There are all sorts of things I hate, both politically and personally. I'm not going to bore you with a long list of them - most of you probably hate most of them too - but I want to start by establishing that fact, and that it is not unusual or shameful.

One of the commoner dismissals or epithets I seen on DU is to accuse someone of "hate". Statements that people don't like are dismissed as "hate speech". People, political movements, religions, beliefs, opinions, etc are called "hate ful", and that is automatically assumed to be sufficient to rebut them. Branding someone a "hatemonger", or saying that you think they are "full of hatred" is a simple, easy way of making clear that you think they are a bad person.

I think this is extraordinarily lazy, and that it is bad for logical debate. If you want to criticise someone on grounds of hatred, you need to make *two* steps, not just one. You need to demonstrate that they hate something, *and you need to demonstrate that they are wrong to hate it*.

Simply diagnosing hatred and assuming victory is not a way of making out a watertight case.

So the next time you want to brand someone "full of hatred" or dismiss something as "hate speech", don't. Make a more meaningful criticism instead.