It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why do we "Hate" Those With Whom We Disagree?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Truth is, though, I can't tell when I'm being "too harsh".

When it comes to ATS and forums in general, I don't think it's as much about what you say as how someone else takes it. Emotions and inflection don't come across well in print unless spelled out. People have a tendency to imagine that the person disagreeing with them is being rude, hateful, and generally just mean-spirited, project that imagined attitude onto the words they are reading, and then respond to the attitude they imagined rather than what the person actually said.

I can't even count how many times I'll read a post that seems fine to me and not the least bit harsh only to read a response a few posts down that has some variation of "You don't have to be such an ass" in it somewhere. The first posters intentions and tone don't really matter to the responder only their interpretation does, even if that interpretation projects animosity onto the first poster that isn't really there.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 05:43 PM
Hate is just another "4 letter word." Like other 4 letter words, sometimes it can spill out, unintentionally.

Honestly for myself, on ATS, if there is one thing that I have learned is to really try hard at not being a hater. Outside of learning other things, ATS for me, has shown me deep personal feelings of other people when the little hater in me has reared it's ugly head, and I have been called on it, which I actually appreciate.

I'd also like to point out that I have instead of letting my hate grow, like I used to, I'm a more compassionate person in everyday life. It could be that since I am getting older, hate is just far too time consuming, and I really don't need it in my life, except for things like hot boiled crawfish. I really do hate those!

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Jenna
I can't even count how many times I'll read a post that seems fine to me and not the least bit harsh only to read a response a few posts down that has some variation of "You don't have to be such an ass" in it somewhere.

Wow! That really rang true for me! I've done that, too. I read a post over to make sure that it's "good" and sounds like I'm being "open" and friendly, only to have someone respond with a very nasty reply because they totally misunderstood my intention.

I've learned so much from this thread.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:17 PM
When my mind makes up a thought then the thought has to correspond to certain criteria. If it doesn't then the thought is wrong. If my mind has to process someone elses thought that doesn't correspond to those criteria then it creates a conflict. It can't accept such thoughts and thus our subconsciousness tries to make us evade such thoughts by injecting us with negative feelings towards people with thoughts that invoke conflicts.

[edit on 18/4/2010 by DGFenrir]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Wow! That really rang true for me! I've done that, too. I read a post over to make sure that it's "good" and sounds like I'm being "open" and friendly, only to have someone respond with a very nasty reply because they totally misunderstood my intention.

It's gotten to where I'll type my post and then just leave the tab open for a few minutes before I come back and read it over again to make absolutely certain it contains zero snark before clicking reply. Yet I still get people who think I'm being snotty with them. It's so at odds with how people perceive me in person that it gets rather disconcerting at times and is what led me to the conclusion that sometimes it has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the reader's state of mind.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by Jenna

It's good to hear I'm not the only one who has a hard time knowing how I'll be perceived.

Then there are times when I DON'T want to be all sweetness and light. In fact, there are times when people make posts or threads that I think are so loaded with willful ignorance and idiocy that I don't really want to be civil. I want to get my point across in a very sharp and harsh way (without calling names or violating the T&C, of course). And naturally, they are going to have a defensive and nasty response, which I expect.

So I just have to be aware that I'm probably going to get back what I put out there, for the most part.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It seems that here on ATS, and in life in general, people can get along fine, but when they come across a belief that they don't agree on, there's something that sparks inside them - something that says, "I don't like this person anymore".

When you put ideas before people you cease to be "human".

Love is human. Hate is inhuman. Love is relationship. Hate is

Most people are quick to reach a level of inhumanity.
Narcissus prefers his little pond in which to gaze at himself.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Just a reply to the OP, haven't read all the posts or anything, but I think I might be able to contribute here a little bit.

While "hate" might be a strong term to use, I think part of the conflict comes from the feeling that if another person is wrong, they are going to try to convince others of their wrong view, and we as people prefer that things be done in truth. We don't like the idea of somebody spreading lies, even if they have no direct affect on us.

As to why friends can quickly separate because of these kinds of disagreements, its because the issue itself is only the surface of the disagreement. There is some moral or ethical difference that goes further down than the issue of abortion or illegal immigration that the people end up disagreeing on. To the pro-choice person, it's about protecting a person's rights above all else. To the pro-life person, it's about protecting the life of an innocent that somebody is trying to murder. Most conflicts can boil down to a deeper character difference. Often times, these ethical stances are unnegotiable, and so the person who stands against them is seen as the enemy oif what they believe to be good and right.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:38 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Very nice thread BH. I agree with what you said and I think everyone has been guilty of taking part in this behaviour at one time or another. (Not the "hate" part, but the feeling less affection for another person after hearing views of theirs that you strongly disagree with.)

