I find this analysis quite accurate, save for the last line: "You can imagine how this might breed hate.".
It seems as though the word
hate these days is pretty much thrown around to dismiss any argument that goes against the "official line" of academia, the press,
etc. without having to analyze the content of the statement or give any informed criticism, or even to demonize the speaker should his statement actually agree with the standard orthodoxy, yet be stated by one "not of the faith".
Par example: President-Elect Trump is fomenting hate when he advocates certain policies towards Muslims, yet noone dares criticize our current Nobel Peace Prize-winning President Obama when he actually implements those same policies. Per one of my favorite advocacy organizations, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee/ Defending Dissent Foundation, which disdains political partisanship:
CVE is Trump’s Ugly Anti-Muslim Words Put Into Action in Schools and Community
In the same vein, accusations of sexual harassment are thrown at President-Elect Trump by the same people who would call me a hater for making reference to the mass sexual assaults perpetrated by crowds of young Muslims in Germany last New Year's Eve. Not to mention the fact that freedom of religion has recently come under fire as providing a figleaf for anri-gay hatred, yet noone save for the local bishop spoke out when a wave of vandalism struck Catholic churches shortly following the US Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage.
By the way, I myself come from a working-class family from the rustbelt, and I've seen references made to "rednecks", "white trash",
etc.. Why isn't that considered as constituting hate speech?