What the word "hate" actually means:

[Carol in Cal.]

hate

hÄt/

verb

 

1. 1.

   feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).

   "the boys hate each other"

   synonyms: loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; 

   be repelled by, be unable to bear/stand, find intolerable, recoil from, shrink from; 

   formalabominate

   "they hate each other"

      

   •  

      
   •  

      

      

      

      
   •  

      

      

noun

 

1. 1.

   intense or passionate dislike.

   "feelings of hate and revenge"

   synonyms: hatred, loathing, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration,aversion; 

   hostility, enmity, animosity, antipathy, revulsion, disgust, contempt, odium

   "feelings of hate"

 

 

It's really weird to me how the word is used now, compared to what it actually means, and quite ironic how it is hurled at people who don't hate, by people who give every indication in tone and content of hating them themselves.

 

Words do matter.

[Guest]

Cue the "words change meaning over time" argument. 3...2...1...

[Guest]

Hahaha! Truth from both of you.

[4arrows]

My personal opinion is that those who use it that way care less about the real meaning of the word than they care about trying to make someone who doesn't agree with them look bad.  

[Carol in Cal.]

My personal opinion is that those who use it that way care less about the real meaning of the word than they care about trying to make someone who doesn't agree with them look bad.  

Which, ironically enough, is hateful in and of itself.

[Guest]

Can you hate a process without hating the people? Example, illegal immigration. Can you speak hatefully about illegal immigration without that hate seeping down to the individual illegal immigrant? (And I don't want to turn this into an immigration debate. I'm just using that as an example.)

 

Edited because my phone hates me.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Kinsa

[Guest]

Not sure I understand.

 

I'm hateful about the process of putting refugees in indefinite detention. I loathe and detest it. But loathing and detesting the process doesn't add to the dehumanization of refugees.

 

Do you mean, can you disagree with a process - say, open immigration - and not hate immigrants ? Yes. But you'd have to be pretty careful about your implicit biases not impacting on the language you choose and the attitudes you express. And you might find you have some hateful company along for the ride.

Hey, that's pretty good, for not understanding! LOL

 

Yes, that's what I meant. In keeping with the example... can I rant and rave about how much I hate the fact that "all these immigrants are showing up here and taking away all the jobs" without then letting that hate seep down into hating the individual refugee? And yes, you're right in that there will likely be hateful company along for the ride. ("Those daggum wetbacks are taking all the jobs! I hate them all and wish they'd drown crossing the river!") <--- Real life example of things I've heard. Gross.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't get it.  Can someone please explain this to me?

 

 

[Murphy101]

I don't think so. Language like that contributes to the dehumanization of the other, although at a different end of the spectrum from 'I wish they'd drown.'

 

You could rant and rave about inadequate employment policies at a local, state or federal level, for sure.

I don't think it is dehumanizing to want jobs within one's country to go for one's own citizens before those who are not citizens, lawfully or otherwise. I think that makes sense actually.

 

Rule of subsidiary.

 

But of course that should not mean one actually wants ill will towards those who aren't citizens either.

 

For sure employment issues should be discussed.

As well as fixing the messes from wherever the immigrants are coming from in their homeland, which never seems to be politically correct either.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

I didn't say it was, necessarily. (And you know, shame on the political classes that they don't actually listen to the frustration behind some of these assertions, hateful or otherwise.) But it could be, depending on the attitude behind it and the language used to express it.

 

Anyway. I only used non-US refugees as an example. I suspect that wasn't the topic the OP was thinking about. So probably best not to go off on an immigration tangent.

Oh I get that, but I think it applies to any topic.

 

There's so much "NO! That's just hateful!" That no one actually discusses the issue at hand. Language does matter, but yet we also have to look at the actual discussion too. Whether someone uses the exact right wording or not is far less important to me than the content of their actual suggestions.

 

So all wet backs should drown - uh. Yeah. No actual redeeming points of discussion to that.

 

But, we have an illegal immigrant problem and we need to put our own citizens job needs first. - well like it or not, at least it's a discussion starting point. IF Someone lets it be instead of screaming they were haters.

 

Insert whatever the topic in place of "illegal immigrants" or "jobs" and I think the general principle still applies.

[Carol in Cal.]

Edited because my phone hates me.

LOL

[Bluegoat]

I think most people understand the meaning.  They just don't understand how it is possible to have any sort of problem with something that someone else holds dear or is somehow linked to them, without hating them.  And of course some people are manipulative on purpose with language to score points, but people like that are not worth considering IMO, they are just jerks..

[momof4inco]

I think too often the word hate (or hater) is thrown at someone to shut down a conversation, or to escalate the conversation to an argument. Not just hate, but bigot, racist, and other words that are meant to make someone look bad for having a different opinion. We can no longer agree to disagree, we have to beat each other with words because that's our only weapon on the internet.

 

I guess it's bound to happen when people discuss sensitive topics. Nuances like tone or sarcasm are missed online. If we had these conversations with people we know IRL, we wouldn't be so willing to hurl words like that at them. We might give them a chance to explain themselves before calling them haters, or whatever other label. Then again, we don't often choose to have these conversations IRL.

 

That's my two cents :) I think the word hate is used way too much.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that throwing around an incorrect accusation like 'Hater!' or 'Nazi!' or 'Evil' or 'Barbaric!' or 'Communist!'at opponents who do not hate, who are not Nazi, who are not evil, who are not barbaric, or who are not Communist is wrong, and is hateful in and of itself.  Most of the time when I see those kinds of words used for other people in a debate, they are hurled and give off a tone like someone furiously hates the person they are directed at.  I find that offensive and ironic.

 

Re, the refugee situation, or any other area of controversy, it's impossible to have a calm discussion that leads to mutual understanding and sometimes even changes of position once that kind of fury and hatred starts being thrown around.

