are not particularly political.

Right, it's the audience you're playing to. I get that. But you're not really attacking the strongest counter-arguments, just those of the "liberal" who bites. It only works in downvoted threads where no one actually comes.

I'm not saying it can't work at all, just that it isn't going to be that effective in a broader sense.

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

Do you ever see me use hate facts like the ones listed? Maybe a few. But they are very carefully framed.

Your reasoning is why I shy away form this particular rhetorical tool. I was just giving you the examples you asked for.

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

Makes sense. I actually think the "proscribed facts" rhetoric could be effective in some situations, though.

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

My motto; I am the enemy. The enemy of received values and opinions. Fits that I think.

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

Revaluate those morals!

1  clovize 2018-05-04

Your comment is hate speech and I might add the bullshit: hate speech is derogatory language used pejoratively with no intention of educating an individual or group.

To be hate fact you would have to cite some science or at least a study supporting your assertion. For example: Israeli Geneticists Find Ashkenazi Jews Are 40% More Susceptible to Dangerous Mental Disorders Due to Inbreeding - see

1  FatFingerHelperBot 2018-05-04

It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!

Here is link number 1 - Previous text "see"

Please PM /u/eganwall with issues or feedback! | Delete

1  asdf2100asd 2018-05-04

even though you didn't give specific examples, the fact that you're downvotes and then the guy that responds purely with anger is upvoted, is just so sad it's actually funny. literally in a thread about exposing this exact type of reaction. is the lack of awareness really this high in people?

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

The votes are manipulated in this sub.

1  asdf2100asd 2018-05-04

yeah sometimes it's actually crazy how blatant the manipulation is.

but other times it's just.... weird.

like what is the agenda here? I wonder how it works actually.

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

It's mostly done by bots. My comment confused the algorithm.

1  asdf2100asd 2018-05-04

Well he said in the first paragraph what it is.....

Here are some examples I can think of off the top of my head:

1.) Contradictions or passages from religious texts/teachings that clearly go against today's moral code. For example, here is a fact: The ten commandments is sexist. One of the commandments is "Thou shalt not covet they neighbors wife". That is sexist, the wife does not belong to the man. And where is the commandment for the wife? She is not an object.

Here is another: there is a regular claim that Islam is a "religion of peace". And, yet, there are numerous verses that call for the murdering of non-believers(often brutally).

Another topic that many people seem to struggle with facts is gender. As a generality, Males and females are physically different, and have different strengths. Given equal chances, there are many areas where men will tend to tend to dominate women, regardless of effort or desire.

Another fact: you are not your culture and it doesn't belong to you, and this also holds true for everyone you know.

Here is another one: overwhelmingly, physiologically speaking, the primary factory in weight gain or loss is calorie intake (how much you eat). If you eat less food you will lose weight, and if you don't lose weight you are eating too much food.

ok that is some

1  UnbearablePenguin 2018-05-04

There is no such thing as a hate fact. Facts are not biased. You mean to say hate beliefs.

1  asdf2100asd 2018-05-04

I think you don't get what he is saying...? Or just being difficult.

1  6GorillionLies 2018-05-04

Canada has made "hate facts" the same as hate speech. You should be thankful if you are American. Facts are against the law here.

1  williamsates 2018-05-04

Fact: Policies that promote mass immigration and multiculturalism don't take into account the long term effects they have on society. Diverse societies have lower social trust, less voluntary social interaction, and higher rates of political polarization and conflict.

This is not a fact. This is a rationalization for nativist ideology.

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

Okay, let's say I agree that that is a fact, or at least have the backing of evidence. What is the benefit of calling these hate facts?

From a purely linguistic sense, it doesn't follow the same construction as hate speech or hate crime, in which the person carrying out the speech or action is motivated to do so out of hatred (or so the theory goes). In the case of hate facts, are you saying you believe them to be facts because of your hatred for someone? I'm just not sure why you need the word hate here at all.

1  10minutebans 2018-05-04

Why are they a mod here?

1  CelineHagbard 2018-05-04

Makes sense. I actually think the "proscribed facts" rhetoric could be effective in some situations, though.

1  RMFN 2018-05-04

My motto; I am the enemy. The enemy of received values and opinions. Fits that I think.