Do You Hate People Who Disagrees With You?

[Diddy_Mao]

Depends on the argument really.

If you are of the opinion that Count Chocula is a better cereal than Boo Berry. We'll disagree, and I might sell you out to the NSA because you're clearly a North Korean spy, but I won't hate you.

If, on the other hand you're of the opinion that one race of people is inferior to another and should be rightly treated as less than human...yeah I think I'm morally in the right to hate you.

 

[Mid Boss]

I do not hate people who disagree with me. I will do my best to overcome any emotional reaction and weigh their argument fairly if they present it with facts and sources.

Sadly, when I argue with people online, almost no one EVER does this. Most of my argument are political in nature. So, there's a 50/50 chance of it being civil at first. But after two, maybe three replies, my opponent ALWAYS either tries to use fear tactics "Well, you know who supported four lane highways? HITLER! Why do you hate America and love Hilter!?". Because, you know, Hitler wasn't evil because he committed ethnic genocide and tried to take over the world, it's because of his stance on education, guns, business, or whatever else we're gonna use him to demonize today. Or they begin to launch personal attacks "You support four lane highways because you're a stupid ******! Try THINKING for once, ******!" They try to drag the conversation down into a school yard screaming match because that's where they're more comfortable, where the victory goes to whoever is the loudest and most obnoxious.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

thebobmaster when I saw your handle on the Escapist frontpage, I misread it as Throbmaster and decided you have the best handle in the universe.

Maybe it is impossible for anyone to be that awesome.

238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
Encrypted with Morbius-Cochrane Perfect Steganographic Codec 1.2.001
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:32:02 AM
judge chicken hot plate clove war user experience model toy[/footnote]

 

[4RM3D]

I don't care if people disagree with me. If they have interesting arguments, I could have an interesting discussion with them. Otherwise I'll just ignore them.

That also applies to people who agree with me. I rather have someone disagreeing with me, who presents a valid argument, then someone agreeing with me, who isn't collaborating at all.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

I don't hate people who disagree with me. I also don't understand people who hate me because I disagree with them.

They're more than entitled to have an opinion on the things that I like and dislike, but I'd rather they didn't judge me as a person solely because I like something they don't (or vice versa).

If I like something and you don't, that's fine, let's just agree to disagree.

On a similar vein, I'm not fond of people who disagree with me just for the sake of instigating something, either.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

I had someone tell me this on The Escapist forum the other day: "Hating someone for disagreeing with you is hating them for what they do rather than what they are, so it seems like a perfectly valid reason to hate someone."

I think this is problem with trying to discuss any issues online. People are more interested in attacking people who disagrees with them. Rather than, discussing the issues in a rationally way.

Do you think it's acceptable to hate people, because they disagree with you?

Depends entirely on what we disagree on. I believe some ideologies are inherently toxic, and while "hate" is a strong word, I think you can judge people on the basis of their beliefs.

A whole bunchload of this. If someone disagrees with me on what colour Ferrari they want to buy I can take it philisophically. If someone wants to disagree with me on the morality of raping nine year old boys then theyre going to find my argument a little stronger than mere disagreement.

Most things I'm not too hard to talk to about (if the person talking actually WANTS a discussion ofc) but there are some things I take a hard hard line "zero tolerance" policy on. The "two sides to everything" works for a lot of things but there are some things that I find so abhorent and outside my comfort zone that to accept them is to both betray myself and become an evil I would wish to not exist.

In short: within reason no. Without reason: fuck yeah.

 

[Artina89]

I don't hate someone for merely disagreeing with me, otherwise I would hate a hell of a lot of people, and they would hate me. Different people have different viewpoints, and that is what gives life such variety. If everyone agreed with me, then that would make life VERY boring.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I can't say I hate people who disagree with me but I hate it when they do so in a terrible way, like being insulting, patronising or refusing to acknowledge other opinions. Fuck those guys, right?

 

[Amir Kondori]

I don't hate them, I pity those poor, wrong people.

Really, I am sometimes flabbergasted by some people's opinions but I wouldn't say I hate those people. Some of the stupider opinions may get on my nerves but I try never to personally attack someone because of their opinions.