[Murphy101]

I think that throwing around an incorrect accusation like 'Hater!' or 'Nazi!' or 'Evil' or 'Barbaric!' or 'Communist!'at opponents who do not hate, who are not Nazi, who are not evil, who are not barbaric, or who are not Communist is wrong, and is hateful in and of itself. Most of the time when I see those kinds of words used for other people in a debate, they are hurled and give off a tone like someone furiously hates the person they are directed at. I find that offensive and ironic.

 

Re, the refugee situation, or any other area of controversy, it's impossible to have a calm discussion that leads to mutual understanding and sometimes even changes of position once that kind of fury and hatred starts being thrown around.

I'm of two minds on this though.

 

Like I previously noted, when it comes to that - do we even want to have a mutual understanding? For historical reference point as an example, I would not be interested in developing a mutual understanding with Hitler.

 

And also, I'm all for calling a spade a spade. Again, for historical reference point as an example, I wouldn't be mincing words with Hitler in a careful effort to avoid offending him with the reality of his ideas. No amount of his saying how scientificly advanced his experiments on the disabled were would compel me to call him anything less than a murderer. In fact, his propaganda efforts were very successful in his country in large part due to people refusing to call a murderous spade a spade. They had all kinds of more socially polite and emotionally palatable terms.

 

Because there are lines in my moral sand where communication and cooperation are no longer viable options. Because I cannot be complicit to evil without accepting evil myself.

 

All of which might be off topic and delve too much into theology and philosophy than intended by the discussion.

[Murphy101]

I have no idea if Carol has an agenda.

 

But I do think how people view proper discussion and it's purpose is an interesting thread.

[Guest]

I've never viewed hate as a continuum, and I find it interesting that others do. This is a completely new concept to me. I mean, you either hate someone, or you don't. I was taught growing up that hate meant to wish someone to hell. There have been very, very few people in my life that I'd wish that upon. (Though, my sister's ex-husband comes to mind...) So is hate like love, where it can be filial love, or romantic love, or erotic love? Or is it like pure, where something is either 100%pure, or is not pure.

 

Really interesting thoughts for me.

[Guest]

Hmm. One person's supposed 'fury and hatred' IS another person's assertion that 'I disagree both with your position and the language you use, and consider both on a continuum of hate.'

 

Insisting on dictionary definitions - classic example from a homophobe - "I'm not a homophobe, I'm not scared of gay people!" - is just another way of trying to wrest back the narrative into a person's comfort zone, where their language and attitudes go unchallenged.

 

I'm really not sure about the point of this thread. Did you have a particular problem/issue in mind, Carol ?

Except that insisting someone holds views and motivations they deny, and trying to control the language by defining them in a way inaccurate to their views, is essentially an ad hominem argument and does nothing to actually encourage open or frank discussion. Allowing someone to explain their perspective and giving them the benefit of the doubt on their motivations is a ground level requirement for dialogue among equals.

 

Nothing shuts down a discussion faster than insisting on labeling your opposition in a way that construes their position to be more black and white than it is. And let's be real - on this board it's a manipulative attempt to score rhetorical points by demonizing people so you don't have to engage with the intricacies of their arguments. Flat out. Dozens of examples of this on any debate/current event thread. And unlike a formal debate there is no good mechanism for calling someone out on their underhandedness. It's the game of whoever-is-the-most-offended-and-ridiculous-and-has-the-most-aggressive-posse-wins.

 

Without putting words in Carol's mouth, I believe these are the things to which she was obliquely referring. It happens in real life too, but usually not with as much impunity.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[LucyStoner]

Hate is not synonymous with evil, Nazism or communism.  My grandfather was raised by bigots in a bigoted landscape and taught to hate various groups of people.  He held some hateful opinions, perceptions and views about those he was raised to be bigoted against and hateful towards.  

 

Was he evil?  No.  Was he a Nazi?  Uh, he was a decorated American veteran of WWII so imma gonna say no.  He certainly never engaged in any personal violence towards those he hated...he preferred to keep his distance.  That he was never violent towards them though does not make his opinions any less intolerant or hateful.  

 

Discussing someone's hate (or, wiser and more productively, our own hatreds),  is not akin to calling them (or ourselves) an evil person or a Nazi (Godwin FTW!)  I loved my grandfather and he loved me.  He was a loving grandfather.  I can admit he was hateful and bigoted without rendering my relationship with him null and void.   But was his bigoted and hateful?  Um, hell yes he was.  And yes, he was hurtful and unkind and HATEFUL towards people he was bigoted against.  He flipped his flipping lid over my father dating outside his own color and he did it again, to less of a degree, when my dad married my mom who was at the time a white single mother with a biracial child.  He was told, rightfully, to get over himself by a large chorus made up of his wife and kids.  Perhaps I would have shared his opinions had his views not been counteracted in our family by my grandmother and my parents.  Because he was challenged to examine his words and actions and ideas, he grew and changed his perspectives and opinions and died a less bigoted and hateful man than he was at 18.

 

Quite to the contrary of your OP's seeming intent Carol, hate does mean to find intolerable, loathe, detest or abhor etcetera.  If one can't, for instance, show up at gay wedding because they abhor homosexuality, that is the very definition of hate. As is finding it impossible to be friends with any (otherwise nice and civil) people one disagrees with on core issues.  There are a multitude of other examples.  

Edited June 20, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

Except that insisting someone holds views and motivations they deny, and trying to control the language by defining them in a way inaccurate to their views, is essentially an ad hominem argument and does nothing to actually encourage open or frank discussion. Allowing someone to explain their perspective and giving them the benefit of the doubt on their motivations is a ground level requirement for dialogue among equals.

