The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, [construed to include facial expression and/or eye movement] that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.” [emphasis and parenthetical addenda added]
This is so vague that it means any “communication” about any individual may be “massaged” so as to fit this so-called definition. Anything you say or “communicate” in any fashion, that anyone, anywhere doesn’t like, makes you à priori guilty of “hate speech”. [c.f. eye rape!!]
It’s bad enough to ban expression of any and all impressions - reasoned thoughts or mere feelings (accurate or irrational) - arising spontaneously in anyone who is not part of a preferred identity group. Typical of the “progress” regularly inflicted on the rest of us by progressives, an unguarded moment may be career-ending. In addition, it now seems there attaches an additional requirement when it comes to behaviors which were, until very recently, considered to be deviant, Now we must all actively affirm and approve any and all statements and acts of members of every class deemed to be “protected”. The fruition of this novel civic requirement can be seen in drag queen shows in public school kindergartens. It is these acts of obeisance and similar ones on which I will elaborate.
The implications of such mandatory affirmations of behaviors which are not generally practiced or accepted by the large majority, reveal the rationale for requiring explicit approval by all - on pain of excommunication. Historical precedent can be found in such things as loyalty oaths, recited credos or pledges of fealty. Though these were once ordinary civic requirements, the Enlightenment’s skepticism accelerated during the 19th century and ended in rejection of such practices by the late 20th century - by the newly organized “right thinking” groups like progressives - a herd of radical individualists. As the (mischaracterized) HUAC publicity made clear - behavioral demonstrations of loyalty were OUT… .
Out until virtue signaling sprouted up, that is, in the form of lawn signs, bumper stickers and similar shallow and tenacious circumlocutions witnessing one’s SJW credentials. These perennials now advertise not only political candidates, but those moral virtues contained in the rubrics of the one true religion: Our (Woke) Democracy™. What, we may ask, does a demand for universal and enthusiastic approval of things we don’t really approve, say about those who demand such approval?
Let us begin with deconstruction of the pertinent principles by observing the lowest common denominator - the individual. Basic hypothesis: to the extent that I am comfortable with myself, I have no need for the affirmation of my self image from anyone else. Conversely, to the extent I need your approval, I am unsure of my beliefs and practices, of who I am. If I need your approval, it is to reduce my own insecurity. This is hardly esoteric or hard to understand. For many, affirmation or self esteem is directly proportional to the quantity of likes or followers on (anti-)social media. No longer do we believe “I’m OK, you’re OK”. Rather it has become “I’m OK if and only if YOU say so” and you must do so spontaneously!
The operation of this principle can be clearly observed in the current manufactured controversy surrounding obesity. It was a recent report of this which provoked this essay. Those suffering with the problem are now told they are entitled to take up however much space they need (as in ‘… to each according to zir (sic) need’). Obese individuals ought to feel no need to lose weight; they have no problem as to health or otherwise; their only problem is the attitudes of others - those who do not publicly proclaim their enthusiastic acceptance of obese bodies as totally normal. To the extent this is lacking, anger, resentment and public vilification are the correct responses.
The fact is that obesity, in most every instance, is a result of an addictive mental process, one which has ample evidence of evolutionary survival value. The fact is that overeating is neuro- chemically and psychically identical to alcoholism and drug addiction. If the behavior is left unaltered (=enabled) - or now even enthusiastically supported by everyone else - itis a prescription for chaos for society and premature death/disability for the afflicted.
The truth is that recovery from addiction (all of them, ingestive - alcohol, drugs, food - and behavioral - sex/love, gambling, controlling others [yes, I mean you, progressives]) does, indeed, require a special community effort and surely the healing community does NOT act merely enable the addictive behavior. Just imagine for a minute if we told alcoholics to drink all they want or opioid addicts to go right ahead! Crucially, the recovering community is unlike those “communities” (a word whose meaning has been diminished by inflation and overuse) in which most of us ordinarily participate. If it is to be effective, this community must be completely voluntary and self-selected.
Another fundamental truth: you can’t compel a true community to exist; at best, you may force a tenuous simulacrum with smoke and mirrors. Since it forms and functions by attraction rather than promotion, efficacy consists in a blend of acceptance/love of the person - to reduce shame* - while simultaneously always maintaining focus on reducing the harmful behavior. Today, what is fashionable is to define and assign personhood by what a person does - by his/her actions. That is not the whole story, however.
