Hate and hating the hater.

[dimreepr]

Yes but that's not what you said in the OP or the rest of this thread.

Have you ever met one of the haters you hate? Been attacked by them? Directly threatened by them?

 

And before you say yes to the last one, don't (no doubt you'll suggest if we don't stop them they will be in a position too) the only way that can happen is your “hating the hater”

meet spite with spite you get vicious, meet vicious with vicious you get heinous (see where I'm going with this?).

Edited into my previous post you may not have read it.

and then cross posted.

Edited June 26, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

cycles of violence are an obvious reality in the world

 

revenge is a strong human emotion/need/goal, we want to even the score

 

but take what happened at Pulse

 

We want to fix it. We want to extract a pound of flesh. Somebody has to pay. Who should it be that takes our anger? Me? Homophobes? NRA? Republicans? Gay people with internal issues? The Old Testament? Republicans? Fundamental Christians? Fundamental Muslims? The Caliph? George Bush?

 

Who should we hate?

and if we should forgive, and love and tolerate, then why not love a hater

Edited June 26, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

cycles of violence are an obvious reality in the world

 

revenge is a strong human emotion, we want to even the score

 

but take what happened at Pulse

 

We want to fix it. We want to extract a pound of flesh. Somebody has to pay. Who should it be that takes our anger? Me? Homophobes? NRA? Republicans? Gay people with internal issues? The Old Testament? Republicans? Fundamental Christians? Fundamental Muslims? The Caliph? George Bush?

 

Who should we hate?

 

 

FFS Nobody he's dead, what's the point?

and if we should forgive, and love and tolerate, then why not love a hater

 

 

 

I can forgive "the hater" and I can tolerate "the hater" but why would that mean I should love a hater?

 

And just in case that's not clear enough, I don't love a hater.

[tar]

the Pope?

what is the point of hate

 

that is the thread question

 

why are you throwing up your hands

well dimreeper, just for logical continuity, resolve for me the contradiction inherent in these two thoughts

 

I love all humanity.

 

I do not love spiteful people.

Consider for a moment, for the purpose of investigating what hate is about, within one's own internal calculus, those people who you agree with and those people who you do not agree with.

 

That is, of the 8 billion people in the world, which have your approval, and which have your disapproval?

Edited June 26, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

the Pope?

what is the point of hate

 

that is the thread question

 

why are you throwing up your hands

 

 

Because it's not, and to back that up:

 

Your reply to this in post #94:

The fact that you asked the question and the phrasing you used indicates to me that either you hate and want to know why or you’re looking for an excuse to hate those you fear.

 

Was this:

OK, and you are immune? How?

 

You're allowed to back down tar, just be honest about it.

[tar]

or considering the importance of role models to this whole discussion, would you consider the shooter a hero or a villain, and what aspects of the shooter's behavior are the most reprehensible and which are the most admirable?

 

What does it matter? He is dead? Well so is Moses and Jesus and Mohammed and Siddhartha and ghengis khan and hitler and timothy McVeigh. It matters.

I reject completely the idea, dimreeper, that you do not hate, and I do.

Edited June 26, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

or considering the importance of role models to this whole discussion, would you consider the shooter a hero or a villain, and what aspects of the shooter's behavior are the most reprehensible and which are the most admirable?

 

 

This is just nonsense.

 

 

What does it matter? He is dead? Well so is Moses and Jesus and Mohammed and Siddhartha and ghengis khan and hitler and timothy McVeigh. It matters.

 

 

 

Why?

[tar]

I guess you could say I hate the idea.

1/3 of the population of the world lives as Mohammed lived.

 

billions live modeling their lives after Christ or Moses or the Buddah

 

If someone shoots a crowd of gay people killing 49, in the name of the Caliph...it matters.

if we commit a drone strike against ISIS it matters

if we drop a bomb on Hiroshima to stop Japanese Imperialism, it matters

 

I am not sure you have a leg to stand on, if you think we are living in a world that would proceed along just fine if nobody disapproved of someone else's behavior.

you can not put someone in jail AND be concerned with their freedom

you cannot fight your enemies in a loving manner

Edited June 26, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

If someone shoots a crowd of gay people killing 49, in the name of the Caliph...it matters.

 

 

 

Yes but hating the corpse won't change it.

 

 

How about you actually address one of my points?

 

Instead of ignoring every one of them, sometimes you don't reply, sometimes you just restate your position and sometimes you pretend you meant something else.

I reject completely the idea, dimreeper, that you do not hate, and I do.

 

 

 

The evidence suggests otherwise.

[tar]

dimreeper,

 

If it does not matter if I hate the shooter and hate what he represents, because he is dead, why would it matter if you forgave the shooter and tolerated what he represents since he is dead?

 

 

I think it matters because fundamentalists killing gays is a righteous act on their part, and we need to tell them and show them that this is activity that will absolutely not be tolerated, so that it is not considered a righteous act, but considered a crime.

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."

 

"It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways."

Buddha.

[disarray]

 

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."

 

"It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways."

Buddha.