 

Nothing shuts down a discussion faster than insisting on labeling your opposition in a way that construes their position to be more black and white than it is. And let's be real - on this board it's a manipulative attempt to score rhetorical points by demonizing people so you don't have to engage with the intricacies of their arguments. Flat out. Dozens of examples of this on any debate/current event thread. And unlike a formal debate there is no good mechanism for calling someone out on their underhandedness. It's the game of whoever-is-the-most-offended-and-ridiculous-and-has-the-most-aggressive-posse-wins.

 

Without putting words in Carol's mouth, I believe these are the things to which she was obliquely referring. It happens in real life too, but usually not with as much impunity.

 

Yes, I think this is a really good description of how it gets used, and how it makes any kind of discussion impossible.  And it is usually hypocritical as well, because it involves saying that you are the one who really understands the motives and reasons of the person you are calling hateful, whereas they are not even allowed to assert that you are wrong about their reasons or ideas.  The possibility of error or misunderstanding is put entirely on the other side.

[Bluegoat]

Hate is not synonymous with evil, Nazism or communism.  My grandfather was raised by bigots in a bigoted landscape and taught to hate various groups of people.  He held some hateful opinions, perceptions and views about those he was raised to be bigoted against and hateful towards.  

 

Was he evil?  No.  Was he a Nazi?  Uh, he was a decorated American veteran of WWII so imma gonna say no.  He certainly never engaged in any personal violence towards those he hated...he preferred to keep his distance.  That he was never violent towards them though does not make his opinions any less intolerant or hateful.  

 

Discussing someone's hate (or, wiser and more productively, our own hatreds),  is not akin to calling them (or ourselves) an evil person or a Nazi (Godwin FTW!)  I loved my grandfather and he loved me.  He was a loving grandfather.  I can admit he was hateful and bigoted without rendering my relationship with him null and void.  He grew and changed his perspectives and opinions and died a less bigoted and hateful man than he was at 18.  But was his bigoted and hateful?  Um, hell yes he was.  Perhaps I would have shared his opinions had his views not been counteracted in our family by my grandmother and my parents.  

 

Quite to the contrary of your OP's seeming intent Carol, hate does mean to find intolerable, loathe, detest or abhor etcetera.  If one can't, for instance, show up at gay wedding because they abhor homosexuality, that is the very definition of hate. As is finding it impossible to be friends with any (otherwise nice and civil) people one disagrees with on core issues.  There are a multitude of other examples.  

 

I think that you are making this too universal, you are probably right about your grandfather, but that doesn't necessarily extend to the whole world.

 

Something I really hate is philandering.  I think it is a wrong behavior, fraud, a kind of treason, and a sign of self-absorption or weakness.  I don't, however, hate philanderers individually, or as a group, as persons.  I don't think they are lesser human beings.  I have read arguments, by several races, that inter-racial marriage is bad.  Some of those people did hate others, and some of the reasons weren't very good.  Some of the reasons were stronger, though in the general case I don't think convincing, and I think it would be quite possible to hold them without being hateful of other individuals or even groups. 

[Murphy101]

That does not make any more sense at all to me, more confusing actually.

 

Idk. It's like when I point out someone is not acting in a loving manner, that's not love I might say and they say but love is relative. It's love to that person.

 

Even if I accept that to be truth, which I don't, it's more often than note a terribly sad statement of what that person thinks love is and denies what love could be and should be.

 

For IRL example, a woman beats her child and tells them they are awful creatures she wishes hadn't been born. Child grows up and says, "She loved me in her way. Love is just different for different people."

 

Now, I might understand they have to think that for their own emotional stability reasons and I'm not going to argue with them about it for that reason. Mostly bc there's a couple decades of mess to dig through to reach a point of even building a basic understanding of the many problems I have with that and I'm not usually in a direct position to do that digging and often the person doesn't want to dig around in their emotional state anyways.

 

But no way am I not going to explain to my kids in the car on the way home, no, that was not love.

 

It seems to me, you are describing this so-called hate continuum like the person in my example describes love. Which to my mind robs the word of any actual worth or meaning.

 

ETA: any worth or meaning beyond a surface emotional bandaid at least. Obviously the person in my example needed to feel it was true, whether it actually was or not.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Murphy101

[LucyStoner]

I think that you are making this too universal, you are probably right about your grandfather, but that doesn't necessarily extend to the whole world.

 

Something I really hate is philandering.  I think it is a wrong behavior, fraud, a kind of treason, and a sign of self-absorption or weakness.  I don't, however, hate philanderers individually, or as a group, as persons.  I don't think they are lesser human beings.  I have read arguments, by several races, that inter-racial marriage is bad.  Some of those people did hate others, and some of the reasons weren't very good.  Some of the reasons were stronger, though in the general case I don't think convincing, and I think it would be quite possible to hold them without being hateful of other individuals or even groups. 

 

I have family members who are gay, transgendered, a variety of ethnic backgrounds etc.  Having seen mild to vicious acts of (insert word choice roughly meaning hatred) towards all sorts of people up close and personal I think it is reckless and socially conceited to pretend that bigotry in one context is different or more or less acceptable in some contexts than others.   Does my experience with my grandfather extend to the whole world?  Obviously not, as me and my grandfather do not the world make.  That said, there is considerable similarity in the tone, tenor and tactics used against many members of my family.  And I don't see one form as better or less noxious than the others.  All too often bigots fall prey to the notion that our own bias is "right" or "unique" or "different".  The vast majority of the time it is not and such notions are painfully futile attempts to equivocate or excuse ourselves while condemning others.  

 

The only person we can change is ourselves.  So rather than condemn others, I try to stick to evaluating my own beliefs and biases and discarding bias where I can.  

 

ETA:  that I try not to condemn others does not mean that I do not challenge bias and bigotry that I observe, when and where it is feasible to do so.  I don't think that telling my grandfather that it's not ok to be nasty to someone because of their race is condemning him and so on.  

Edited June 21, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

That does not make any more sense at all to me, more confusing actually.

 

Idk. It's like when I point out someone is not acting in a loving manner, that's not love I might say and they say but love is relative. It's love to that person.

