"Don't hate."

i use it when sumbody doesnt like sumthing that i like then i say "dont hate" as in like dont judge this thing that i like becuz i like it therefore dont judge me, kinda...like for instance, say that i tell sumone i like girls and then they say sumthing like "thats gross" or watever....then id say "dont hate" meaning im telling them to agree to disagree and accept me for who i am and what i like, (i use it to draw the line and let it known for them to basically keep their comments to themselves becuz anything further would only offend me..they are still entitled to their opinions of course, everybody is, living amongst eachother we have to respect eachother (benefit of the doubt, until they give u a reason not to) so thats just one of those things...calling them a "hater" is like saying theyre not open minded enough to consider and undrstand (tho they dont have to agree) why u like what u like...these people just dont like sumthing and they are strong in their opinion torwards it, so strong that they cant keep it to themselves...theyre rather annoying if u ask me...anyway hope this helped

 

Don't hate doesn't mean that you hate what they say.

I interpret it as what the person said is narrow minded. So don't hate could mean: it's not hurting anybody so there's no point hating it, or try to be a little more open minded/tolerate.

Even if it was hatred for what they said or to "shut their hatred" wouldn't a hatred of a hatred be love? :?:

 

Fascism and other scum views should be hated. Tolerance in its fundamental, absolute form is as big a crime as intolerance.

 

Not neccessarily. If it's a serious issue and people are just asked to not spread vitriol then I have no problem with that. But I've seen many situations that have basically gone like;

1: "These people are scum."
2: "No we aren't, you are scum."
1: "What are you hating on me for?"

In which case, yeah, it's hypocritical. And trying to silence "hate" against things like films is just silly. Not liking a film isn't a hate crime. The new Ghostbusters comes to mind, which in my honest opinion looks like it will be awful, yet the media is trying to label me a "hater" and a white male Donald Trump supporter for not liking its trailer.

 

Imo extremism of all kinds is bad. The radical left isn't any less hateful than the radical right. It's a lot of the same but wrapped in different colors and language.

It should be. At least as long as the equal vitriol from the opposite side is criminalized. To avoid the double standards.

 

I'd say that "extreme right" and the "extreme left" are both symptoms of extreme liberalism (or capitalism if you will). And given the choice, the bourgeois will always choose the the first option. Fascism blooms in a society built on people being pitted against each other.


Anyway, back on topic. I like to look at underlying causes. I like to understand someone's motives. At the moment my philosophical thinking has me doubting the very existence of evil. However, if I'm complaining and someone tells me not to hate I will most likely silently hate them too. Maybe not intellectually, but more so emotionally, I will be annoyed as hell. Let me complain for fuck's sake. When I have calmed down the intellectual side of me will most likely be interested in knowing what really caused them to tell me not to hate, though. And then I will distance myself from them because they would emotionally exhaust me.


You have some interesting thoughts, Secrets5.

 

I was actually thinking about starting a thread similar to this but didn't know how to and just got scared it would turn into a shitstorm (which, thankfully, this thread has not as of now). I'm not exactly sure if I completely understood what was asked but I'll try to give my perspective.

I believe that people are entitled to their opinions and am a fan of free speech. But I'm not a fan of one-sided free speech, which is also known as consequence-free speech. So, sure it's somebody's opinion that gay and trans people are horrible and sinful but it's my opinion that I'm also entitled to voice that they are bigoted, closed-minded, and assholes. I don't like when people say that every opinion needs to be tolerated and that I'm closed minded if I don't. Well, how is it not closed-minded to hate someone for being attracted to people of the same gender? In other words, bigots can hate people and I can hate them back. Not everybody has a point. When somebody says homosexuality leads to beastiality, I don't have to neutrally say "you have a point too" because they really don't have much of a point that they can back up.

Sorry if this is the wrong thread to post this in and I'm even more sorry if my post ends up being the match that sets this thread on fire. Please stay civil people. It would be a shame to see this thread go.

 

Someone who seriously believes that all Jews should be executed, and yes, there are people who believe that, are scum. In a decent world, not one person has such a view.

