The recent US election has shown us that forcing people to be civil does not also force them to "not hate" each other.
What it appears to have done is driven much of that hate out of sight -- and thus out of discussion. One of the things we're struggling with right now is understanding the distinctions between
* who really hates who
* who doesn't care about "hate speech" being used so long as other political goals are met
* who doesn't really believe it is hate speech
* who doesn't hate other people
Yes, the differences between these choices is totally vague. Thats because we've been lumping it all under one "not politically correct" label and burying it.
People have feelings all around this spectrum. Perhaps its better to allow hate speech with the understanding that the proper response is more language, more communication, and less silence and brooding?
Correct, letting people talk doesn't solve the problem of hate. Neither does forcing their silence.
Perhaps open communication is the only way to address, or at least explore how to address, the underlying problem?
And frankly, I was a little surprised at where some of my acquaintances were in various places on this spectrum. A very religious man turned out to not care about hate, hateful feelings, hateful laws, etc so long as his particular religious goals were met. I'd have never known this about him without the open communication forced by the election rhetoric. It might have been a more productive years of friendship if I'd known where he stood earlier on.