Tedenski izbor


Everybody who is on the Internet is subject to insult, trolling, hating and cruelty. Most of these online assaults are dominance plays. They are attempts by the insulter to assert his or her own superior status through displays of gratuitous cruelty toward a target.


Clearly, the best way to respond is to step out of the game.


Historically, we reserve special admiration for those who can quiet the self even in the heat of conflict. Abraham Lincoln was caught in the middle of a horrific civil war. It would have been natural for him to live with his instincts aflame — filled with indignation toward those who started the war, enmity toward those who killed his men and who would end up killing him. But his second inaugural is a masterpiece of rising above the natural urge toward animosity and instead adopting an elevated stance.

Conflict and Ego – David Brooks, The New York Times


Tehnologija nam je omogočila, da stojimo sredi dvorane zrcal in povsod vidimo samo sebe. V resnici pa nas internetni algoritmi delajo osamljene in nevarne, ker večajo naš narcisizem s tem, da odstranijo ves svet, ki ni kot mi. Okrepijo lastnosti, ki jih imamo. In ker se v osami in anonimnosti interneta prej pokažejo slabe lastnosti, okrepijo njih.

Drugačno mnenje je šok. V svetu, ki je ves kot jaz, nenadoma zagledamo košček nejaza in srd je strahoten, treba ga je odstraniti, takoj! Grožnje in trolanje postajajo norma. Sodobna komunikacija ni več pogovor, marveč je postala eksorcizem.

Dvorana zrcal – Miha Mazzini, Siol.net


There’s much to the view of Punxsutawney as purgatory: Connors goes to his own version of hell, but since he’s not evil it turns out to be purgatory, from which he is released by shedding his selfishness and committing to acts of love.


Ultimately, the story is one of redemption, so it should surprise no one that it speaks to those in search of the same. But there is also a secular, even conservative, point to be made here. Connors’s metamorphosis contradicts almost everything postmodernity teaches. He doesn’t find paradise or liberation by becoming more “authentic,” by acting on his whims and urges and listening to his inner voices. That behavior is soul-killing. He does exactly the opposite: He learns to appreciate the crowd, the community, even the bourgeois hicks and their values. He determines to make himself better by reading poetry and the classics and by learning to sculpt ice and make music, and most of all by shedding his ironic detachment from the world.

A Movie for All Time. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, Growdhog Day Scores – Jonah Goldberg, National Review


For conservatism is about national identity. It is only in the context of a first-person plural that the questions – economic questions included – make sense, or open themselves to democratic argument.

Such was the idea that Edmund Burke tried to spell out 200 years ago. (…) Political wisdom, Burke argued, is not contained in a single head. It does not reside in the plans and schemes of the political class, and can never be reduced to a system. It resides in the social organism as a whole, in the myriad small compromises, in the local negotiations and trusts, through which people adjust to the presence of their neighbours and co-operate in safeguarding what they share. People must be free to associate, to form “little platoons”, to dispose of their labour, their property and their affections, according to their own desires and needs.

But no freedom is absolute, and all must be qualified for the common good. Until subject to a rule of law, freedom is merely “the dust and powder of individuality”. But a rule of law requires a shared allegiance, by which people entrust their collective destiny to sovereign institutions that can speak and decide in their name. This shared allegiance is not, as Rousseau and others argued, a contract among the living. It is a partnership between the living, the unborn and the dead


In other matters, too, it is not the economic cost that concerns the conservative voter but the nation and our attachment to it. Not understanding this, the government has embarked on a politically disastrous environmental programme. For two centuries the English countryside has been an icon of national identity and the loved reminder of our island home. Yet the government is bent on littering the hills with wind turbines and the valleys with high speed railways. Conservative voters tend to believe that the “climate change” agenda has been foisted upon us by an unaccountable lobby of politicised intellectuals. But the government has yet to agree with them, and meanwhile is prepared to sacrifice the landscape if that helps to keep the lobbyists quiet.

Identity, family, marriage: our core conservative values have been betrayed – Roger Scruton, The Guardian


I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.


The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community. If the Supreme Court were able to make rulings to affect feelings, racism would have ended fifty years ago. Nor is this issue primarily about the florist, the baker, or the candlestick-maker, though the very real impact on those private citizens is well-publicized. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships. I hope very much that your ruling in June will be devoid of any such consideration.

Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from a Child of a Loving Gay Parent – Katy Faust, Public Discourse


Shapiro’s room. Instead of hanging up the sad ‘safe space’ sign shoved under his and every other students’ dorm door, Shapiro wrote and displayed a sign headlined ‘I do not want this to be a safe space’. His room, the sign said, is a place where all who enter will be expected ‘not to allow identity to trump ideas [or] emotion to trump critical thinking’. ‘Whether you’re black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, bi, transgender, fully abled, disabled, religious, secular, rich, middle class or poor, I will judge your ideas based on their soundness and coherence, not based on who you are’, his sign declared. Then there was the sign-off, in bold, a warning to anyone who thought they could pop into this student’s room and arrogantly expect that certain things would not be thought, said, or argued out: ‘This is a dangerous space.

‘I came to university because I wanted to be in a dangerous space in which controversial ideas could be explored’, Shapiro tells me. But safe-space policies, he says, mitigate against such open-ended, free-wheeling and, yes, sometimes difficult thought-excavation by chilling what can be thought and discussed. ‘


‘No one should be threatened physically or insulted purposefully’, he says. ‘But anything which explores an idea should be preserved. There’s a difference between calling someone a faggot and saying “I wonder if a family is best raised by a mother and a father?”. I happen to think that position is wrong, but I think it’s a position that should be fully explored in a university. Right now, though, if you were to bring that up in a classroom, you would be eaten alive.’ Of course students, like all citizens, have a right to be free from physical harm. But a right to feel mentally comfortable, and never truly challenged? ‘That isn’t a right’, says Shapiro, and if instituted, it would threaten university life, he says.

Meet the student who turned his dorm room into an unsafe space – Brendan O’Neill, Spiked


What’s more, it is true, as anti-anti-p.c. critics charge, that complaints about political correctness are frequently used to defend beliefs or behaviors that don’t deserve defense. But it is easier to conceal racism or sexism behind complaints about political correctness when political correctness is real. The same dynamic was probably true with McCarthyism. (I am not equating the two phenomena in scale, but merely describing a similarity in the style of arguments surrounding them.) McCarthyism supplied American communists with the romantic aura of unjust persecution, and it taught many liberals to treat any charge of communism with reflexive suspicion. Actual communists hid their noxious beliefs under the guise of anti-McCarthyism in exactly the same way that actual racists hide their beliefs in the guise of anti-political-correctness. Communism in the 1950s was a very real and very terrifying threat, and yet the most effective response to it was probably not indiscriminate accusations of communist sympathy.

Secret Confessions of the Anti-Anti-P.C. Movement, Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine


Colleges deliberately threw up the scaffolding of political correctness just to put something in the old morality’s place (…)

You can see arguably something similar at work in the way students themselves relate to the ideas behind the “rape culture”/”yes means yes” campaigns. If you read some of the accounts of dubious-seeming accusations highlighted in Emily Yoffe’s critical investigation of the new sexual assault regime, you’ll find examples of young women who seem to decide in hindsight that a casual sexual encounter was morally unfortunate: “Jane,” a student at Occidental, loses her virginity in a drunken sexual experience early in her freshman year; “CB,” a student at the University of Michigan, is defensive or ashamed when her mother finds her diary, containing “descriptions of romantic and sexual experiences, drug use, and drinking.” But in a landscape where traditional ideas about sexual morality no longer have much purchase, there’s no easily accessible moral language in which to process either legitimate rage at repellent/dishonorable male behavior or a sense of personal shame, let alone to have those feelings validated by your peers or authority figures. Unless, that is, those experiences can be labeled as sexual assaults, in which case the moral dimension is suddenly re-established, the moral stakes clarified, and any inchoate feelings distilled into a clear narrative of crime requiring punishment. And again, even if this narrative is, as people say, problematic for some of the men accused, in a campus culture where the alternative is just a vague hedonism punctuated by occasional lectures about STDs, you can see its appeal.

The Moral Appeal of P. C. – Ross Douthat, The New York Times


What happened to Drew Sterrett is terrifying — and unfortunately, likely to keep happening, especially with professors, activists, and the federal government involved. (…)

If things don’t change, I will be as concerned about my sons going off to college than I will be about my daughter. It seems that we will never, ever learn that rolling over individual rights and due process for the sake of fighting evil is something we will come to regret.

