Why is it that the word hater is thrown around by some of the worst examples of humanity? From Instagram socialites to Hip hop artists that spread selfish misogynistic, ignorant and violent attitudes. It is too easy for people to dismiss any criticism as hate rather than work on their own character flaws. In the age of self-importance, more and more people are putting themselves on a pedestal rejecting criticism in their rose tinted narcissistic outlook. “It is everyone else that is the problem not me”. The word hater is slowing down the development of human interaction by not allowing people to change themselves for the better.
Not only does this word destroy critical thinking/discussion on certain subjects, it oppresses women and men from enjoying the beauty of sex. Jealousy from both women and men leads to this destructive form of name calling. Scared that their friends, family, foes or crushes will give in to their desires and bring shame or jealousy upon them. Not only does this word put a dampner on desires through the fear of stigmatization, but it destroys reputations.
For some reason in 2017 sex is still tied up with morality, as if having a high sex drive makes you a bad person. This lingering label often overrides any intellectual achievement as it is easy to dismiss someone’s opinion by labelling them a slut. Although there is a growing movement, many writers or entertainers will avoid “taboo” subjects like sex. This is so their reputations are not tarnished as these subjects are often frowned upon academically.
So what happens? Through fear, many people self-sensor themselves, their sexual appetites and their interests. All because of a word.
3. LEFT/RIGHT WING
Simply, without expanding on the point here – some left wing ideas are bad, some right wing ideas are bad, and vice versa. It really is as simple as that.
When people start labelling left or right wing it’s too easy for the opposition to dismiss them, no matter how right they are. Furthermore it’s easy to look at the leaders of your chosen side with rose tinted glasses. This was shown by the blind support and condemnation of Trump and Clinton.
This rigid way of thinking will never allow for any progress of thinking. The whole scope of human ideology should be discussed to allow for the evolution of ideas, an expanse of consciousness. Instead protests emerge censoring ideas keeping minds caged in a fluffy box of delusion, never having their thoughts challenged.
Furthermore a person should be brave enough to lead themselves. To take in the available information and make an informed decision based on their own morality. People should not be confined to a manmade concept of political leaning. Do what is just by your own moral compass not what you are told by your political masters. Be fluid in your beliefs, be your own beacon of truth. Free from the shackles of party political policy.
Obesity especially in the parts of the word where this word is most prevalent is at epidemic levels. Have you ever heard such a first world problem as creating a word and a movement to protect your feeling from the fact you have eaten too much? As stated by the Guardian “nearly two-thirds of men and women in the UK are obese or overweight” (Sedghi 2014). And according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases the problem is worse in America as they have broken the two thirds marker (NIDDK 2012).
Heart disease is the number one killer in America (Marcus 2016) along with a whole host of obesity related diseases which are problematic to a healthy society. Considering this, the anti-fat shaming movement is very worrying. Instead of working to achieve a healthy body, those in the movement would rather everyone else adapted their attitudes to unhealthy body images. Furthermore the new plus size movement of models further normalises unhealthy bodies and eliminates the motivation to better themselves. Now, ultra-skinny models are not a healthy representation of the ideal body either and this should also be addressed. However, models should be the paramount of excellence, beauty and fitness giving people something to strive for.
This brings me on to my main point. Under the guise of social acceptance. The anti-fat shaming movement lazily attack anything criticizing the overweight, and those proud of slender physiques. Critics and health experts are slammed as Fat Shamers by those people shamelessly overindulging in food instead of working towards health.
As with every religion Islam has problems. However the term Islamophobia and the propensity of Muslims to be brown hinders any critical discussion on dealing with the problem.
Trevor Phillips the former head of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission who coined the phrase Islamophobia has come to the realisation that fear of this word breaks down any discussion:
“Non-Muslims who live and work in areas with a large Muslim presence have been uneasily aware of the emerging differences for a long time, but many are too worried about being tagged as Islamophobes to raise the debate” (Murray 2016).
It is of course important not to harass, dehumanise or judge people for their beliefs of lifestyles. What is import is to criticize the teachings themselves, highlighting problematic passages that we can evolve into twenty first century living.
There are some very real concerns towards the teachings of Islam and how this surfaces in the Western world. However accurate or unfounded these concerns are is not the issue. No one will ever elevate false fears or correct unethical religious teachings if there is not first an open debate. Shutting down people for alleged Islamophobia encroaches on free speech. In an ever more socially accepting society the perceived anti female anti homosexuality themes in the Quran have to be addressed.
