Why can't we all just get long... w/o hating?

[Oy]

I suspect the mainstream press has a great deal to do with the culture of hate as well, as their bread-and-butter is sensationalism. But then, the press is driven by the tastes of the people, who seem to enjoy World Wide Wrestling and want the general technique to be extended throughout society.

But Hamlet nailed it when he talked about self-righteousness/righteous indignation. The commonality of this seems to be unique to our time and society; while many philosophical and especially religious figures in the past have indulged in it, it never seemed to have infected the regular people so much as now. Or maybe just the records don’t show it as much.

And after all, why not? Is there anything so satisfying as that feeling of “Gotcha!” that tells you that not only are you correct, but you are morally right? And after all, when what a person says is not true, there are only so many reasons why he would be saying it, and none of them are good - either he doesn’t know any better (in which case he’s worthy of contempt) or he’s lying (in which case he’s bad). For the majority of Americans, there are no greys, only black and white. Policians of a certain party have encouraged this attitude significantly over the past fifteen years or so in particular, to the point where one of their nominees for president said rather proudly that he didn’t care to think too deeply about the issues.

[smiling_bandit]

One aspect of modern politics which was really ticked me off is the binary nature thereof. Two parties each have one idea (a comprise internally) which is then pitted against the other party’s idea. Actually, it’s not binary, and multi-party systems still have the same problem. Ten wrong-headed ideas espoused by people no conception of the consequences of any of them are just as bad as two. And as a practical matter, we’re almost always talking about three (maybe four) parties who are still divided into two broad groups, as the bit players have no say*.

*Some peope want more patries so more types of poeple can have a say. Given what I’ve seen of said smal parties: For the love of Christ, no.

Still, this is a huge issue. In the US, I generally think essentially every idea a Democrat espouses on, say, trade or economics is going to be counterproductive and flawed from the start. (Republicans are only 90% always counterproductive and flawed from the start! Yay. :mad: )

But there’s a huge knowledge-base cut-off. It’s a lot easier for citizen action to stop a bad law than to start a good one. I have a really good idea, I still probably can’t get it enacted into law. Maybe on the local or state level, but federal? Forget it.

[gonzomax]

Very few people have the character to rise above their own self interests. If it costs you a job or money will you actually be able to vote ethically anyway. It becomes personal and you get defensive.

[focusonz]

Thank you “cosmosdan”. Your post is worth repeating over and over and over again!

@cosmosdan

IMHO one of the main problems with politics is the acceptance and encouragement of dishonesty as a tool for politicians. Also in recent elections we see that dishonesty not only reflected in issues that matter but we see it in dishonest malicious personal attacks on opponents. We are distracted and led away from serious issues that have a profound impact on our lives and encouraged to focus on emotional trivial BS. I hope we’re beginning to see a trend in which the public rejects these tactics and those that eagerly use them.

Honesty starts with self no matter how much it hurts.
Honesty starts with self no matter how much it hurts.
Honesty starts with self no matter how much it hurts.
Honesty starts with self no matter how much it hurts.

@cosmosdan

Talking to a friend of mine we both acknowledged that once you pick a side, republican or democrat, then it’s our human nature to want our “team” to win which can lead to putting some blinders on. We tend to overlook and excuse the mistakes of our team while focusing on and decrying the mistakes of the opposition. Once we head down that path it can lead to more dishonesty and justification as we strive to elevate our team and bring down the other.

Politics amongst us in the electorate is not a team sport. We only have one vote each. And the end result of the process has been perceived as we are all winners or we are all losers depending upon the tally of all the votes. The perception is wrong.

@cosmosdan

I think if we can alter our attitude a bit we might see that as citizens we are all on the same team even if we don’t all agree. Dishonesty and corruption reside in both parties and I hope we can develop an attitude where our common goal is to root out corruption and hold politicians responsible for their excessive dishonesty even if they’re on our “team” I hope we can also realize that the beauty of our system is that we can have discussion and debate to hear and consider other views and that aides us in finding solutions to issues.

The discussion gets nowhere when it is inflamed with ‘hate’. Points must be conceded to establish the common ground. No one will ever agree or concede anything to anyone who from the get go ‘hates’ the person or ‘hates’ what the person thinks.

@cosmosdan

If we hold a common goal of the advancement and improvement of our society then we don’t have to see people who hold opposing views as the enemy that needs to be defeated at all cost.

We might just as well start transitioning people from corporeal existence for all the good a ‘hateful’ discussion does.

@cosmosdan

Daniel Ellsberg said decades ago that our political system is set up to corrupt or discourage honest hard working politicians who sincerely want to serve those they represent. In that we as citizens have failed to protect our own democracy. We don’t consistently pay enough attention to what is actually going on. We’ll see if new leadership will change that.

This is the ever creeping malaise.

[Marley23]

@smiling bandit

Something has been bothering me an awful lot in the modern world, and it’s something which ahs essentuially never changed since humans were around.

