Hate as impetus for change

[Katy Lied]

One thing Mormons get a lot of is lecturing by Nonmormons on why everybody hates them. During the Prop 8 controversy, I heard a lot of "...you see, this is why everyone hates Mormons..." When discussing the rivalry, I hear, "BYU fans are so holier than thou, this is why we hate you." Alex Smith: "You guys are so arrogant, I hate all of you."

This hate is cited as justification for anti-mormon rhetoric: we hate Mormons because they deserve it. It is also used as cause for change: You guys should change and be more accepting/loving/tolerant, or you guys should be less nerdy/weird/insular, because everybody hates you for it and unless you change, everyone's gonna continue to hate you. Mormon's who disagree with something about the Church are the worst offenders with the hate charge: I want something to change, but to empower my statement I will mention the thousands of other people who hate this same thing and want it changed.

I wonder: is hate really that great a motivator for change? After Max's hate rant, did any Ute fan turn an introspective eye on himself and think, "You know, Max may be right. I should be nicer to my BYU rivals. I should treat their players with more respect. I shouldn't throw [liquid beverages of any type] on anyone."

I bet there's no facebook group called "Max Hall's wake-up call: Lets be more civil to BYU fans."

And thus we see the utter uselessness of hate to effect change. And yet, I bet within 30 days someone will post a rant about the LDS church with the threat: And unless you/this practice/the Church changes, people will continue to hate you/this practice/The Church.

[Indy Coug]

There is no person, place, thing or ideology that is universally loved and that is totally immune to hate. Given that, since when does the existence of hate or unpopularity become a de facto need for change?

If Christ had only toned down his rhetoric against the Pharisees and eased up a bit on his sabbath healing nonsense, maybe he would have gotten a few more converts and lived long enough to enjoy a summer villa in Caesarea during his twilight years.

[UtahDan]

My problem here is that I don't have the first idea what "hate" in this context means. I think it is a word that is used so casually now that it has lost a great deal of its punch and can refer to a whole range of feelings . To me, it has become a proxy for discussion much the same way the word "racist" has. In other words, if you start from the proposition that anything is motivated by racism or hate, there is not much left to say because each is morally abhorrent, and yet each gets used to describe things that are not morally abhorrent and their meaning gets watered down as a result.

Both the statements by Hall and Smith are good examples of this because I would be shocked if what they feel is really and truly as extreme as "hate."

Just as a thought exercise, I have edited what you said using the adjectives that I think make more sense and are what people really mean.

One thing Mormons get a lot of is lecturing by Nonmormons on why everybody hates dislikes them. During the Prop 8 controversy, I heard a lot of "...you see, this is why everyone hates dislikes Mormons..." When discussing the rivalry, I hear, "BYU fans are so holier than thou, this is why we hate don't much care for you." Alex Smith: "You guys are so arrogant, I hate truly dislike all of you."

This hate dislike or strong aversion is cited as justification for anti-mormon rhetoric: we hate dislike Mormons because they deserve it. It is also used as cause for change: You guys should change and be more accepting/loving/tolerant, or you guys should be less nerdy/weird/insular, because everybody hates has a strong aversion to you when you behave that way for it and unless you change, everyone's gonna continue not to hate like you. Mormon's who disagree with something about the Church are the worst offenders with the hate disapproval charge: I want something to change, but to empower my statement I will mention the thousands of other people who hate disapprove of this same thing and want it changed.

I wonder: is hate dislike, or aversion or unhappiness of others really that great a motivator for change? After Max's hate emotional rant, did any Ute fan turn an introspective eye on himself and think, "You know, Max may be right. I should be nicer to my BYU rivals. I should treat their players with more respect. I shouldn't throw [liquid beverages of any type] on anyone."

I bet there's no facebook group called "Max Hall's wake-up call: Lets be more civil to BYU fans."

And thus we see the utter uselessness of hate expressing dislike, displeasure or aversion to effect change. And yet, I bet within 30 days someone will post a rant about the LDS church with the threat: And unless you/this practice/the Church changes, people will continue to hate dislike, disapprove of or have an aversion to you/this practice/The Church.