 

Even if I accept that to be truth, which I don't, it's more often than note a terribly sad statement of what that person thinks love is and denies what love could be and should be.

 

For IRL example, a woman beats her child and tells them they are awful creatures she wishes hadn't been born. Child grows up and says, "She loved me in her way. Love is just different for different people."

 

Now, I might understand they have to think that for their own emotional stability reasons and I'm not going to argue with them about it for that reason. Mostly bc there's a couple decades of mess to dig through to reach a point of even building a basic understanding of the many problems I have with that and I'm not usually in a direct position to do that digging and often the person doesn't want to dig around in their emotional state anyways.

 

But no way am I not going to explain to my kids in the car on the way home, no, that was not love.

 

It seems to me, you are describing this so-called hate continuum like the person in my example describes love. Which to my mind robs the word of any actual worth or meaning.

 

ETA: any worth or meaning beyond a surface emotional bandaid at least. Obviously the person in my example needed to feel it was true, whether it actually was or not.

 

 

Generally speaking children physically/verbally/emotionally abused by their parents (even long after they are adults) love their abusive parents and seek their approval.  And many, if not all, people who abuse their intimates or children do love them in some ways but are dysfunctional and unable to show love in appropriate ways.  I will explain to my children that the woman berating and threatening her kids in public is not acting in a loving or appropriate way but based on that one interaction I don't know if she loves them or not.  If she is behaving in a criminal fashion though it doesn't much matter if she loves them or not.  

[JumpyTheFrog]

I always thought to "hate" someone meant to wish them ill. If many people are using it to mean "to be disgusted by" a person, then that finally explains why people say that if someone thinks it is wrong to do XYZ that you must hate people who do XYZ.

[Murphy101]

I always thought to "hate" someone meant to wish them ill. If many people are using it to mean "to be disgusted by" a person, then that finally explains why people say that if someone thinks it is wrong to do XYZ that you must hate people who do XYZ.

And maybe that's a problem. I'm disgusted by oysters for eating purposes, but I don't hate them.

 

Hate is a very strong word to use.

 

In hyperbole is one thing. Just like I might say I love knitting but yet no obviously I don't loooove knitting.

 

But in serious discussion hyperbole can't be used as literal and expect the conversation to get far.

[LucyStoner]

I always thought to "hate" someone meant to wish them ill. If many people are using it to mean "to be disgusted by" a person, then that finally explains why people say that if someone thinks it is wrong to do XYZ that you must hate people who do XYZ.

 

 

Hate does not mean having malevolent intentions or to be hostile.  

 

There's this gal I know who I really do hate.  I won't delve into why or defend myself for my hatred.  She's not evil but, if I am honest with myself, yes I really hate her.  I could, but will not, enumerate at length all of the ways she disgusts and repulses me.   I haven't been verbally or physically hostile towards her and I certainly don't want her to come to harm but darn it if she isn't the very last person I would ever voluntarily spend time around.  I hate her, who has caused me no harm, when I can count off a number of people I do not hate despite them having caused me harm.  Perhaps I will get over this feeling of hatred. Perhaps I will hate her until the last day I must ever see her.  I know that my loathing of her is petty, at the very best, but it's still there.  

 

The definition that the OP posted is spot on when it comes to the actual definition of hate and, ironically to why it was posted, it matches how it is used by many people who seem to be chewed out for using it on this board.  It means to intensely or passionately dislike something or someone.  We ALL have some things and/or some people we regard with an intense dislike.  If people think it means more than an intense dislike or more than any of the various synonyms, then they are actually the ones misusing the term or redefining it from the primary dictionary definition.   

 

It is not actually hyperbolic to say that I, for instance, hate yogurt.  Or that I love hiking.  

Edited June 21, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Murphy101]

Generally speaking children physically/verbally/emotionally abused by their parents (even long after they are adults) love their abusive parents and seek their approval. And many, if not all, people who abuse their intimates or children do love them in some ways but are dysfunctional and unable to show love in appropriate ways. I will explain to my children that the woman berating and threatening her kids in public is not acting in a loving or appropriate way but based on that one interaction I don't know if she loves them or not. If she is behaving in a criminal fashion though it doesn't much matter if she loves them or not.

Yes I'm well aware of all that about children of abuse. And I stated as much. And while I agree no single or even a many events should a parent be judged on as a whole, but I don't know if I agree with your perspective of love being about people who just don't know how to express themselves properly. Personally I don't think it's true. And even if it is - if their so-called love can only be given via poisonous conduits than it might as well not be any kind love at all. Again, probably more personal opinion than anything else.

[LucyStoner]

Yes I'm well aware of all that about children of abuse. And I stated as much. And while I agree no single or even a many events should a parent be judged on as a whole, but I don't know if I agree with your perspective of love being about people who just don't know how to express themselves properly. Personally I don't think it's true. And even if it is - if their so-called love can only be given via poisonous conduits than it might as well not be any kind love at all. Again, probably more personal opinion than anything else.

 

I love my brother and know that he really does love me.  I see it in his manner and level of desperation to rebuild contact with me.  Doesn't mean I will ever allow myself to have contact with him because I know him to be an abusive, volatile addict.  Same thing with most of the abusive people I know.  There are some who don't love or perhaps can't even love but most really do show genuine love and affection at other times and places.  I'll even admit this for those who I am quite disposed against seeing fairly or compassionately (i.e., my husband's abusive father).  It's usually more nuanced than abusive person = evil person incapable of love.  

[Carol in Cal.]

I think in general it's a lot easier to demonize people in internet convos than in person, but it's pretty counterproductive either way.