Maybe it comes down to us humans being very stubborn creatures? Another factor is that certain issues are more emotionally charging for certain people compared to others. This clouds their judgement to be fair and reasonable because the other person has "crossed the line".

It is a shame we are like this, but it is just one of the negative aspects of humanity.

PS: Maybe the rule of never discussing sex, politics and religion with those we live to close to is a good decision after all.

[edit on 19/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:08 AM
Just wanted to add that there is possibly a deep, subconscious psychological factor that might explain this too. I hope I can explain what I am getting at:

When you have conversations with somebody else, you are both judging each other. Most people that meet new people will be reserved with their comments and try to avoid topics that might produce conflict. You are unlikely to start discussing the issue of Abortion with a stranger you just met. As BH said, the neighbours warmed up to each other and let their guards down when they became comfortable with each other.

When you have lengthy discussions with other people in an intellectual context - which happens often on ATS - you learn a lot about how other people view the world and what they think is important. You subconsciously categorise them as having a certain mindset or way of thinking. If you find a view of theirs you agree with, you will be quick to notice things about them you like. If you find ideas of theirs you oppose, you will find yourself liking them less because their world view appears different and they seem more of an outsider to your way of thinking.

Factor in that we in the West generally live in a very "politicised" environment where political division can be rather profound at times and that might explain it.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:25 AM
reply to post by Dark Ghost

the problem in depth from my perspective is different then the one you exposed, it seems that majority of people drives refered to kind of advantages realities they like to deal with, they dont see existence seriously or facts they are involved inn necessarly
so since it is about leisure and convenience they tend to believe that they can invent all the present and they cant see how there are some things inherently they do because they cant do otherwise, so the point is to say their lackness of beliefs in truth that comes out of their behaviors

it is of truth that you deal with objective from what there is in common positively, that is a fact always that can be explained fully
so when what is infront are words only, it is normal that you would react according to the image you would get of the whole spirit translation in picturing the person that might said it

when you see the person infront of you there are always objective living presence of the other that seem positive to you, at least the other is always a human as you are so your intention to harm it is mostly improbable, unless it says something so dramatically prooving not be a human or willing you dead directly
but on the net if the person in some sentences is clearly opposed to your beliefs reference, it could seem more objective present then its presence as another human, and that is why it is normal to sense rejection or hate justifications since there is no positive affiliations backgrounds

the problem in truth too is that there is no creation of positive possible, positive is truth in all its aspects, that is why it is the only fact that must be objective and prooved absolutely, it is also the only fact that justify any reference of existing or willing to do or to say

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:26 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Because people cling to 'belief' in the first place. Beliefs are usually lacking much evidence, otherwise they wouldn't be called "beliefs".

People usually don't question why they believe something. So it becomes ingrained in them so much they can't let go, and if they feel they are about to let go, a defense mechanism kicks in. If all humans challenged themselves everyday on WHY we believe something, you would find all of us would have to start from scratch and unlearn everything. We would have to admit that we don't really "know" that much at all in the end.

Then people identify with those beliefs over time. Sometimes, you can identify with a belief for a short period and feel strongly about it until it fades away.

Think of the beliefs you had as a child or a teenager. I'm sure no adult thinks the same way they did as a kid. It proves beliefs are changeable and not "real". They often are replaced when experience or better information/ facts come along.

The more you are attached to a belief, the more it becomes part of your ego. And when the ego needs defending, it will even kill to be 'right'. "Beliefs" and the clinging to them have probably been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:41 AM
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW

absolutely, beliefs seem to be the reference base justifications to what you are and what you care for being
you cant care for something if it is not justified existing according to certain condition life

now that is why surely beliefs are related to egos constructions in the sense that ego is you when you are not true

now i for instance believe in truth it is my reference that i also stand for more than myself, but that is why maybe i am more tolerant in depth because truth is first a principle source in all and second truth mean always objective evolving proofs of positive outcome

the main character of truth that i appreciate as roots, is the fact to know how when it is true then it would necessarly evolve for best, since it is a fact objective then so it is easy to understand how adds would be logically related to