Campus Rape & Witch-Hunting – Rod Dreher, The American Conservative


The rise of identity politics in America was a tragic necessity. No one can deny the legitimacy or urgency of the need felt by women and minorities to have equality on their own terms, to reject the assumption that full participation in society required acceptance of the norms set by straight white males. Yet even as the public sphere grew more inclusive, the boundaries of permissible debate were narrowing. Critiques of concentrated power, imperial or plutocratic, became less common. Indeed, the preoccupation with racial and gender identity has hollowed out political language (…)

The hollowing out culminated in the Obama administration, which represents ‘the triumph of identity as content’, as Adolph Reed wrote last year in Harper’s. According to Reed, Obama embodies race as ‘an abstraction, a feel-good evocation severed from history and social relations’. And few on the left or centre-left want to spoil those good feelings by making the sharp criticisms that Obama deserves. (…) The chief electoral alternative to the Republicans’ free market fundamentalism and imperial grandiosity is the Democratic Party’s mixture of technocratic slogans and gestures to identity-based interest groups (gay marriage, abortion rights, immigration reform), topped off by the Democrats’ own version of imperial grandiosity.

The intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic Party is nowhere more evident than in the looming presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We came, we saw, he died – Jackson Lears, London Review of Books


If, for Muslims, it is not only ‘impossible to remain silent when confronted with blasphemy’ but also impossible to remain inactive – and the pressure to do something may include violent and murderous acts – then the first thing to do is to locate this attitude in its contemporary context. The same holds for the Christian anti-abortion movement, who also find it ‘impossible to remain silent’ in the face of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foetuses every year, a slaughter they compare to the Holocaust. It is here that true tolerance begins: the tolerance of what we experience as impossible-to-bear (l’impossible-a-supporter’, as Lacan put it), and at this level the liberal left comes close to religious fundamentalism with its own list of things it’s ‘impossible to remain silent when confronted with’: sexism, racism and other forms of intolerance. What would happen if a magazine openly made fun of the Holocaust? There is a contradiction in the left-liberal stance: the libertarian position of universal irony and mockery, making fun of all authorities, spiritual and political (the position embodied in Charlie Hebdo), tends to slip into its opposite, a heightened sensitivity to the other’s pain and humiliation.

It is because of this contradiction that most left-wing reactions to the Paris killings followed a predictable, deplorable pattern: they correctly suspected that something is deeply wrong in the spectacle of liberal consensus and solidarity with the victims, but took a wrong turn when they were able to condemn the killings only after long and boring qualifications. The fear that, by clearly condemning the killing, we will somehow be guilty of Islamophobia, is politically and ethically wrong. There is nothing Islamophobic in condemning the Paris killings, in the same way that there is nothing anti-Semitic in condemning Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

As for the notion that we should contextualise and ‘understand’ the Paris killings, it is also totally misleading.

In the Grey Zone – Slavoj Žižek, London Review of Books


My point here is that we cannot achieve God’s kingdom ends through violence.

This is not picking and choosing which bits of the Bible we like and don’t like. It is how Christians have always read the Bible astwo testaments. Like a ‘prism’ that causes light to refract into the full spectrum, the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus transforms many things — including circumcision, food laws, and holy war. For Christians, the only holy war the Bible endorses is the spiritual one Paul mentions in Ephesians 6: the fight against error and sin.

This is quite different from the teaching of the Quran as there is no ‘new’ testament for Muslims. The judgment once brought upon Canaan by Israel is now suspended until the Day of Judgment. Never can a Christian claim, as Israel did, to be a tool of God’s judgment in the world, unless it is bringing justice into the world through welfare programs.

