Thread: If Hatred Isn't Acceptable, Then What Do We Do About Hateful People? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020326
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Most of us have been taught from childhood that it is,wrong to say that we hate someone -- that it's wrong to even think about hating anyone. Yet there are certainly hateworthy human beings: genocidal maniacs; people who seem to delight in cruelty to others; people who, when all is,said and done, will slither off this mortal coil leaving the planet and humanity worse for their having lived.

My question: What are we to do about this, if hate is not a permitted feeling for Christians or others with similar moral codes? And before someone says, " Pray about it, " or " Love the dinner, hate the sin," I would suggest that those are facile, cliched answers to a serious and question -- at least as they are commonly expressed.

So...how does one process the rage that one feels toward cruel/dangerous/toxic people without becoming a mirror image of that person? Is it acceptable to feel those feelings but to act on them in a, for lack of a better word, righteous way?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:

So...how does one process the rage that one feels toward cruel/dangerous/toxic people without becoming a mirror image of that person?
When you figure it out, let me know. I struggle with this, but the beginnings are first acknowledging that holding the negative feelings is allowing them to continue to hurt me. This is the grip I need to being to let go the anger and pain.
quote:

Is it acceptable to feel those feelings but to act on them in a, for lack of a better word, righteous way?
This does not compute for me. Those feelings must fade, negative is negative. Cannot see any righteous use for it.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
We seem to be capable of both wonderful loving dreams and horrid hate-filled nightmares as human beings. I certainly am full of both capacities. Perhaps we should just be careful to not express our hatred in actions, but to acknowledge that we have the innate capacity to have hatred for others as real human emotions. And to reject the guilt about who we actually are: beings capable of both love and hate. Acknowledge and don't do. And be careful about the notion that if you have hatred in your heart that you've sinned; I don't think you've sinned with hatred in your heart and mind if you don't act on it, and control it like a civilized person, like a Christian. So, I propose acknowledging the real, genuine hatred you have, and ensure that it doesn't control you, govern your behaviour, and more than that, that it should trigger or cue you to do the other, to be kind. I'm not saying to cause you to feel love, but to behave as you would if you did, which is why I say "to be kind".
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
I was thinking this last week that in various workplaces, church organisations and academia, I've probably encountered more Anthony Weiners than Harvey Weinsteins, although all of us know and have to deal with abusive predators and coercive types over and over again in our lives.

The Anthony Weiners are those who are truly horrified by their own poor impulse control and inappropriate behaviours. They apologise profusely, make promises, get therapy or rehab, start over; and then do the same fetishist abusive things all over again and again. These are the men who act out destructive patterns, who offer a younger work colleague or the teen daughter of a friend a lift home and suddenly blurt out how much they need someone to confide in, how they can't stop thinking about wanting to kiss her, how they just can't help themselves from sexting a woman they met in the gym, how much they love their wife but she doesn't understand, how they just looked up child porn every night for a year or two because they couldn't stop themselves, but they know it is wrong and they want a second chance.

The Harvey Weinsteins are what many of us consider sociopaths in that they are more calculating and know what they can get away with, how to make those around them too indebted or intimidated to speak up, how to take advantage of naive or troubled women or young men, how to get women alone after parties or on supposed work trips, how to bribe or blackmail or threaten women who don't comply, how and when physical force works, how to pay off witnesses and victims. How to create smokescreens and plausible alibis and destroy paper trails.

And then there are all those pleasant caring men and women in the workplace or community who know quite well what is going on but cover up for or defend the AWs and HWs, who lie for them, who form pressure lobbies to deter whistle blowers, who make excuses, who minimise the behaviour, who turn a blind eye, who simply don't want to know, who won't divorce them, who are gatekeepers for them. Who think it is all about protecting the good name and reputation and traditions of the company or university or church. Who think most victims are at fault and asked for it.

Most men (and women) have some idea what is happening when their boss keeps asking a young PA to stay late, when a new employee suddenly leaves the company without any warning and the boss looks sheepish, when your employer's wife keeps breaking her arm in unexplained falls and when business trips involve escort agencies and hotel rooms, charges laid and then withdrawn, jokey admissions of stalking behaviours that are 'really harmless'. For these bystanders, it might be none of their business, not illegal, not worth losing a job about for intervening, but they do know what is going on.

In organisations where a senior staff member is a predator, women often warn one another, confide stories of the abuse, ask others to help them get home safely or get out of the company fast. But often those who do know and even have proof of what is happening don't feel able to speak up. This in turn means years of complicit silence, internalised helplessness and guilt. Self-hate.

Because when it all comes out, almost everyone knew about it, they kept receipts and phone texts and images, they noted bruises, they helped with the cover-up, they denied anything was going on when asked. They aren't the hateful ones, they'll do the right thing when it is safe enough to do the right thing.

Abusive, predatory behaviour and sexual assault is hateful. Those who go unstopped are 'hateful'.

I do wonder though if talk of hate isn't beside the point. Because the behaviours, violence and the abusive person have to be stopped. Only then can we talk about moving on beyond hating. Not to a place of forgiveness perhaps, but to know that the hateful stuff has been stopped and is over, the person is no longer a threat. We have a clean-enough conscience. For now anyway.

[ 13. October 2017, 06:20: Message edited by: MaryLouise ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Most of us have been taught from childhood that it is,wrong to say that we hate someone -- that it's wrong to even think about hating anyone. Yet there are certainly hateworthy human beings: genocidal maniacs; people who seem to delight in cruelty to others; people who, when all is,said and done, will slither off this mortal coil leaving the planet and humanity worse for their having lived.

My question: What are we to do about this, if hate is not a permitted feeling for Christians or others with similar moral codes? And before someone says, " Pray about it, " or " Love the dinner, hate the sin," I would suggest that those are facile, cliched answers to a serious and question -- at least as they are commonly expressed.

So...how does one process the rage that one feels toward cruel/dangerous/toxic people without becoming a mirror image of that person? Is it acceptable to feel those feelings but to act on them in a, for lack of a better word, righteous way?
hatred is bad enough but at least someone is bothered enough to get going at you.