It is now clear that Islam is inherently related to terrorism as demonstrated by atrocities across the globe. Perhaps this relates to Muhammad the prophet of Islam, who spread the teachings of Islam through aggressive military action. Muhammad in fact was the inventor of insurgency warfare and can rightly be described as a terrorist himself:
“Terrorism seems to be an indispensable element of a successful insurgency, and it was no less so in Muhammad’s case” (Gabriel 2007). Maybe terrorism is in response to American foreign policy meddling in Muslim majority countries.
I do not claim to know the causes or the solution but the only way we can find both is to have an open discussion. A discussion in which may offend some but for the greater good of humanity.
Racism exists and is unlikely to go away at least subconsciously. As stated by Medical Daily, racism may be an innate quality of humanity:
“Racism is hardwired into the brain and operates unconsciously because areas that detect ethnicity and control emotion are closely connected” (Hsu 2012).
What about conscious racism? Through the law of averages there will be always be people of all races openly discriminating against other ethnicities. This is indeed a very serious and abhorrent issue that humanity should work to eliminate. However the seriousness of the issue has either been lost along the way or has been corrupted for an agenda.
I am talking of course about false racism claims. A term colloquially named – playing the race card. Every time the card is falsely pulled it harms the person’s race that is pulling it. It diminishes the word, belittling the value of racism itself. The boy who cried wolf nature of it trickles down and dilutes the believability of real racism.
However for now, the term racist is still strong enough to destroy careers. The threat of which limits people not least reporters and politicians to safe areas of discussion about race. The threat of being called racist looms over them like a self-censoring big brother on the shoulder.
When used falsely racism or racist is a diminishing and censoring word. Debates can be shut down, problems unchallenged all because of the bastardization of this phrase.
7. Politically correct/incorrect
It is perhaps no surprise that this comedic code of wordspeak comes from a Communist joke. Here is the Stalin era phraseology that developed into modern day political correctness
“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”
“Yes, it is. But it is politically correct” (Miltimore 2016).
What political correctness is, is the decimation of language to suit the needs of the offended. It is an absurd idea that people need to be protected from the sting of words. Some of which are increasingly ridiculous as shown by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who now list the term – politically correct as a micro aggression.
It is a mystifying idea that anyone not least Liberals would campaign for the limitation of language. Of actively asking for their rights of free expression to be censored by others. Christopher Hitchens illustrated beautifully that no one on earth is qualified to censor the language of an individual:
“To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor? Isn’t it a famous old story that the man who has to read all the pornography, in order to decide what’s fit to be passed and what’s fit not to be, is the man most likely to be debauched” (The Sceptical Libertarian 2016).
The phrase is detrimental to free discussion, conversation and writing. The fear of being ousted as a bigot for saying the wrong word, no matter how innocent the intent is crippling. It turns people into mumbling messes, creeping on the eggshells of language. How can conversations and ideas run freely when people are constantly second guessing their wording?
Protecting language and vocabulary is far more important than protecting feelings.
One of the principles of the scientific community is to continually develop ideas further when presented with new evidence. This is one the many arguments atheists use to challenge religion and hold science and rational above religion. But climate change, formally known as Global Warming is a religion. There seems to be a bullying mentality towards the theory, those that deny or differ from the established theory are looked at with scorn, and deemed climate change deniers, no matter their scientific credentials. Indeed, many scientists risk their jobs and their reputation for disagreeing with the established view. Figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Sheldon Whitehouse and David Suzuki even want to make this a legal issue (Jackson 2017). Not to mention the overwhelming financial support the scientific community receives in their investigations tallying around $1.5 trillion a year (Delingpole 2015). If the theory is disproved, there will be a horde of scientists without jobs, which is a huge conflict of interest.
Although the scientific community (to varying degrees depending on the source) are in majority agreement that climate change/global warming is manmade, this does not make up for those that do not. If there is a shred of dissent on the theory then it is unresolved, and science sceptics should be listened to, and not silenced.
There are varying levels of disagreement such as:
• Global warming is a good thing to an extent – Professor Richard Tol (Ridley 2013)
• It is a natural cycle – Nicola Scafetta (Bell 2012)
• It is happening but it will have little effect – Atmospheric physicist Richard S. Lindzen (Sullivan 2017)
• It is caused by sun activity – (Capozolla 2016)
There is a doubt amongst the public towards climate change which links back to conspiracy theories, and those that were proven true. Little trust can be garnered from a government that are repeatedly shown to lie and scheme. There is a glaring suspicion in to how world governments are tackling the problem. Any time a solution is proposed that lines the pockets of those at the heart of it, (such as the carbon tax) there is bound to be scepticism.