 

Mostly I try not to hate people.  Sometimes it's really hard.  I hate drugs, hate them with a passion.  I have known so many people really really screwed up by drugs.  I guess I pretty much hate drug lords.  But not average nonviolent pushers, even though I deeply profoundly disagree with them and want them put away.  I understand them better, they are more complex; usually they are either weak or somewhat trapped or both, and they often got in over their heads and couldn't figure out a way out.  I hate the harm that they facilitate but don't hate them. 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Murphy101]

I love my brother and know that he really does love me. I see it in his manner and level of desperation to rebuild contact with me. Doesn't mean I will ever allow myself to have contact with him because I know him to be an abusive, volatile addict. Same thing with most of the abusive people I know. There are some who don't love or perhaps can't even love but most really do show genuine love and affection at other times and places. I'll even admit this for those who I am quite disposed against seeing fairly or compassionately (i.e., my husband's abusive father). It's usually more nuanced than abusive person = evil person incapable of love.

I didn't say abusive person = evil person incapable of love.

 

For example with person I previously referenced, the parent was more than capable of being kind and loving. Doesn't change one bit that they didn't love her though.

 

Even most murders have been kind and loving to someone at some point in their lives. But that doesn't change one bit how much their murderous act was still not love to whoever they killed.

 

Most people are not evil, just like they are not sin.

 

Evil and sin are choices and actions, not persons.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Murphy101

[LucyStoner]

I think in general it's a lot easier to demonize people in internet convos than in person, but it's pretty counterproductive either way.

 

Mostly I try not to hate people.  Sometimes it's really hard.  I hate drugs, hate them with a passion.  I have known so many people really really screwed up by drugs.  I guess I pretty much hate drug lords.  But not average nonviolent pushers, even though I deeply profoundly disagree with them and want them put away.  I understand them better, they are more complex; usually they are either weak or somewhat trapped or both, and they often got in over their heads and couldn't figure out a way out.  I hate the harm that they facilitate but don't hate them. 

 

And sometimes people perceive that they are being demonized when really they are merely being disagreed with by one or more people calling a spade a spade.  

[LucyStoner]

I didn't say abusive person = evil person incapable of love.

 

For example with person I previously referenced, the parent was more than capable of being kind and loving. Doesn't change one bit that they didn't love her though.

 

Even most murders have been kind and loving to someone at some point in their lives. But that doesn't change one bit how much their murderous act was still not love to whoever they killed.

 

Most people are not evil, just like they are not sin.

 

Evil and sin are choices and actions, not persons.

 

You are referring to the love that an abusive or dysfunctional person may feel as "so-called love".  All I am saying is that the love others feel isn't really subject to me or you deciding if it is love or not.  I didn't see it much and I definitely doubted it but it is clear when removed from my biased eyes that my husband was loved and felt loved by his highly abusive father.  

 

I'm willing to bet most loving parents have said, done or thought something that was unkind and unloving towards their children.    

[Murphy101]

And sometimes people perceive that they are being demonized when really they are merely being disagreed with by one or more people calling a spade a spade.

Or also likely is one party insists they are obviously seeing a spade and another party see it is obviously a screwdriver.

 

How can two parties simply agree to disagree on such a strong difference on perception of reality?

 

This is the problem I feel more often than not when reading or watching current events.

 

The only way either party can compromise is to accept delusion and that begets resentment and frustration.

 

Because party A is never ever going to view it as anything less than hatred if anyone claims their reality is not a spade. And party B doesn't want to hateful but they can't deny that it's a screwdriver and think it's hateful to be called hateful for not accepting the other view.

 

These days it seems like just about any topic can be put into the role of spade vs screwdriver, and thus we have national polarization on so many different issues.

[Murphy101]

You are referring to the love that an abusive or dysfunctional person may feel as "so-called love". All I am saying is that the love others feel isn't really subject to me or you deciding if it is love or not. I didn't see it much and I definitely doubted it but it is clear when removed from my biased eyes that my husband was loved and felt loved by his highly abusive father.

 

I'm willing to bet most loving parents have said, done or thought something that was unkind and unloving towards their children.

Yes. And again, I already stated that I don't think parents should be judged unloving based on some events, but overall and that I understand why and how abused kids still think they were loved.

 

I simply disagree it is in actuality love.

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

Just like I can completely believe a certain person who was abusive to his wife their entire marriage when he says he loved her more than anything and still think that the only way that can be true for him was if he has no concept of what love actually was. I don't think whether love was there or not is based purely on whether someone feels it was.

 

Hard to explain and sorry if it's derailing.

[mamiof5]

I don't use the word hate, just don't like it. I can find better ways to express my dislike for something. The word hate is just too strong.

[EmseB]

I always thought to "hate" someone meant to wish them ill. If many people are using it to mean "to be disgusted by" a person, then that finally explains why people say that if someone thinks it is wrong to do XYZ that you must hate people who do XYZ.

Yes, I think hate is a pretty specific thing, and you do actively have to wish or do ill will on someone to qualify something as hate. I can disagree with a lot of things and not hate someone. Really and truly vehemently disagree with their decisions, and even draw boundaries on how I interact with them to, for example preserve my own life or mental health, but that still does not mean I hate them. I actually believe murder is the ultimate physical manifestation of hatred, so I think ill will has to exist towards another person for hate to be present. I can be irritated or perturbed or deeply disturbed while acknowledging I would never harm someone or even want them to be harmed. But hate is another thing altogether.

 

To put it on the opposite end of the spectrum, I don't think love necessarily equates to total acquiescence of another's actions either. So, perhaps I don't allow my children to do a thing that they really want...but I forbid it because I love them, not because I hate them, even though their reception of my actions might be quite negative. Or something like an intervention, or cutting off a friendship of someone who is being destructive. Those things can be done out of deep love, even when it looks and feels very harsh.

[TranquilMind]

I always thought to "hate" someone meant to wish them ill. If many people are using it to mean "to be disgusted by" a person, then that finally explains why people say that if someone thinks it is wrong to do XYZ that you must hate people who do XYZ.