 

By way of contrast to your comment, Tar seems to be arguing that there is such a thing as cool, almost disinterested, intellectual anger.. If so, unless we are making up ad hoc definitions, this seems like something of an oxymoron, as a quick 'google' definition defines anger as "a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility."

 

Indeed, Tar seems to be suggesting some sort of eye-for-an-eye vigilante! justice; or, at best, suggesting the death penalty for either those who commit a hate crime, e.g., badgering and slapping a homosexual (which then seems an excessive legal punishment of the person doing the badgering), or else suggesting the death penalty for those who kill homosexuals (as a hate crime), in which case a death sentence (or, most likely, the quasi-equivalent of life imprisonment) would be the usual legal course of action anyway.

 

They key point here, it seems to me, is whether we would deal out punishment to those who committed hate crimes, in a similarly hateful and vindictive (aka revengeful) manner. If so, it seems to me that this, ironically, reflects the, imho, rather crude eye-for-an-eye vengeance found in the Old Testament and the Torah, as well as in the Qu'ran (lex talionis).

 

Even today, many people, particularly family members of someone who was attacked, feel that the legal system should dispense punishment for the sake of revenge. Sometimes one hears a family member saying "that's not good enough, he took the life of my brother and should die in return" when a murder has been committed.

 

Tar may be suggesting, on the other hand, that killing someone who kills a homosexual should be done swiftly and openly as a warning to others, but, in any case, it does sound a little like taking the law into ones own hand.

[tar]

disarray,

 

I am trying to say that we, in this country hate people that hate. And while politically I am trying to point out that this is bad, psychologically I am trying to point out that this is the way we make each other behave properly. Make each other follow the law, moral code and morays of the group we are in. In this case, the U.S.

 

But look at the white supremacists clashing with the Bernie type "stop the hate" by any means group rallied up on the internet.

 

The two groups hate each other.

 

Regards, TAR

but each group is Americans, and therefore "us"

[disarray]

Well, this sounds like the sort of discussion that could devolve into a semantic merrygoround.

 

Yes, social disapproval is a powerful tool to help ensure that everyone in a community conforms to laws and social mores/morays. But I don't agree that hate is the best way to express such disapproval.

 

For example, a parent might disapprove of a two-year-old walking off onto the road without looking and without supervision, but the parent does not hate the child.

Similarly, a neighbor might disapprove of ignorant or lazy parents who don't supervise a two-year-old properly and let him/her wander off into traffic, but the neighbor need not hate the neighbor.

 

Webster defines "hate" as "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury."

 

The implication here is that strong emotions are involved. In practice, I don't think that it is a stretch to say that hatred often leads to irrational thoughts and behavior, which in turn often lead to irrational and violent actions.

 

So, whether one is referring to people who hate homosexuals, or referring to people who hate people who hate homosexuals, "hatred," per se, I would suggest, is not a very effective way to try to convince people that they are in the wrong, or that they should modify their behavior. Indeed, hatred and violence are often the sort of last resort ingredients for vigilante violence and war, e.g., the Civil War in the U.S. as way to settle a dispute that involves money and "colored" people being used as slaves (among other factors).

 

Sometimes righteous indignation is effective, but these days, people are more than likely to think that the person who is angry, hateful and perhaps violence is not a person whom they should look up to and obey, but rather a person who is just being irrational, controlling, power hungry, and conceited. Therefore they will in act with anger, hatred, and violence in return....which just creates a vicious cycle of anger, hatred, and violence.

 

That is why I suggest that everyone look for alternative ways to express disapproval as well as expressing empathy and moral guidance. Thus, it is my experience in dealing with angry, self-righteous people in general, that the best thing to do is to not get defensive, to remain calm, to not return hatred with hatred, to show that you are trying to see their side of things, to empathize with their feelings of hurt, to address feelings of having been treated unfairly, to encourage them to look at things from other people's point of view, and to allay fears that they are under an immediate threat (e.g., from colored people, or homosexuals, or people with different political beliefs, etc.).

Edited June 28, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

But is exactly the problem we are having with hatred in this country, that I am trying to get to the bottom of. And by get to the bottom of, I mean that all those things you say about denouncing violence and calling for cooler heads, works in terms of what we should be saying to people that go out during a permitted peaceful meeting of white supremacists and start whacking them on the head and stabbing them.

 

Not intending at all in getting into a semantical battle, but violence is not OK just because you hate white supremacists...or is it? That is exactly the thread question, and exactly why I ask people to put themselves in the other shoes, and not place their own fears and motivations in the hearts of people they disagree with or disapprove of.

 

Use me as an example. I started this thread to talk about hate and hating the hater, and immediately people started in on me for being a hater, a bigot, a right wing lunatic... all of which are false accusations. Dimreeper is after me to squelch my hate and attain peace...which means he thinks I need a moral compass resetting...which I don't think I need.

 

Here are two made up situations, and I want to draw the parallels between, for purposes, not of semantical round abouts, but for purposes of noticing that people that live in glass houses should not throw stones, and he without sin should cast the first one.

