Isolated violent events can be interpreted as representative of general attitudes.

Over the course of 5 years Minneapolis and St. Paul witnessed several extremely violent attacks on gay men resulting in their deaths. The handful of violent deaths occurred against a steady hum of anti-gay sentiment expressed in public, and more common incidents of harassment and arrests for consensual behavior. At the same time, there was rising gay visibility, activism, and acceptance. The gay community was for the first time, in a position to mount a strong response to both background discrimination and the crudely violent murders.

Leading gay activists interpreted the murders as the proverbial "tip of the ice berg". The activist argument was that murder was simply the logical expression of background hatred. Therefore, the community was in imminent peril, and a total mobilization of resources was required.

Organizing the community was a good thing; there were numerous benefits. However, making the community safer probably wasn't a result. The murders were extreme outlier events, not related to what most people thought, or were not remotely likely to do about gay men.

It seems obvious and intuitive that when people are repeatedly exposed to hate speech, extreme political, racist or sexist views, or violent drama, and pornography, over time that they would slowly adopt these views or accept the depicted behavior as normal and/or appropriate. — Bitter Crank

I am not so sure that we become desensitized as easily as I think you are suggesting but maybe I am wrong because I have been called "sheltered, naïve" by more than one person in my life. I know that for me, even though I was raised in a very strict, racist home, we were never forewarned or threatened if we were to become friends with or bring home someone who was gay, like we were if the person was black. My siblings and I were told clearly, loudly and repeatedly that if we were to chose to bring home a black person we would be disowned by the family so none of us would dare but that warning was never issued for a gay person. Then we moved out to Arizona where homo sexuality has not only been accepted and respected but celebrated so I didn't realize that our level of acceptance of all was different than in other parts of the USA, it just never occurred to me.

Over the course of 5 years Minneapolis and St. Paul witnessed several extremely violent attacks on gay men resulting in their deaths. — Bitter Crank

When was this 5 year time frame?

If Hate Speech Doesn't incite Hatred, Then Where Does Hatred Come From? — Bitter Crank

It seems like you got it backwards. Hate speech doesn't incite hatred, it stems from hatred. Hate is first and hate speech is an effect of one's hatred. What one hate's is usually the result of ignorance, or the inductive reasoning that follows several bad experiences with a particular person, or type of person.

It seems obvious and intuitive that when people are repeatedly exposed to hate speech, extreme political, racist or sexist views, or violent drama, and pornography, over time that they would slowly adopt these views or accept the depicted behavior as normal and/or appropriate. — Bitter Crank

Isn't this the real problem - of people only listening to what confirms their biases and don't question what it is that they hear? The best way to combat things like this is through challenging those ideas in the arena a free ideas - through logic and reason.

Research on the relationship between "message" and "behavior" doesn't support the view that certain kinds of talk leads to certain kinds of behavior. — Bitter Crank

Speech is behavior. For that reason, as a growing acceptance of homosexuality occurs, one should expect both violence towards it and negative speech about it to reduce. I wouldn't expect speech regulations to reduce violent behavior, but I could see both speech changes and violence changes symptomatic of the same underlying change of growing acceptance.

The 5 year time frame was in the 1970s. There have been a few murders of gay men since, but they did not have the same effect as the earlier ones. After the advent of AIDS, community focus shifted to a much different kind of threat (sexually transmitted disease which, at the time, was often fatal).

Chicago wasn't the scene of any sort of gay sex panic, but it was the setting of a race panic. Chicago had always been racially segregated in housing but in the 1950s the shape (not the fact) of housing segregation changed. There are several books about post WWII housing policy drove very turbulent change. Two excellent books on the subject: The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein is about how the Federal Housing Administration (beginning in the 1930s) instituted a formal, written policy requiring racial segregation as part of the federal home-loan guarantees which spurred (and shaped) bank lending. Another good book on the topic is Family Properties: How the Struggle Over Race and Real Estate Transformed Chicago and Urban America by Beryl Satter recounts Satter's father's efforts to defend black families against fraud and abuse (related to housing) in Lawndale. (Hereand here are reviews of the book in the NYT from 2009).

So, how has your family's views on race played out over time in your life? You don't evince prejudicial racial talk, ideas, and so on.