Yes. Makes no sense but proper usage of that term has been successfully co-opted by those who wish to silence other viewpoints.

 

Notice that those who can understand others hold positions they find deplorable with which they disagree without flipping out don't need to invalidate others like that.

[goldberry]

This is an interesting topic.  I have found it hard to understand on the other threads that believing homosexuality is a sin = hate.  Even taking that one thought in isolation, adding no other actions to it, no political agenda, no interfering with other people's lives, no mouthing off that view uninvited at random people, just the belief itself = hate.

 

So yes, I guess you could technically say that if you believe homosexuality is a sin, you find distasteful or even passionately dislike the behavior of homosexuality.  The same way a person who believes pre-marital sex is a sin would find that distasteful also.

 

But then I think about something that I really am repulsed by, which is smoking.  Ugh.  Smoking is one of my personal peeves-gross outs.  I think I could say that I despise smoking.  And yet, I have people in my life that I love very much who smoke.  I am find their smoking behavior highly distasteful.  And yet I do not think them evil or bad people. I can separate the fact that I personally disagree with that behavior from my feeling for that person.  And no one else would usually imply otherwise, that I must "hate" them because I hate-dislike-am-disgusted by their smoking.  Smoking is one part of their behavior, not the whole person.

 

So why is it that with homosexuality, it is felt by so many that disagreeing with a behavior = hating the person or thinking they are bad or evil? An argument I have heard before is that homosexuality is more tied up with who a person is, therefore it is impossible to separate the behavior from the person.  I don't believe any person is defined in whole by their sexual preferences, or by any other single quality.  So from my point of view, it still is just one thing about that person's behavior that I might disagree with.  

 

As a person who believes that homosexuality is a sin, but does not engage in any political activism or interfering with other people's lives, who does not offer my opinion to random people uninvited, and really REALLY does not feel any sense of disgust or hatred for any homosexual person anywhere, I have a hard time when people insist that I am promoting hatred.  I confess that I am confused by that application of the word.

 

[TranquilMind]

Yes, I think hate is a pretty specific thing, and you do actively have to wish or do ill will on someone to qualify something as hate. I can disagree with a lot of things and not hate someone. Really and truly vehemently disagree with their decisions, and even draw boundaries on how I interact with them to, for example preserve my own life or mental health, but that still does not mean I hate them. I actually believe murder is the ultimate physical manifestation of hatred, so I think ill will has to exist towards another person for hate to be present. I can be irritated or perturbed or deeply disturbed while acknowledging I would never harm someone or even want them to be harmed. But hate is another thing altogether.

 

To put it on the opposite end of the spectrum, I don't think love necessarily equates to total acquiescence of another's actions either. So, perhaps I don't allow my children to do a thing that they really want...but I forbid it because I love them, not because I hate them, even though their reception of my actions might be quite negative. Or something like an intervention, or cutting off a friendship of someone who is being destructive. Those things can be done out of deep love, even when it looks and feels very harsh.

Parenting young adults is a perfect example of this. You HATE what they do sometimes while simultaneously still loving them.

[Mergath]

This is an interesting topic. I have found it hard to understand on the other threads that believing homosexuality is a sin = hate. Even taking that one thought in isolation, adding no other actions to it, no political agenda, no interfering with other people's lives, no mouthing off that view uninvited at random people, just the belief itself = hate.

 

So yes, I guess you could technically say that if you believe homosexuality is a sin, you find distasteful or even passionately dislike the behavior of homosexuality. The same way a person who believes pre-marital sex is a sin would find that distasteful also.

 

But then I think about something that I really am repulsed by, which is smoking. Ugh. Smoking is one of my personal peeves-gross outs. I think I could say that I despise smoking. And yet, I have people in my life that I love very much who smoke. I am find their smoking behavior highly distasteful. And yet I do not think them evil or bad people. I can separate the fact that I personally disagree with that behavior from my feeling for that person. And no one else would usually imply otherwise, that I must "hate" them because I hate-dislike-am-disgusted by their smoking. Smoking is one part of their behavior, not the whole person.

 

So why is it that with homosexuality, it is felt by so many that disagreeing with a behavior = hating the person or thinking they are bad or evil? An argument I have heard before is that homosexuality is more tied up with who a person is, therefore it is impossible to separate the behavior from the person. I don't believe any person is defined in whole by their sexual preferences, or by any other single quality. So from my point of view, it still is just one thing about that person's behavior that I might disagree with.

 

As a person who believes that homosexuality is a sin, but does not engage in any political activism or interfering with other people's lives, who does not offer my opinion to random people uninvited, and really REALLY does not feel any sense of disgust or hatred for any homosexual person anywhere, I have a hard time when people insist that I am promoting hatred. I confess that I am confused by that application of the word.

The difference is that being gay is part of who a person is. Smoking is not.

 

Imagine if someone said to you, "I think having children is wrong. It's sinful and God hates it. Look at all these places where my holy book says that having children is an abomination. You should really think about separating from your kids and not being a mother anymore. It will be hard, but it's what God wants."

 

They might not think they hate you and your kids, but it's sure going to feel like they do.

[fraidycat]

This is an interesting topic. I have found it hard to understand on the other threads that believing homosexuality is a sin = hate. Even taking that one thought in isolation, adding no other actions to it, no political agenda, no interfering with other people's lives, no mouthing off that view uninvited at random people, just the belief itself = hate.

 

So yes, I guess you could technically say that if you believe homosexuality is a sin, you find distasteful or even passionately dislike the behavior of homosexuality. The same way a person who believes pre-marital sex is a sin would find that distasteful also.

 

But then I think about something that I really am repulsed by, which is smoking. Ugh. Smoking is one of my personal peeves-gross outs. I think I could say that I despise smoking. And yet, I have people in my life that I love very much who smoke. I am find their smoking behavior highly distasteful. And yet I do not think them evil or bad people. I can separate the fact that I personally disagree with that behavior from my feeling for that person. And no one else would usually imply otherwise, that I must "hate" them because I hate-dislike-am-disgusted by their smoking. Smoking is one part of their behavior, not the whole person.