As you say yourself, it’s really got nothing to do with the modern world. There are modern forms, but this is something that’s probably innate to people. Generally we trust and like people who are like us and are suspicious or malicious of those who aren’t. With regard to politics, and religion too, people are mostly willing to allow themselves to be rude if they think the issue being discussed is important enough to justify it.

It seems that often enough the very best we can do for our neighbors is apathy. Which I find sad.

I don’t. What’s the alternative? “Apathy” is this case could be more positively described as a nonjudgmental, live and let live attitude.

[focusonz]

@Shodan

“It’s not just rhetoric - your candidate really is evil, and if you won’t admit that, then you must be evil too!”

No one should expect anything of value to come out of a discussion if the parties consider the other as
Evil - morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked, inferior, offensive, fierce, vicious, vile.
Sin - an offense against religious or moral law

This is a ‘hate’ filled statement since you say it is not rhetoric and will only lead to more evil from anyone who uses it.

The risks in fighting evil
Dave Jackson
If you have read J.R.R. Tolkien’s Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, you may have been intrigued by the cost of fighting evil. Of course, there was the danger of injury, defeat and death. But even in victory there seemed to be a price of contamination for engaging evil so closely. Both Bilbo and Frodo were deeply damaged for having carried “the Ring”.

This risk also seems true in life. As an American raised in the 1960s and 1970s, I was engaged in the moral struggle against racism and war. And yet there was a price to pay–the cynicism and resentment that poisoned my appreciation of people and my country.

It’s taken years to recover from those attitudes. In the meantime, I have not softened my opposition to evil, but I have come to know myself as less than pure. It’s unfortunate that in the heat of the battle, we become more characterized by what we are against than what we are for.

Even the prophet Elijah got some twisted ideas when fighting evil. Following his greatest victory over evil–the contest on Mount Carmel–he ran off to the wilderness. He became a coward and a complainer. He wanted to die and whined that he was the only one left who had been faithful and zealous for God (I Kings 19:10). And yet there were still 7,000 faithful followers.

The evil of the battle contaminates us as well. How else would some justify bombing abortion clinics or compromising honesty to lure abortion-minded women into crisis pregnancy clinics to save their babies? Or why do we sometimes secretly gloat over someone who gets AIDS–or, for that matter, any sinful person when he or she is punished?

I think that when we battle evil, we forget who is in control. We think that the battle is ours and feel responsible to win it by any means. That’s when the evil one has the chance to entice us to use one of his tactics.

Dave Jackson is a freelance writer from Evanston, IL.
http://old.mbconf.ca/mb/mbh3621/jack.htm

[smiling_bandit]

@Marley23

I don’t. What’s the alternative? “Apathy” is this case could be more positively described as a nonjudgmental, live and let live attitude.

I disagree. If one believes in anything worth anything, it’s worth promoting and caring about. Humans, often do not seem to.

[Shodan]

@focusonz

@Shodan

“It’s not just rhetoric - your candidate really is evil, and if you won’t admit that, then you must be evil too!”

No one should expect anything of value to come out of a discussion if the parties consider the other as
Evil - morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked, inferior, offensive, fierce, vicious, vile.
Sin - an offense against religious or moral law

This is a ‘hate’ filled statement since you say it is not rhetoric and will only lead to more evil from anyone who uses it.

:sigh:

Did you notice the quote marks? Did you perhaps wonder why they were there? Did you read the rest of my post?

It’s an example, not an assertion. Read some of the other posts by Zoe or Der Trihs or RedFury and see if you don’t think it is accurate.

Or not.

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

@smiling bandit

I disagree. If one believes in anything worth anything, it’s worth promoting and caring about.

Not necessarily, no. You seem to be rejecting every option here: it’s a bad thing if people can’t keep their emotions in check while discussing things they’re passionate about, but it’s also bad if they decide to live and let live. You’re asking a lot, really, if you say people have to “get along” while actively “romoting and caring about” issues and opinions that are unquestionably going to bring them into conflict about things they consider important.

Humans, often do not seem to.

Does some other species do this?

[Der_Trihs]

@focusonz

No one should expect anything of value to come out of a discussion if the parties consider the other as
Evil - morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked, inferior, offensive, fierce, vicious, vile.
Sin - an offense against religious or moral law

This is a ‘hate’ filled statement since you say it is not rhetoric and will only lead to more evil from anyone who uses it.

And what if the other side IS evil ? What if they ARE “sinful, wicked, inferior, offensive, fierce, vicious, vile” ?

@focusonz

This risk also seems true in life. As an American raised in the 1960s and 1970s, I was engaged in the moral struggle against racism and war. And yet there was a price to pay–the cynicism and resentment that poisoned my appreciation of people and my country.

So ? What makes you think that cynicism and resentment wasn’t justified ?

@focusonz

The evil of the battle contaminates us as well. How else would some justify bombing abortion clinics or compromising honesty to lure abortion-minded women into crisis pregnancy clinics to save their babies?

Because those are evil causes, so the people who follow it do evil things. They weren’t “contaminated”; they started out on the wrong side. There are better examples of the point you were trying to make; like the terror bombing of Dresden by the Allies, against a genuinely evil enemy.

