Thursday, September 19, 2024

We Can't Solve Hate In Our Society: Accept What You Can't Fix!

I'm not advocating that we as people accept hate but recognize that we can't fix all situations because we do not have control over the minds of those who make decisions.  We also don't always have the power to fix that which is deeply embedded, often protected and rewarded. When this happens you can do the best you can but often your going to draw the aggressve ere of large crowds of segregationsts and hate supporters. The laws are sometimes subjective and until people stand together against hate and put pressure on our leaders to see all people as having value its never going to end. It will only grow as sociological changes and technology changes occur giving more voice to such groups. At the same time is a younger more diverse generation that is very much against hate and discrimination. It will likely get worse for a while before it gets better.

Read this piece on Why We Hate? and you will find that it is deeply embedded and the goal is to destroy, ostracize, damage, and hurt the targets of hate as much as possible. 

I have been using a hypothetical example to teach how hate may function on local level. In this example, hate rumors were used to dehumanize and ostracize the targets to encourage future hate. The also were rewarded by such hate and corrupted officials put the targets on a hit list and once they whistleblew on the hate group they were further targeted. Multiple incidents of attempted violence in view of witnesses swept away so as to protect the perpetrators (i.e. witness tampering and statement adjustments.). Some officials and the local justice system were aware of these behaviors. They are not all good or bad people but entilted to hate and entitled to misapplicaiton of the law to please certain extremist values and social groups. Not only were the targets denied justice but they were then further denied certain protections that should be available for all citizens. Wider extremist networks who previously were known to have engaged in serious anti-government/hate based extremism in other places took notice. Multiple people talked publically against corruption and hate and were stalked. While officially illegal there was a stake in protecting violence and corruption. The laws were and are subjective leaving open long term risks for the community who gallantly stood for their values without help. 

Now this is a hypothetical learning example to show some of the worst hate and the corruption that protects it. We can't solve this if the rules, laws and political environment encourage hate. So we have to come to accept that there are many people who want some members of society to be second class citizens and there is no backstop to that. They feel entitled to such aggression and they are protected in that aggression opening a much larger question on how tax payer dollars should be used. The legality of misbehaviors is so normalized that disagreeing with hate openly will put strip you of human and civil rights....even though what your doing helps others and in more alignment to your social contracts and culture. Your contributions to society, to others, to your nation means almost nothing to segregationists...perhaps less than nothing. 

I guess there is a silver lining to hate. Your not responsibile for the failings of society. The only thing you can do is encourage a better world. Talking about the value of all people regardless of supervision differences or the importance of institutions that serve the public strips you of all types of things including your rights and your opportunities. Your contributions to society are likely to be negated and anything helpful given away to others. Its not a prize if its not reflective of your work and your values. We have seen this in history in other places as well. They can have it freely! Nobody is going to fix these things they don't have the moral conscious and the higher you go the more you are required to loose your humanity.

*This is a hypoethical example for learning purposes. A type of thought experiment on freedom of religion, speach, Constitution and human rights. Take with a grain of salt. 

No comments:

Post a Comment