George Lakoff—a retired professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at fascist hot spot University of California, Berkeley—explains “hate speech” in a blog entry he posted Tuesday to the school’s official website.
In his short treatise, the Director of the Center for the Neural Mind & Society begins with a basic definition:
Hate speech defames, belittles, or dehumanizes a class of people on the basis of certain inherent properties — typically race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. Hate speech attributes to that class of people certain highly negative qualities taken to be inherent in members of the class.
Then the leftist hate begins. Lakoff lists four elements, labeling them as “typically [included] methods of defamation.” As the single example of “Salient exemplars,” he offers “Trump’s racist attacks on Latinos and Muslims, attempting to stereotype all of them and smear entire classes of people on the basis of a handful of individual cases.” He does not, of course, qualify his characterization of Trump’s comments as racist, or explain how an attack on Muslims—followers of a religion—would be racist.
Of “extolling the false virtues of the opposite class, suggesting that the defamed class lacks those virtues,” Lakoff provides the this illustration:
The racist right falsely claims that whites are responsible for all advances in civilization. This deliberately covers up the enormous contributions and advances made by nonwhites in order to undermine their status as human beings.
As a demonstration of a “metaphor based on fallacious understanding,” he writes the following:
“Whites are more evolved" — from a survey of racist right-wing members. Note the mistaken understanding of evolution. The statement suggests that non-whites are lower than whites on an evolutionary scale, as if they were animals.
Lakoff’s twisted portrayal of conservatives is furthered by his final category of hate speech:
Perhaps the most dangerous form…comes from the government itself when the President excuses racist violence and supports the oppressive use of governmental force — large, organized crowds of armed demonstrators, police who target minorities, ICE trapping undocumented immigrants for deportation, discriminatory laws that intimidate minorities from voting, etc.
How any of that qualifies as speech is a mystery; apparently the left can simply define words any way they see fit.
He concludes his listing of types of hate speech with this gem:
Hate speech these days is not just speech by an individual. It has become an industry for the racist right — organized, purposely provocative, a recruiting tool, and a show of power aiming at greater power.
One of the saddest takeaways from Lakoff’s blog entry is the fact that a college instructor has such a humiliating lack of perception: all of his examples—as well as his conclusion—regarding hate speech violate his stated definition of a salient exemplar: he “[stereotypes] all [conservatives] and smears an entire [class] of people on the basis of a handful of individual cases.” Perhaps he shouldn’t write an essay on a particular iniquity—complete with examples—if he is too daft to realize that his essay itself is the greatest example of all.
Universities have been hijacked by the most radical elements of the Left, and therefore they have been transformed into training grounds for an army of young fascists. Their militancy is a reflection of the bigotry and hate instilled within them by dangerous extremists such as George Lakoff, the effects of which we will be dealing with for a very long time. We must take back our colleges and return to that basic purpose once embraced by America’s institutions of higher learning: “teach people how to think, not what to think.”
As for now, our educational institutions are doing quite the opposite, as exemplified by the fascist title of Lakoff’s previous blog post: “Why Hate Speech is Not Free Speech.”