Recently, I was having a conversation with someone I love dearly, whom I’ll call Potato, who recently followed me on Substack. I was excited about this, but I was a bit confused because I know that Potato and I don’t agree on much when it comes to politics, so I replied:
“Hey, thanks for following, but I’m sure you know I’m on the right side of a lot of your beliefs. So, a lot of what I post won’t align with your thoughts. Let’s make sure we don’t get into a fight about politics and beliefs.”
So Potato responded with:
“Yes, I’ve been reading your hate-filled blogs for a while now. Just wanted to be more public about it.”
This response caught me off guard because I don’t believe or spread hate, and I never have; it’s just not something I do. So, after some calm back-and-forth, Potato made a comment that explains a lot. The comment was:
“…When whole groups are described in broad ways, it doesn’t sound like criticism of ideology but sounds like the people themselves are being mocked and dismissed. Even if this isn’t the intention, that’s how it comes across when I read it. …”
I totally understand that Potato might make this statement because I group people together with the same ideologies. But that gets lost in Potato’s interpretation of my word “progressives.” This is where our communication breaks down, and I can easily see how Potato would think this is hate speech, but that is not the intent. Still, the interpretation of posts is always in the eye of the beholder.
Here are some example posts so you know what I am talking about:
“The progressives are chomping at the bit to take power…
… yet the progressives do not want this bill to pass and will do everything possible to stop it….
We are at a point where progressives have shoved abortion …
This is disgraceful and a picture of our future if we allow progressives back in power…”
Here’s my dilemma: what other word can I use instead of “progressives” to describe people with similar ideologies? I was unsure, so I asked my friend ChtGpt, which provided the following results:
If you want neutral and broad, use “the political left” or “left-leaning ideologies.”
If you want academic, use “ideological coalition” or “modern liberal thought.”
Now I have another issue because even these terms refer to groups of people, just like the word progressives. I will still use the word progressives to describe ideologies, as I lack a better term, but understand Potato’s concern that, in its view, it is hate speech; in my view, it is not. It is political activism, but on the conservative side of the aisle.
Since I’m a bit anal and OCD about things, I did some more research on “hate” and what it actually means. The following is what I found:
“Hate speech generally means speech (spoken, written, or symbolic) that attacks, threatens, or degrades a person or group based on a protected characteristic.”
This definition caught me off guard at first until I understood that hate speech has two parts. First, I admit I am guilty because I do criticize the group progressives and their ideas. But the second part is that the intent needs to be based on a protected characteristic. The common characteristics are:
Race or ethnicity
Religion
National origin
Sexual orientation
Gender or gender identity
Disability
My posts never, at least intentionally, target any of these characteristics, and there is an important difference between criticizing ideas and attacking people.”
This makes complete sense to me, but let me be honest about some things that might be characteristics I post about, especially when they stem from gender identity. It might sometimes seem like I am using hate speech against those who believe in this ideology, but again, I am attacking the ideology itself, not the individuals who believe it.
I draw the line on a couple of issues, especially when it comes to our kids. I do not want our children harmed by unproven science, such as the idea that a man can have a baby or that child gender mutilation is okay, especially when a brain doesn’t fully develop until their 20s, and the propaganda in our K-12 schools. Since when do we allow books in school libraries to tell and graphically show our kids how to have anal sex, that child mutilation is okay, and other inappropriate material for kids? What’s worse is that this information comes from their confidants, teachers, counselors, and doctors.
As far as adults are concerned, they can do what they want—tattoos, piercings, genital removal, or breast augmentations—but don’t push this on our kids. Potato might very well have issues with my opinion on this, but I don’t know. We rarely, if ever, talk about politics or gender issues, a sensitive subject.
I am almost done with my diatribe; however, this is not the end of the story, because Potato also mentioned my tone and language:
“What concerned me when I read your posts is the tone and language that often show up, not the fact that you have strong opinions.”
Potato wins this argument because my tone is deliberately strongly opinionated. I believe we are being attacked by progressives with massive funding from George Soros, our enemies, and many from the EU, aiming to promote open borders and shift away from America’s core ideals, which I would gladly defend with my life. Essentially, I use social media to spread my message—red, white, and blue conservatism—to others who share my ideological views. Notice I said “similar,” not “the same,” because all of us have different opinions on various topics, and that’s perfectly okay. The following image reflects my overall feelings about what I am trying to prevent, which progressives fully support.