And no, the extreme center isn't transcendentally devoid of all sin. It's like, "yes, equality, fairness, and stuff that the left believes in is good, but of course we can't be leftists, since anything that isn't dead-center is pure evil, so we have to be a little racist, a little homophobic, and we have to acknowledge that rich people are at least a bit better than everyone else.

And yes, your latter comment is considered a hate crime. However, since it's a hate crime toward about the most privileged demographic in society (especially if you add 'able-bodied' and 'rich/well-off'), it's considered less severe - and for good reason - then kicking on someone further down the social ladder.

 

"Don't hate" is typically used in contradictory contexts, it's true. One's dislike of a given argument is the only thing used to quash it. I think a better saying would be "don't hate, debate!" Encouraging discussion ought to help everyone get a better view of the truth, but since we're passionate human beings who feel strongly about stuff we tend to see ourselves as right and others as wrong, and often don't care about learning beyond our initial position.

I don't have a problem with people expressing controversial (or even totally wrong) views; what I have a problem with is harassment, personal attacks, threats and physical violence. So long as we're just talking about views/speech and whether or not they are "hateful," I'm of the opinion that if someone's argument really is wrong, you can easily defeat it, or let it destroy itself just by playing out in the open.
I disagree with the notion that some ideas themselves are so harmful that they should be banned or silenced. You need to have confidence in your ability to dismantle those ideas so that people who uphold those views can be taught the error of their ways. And if there is in fact something in those ideas that might change your outlook, maybe you need to allow yourself to be humble enough to develop your own viewpoint.

 

I'm not talking about whether views are offensive or not. Certain views do exist in a grey-area. But other views are simply plain evil. Dabbling in the hows and whys of the reasons they are or are perceived that way might be philosophically interesting, but or crying out loud, it isn't to be morally questioned that the most obscene, inhuman views are not to be given any room in public spaces.

I didn't say anything about killing anyone. Stop making baseless accusations. I just said they're scum. I didn't suggest any punitive action. If I would, I certainly wouldn't choose execution, although in my experience people like that very often don't change, so I'm stumped as to what exactly should be done.

Why doesn't it matter? Such a thing as systems do exist, you know. These problems are systemic in nature, it isn't just a way of thinking. For example, very rich people are known to very often be narcissistic, men are responsible for a great majority of all rapes. These aren't just some perspectives or whatever, it's statistically factual. To judge all rich people or all men just because of that is pure assholery, obviously. That doesn't mean that such facts should be consored out of discussion.

"What is the difference between merely a difference in [political/social] opinion and a scum view?" There isn't necessarily one. But there could be of course. Let's say person A says "I think there should be 22% income tax" and person B says "I think there should be 27% income tax", that's just a difference in political-economic views. However, if instead person B had said "I think there should be tax but it shouldn't be used to help homeless people because they're filth who deserve to die", that's the view of a rotten egg, a piece of scum. Someone who isn't to be taken seriously in any way.


Also, about half of your above text seems really off-topic to me. "All men are sexist etc..." What? Sure, I understand what you're saying, but what does that have to do with anything?

Majority or minority isn't the main thing, the main thing is the question at hand. Let's take Nazi Germany, for example. A majority hated the Jews, a minority did not. Is not the minority the ones who are right here? Or are you saying that somehow it's okay to hate Jews, or Muslims, or gays, or transgender people, or poor people, or whatever?
But it's also a general trend that the majority - those who follow and recreate the norms of society - prey upon those below them in the social ladder to sustain their privilege.

 

Yes, but I wouldn't say that how people think is the main problem in society. It's rather like a symptom of the root of the problem, I would say. Your thinking seems very much in the line of idealist thinking, which I tend to have a problem with. More equal education, sure, that's great. But there are reasons why certain demographics are poorer, why certain demographics commit more of a certain crime, etc., and I think that (trying to) go for the root of the problem is preferable to cutting off nasty-looking branches. What those roots are is debatable, of course, but I for one don't think that people think non-constructively (as in, for example, xenophobia) just randomly or because 'that's just human nature' or something, like many others do. I believe most of that is socially conditioned - in other words, the system sucks, so let's focus on making that better, and other problems will be resolved organically over time.
You mention education. I agree that education is important, but I would like to stress what you mentioned previously about economic power being concentrated in the hands of very few, "the ruling class" - in other words, the capitalist class. Those who pack the dough. The problem here isn't that capitalists are meanies. They, much like the rest of us, are just playing out a social role that they have been conditioned into. I think that ending the abhorrent economic inequality in our world is one of the key things that need to be done in order to ensure that things will be more equal. When things are more equal, the incitements for oppression, war, etc. will drastically diminish, and the world will be more peaceful, prosperous, and pleasant.

