Why We Hate

[carpedm9587]

"libtard" is not a phrase I would use against somebody, but if somebody is actually being a hypocrite, what's wrong with pointing that out?

So here are two ways to point to hypocrisy:

Method 1: You're a stupid hypocrite with an anti-Christian agenda out to troll this space!

Method 2: So you just said X, and I'm not seeing how that can possibly square with the Y you said earlier. Can you help me understand that?

I suggest that Method 1 "feeds the troll" as they say. All that usually results is more ugly back-and forth, and all the person using it has done is descend to the level of the "troll." It might make the person using it feel good - but then I have to ask, "what kind of person feels good when they resort to the same tactics as the people they find least acceptable?" But Method 2 gives the same message, challenges the speaker to make the two statements make sense, and does so without attacking anyone.

I think that many people who utter the phrase "when they go low - we go high" seldom actually do it regularly. But I DO think it is a good philosophy to live by.

[carpedm9587]

question Carpe if someone is being hypocritical about things is it hateful to point it out? as for libtard yeah that is something I try not to use but I will call a hypocrite what he or she is.

See my response to CP.

[carpedm9587]

The term "hate" has become too amorphous in today's culture. I've seen people call something "hateful" just because it's sharply critical or sarcastic, similar to how any criticism of Obama, no matter how deserved, was almost always blasted as "racist". It's the boy who cried wolf. It doesn't take long for people to start ignoring it even if the accusation happens to be legitimate.

Criticism is not hateful. Sarcasm? Yes - that is hateful. We can express ideas without resorting to sarcasm. It is disrespectful and counter-productive, IMO. All it does is engender more sarcasm and vitriol. I have been fairly clear that I think too many on the left jump to "racist" too quickly. It is something my wife and I have had to confront regularly as we raised our boys. Sometimes, it's just kids being kids - and being mean.

That depends on whether or not they're being dismissive and/or disingenuous.

And who is in a better position to make that judgment, MM? If you're going to suggest the speaker is in a better position to know if they hate - is not the speaker in a better position to know if they are being disingenous or dismissive? Or do you suggest it is separate rules?

I suggest "I feel dismissed" is not the same as "I am dismissing you." Marriage has taught me that.

[Cow Poke]

The most amazing people, to me, are not the ones who greet those breaking into the house with force - it is the ones who greet those breaking into the house with love and peace.

That's it -- you've gone around the bend.

So, somebody breaks into your house, manages to get a hold of your wife with a knife at her throat, and you're gonna... what, lovebomb them?

Seriously, Carpe --- you're losing credibility.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, Carpe, you're the ONLY virtuous one among us. Forget WWJD -- WWCD!!!!

Why would you respond to what he said with that? He's only acknowledging the inherent wisdom and power found in the words of Christ. Are not the words of Christ our example, our goal, our highest standard? Why then would you mock someone for encouraging all of us, including himself, to strive to be that? I don't understand.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

Why would you respond to what he said with that

Calm yourself, Jim - I'm giving him a hard time -- I consider him a friend.

[Cow Poke]

Why would you respond to what he said with that? He's only acknowledging the inherent wisdom and power found in the words of Christ. Are not the words of Christ our example, our goal, our highest standard? Why then would you mock someone for encouraging all of us, including himself, to strive to be that? I don't understand.

Jim

Ya know --- I think this is part of the problem --- people are just WAY too sensitive, and seem to be LOOKING for excuses to be offended or to find fault. I could say more, but... sheesh!

[RumTumTugger]

Ya know --- I think this is part of the problem --- people are just WAY too sensitive, and seem to be LOOKING for excuses to be offended or to find fault. I could say more, but... sheesh!

and if Jesus's words were our example what does Oximixmudd do about Jesus insulting certain people calling them whitewashed Tombs according to his definition and view that would be considered hateful and wrong.

[firstfloor]

[Cow Poke]

Why does this not surprise me, dear kind friend?

You're confusing inferred with implied, but I would love to help you understand the difference.

I find it very disturbing that those who claim to be Christians go along with this sort of thing.

One of the great things about the US is the extent to which we help other nations in times of crisis. We can't do that if we're weak and sickly. Kinda like on the airplane, when they tell you to be sure to put on your own oxygen mask before attempting to help others.

[firstfloor]

[oxmixmudd]

Ya know --- I think this is part of the problem --- people are just WAY too sensitive, and seem to be LOOKING for excuses to be offended or to find fault. I could say more, but... sheesh!

I see. You slammed him for being self-righteous, in much the same way others (you?) have slammed me for the same (and they (you?) were serious). And I'm supposed to know you were kidding because ... ?

Jim

[Cow Poke]

I see. You slammed him for being self-righteous, in much the same way others (you?) have slammed me for the same (and they (you?) were serious). And I'm supposed to know you were kidding because ... ?

Jim

You butted in to a conversation between me and Carpe, Jim. Think what you will. And I didn't "slam" him - I was....

Sheeeeesh!

[Mountain Man]

You butted in to a conversation between me and Carpe, Jim. Think what you will. And I didn't "slam" him - I was....

Sheeeeesh!

I have to defend ox here. Maybe I'm not up to speed on the latest "netique", but it seems strange to me to accuse someone of "butting in" on an open discussion in a public thread.

[Mountain Man]

Criticism is not hateful. Sarcasm? Yes - that is hateful.

No, it's not. It can be used in a hateful manner, but sarcasm is not inherently hateful no matter how many "worst case scenarios" you can imagine.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the term "hateful" has bee thrown around willy-nilly to the point that it's lost meaning.

If you're going to suggest the speaker is in a better position to know if they hate - is not the speaker in a better position to know if they are being disingenous or dismissive? Or do you suggest it is separate rules?

I really think you've missed the point here. If someone is sarcastic, you will immediately interpret that as "hate speech" even when there is zero hateful intent behind the words. Are you wrong to see hate where there is none, or is he wrong because you misconstrued his words as hateful? I think the answer is obvious.