You know how you can't discuss religion or politics around the family dinner table in a lot of families, especially if the extended family is there, because people get real huffy about it? Well that is what it is like on the Internet for EVERYTHING. What color of iPhone to get, getting an iPhone at all versus an Android phone or god forbid a Windows phone. Consoles versus PC, consoles versus other consoles, this TV show versus that TV show.

Its getting so you have to take up drinking to get through your average forum thread. Just like Thanksgiving!

 

[Skeleon]

Depends. It's certainly not okay as a general policy. But in particular cases... let's just say that if they disagree on particular things, that may reflect very badly on their character. Which in turn might make me hate them. So it's not so much the disagreeing part, it's what they do agree or disagree with that may lead me to hate them.

 

[Frankster]

If i hated every person that disagreed with me, id probably end up hating more then half of those that ever talked with me.

So long as you're not an ass when we are disagreeing, there is nothing wrong with healthy exchanges of points of view.

 

[Aramis Night]

I try to be more open minded than most. I'll even go so far as to hear out the opinions and beliefs of racists and sexists or other typically reviled viewpoints rather than simply outright dismiss them based on some flawed belief that by doing so, I'm somehow proving my being a morale individual. Simply saying something is wrong isn't good enough for me. I need to see the arguments for both sides and I am not afraid to concede that sometimes those whom I don't agree with do have the occasional good point to bring up. Dismissing those points does nothing to change minds. If you do not address those points, you only concede them in the minds of your opposition.

It is why I despise PC thinking. It is just a blanket dismissal of other viewpoints without addressing them. As though by a show of sheer contempt, your going to shame those who do not think the same into falling in line. It is cowardly, manipulative, and unworthy of a supposedly morale position. If there is a moral argument to be made, then make it. Don't just say its wrong. An eye roll is not a rebuttal any more than quoting the bible to people that do not draw faith from it is. I have more respect for devil's advocates than I do people that regurgitate PC dismissal's.

In closing I do not generally hate those that disagree with me, as long as they have some reason behind it. I respect that. I only get annoyed when it's obvious they themselves have never really given the topic any critical thought, yet feel the need to input some script they didn't write into the conversation. If your a racial supremacist, then you should have entertained the idea that maybe your race is inferior. If your a sexist, you should consider that maybe your gender is 2nd rate. If your religious, consider the consequences of being wrong and wasting so much of your life or burning in hell for all eternity. If someone has entertained the possibility of being wrong and yet still believes in what they stand for, I may not agree, but ill respect that. If your going to regurgitate what your expected to say, then go back to the kiddie table so the adults can talk.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Only if they're being a dick about it...

Spoiler: example

Especially when people don't know how to play the "is this an opinion?" game we all played in reading and grammar class. Even then though, "hate" is a bit strong. More like "I wish this person wasn't annoying". Otherwise I don't care so long as the discussion is tame and I can discuss the merits of thing A vs thing B

 

[penguindude42]

There are three kinds of opinion: Yours, Mine, and Wrong.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I try to be more open minded than most. I'll even go so far as to hear out the opinions and beliefs of racists and sexists or other typically reviled viewpoints rather than simply outright dismiss them based on some flawed belief that by doing so, I'm somehow proving my being a morale individual. Simply saying something is wrong isn't good enough for me. I need to see the arguments for both sides and I am not afraid to concede that sometimes those whom I don't agree with do have the occasional good point to bring up. Dismissing those points does nothing to change minds. If you do not address those points, you only concede them in the minds of your opposition.

It is why I despise PC thinking. It is just a blanket dismissal of other viewpoints without addressing them. As though by a show of sheer contempt, your going to shame those who do not think the same into falling in line. It is cowardly, manipulative, and unworthy of a supposedly morale position. If there is a moral argument to be made, then make it. Don't just say its wrong. An eye roll is not a rebuttal any more than quoting the bible to people that do not draw faith from it is. I have more respect for devil's advocates than I do people that regurgitate PC dismissal's.

In closing I do not generally hate those that disagree with me, as long as they have some reason behind it. I respect that. I only get annoyed when it's obvious they themselves have never really given the topic any critical thought, yet feel the need to input some script they didn't write into the conversation. If your a racial supremacist, then you should have entertained the idea that maybe your race is inferior. If your a sexist, you should consider that maybe your gender is 2nd rate. If your religious, consider the consequences of being wrong and wasting so much of your life or burning in hell for all eternity. If someone has entertained the possibility of being wrong and yet still believes in what they stand for, I may not agree, but ill respect that. If your going to regurgitate what your expected to say, then go back to the kiddie table so the adults can talk.