Is indifference worse? It sort of says that you don't matter or don't appear on the radar
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think the loving thing to do is everything possible to protect the people who are the objects of their wrath.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Mr. Cheesy: I would agree.

But that still leaves one with the precipitating hateful feelings.

Sometimes I feel as if Christianity does not provide a realistic or healthy way to deal with them. " Anyone who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar, and the truth is not in him." So...I can't love God and hate Hitler or Stalin or terrorists who behead hostages on video?

IMHO, not giving people a way to honestly process their feelings in the face of hateful human behavior winds up encouraging the sort of treacly piety that says things like, "Remember that Hitler was once someone's little boy." Well, most little boys don't grow up to be monsters who murder millions of people.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I will read more of the thread later, but the OP is alien to my experience, and I am therefore triggered. I was taught that the world was full of people who wanted to harm you or interfere in the way you wanted to live your life. The way to live was to prosecute your interests, and seek to sideline those who got in your way.

In their business dealings my parents always did this, and if they were opposed they would hate the person or people who opposed them actively and vociferously. There was no way either of my parents would concede any legitimacy at all to the point of view of those 'against' them. They repeated this pattern in all types of disputes all their lives, and my mother continues to do this.

Mum and Dad's approach to the world worked for them materially, and they were happy with each other. Mum lived on her nerves, moving from crisis to crisis, and it is only in the wake of Dad's dementia and death that she has really reached the bottom of her capacity to cope. But she remains a hater and loves to fight. She just lacks the capacity to fight these days, and is therefore forced to somewhat relax.

Outside of business, she is a good and loyal lifelong friend to many, and has a very active social life. I could not maintain her level of social engagement.

For my part, I was taught to fight, to hate when necessary and to win. However, I lack the fire in my parents and fell apart in my early 30's. I still hate particular people personally, I react negatively to criticism, and in certain moods hate everyone who disturbs me. However, my abiding hatreds are very destructive, because I direct them inwards. They play out in my mind in idle moments.

My capacity to hate comes from my upbringing. I don't think its natural to me, although surliness is. I think its natural to my parents. I think its their way of dealing with the challenges of life. I think its natural for them and (I reckon) lots and lots of people to look for enemies and hate them.

That's why I reckon that the Christian injunction to love is a gift of the Spirit, and one that is not universally given. Hate still has a legitimate place in our broken, hateful world and if you are a hater, hate away.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
I wouldn't get too introspective about your feelings, Lutheranchik. The real issue is what we are to do about bad behaviour, which requires the exercise of rational, sensible reason. Hatred, wrath, and sentimentality and other emotional responses aren't much of a help.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Lutheranchik:

quote:
Sometimes I feel as if Christianity does not provide a realistic or healthy way to deal with them. " Anyone who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar, and the truth is not in him." So...I can't love God and hate Hitler or Stalin or terrorists who behead hostages on video?
There's a good line in Red Dragon where Will Graham says of the killer they are hunting "As a child my heart bleeds for him, as an adult someone should blow the sick fuck out of his socks". It's an effort but it's always possible to recognise someone's fellow humanity and to hold in balance the knowledge that they need to be brought down HARD for the good of everyone else.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is what the state is for: to do what we cannot. We, you and I, can love the sinner and hate the sin. The state's job is to prosecute that swine and get his sorry molesting ass behind bars where he won't hurt anybody else. Andrea Dworkin is on record advocating the death penalty for rapists. You can see her point.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Simontoad, I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that feeling hatred of any kind is a function of growing up in a dysfunctional family? If so, I disagree.

And I'm not talking about a misanthrope. I am talking about a decent person, someone who has never had much of an occasion to feel real rage at anyone, who is confronted by a monstrous, dangerous, evil human being and suddenly feels genuine hatred for that person and what that person doing -- perhaps even feels frightened of those strong feelings. Are there valid Christian/ethical responses to that person other than, " You really shouldn't feel that way"?

[ 13. October 2017, 13:59: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I take it you do not feel that the response of the crusader is OK. Smiting evil, that kind of thing.(Where is that emoticon of Joan of Arc when you need it?)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Like everyone else, I'm struggling with this, especially since the Nov. election.

One thing that guides me at times is to think of this similarly to how we think of forgiveness-- that not giving in to hate is not about any benefit for the "hated" one. Most of the people that really raise any degree of "hatred" or rage in me would neither know nor care how a "libtard" (hateful term-- and not because of what it says about liberals) like me would feel about them.

Rather, the reason we are urged not to give in to hate is for our own benefit. I am acutely aware of how my slide into hate is eroding my soul, my spirit, and even my relationships with the "non-hated" ones. So it's essential to my own spiritual and relational well-being that I don't allow the hatred to calcify, that I don't devolve into bitterness and cynicism.

I'm not sure I'm doing all that well at that right now.

Avoiding that involves a lot of personal spiritual disciplines that may differ from person to person-- so far I'm trying things like limiting facebook, the Ignatian Examen, journalling, etc. Things that help me be more aware of God's presence. Coming to terms with the truth that I am not a very powerful person. I can only control/make a difference in a very small aspect of this bigger reality that is going down-- but I CAN make a difference in that one very small piece. So do it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Doesn't it help to distinguish the emotions from actions? Well, that's the standard advice for people who get them intertwined. You might hate someone, but you don't have to act it out, except symbolically. In other words, channel it into a safe vehicle.

I don't see what you can do about emotions, since they are not controlled by us, are they?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
What do you mean by hate? Do you mean you would like to be able to hurt them, so that you could enjoy their pain? That's not something I can identify with, never having felt that. Or do you mean your are revolted by their actions and struggle to feel any connection with a person who could do such a thing?

I'm not sure Christianity can provide a way for you to indulge the former; it seems to me to be based on the idea of God subjecting himself to all the worst that humanity can do and still refusing to give in to hatred. Indeed, the nearest I come to substitutionary atonement is the idea that God is simultaneously moved by anger at what a person's evil does to other people, and at the same time absolute love for the perpetrator, that his conflict is turned on himself.