4 Responses to the Problem of Violence in the Bible – John Dickson, On Faith


Which makes a comparison between the Crusades as a historical phenomenon and various specific institutions — the sort of comparison in which “Crusaders” get casually likened to “slave owners”, for instance — seem, well, not even wrong: It’s just a category error, like putting “Franco-British conflict from the 14th through the 19th century” on the same list of great historical wrongs as South African apartheid, and then when challenged invoking Henry V at Rouen and the Vendee to “prove” your point. And it’s a category error that Christians, and especially Catholics and other Christians who aren’t pacifists and don’t think the true faith died with Constantine, can’t reasonably just acquiesce to and accept, any more than a patriotic Frenchman should accept some blanket historical condemnation of “French aggression” that casts Charles Martel, Joan of Arc and the Marquis de Montcalm alike as great historical villains. The Crusades as an epoch-spanning phenomenon aren’t in and of themselves a great stain on Christian history: They’re a phenomenon in Christian history that includesmany stains and sins and great crimes, but also involves many admirable figures and heroic moments, many great tragedies, and many individuals and incidents that simply resist any kind of manichaean reading. Contemporary Christians should reject and disavow the great crimes that some Crusaders committed as they should reject and disavow the un-Christian hatreds that motivated them. But we are under no obligation to reject and disavow the entire multi-century struggle with an armed and equally-militant foe as merely the manifestation of some irrational religious “phobia,” let alone accede to analogies that cast an entire civilization’s worth of kings and theologians and soldiers as the moral equivalent of Osama Bin Laden.

The Case Against the Case Against the Crusades – Ross Douthat, The New York Times


ISIS filmed that poor Jordanian pilot burning to death as an act of revenge and terror. We call those Islamist fanatics animals. But white people did this often, and sometimes even made a public spectacle of it. “The white men, women, and children present watched the horrific murders while enjoying deviled eggs, lemonade, and whiskey in a picnic-like atmosphere.”

In the EJI report is a photo of a 1919 clipping from a Jackson, Miss., newspaper reporting on a planned lynching in Ellisville, one that the Mississippi governor absurdly claimed he was powerless to stop. The paper reported that the Rev. L.G. Gates, a Baptist pastor from Laurel, Miss., was headed to Ellisville “to entreat the mob to use discretion.”

Oh, for the days when leading Christian pastors entreated lynch mobs not to stop in the name of God, but instead, to use discretion.


No, the American South (and other parts of America where racial terrorists ran rampant) was never run by fanatical theocrats who used grotesque public murders as a tool of terror. But if you were a black in the years 1877-1950, this was a distinction without much meaningful difference.

When ISIS Ran the American South – Rod Dreher, The American Conservative


There is a distinction to be made between atheism in its pure sense, which describes anyone who does not believe in a god or gods, and New Atheism, the contemporary phenomenon of aggressive disbelief coupled with a persistent persecution narrative. Led by luminaries such as the late Christopher Hitchens and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, New Atheism takes as its core creed a species of Enlightenment liberalism that exalts reason and free inquiry, without bothering to define reason or to explain what is worthy of inquiry, and why. For a school of thought that presents itself as intellectually robust, it is philosophically bankrupt and evidently blind to its similarities to the religions it derides.

The Chapel Hill Murders Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Atheists – Elisabeth Stoker Bruenig, The New Republic


Before last year, eastern Ukraine had no history of ethnic conflict. Well-armed “separatists” emerged on the scene only when Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered them there. The “civil war” that ensued is an artificial conflict, run by Russian security and enhanced by a sophisticated pan-European disinformation campaign. It will last as long as the Russians want it to last. Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, has told the Wall Street Journal that the Russians have deployed their most modern air defense and electronic warfare systems, weapons “way above and beyond” anything a rebel army could deploy.

The point of the war is not to achieve a victory. The point is to prevent the emergence of anything resembling a prosperous, European Ukraine, because such a state would pose an ideological threat to Putinism. Following this logic, even a German-brokered cease-fire will not bring “peace,” but rather a so-called “frozen conflict,” following an old KGB design: Transnistria in Moldova, South Ossetia in Georgia, nowNovorossiya in Ukraine. Once it is up and running, Russia can set up a new secret police service in Novorossiya, create new bases for the Russian army,perhaps train terrorist squads there. Mysterious bombs have already exploded in Kiev and Kharkiv . In December, six bombs went off in Odessa alone.

The long view with Russia – Anne Applebaum, The Washington Post


One of the main Russian demands has been for Ukraine to remain neutral and under no circumstances join NATO or the EU. NATO has dismissed Russia’s right to veto the alliance’s expansion, but the reluctance of Western leaders to move beyond economic sanctions and extend military assistance to Ukraine seems to suggest that they are not ready to make strategic commitments to Ukraine in view of these Russian demands.

In the West this position has been elaborated as the “Finlandization” of Ukraine, or guaranteed neutrality modeled on that of Finland during the Cold War. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger have been the most prominent champions of Finlandization, arguing that it would both placate Russia by keeping Ukraine out of Western alliances and suit Ukraine by leaving it otherwise free to live its life as an independent state.

