4 ms·

It goes deeper even than that. I don't know if my childhood was typical, but for me the concept of hatred itself is narrow. Isn't it supposed to be an emotion t

It goes deeper even than that. I don't know if my childhood was typical, but for me the concept of hatred itself is narrow. Isn't it supposed to be an emotion that's especially visceral? If a person feels hatred, if they hate someone or something, shouldn't we see their jaws clench, shouldn't their blood pressure go up? Won't it be difficult for them to form coherent sentences, and so on? But today, "hate" is any time you say something someone dislikes or the politics of which they disagree with. It's nearly a meaningless word now. The entire concept of "hate" might be worth discarding.

mbork_pl 4y ago
Hate (like love) is not an emotion, but an act of will.
- echelon 4y ago
  > Hate (like love) is not an emotion, but an act of will. Like cheering for a football team. The memetic encoding of who our political friends and foes are is just like a football rivalry. It's self-reinforcing and thrives on conflict and escalation. Here's a mental picture of two different people: - blue haired, sex-positive, polyamorous, anti-capitalist trans activist - wife beater-wearing hillbilly wearing a cross; "don't tread on me" bumper stickers; gun owner If you formed an association with these two and painted one of them as "unpleasant", then the virus lives inside you. It's going to take a lot of hard work (and money) to climb out of this pit. And because of the difficulty, it's unlikely to change anytime soon. (I don't know if we can do it.)
  - mbork_pl 4y ago
    I have no idea how this is relevant to my comment.
- brabel 4y ago
  So you think you can choose rationally who you love (or hate)?
  - bt4u 4y ago
    [dead]
  - mbork_pl 4y ago
    Well, of course I can! Isn't that obvious? That's how love (and hate) work. That said, I can also choose irrationally. But the point - that I can choose - still stands.
    - brabel 4y ago
      But you're so wrong. Emotions are the opposite of rational. You have much less control over your own actions than you realize, and definitely very little over your feelings. If that were not the case, depression would just not exist. Read up on neuroscience. It may open your eyes to the reality of being human. Some articles to get started: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unconscious-branding/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unconscious-brandi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
      - mbork_pl 3y ago
        > Emotions are the opposite of rational. Of course. (If not "the opposite", at least they are not rational.) But - again - neither love or hate are emotions. They are decisions. Of course, they may be made irrationally (like many others) or under the influence of emotions (like many others), and a lot of things other than emotions and rational analysis may influence these decisions (like many others) to some degree. But that is beside the point.
- teo_zero 4y ago
  You should find another word, then. Because "hate" is still an emotion in my dictionary.
  - akomtu 4y ago
    GP is right, though. Love and hatred are the two manifestations of the will: the will to create and the will to destroy. When you see a scary spider near you, that first impulse is the will to destroy. By the time the pure will reaches your motor neurons, it creates a lot of secondary effects, such as emotions. That's why there's a saying that desire is a weak will.
    - teo_zero 4y ago
      You might be right. However I don't see anything wrong if I feel a will to destroy something and I resist it, so that no harm comes from my hatred. Hatred by itself is not necessarily something to condemn. Therefore "hate speech" is a poor approximation of its commonly intended meaning, that is "speech aimed at acting (violently) against the object of one's hatred".
      - mbork_pl 4y ago
        Mostly agreed. > I don't see anything wrong if I feel a will to destroy something and I resist it, so that no harm comes from my hatred. Agreed. One nitpick: "harm" may also be e.g. psychological self-harm. In my mother tongue, when you willingly sustain your hate, we say that you "feed hate" - it is a very wise intuition, I think. And in my dictionary, "hatred" is always something to condemn - but OTOH, there is a vast difference between "emotional impulse" and "conscious will"... In other words, the words "feel" and "will" don't go together. To paraphrase EWD, you can no more "feel the will" than a submarine can swim;-). (Not a 100% correct analogy, but I couldn't resist.) (For the sake of completeness: I'm not sure if I agree with the create/destroy distinction.)
Dalewyn 4y ago
"Hate", like many other words similarly abused, has steadily lost meaning due to deliberate overuse and overambiguity. "Hate speech" doesn't factually exist anyway, all the sincerely objectional speech it claims to pertain to are already described since long before "hate speech" came into the lexicon: You speak lies and/or falsehoods about someone? That's libel[1] and/or slander[2] and you can be sued for it. You provoke someone into violence? Them's fightin' words and are not protected under the 1st Amendment.[3] You change your behaviour towards someone based on their race, nationality, sex, or creed? That is discrimination and illegal regardless the context or undertones.[4] --------------- [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discrimination https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discrimination

mbork_pl 4y ago

Hate (like love) is not an emotion, but an act of will.