Perhaps our response to great evil is a starting point. Forgiveness, love for enemies, universal love for all mankind made in the beautiful image of God - these are just touchy-feely warmy fuzzy nicy-wicy feelings unless they are considered challenges in the face of the real, unforgivable, unlovable, ugliness of the reality of human evil.

The anger ends up on the cross. And not in a touchy-feely "let it go to Jesus while we play a cheesy tune" way, but in a "nail the bastard up. But I'll be the bastard" way.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't really get what the 'reality of human evil' means, but then that is an interminable discussion, so let's not.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
A powerful video.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't really get what the 'reality of human evil' means, but then that is an interminable discussion, so let's not.
Oh, you can if you like. Here's a nice starter - https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/w88-image10.jpg

The evil can get realler if you like, just need to actually launch one of them.

[ 13. October 2017, 15:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I don't see what you can do about emotions, since they are not controlled by us, are they?
That's the first step - recognising that we don't choose what we feel, and therefore not trying to feel guilty about what we feel (or worse, pretending that we're not feeling it).
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Simontoad, I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that feeling hatred of any kind is a function of growing up in a dysfunctional family? If so, I disagree.

And I'm not talking about a misanthrope. I am talking about a decent person, someone who has never had much of an occasion to feel real rage at anyone, who is confronted by a monstrous, dangerous, evil human being and suddenly feels genuine hatred for that person and what that person doing -- perhaps even feels frightened of those strong feelings. Are there valid Christian/ethical responses to that person other than, " You really shouldn't feel that way"?
I'm never entirely sure what it is I am trying to say, but that has never stopped me saying it.

I had a loving and protected childhood and my parents tried to do their very best for me all the time. This is consistent with rational parents who believe on good grounds that most people will try to hurt you or your interests if given the chance. I don't believe that anyone could think that this world is a good world. There is just so much evidence pointing the other way.

So I think I'm saying that hatred is a rational and sensible response to the fact that the world is full of bastards, just not a Christian response.

I know I've been a hateful bastard in the past, and my most horrible acts kind of happened by mistake, and that there were reasons (not justifications) for what I did. When I hate others, and I do, there usually comes a time when I remember what I am capable of, in the wrong circumstances. If my hatred of someone I encounter is a judgement of them, then my judgement is a condemnation of myself, either the things that I have done in the past, or the things I am capable of doing in the future. These thoughts help me move away from hate and toward forgiveness.

I've never been a victim of a truly evil act, such as a physical or sexual assault or the murder of someone close to me. I don't think I can talk about the level of hate that a victim of a serious crime against their person might feel, or how to handle that as a Christian. I reckon that someone who has been a victim of that sort of crime may well feel hatred towards somebody else who is accused of a similar crime too.

I don't hate historical figures like Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot. It's more an intellectual identification of evil. I don't hate criminals I hear about on the telly. They are too far removed from me to provoke hatred. I'm far more likely to hate politicians, but then its really only their ideas I hate. No, my true hatreds are personal and specific, which makes the class of people who are hateful rather large, and Pol Pot or the priest convicted of sexually abusing a large number of boys in Ballaarat actually aren't in that class.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:



I still hate particular people personally, I react negatively to criticism, and in certain moods hate everyone who disturbs me. However, my abiding hatreds are very destructive, because I direct them inwards. They play out in my mind in idle moments.

I thought I was the only one. I never feel hatred for the big bad guys just disdain and maybe a little anger. With someone like the Las Vegas shooter, I can't feel anything about him at all, he doesn't seem real to me.

It's the people in my life who have hurt me personally who I have so much trouble forgiving. Even after I truly believe I've forgiven them, something will remind me of what they did or said to me and the whole thing will play out again like a record that's dropped in my brain. I think of it as "nursing the hurt," and I really, really wish I knew how to stop it.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There's a good line in Red Dragon where Will Graham says of the killer they are hunting "As a child my heart bleeds for him, as an adult someone should blow the sick fuck out of his socks". It's an effort but it's always possible to recognise someone's fellow humanity and to hold in balance the knowledge that they need to be brought down HARD for the good of everyone else.
Good line there. In reality it is often the other way around. Children can be very hateful. As a child I played war games and suchlike. As an adult these things have come back to haunt me somewhat, though not without relapse.

The problem with hatred is that as human animals we have been 'equipped' with it. Possibly as a part of our survival mechanism? I don’t know. Total suppression of it may not be healthy or even possible.
It would be nice to escape hate by opening a Bible. However most readers know that, even at a casual glance, Holy Scripture it riddled with with this hard to defeat and twisted concept.

[ 15. October 2017, 12:36: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I can’t think of a single person that I hate.

I’ve been very lucky in that I’ve never been badly treated, except once. I didn’t/don’t hate her either. I felt pity for her at the time as she’s a sociopath and has lost all friends and family.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I don't see what you can do about emotions, since they are not controlled by us, are they?
That's the first step - recognising that we don't choose what we feel, and therefore not trying to feel guilty about what we feel (or worse, pretending that we're not feeling it).
There's a distinction that needs to be made between fleeting thoughts and attitudes. Jesus seems to be very very concerned with our thoughts/attitudes. The entire sermon on the mount is pretty much that-- that our attitudes (hate, lust, greed) are the source of our actions (violence, sexual immorality, dishonesty)

So I don't think it's quite right to say we shouldn't worry about thoughts. Rather, I'd say what we do with our thoughts is of prime importance. We can't control our fleeting thoughts, but we can control what we do with them-- do we feed them, nurture them, ruminate on them, infulge them on Facebook? Or do we counter them, replace them with life-giving words from Scripture?

I'm not very adept at living this one out, especially since last Nov.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
"What do we do?" presupposes there is something you can do to or for hateful people that will change them.

The only thing in my experience you can do for hateful people is to show them the benefits of a better way. Condemning them, judging them, does not change anything except for perhaps the worse.

"I'll show him to hate people like me by hating him right back" seems to me to be playing right into the hater's delusional thinking and helping the hater "justify" their own actions.

It is better, in my experience to let go of your resentment against that person. First, it may (or may not - it doesn't matter) show that person you are better than they think. Second, it helps you.