There are a number of reasons why this is a bad idea. James Kirchick, for instance, exposed Finland’s experience during the Cold War as far less agreeable than the proponents of Finlandization would like to admit: Finland endured much Soviet meddling in its domestic politics, which took a toll on its democratic institutions. Today, many Finns view this period of their history as a time of shameful servitude.

There is another, more fundamental reason why Finlandization would not work for Ukraine—namely, that Ukraine was effectively neutral during the first 23 years of its existence and the strategy failed. At the time when unmarked Russian troops were grabbing Crimea in late February 2014, Ukraine’s neutrality was more robustly formalized than at any other time since it emerged as an independent state in August 1991.

The Reality and Myth of Ukrainian Neutrality – Mariana Budjeryn, World Affairs


One year into the conflict, with more Russian regulars and equipment there, it’s clear now that, without Western military aid, Ukraine will soon lose this campaign. Critics of aiding Ukraine have argued that even with limited Western military aid the balance of forces would still favor Russia, and that Ukraine would also lose in an all-out confrontation with Russia—at a greater cost in lives and agony for the country and its people. If they’re right, then why not simply do what many among the commentariat both in the United States and Europe have advocated, and look the other way while Putin completes the process of bringing Ukraine to heel?

The answer is straightforward: because the price that Russia is made to pay now for its conquest will make all the difference for what comes next. Another easy victory by Putin will sharply diminish the security of Europe and of the West collectively.

What Comes Next? – Andrew A. Michta, The American Interest


Germany’s approach to crisis management isn’t a mystery. It starts off by asserting and defending its conservative, perhaps somewhat outdated values until that policy hits a dead end. Then, it works hard on a compromise solution that departs from these values in small ways but allows for a consensus that discourages radical posturing. The values are important for anchoring expectations in subsequent negotiations. They are not, however, rigid ideological dogmas worth fighting for to the exclusion of common sense.


But there’s no guarantee Merkel will succeed. Steinmeier suspects that his country may have come to this junction too soon, pointing out in Munich that Germany was “put to the test much sooner and much more severely than we could have fathomed last year.” If Germany fails in either Ukraine or Greece in the weeks ahead, it will have to rethink its international responsibilities. According to Steinmeier, 70 percent of Germans never wanted an expanded role in the first place.

The World According to Angela Merkel – Leonid Bershidsky, BloombergView


To be sure, one can reasonably argue that austerity in the eurozone has been excessive, and that fiscal deficits should have been much larger to sustain demand. But only governments with access to market finance can use expansionary fiscal policy to boost demand. For Greece, higher spending would have to be financed by lending from one or more official institutions.

For the same reason, it is disingenuous to claim that the troika forced Greece into excessive austerity. Had Greece not received financial support in 2010, it would have had to cut its fiscal deficit from more than 10% of GDP to zero immediately. By financing continued deficits until 2013, the troika actually enabled Greece to delay austerity.

The Greek Austerity Myth – Daniel Gros, Project Syndicate


The split between Mr Simicska and Mr Orban is rooted in the question of whether business or politics will have primacy in the Fidesz-dominated political order, according to Akos Balogh of Mandiner.hu, an independent conservative blog. The Fidesz leadership has long worried that Mr Simicska was becoming too powerful, and began limiting his influence on government over a year ago, removing his allies from key positions in administration and state-owned companies. The process accelerated after the 2014 election, when Fidesz won a two-thirds majority for the second time in a row, Mr Balogh says. “Simicska was the dominant oligarch of the 2010-2014 term and now it’s over. Orban does not want to depend on any single business group.”

Curse like an oligarch – The Economist


Usually, employers rapidly scan the resume of each job applicant looking for relevant education, skills, and work experience. They select 10 candidates for telephone calls, invite three in for interviews, and hire the one they like the best.

This is a bad way to hire because at best it gets you nice people.

You don’t need nice people.

You need good people.

Good and nice are not the same thing. The opposite of good is bad. The opposite of nice is unlikeable.

Nice people care if you like them; good people care about you. Nice people stretch the truth; good people don’t. If you tell a nice person to do something evil, they might do it because they do not want to upset you; a good person will refuse to do it.

