The problem here is that declaring someone as a "hater" is an effective means of undermining their ability to put forth a reasoned argument, much like calling them a troll. It's a way of declaring them unreasonable, and thus convincing yourself, and attempting to convince others, that the "hater" is not fit to sit at the adult table. In this way, their comments and arguments do not have to be dealt with, and the justification of the person declaring the hater remain intact.
This is a basic form of social attack and defence - even while it denies logical, reasoned discourse about anything. It is aimed at denying and removing respect for an opponent, and you can't have a reasonable debate or discussion if you don't respect those you are discussing with.
It's not the haters themselves that are the problem, although they do exist - a hater is infact just a specific negative instance of someone with an unshakable opinion. This is a "point of principle" for them - the foundation of their beliefs. They will rarely budge, because this is not based of reason. It's based on personal judgement and taste.
Identifying these points of principle is important, because arguing a point of principle IS generally a waste of time. It's better to acknowledge that this is a point of principle and move on. You can talk about topics that are point of principles, because simply listing these doesn't change them, but if you try and argue them or debate them, it becomes a clash of wills. If either side is willing to change their mind on the given subject, it is NOT a point of principle - otherwise it is.
Ironically, most people who go into forums and such actually do so and argue their points of principle. They get locking into fighting each other, but really they are trying to sway those who have not yet made up their minds. In the end, such discussions often end in a stalemate that will die away, assuming the thread itself doesn't crash in flames.
Some people just won't accept that something is a point of principle for themselves or others, or otherwise just don't know how to argue or debate properly. I'm not exactly brilliant at it when it comes to forum posting, since I'm far to personal and engage my scathing wit a lot, unlike when I do this in my academic writing.
Thus they tend to seek other means to otherwise "win" an argument, when they realise that they can't actually get the other person to change their mind, either because of a weak argument, a lack of evidence, or because it is a point of principle for their opponent. Thus they will almost certainly try to undermine the other person's ability to argue and their reasonableness, such as dismissing haters, calling them trolls, or engaging in cyberbullying through a call to arms (commonly used when hosts are losing an argument on their own forum, they will often appeal to their fans to come in and try and shout out the other opponent to intimidate them and force them to back down and/or ostracise them completely).
The difficult part is that calling out a point of principle is a double edged sword. Calling a point of principle in your opponent can be taken either way - since there is often very little difference between calling a point of principle and dismissing someone as a hater or something else. It's more about how it's handled - calling a point of principle can be like agreeing to disagree, recognising the factor as a matter of personal taste, or declaring a stalemate if it's about something key to an opponent's argument. But if you are looking for a solution, it can also be a means to identify a key non-negotiable point for the relevant party, and thus move on to other things, in the aim of finding a compromise solution that takes into account all the points of principles on both sides.
Quite often a mistake is to overgeneralise on points of principle without understanding what they actually are. For example, it's often easy to dismiss someone in the US as Republican or Democrat as a point of principle. Yet, more likely they aren't point of principles as such - the points of principle are deeper causes which tend to make people lean toward Republican or Democrat voting tendencies. The Republican may be concerned with money issues and efficiency, where as the Democrat may be more concerned with altruism. Knowing these are the actual points of principle, a compromise could see these two find a solution that combines Atruism and Efficiency - for example, a Universal Healthcare System (Altruism) that doesn't have a great deal of Red Tape and a rigorous screening process (Financial Efficiency). Only in true oppositions will you struggle to find a compromise, such as Alliance vs. Horde, but even then stepping outwards can lead to a compromise (Warcraft Universe is Awesome).
It's all based on our very natures, since it's the means with which we identify and relate to the world in a very fundamental level. It's how we are, even subconsciously, so much so that we often don't recognise these behaviours.
This is a basic form of social attack and defence - even while it denies logical, reasoned discourse about anything. It is aimed at denying and removing respect for an opponent, and you can't have a reasonable debate or discussion if you don't respect those you are discussing with.
It's not the haters themselves that are the problem, although they do exist - a hater is infact just a specific negative instance of someone with an unshakable opinion. This is a "point of principle" for them - the foundation of their beliefs. They will rarely budge, because this is not based of reason. It's based on personal judgement and taste.
Identifying these points of principle is important, because arguing a point of principle IS generally a waste of time. It's better to acknowledge that this is a point of principle and move on. You can talk about topics that are point of principles, because simply listing these doesn't change them, but if you try and argue them or debate them, it becomes a clash of wills. If either side is willing to change their mind on the given subject, it is NOT a point of principle - otherwise it is.
Ironically, most people who go into forums and such actually do so and argue their points of principle. They get locking into fighting each other, but really they are trying to sway those who have not yet made up their minds. In the end, such discussions often end in a stalemate that will die away, assuming the thread itself doesn't crash in flames.
Some people just won't accept that something is a point of principle for themselves or others, or otherwise just don't know how to argue or debate properly. I'm not exactly brilliant at it when it comes to forum posting, since I'm far to personal and engage my scathing wit a lot, unlike when I do this in my academic writing.
Thus they tend to seek other means to otherwise "win" an argument, when they realise that they can't actually get the other person to change their mind, either because of a weak argument, a lack of evidence, or because it is a point of principle for their opponent. Thus they will almost certainly try to undermine the other person's ability to argue and their reasonableness, such as dismissing haters, calling them trolls, or engaging in cyberbullying through a call to arms (commonly used when hosts are losing an argument on their own forum, they will often appeal to their fans to come in and try and shout out the other opponent to intimidate them and force them to back down and/or ostracise them completely).
The difficult part is that calling out a point of principle is a double edged sword. Calling a point of principle in your opponent can be taken either way - since there is often very little difference between calling a point of principle and dismissing someone as a hater or something else. It's more about how it's handled - calling a point of principle can be like agreeing to disagree, recognising the factor as a matter of personal taste, or declaring a stalemate if it's about something key to an opponent's argument. But if you are looking for a solution, it can also be a means to identify a key non-negotiable point for the relevant party, and thus move on to other things, in the aim of finding a compromise solution that takes into account all the points of principles on both sides.
Quite often a mistake is to overgeneralise on points of principle without understanding what they actually are. For example, it's often easy to dismiss someone in the US as Republican or Democrat as a point of principle. Yet, more likely they aren't point of principles as such - the points of principle are deeper causes which tend to make people lean toward Republican or Democrat voting tendencies. The Republican may be concerned with money issues and efficiency, where as the Democrat may be more concerned with altruism. Knowing these are the actual points of principle, a compromise could see these two find a solution that combines Atruism and Efficiency - for example, a Universal Healthcare System (Altruism) that doesn't have a great deal of Red Tape and a rigorous screening process (Financial Efficiency). Only in true oppositions will you struggle to find a compromise, such as Alliance vs. Horde, but even then stepping outwards can lead to a compromise (Warcraft Universe is Awesome).
It's all based on our very natures, since it's the means with which we identify and relate to the world in a very fundamental level. It's how we are, even subconsciously, so much so that we often don't recognise these behaviours.