It has been said that a resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die. I have found that to be true for me.

Practice compassion. It may not help "them." It will help you.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As Theo Padnos said on BBC's first class HARDtalk, send ISIS chocolate.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I found myself thinking about this while up at the Cathedral for Evensong. Once again, one of the nasty Psalm verses was left out, because we cannot condone asking God to be vengeful. But then what are we supposed to do in the face of unimaginative evil? Luvvy duvvy Christianity is all very well when things are going well, but sometimes the strong arm approach simply has to be invoked.

Or are we all to become the modern version of Neville Chamberlain?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Once war had been declared chamberlain said that it would be waged until the nazi Party and it’s minions were completely destroyed.
That snowflake turned into a hailstone when the climate turned. The same is true now.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I found myself thinking about this while up at the Cathedral for Evensong. Once again, one of the nasty Psalm verses was left out, because we cannot condone asking God to be vengeful. But then what are we supposed to do in the face of unimaginative evil? Luvvy duvvy Christianity is all very well when things are going well, but sometimes the strong arm approach simply has to be invoked.

Or are we all to become the modern version of Neville Chamberlain?
But there is a huge difference between passive accommodation of evil and organized, sustained, non violent resistance. Pacifism ≠ passivity.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's an effort but it's always possible to recognise someone's fellow humanity and to hold in balance the knowledge that they need to be brought down HARD for the good of everyone else.
The OP and many of the responses on this thread assume a distinction between "decent" people and "evil" people, a distinction that isn't well justified. I think a lot of us, including me, would do well to consider the possibility that under the right circumstances, we could do some pretty terrible things.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think a lot of us, including me, would do well to consider the possibility that under the right circumstances, we could do some pretty terrible things.
I think that's right. I'm wondering too if we're most likely to react with hatred towards people committing acts we think we would never do, or people committing acts we fear we could do?

I'm aware in my case that I have a particularly visceral reaction when I read about parents who have abused and/or neglected their own children to death. This became much more pronounced after I became a mother (more than 11 years ago), when I would find myself reading case coverage in the news and really burning with anger. But I'm not sure if this is because I'm convinced I never could be capable of this or because I fear that I could, in different circumstances.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
"What do we do?" presupposes there is something you can do to or for hateful people that will change them.
Maybe there are two different cases here. There are the people you know - family, work colleagues, fellow members of your sports club, music society, whatever. And then there are the people you only read about / hear about in the media.

The people who you only read/hear about - you don't know them. You may hate what they've reportedly said or some, you may not be able to imagine how a decent person could possibly say or do that, but you don't know them. Your imagination is inadequate. The tempting conclusion that they must be twisted evil hateful horrible people is based on inadequate data. Go ahead and hate what they've reportedly done, but keep an open mind to the possibility that they're not quite as black as they're painted. That is the sin/sinner distinction.

On the other hand, there are the people you do really know. And maybe they really are rotten to the core. You know them; I don't. But you have some small level of influence over them & whether they improve or not...
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Actually, when I wrote the OP I was not thinking at all about reforming the hateful person. I'm working under the assumption that the people in question are beyond reform by any mortal means. The first of the question is, what do we do internally with our rage.

Also: I know that it's the pious and theologically correct thing to say, "All have dinner and,fallen short of the glory of God," and also an observable psychological/ sociological fact that, given certain sets of circumstances, most of us can be led to do terrible things -- but the fact is that most of us don't do horrific things. And the people I am thinking of right now as being absolutely despicable people, aren't doing their evil deeds under any kind of physical or psychological duress. They are doing them gratuitously and happily.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
"All have dinner and,fallen short of the glory of God," ...
I assume this was unintentional, but it's superb.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm working under the assumption that the people in question are beyond reform by any mortal means...

...the people I am thinking of right now as being absolutely despicable people, aren't doing their evil deeds under any kind of physical or psychological duress. They are doing them gratuitously and happily.
You're probably right not to be specific about who they are, so as to focus on your reaction to the evil you perceive in them. The downside is that some of the comments I or others may make may relate to different situations.

I guess what I'm wondering is where the boundary lies between being a despicable person, and being an ordinary person in the grip of a despicable idea.

On the basis that all I can offer is the cliche that it's OK to hate the idea...
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's an effort but it's always possible to recognise someone's fellow humanity and to hold in balance the knowledge that they need to be brought down HARD for the good of everyone else.
The OP and many of the responses on this thread assume a distinction between "decent" people and "evil" people, a distinction that isn't well justified. I think a lot of us, including me, would do well to consider the possibility that under the right circumstances, we could do some pretty terrible things.
Ultimately only God can judge. But, from a practical point of view, if people are doing bad things someone has to stop them. The fact that we might be in a "there but for the grace of God scenario" doesn't alter the fact that it might be our responsibility to do something about it.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Agree! Silence and inaction is not an option; we have to stand up to evil.
For example, here's an action plan for an issue that is currently getting a lot of attention.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The OP and many of the responses on this thread assume a distinction between "decent" people and "evil" people, a distinction that isn't well justified. I think a lot of us, including me, would do well to consider the possibility that under the right circumstances, we could do some pretty terrible things.
I expect most people have heard about the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments. A quick Google search will explain for anyone who hasn't come across these notorious pieces of research and their results.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
"I can't be too angry at the thief who ransacked my house because I occasionally have covetous feelings I don't act on, and if I were desperate or in a controlled experiment about deference to authority I might steal things too"?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Is there an issue of definition here? Passing anger isn't what I think of as hate, but I accept that it could be described that way. I think of hate as a deep seated and abiding anger, an intense and overwhelming feeling that ebbs and flows in intensity but is always there.

I really really disagree with the idea that there are people in the world who meet this criteria:

quote:
And the people I am thinking of right now as being absolutely despicable people, aren't doing their evil deeds under any kind of physical or psychological duress. They are doing them gratuitously and happily. (said LutheranChk)
The only people I can think of who are like this are Dick Darstardly and Mutley from the cartoon Whacky Racers, and Mutley isn't even human. Are there really and truly people like this? Can you give a real-life example like maybe the guards at Abu Ghraib? (I don't reckon they fit, but are there others?)