Also crucial is recalling the fact that personhood - who an individual IS - is greater than the sum of his/her outward and visible actions. Individuals exist not only in the physical/material/observable realm. Who I am - my complete self as a human being - is in-formed equally of an essential spiritual (non-material) component; this part of me I may or may not offer for just anyone to see. Though I have only some control over my inner spiritual life, I can determine the extent to which I choose to share it with others.
This component of my self is that deepest part of our human nature which - by its ontological nature - is essentially human; it literally craves the acceptance of our true selves by others, including our fallen and broken parts. It is perversion of this principle which leads progressives to enable rather than actually help food addicts and other they purport to care about. The shame* mentioned earlier takes the form of what is usually one’s deepest secret: “If you really knew me, if I let you see the person who lives in my skin, you would hate me and reject me”. That is what shame is. Guilt is “I made a mistake”. Shame is “I am a mistake”. And it is exactly this which a loving community gives freely to the addicted sufferer: acceptance of the person but not all of their behaviors. Recovering communities know that behaviors and personhood are not necessarily coextensive.
So, let’s get back to “hate speech”. It is axiomatic in addiction treatment that the primary symptom of addiction is denial: “I am NOT an addict”; I do not have that problem”. In other words-
Don’t
Even
kNow
I
Am
Lying!
Much of the initial effort in treating addicts of all kinds is telling them things about themselves they do NOT want to hear - breaking through their denial. This will undoubtedly cause them to feel “uncomfortable” feelings; “offending” them, in other words. This often requires pointing out the lies they are telling themselves. This is precisely what true communities are able to do - because they are dedicated to helping addicts of all kinds to recover. It is often uncomfortable for the helpers, too. It is hard to confront addiction denial in a way it can be heard - kindly - by the addict. It is an acquired art, which requires discipline. Otherwise, if it is merely hurtful, anger is the only result.
So today according to the UN, treatment of food addiction (and other problems) is clearly “hate speech”. To avoid this offense (criminalized in much of the western world), then, we must stop treating addicts. If the correct treatment of morbid obesity is enabling affected individuals - as is being aggressively insisted in “media” - what justification can there be to discriminate (this very word has been made suspect, notwithstanding the fact that every one of us makes scores/hundreds/thousands of choices - discriminations - every day of our lives?). To live is to discriminate. It is how an organism survives. It is both part of and separate from its surroundings. The boundary is everything! And it must be permeable.
How then can we distinguish ingestive addiction - to food - from any other ingestive addiction? To discriminate between addictions by route of administration is not rational, since many oral substances/drugs are highly addictive and many parenteral addictive drug preparations are also effective when swallowed. Sadly, fact and reason are no longer the fixed stars used for guidance in the face of revealed progressive wisdom. The latter now mandates what we must do and what we must think - however absurd the results. The “narrative” is truth; no questions allowed!
The group most forceful in asserting that enabling is the mandatory approach are not necessarily the morbidly obese, themselves; they are mostly shameful, unhappy and long for relief. Rather, as with “trans” activists, the political agenda and its practitioners are supreme. If political coercion suffices to instantly reverse millennia of universal understanding of human ontology when it come to male/female, food addiction is small potatoes (pun intended) by comparison. Gasp! Even describing the category of “morbid obesity” is culpable (even criminal in some locales) says the United Nations. Addiction treatment, at the outset, in practice, can be likened to holding a mirror up so the addict may accurately see his/her real self. As with any observed reality, there is a statistical mean. It is stochastic. Healthy individuals learn to balance stochastic images of others with their own self image. For most of us this is a life work, never done. Only then may needed change begin.
“Outlaw mirrors! Outlaw honest impressions expressed by our fellows!” - say those who rely upon wisdom revealed only unto themselves - today’s supremely self-assured advocate/bullies, whose lifelong goal, rather than self knowledge, is power - pure and simple. It is the oldest and deadliest sin. (and though it is beyond the scope here, this same sin has brought us to being only days away from nuclear annihilation over Ukraine’s borders; not our own!).
Thus we are ruled by a power-crazed elite which ceaselessly divides us by every means imaginable, ever purporting, as with obesity, to prevent our ‘feelings’ from being hurt. At the same time this satanic cult ruling “Our (Woke) Democracy™” refuses to acknowledge that other nations define their own security interests on their own terms. Let’s see what happens, for instance, when the Mexican State of Chihuahua votes to secede from Mexico and join Mother Russia. Do you suppose that might - to Washington - pose an existential risk, as in Cuba in 1962?