I just think that it is too bad that the word hate is used in this context at all, because it doesn't belong here. You are correct that hate rarely motivates change because if I believe someone is motivated by hate then it is easy to be dismissive of them. If I believe that they dislike me, or are upset by me, or have an aversion to me, that is a little different because there is no connotation of such an extreme, intractable and maybe irrational emotion. I do think those other strong feelings motivate change all the time. We as human beings, and certainly the church, are in general pretty keen to know why we have given offense.

So while I agree with what you have said in terms of hate not motivating change, I don't think that it is what we are talking about in any of the examples you are using. It is an unfortunate choice of words by Hall and Smith nor does it aptly describe how the vast majority of people who look disapprovingly at the church or its members feel so, for me, I can't accept the premise that hate is a good descriptor as you are using it. It is society's fault for cheapening the term to the point where it doesn't clearly convey a specific meaning any longer, and it accordingly makes it easy to dismiss your critics as irrational for feeling something for you that is so out of proportion to what is appropriate. I wonder what the reaction would have been had Max said that the actions of Ute fans were frustrating and unnecessarily hurtful? I bet that is what he really felt, and the impact of those words would have been radically different on many Ute fans.

BTW, we get a lot of lecturing that everyone hates us? Is that true in your life? Perhaps it is, not in mine though.

Here is the Merriam Webster definition, which again, is just interesting:

Main Entry: 1hate
Pronunciation: \ˈhāt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kēdos care
Date: before 12th century
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing <had a great hate of hard work>
2 : an object of hatred <a generation whose finest hate had been big business — F. L. Paxson>

[Solon]

Being hated is indeed a poor incentive to change.

But for all the people who are "lecturing Mormons", there are plenty of Mormons lecturing the world about the superiority of their faith.

Feeling hated is universal.

Everyone has a persecution complex.

[Sleeping in EQ]

In Book II of The Rhetoric, Aristotle lists "hate" as one of the appeals to pathos. He considers it not as a force to change a hated group but as a force to maintain cohesion with one's own group.

In other words, if Aristotle is correct, groups would/should use hate of Mormons (and of others, of course) to persuade themselves and to maintain their own cohesion. In this light, anti-Mormonism would be at least as much about mainting evangelical cohesion (or cohesion for a secular group, or whatever), as it would be about pressuring Mormons to change.

[creekster]

In Book II of The Rhetoric, Aristotle lists "hate" as one of the appeals to pathos. He considers it not as a force to change a hated group but as a force to maintain cohesion with one's own group.

In other words, if Aristotle is correct, groups would/should use hate of Mormons (and of others, of course) to persuade themselves and to maintain their own cohesion. In this light, anti-Mormonism would be at least as much about mainting evangelical cohesion (or cohesion for a secular group, or whatever), as it would be about pressuring Mormons to change.

I think that Aristotle knew what he was talking about. Hate, or dislike id UD prefers, is almost always used that way. I think it has the same effect on the targeted group, btw. If you think everyone hates or dislikes you and your buddies, you tend to cling more tightly to the group as opposed to the hater/dislikers.

I think something else is at work here too. IMO, many Mormons tend to be frustrated by the world's failure to embrace them. Mormons play the world's game to a large degree but the world still fails to embrace them. This leaves Mormons with an intense desire to be liked. Thus, the argument that others will not like us unless we do 'X' is used to try to leverage that desire to be liked, which many Mormons intuitively feel, on behalf of the speaker's agenda.

[TripletDaddy]

In Book II of The Rhetoric, Aristotle lists "hate" as one of the appeals to pathos. He considers it not as a force to change a hated group but as a force to maintain cohesion with one's own group.

In other words, if Aristotle is correct, groups would/should use hate of Mormons (and of others, of course) to persuade themselves and to maintain their own cohesion. In this light, anti-Mormonism would be at least as much about mainting evangelical cohesion (or cohesion for a secular group, or whatever), as it would be about pressuring Mormons to change.

