“Hate Speech” is a claim that some topics/claims are off-limits, that someone ELSE gets to decide what’s off-limit and that you are irredeemably “bad” if you try to apply facts, logic and persuasion. Yes, “hate speech” is the modern secular authoritarian version of “blasphemy” or “sacrilege.”

I was provoked to write the above after reading the thoughtful post below by Greg Lukianoff, who was provoked by reading this text messages between Tyler Robinson, the accused Charlie Kirk assassin, and his roommate and romantic partner, per prosecutors:

Lukianoff:

This is going to be a Rorschach test for a lot of people. What I see when I look at this is the harm of a quasi-mystical idea of “hate” as a spectral, even demonic, force. It’s a superstition that allows you to turn off your critical faculties, ignore anything that might contradict a sacred belief on a particular topic or about a particular individual — as in this case — and act with impunity.

It has always been a profoundly anti-intellectual idea, developed by those who saw intellectuals as mere tools for often extremely simplistic partisan ends to allow them to win arguments by brute force rather than logic and proof.

It has spread into the rest of society and across the globe in a way that allows taboo to defeat reason and skepticism almost every time.

I hope it’s an idea — like “speech is violence” — that we can relegate to the dustbin of history. If you believe the world is divided into a simplistic binary of “good people” and those infected with hate, then maybe the post-Enlightenment world is not for you.

And for those of us who believe that human morality and nature is more complex and less flattering than the sacred warriors in this battle, it’s time to remember that Enlightenment values are not easy. But they are absolutely worth fighting for because the world without them is a place that lets you excuse the most monstrous behavior and never lose your sense of moral superiority.

That’s the trap of the binary.