“Hate On”
This phrase, “hate on”, is becoming quite popular and I am convinced it is some sort ploy like the phrase “give back.” Hate is an emotional reaction, so you can hate something but it is meaningless to say you hate on something. I think it is an attempt to divorce the emotion from the person. K thinks is an attempt to turn into some sort force, which automatically creates victims. I think it is a way of pushing moral relativism. The idea is that hating is bad no matter what the object of that hate. What do you think?
From the Ayn Rand Lexicon; "The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends." As you said, an attempt to divorce the emotion from the person.
Also consider the destruction of language. Separating the word from it's definition. Rendering clear communication impossible. Altruism becomes equal to charity, selfish is Bernie Madoff instead of Hank Rearden, and the Constitution becomes a "living document" subject to new interpretation.
A long article paralleling my talk this year can be found at https://hankrangar.wordpress.com/2015/04...
I'll stop hating when there stop being people who want to rob me of my liberty.
...ladies and gentleman, that hate, for lack of a better word, is good. Hate is right, hate works. Hate clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Deserved hate, in all of its forms; hate for death, hate for poverty and lack, for sickness, for evil and evil doers, for government and especially corrupt government, for ignorance and incompetence and irrationality, in fact, hate for all things, concepts, and people deserving of hate, is good.
Emotional responses can only be countered by emotion.
In the case described, counter not with logic and do not use the word 'I'. Instead throw an emotional reaction back such as -why are you pretending to like that slop?
The use of words such as 'haters' is an emotional response to try to evade proper discussion., something like pretending to be a victim.
I have wondered if anyone else has noticed this tendency in people as they age.
I think that if you use the word "hate" for more than a couple of classes of actions, you are probably overusing it.
Jan
I actually use the word hate less than I used to. Objectivism has given me a better respect for definitions. Old habits can still be hard to break, though. And I'm still in denial about my age. :)
Jan, taking your youth on faith
To me, it isn't about pushing moral relativism as much as simply a divide and conquer strategy. When cool heads and positive outcomes are the most important things in a policy debate, it's pretty difficult to stray too far. When hot heads and "my-way-or-the-highway" are the most important, debate becomes a shouting match with battle lines and more energy spent blaming and name-calling than solution-finding.
And that concludes our daily lesson on the faces of hate. (Actually not sure he hated them...he used them horrifically. Power tools.) :(
hate crimes? -- j
that the right reaction to evil was contempt, not
hatred. (But if enough deep wrong is done to you,
who can help it?) But I don't remember ever hear-
ing the expression before. I have heard "Right on!"
which I think came from the late 60's or early
'70's; also, the "on" may be an adverb, such
as in "Go on," "Fight on," etc.