Hate, the book: 034

Hello Curious Friend.  Welcome to my book about Hate.  The number tells you where you are in the sequence.  I look forward to your comments.

Part Two
Chapter Eight
Study How?  (Continued)

Stopping it sounds good. But like real stop signs, most people just roll through it.

Overall, in this landscape of ours, there is a great divergence in the use of the word hate.

The first great divide comes from popular and non-threatening hate, such as the reaction to Kim Kardashian and Kayne West. The other side of the divide is where violence occurs, both in mind and body. And even among these three items we have a great diversity of use of the word “hate.”

In our first example, a violent moment emanates from a chance encounter.  Nasty words are spoken, and the state will pursue retribution and justice under the legal definition of the term hate.

In the second, the crime occurs over a significant time period, during which a series of acts are perpetrated by college roommates acting in concert.

Perhaps just as worrisome as those who committed those acts is the fact that so many others failed to act. This can be considered even more outrageous only because some of those who failed to act are in fact paid to identify, protect innocents, and eliminate such behaviors from their institution. It may be that failure is what the lawsuit addresses.

Finally, the third sample is perhaps the purest form of what we seek. No physical violence can be traced directly back to the man who preaches hate.  He uses no weapon or other physical artifacts.  Yet his actions are such that there is a great likelihood that others who heard his words might well have acted violently against the targets of his vitriol.

The most obvious evidence of this is their penchant to protest loudly at the funerals of soldiers.

Why do they protest at an unrelated soldier’s funeral?  Perhaps because that is where the cameras are.  Whatever the reason, his words influence others.  His words and the practice of his brand of religion are both protected under the US Constitution.

But who protects the minds that he influences, possibly in ways causing harm to others?  We will focus on the single story, on the dead man.  But even given that no one was hurt, is hate still present here?

We’ll get to that question shortly, but at this point we have surveyed the landscape of hate long enough.  Now it’s time to duck back into our cave and consider our next step.
Before we venture back outside, let’s curl up with a good book, after all it’s snowing like crazy at the moment.  This particular book is full of great observations, but one seems most relevant for us in our analysis of hate.

“Fear, on the other hand, is often confused with surprise, or with anger and / or disgust.”
Preface, Darwin’s “Expression of Emotions in Animals”

This statement, by Professor S.J. Rachmann, is about trying to ascertain emotional states based on facial expressions.  Professor Rachmann was an expert on the psychology of abnormal behavior.  If an expert like him acknowledges confusion about emotions related to hate, can we deduce that confusion is bound to pollute any analysis of hate itself?

To be continued …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.