Oddly many people miss an important point of the debate. Whether or not manmade climate change exists or not people can still embrace renewable energy. New developments in energy conservation and renewable energy can wrestle power away from the global elite giving more power back to the people. This will also hinder the need for anti-terrorist guised resource wars in oil rich countries. Furthermore this near eliminates the need for the west to cosy up to barbaric regimes like Saudi Arabia to suckle off their oily nectar. Pollution is without doubt a huge problem in the world and many renewable forms of energy such as biofuel, are an incredible way of recycling waste, and cleaning the planet.
Scientists should not abandon the concept of challenging the consensus. Of reanalysing and experimenting to constantly evolve scientific theory. People should not be bullied for their expert opinion or feel under threat of job loss for going against the grain. All that matters it accuracy and truth. Nothing is eternal in science if enough evidence can counter claims. The political phrase climate change denier is a tool to quell and silence dissent on an unproven issue.
9. Conspiracy theory/theorist
We are all wise enough to realise that nearly all conspiracy theories are ridiculous. But where did the phrase come from, and why are they increasingly bizarre and implausible. Not to forget the wave of theories proven true, including mind boggling examples such as project paperclip and MK Ultra.
Project Paperclip – As stated by (Walker 2005) after world war two the US pardoned over 700 Nazi scientists in exchange for their technological research and to further exploit their expertise. These scientists and their research were fundamental in US weapons, aircraft and space programme development. This Gives credence to the theory that the Nazis built NASA.
MK Ultra – As stated by (Zetter 2010) MK Ultra was a CIA run programme aimed at exploring mind control techniques. These experiments used psychedelic drugs, hypnosis, subliminal messaging, isolation and electroshock therapy in pursuit of controlling minds and developing a truth serum. This was often done without consent to unknowing members of the public.
Who was the most famous participant in the experiments? Ted Kaczynski AKA the Unabomber.
Now everyone knows the US government are up to some murky business even if they can’t put a finger on it. Speaking of fingers, the USA have more fingers in more pies than Mr Kippling. Case in point supporting and funding Osama Bin Laden and the inevitable blowback post-Soviet war in Afghanistan. Not to mention their involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, and so forth.
But here comes the clincher. The CIA are widely regarded to have invented the term conspiracy theory or at least weaponized the term to reflect away criticism of the government. This was in response to scepticism of the Kennedy assassination report (Warren Commission) in which every CIA bureau received directives to stigmatise the term.
“Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question” (Tracy 2013).
So, what’s my point? My point is that there are many horrible things that the US government have done, are doing and will do. Some of these we know of, some of these we will never know and some we may rightly guess. Conspiracy theorist is thrown around far too dismissively when people try and question the narrative, especially since this was the plan by the CIA in the first place.
Fake news. The phrase on everyone’s lips at the moment. Even Donald Trump is getting in on the action, accusing multiple news agencies as fake. The funny thing is this may not be far off. With the unethical practices of journalism these days mainstream news may very well be faked. Skewed to the opinion based viewpoint of that company. Rupert Murdoch for example owns huge swathes of media in Britain and America including Fox News (Vinton 2016) and the Sun newspaper UK (Curran 2016). As stated by the man himself at the Leveson inquiry the opinions expressed on his platforms are his own:
“If you want to judge my thinking, look at the Sun” (O’Carroll 2012).
The suspicion is, that this was a ploy to discredit alternative news and wrestle back audience from a dying traditional media. This has drastically backfired against them holding a mirror to their own murky malpractices.
Although there are some hideous examples of fake news in the alternative media they often touch on subjects out of bounds by the mainstream media. The mainstream media are often bound by their corporate masters to look favourably on their advertisers. Alternative media are less burdened by the claws of the elite. Unlike the mainstream which consists of a cabal of corporate conglomerates in which 90% of the American media is owned by six companies (Bishop 2015). This includes Disney and this cosy relationship of intertwining news and corporations is detrimental to unbiased reporting and truth. The problem may be that alternative media in their unrestricted reporting hit at the very heart of corporate America.
The term has of course been used as a political weapon to discredit information. Any political scandal can be swept under the rug as fake news and the mainstreams cooperation with this narrative helps to solidify the idea. True reporting should not be bound by advertisers and should question our beliefs no matter how outlandish they sound.
Facebook are leading the charge against alternative media
“A powerful Democratic media watchdog has successfully convinced Facebook and Google to censor and suppress alternative media websites from their platforms” (Adl- Tabatabai 2017).
Which leads us to a philosophical conundrum. Who gets to decide what is real news and what is fake, the mainstream and the Government each bound by glaring conflicts of interest? There seems to be a battle ragging for freedom of knowledge. Freedom from the strangle hold of information and the fight back from those who have long controlled the minds of men. This political language will be used increasingly to discredit information. Just remember falling for the fake news narrative helps take the information back from the many in to the hands of the few. And by the few I mean in the hands of six news corporations.