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:07 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You know BH I can empathize with your husband's plight regarding the "harshometer" job. My fiancee is the most giving, honest, salt of the earth type person I know, but she's about as tactful as a razor. She, like you, is aware of it however, and that helps a lot. I am constantly being asked to judge whether or not something "comes across" well or not.
Funny thing is I am the kind of guy that can tell someone to go to h*ll, and they ask me for directions, and inquire on accomodations for their stay. She has tried to give someone a heartfelt compliment, and they were offended!!
To the topic. While people who don't know her well think she is an over bearing B- monster.(she's reading over my shoulder laughing to tears) People who really KNOW her know it is the exact opposite. She gives so much so willingly she has developed an exagerrated defense mechanism to not be taken advantage of. She gets a little heat from haters on her job, and in life. The key is balance. I come across as the super nice guy, but inside I'm as cynical as they come. I'll give you the shirt off my back, but after you show me proof of a good reason to. She would berate the point of your irresponsibility at being unable to procure a shirt due to your gambling debts while handing you the shirt off her back.
Some people have a higher emotional intellect, and are just more socially apt in "hot topic" areas. Other people are more pragmatic, and don't see the value in agreeing to disagree. A lot of people are threatened, and scared by even the suggestion of a shift in paradigm in any arena of life (see Plato's analogy of the cave.)
I have many friends who disagree with me, and I have no interest in changing their minds. What they believe obviously works for them. If their thought process becomes so fallable that it is no longer viable, nature will straighten the issue out without my interferrence, and the same goes for me! We are a product of our environment, and the ability to assimilate others perspectives is what makes one wise. Before I debate someone on an issue I first do my best to support their stance, and try to simulate their position in my mind to see what I can see as valid, and what is errant, again from my limited perspective. A truly great debater is the one who can make everyone clearly see their perspective, and how they have come to their conclusion logically from the experiences/evidence/data they have, and defend it without attacking the other side of the issue with distraction, and emotional ploys. Modern politicians are the absolute worst at that game.(can I include a pun about being a master debater?)
I have absolutely convinced people that "such and such a thing" is the absolute truth, just to play devil's advocate, and say "Gotcha!... Now what did we learn?" A strong mind is not threatened by a challenge, and doesn't "hate" opposition. Nothing is strengthened without opposition. Now go out tomorrow, and say "thank you" to your greatest detractors. Sometimes they bear the truth your "friends" won't tell you!

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Maybe it is the way people present their case?

Some, totally uninvited will barge in and noisily drop their beliefs on the floor like a bundle of school books. Take them or leave them.
They do not seem to understand their ideas, far from new are added to a room already chock full of some very good (and some useless) ideas and beliefs.

On the other hand - some peoples beliefs are so rank and unappealing they almost have a literal stink to them. And it is not that you hate the person - you just need to get yourself, away from the smell and out of their area of influence.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:45 AM
IMO this is a fantastic topic to thread.
As one who has experienced a good portion of confrontation on this site.
To actually hate the people I've confronted over a disagreement.
Hate is way to strong a word. I have come away with strong dislikes for some people. Noway could I hate someone I havn't even met in person.
Funny you visit my pub pro. There's a fair size number that list me as a foe.
Then you if look to see who I've listed. 0

So many variables, that can be, or lead to, disgust (pun) in all of this from so many different
I think your Benevolence is going to be busy a while.

So try to stay dry.

Star and a flag.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by randyvs]

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by Binder

what is to love about truth is too to realize how what is absolutely the same is actually the source of such varieties differences that could be totally different then ones, because it is right by itself from that free certainty logics base it would be the source aspiration to any sense of rights wills

that is why too i dont understand what is the problem in agressing someone else verbally, when your beliefs are for truth, you would not end the conversation by killing the other, at the maximum you loose interests in watching your living reality with the other, what is the problem with that, how it is a crime to say clearly what you dislike in the other speech

it is a crime only for what people dont want to believe in truth it is too objective for them and they prefer what is closer to their own body insurance, so the objective problem then become rigidity since beliefs reference are not true then they have to remain static in depth, so any objective expression would become mechanic that provide insurance to that static depth base, and still they would disagree untill they would find a common ground of expressions that mean to not say anything so everyone in depth stay in position it defined as free

and then seeing another person communicating really they would say o he is talking to himself, it is not because to them noone talk to another that a person who talks mean to talk to itself

talking is always with total else meaning to define a reality through words reality and watch it
but of whatever common share ground reality is immediately set as positive by itself without any interference of the different parts, enjoying watching their both common reality and taking from what they want since it is alive

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:58 AM
and when you believe in truth you would believe that truth of the situation is the source of rights and situation life
which mean that hating someone on the net is not like hating it in person, it is only means through words and everyone know that he doesnt picture the whole other person to hate it as picturing his success for jealeousy or his agressions to his whole phsyical ground

it is ok cool

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

my hate for the ignorant intensifies when the ignorant are on a site about finding truth in things.

they aren't on the site to find truth or find other ways of looking at things, they are trying to spread their claims that cannot be changed with debate, because they are undebatable.

thats what annoys me.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:30 AM
OK so the way i see it is that there can be no certain answer to things.. Even if i'm absolutely sure of something, maybe my experience hasn't allowed me a larger perspective on it. So it's #ing stupid to get angry with someone over a matter of opinion.
But i do agree that one naturally might form a dislike for some one because they dislike their opinion. There should be a difference between the two.
I bet i repeated what everyone else said! Curse my neutral opinion.

Peace n love folks, from a jujubug far away

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in