No one decides what is an immoral view. It isn't a math problem. If I ask you "Do you think that it would be right or wrong for me to go out on the town and behead 50 people right now?", you wouldn't say "Hmm, well you see, that's a tough one, because you couldn't really say whether it's right or wrong" - I guess? You would say it's wrong. Period. There is no further debate necessary here. Or do you think that it's okay to hold opinions which would condone behavior such as serial killing, hate crime, rape, etc.?

 

Morality may not be the same as math, but morality is a human decision. If you wanna get technical, there are moral relativists who believe that morality is dependent on specific human societies throughout history rather than universal truths. There are also some people who believe staunchly that morals are rooted in the teachings of their religion. In my opinion on morality, it's us humans who make the moral laws. While many people agree it is wrong to simply go on a killing spree (thank goodness!) it is not true to say "no one decides what is an immoral view." A lot of people think homosexuality is immoral. Or think sex before marriage is immoral. There are just certain things that more people agree are immoral.
In the example you gave for beheading 50 people, it's true one could immediately respond to that argument by saying it is wrong, period. Personally, I agree. However there's more to it than that. Why are you wrong to behead 50 people? Are you wrong because it's illegal? You're not just wrong because of that. You're also wrong, presumably, because to take some other person's life is a gross violation of their right to life in human society. Presumably we see human life as a right, not a privilege. We can take this discussion further and talk about why humans have a right to live, but I'll spare the rambling just so the basic point is clear: you can handle and dismantle bad ideas if you're willing to put in the effort to fight them (and I think you are.) The key is to promote and encourage reason and discussion. Sure, you can cut to the chase and say some things are just too nasty. Even though I'm inclined to agree on those extreme cases you mentioned, getting comfortable with dismissing ideas you don't like without having a solid grasp on why those ideas are bad, seems irresponsible.
There are plenty of people who operate that way.
A lot of them are, for example, the homophobes who will just say "it's wrong," or "it's wrong because this part of the bible said it." You are right, Invidia, that there are some people who cannot be reasoned with. They'll cling to their angry viewpoint because they like being right. But since we don't have thought control, and presumably, all humans have as much of a right to their own thoughts as they do their own lives, the best we can do is combat their ideas—and step in to stop them from doing harm if they act to threaten or actually harm someone.

 

Sure, I agree. And yes, I know all about moral relativism (in fact, a lot of my own 'morals on morals', so to say, are anchored there), but I was talking about in practice, in actuality, you don't stop and do a 10-minute analysis of whether or not something is right or wrong when something evil is happening before your eyes.
I do hold fast to that no one decides what an immoral view is, though. Sure, there's such a thing as personal opinion, but that's mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things unless it coincides with a major collective view. Not that personal opinion isn't great an honorable and all that, I just mean that when analyzing a system, if one million people think X and one person think Y, you'll ignore the Y. Anyway, I'm tired and rambling. XD

 

By "something evil happening before your eyes," I assume you mean someone being publicly harassed, threatened or even physically hurt? In a case like this when there is an immediate and very real sense of danger, you're right, it's better to act and stop bad things happening.

If it's just someone with a wrong opinion (or an opinion we don't like for whatever reason), no matter how harmful or hurtful or "evil", we have more to gain from debating it than refusing the other party their speech, since we can handily pick apart arguments that suck, and grow our own ideas in the process. You can choose not to engage though, that's fine. Now I'm not sure if you were linking in certain kinds of speech under "evil," or not. I only brought it up because it's a popular topic I've seen around the internet lately—whether or not to allow "hate speech." And what qualifies as "hate speech." It's just been on my mind.