I like your post. I thought it should be re-posted.

I am getting disturbed by all the posts saying, "It's alright to hate another person when say they hate a group of people." It's really ironic when someone is prejudice against bigots. What worse is that attitude is what causing conversations about sexism and racism to break down into petty name-calling.

 

[Mobax]

No, I would never hate someone because they disagreed with me. Even on serious issues, it is never a good thing to hate someone on the opposite side as you. There are no positives outcomes from hate, it just breeds more negativity which the world already has more then enough of.

I also think people throw the world hate around far to easily and without fully appreciating it's meaning. A lot of people have no problem being hateful, on the internet especially, in a discussion. It's even worse when people hate another person or their viewpoint when it's over a trivial subject.

Also for the op's quote about hating someone for what they say no who they are, I disagree with whomever made that statement. People are made up of what the believe and they express that in an argument. So to hate someone for disagreeing with you is not hating them for what they do/say, you are in fact hating another person. I know some people say they only hate people who are being morons, or trolling. In my opinion those people are either not saying 'hate' in they way the word is meant, or worse, they really do hate those people, which sadly makes them the same sort of people as they are hating.

So no, hate is bad, very bad. There are certainly viewpoints I strongly dislike, but I would not say I hate anyone who prescribes to them. After all, if I hate someone who disagrees with me, then how can I expect them not to hate me? And if both sides hate each other then is no chance for them to ever agree or reach a compromise.

 

[Aramis Night]

I try to be more open minded than most. I'll even go so far as to hear out the opinions and beliefs of racists and sexists or other typically reviled viewpoints rather than simply outright dismiss them based on some flawed belief that by doing so, I'm somehow proving my being a morale individual. Simply saying something is wrong isn't good enough for me. I need to see the arguments for both sides and I am not afraid to concede that sometimes those whom I don't agree with do have the occasional good point to bring up. Dismissing those points does nothing to change minds. If you do not address those points, you only concede them in the minds of your opposition.

It is why I despise PC thinking. It is just a blanket dismissal of other viewpoints without addressing them. As though by a show of sheer contempt, your going to shame those who do not think the same into falling in line. It is cowardly, manipulative, and unworthy of a supposedly morale position. If there is a moral argument to be made, then make it. Don't just say its wrong. An eye roll is not a rebuttal any more than quoting the bible to people that do not draw faith from it is. I have more respect for devil's advocates than I do people that regurgitate PC dismissal's.

In closing I do not generally hate those that disagree with me, as long as they have some reason behind it. I respect that. I only get annoyed when it's obvious they themselves have never really given the topic any critical thought, yet feel the need to input some script they didn't write into the conversation. If your a racial supremacist, then you should have entertained the idea that maybe your race is inferior. If your a sexist, you should consider that maybe your gender is 2nd rate. If your religious, consider the consequences of being wrong and wasting so much of your life or burning in hell for all eternity. If someone has entertained the possibility of being wrong and yet still believes in what they stand for, I may not agree, but ill respect that. If your going to regurgitate what your expected to say, then go back to the kiddie table so the adults can talk.

I like your post. I thought it should be re-posted.

I am getting disturbed by all the posts saying, "It's alright to hate another person when say they hate a group of people." It's really ironic when someone is prejudice against bigots. What worse is that attitude is what causing conversations about sexism and racism to break down into petty name-calling.

Thank you for the Bump. I have also noticed the same pattern here as well as other forum's of how a lot of controversial topics break down. Just for the sake of an example, its very similar to the way most Christian's tend to view anyone reading the satanic bible. If your seen reading it, it's already assumed that your a Satanist, even when all your doing is investigating Satanism for yourself. It makes as much sense as believing that reading the bible makes you a Christian automatically which most Christians acknowledge isn't the end all be all of Christianity. It's absurd but so many people have such a line of thinking and they never really question it.

(Not trying to pick on Christians at all here, just was the best example I could think of atm.)