Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

Dante Hicks · 29 Dec 2006, 13:19

From my limited experience, people often spend just as much time hating people almost identical to them than some kind of "other". Speak to have any hard leftist for any considerable period and you'll probably find he spends a lot more of his time hating some other obscure Trot sect than he does "the capitalists". (The People's Front of Judea syndrome). Even the extreme right (who you'd think would have a simpler ideological system since it all boils down to hating darkie) have the same sort of issue - some of the more high profile convictions of far-rightists in this country have resulted from feuds within those circles.

Also, I don't think I would agree that there are "ideologies of hate" as such. There are ideologies which place the cause of various social problems in different places (capitalism, immigration, liberals, an oppressive state system or whatever) but that isn't necessarily incorrect as Phang has noted.

I personally try to avoid the term 'victim' in this sort of context since it has a lot of other connotations (and has been horribly been mis/overused) but in one sense we are all victims of one type or another. We are all occassionally victims of inept bureaucracies, heavy handed legislation, corporations with less than shining ethical standards, frauds and other crimes perpetrated by those acting outside the law, etc, etc.

The problem seems to not be the original premise of an ideology in most cases, but how this then transforms over time. The every day business of doing politics means that the nuances of an ideology are lost and originally rational positions become more and more emotional. So perhaps originally you "disliked" the French because you found their government's position on the war on Iraq. But in the act of politics (e.g. trying to persuade other Americans to boycott French products until their policy is changed which is a legitimate enough tactic) you begin to insult Frenchness in general and then your dislike is much more like a hate, and falls victim to the irrationality you describe.

Conversely, I have seen Marxists who start with the premise "Iran is under pressure from American imperialism, therefore I will call for limited support for Iran in this particular context while remembering the anti-democratic, theocratic and un-Marxist nature of Iran" (#1). However, after several dozen arguments where people point out how evil Iran is they find themselves trying to "bend the stick" back the other way and mention how Iran, compared to other countries in the region is perhaps moving in the right direction and not as bad as people think while obviously having major problems (#2). Then, a little while longer they actually start merely noting the good things about Iran in discussions (#3) - again, as a counter balance. It's difficult to continually say one thing and believe another for some honest folks and so they end up defending uncritically the Iranian government both internally and externally (#4). And then they're just a cheerlader for Iran who spews bile and hate against any opposition (#5).

Through this transfer from #1 - #5 they go from rational position to irrational emotional position, but for understandable enough reasons. Their politics doesn't really change, and the fault wasn't in their original ideological premise but in the every day execution of their political discourse.

29 Dec 2006, 13:19	#7
Dante Hicks Clerk Join Date: Jun 2001 Posts: 13,940	Re: Ideologies of hate From my limited experience, people often spend just as much time hating people almost identical to them than some kind of "other". Speak to have any hard leftist for any considerable period and you'll probably find he spends a lot more of his time hating some other obscure Trot sect than he does "the capitalists". (The People's Front of Judea syndrome). Even the extreme right (who you'd think would have a simpler ideological system since it all boils down to hating darkie) have the same sort of issue - some of the more high profile convictions of far-rightists in this country have resulted from feuds within those circles. Also, I don't think I would agree that there are "ideologies of hate" as such. There are ideologies which place the cause of various social problems in different places (capitalism, immigration, liberals, an oppressive state system or whatever) but that isn't necessarily incorrect as Phang has noted. I personally try to avoid the term 'victim' in this sort of context since it has a lot of other connotations (and has been horribly been mis/overused) but in one sense we are all victims of one type or another. We are all occassionally victims of inept bureaucracies, heavy handed legislation, corporations with less than shining ethical standards, frauds and other crimes perpetrated by those acting outside the law, etc, etc. The problem seems to not be the original premise of an ideology in most cases, but how this then transforms over time. The every day business of doing politics means that the nuances of an ideology are lost and originally rational positions become more and more emotional. So perhaps originally you "disliked" the French because you found their government's position on the war on Iraq. But in the act of politics (e.g. trying to persuade other Americans to boycott French products until their policy is changed which is a legitimate enough tactic) you begin to insult Frenchness in general and then your dislike is much more like a hate, and falls victim to the irrationality you describe. Conversely, I have seen Marxists who start with the premise "Iran is under pressure from American imperialism, therefore I will call for limited support for Iran in this particular context while remembering the anti-democratic, theocratic and un-Marxist nature of Iran" (#1). However, after several dozen arguments where people point out how evil Iran is they find themselves trying to "bend the stick" back the other way and mention how Iran, compared to other countries in the region is perhaps moving in the right direction and not as bad as people think while obviously having major problems (#2). Then, a little while longer they actually start merely noting the good things about Iran in discussions (#3) - again, as a counter balance. It's difficult to continually say one thing and believe another for some honest folks and so they end up defending uncritically the Iranian government both internally and externally (#4). And then they're just a cheerlader for Iran who spews bile and hate against any opposition (#5). Through this transfer from #1 - #5 they go from rational position to irrational emotional position, but for understandable enough reasons. Their politics doesn't really change, and the fault wasn't in their original ideological premise but in the every day execution of their political discourse.