Try the following enjoyable experiment: think about some group of people you dislike. Unless you are the Dalai Lama you can probably summon up some group almost immediately – the rich, the poor, blacks, whites, Latinos, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, liberals, conservatives, gays – any group of people that you feel are making the world a more disagreeable place than it really needs to be
-Now, I'm not the Dalai Lama but I cannot find, nor think of any "group" of people that I dislike. Plenty of individuals...
I think I am the opposite I hate most groups and like nearly every individual.
Welp, you got me. I certainly dislike that group. So much so that I vowed never to discuss them again a while back. After all, that's their intent -visibility. So, to that end I don't think of them positively or negatively. They get zero of my attention. Ommmmmm.... 
To recite the sacred Ohm is a sign of resistance. (Perhaps you should institute a penalty for people who make puns...) Oddly enough, I find all sorts of groups irritating, but don't have all that many personal enemies. Often the worst members of a group are its self-appointed representatives, whereas the rank-and-file really aren't all that rank. I like the Buddha, but I look stupid in orange.
Well the Westboro Baptist Church, they are a religious hate group. They use hate in their demonstrations, they even use the word "hate" in their signage... So they should be easy to dislike, right? But where is the benefit? Because what I'm wondering, if I were to hate them back, the Westboro Baptist Church, does that end their hatred? If every being in the world, except the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, hated the Westboro Baptist Church, would that end their hatred? Does my opinion on, thoughts about, hatred of, the Westboro Baptist Church pacify the hate of their organization? So my ultimate question is, where is the benefit in hating, or disliking, or harboring ill-will, towards the Westboro Baptist Church, if no matter what my feelings are, they ultimately have no effect on the Westboro Baptist church? Might the best decision then be to pacify the hate I have towards the Westboro Baptist church? Would cleansing my mind of hate and ill-will, or anger, or aversion, bring fruit from my actions by allowing me to have wellbeing and happiness right now? Ultimately, the aversion, ill will, anger, hate, we have for any one person, place, or thing, only hinders ourselves because it occupies the place in our mind where without it, happiness, serenity, equanimity, peace, joy, would grow instead.
That was well put, I think. I agree with most of it. To be clear, I'm not advocating hatred. Hatred is not a worthless emotion from an evolutionary point of view, but it is crippling to the cause of intellectual progress I am interested in, and usually makes life more unpleasant for the hater and hated alike. As I said, though, prejudice and hatred are not synonymous. Prejudice is, at base, a dirty word for the normal human tendency to generalize. I don't think we will ever suppress it, nor do I think we should. Just because your worldview is going to be wrong sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't have a worldview at all. What it means is that you should proceed with a kind of intellectual modesty, and a willingness to adapt and change. With regard to the WBC, I don't think they are so much a religion as dysfunctional family. I watched a documentary on these people once. Most of the church members were relatives of the old patriarch -- who clearly saw himself as a kind of old testament prophet. There weren't all that many converts. Just one old psychotic and alot of family loyalty. I think one or two family members had left the "church" and presented as pretty much normal people. If everyone else in the world hated the Westboro Baptist Church, no, it would not have deterred them in the least. Unless, of course, someone felt emboldened enough by the unanimity to kill them all. As a free speech advocate, I'm inclined to say we ought to put up with the WBC for the sake of our own freedom -- but I'm not going to turn either my heart or my intellectual coherence into a pretzel by viewing them with love. If I love the WBC -- then love itself is a meaningless concept. Despite my intellectual criticism, I wish you the best with the effort I believe you are trying to pursue. It is a good and human thing.
Not even 9gaggers? Surely you must hate the 9gaggers.
What if I told you that in this discussion of hate with which you've posited, there is nothing to understand, merely the convincing delusion that discussing this in it's particulars will somehow reveal hates true nature. But any understanding that arises from this is building a tower on the shaky sands of ignorance. Which conclusion did our author arrive at? The only conclusion drawn of the intricacies of hate resulted in uncertainty–i.e. more ignorance. A tower on sand. There is only one truth when examining the nature of hate, hate is merely the sum of it's parts, it's a fermentation of wrong thought and misdirected mental qualities that appear on the surface to be a subject of hate, when in actuality hate is the sum of it's parts. Recognizing hate as an obstacle for serenity, this person relinquishes hate, they relinquish the discussion of hate, the relinquish the mental processes that lead to the arising of hate, they treat hate like a fire of the mind extinguishing it as soon as it arises, protecting their happiness like a homeowner would extinguish a fire in their living room to protect their material acquisitions. Inconstancy is stressful, what is impermanent is stressful, not getting what one wants is stressful. When we dwell with our mind focused on the inconstancy of the internal and the external, that one would find serenity, that is impossible. When our minds dwell relinquished from the inconstancy of the external and the internal, that one would find serenity, that is possible. Hate, I tell you, is that inconstancy of the external and internal, it is nothing to cling to, and the one who clings to hate, holds views associated and born of hate, uses the illusion of views to define and categorize hate? They dwell in the realm of inconstancy, and find it impossible to find serenity.3 We live in an age in which even discussing race hatred scares me. I have long had the conviction, though, that that which cannot be discussed cannot be understood.
