Distributing Hate

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, just carry on; you obviously don't care how it makes you look.

Actually, you're 100% correct. I don't care. And it doesn't matter. What matters is what's true...the personal attacks are of absolutely no value or consequence at all. The messenger is not the message. He may deliver it well, or badly...but it's the message that matters.

So why not just pay attention to what's true, and forget the rest?

[Harbal]

Okay, just carry on; you obviously don't care how it makes you look.

Actually, you're 100% correct. I don't care. And it doesn't matter. What matters is what's true...the personal attacks are of absolutely no value or consequence at all. The messenger is not the message. He may deliver it well, or badly...but it's the message that matters.

So why not just pay attention to what's true, and forget the rest?

And why do you think most of us dismiss most of your messages? I don't think your judgement is held in very high esteem in these parts.

[commonsense]

Hate.jpg

What would you say I am?

I don’t hate Trump, his supporters, whites, Christians or conservatives—each has value for the human condition.

But I consider myself to be a liberal on many if not most issues.

Seriously, I wonder how you would classify me.

[Harbal]

Hate.jpg

What would you say I am?

I don’t hate Trump, his supporters, whites, Christians or conservatives—each has value for the human condition.

But I consider myself to be a liberal on many if not most issues.

Seriously, I wonder how you would classify me.

There is no middle ground, it's all or nuthin with IC.

[Immanuel Can]

And why do you think most of us dismiss most of your messages?

You might. But we have no reason to think that's so.

The message speaks for itself, and what the messenger is, well, that's irrelevant. However, it's not unusual for people to "shoot the messenger" because they hate the message. They mistakenly believe, perhaps, that actual refutation of the message is no important part of thinking, and that insults against the messenger will do instead.

Here's some good advice from tribal lore: "Listen to sermon, before eating missionary."

[Immanuel Can]

Hate.jpg

What would you say I am?

Honestly, I couldn't fairly say. I don't know that you've labelled yourself anything. You seem a fairly reasonable person to me, and I've never required a person to agree with me about everything before I decide to like them.

I consider myself to be a liberal on many if not most issues.

So would I -- a classical liberal, not a postmodern Wokie or Leftie, of course. I'm very much in favour of freedom, autonomy, rights, equality of opportunity, non-racism, and so forth. So we may not be so far apart as you might suppose.

[Harbal]

And why do you think most of us dismiss most of your messages?

You might. But we have no reason to think that's so.

The message speaks for itself, and what the messenger is, well, that's irrelevant. However, it's not unusual for people to "shoot the messenger" because they hate the message. They mistakenly believe, perhaps, that actual refutation of the message is no important part of thinking, and that insults against the messenger will do instead.

Here's some good advice from tribal lore: "Listen to sermon, before eating missionary."

Okay, I'll leave you to the natives, and good luck with your missionary position.

[commonsense]

If this thread is still about hate and blame, let me post the following:

Hate seems to me to be an emotion that originates in the lizard brain. While higher cognitive functions may ameliorate this emotion, or at least restrain its expression, I don’t think it can be reprogrammed short of shock therapy.

I think blame is associated with the need to avoid embarrassment. Blame is likely amenable to some sort of attitude adjustment.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Actually, you're 100% correct. I don't care. And it doesn't matter. What matters is what's true...the personal attacks are of absolutely no value or consequence at all. The messenger is not the message. He may deliver it well, or badly...but it's the message that matters.

So why not just pay attention to what's true, and forget the rest?

This is so if, say, the argument or the debate is over a mathematical issue or something technical. But when we delve into the actual nature of the type of Christian belief that you embody, the issue becomes more complex, and far more psychological.

I included a statement, a *declaration* really, by Nietzsche here that so very succinctly points up so much that concerns people when they encounter *you*. You see yourself as *God's righteous child* and indeed Jesus Christ, sitting up there in Heaven, right now smiles down on you while flashing his eyes at me for what I say!

The personal attacks, while mistaken if they are motivated by animus or even contain much emotion, are indeed directed against a type, and also a personality, and it is this *falsely pious* self that (in my view) inspires rejection and contempt for your message.

The messenger is the message. You actually negate the essence of the Christian incarnation.

Now, I have no idea what Harbal will do with any of this. From the look of it he has no real concern for theological issues. But that is not the case with me. And for this reason you are of acute interest.

[Immanuel Can]

If this thread is still about hate and blame, let me post the following:

Hate seems to me to be an emotion that originates in the lizard brain. While higher cognitive functions may ameliorate this emotion, or at least restrain its expression, I don’t think it can be reprogrammed short of shock therapy.

I think blame is associated with the need to avoid embarrassment. Blame is likely amenable to some sort of attitude adjustment.

Would you make a distinction between unwarranted and warranted blame?

Are there any things you think it's legitimate to hate?

[Iwannaplato]

Hate seems to me to be an emotion that originates in the lizard brain.

The triune brain model is not accepted by the majority of neuroscientists anymore. The parts of the brain associated with hate are the insular cortex, putamen, and left superior frontal gyrus[/quote]And they are in different parts of the brain.

While higher cognitive functions may ameliorate this emotion, or at least restrain its expression, I don’t think it can be reprogrammed short of shock therapy.

I don't think hate is pathological unless it is, pathological. I know kind of tautological, But I mean by this that occasionally feeling hatred is not necessarily a problem and even would be natural in certain situations if it was felt more that occasionally. Slaves, victims of ongoing human rights violations, children with abusive parents, victims of ongoing bullying, people regularly treated with disrespect in certain types of employment situations may feel regular hatred for their abusers and this isn't pathological. It is natural to hate that which hates you. It imight even be healthy if you have not good way to create distance from the abusive person(s).

[Iwannaplato]

Would you make a distinction between unwarranted and warranted blame?

You're not asking me, but I would. And their also could be patterns of overemphasizing blame. When it becomes too much of a part of your own life. Even if the targets may be deserving, it might be better to focus elsewhere if you can.

Are there any things you think it's legitimate to hate?

Sure

[Immanuel Can]

Would you make a distinction between unwarranted and warranted blame?

You're not asking me, but I would. And their also could be patterns of overemphasizing blame. When it becomes too much of a part of your own life. Even if the targets may be deserving, it might be better to focus elsewhere if you can.

That makes sense. Blame comes in degrees. So it's possible for somebody to assume more or less than is merited.

Are there any things you think it's legitimate to hate?

Sure

What would you hate, and regard as legitimate to hate?

[Harbal]

Now, I have no idea what Harbal will do with any of this.

Probably nothing; I can only vaguely remember what I was complaining about.

[commonsense]

If this thread is still about hate and blame, let me post the following:

Hate seems to me to be an emotion that originates in the lizard brain. While higher cognitive functions may ameliorate this emotion, or at least restrain its expression, I don’t think it can be reprogrammed short of shock therapy.

I think blame is associated with the need to avoid embarrassment. Blame is likely amenable to some sort of attitude adjustment.

Would you make a distinction between unwarranted and warranted blame?

Are there any things you think it's legitimate to hate?

I think warranted and unwarranted blame are different and are very much like the difference between a guilty verdict and a not-guilty one. A judgment takes place, by someone, by which the appropriateness of the blame is determined.

In either case, I would now say that blame emerges from avoidance of embarrassment, or from a sense of righteous indignation, or from hatred itself. And I no longer think that the act of placing blame is amenable to mere attitude adjustment.

I think it is legitimate to hate pain as well as things that cause pain. Beyond that, I don’t think I would add anything to the list.