I reckon thinking that people are like this makes it easier to hate them. It might be that hating a person makes it easier to believe that they are doing what they are doing gratuitously and happily.

HOWEVER I have not been a victim of a serious crime, I have not seen the pain of a loved one who has been the victim of a serious crime, and I have not suffered in war. I might think differently if I had.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Hitler. Stalin. I can list a lot more.

If you can't imagine feeling sustained hatred for an evil individual -- if you can't even define an evil individual -- then you must exist on a far more enlightened plane than I do.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You are not a citizen of the US, I take it, Simontoad. We have a nice example for you.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all the dead bogeymen, how can any of us know what went on in their heads? How can any of us know whether they committed their evil acts gratuitously and happily?

Also, we only see their characters through the lens of history. Surely our hatred, unless we lived through the horrors they initiated, can only be intellectual hatred of their deeds.

I thought you'd hit me with one of those men who kidnapped and imprisoned girls over many years. There's an Austrian one and an American one I can recall. But that's just it for me. What they did was despicable, but I don't brood over it.

Brenda, which American nightmare are you talking about? Weinstein? Trump? David Duke? that bloke who runs the NRA? Roger Ailes? Rupert Murdoch? (yes, he's yours now), the executives who direct their organisations to rape the planet for profit? oh there are so many... but trust me. America does not have a monopoly on these people. They are everywhere.

These are all political hatreds, intellectual hatreds. They are not like hating your torturer.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all the dead bogeymen, how can any of us know what went on in their heads? How can any of us know whether they committed their evil acts gratuitously and happily?
They didn't kick puppies, it isn't "mummy didn't love me enough, so now I shall be a bit of a dick at work". Mass murder, torture; evil. Who gives a fuck if Hitler might not have felt a thrill when directing the slaughter of millions?
quote:

Also, we only see their characters through the lens of history. Surely our hatred, unless we lived through the horrors they initiated, can only be intellectual hatred of their deeds.
When one can still speak to their victims, one's vision must be truly myopic for the lens of history to be very dim.
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

HOWEVER I have not been a victim of a serious crime, I have not seen the pain of a loved one who has been the victim of a serious crime, and I have not suffered in war. I might think differently if I had.
I think I hated more before any experience became personal. Empathy and all that.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
There have been quite a few attempts to understand the thinking and emotional make-up of Ian Brady who considered it an 'amusing philosophical exercise' to torture and murder small children on the Moors in the 1960s. And there are some fairly sophisticated studies on the development and self-understanding of sociopathic personalities and psychopathy. I've read through a number of essays -- not just pathologising -- that have perceptive insights into the character and behaviours of Trump and his supporters.

None of which helps some of us deal with the painful and frustrating feelings of anger, hatred, revulsion, helplessness we feel when we read through those overwhelming numbers of #MeToo posts about the prevalence of abuse, or wake up to find another gross and offensive outburst from Trump.

These fierce visceral feelings of outrage and hatred may be appropriate in some ways, whether or not I call myself Christian. But they are hard to deal with day after day and faith doesn't offer much of an immediate answer, not in the short term. This reminds me of how long it takes after war for horror and grief to abate.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Are we perhaps confusing anger and revulsion, and indeed defence and protection, with actual hatred?

When I speak of hatred, I'm thinking of the sort of hatefests where people talk about how much they hope some criminal will suffer in prison, how they hope he'll get beaten up ever day; a vindictive desire to see the person suffer as much as possible.

That is something I've never resonated with, and actually find very disturbing when people talk that way.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
Not the easiest word to pin down. Looking at the OED online:

verb
[with object]

1 Feel intense dislike for.
‘the boys hate each other’
‘he was particularly hated by the extreme right’

1.1 Have a strong aversion to (something)
‘he hates flying’
with infinitive ‘I'd hate to live there’

1.2 with infinitive Used politely to express one's regret or embarrassment at doing something.
‘I hate to bother you’
1.3 hate on informal no object Express strong dislike for; criticize or abuse.
‘I can't hate on them for trying something new’

noun
mass noun

1Intense dislike.
‘feelings of hate and revenge’

1.1 as modifier Denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice.
‘a hate campaign’

1.2 informal count noun An intensely disliked person or thing.
‘Richard's pet hate is filling in his tax returns’

Origin

Old English hatian (verb), hete (noun), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch haten (verb) and German hassen (verb), Hass ‘hatred’.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Karl: Perhaps not the current Internet aggression du jour, " I hope you die in a fire" (which at least I wouldn't wish on anyone), but "The world is worse off for you being in it," definitely. And I actually believe that about the selected persons I'm thinking of.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Karl: Perhaps not the current Internet aggression du jour, " I hope you die in a fire" (which at least I wouldn't wish on anyone), but "The world is worse off for you being in it," definitely. And I actually believe that about the selected persons I'm thinking of.
Oh, aye, there's no doubt it's a simple objective fact that the world doesn't benefit from some people's presence. The question I suppose is whether we'd ultimately hope that they suffer, painfully, or would come to a form of redemption. I think that the sort of hatred we're meant to shun is the "I hope you die in a fire" type; it's declaring (contra the Gospel, which is perhaps the point) that that person is beyond redemption, or should be denied access to it, whilst we somehow "deserve" it, although "deserving" grace and forgiveness is by definition a contradiction in terms.

I don't think the "he who hates his brother is a murderer" prohibition on hatred is an arbitrary or simply challenging dictum. I think it's rooted in the NT idea of our need for redemption, and the idea that some people can uniquely not deserve it. By definition no-one does. It's offered because God's nice like that, if you'll excuse the phrasing. That's not to say that everyone's equally bad; I think that's a misunderstanding of the concept. If we give into hatred, we have to deny our own need of redemption, because we are in essence saying "I deserve God's favour, you do not."