With regard to ourselves, it freely surrenders the notion of freedom to the vicissitudes of external circumstances.
I'm thinking I have encountered a Buddhist -- or someone of that ilk. I'm thinking that because you write a little like the Dhammapada -- which used to be one of my favorite books. But maybe I'm projecting. In any case, I don't think you're looking for an argument -- so I'll refrain. I am open to discussion. Or not.
This texts makes really good points about hate and were it stems from. Generalizing can be very helpful, but in this modern world were we can contact people way easier and meet individuals it is something that is becoming more obsolete. We deal with people every day online that can usually do us no psychical harm and engaging and talking with these people does not carry the same risks as before. But we still do generalize and looking over your generalizations might be helpful to treating people more fairly. Especially now when it doesn't carry the same risks.
I would generally agree. The internet does make it possible to interact with very different people -- on the other hand it also allows them to be ruder than they would probably be in person. I think you got my point, which reassures me that I don't write too badly. Thanks for the comment.
I think your writing is great. Really. This for me is such an interesting concept, because I would have to agree with you. Do you think it's the anonymity that leads to this type of interaction, or the proximity, or lack of a emotional connection, or all of the above? it also allows them to be ruder than they would probably be in person.
I think the answer is D.) All of the above. The psychopathology of internet behavior is indeed an interesting topic. Hmm... I delight in rattling people's intellectual cages, but not in irritating people for the sake of irritating them. I also try hard not to attack individuals. My experience is that basically decent people can hold all sorts of preposterous views. If I make a person have a look at their own assumptions I am doing them an enormous favor -- and if they make me re-examine mine they are doing me an enormous favor too. I see you've only been here a couple of days. I hope it works for you! It's a nice venue, mainly.
An interesting and thought-provoking piece. I have an impression that being critical of culture has become an acceptable front for other types prejudice; based on my anecdotal experience, those who say "I don’t have a problem with X-people, I have a problem with their culture for Y-reasons" quickly devolve into more overt and specific racial prejudice ("X-people don’t value education, they lack parenting skills, they are lazy, etc., ad nauseam"). Now, I have associated being critical of another group’s culture as just being a politically expedient cover for the traditional prejudices. When I have lived in different cultures, I have always come away with the impression that the differences were ultimately trivial. We make a very big deal of the differences instead of focusing on the similarities. The in-group and out-group dynamic, I think, is so obvious in war. Tenfold more Afghani civilians died during Operation Enduring Freedom than US civilians on 9/11, but to sympathize with the Afghani civilians aloud in the United States almost sounds anti-American. I think the forward march of globalization and the internationalization of commerce will continue to make progress in breaking down barriers, to the extent that the public participates in it. It only takes one person of a certain background to be a solidified member of a person’s in-group before other people of that background become human, and their thoughts and interests begin to matter. As an aside, I would love to hear your thoughts on the implications of the illusion of free will. I heard the Sam Harris lecture on free will being an illusion, and I found his arguments convincing, but he did not talk through much of what he perceived to be the implications, except to say we should feel neither pride nor shame, and that retributive justice makes little sense.
Thank you -- I'm glad you enjoyed it. I understand your criticism, and you have a point. It is certainly possible, maybe even common, to use an argument against a culture simply as a proxy for racism or some other form of bias -- on the other hand what happens when you invalidate cultural criticism on that basis? Do we really want to say that female genital mutilation, for example, is ok because opposing it might be construed as hidden racism? Isn't that form of double standard itself a form of racism? I agree with your other observations for the most part. I posted on free will some time ago, and always love to discuss that topic. http://cadwaladr.blogspot.com/2010/03/case-against-existence-of-free-will.html My arguments are different from the ones Harris uses. It sounds like Harris came close to echoing B.F. Skinner with regard to the notion of personal responsibility. Except that Skinner would have acknowledged the efficacy of punishment in shaping behavior. Great stuff! Which implications were you interested in?
a really insightful and thought-provoking read, thanks for sharing this!