It seems like you got it backwards. Hate speech doesn't incite hatred, it stems from hatred. Hate is first and hate speech is an effect of one's hatred. — Harry Hindu

Yes, hate speech is motivated by hatred, but the question is, "Where does hatred come from?" You say, "What one hate's is usually the result of ignorance". Ignorance plays an important role in human affairs, but in itself doesn't cause hatred. I am ignorant of many of the world's people--I have almost no knowledge about Mongolians, Albanians, Uzbeks, or Argentinians, but ignorance of these peoples hasn't led to hatred. I am ignorant of Bahai, Zoroastrians, and Shinto, but I do not harbor hatred about or toward them.

There are certain facile explanations for prejudices, like homophobia. The theory is that some people fear that they might be homosexual themselves, and project this fear as hatred onto people they suspect to be homosexual. This is probably a relatively uncommon phenomena. Ignorance = hatred is another one.

I'd agree with Harry, that hate speech is generally the result of hate. Where that hate comes from, and whether it is the result of other hate speech is a more difficult question. Hate is an attitude, and the formation of different attitudes, though it is extensively studied, is not well understood. I think that a large part of attitude is learned though, and much of what is learned is set by example. Hate though, being a strong and irrational attitude may stem from things much deeper than just what is learned. So as with many other traits, we'd have to ask if hate is genetically conditioned.

we'd have to ask if hate is genetically conditioned — Metaphysician Undercover

That could very well be the case.

We might be genetically conditioned to be sensitive to "in-group" and "out-group" distinctions--in-group ones being favored. The capacity to feel hatred might be genetically supported, and hatred is one way to defend the in-group from the out-group. Or putting it differently, we feel antipathy towards out-groups.

I say might be; even though I suspect a lot of behavior IS genetically supported, it is difficult to prove the case. But if we are genetically inclined to distinguish between in-group and out-group, we also seem quite capable of embracing people who belong to out-groups and to expel in-group members who violate some norm.

Speech is behavior. For that reason, as a growing acceptance of homosexuality occurs, one should expect both violence towards it and negative speech about it to reduce. I wouldn't expect speech regulations to reduce violent behavior, but I could see both speech changes and violence changes symptomatic of the same underlying change of growing acceptance. — Hanover

I think the opposite may be true, at least in the short run. Increasing acceptance leads to more anger and resentment as people feel that their most deeply held beliefs are marginalized. I'm pretty liberal, but I like to visit some conservative web sites. The American Conservative is a great one. Good writing by people of good will who have conservative political, economic, or social views, or all three. What you see is that many very moderate people with deeply conservative social beliefs have been devastated by the acceptance of gay marriage. If that's true, what is to be expected from people who are less moderate, less compassionate.

Yes, hate speech is motivated by hatred, but the question is, "Where does hatred come from?" You say, "What one hate's is usually the result of ignorance". Ignorance plays an important role in human affairs, but in itself doesn't cause hatred. I am ignorant of many of the world's people--I have almost no knowledge about Mongolians, Albanians, Uzbeks, or Argentinians, but ignorance of these peoples hasn't led to hatred. I am ignorant of Bahai, Zoroastrians, and Shinto, but I do not harbor hatred about or toward them. — Bitter Crank

That isn't all I said that causes hatred. I also said that inductive reasoning from bad experiences of a certain person, or type of person, can cause hatred. When that person or group of persons seems like a threat to your goals, then you can acquire a dislike, or hatred of that person or group of people. Hatred also stems from thinking that a difference between people can be a good/bad distinction, which leads one to hate those that are different because they have "bad" attributes.

There are certain facile explanations for prejudices, like homophobia. The theory is that some people fear that they might be homosexual themselves, and project this fear as hatred onto people they suspect to be homosexual. This is probably a relatively uncommon phenomena. Ignorance = hatred is another one. — Bitter Crank

LOL. So homophobes hate gays because they think they are gay themselves? So it is a case of self-loathing then? Yeah, I don't think that theory flies. I think it's more along the the lines of being ignorant and hating what is different BECAUSE you don't understand the difference.

We might be genetically conditioned to be sensitive to "in-group" and "out-group" distinctions--in-group ones being favored. The capacity to feel hatred might be genetically supported, and hatred is one way to defend the in-group from the out-group. Or putting it differently, we feel antipathy towards out-groups. — Bitter Crank

I think that there is evidence which is significant to evolutionary theory, which demonstrates that "in-group" "out-group" discretions are deep, to the core, and fundamental to living organisms.