Bishop, V. (2015). The Illusion of Choice: 90% of American Media Controlled by 6 Corporations. [Online] Available at: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/08/28/t … porations/. [Accessed 10/05/17]
Vinton, K. (2016). These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies. [Online] Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton … 5a0f97660a. [Accessed 10/05/17]
O’Carroll, L. (2012). Rupert Murdoch: the best quotes from his evidence to the Leveson inquiry. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/ … est-quotes. [Accessed 10/05/17]
Taylor, J. (2013). Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis. [Online] Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo … 2fe52034c7. [Accessed 10/05/17]
Green Garage Blog. 8 Main Pros and Cons of the Carbon Tax. [Online] Available at: https://greengarageblog.org/8-main-pros … carbon-tax [Accessed 10/05/17]
Delingpole, J. (2015). Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day. [Online] Available at: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … ion-a-day/ [Accessed 10/05/17]
Sullivan, M. (2017). MIT physicist warns against ‘alarmism’ over climate change. [Online] Available at: http://www.telegram.com/news/20170122/m … ate-change [Accessed 10/05/17]
Jackson, K. (2017). Five Reasons Why Ridicule Is The Proper Response To Global Warming Alarmists. [Online] Available at: http://www.investors.com/politics/comme … alarmists/ [Accessed 10/05/17]
Capozzola, S. (2016). Rebutting Climate Alarmism with Simple Facts. [Online] Available at: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … ple-facts/ [Accessed 10/05/17]
Bell, L. (2012). Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change. [Online] Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ … b8b04373ad [Accessed 10/05/17]
Ridley, M. (2013). Why climate change is good for the world [Online] Available at: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/ [Accessed 10/05/17]
Hasson, P. (2015). UWM says ‘politically correct’ is no longer politically correct. [Online] Available at: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6907 [Accessed 10/05/17]
The Editors. (2014). CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: “FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS FREEDOM TO HATE.” [Online] Available at:http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/. [Accessed 10/05/17]
Miltimore, J. (2016). The Historical Origin of ‘Political Correctness’. [Online] Available at: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog… orrectness [Accessed 10/05/17]
Hsu, C. (2012). Racism is Innate: The Human Brain Makes Unconscious Decisions Based on Ethnicity. [Online] Available at: http://www.medicaldaily.com/racism-inna … ity-240970 [Accessed 10/05/17]
Gabriel, A H. (2007). Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet [Online] Available at: http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the- … rophet.htm [Accessed 10/05/17]
Murray, D. (2016). Trevor Phillips is finally discovering the pitfalls of the term ‘Islamophobia’ [Online] Available at: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/t … amophobia/ [Accessed 10/05/17]
Marcus, M. (2016). The top 10 leading causes of death in the U.S. [Online] Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-leading … in-the-us/ [Accessed 10/05/17]
Sedghi, Ami. (2014). How obese is the UK? and how does it compare to other countries? [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl … -countries [Accessed 10/05/17]
NIH. (2012). Overweight & Obesity Statistics. [Online] Available at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inform … ht-obesity [Accessed 10/05/17]
Walker, A. (2005). Project Paperclip: Dark side of the Moon. [Online] Available at: https://www.wired.com/2010/04/0413mk-ultra-authorized/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4443934.stm [Accessed 10/05/17]
Zetter, K. (2010). April 13, 1953: CIA OKs MK-ULTRA Mind-Control Tests. [Online] Available at: https://www.wired.com/2010/04/0413mk-ultra-authorized/ [Accessed 10/05/17]
Frauenfelder, M. (2014). How the CIA created the Unabomber. [Online] Available at: http://boingboing.net/2014/05/09/how-th … nabom.html [Accessed 10/05/17]
Tracy, F J (2017). “Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term. [Online] Available at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/conspiracy … rm/5319708 [Accessed 10/05/17]
Kelly, M (2017). American Involvement in Wars from Colonial Times to the Present. [Online] Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/american-invo … nt-4059761 [Accessed 10/05/17]
Moran, M. (1998). Bin Laden Comes Home To Roost. [Online] Available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340101/t/bin … ROchuXyu01 [Accessed 10/05/17]
Marshall, A. (1998). Terror ‘blowback’ burns CIA. [Online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/terro … 82087.html [Accessed 10/05/17]
Unz, R. (2016). How the CIA Invented and Promoted ‘Conspiracy Theories’ to Discredit Controversial Views. [Online] Available at: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties … sial-views [Accessed 10/05/17]