Disagreement=Hate. Why?

hhiusa

Well-known member
May 5, 2015
2,623
130
73
#1
When did the act of disagreeing with someone/something come to mean "I don't like you/it".

For instance:
1. You are in favor of toll roads or even HOV lanes ... you must hate the poor and favor the rich.
2. There aren't enough women/ethnic/...what have you, in your company ... you obviously don't like women/ethnic/...
3. You're disagree with me ... oh, you've offended my sensibilities​

People say these things quite often, in the press, on the street,..., etc. People just don't seem to say "Let's agree to disagree" anymore. What they will do is argue with you about how you are bad person, and then say, "but I don't want argue about this" after they've said their fill.

How many of you have friends that have diametrically opposing political viewpoints or some other polarizing issue. Are you accepting? Or do you think you are better than them? That your views are more "correct"?

Let's be honest. We don't have to go very far: some of the threads here. Brexit!

Maybe this is the reason :LOL:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/09/social-media-has-poisoned-us-young-brits-on-why-they-are-unhappy
 
Likes: mike.

Brumby

Well-known member
May 25, 2012
600
136
53
#2
When did the act of disagreeing with someone/something come to mean "I don't like you/it".

For instance:
1. You are in favor of toll roads or even HOV lanes ... you must hate the poor and favor the rich.
2. There aren't enough women/ethnic/...what have you, in your company ... you obviously don't like women/ethnic/...
3. You're disagree with me ... oh, you've offended my sensibilities​

People say these things quite often, in the press, on the street,..., etc. People just don't seem to say "Let's agree to disagree" anymore. What they will do is argue with you about how you are bad person, and then say, "but I don't want argue about this" after they've said their fill.

How many of you have friends that have diametrically opposing political viewpoints or some other polarizing issue. Are you accepting? Or do you think you are better than them? That your views are more "correct"?

Let's be honest. We don't have to go very far: some of the threads here. Brexit!

Maybe this is the reason :LOL:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/09/social-media-has-poisoned-us-young-brits-on-why-they-are-unhappy
The introduction of postmodernism worldview with the notion that there is no objective truth, just relative truth. It is an idea that truth is simply in the eyes of the beholder. In other words, if an object is black but if your worldview is that the object is white than it is simply a case of relative truth and worldview. Once you go down that path, then your gender is merely what you feel you are because physical attributes or reality doesn't matter because that is simply relative. Anybody who disagrees is a bigot - end of the conversation. Take another example. We are all global citizens, the idea of sovereign borders is just being racist - end of conversation. Postmodernism is grounded on sand but because its foundation is weak, debates are purposely being shut down as hate speech.
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
7,051
916
173
62
Exeter
#3
Making your party's policies appear like moral imperatives is a good way to ensure that persuadable voters don't stray to an opponent at election time.

The casualty of this cynical trick is objective truth and analysis.
 

NVP

Well-known member
Jun 21, 2004
35,786
1,732
223
west sussex, UK
fxcorrelator.com
#4
The emotive, anonymous and desensitised nature of social media has made it infinitely easy for people to declare war on each other for the smallest things ....

Most normal people wouldn’t dare say what they do face to face with others .....or the situation would certainly not escalate as in face to face matters at least they can see and feel more about the others position

N
 
Likes: tomorton

piphoe

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2015
10,046
194
123
#5
name one objective truth, a "truth" that is above examination & scrutiny. Just one.. :D
 

trendie

Well-known member
#6
name one objective truth, a "truth" that is above examination & scrutiny. Just one.. :D
Mathematics?
And by extension, physics, and engineering?

Pythagoras' Theorem or the value of Pi is "true" irrespective of nationality, language, culture or religious belief?

Gravity?
We could throw a christian, muslim and jew off a cliff, and they all hit the ground at the same time. (allowing for wind resistance)
We might need to throw an atheist off a cliff too, in order to have a control group to compare against,

The above is a joke. I notice you have the american flag, so thought I should point that out, as americans tend to kick off big-time.
(you big girls blouse)
 

trendie

Well-known member
#7
When did the act of disagreeing with someone/something come to mean "I don't like you/it".

For instance:
1. You are in favor of toll roads or even HOV lanes ... you must hate the poor and favor the rich.
2. There aren't enough women/ethnic/...what have you, in your company ... you obviously don't like women/ethnic/...
3. You're disagree with me ... oh, you've offended my sensibilities​

People say these things quite often, in the press, on the street,..., etc. People just don't seem to say "Let's agree to disagree" anymore. What they will do is argue with you about how you are bad person, and then say, "but I don't want argue about this" after they've said their fill.