I've often wondered how it is, that with the genetic variation which is necessary for evolution and the variation of species, why is there not just all sorts of random individual living beings, completely different from each other, in random ways. Instead, life has developed into very specific, and distinct species. In order for what has occurred, to occur, it is necessary that members of a particular variation stick together, breeding only with each other, excluding the others, thus proceeding toward the creation of a distinct species. In other words, in order that the process of evolution has created distinct identifiable species, it is necessary that the organisms have inherent within them, some sort of "in-group" "out-group" perspective.

But if we are genetically inclined to distinguish between in-group and out-group, we also seem quite capable of embracing people who belong to out-groups and to expel in-group members who violate some norm. — Bitter Crank

This might be a question of the role of morality within a society. And there is wide ranging belief as to the role of morality. Some might say that morality is there to encourage and enhance what comes naturally to the human being. Others might argue that morality is meant to suppress what comes naturally, as bestial tendencies which ought be replaced with artificial principles.

So, how has your family's views on race played out over time in your life? You don't evince prejudicial racial talk, ideas, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Life changed the views for our parents and I never had to face a black person until we moved out to Arizona. The life altering event for my parents was when my Granny needed to go into a nursing home in Chicago. Even though it was an old German Nursing home, most of the employees were black and the way in which they cared for my Granny after many long, tough years of caring for her advanced early onset Alzheimer's at home impressed my Grampa beyond skin color. And much like in the day I was raised, as went the Grands so goes the children. My parents attitude towards their racist traits began to fade and I believe they are all but gone, except for the life long impression they left on their children, me and my siblings.

The first time I ever spoke about my racist home was with a fellow counselor at the Boy's Club who happened to be black. We were in charge of the recreation room at the time, signing out 4 Square balls and beating the snarky kids at Fooseball WHILE getting paid to do so. ;) We were sitting on the desk, twirling our whistles and he noticed I was looking at his hair and not his eyes when I was listening to him talk and it must not have been the first time he encountered it because he said "Do you want to touch it?" I was SHOCKED that he caught me and said "Touch what?" To which he said "My hair". I was blown away and said yeah I kind of do and reached over and did so. Then he asked what I thought which took us down a path of my confessing to him, the shame I felt being raised the way that I had been, thinking that the color of another person's skin could be a factor was always confusing to me because I am of Italian decent and have the olive skin and dark hair just like the rest of my family but definitely different than my good friend Victoria Palowski, who was white as the underbelly of a fish and a family that didn't even speak English but was somehow okay to be around.

Today? I don't care what color anyone is as long as they are respectful to others own journey in life, including yours and mine. If they can't handle that level of respect? Then we best go our separate ways.

I conclude that both socially tolerant behavior and hatred plus a tendency towards violent behavior comes out of the matrix of human interaction and experience in a child's life long before adulthood. Home, parents, school, playground, peer groups, and social interactions are the source of prejudicial attitudes, willingness to discriminate against others, and to perform acts of violence against others. — Bitter Crank

I concur. The old Jesuit motto is true: "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

Incidentally, you look a bit like Schopenhauer in your most recent avatar.

I have been avatar fidgeting. I gather you are not referencing the one that is now posted at 1:59, CST, 1/20/17.

It might have been Schopenhauer. I picked it up off a google collection. I have yet to read Schopenhauer (other than our schopenhauer1). It's on my list. Whether I get to it before I get to the grave is anybody's guess.

I had considered this one:

Thank you.

I grew up in a rural MN county that is still about 98% white. Sightings of colored people, as they were referenced at the time, or Negroes, were very rare. We had an exchange student from Uganda in 1962-63. That was about it. Jews weren't very common either, but there was more hostility towards Jews than blacks. MN was then quite antisemitic.

My first exposure to African Americans was in '68 when I joined VISTA and was suddenly immersed in AA / black culture and people. The shock of it all was living in a really big urban area more than living with blacks. But the first person I really insulted was a Jewish fellow. I didn't intend it, and I should have known better, but it takes a long time to get rid of one's worst bits of heritage.

While in Boston I grew a beard. Back in that rural county, beards were still a rarity, and one time in a cafe somebody asked me if their young boy could touch my beard--he had not seen one before. I was intending to be a bit exotic, so that was fine.