 

Bunch of kids looking for something to do says to each other "lets go out and beat up some fags/gays."

Bunch of kids looking for something to do says to each other "lets go out and kill some crackers/white supremacists."

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 28, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar: My sympathy if you have been misunderstood. I take your by-the-way point that hatred is often bred in the swamp of misunderstanding.

 

However, my response to your last post is basically the same. When confronted with hateful and potentially violent bigots or extremists from either side of whatever fence, one should try, or at least think about whether one can apply, nonviolent means to address the situation (and I agree that an excessivley naive lovey-dovey, peacenik attitude may not always be a good nonviolent approach, as you seem to be suggesting).

 

So yes, when all else fails, and unless one believes in passive resistance, then it may be necessary to resort to violence in an effort to fight violence with violence (as you seem to be suggesting).

 

However, my main point stands, which is that, generally speaking, violence is an overrated means of resolving conflicts.

Edited June 28, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

I don't think whacking KKK is appropriate. I don't think killing gays is appropriate.

 

I do think fighting ISIS is appropriate. I do think putting violent, criminal gang members in jail...is appropriate, even if they are Mexican, or Black, I do think it OK to watch a white supremacist group, even if they are white.

 

I am not encouraging violence, but when you have a mortal enemy it is required to fight them to the death.

 

My political point here is the same as I was trying to make, with the same failure to make it, as my stance in the "What is the biggest problem in America" thread. And people get defensive and self righteous here and think I am trying to make this political point or that one, when I am asking for cooler heads to prevail, and to give a fellow American the benefit of the doubt, and look for all the things and ways that put the other fellow or gal on your side, not look for that one thing you put in their head that makes them worthy of your hatred.

 

For instance, we cannot, at the same time, say that "we" are not that way, and be talking about a significant portion of the American Population.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Yes, we are indeed a country and world of hotheads. I think that there is a grain of truth in the idea that things would be a lot less violent if women ruled the world. Indeed, it might be worthwhile discussing why people so quickly lose their temper and become violent. The psychological basis for ethnocentrism and prejudice and phobia is a good place to start in such an investigation.

 

As for your being misunderstood, I think that you might write a thesis statement once in a while in which you unambiguously state what it is exactly that you believe and/or are trying to express. Please take this as a constructive observation. You have some good thoughts, and i realize that some people often think in terms of stereotypes and generalizations...so all the more reason to hammer things home with a straightforward statement rather than just providing examples in the hope that others will be able to figure out the thrust of your argument.

Edited June 28, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

I would rather give the situation, and let people make up their own minds, then to tell them what to make of it.

 

For instance, my reaction to the women ruling the world being a less violent world, is to point to Syria and Clinton's desire for regime change, and her displeasure with Assad's brutal ways. If you want the guy out, declare war and defeat him. Short of that, you stay the hell out, and engage him diplomatically, or you get four years with 250,000 deaths and millions of refugees, and an ISIS stronghold in Raqqa.

 

Problem with the all women leader plan, is you still have the men. And if the battle between right and wrong becomes a battle between estrogen and testosterone, then we are really in trouble.

 

Regards, TAR

And I would tell this story. 4 or five years ago, I got angry at a clerk at a supermarket for charging me 8 dollars for a meal I got every day for about 5 or 6 dollars. Well to make a long story short I wound up cursing at a shift leader, whacking the meal that was on the scale and leaving the store, never to return. My stepmom thought it was an emotional outburst brought on by LOW T.

Edited June 28, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

I think that there is a grain of truth in the idea that things would be a lot less violent if women ruled the world.

 

 

Margret Thatcher stomped all over that idea.

[disarray]

 

 

Margret Thatcher stomped all over that idea.

Well, yes, whether it is Thatcher or H. Clinton, these are anecdotal. I was just half-seriously noting that testosterone causes a lot of unncessary violence in the world, particularly when mixed with alcohol.

disarray,

 

I would rather give the situation, and let people make up their own minds, then to tell them what to make of it.

 

Not sure what you mean in particular by this statement. Again, just suggesting that violence should be a last resort....and I don't mind saying that to anyone. In most countries the law also says the same thing....the law doesn't just tell people it's up to them to make up their own minds as to whether or not they want to be violent. Part of the problem in the U.S. is that violence is so rife in the media and in the real world that people become jaded to it, and think that it is no big deal. Speaking of social disapproval, I think the general public needs to be a little more shocked and disapproving when violence and bullying occur..."Not acceptable" way to settle disputes and express dislike. And yes, we should try diplomacy before violence, though we needst be wary of the sort of fake diplomacy that Hitler displayed, e.g., with Britain, in WWII.

 

As for the Syria example, I agree that the U.S. sometimes seems to be unaware of just how much hostility that military occupation of a country can create, even when the U.S. is trying to do the right thing by maintaining peace, e.g., as in Lebanon years back.

Edited June 28, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

I agree with the sentiment in your last post. My letting people make up their own mind, was not talking about violence. I was responding to your constructive criticism about my writing style and indicating I prefer the Socratic method of discussion.

 

Regards, TAR