user-1: Does 'right speech' prohibit expressions which "hate" anything at all?
So, not an individual, or even really a point of view, but to ex-press the sensation of intense (if not actually visceral) dislike?

user254: Here on Access to Insight there's a anthology of descriptions of right speech speech from the Pali suttas: Right Speech samma vaca
IMO something like, "It is spoken with a mind of good-will", or "speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large", might be quite incompatible with "express the sensation of intense (if not actually visceral) dislike".
I think the Buddha as portrayed in the suttas might point out that an action or view was "unskillful", or "leads to suffering" ... but wouldn't say something like, "I hate that".
But see also What is a wrathful Buddha? (from another tradition, Tibetan Buddhism) about maybe appearing to be angry.
See also this question, Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?, in which I asked whether the Buddha would "display affect". The accepted answer says, "The closest he gets to actual disturbance is ... Pretty tame, but then that's to be expected; he was, after all, a fully enlightened Buddha."
Also, "hate" is usually seen as one of the fundamental "three poisons" (with possibly some difference between Theravada and Mahayana viewpoints e.g. as might be inferred from this topic, Could Lobha(craving) and Dosa(aversion) be working in tandem?) -- see also the fact that equanimity is a virtue: it's presumably better to abandon even the experience of hate, let alone the expression of hate.

-1: <p>Does 'right speech' prohibit expressions which "hate" anything at all?</p>

<p>So, not an individual, or even really a point of view, but to ex-press the sensation of intense (if not actually visceral) <em>dislike</em>?</p>
 254: <p>Here on Access to Insight there's a anthology of descriptions of right speech speech from the Pali suttas: <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Right Speech <em>samma vaca</em></a></p>

<p>IMO something like, "It is spoken with a mind of good-will", or "speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing &amp; pleasing to people at large", might be quite incompatible with "express the sensation of intense (if not actually visceral) dislike".</p>

<p>I think the Buddha as portrayed in the suttas might point out that an action or view was "unskillful", or "leads to suffering" ... but <em>wouldn't</em> say something like, "I hate that".</p>

<p>But see also <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/10694/254">What is a wrathful Buddha?</a> (from another tradition, Tibetan Buddhism) about maybe appearing to be angry.</p>

<p>See also this question, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/4117/254">Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?</a>, in which I asked whether the Buddha would "display affect". The accepted answer says, "The closest he gets to actual disturbance is ... Pretty tame, but then that's to be expected; he was, after all, a fully enlightened Buddha."</p>

<p>Also, "hate" is usually seen as one of the fundamental "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons" rel="nofollow noreferrer">three poisons</a>" (with possibly some difference between Theravada and Mahayana viewpoints e.g. as might be inferred from this topic, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/4057/254">Could Lobha(craving) and Dosa(aversion) be working in tandem?</a>) -- see also the fact that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upekkha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">equanimity</a> is a virtue: it's presumably better to abandon even the experience of hate, let alone the expression of hate.</p>
