On occasion in the past before banning, we posted articles from Winter Watch in Reddit’s r/Conspiracy forum in order to test our interpretative framework on a given topic — but mostly to gauge what the cognoscenti think and are saying. One such recent test involved the concept of “truth bombs.” General reception to the topic was tepid, and there were plenty of one-click-pony down votes, but we did stir debate with one redditor that was particularly illustrative.
What is Hate?
To preface, let’s start with the English-language definition of the word “hate.”
Hate: feel intense dislike for. (Golly, put the handcuffs on.)
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
No one is free from these sentiments, nor should they be. It is normal. Hate crimes are a totally different separate category.
Before becoming a buzzword abused by politicians and social justice warriors, “hate” was certainly not a criminal thing. It’s was merely a sentiment. Only recently, Newspeak began attaching to it adjectives such as “extreme.” The label of “extreme hate,” or “hater,” is a useful tool for criminals to hide behind and deflect criticism. In fact prior to the last 8 years it includes many shadow language words we hardly used.
Hate, as a concept, has been looked at by wise men throughout the ages. And they often got the context and even merit of it. They recognized that forces of evil existed in the world.
“They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.” — Edmund Burke
“We do urge hate: If you love something, that love requires you to hate anything that threatens its survival.” — Matthew Hale
“Achilles glared at him and answered, ‘Fool, prate not to me about covenants. There can be no covenants between men and lions, wolves and lambs can never be of one mind, but hate each other out and out an through. Therefore, there can be no understanding between you and me, nor may there be any covenants between us, till one or other shall fall.” — Homer, “The Iliad”
“Feeding milk and bananas to a serpent only makes its venom more potent.” — Chanakya Pandita, Raja niti sastra, expeller of Alexander the Great
“A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; a time to be silent and a time to speak. A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.” — Ecclesiastes 7
Dino Ryan and I discussed all this in a recent show:
Hate Facts and Newspeak
Newspeak is propagandistic language that is characterized by euphemism, circumlocution and the inversion of customary meanings.
“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 some facts and those who 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. Hate facts/truth bombs are nothing more than factual information presented as an argument; whereas hate speech is derogatory language used pejoratively with no intention of educating an individual or group.
This creates a dangerous scenario because mainstream culture, which drives political discourse, is often in conflict with systematic realities. The suppression of dissidents attempting to spread factual truths to fellow citizens are then censored 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 brainwashed early on to believe that individuals who fit a given political label or social view 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.
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, sometimes these values and beliefs 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, lobbing accusations of “hate” is far simpler and less cognitively demanding.
In our Reddit r/Conspiracy “truth bomb”/”hate fact” test, one reddittor asked for examples. A contributor answered with the following list, which was heavily down-voted, thus illustrating the whole point. Essentially, you can’t even have a conversation about this or answer a basic question without the peanut gallery mouse clicking.
RMFN -4 points
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.
Sodomy causes rectal cancer.
Tattoos cause thyroid problems. Again a borderline black pill rather than a hate fact… But the line is grey.
Gay pride is celebrated as progressive but pride in your European ethnicity is hate speech. This contradiction is a hate fact.
I added my own example and I, too, was down-voted.
Hate 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 Thomas? What is it about foreigners that scares you?
Again, the truth bomb itself is not actually addressed. No claims are made that I’m wrong and that my sources are illegitimate. Instead, the person who responded to my example utilized an ad hominem, insinuating that I have an irrational fear of foreigners.
Metafavoritism and Prejudice
Enter redditor “Williamsates” (WS). This individual is actually a heavy hitter on Reddit with a lot of “karma” (up-votes).
His reply to my example: “This is not a fact. This is a rationalization for nativist ideology.”
So what he has done is dismiss the factual aspect of the truth bomb. He has also introduced a Newspeak ad hominem: something called “nativist ideology.” I must admit that at least he is more original (and clever) than those who merely cry “racist” or “Nazi.”
I try to stay focused on the truth bomb.
TM: Nonsense, Google social trust and multiculturalism and you will find scores of studies and research on this very impact.
As far as my original truth bomb, later in the debate, when I am defending the fact, he contradicts himself:
TM: nor does it refute the factual reality and validity of the social trust issue.
WS: Current low levels of social trust are not what is being denied.
At least here WS counters the academic literature with a counter study.
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/
I point out that social trust issues are more understandable based on the concept of metafavoritism.
They are merely pointing out the fact that most peoples prefer their own kind. It is called natural metafavoritism– lots of research on that as well. I say so what, all quite normal, not abnormal or pathological behavior — nor does it refute the factual reality and validity of the social trust issue. Muhammad Ali describes it succinctly.
Incredibly, after dismissing the very concept of white people as a kind he repeats his assertion that social distrust is caused by “prejudice.” By denying the existence of white people as a kind or having in-groups, in double-think he is claiming whites, or subgroups with the white race, don’t have a legitimate leg to stand on. WS is not long winded, his pontifications are blunt and to the point.
TM: They are merely pointing out the fact that most peoples prefer their own ingroup or kind.
WS: No, I was pointing out the specific fact that prejudice of white people is a better explanation of measurements of declining social trust, found in a Harvard study, than diversity. White people are not a kind.
Just to make sure we are discussing the same word — and not just your concocted Newspeak 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. Here is a sampling of black hoods at night. Here are sharia patrols harassing whites in Europe. These hate facts/truth bombs could go on and on.
Tell me what the “lack of reasoning” is in being on guard about this? The same would apply to socio-economics — I might not feel comfortable in white trailer hoods either.
Winter Watch Takeaway
So we go full circle. Thus the word “prejudice” joins the growing list of Newspeak and double-think. Any wag like “Williambates” can just pull a made-up term out of his ass with zero context to claim a contrived moral high ground. Any study and research into population social trust issues should be required to examine the numerous truth bombs (actual experiences) that might go into a group’s distrust of those outside the group.
In reality focusing on Newspeak defined prejudice is a false either-or dichotomy. Certainly, real prejudice — as accurately defined — exists, but it’s along a spectrum. Thus, it’s disingenuous and very dishonest for someone to conduct a study linking social trust to Newspeak definitions of prejudice. In fact, this may require the manipulators to actually have to change the classic definition of prejudice. No, don’t be surprised about that.
Was Muhammad Ali prejudiced or a bigot? In the world of Newspeak, he is. But, applying the classic definition of “prejudice,” he’s merely attributing his experience and reasoning to his evolved personal position. Whether you agree is beside the point. His view is not pathological and it’s not “hate speech” It’s within the range of normal metafavoritism. It’s a truth bomb. Boom!