Differences of "Hatred" & "Phobia"

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Why is it that when someone generally disagrees with something (we all know the primary topics), they're labeled as phobic or haters?

The ones who do the labeling are lost in catch phrase land and don't do the mental work necessary to consider the information. They want a quick fix, so to speak. If the solution isn't provided in a McDonaldized format beforehand they'll reject anything challenging, no matter how wrong they themselves are or how obvious it is. The topic really is important though because if the disagreer is in the majority, the hater label won't stick. But, if the disagreer is in the minority, the labeler would swiftly come out to stick the label on. It seems that the labelers are rarely, if ever, on the important side of anything.

a reply to: Asynchrony
a reply to: Punisher75


I was personally chalking it up to sensationalism. But I see where the both of you are coming from. This sort of thing happens all the time. It happens quite frequently in these threads. A person makes an educated argument. The next person comes along, with a 'McDonaldized' response, and people agree with it because it's a simple rebuttle (easier to understand) with no real substance.

Not quite sure if I'm making sense to anyone but myself, but that's okay.

The most humorous part of the whole thing is that the difference between a fear and a Phobia. One is considered a mental illness.
www.webmd.com...
So in short when You, or I or anyone else gets the dreaded "phobia" label they are essentially telling us we are are insane.
I like being in that position that way I can call them they suffer from dementophobia, and should seek help, for their intolerance. www.fearof.net...

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Asynchrony
a reply to: Punisher75


I was personally chalking it up to sensationalism. But I see where the both of you are coming from. This sort of thing happens all the time. It happens quite frequently in these threads. A person makes an educated argument. The next person comes along, with a 'McDonaldized' response, and people agree with it because it's a simple rebuttle (easier to understand) with no real substance.

Not quite sure if I'm making sense to anyone but myself, but that's okay.

Naw, I get it, like I said I think its just a mental shortcut that people take. People who toss labels out that quick generally don't have anything of substance behind their argument and really are just trying to act as the Vox Populi.
Sad really.

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Why is it that when someone generally disagrees with something (we all know the primary topics), they're labeled as phobic or haters?

Like I said in my earlier post, in my opinion its a tactic to basically call people cowards for not agreeing to something. The people who call others (insert root word here)-phobic knows that the suffix Phobia carries with it the connotation in the modern parlance to mean "scared of" and so its used to try to socially shame people.
Basically its just a rhetorical tool used by people who want to take short cuts in their argument and say "agree with me or you are a coward."

Exactly and it's a cowardly method of avoiding debate. Same with the "racist" label.

a reply to: Answer

I would agree with that assessment as well. Sadly people often are unwilling to accept that social issues are pretty complicated things almost by definition. You have to take into account social upbringing, philosophical ideas that people hold about everything from economics to religion to morality and identity.
In short its harder than math so folks don't really wanna think about all those things before they get to spout their opinion.

I'd seen this tactic used a lot with someone I use to know because he had a conversation issue where if he wasn't saying 90% of everything in the conversation he would trick the conversation into a touchy topic to get you to react in a way that would allow for him to swoop in with the "what're you scared of" thing, thus shaming you into silence as everyone else eyed you accusingly. I'd known several people over time who would try these sort of things. It's very annoying and it makes you feel like you're in a really long commercial with some sort of spokesperson.

originally posted by: Punisher75
Like I said in my earlier post, in my opinion its a tactic to basically call people cowards for not agreeing to something. The people who call others (insert root word here)-phobic knows that the suffix Phobia carries with it the connotation in the modern parlance to mean "scared of" and so its used to try to socially shame people.

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: Answer

I would agree with that assessment as well. Sadly people often are unwilling to accept that social issues are pretty complicated things almost by definition. You have to take into account social upbringing, philosophical ideas that people hold about everything from economics to religion to morality and identity.
In short its harder than math so folks don't really wanna think about all those things before they get to spout their opinion.

Social issues are very complicated but to treat them like they're not to be discussed accomplishes nothing.

There are many problems that have become worse because people refuse to address them for fear of being labeled racist.

originally posted by: Asynchrony
I'd seen this tactic used a lot with someone I use to know because he had a conversation issue where if he wasn't saying 90% of everything in the conversation he would trick the conversation into a touchy topic to get you to react in a way that would allow for him to swoop in with the "what're you scared of" thing, thus shaming you into silence as everyone else eyed you accusingly. I'd known several people over time who would these sort of things. It's very annoying and it makes you feel like you're in a really long commercial with some sort of spokesperson.

Oh without a doubt I have seen it and been subject to it myself. Its sad really because its one of the oldest tactics in the book. If I remember correctly the "technical phrase" for the end result of this phenomenon is called "The Spiral of Silence."
The idea is basically that people become so scared of rejection that they don't voice any opinion other than that of the majority. Its depressing for me anyway because this is exactly how tyranny takes root. A leader makes an idea popular by speaking loudest, via marches, television, books articles speeches and so on then sends people out to "brow beat" others into vocal submission.
Naturally the spoken opinion becomes the only option by default, that the following generation is exposed to, as a viable opinion. As such this new thought becomes the baseline norm for any "rational" person.

Double post

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: Asynchrony
I'd seen this tactic used a lot with someone I use to know because he had a conversation issue where if he wasn't saying 90% of everything in the conversation he would trick the conversation into a touchy topic to get you to react in a way that would allow for him to swoop in with the "what're you scared of" thing, thus shaming you into silence as everyone else eyed you accusingly. I'd known several people over time who would these sort of things. It's very annoying and it makes you feel like you're in a really long commercial with some sort of spokesperson.

Oh without a doubt I have seen it and been subject to it myself. Its sad really because its one of the oldest tactics in the book. If I remember correctly the "technical phrase" for the end result of this phenomenon is called "The Spiral of Silence."
The idea is basically that people become so scared of rejection that they don't voice any opinion other than that of the majority. Its depressing for me anyway because this is exactly how tyranny takes root. A leader makes an idea popular by speaking loudest, via marches, television, books articles speeches and so on then sends people out to "brow beat" others into vocal submission.
Naturally the spoken opinion becomes the only option by default, that the following generation is exposed to, as a viable opinion. As such this new thought becomes the baseline norm for any "rational" person.

It's interesting to see the effects when it's turned around against an unlikely target.

When I was in the military, I witnessed a group of black Marines coming to the defense of another black Marine who was called out by a white Marine for doing something improper. They were making threats and being aggressive. I yelled at all of them "you know good and well he was wrong, you're a bunch of racists!" They were speechless and actually backed down. We were all still cool afterward and a couple of them even admitted that they're just conditioned to go on the offensive and back each other up when it's black vs white.

a reply to: Answer

I am sure of it, its conditioning that causes people to behave in a pretty irrational way such as that. People are sheep that's why we keep voting in idiots to govern our lives the way we do. I think that we have been dumbed down to the point that we really are little more than semi sentient. The fix for alot of the worlds woes are literally at our fingertips but TPTB are simply better chess players than we are as a whole.

Think about it, most people in a one on one conversion can negotiate most anything between them, but once you start adding people it becomes less and less the norm, as now we have ego and "face" to contend with.
After all we want to be accepted by the majority as opposed to the strength of our convictions.
There is a saying "No one of us is as dumb as all of us."

originally posted by: Punisher75


Think about it, most people in a one on one conversion can negotiate most anything between them, but once you start adding people it becomes less and less the norm, as now we have ego and "face" to contend with.
After all we want to be accepted by the majority as opposed to the strength of our convictions.
There is a saying "No one of us is as dumb as all of us."

Absolutely and that, along with the power of anonymity, is why it's so difficult to have a productive debate on the internet.