The bottom line is, I am not doing this for myself. I am over 70, a liver transplant survivor, and I have no idea how many years I have left. I have been blessed by the Lord. I am happy and enjoy doing this for my family—kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, and maybe someday great-grandkids. Of course, I do this for all my followers as well. I make no money from this, and I spend a good part of every day posting to inform others because I believe our media is our enemy, as they are progressives supporting that cause. News is biased, and that’s a fact, proven by polling that most people don’t see on purpose. Know your sources, do your research, and double-check the facts— you might be surprised by what you find.
Potato needs to realize that my tone would be very different if I were running a Travel Experience site or a Lifestyles and Food site. But I am not. I’m an activist conservative trying to get the message out. A bit more on ideologies and hate speech before I wrap this up: Some ideologies are closely tied to identity groups (religions, political movements, etc.), so debates can feel personal and sometimes painful. But legally and academically, there is still a distinction between the critique of beliefs or doctrines and Hostility toward people because of their identity
Debating or criticizing an ideology—even as strongly as I do—is generally not regarded as hate speech; I would be banned from the social media sites where I post. Censorship is strict when it comes to hate speech, but here I am. It becomes problematic when the discussion shifts from criticizing ideas to attacking people for who they are, and I don’t do that.
Let me sum this up with a short story from back in the day. During my time in the military, I attended a manager’s training session and watched “You Are What You Were When” by Dr. Morris Massey, a marketing professor and sociologist. This video was relevant in the 70s and still is today. Here is a link to the video in case you are interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWMBuOUHn0U
In a nutshell, his theory is that who you are is set in stone during your early years. Those same values stay with you through adulthood unless, according to Dr. Massey, there is a Significant Emotional Event (SEE) that causes those values to change.
The theme was about understanding your employees and why disputes occur between managers and staff. The example I recall is a situation where managers couldn’t understand why employees didn’t want to work overtime, and when the bell rang, they hurried out of the office.
The managers were all old-school and believed you worked from sunup to sundown as a sign of loyalty to the company, but the employees didn’t share that work ethic and wanted free time, especially if they were salaried. But the confusing part for the managers is that they could just walk out at the end of their shift, seemingly without interest in the company. This blew the minds of many managers. They could not see the desires of the day—wanting free time and family time, but not work. On the other hand, in the factories, many did not want to work overtime to make more money because money was not the end goal for these young employees.
The intent of the video is that understanding the next generation’s values is essential to knowing where they come from and what motivates them. It’s a challenging task, like being out of touch with your kids. What’s interesting is that this still holds true today.
So, what is my point? The same goes for talking and posting online, where many generations coexist, including new cultures in the U.S. with values that differ from those of traditional Americans. The way things are expressed in posts is also interpreted differently by various generations. And that is the issue between Potato and me.
The following examples of differences by generation are helpful for understanding the differences by category of interest:
Media environment
Historical experiences
Communication style
The real generational divide in politics isn’t just about policy differences, but about how language is stated and interpreted. Recent generations focus heavily on tone and assumptions, often getting inflamed and losing sight of the post’s original intent if there’s any negativity framing. I’ve done the same when I read things from those on the other side. I’ve learned that I need to consider the source and the post itself, taking my time to see whether the post is factually accurate or just opinion. I research the facts, and many times I find they are opinions presented as facts. But that’s life.
Posts that I create can mean one thing to my followers and me, but something completely different to Potato; after all, we come from different generations and have different values. And there’s nothing wrong with that. However, a give-and-take is necessary to understand each other. This is where the real problem lies, because normally, one side is unwilling to compromise and either stands firm or gets angry, taking their ball and going home without having a calm, factual discussion of opinions. This approach is wrong. What is the issue, fear of the truth?
I could keep discussing this and write a book, but that’s not my goal. My goal is for Potato to not excommunicate me because of my ideology and to be actively honest and open with me. I can handle all the criticism and will debate any issue with Potato, but it has to be calm and fact-based. For opinions, we can agree to disagree.
Let me end with this comment: Family is everything, and Everything is family.
I hope you enjoyed this article. Have a great day and stay safe. charley