User:Sennalen/sandbox/essay9

Hateful views

Hate is disruptive; however, when allegations of hate can be used to win content disputes, it creates a perverse incentive towards ever-broadening definitions of "hate". Disruptive hate is obviously disruptive. Implying a moral contagion from an obviously hateful view to other claims in the same source, then the sources for those claims, then the authors of those other sources, and so on and so on to increasing degrees of separation is simply a moral panic.

Arguing that a fact supports hate is to concede in principle that hate can be supported by facts. Do not do this. Facts cannot justify hate. People are quite capable of expressing hateful views without reference to facts or in defiance of facts. If a hateful person cites a true fact, this is no reflection on other people who cite the same fact in a legitimate way. It is not a defense against hate to mount an offensive against the fact.

There are many injustices in the world, but editors should not try to solve them by editing Wikipedia. If you have good motivations, it does not follow that your opponents in content disputes have diametrically opposite motivations.