As for why people do evil in the name of good, I don’t think there’s any one reason. Nor do I agree with the basic assumption that hatred is a bad thing that we need to get rid of. Hatred can drive people to do good; it can drive people to do bad. It’s morally neutral, and its good or evil is a matter of context. As I see it, we “can’t get along without hating”, in no small part because we shouldn’t.

This “Hatred is bad !” idea is the mirror image of the “Love is good !” idea that gets tossed around a lot; both are wrong. Hatred can motivate people to do good; love can motivate people to do bad. You can’t rationally just label an emotion bad or good; at some point you need to break down and use your judgement to figure out which it is.

[mlees]

It seems that one of the mental tricks people can (usually unconsciously) use is to demonise opposing viewpoints as either “stupid”, “greedy”, “evil”, or with some other social sin.

This makes it easy to dismiss their arguments without as much mental gymnastics on our part. (It also makes it easier to paint the opposition with a broad brush. Makes for faster drying time.)

“I don’t have to pay attention to O’Reilly, because he is just a shill for BushCo.”, for example.

[Oy]

I think what **Der Trihs ** is saying is:

“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

But surely there is a middle ground in which we can avoid becoming the enemy in fighting it! Unfortunately, we seems to have taken several steps backward in that quest in recent years.

If I had a single most important wish for humanity, it would be to give up vengeance. More evil is committed and created by that single entity than by any other. In satisfying it, one can only create more and worse hatred, and probably perpetrate more and worse violence. I think there is a reason why Hebrews wrote “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” By yielding it up to a “higher power,” the Hebrews could then assume that their vengeance was in safe hands and would proceed as appropriate, and move on to other things.

[Der_Trihs]

@mlees

This makes it easy to dismiss their arguments without as much mental gymnastics on our part. (It also makes it easier to paint the opposition with a broad brush. Makes for faster drying time.)

“I don’t have to pay attention to O’Reilly, because he is just a shill for BushCo.”, for example.

But what if the person in question is a known liar; he really is a shill for Bush or whomever ? How many times can someone lie before we can dismiss what he says ?

I DON’T feel any obligation to listen to Bush or anyone who speaks for him; he’s lied or just been wrong so many times that I see no reason to trust him on anything.

@Oy!

I think what **Der Trihs ** is saying is:

“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Pretty much, yes - and hatred is one of the more common motivators to get people to do something against evil. The problem isn’t so much hatred, as people not checking their targets. It’s thoughtlessness or willful ignorance that’s the underlying problem, not really hatred. Eliminate hatred, and, say an anti-Semite instead of attacking Jews, would ( for example ) take away their children to be raised as Christians/Muslims/whatever “for their own good”. It’s people’s delusions that are the real problem more than hate; one can do plenty of damage without hate.

@Oy!

But surely there is a middle ground in which we can avoid becoming the enemy in fighting it! Unfortunately, we seems to have taken several steps backward in that quest in recent years.

Personally, I think that the problem on the left is the opposite; too little passion, too little willingness to condemn the evil of the other side, too little willingness to stand up to them in any way.

@Oy!

If I had a single most important wish for humanity, it would be to give up vengeance. More evil is committed and created by that single entity than by any other. In satisfying it, one can only create more and worse hatred, and probably perpetrate more and worse violence. I think there is a reason why Hebrews wrote “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” By yielding it up to a “higher power,” the Hebrews could then assume that their vengeance was in safe hands and would proceed as appropriate, and move on to other things.

And that’s why legal remedies are better, when practical. The justice system and democracy may be imperfect, but they are superior to mob violence, feuds, or relying on a God who can’t follow through.

[mlees]

@Der Trihs

But what if the person in question is a known liar; he really is a shill for Bush or whomever ? How many times can someone lie before we can dismiss what he says ?

I DON’T feel any obligation to listen to Bush or anyone who speaks for him; he’s lied or just been wrong so many times that I see no reason to trust him on anything.

Well, would you be disappointed if there were folks who skip your posts, too, because you are so single minded that you are blinding yourself to what might actually be a good point?

My point, I think, is in evidence here: Because of the source, you ignore the arguments, and feel justified in doing so. It’s easier (lazy may not be the right word…) than actually analysing the arguments.

Note: I am not talking about rehashing a subject that has already been discussed over and over, with nothing new offered. I’m talking about either a new topic, or new info.

[Der_Trihs]

@mlees

Well, would you be disappointed if there were folks who skip your posts, too, because you are so single minded that you are blinding yourself to what might actually be a good point?

A little; but that’s their privilege. I occasionally skim or skip over other people because I don’t trust them or just find their posting style irritating.

@mlees

My point, I think, is in evidence here: Because of the source, you ignore the arguments, and feel justified in doing so. It’s easier (lazy may not be the right word…) than actually analysing the arguments.

The problem is, when the person is a known liar, you can’t trust his or her arguments. And frankly, fact checking every one of someone’s statements is way too time consuming to be worth the effort outside of a courtroom. And that’s assuming that it’s even possible; quite often, with people like a President, I’m simply not in a position to check his facts; I HAVE to go on his record.