echelon 4y ago
> Hate (like love) is not an emotion, but an act of will. Like cheering for a football team. The memetic encoding of who our political friends and foes are is just like a football rivalry. It's self-reinforcing and thrives on conflict and escalation. Here's a mental picture of two different people: - blue haired, sex-positive, polyamorous, anti-capitalist trans activist - wife beater-wearing hillbilly wearing a cross; "don't tread on me" bumper stickers; gun owner If you formed an association with these two and painted one of them as "unpleasant", then the virus lives inside you. It's going to take a lot of hard work (and money) to climb out of this pit. And because of the difficulty, it's unlikely to change anytime soon. (I don't know if we can do it.)
- mbork_pl 4y ago
  I have no idea how this is relevant to my comment.
brabel 4y ago
So you think you can choose rationally who you love (or hate)?
- bt4u 4y ago
  [dead]
- mbork_pl 4y ago
  Well, of course I can! Isn't that obvious? That's how love (and hate) work. That said, I can also choose irrationally. But the point - that I can choose - still stands.
  - brabel 4y ago
    But you're so wrong. Emotions are the opposite of rational. You have much less control over your own actions than you realize, and definitely very little over your feelings. If that were not the case, depression would just not exist. Read up on neuroscience. It may open your eyes to the reality of being human. Some articles to get started: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unconscious-branding/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unconscious-brandi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
    - mbork_pl 3y ago
      > Emotions are the opposite of rational. Of course. (If not "the opposite", at least they are not rational.) But - again - neither love or hate are emotions. They are decisions. Of course, they may be made irrationally (like many others) or under the influence of emotions (like many others), and a lot of things other than emotions and rational analysis may influence these decisions (like many others) to some degree. But that is beside the point.
teo_zero 4y ago
You should find another word, then. Because "hate" is still an emotion in my dictionary.
- akomtu 4y ago
  GP is right, though. Love and hatred are the two manifestations of the will: the will to create and the will to destroy. When you see a scary spider near you, that first impulse is the will to destroy. By the time the pure will reaches your motor neurons, it creates a lot of secondary effects, such as emotions. That's why there's a saying that desire is a weak will.
  - teo_zero 4y ago
    You might be right. However I don't see anything wrong if I feel a will to destroy something and I resist it, so that no harm comes from my hatred. Hatred by itself is not necessarily something to condemn. Therefore "hate speech" is a poor approximation of its commonly intended meaning, that is "speech aimed at acting (violently) against the object of one's hatred".
    - mbork_pl 4y ago
      Mostly agreed. > I don't see anything wrong if I feel a will to destroy something and I resist it, so that no harm comes from my hatred. Agreed. One nitpick: "harm" may also be e.g. psychological self-harm. In my mother tongue, when you willingly sustain your hate, we say that you "feed hate" - it is a very wise intuition, I think. And in my dictionary, "hatred" is always something to condemn - but OTOH, there is a vast difference between "emotional impulse" and "conscious will"... In other words, the words "feel" and "will" don't go together. To paraphrase EWD, you can no more "feel the will" than a submarine can swim;-). (Not a 100% correct analogy, but I couldn't resist.) (For the sake of completeness: I'm not sure if I agree with the create/destroy distinction.)

Dalewyn 4y ago

"Hate", like many other words similarly abused, has steadily lost meaning due to deliberate overuse and overambiguity. "Hate speech" doesn't factually exist anyway, all the sincerely objectional speech it claims to pertain to are already described since long before "hate speech" came into the lexicon: You speak lies and/or falsehoods about someone? That's libel[1] and/or slander[2] and you can be sued for it. You provoke someone into violence? Them's fightin' words and are not protected under the 1st Amendment.[3] You change your behaviour towards someone based on their race, nationality, sex, or creed? That is discrimination and illegal regardless the context or undertones.[4] --------------- [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discrimination https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discrimination