 

So why is it that with homosexuality, it is felt by so many that disagreeing with a behavior = hating the person or thinking they are bad or evil? An argument I have heard before is that homosexuality is more tied up with who a person is, therefore it is impossible to separate the behavior from the person. I don't believe any person is defined in whole by their sexual preferences, or by any other single quality. So from my point of view, it still is just one thing about that person's behavior that I might disagree with.

 

As a person who believes that homosexuality is a sin, but does not engage in any political activism or interfering with other people's lives, who does not offer my opinion to random people uninvited, and really REALLY does not feel any sense of disgust or hatred for any homosexual person anywhere, I have a hard time when people insist that I am promoting hatred. I confess that I am confused by that application of the word.

I have loved ones who smoke. Who've smoked for decades, before smoking was (known to be) bad and are hopelessly addicted in many ways - physically, emotionally, psychologically.

 

They do, in fact, feel hated and "othered" by the MANY people who sneer, make nasty comments, and nasty faces at them while outside, minding their own business, in large part bolstered by the anti-smoking campaigns and the sheer size of the group that supports the thoughts that lead to these actions because "smoking is nasty". The sneers, comments, and faces are directed at the people. Not the government who has not outlawed tobacco. Not at the tobacco companies. But at the very people who are already in self-loathing mode because they've failed yet again to quit. I do not know any smoker who has not tried, repeatedly, to quit.

 

It's exactly the same thing. And it's new behavior that just.did.not. exist 25 years ago. 30 - 40 years ago everyone smoked, everywhere. It was unheard of to make someone feel small for their "habit". Instead they were offered an ashtray.

 

Ask your smoker how they are treated now. Or if they feel accepted and loved when they light up in public. They are not their actions, but they are certainly not made to feel welcome and loved, either. Pariah is more accurate.

 

Personally, I accept my gay family and friends AND my smoker family and friends. I offer them an ashtray. Not in my house, but on the patio - and when I lived in colder climate - the garage and I sit with them to visit (no medical issues like asthma here) because making them feel unwelcome or "less than" is not who *I want to be*. I'd rather be kind than right.

Edited June 21, 2016 by fraidycat

[4arrows]

Which, ironically enough, is hateful in and of itself.

Agreed.

[Bluegoat]

I always thought to "hate" someone meant to wish them ill. If many people are using it to mean "to be disgusted by" a person, then that finally explains why people say that if someone thinks it is wrong to do XYZ that you must hate people who do XYZ.

 

I can see the logic there, but it seems to assume that people are disgusted by actions they think are in some way wrong. There may well be a connection - I don't get disgusted much by people's actions, nor do I really ever feel hateful to anyone, and I can see those as quite possibly related.  But, like most people, there are plenty of things people do that I think are not good - that connection seems like a real leap to me.

 

Sometimes, especially with a collective or institutional immorality, I can find it disturbing, or I might even say there is a real sense of evil, and even more occasionally I would say that clings to individuals.  Those are probably closest I could get to disgust.  The things that most stick in my head are actually literary examples, though there are real-world equivalents to some extent.

 

Probably most of the things that actually disgust me aren't ethical issues at all, they are foolish things like ear-wax, and then there are things that I think are actually wrong that are appealing rather than disgusting.

 

For some people, I think they are more likely to feel a sense of physical or mental disgust at some things that are in their mind immoral.  I tend to think that is very much about emotional make-up though, and IMO it tends to be quite common among those who claim that people who disapprove of XYZ are hatful.  Perhaps that is why they assume it is a universal experience.

[poppy]

The difference is that being gay is part of who a person is. Smoking is not.

 

Imagine if someone said to you, "I think having children is wrong. It's sinful and God hates it. Look at all these places where my holy book says that having children is an abomination. You should really think about separating from your kids and not being a mother anymore. It will be hard, but it's what God wants."

 

They might not think they hate you and your kids, but it's sure going to feel like they do.

 

Or "I don't have anything against you personally, but, I find heterosexuality disgusting and wrong".  That would be interpreted as a hateful thing to say by... anyone.

[Bluegoat]

The difference is that being gay is part of who a person is. Smoking is not.

 

Imagine if someone said to you, "I think having children is wrong. It's sinful and God hates it. Look at all these places where my holy book says that having children is an abomination. You should really think about separating from your kids and not being a mother anymore. It will be hard, but it's what God wants."

 

They might not think they hate you and your kids, but it's sure going to feel like they do.

 

It wouldn't be hard to find a closer analogy though .

For smoking, I would probably say something like a tendency toward an addiction, or actually having an addiction, which is certainly part of many people, it is part of their body and mind.  Yet we can think addiction is bad, that the things it makes people do are bad for them and others, sometimes directly immoral, without hating addicts, or being disgusted by them, and often even without hating their actions, rather than seeing them as unfortunate in various ways.  (IME people who feel really disgusted that way are often the addicts themselves, or those who have directly been hurt by them, which are both pretty understandable I think.)

 

Really, a lot of things we consider wrong actions come out of who a person is - I would say probably 99% of them do.  All the things I regularly do that I think are wrong come out of my nature, that's why I do them.  I never gamble inappropriately - why - it is not at all interesting to me.  That is often true of the more obviously bad things people do as well, that are illegal.  People that run around and expose themselves?  Mostly they have a compulsion to do so, it isn't some kind of thing they have decided would be fun, many would prefer to be different.  People that get in fights and end up in prison for assault  - issues with self-control and emotional regulation.  People that are contract killers - probably some kind of sociopath or otherwise unable to empathize with others.  Is being that way something we can call a moral issue at all - I would say, not really, it is what it is.  But not many people would argue that the behaviors were therefore ok.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Murphy101]

The difference is that being gay is part of who a person is. Smoking is not.

