Reposted from 2.5.11:
9.19.19:
This is a post from the early days of the blog. Somebody seems to have clicked on it, so
I offer a brief comment.
The comment is that it is easy to lose sight of the fact that a lot of what a person does is not
obvious to himself/herself. Therefore, hypocrisy is always possible.
I find that I DO label the left, and yes I consider them an enemy. To me this is justified because they act as if those who disagree with them are the enemy. Yet, I do not consider that to be hatred on
my part.
I would just as soon go about my business without having to get involved in the troubles. But
troubles can come your way regardless of how you may be trying to avoid them.
Am I being a hypocrite? I hope not. But if someone hates my guts I think that it is wise to prepare
to defend myself.
2.5.11:
I was reading something on
ThinkProgress site which accused Rush Limbaugh of
doing Hate Radio. It brought to mind something I was thinking about recently
in reference to hate, so I thought I would blog some thoughts about the
subject.
It is interesting that this site accuses Limbaugh of hate radio. When I
went to the comment section, I didn't see comments reflective of anything
like understanding or peaceable disagreement. What I saw was exactly what
was being condemned by the use of the term. Does that make ThinkProgress a
hate site?
I guess it all depends. Whatever gins up a feeling inside of you just might
be called hateful. But does that make it a hate site? Hatred is a choice.
You don't have to hate anybody. What you choose to hate is your own business.
Likewise, you can't blame nor control what anybody else feels or does either.
It is interesting that that ThinkProgress seems to be trying to hold Limbaugh
responsible for what someone else may be feeling.
This is not to deny that someone may try to incite a feeling in another person.
Yet, Limbaugh doesn't rely upon emotion. He has even downgraded that, and
at the same time, he claims that those on the left rely upon this. But can
you hate for logical reasons? Let's examine that one. Let's say you can
give a hundred reasons why someone is bad. Each of those reasons have rock
solid evidence and reasoning behind it. But should that be a reason to
hate? No. I think you would, if you were to rely on reason, that in order
to incite hatred by reason, you would have to use reason why someone should
be hated. I have never heard anything like that from Limbaugh.
I do not trust ideology because there is a tendency to treat people who don't
agree as the other. This occurs so frequently that I wonder if the entire
population is being influenced to mistrust and to "hate" each other. By
doing so, an entire population can be ruled over by the divide and conquer
principle.
Limbaugh does tend towards ideology. He does go after the other, who he
calls liberals and moderates. If you want to consider that as hate, then
there it is. But those like ThinkProgress are no better. They use terms
that identify the other as well.
How do you avoid clumping people up as the other, thus dehumanizing them?
It is not easy. People like fellowship. To be part of something bigger
than themselves. It is in so doing that is easy to clump anyone outside
of this as the other. You can't tell people not to join up with what they
believe in. So, it is something of a dilemma.
I think that in order to avoid hatred, you have to subscribe to the ethics
of non hatred. The ethics of non hatred means that you recognize that hatred
is your own responsibility and no one can make you hate anybody else, no
matter what they may do to you or say to you.
If there is an ethic of non hatred, is there a corresponding ethic of hatred?
I don't know. To have an ethic, it implies a choice. If you have no choice,
how can there be an ethic to violate or adhere to? To hate another, one
has to say that they have no choice but to hate. How can that be ethical?
If an ethic of hatred exists, would it have anything to do with reason?
No, I dont' think so.
The ethics of hatred implies that reason has nothing to do with hatred.
For if it did, reason would advocate hatred if the logic and evidence
supported it. If we examine it closely, reason could never advocate hatred.
Reason can only advocate self preservation if it is to remain reason. If
it goes beyond that, it stops being reason.
In addition, I think there is always that something more that you don't
know about. Whatever appears hateful may have some mitigating circumstance
about it. Therefore, I think to hate means to close one's mind to the
truth. The truth is that the one who is hating may be mistaken. If one
believes in following the path of reason, one cannot have an ethic of
hatred, but the opposite.
Another thought comes to mind. Who is to police ethics of non hatred?
I think the answer is you have to do it for yourself. Only you know if
you hate or not. I don't think it would be wise to leave that in the
hands of others, especially an authority figure.