How many of you have friends that have diametrically opposing political viewpoints or some other polarizing issue. Are you accepting? Or do you think you are better than them? That your views are more "correct"?

Let's be honest. We don't have to go very far: some of the threads here. Brexit!

Maybe this is the reason :LOL:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/09/social-media-has-poisoned-us-young-brits-on-why-they-are-unhappy
Isn't it all about in-group/out-group dynamics.
The tendency to be sympathetic to similar people, and to see them as individuals. But to attribute values to the out-group as a whole. stereotyping them "all".

I think this could be a really good thread. (y)
 

Kaeso

Active member
Oct 4, 2015
861
91
38
#8
Let's be honest. We don't have to go very far: some of the threads here. Brexit!
I think the Brexit and Trump threads are about people having too much time on their hands, and lack of an appropriate forum for their political views/debates
 
Last edited:

hhiusa

Well-known member
May 5, 2015
2,623
130
73
#9
name one objective truth, a "truth" that is above examination & scrutiny. Just one.. :D
Ditto to trendie. Color and the by extension the electromagnetic force. Color is not subjective. A specific wavelength measured in nanometers determines the precise visualization of the color.
Physics tie-in: Black holes, via time dilation, distorts the waves by gravitational redshift, making it redder.

Time. Special relativity. Time can be both relative and absolute simultaneously - see Lorentz transformation. Just because it is both relative and absolute (see Real time and proper time) does not mean it's subjective.

Plato the forms
If perfection did not exist, then we as humans would not strive for it. The fact that nobody can tell you what a perfect XYZ is, does not preclude its existence.
If that were the case, then the Earth would have been flat until we decided it was a sphere, at which point it would have magically morphed into such a shape. This obviously did not happen. Black holes existed long before we knew about them.

Our imperfect perception of perfection does not preclude the existence of perfection and absolute truths.
That inane statement presupposes the idea that color does not exist if everybody is blind. :whistling
 

hhiusa

Well-known member
May 5, 2015
2,623
130
73
#10
Isn't it all about in-group/out-group dynamics.
The tendency to be sympathetic to similar people, and to see them as individuals. But to attribute values to the out-group as a whole. stereotyping them "all".

I think this could be a really good thread. (y)
I agree with you there. I also attribute it to the what is being termed the "Internet Disinhibition Effect"

It describe what somebody has already said here in part: people behave a certain way online that they would never deign to do so in the real world for fear of the consequences.

Why else does Facebook and Twitter exist but to fan the flames of dissension. Studies have been done on "in-group / out-group" as trendie mentioned. They analyzed 500,000+ users and found one thing that divides almost all Twitter, Facebook is politics. No other differentiation divides more, not fat/skinny shaming, rich/poor, race, ...

Posting political views on Facebook and Twitter is like shouting "fire" in a crowded and watching :devilish:. Basically, since we should already know that the people that use the service are like the said Facebook OP—wanting just as much to shout their views from the rooftops. It will inevitably lead to an unproductive, hate-spewing match, yet knowing this or maybe not knowing this, they still act ignorant stating these things.

Why does anybody feel the need to post a news article on their twitter or facebook feed. Trust me, WPost, Fox, Huffpo, LATimes,... all have more internet traffic to them than you. They don't need you to advertise their articles, which means only one thing: that you enjoy throwing metaphorical Molotov cocktail into situations.
 

Signalcalc

Well-known member
May 21, 2016
2,043
341
93
#11
It's all down to the individual and your upbringing. Parents/guardians, school teachers, peer group, social class, education, generation, what others influence your thought process? Who else provides you with manners, decency, courtesy, morals? Where do you obtain your listening and debating skills? What about your socio/chemical/biological make-up? Then there are external factors such as religion, government, internet, media, finances that influence or control.

Surely all these go into the mix that makes an individual either hate another, or just want to debate another, or just want to discuss/share ideas with another? People that revert to hate or attempt to impose opinion by forceful (as forceful as the internet can get) means can just be ignored, they are not worth the time.

Is it really an issue if people engage in online hate, how does it translate into the physical world, or is it media whipping it up, that then translates into government policy and law in an attempt to try and stop.....what exactly?

The unintended consequences of those that diagnose online hate (governments), just seem to be making an attack on free speech in order to protect their own positions and retain control, shutting down dialog, pouring fuel on the fire of media, a self perpetuating situation.

The consequences of hate are actually quite destructive depending on who is deciding what is hate and what is not.

As far as the Brexit thread is concerned, I don't see any hate, I see some rigorous online debate, a small amount of name calling, all made in the great British sense of jest, sarcasm and wit, vive le British sense of humour.