 

Imagine if someone said to you, "I think having children is wrong. It's sinful and God hates it. Look at all these places where my holy book says that having children is an abomination. You should really think about separating from your kids and not being a mother anymore. It will be hard, but it's what God wants."

 

They might not think they hate you and your kids, but it's sure going to feel like they do.

You do realize I get hate mail, stares and comments similiar to that all the time, right? Oh they don't quote the bible, because most of them are anti-religion. But people do say things like they think the govt should sterilize women after one or two kids, that having a large family in and of itself is abusive and worthy of a call to CPS, that people like me are destroying the planet and more.

 

Do I feel hated? I guess so, but not really. I mostly think those people don't value children and are rude. I don't hang out with them much. Pretty sure we aren't ever going to become BFFs. But still I can discuss my disagreement with them in a factual manner. I can discuss why I think differently and why I think their view is inaccurate and or bad for society. It does not matter how I feel. "Feelings" are not valid point of reference in a genuine discussion/debate.

 

To take the smoking example... It sucks that smokers might feel unliked or hated for their addiction, but that's not even slightly a good enough reason to stop having smoking bans in locations or to stop discouraging smoking. I'm not going to tell my kids, hey this is an awful unhealthy addiction that kills people but just hand them an ashtray anyways because it's more important to ignore that fact for the sake of making them feel okay with it. Who here would think it a valid argument to suggest we can't discourage smoking, legally and otherwise, bc it might make smokers feel disliked, which puts it on some continuum of hate?

[Murphy101]

Or "I don't have anything against you personally, but, I find heterosexuality disgusting and wrong". That would be interpreted as a hateful thing to say by... anyone.

Cannot count how often I've heard some version of "You seem nice enough, but having so many kids is just stupid and wrong."

 

Or some version of, "OMG, how could you attend a church full of pedophiles. And you take your kids?!" There is actually a tv 2 hour program on tv every week that promotes that the Catholic Church, the pope specificly, is the anti-Christ. Hard to get much more hateful than being called followers of the anti-Christ IMO, but there it is proclaimed on network tv.

 

And yet my feelings won't change anyone else's opinion and telling them they are hateful people isn't likely to encourage them to discuss it with me either.

[fraidycat]

You do realize I get hate mail, stares and comments similiar to that all the time, right? Oh they don't quote the bible, because most of them are anti-religion. But people do say things like they think the govt should sterilize women after one or two kids, that having a large family in and of itself is abusive and worthy of a call to CPS, that people like me are destroying the planet and more.

 

Do I feel hated? I guess so, but not really. I mostly think those people don't value children and are rude. I don't hang out with them much. Pretty sure we aren't ever going to become BFFs. But still I can discuss my disagreement with them in a factual manner. I can discuss why I think differently and why I think their view is inaccurate and or bad for society. It does not matter how I feel. "Feelings" are not valid point of reference in a genuine discussion/debate.

 

To take the smoking example... It sucks that smokers might feel unliked or hated for their addiction, but that's not even slightly a good enough reason to stop having smoking bans in locations or to stop discouraging smoking. I'm not going to tell my kids, hey this is an awful unhealthy addiction that kills people but just hand them an ashtray anyways because it's more important to ignore that fact for the sake of making them feel okay with it. Who here would think it a valid argument to suggest we can't discourage smoking, legally and otherwise, bc it might make smokers feel disliked, which puts it on some continuum of hate?

I swear to God you deliberately misread every word I write on these boards and twist them into unrecognizable caricatures of my actual words. In pretty much every context. Car accidents, emotional intelligence, smoking are the most recent ones I can think of.

 

Enough already. Stop.

 

Who said anything about stopping smoking bans? Or that we can't discourage our kids from smoking?

 

Smoking bans are in place. Kids are aware that it's bad. There's still no reason to be an asshole toward a human person. Ever. Nasty comments. Rude faces. Etc. It's all unnecessary. Gay, smoker, large family. Whatever. Just no.

 

My point is that 25 years ago, it was unheard of to be deliberately rude to a smoker, even if you hated smoke. Now, because smokers are villains to a very large swath of people there is a segment who knows that "everyone agrees with me" and uses that implied backing to be jerks. Yes, it does fall on the same continuum of "everyone knows gay is gross" that leads to "othering" of anyone who belongs to that group. The implied agreement bolsters thoughtlessness and deliberate mean words or actions against those who are deemed "wrong".

 

There's a difference between teaching your kids that smoking is bad and that smokERs are bad. My kids are taught about addiction (not just nicotine) and compassion for those caught in the addiction. They will walk by a smoker and say something like "that poor guy, I feel sorry for him".

 

As a parent I'll take that over the comments my loved ones have heard, any day.

Edited June 21, 2016 by fraidycat

[TranquilMind]

I think that you are making this too universal, you are probably right about your grandfather, but that doesn't necessarily extend to the whole world.

 

Something I really hate is philandering.  I think it is a wrong behavior, fraud, a kind of treason, and a sign of self-absorption or weakness.  I don't, however, hate philanderers individually, or as a group, as persons.  I don't think they are lesser human beings.  I have read arguments, by several races, that inter-racial marriage is bad.  Some of those people did hate others, and some of the reasons weren't very good.  Some of the reasons were stronger, though in the general case I don't think convincing, and I think it would be quite possible to hold them without being hateful of other individuals or even groups. 

 

This.  I hate philandering as well, and people who have been close to me have engaged in it.  I didn't hate them.  I did hate what they did.  Hating what someone does is not hating the person.

 

For another example, I have a real problem with lying.  I HATE lying and will really react negatively, and never trust that person again.  Some People close to me in the scope of my life have lied to me.  I hated what they did, but didn't hate them (didn't trust them anymore either).