In other words ... ?

Desire seems to be an emanation from ones personal sphere - conducted by belief, experience and perception. And stuff
Respectively we apply filters to not run at risk of letting our emotions guide us into damnation - a kind of damnation that needs not be divine. The heart bleeds regardless.

Applying filters to our behavior however ... can also be to our detriment. So - healthy balance is one of the more valid concerns these days, I reckon. Such is also one of the issue with modern hate movements and bastions of ignorance - that to my perception they flip between the two extremes while their issue is with whatever is between. That 'in between' is here however not a 'center' or a "centrist" type of position - as it may involve 'moderate' as well as 'extreme/radical' positions - relative to the world.
How to determine that?
Well ... let's put it that way: Pivotally we're asking the question of 'filter versus no filter' - regarding when and what and why and maybe how. In that regard, I'd argue that typically people have a really easy time applying a filter in regards to things they care about. Or what they're familiar with. As, typically, we move within environments - a.k.a. "we live in a society" - and naturally that doesn't work without filters. When people then feel justified dropping their filters is with emotions that affect individuals outside of that sphere. So called "hatred". Or more sensitively put: A lack or perhaps willful absence of care. Perhaps 'negative care' - so, hate. Or ... maybe you know a better word if hate doesn't cut it for you. Realism? Well - sure, pertaining to your own "narrative" - and that's what we call bigotry a.k.a. narrow-mindedness.
Now - I do believe that the respective rage, maybe an internalized one, is somewhat justified. I also thought that what happened in the wake of George Floyd's death was justified if not long overdue. Ever so often it seems we mean to rattle the cage to get out of these stale-mates life has put us in. And some happen to weigh more than others.
Which is why we don't regard verbal abuse the same as violence - etc. - you know the drill.
Banding together into a "strong narrative" - or some would call it 'sane culture' - is one aspect of fascism. What distinguishes non-fascism from that were the 'goal'. Whether it is now about imposing that 'sane culture' onto others, or whether merely an accumulation of sane people.
A sanity that also includes minorities.
Simple as that.
Conversely - are there simply situations where no filter is required. And with that we get to a pivotal component of Liberalism. Not that it focuses on that, but as for co-operation there ought to be mutual good will - and within that we should equally respect the freedom that is a matter of quality of life. Respectively there's honesty, or educated honesty. For, honesty from a point of ignorance is just ... dumb. It reveals to the rest that you still have some catching up to do and are in no position to require us to respect your position.
In summation: If we are asked to apply filters in opposition to 'honesty' - we feel trapped or caged. Sometimes the way out of it is education. It would be the simplest way out. Respectively the scientific method has been developed - give or take - which gives us a means to resolve certain issues we may have had otherwise.

So, principally we may herein find a way of desires to emerge, in that 'honesty' - as a personal need - manifests in form of a desire; We may also account for it in terms of faith and hope; But it has to be stated that once the source of that honesty is ignorance - it isn't on par with like 'honest to God' like honesty.