I've lived in Minneapolis/St. Paul for almost 50 years now, and over these years it has become much more "cosmopolitan" a term that used to be code for Jews and mixed ethnics. The city is racially diverse, but more ethnically diverse, with people from East Africa, West Africa, SE Asia, Russians, Indians, and so forth. In the meantime, the Swedish Institute and Sons of Norway are still going strong; the Finns are being very Nordic, learning Finnish, etc.

Your avatar looks like my uncle (Y)

"Hate speech" clearly exists, and "hatred" clearly exists. Violence based on hatred clearly exists, but is there a causal progression from hate speech —> hatred —> violence? No. — Bitter Crank

Dah, yes. Hate speech gives people license. Rhetoric works.
Hitler did not get to power because most of the German people were rabid antisemitic, nationalistic bigots. He convinced many, and others who were on the brink of bigotry found the spirit of his speeches, and that of the crowd stimulating.

Broadcast speech does not significantly contribute to language acquisition in young children.
Advertising speech is not highly effective in changing consumer behavior; it is modestly effective at best. — Bitter Crank

Is this evident? Or are you just making it up?

If I were going to make things up, I'd go for something a bit more edgy.

No, broadcast speech doesn't contribute much to language development in young children. We are 'programmed' to learn it from parents, or parent stand-ins, like caregivers, siblings. Real, warm, close-by people who are in actual contact with us. It was thought that broadcast speech would homogenize language. It hasn't. Regional speech patterns continue to develop in various directions without regard to all of the broadcast speech we hear. That's because speech accents are learned on the playground, among parents, peers, teachers, and so forth. We don't pick up accents we hear in media.

There has been a long-standing debate on the economic efficacy of advertising. Whether advertising spending is a leading indicator, or a lagging indicator of economic activity,; whether the roughly $200 billion spent on advertising in 2016 was effective, and how, when, where, and why isn't altogether clear.

When people go into stores that sell a wide variety of stuff, (like Target, Best Buy, Sears, Macy's) they see all sorts of items that they may or may not have seen advertised at one time or another. Same thing for on-line stores. Advertising has some influence--some of which is quite long-run influence, like the satisfaction people expect to get from a particular brand (Levis, Budweiser, L'Oréal, Toyota, Wells Fargo, 3M, etc.) is partly an advertising, partly a product experience thing. Advertising can help launch a totally new product -- like Swiffer cleaning products. Hundreds of thousands of products are launched, promoted, and fail, heavily advertised or not. Other products seem to keep going decade after decade, and are the recipient of big ad dollars.

I like looking at advertising -- it's quite often more interesting material than the media in which it appears. But that isn't the same as being effective.

Hitler, and the National Socialist Party, gained some support at the polls, and then seized power by subterfuge. Once the party gained power, it deployed the crude but effective methods of terror, intimidation, and force that it had been practicing. A very rigid system of information management was deployed on the German people, backed up by considerable resources of the Gestapo and other police systems.

Yes, Germans acquiesced, avoided seeing what was before their eyes, looked the other way, and kept their mouths shut about all sorts of bad things. That's what excellent crowd control can do.

Even if I'm not a Marxist, I would emphasis the economic reasons in a society here. If there is unemployment and widespread povetry, that leads to less social cohesion and as a symptom to hate speech, racism and xenofobia and especially attacks on minorities. The need to find a culprit.

It's one thing if people are racist or don't like gays. It's another to be rude to people and commit hostile attacks, verbal or physical or to think that the society is going down the drains because of foreigners, ethnic minorities, gay people or whatever...

If we think for instance about racism, we may think about some uneducated ignorant moron who is basically not happy with their life, has basically low self esteem and needs a scapegoat for why things are so bad for him. How about then a professional or a diplomat that has worked decades in Third World countries and thinks (privately, typically) that basically Africans are simply uncapable of governing themselves and creating a prospering justice state like the countries in the West and the reason is their race? His or her racism doesn't emerge from ignorance. Yet what is likely that he or she will resort to hate speech or make attacks against blacks. Likely he or she will get very well along in ordinary interactions with foreigners (as that has been his or her job).

No, broadcast speech doesn't contribute much to language — Bitter Crank

Please cite. "much" is subjective, and I would imagine that the degree of this "muchness" would depend on exposure.
I know many parents who "don't know where they get their ideas from"!! If you take my meaning.

QED hate speech works.

Hitler had over 36% of the voters with 13 million behind him.
The Nazi party numbered 800,000 members.