Expanding on my post in the gay marriage thread: Accusing people of “hating” things is a rhetorical trump card used to invoke dislike as if that was in and of itself bad. Can anyone explain why it’s bad to “hate,” say, terrorism, or Joseph Stalin, or police shootings of innocent people, or bigotry, or any number of things, especially if you accept that “disliking” those things is the correct attitude? As a converse, you often see people defending their wrong positions by pointing out that they don’t “hate” those victimized by them–“I don’t hate gay people, I just think they shouldn’t have the same rights to marriage/whatever as straight people,” etc.
Can anyone explain what “hate” is besides a thought-terminating cliche designed to circumvent an argument against something, or why there should be any weight given to a non-“hateful” argument that is nonetheless bigoted or incorrect? I suspect this is just leftover Christian confusion, an attempt to hang on to meaningless platitudes like “hate the sin, love the sinner” or “everyone is inherently sinful but everyone can be redeemed” and such. Like other Christian concepts it’s ill-founded to begin with and obviously has no persuasive value to non-Christians.
You realize some people are going to see this as hateful Christianity-bashing, right?
A dictionary definition of hate:
*Verb (used with object)
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
Adverb (used without object)
to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility*
The point is usually that hate is the irrational motivation for a bad policy or stance. I don’t think you have an accurate view of how it gets used in debates.
When I use the word, other than in a context of hating things where it’s purely subjective (like food or music or film) which is really wrong but often used as just a stronger word for dislike, it is actually a distinct concept from dislike. Hate is typically and action or at least an intention to cause harm to the subject of hate. In that sense, it’s not bad to hate bad things because if they’re bad we ought to want to do things to mitigate them or destroy them. I mean, really, no one just dislikes terrorism, they either want to minimize or end it or at least support those efforts or, in the case of the terrorists themselves, they’re actually proponents.
Once I saw a documentary on the Ku Klux Klan. Made in the 1960s. They had this Grand Kleagle or whatever trying to do some P.R. by drawling pleasantly: “We don’t hate the nigra! Oh, gosh shucks, no. We just think he should stay in his place.” The sad thing is this racist probably imagined in his own mind that he was being kindly and reasonable.
Right, just like the dude in the other thread who responded quickly to accusations from no one with assurances that he doesn’t “hate” gays, then immediately described homosexuality as a “kink” and described gays as animals. With love like that, who needs hate, right? It just goes to show the sort of thing people can feel like worthwile human beings propounding so long as they append the meaningless bromide “but I don’t HATE them” to it. This is why I don’t believe in the concept.
You are clearly not claiming that there is no hatred in the world.
You do not appear to be claiming that hatred is never a motivating force behind people’s actions.
So what is it that you do not believe? What is the point of this “debate”?
Hatred added upon discrimination is like insult added to injury. The actual substantial problem is the discrimination, the injury. Removing the insult but keeping the injury going is a mere cosmetic change. Fake-nice.
“Hate” speech is penalized by many countries and even many institutions within countries that call themselves free, and a lot of people are OK with that. So if you can get enough people to believe an opposing viewpoint is “hate”, you’ll eventually have the law on your side, and you don’t have to bother actually refuting the opposing viewpoint.
I think his point is that accusations of hatred are sometimes used to shut down debate. Many people take the public position that “hatred is always wrong”, so accusing people of hating something is an attempt to embarrass the opposition into silence. And from the other direction “I don’t actually hate X” is used as a defense, as if not hating someone excuses bad treatment of them and the person accusing them of hatred is being terribly unfair.
Basically, a variant of Godwin’s Law, with hate instead of Nazis.
And I see what inspired the OP now; this thread where a poster claims that they don’t hate homosexuals, it’s unfair to say they hate homosexuals; they just oppose letting homosexuals marry.
Whatever odd opinions are expressed in that post, I am still not sure what the debate is supposed to be in this thread and if I don’t see one pretty soon, I will probably move the thread elsewhere.
My point is that the concept of “hate” is meaningless. Consider positions A and B:
A: “I don’t think gays should be allowed to marry. I think their very identity is perverse and they are going to hell. America is justified in using the force of government to restrict homosexual behavior. But I don’t hate them. It’s wrong to hate anyone.”
B: “I hate gays. I don’t want them to be allowed to marry, and I think their very identity is perverse and they are going to hell. America is justified in using the force of government to restrict homosexual behvaior, because I hate gays so.”
To many people it seems that there is not only a meaningful distinction between A and B, but one of such fundamental importance that teasing out whether a given homophobe is of type A or B is the overriding concern of any rhetorical engagement with such a person. I find this ridiculous. I do not see what the point of dividing people who are wrong, bigoted, and harmful into those who are doing it out of “hate” and those who are doing it out of some other motivation is, and I especially don’t see the point of dividing all opinions about anything into “strong dislike” (acceptable) and “hate” (never acceptable). When applied to issues outside of homophobia and other group-based bigotry, it’s even more angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin: you’re not supposed to “hate” Osama bin Laden, because “hate” is bad, but of course everyone strongly dislikes him and is supposed to do so. I don’t see any rational basis for this, or for any useful meaning to the concept of “hate.”
Invoking “hate crimes” is a category error. “Hate crimes” is a term that is generally understood to mean “crimes committed against people due to their membership in some protected category.” The fact that we use the word “hate” to refer to both the nebulous concept of unacceptably strong dislike and to racial/etc bias is an etymological coincidence.
Making up one instance in which the word “hate” serves no purpose is not the same as proving that the word “hate” cannot ever serve any purpose. “Hate” has a clear definition which Marley quoted above, which boils down to intense dislike. Thus the word serves a clear purpose, just as there’s a purpose for distinguising between running and sprinting or between speaking and yelling.
If I’m reading the OP right, he’d object to the current common practice of dismissing critics as “haters”. It’s a juvenile ploy that’s meant to curtail criticism by imputing to it a frowned-on emotional state.
“Obama/The Democrats/The Republicans are responsible for the mess this country is in.”
“Hater! You’re just a hater!!”
People who shout about “haters” should be thrown under the bus, provided we’ve got enough boots on the ground to do it.
Hate is subjective and corrosive. When (impersonal you) you accuse another person of hate, you are really saying that you know how they think and feel. It will raise defensive feelings, just as Der Trihs put it:
I did not take offense at the proposition “Why does religion hate gays?” because it was not personally directed at me, even though I am religious. I agree that your A and B above are morally identical. Still when groups are whipped into a frenzy, such that individual members resort to thuggery, hate is not too strong a word. So in debate, don’t accuse; but if the shoe fits and the other guy puts it on - it is fair to say his words are hateful. Am I making sense?