[ 18. October 2017, 13:40: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

I don't think the "he who hates his brother is a murderer" prohibition on hatred is an arbitrary or simply challenging dictum. I think it's rooted in the NT idea of our need for redemption, and the idea that some people can uniquely not deserve it. By definition no-one does. It's offered because God's nice like that, if you'll excuse the phrasing. That's not to say that everyone's equally bad; I think that's a misunderstanding of the concept. If we give into hatred, we have to deny our own need of redemption, because we are in essence saying "I deserve God's favour, you do not."
The late and very very wise Glen Stassen wrote brilliantly on the Sermon on the Mount, and had some helpful insights on this as well. He points out first of all the point already made that the SoM is shifting from an external ethic (doing the right external actions) to an internal ethic (the heart as the source of those actions). That doesn't mean action isn't important-- it's not all "Jesus and me"-- because action is key-- but the point is that it all flows from the heart. When we begin with the action side, holiness takes effort, struggle-- there can be a nobility in that, but it is human effort, without the gift of the Spirit. With the transformation of the heart thru the Spirit, the actions are simply the natural outgrowth of the heart attitudes. Doesn't mean it isn't still difficult, but it's a different kind of difficulty.

In terms of hate in particular, Stassen points out how Jesus connects hate with murder. Stassen suggests that every human genocide begins by "dehumanizing" the other. The language of the Nazis about the Jews, the language in the Rwandan genocide-- the "other" are "insects", "rodents'-- variations on "non-humans". In American slavery, slaves were literally counted as 3/5 human. Stassen suggests there is an innate resistance in the human soul to murder. In order to overcome that, we must first hate & demean our enemy, then hold them in contempt, and finally come to consider them (even subconsciously) sub-human-- all internal processes necessary before you get to the point of picking up a hammer to bash the guy over the head.

So instead of walking around all day under the "Law"-- having to think over and over again "don't kill him-- just don't kill him-- oooh, I hate him so much! I want him dead-- but don't kill him!" Instead, if I can replace hate with love I don't have to obsess about not killing him because killing him is antithetical with love.

Very good in theory but perhaps more challenging in real life!
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think I hated more before any experience became personal. Empathy and all that.
OK to hate on another's behalf but not OK to forgive on another's behalf ? Maybe that's the sort of empathy we could do without...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think I hated more before any experience became personal. Empathy and all that.
OK to hate on another's behalf but not OK to forgive on another's behalf ? Maybe that's the sort of empathy we could do without...
yeah, because that is what I said. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I have been taught to pray for the people I dislike/hate/fear. I have also been taught that it is OK at first to pray that they die a horrible death over a long period of time.

It is OK to pray that because experience is that praying for someone after a while becomes prayer for their well being.

That is a different thing than being passive while another human, or animal, or this planet, is hurt by someone acting badly. Then you try to stop them and heal the hurt if you can.

At the same time, for me at least, it is like I was taught about raising my kids: Tell them you dislike what they did, not that you dislike them.

I am reading an awful lot of theory about what to do about a hater. If you are going to disapprove of someone, how does that play out?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

I don't think the "he who hates his brother is a murderer" prohibition on hatred is an arbitrary or simply challenging dictum. I think it's rooted in the NT idea of our need for redemption, and the idea that some people can uniquely not deserve it. By definition no-one does. It's offered because God's nice like that, if you'll excuse the phrasing. That's not to say that everyone's equally bad; I think that's a misunderstanding of the concept. If we give into hatred, we have to deny our own need of redemption, because we are in essence saying "I deserve God's favour, you do not."
The late and very very wise Glen Stassen wrote brilliantly on the Sermon on the Mount, and had some helpful insights on this as well. He points out first of all the point already made that the SoM is shifting from an external ethic (doing the right external actions) to an internal ethic (the heart as the source of those actions). That doesn't mean action isn't important-- it's not all "Jesus and me"-- because action is key-- but the point is that it all flows from the heart. When we begin with the action side, holiness takes effort, struggle-- there can be a nobility in that, but it is human effort, without the gift of the Spirit. With the transformation of the heart thru the Spirit, the actions are simply the natural outgrowth of the heart attitudes. Doesn't mean it isn't still difficult, but it's a different kind of difficulty.

In terms of hate in particular, Stassen points out how Jesus connects hate with murder. Stassen suggests that every human genocide begins by "dehumanizing" the other. The language of the Nazis about the Jews, the language in the Rwandan genocide-- the "other" are "insects", "rodents'-- variations on "non-humans". In American slavery, slaves were literally counted as 3/5 human. Stassen suggests there is an innate resistance in the human soul to murder. In order to overcome that, we must first hate & demean our enemy, then hold them in contempt, and finally come to consider them (even subconsciously) sub-human-- all internal processes necessary before you get to the point of picking up a hammer to bash the guy over the head.

So instead of walking around all day under the "Law"-- having to think over and over again "don't kill him-- just don't kill him-- oooh, I hate him so much! I want him dead-- but don't kill him!" Instead, if I can replace hate with love I don't have to obsess about not killing him because killing him is antithetical with love.

Very good in theory but perhaps more challenging in real life!
Top post.

I have an image in my head of a young black girl walking to a forcibly desegregated school through a crowd of white people screaming at her while she prays for them. I'm not sure if its fictional, or a mash-up of shows I've seen on the civil rights movement.

In any event, I hated a bloke this morning when he got difficult about moving his car. The feeling was gone almost as soon as I left work and now, maybe 3 hours later, I can wonder whether it was hate or anger mixed with frustration, or both.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
If you think what I'm talking about is equivalent to " hating" someone who cuts ne off in traffic or stolen my parking space, then I fear I have apparently not communicated my question, or the level of evil demonstrated by individuals I'm thinking of, very clearly at all.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I thought you were looking for a way to stop hating people who are really evil.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Well, equating them to poor drivers isn't really going to do that. And I'm not in fact sure that " stopping hating" is possible in some circomstances. Managing it, yes, advice is appreciated.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:

And I'm not in fact sure that " stopping hating" is possible in some circomstances. Managing it, yes, advice is appreciated.
I cannot manage my anger, so I can't give you much help on how to manage hate. I think I gave up hate because it is both too much wasted effort and because it allows the hated a victory, even should they not know of it. Maybe not victory, so much as control or effect. And I am a stubborn thing, so perhaps rejecting hate is more one bad habit evicting the other than any self-control on my part.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
You know that saying, " Let your haters be your motivators"? I'm trying very hard to leverage my rage at the people in question into energy that helps people hurt by them and to oppose everything they do, but sometimes it feels like re- arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
If you think what I'm talking about is equivalent to " hating" someone who cuts ne off in traffic or stolen my parking space, then I fear I have apparently not communicated my question, or the level of evil demonstrated by individuals I'm thinking of, very clearly at all.
I thought you were talking about hating Hitler.