Very interesting.

Does Aristotle opine on the inherent (if any) weakness of hate, esp when used as a means to conformity/cohesion?

It would seem that there is an implied admission of moral, intellectual, or social weakness when hatred is required to maintain cohesion. Or am I misreading?

It certainly would ring true with modern day examples. Groups that hate or that promote hatred (in the traditional sense of the word) are often championing very flimsy or extreme platforms that are not well-received...thus, the inherent weakness and need to fortify.

[Commando]

look at skinheads... how would they ever be a functioning organization without hate.

[UtahDan]

Hmm, so everyone agrees that we are talking about authentic hate, huh? A failure to critically examine the premise is in and of itself an interesting attempt to maintain internal cohesion, no?

[creekster]

Hmm, so everyone agrees that we are talking about authentic hate, huh? A failure to critically examine the premise is in and of itself an interesting attempt to maintain internal cohesion, no?

TO be honest I wasnt sure what point you were trying to make. If the use of the term hate was too harsh, and dislike is better simply becasue it is weaker, then you seem to be making the point that the motivations of the speaker and the reactions of the listener are going to be diluted. THis might mean the dynamic is not as strong as proposed, but it would still be a valid dynamic.

OTOH, if you mean to suggets that we use hate to mean dislike when we should mean hate, then our use of the word hate is operationally defined in a way that we all understand and so your point is only descriptive and doesnt' affect the dynamic at all.

Does this post mean I have also shown there is not pressure for internal cohesion?

[UtahDan]

TO be honest I wasnt sure what point you were trying to make. If the use of the term hate was too harsh, and dislike is better simply becasue it is weaker, then you seem to be making the point that the motivations of the speaker and the reactions of the listener are going to be diluted. THis might mean the dynamic is not as strong as proposed, but it would still be a valid dynamic.

My concern is that the incorrect perception that you are hated makes it easy to be dismissive when you shouldn't be and to in turn mischaracterize someone else.

Of course, since you are disagreeing me here, and do so often, probably you hate me and are and anti-UD. Not sure why I even responded since that is the case.

[Babs]

UtahDan,

aren't you the one who also once argued that we can't be passionate about anything?

It occurs to me that yours must be an awfully sterile and impassive existence (though likely one never lacking for semantic analysis).

[Portland Ute]

Being hated is indeed a poor incentive to change.

But for all the people who are "lecturing Mormons", there are plenty of Mormons lecturing the world about the superiority of their faith.

Feeling hated is universal.

Everyone has a persecution complex.

Perhaps everyone has a persecution complex, but Mormons and those that affiliate with LDS institutions seem to much more prone to it.

[Katy Lied]

Wow, I come back 12 hours later and what a great discussion with lots of novel ideas!

My problem here is that I don't have the first idea what "hate" in this context means. I think it is a word that is used so casually now that it has lost a great deal of its punch and can refer to a whole range of feelings . To me, it has become a proxy for discussion much the same way the word "racist" has. In other words, if you start from the proposition that anything is motivated by racism or hate, there is not much left to say because each is morally abhorrent, and yet each gets used to describe things that are not morally abhorrent and their meaning gets watered down as a result.

Actually, I am quite intriqued by your premise here. I'd vouchsafe that you advanced to the next iteration of the idea before others had the chance to flesh out its primary development, thus the lack of response.

Indy got a great start on developing the idea of the disutility of hate, and SIEQ chirped in with a Solon-like post on the function of hate on group cohesion. Despite hate's apparent failure as an impetus to change, Creekster talked about it's moderate success on modern mormons. Then DDD brings up some nice philosophical implications. And Babs chimes in with a zinger to keep us all intellectually honest and consistent.

I love you guys.

[Babs]

and Babs chimes in with a zinger to keep us all intellectually honest and consistent.

honesty schmonesty. I just wanted to knock UtahDan down a few pegs.