I understand the concept of “hate speech.” Technically, it is defined as abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. However, today I sit contemplating a broader “hateful speech” that seems to be everywhere. From world leaders setting cynical new standards to children echoing callous insults learned online, I hear language about other individuals that would have had my grandmother reaching for the soap.
I’m certainly no prude. I’ve been the subject of plenty of bad language and outright hateful speech, especially during my time in government, and I am no worse for wear for it. But it feels as though things are spiraling too far, especially when such gratuitously hateful language is directed toward our neighbors and fellow humans. The public square has become a place where winning the argument is less important than inflicting maximal emotional damage.
The shift we are observing is the widespread weaponization of language. When political, cultural, or social disagreements arise, the current default is often to skip reasoned critique and jump straight to personal attacks. This rhetoric seeks not merely to defeat an idea, but to diminish, insult, and degrade the person holding that idea. This is why it feels so corrosive; the language is designed to dehumanize and inflict harm, making any return to civility difficult, if not impossible. We can disagree, be disappointed, or troubled at an individual’s conduct, but once we cross the line into language meant to strip away a person’s dignity, we poison the well of shared community.
Every one of God’s creations is just that—a creation of a loving God, imbued with inherent worth. We owe it to God, and to ourselves, to uphold a baseline of respect for all of our neighbors, even when their words and/or actions frustrate us or drive us crazy. Respecting their inherent value is not the same as validating their behavior, but it prevents us from becoming the very thing we despise.
The critical question is, how do we temper the aggression and choose language that elevates, rather than destroys? Internally, we must make a conscious commitment to uphold radical grace. When we are met with vitriol, our immediate, chosen response should not be to match the energy of the attack, but to firmly address the issue while refusing to adopt the language of contempt. This means addressing the argument without insulting the arguer, choosing clarity over cruelty.
Externally, we must recognize that silence is complicity. We do not need to engage in every argument, but we must choose when to model and defend civil discourse. This means not normalizing the unacceptable. When hateful language—of the cheap, degrading, person-attacking variety—is spoken by leaders, media figures, or even friends, we must call it out not as a political statement, but as a failure of basic human respect. We tone down the rhetoric not by waiting for policy, but by deciding, one conversation at a time, what language we are willing to use and what language we are willing to accept.
Leave a Reply +