But it seems to me entirely possible to recognise that objectively Hitler did many very evil things, without feeling any personal hatred.

And conversely to have strong negative feelings for political opponents while recognising that objectively they are well-meaning people doing what seems to them right and just.

The correlation between level of evil and level of feeling isn't there. The heart may wish to see someone die a painful death and rot in hell for eternity while the head knows they don't deserve it. Or vice versa.

Which is sort of back to lilBuddha's point about empathy.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
You know that saying, " Let your haters be your motivators"? I'm trying very hard to leverage my rage at the people in question into energy that helps people hurt by them and to oppose everything they do, but sometimes it feels like re- arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
As said upthread, anger/rage/hate are difficult to separate definitionally. For me anger and rage are on a different line that hate. I have felt anger, and even rage, towards people I like. Hate, for me, is an extension of dislike. This helps me separate that anger. Bother, I don't know how much help I'm being. It isn't a completely though out philosophy, so I am struggling to articulate it.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
The things that helps me with my hate are:

1. an acknowledgement that I don't really know enough about the person I am hating. This helps especially with people I see on the telly.

2. I am well on top of my own failings and potential for wrongdoing, or at least I have the appalling hubris to think I am. I'm constantly checking myself for arrogance in particular. Knowing that my own person has some good and some really bad helps to try and stop judging people. This self-checking can be emotionally destructive, but I'm kind of used to it because I have to do self-checking of my mood to (paradoxically) maintain good mental health.

Thanks for posting this question LutheranChk.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Hate maybe equals a state of 'being'. Written something, someone, some group, off completely. The mind has closed as in a prejudgment or prejudice. The damage is done.
Anger and rage are like more active, ongoing, fluid. Good or bad may come from it.
 
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :
 
I've only truly hated one person (my rapist ex), to the point where it did damage to my well-being. It took therapy, time, and a lot of help from friends who validated my feelings.

Now that I know how much it hurt me, I work hard not to let negative feelings build up like that. Finding something, anything, humanizing about the object of my scorn helps. And then there are those who just aren't worth the effort, straw dogs.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I consider it a victory if I can spend a decent block of my waking hours without thinking of these people, which is difficult because of their ubiquitous media presence. On the other hand, I feel that as a conscientious citizen I can't just bury myself in my personal life and pretend these people don't exist, because they do, and their existence has negative consequences for everyone.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
These people do exist. Variations on the theme of awful people have existed in our history until humankind knoweth not to the contrary.

Variations on the theme will exist until all of life on earth is snuffed out by some cosmic cataclysm.

It is just the way it is.

Why would you dignify them by giving them free rent in your head?

If you want to do something about them - do it. Then, whatever the outcome, you will have done what you can do.

Otherwise, how are you helping yourself by thinking about them?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I got really shitty about Australia's policy on Asylum Seekers a long time ago, and I trusted our centre-right Labor Government to treat them humanely. They didn't, and I stewed. Then the Copenhagen Climate Change conference fell over, and I kind of threw my hands up in the air. I was watching telly and I saw a story of some young hotheads who stopped a coal train on its way to port. I thought, "I can't do that, but I can probably join the Greens."

There was a particular politician who I was very angry with at that time and for quite a while after, as he had cried in Parliament when the other side had set up an offshore detention system, abolished it in Government, and then a year or so later reinstated it. So I hated on Chris Bowen bad. It was his hypocrisy, I said, that I hated most of all.

So I joined the Greens and got involved and started doing letterbox drops for them and handing out how to vote cards. But to be honest, it didn't help. I just got to share my hatred of Chris Bowen with like-minded individuals.

Then some years ago I started taking a bit more notice of the Greens' policy on foreign affairs and peace. I'd pushed it to the back of my mind till then, but really, I am very much opposed to this part of their policy manifesto. So I left formal membership of the party, but continue to pitch in at election time.

I was talking to my wife about it after this, and she mentioned that she didn't think Bowen had cried in Parliament at all. That seemed to change things for me, emotionally. He was a hypocrite, but he hadn't cried... I still seethe when I see him on TV, but I don't feel the need to destroy things anymore. Really, I think it was time and the advent of even more hateful policy that allowed me to be free.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I consider it a victory if I can spend a decent block of my waking hours without thinking of these people, which is difficult because of their ubiquitous media presence.
So you're not actually talking about Hitler and Stalin then. You're talking about your political opponents, whom you choose to compare to Hitler and Stalin as a way of expressing your dislike of their policies.

Are they hate-filled, motivated by hatred ? I suggest that you have no idea - you don't know them well enough, personally enough, off camera.

In calling them "hateful" you're projecting your feelings into them, treating the badness as an attribute of them as people, rather than an attribute of the ideas that they hold or an attribute of your feelings towards those ideas.

It's something many of us struggle with, but my tuppenceworth is that that sort of projection isn't healthy.

You're asking us "what do I do with my feelings of hate ?" And I don't know much of the answer, but part of it will be owning those feelings as something that says vastly more about you than it says about those whom you hate. Who are your fellow humans misguided, not demons.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The first of the question is, what do we do internally with our rage.
I think that is the key question. Rage is something which happens to us, and we have to take responsibility for that happening.

One of the things we know is "act in haste, repent at leisure". We also talk about "the heat of the moment". And rage can provoke us to act in haste, do things which we will regret.

So controlling rage, managing our anger, are matters of personal responsibility. But having achieved that, actually no small feat, there may still be within us a sense of injustice about the behaviour of others. And that is completely justified. People commit acts of inexcusable cruelty, and I think it is wrong to excuse those acts, minimise their wrongness.