You might think you are a good person, but you are fallible, so if you want to avoid inadvertently doing something evil you must surround yourself with good people, not nice people.

How to hire good people instead of nice people – Brooke Allen


Conservatives are not well served by a neglect of the legacy of past generations. Sadly, however, many so-called conservatives are content to reduce that legacy to a compendium of half-remembered truisms, attempting to distill an entire body of thought to a handful of expressions gleaned from old writings. However, Norman does not so mishandle Burke’s writings. In fact, Norman proves himself a careful student of Burke’s thought and brings a clarity to the statesman’s place in history which is often not fully appreciated by modern readers:

In the first place, Burke become the hinge or pivot of political modernity, the thinker on whose shoulder much of the Anglo-American tradition of representative government still rests. But he is also the earliest post-modern political thinker, the first and greatest critic of the modern age, and of what has been called liberal individualism: a set of basic assumptions about human nature and human well-being that arose in the nineteenth century, long after Burke’s death, in reflection on the Enlightenment, and that govern the lives of millions, nay billions of people today.

A Review of “Edmund Burke—The First Conservative” – James Heiser, The New American


Za konec dodajamo še članek, ki ga je pred dobrim letom za Poglede napisal dr. Andraž Teršek. V njem je na pregleden in jasen način predstavil ustavopravni pomen pojma “sovražnega govora” in opozoril na njegove napačne rabe v družboslovnem in aktivističnem diskurzu. Članek priporočamo kot nujno branje ob sedanjih polemikah okoli te teme; to ne pomeni, da nujno podpiramo stališča dr. Terška, vendar jih izpostavljamo kot razumno progresivno liberalno pozicijo, ki jo je treba upoštevati pri nadaljnji diskusiji:

Določena vsebina izražanja, v kateri se enostavno pojavi beseda »sovražiti« ali »sovražim«, ali pa beseda »nasilje«, »sila«, »napad«, ali druge besede, ki neposredno ali posredno označujejo nasilje ali nasilništvo, še ne pomeni ne sovražnega govora ne napadalnega govora ne spodbujanja k nasilju in ne razpihovanja sovraštva ali ščuvanja k nasilju kot kaznivih dejanj. Tudi zagovarjanje gole »ideje« nasilja ali nasilništva ne pomeni pravno nedovoljene vsebine javnega izražanja. Prav tako vsaka sovražna, nestrpna ali nastrojena osebna drža nekega anonimneža na spletu, pa tudi določenega posameznika brez pomembnega javnega vpliva ali moči, ne pomeni sovražnega ali napadalnega govora. Ustavnopravnih pravil, ki zadevajo svobodo izražanja, ni mogoče tako poenostaviti, da bi omejevala svobodo izražanja zgolj zaradi glasne uporabe določenih besed


Vprašati se je tudi treba, ali želi govorec prisiliti napadeno osebo k nasilju kot edinemu možnemu odzivu, ker ob prizadejani bolečini ne molk ne odziv nista mogoča. Ukvarjati se moramo z vprašanji, ali se želi z govorom, ki naj bi bil sovražni govor, povzročiti, da napadene osebe podvomijo o svoji identiteti in se imajo zato za manjvredne, govorec pa je usmerjen k potrjevanju lastne identitete kot večvredne. Ne samo individualno, kot posameznik, ampak skupinsko, kot del večvredne, prevladujoče družbene skupine. Zanimati nas mora tudi vprašanje, ali je namen napadalca izkoristiti siceršnjo (strukturno) ranljivost napadenega kot žrtve. Kajti namen govorca pri sovražnem govoru, ki hoče prizadejati največjo bolečino, v temelju ni žaljenje, pač pa podrejanje in poniževanje kot »manjvrednega« v simbolnem družbenem redu, torej napadanje »travmatskega jedra osebe kot žrtve«. Pravo je in mora biti tudi intelektualni izziv.

Uporabo besed, ki pomenijo neutemeljene obtožbe, resne predsodke ali grobo žaljenje, četudi na temelju določenih osebnih okoliščin, ne gre kar tako in pavšalno, zaradi besed samih, označevati kot sovražni govor. Javno

Kaj je in kaj ni sovražni govor – Andraž Teršek, Pogledi


Prosimo, upoštevajte, da so komentarji namenjeni civizirani izmenjavi mnenj

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s