RuthW is also right; we may underestimate our own propensity to do inexcusably cruel things, given sufficient pressure or provocation. "It is unwise to drive anyone beyond a certain point". It is also unwise to underestimate the power of self-righteousness, also to push us in that direction. "Killing's too good for them".

So it seems to me right to focus on justice, which needs to be administered impartially and coolly. When angry and bitter about hateful deeds, I think it better to delegate justice to folks less emotionally engaged than I am. And that way avoid confusing vengeance with justice.

Human justice is an imperfect process. There are plenty of cases where people, deeply wronged, are justified in believing those who have hurt them, or their friends/relatives, have not been subject to the demands of justice. Yet it seems to me to be better to leave justice in the hands of others. We may get closure that way.

Forgiveness is a personal decision. Personally, I would never talk glibly about the imperative to forgive. Right now, I am really struggling with this issue, after experiencing some inexcusable behaviour from someone I thought I could trust. It's easy to be glib if you're not on the receiving end. Even though I don't think I will ever trust this person again, I think forgiveness may free me from the danger of bitterness. I just can't get there right now. Maybe later.

I'm grateful to LutheranChik, not for the first time on these boards, for airing a genuinely difficult issue and allowing space for folks to talk about what it is really like for them.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I consider it a victory if I can spend a decent block of my waking hours without thinking of these people, which is difficult because of their ubiquitous media presence.
So you're not actually talking about Hitler and Stalin then. You're talking about your political opponents, whom you choose to compare to Hitler and Stalin as a way of expressing your dislike of their policies.

Are they hate-filled, motivated by hatred ? I suggest that you have no idea - you don't know them well enough, personally enough, off camera.

In calling them "hateful" you're projecting your feelings into them, treating the badness as an attribute of them as people, rather than an attribute of the ideas that they hold or an attribute of your feelings towards those ideas.

It's something many of us struggle with, but my tuppenceworth is that that sort of projection isn't healthy.
Projection isn't healthy, but I don't think that's what's going on here. We can and will make observations about others and draw conclusions. That can go off the rails if we make too many assumptions or hold too firmly to first impressions w/o being open to new information. But observation/evaluation is key to learning. And it is essential to self-preservation, especially when it comes to people in power.

When it comes to the current POTUS and his appointees, for example, there is a pattern that can and should be observed. Among many things that have been observed, one that has been recently noted by none other than a former president of his own party: "casual cruelty". There IS a pattern of observable behavior that makes harsh and extreme decisions that seem to serve no purpose other than to create suffering. We can see this in the details of the enforcement of the travel ban, immigration policy/DACA, health care reform. Even if you agree in theory with the policy changes, each has been enacted in ways that seemed designed to create maximum pain and suffering (e.g. separating children from parents, detaining elderly, etc). And each revelation of suffering has been met with a large degree of callousness, if not delight. Detailing all the evidence for this would be a thread in and of it's own right. But I would suggest that "casual cruelty" Is as effective a measurement of "hatefulness" as you're apt to get.

A recent article made what I found a helpful insight: "name-calling" is wrong/unhelpful, but "naming"-- effective descriptive truth-telling-- is essential. I recognize the line between "name-calling" and "naming" may be very blurry and prone to bias, but that is true of most things that are really valuable.

Where I would agree with your comments is that projection is not healthy, and indeed, I think that's what LC Is getting at with her question. But I would suggest the problem is the other way around-- that the danger of "naming" is that we notice, attend to, and perhaps even obsess over the things we have just named. The old saying "choose your enemies carefully for you shall be like them" holds true here-- the danger of becoming hateful about the hateful and thereby dehumanizing them in the same way they have dehumanized others. I don't think that is a reason to avoid "naming"-- I think truth-telling is absolutely vital right now, more than ever. But we have to do so carefully, in a way that carefully attends as well to our own emotional/spiritual health. I believe that's what LC's question is getting at. I know it is mine.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


I'm grateful to LutheranChik, not for the first time on these boards, for airing a genuinely difficult issue and allowing space for folks to talk about what it is really like for them.
Yes, this.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


I'm grateful to LutheranChik, not for the first time on these boards, for airing a genuinely difficult issue and allowing space for folks to talk about what it is really like for them.
Yes, this.
Me too, I've found this thread moving and helpful.

One of the most intense bouts of hatred I endured for a long time was towards the husband of a close friend. He would hit her regularly and she would confide in me. She'd joke about it, minimise it (even a broken arm at one point) and then she'd make me promise not to tell anyone. I was young and quite immature, she was someone I'd known at school. Many nights I lay awake planning how to kill him and get away with it.

As anyone who has worked with battered women knows, the repetitious cycle goes round and round interminably. He would hit her, she would threaten to leave him, he'd apologise and say it would never happen again, she'd forgive him and then confide in me. I'd not forgive him and rage inwardly, worry myself sick because it was getting worse.

When I realised finally that I was feeling the emotions my friend refused to feel, and that my 'hatred' was a way of feeling on her behalf what she could not or would not feel, the dynamic changed. I distanced from her because she wasn't going to do anything about the battering. I phoned him and told him to stop it or I would call the police and report him, even if his wife denied it. He sounded shocked and utterly horrified, promised he'd never do it again. I called her sister and discovered she had been going through the same struggle as a confidante for years.

And once it was out in the open, I felt completely different. I still detested what he was doing, but it wasn't my personal issue, never had been.

[ 23. October 2017, 06:35: Message edited by: MaryLouise ]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Barnabas et al.: Thank you. I know I'm not the only one who has been struggling with these feelings.

Russ: it's ironic that an anonymous Internet voice who doesn't know me from boo would be chiding me for " projecting hatefulness" onto people I don't know personally. (As I think Maya Angelou once noted, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time -- and people like 45, Bannon, Spencer et al have certainly given us plenty of material with which to make informed judgents of their haracter.) And, speaking of peojection, what a glorious example of thst you've provided -- mansplaining my feelings and motivations.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Could it be why we have the personification of the Devil/Evil One? Is it OK to hate him?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
C'mon... He's just doing his job [Smile]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0