"Hate" can sometimes be a healthy emotion and an ethical expression

 
So this has been on my mind
ever since this issue (recently) came up on a Mythvision livestream.
--
In certain contexts,
people cringe when they hear the word "hate".


It's ok to say something like "I hate that food" or "I hate Mondays".


But when it comes to how we feel about X, whenever X is tied to someone else's sense of identity, ...
There's an unwritten social etiquette and common notion of "ethics", to refrain from an "I hate that" position;
- as if such a thing would be a gross sort of attack on the sacred identity and values of others.


So then, most critics of certain specific religions (categories, sects, etc.) will:


a.) avoid saying they "hate" that religion.
and
b.) actively speak down about anyone who DOES say they "hate" that religion;
- accusing the "hater" of being ethically, socially, or cognitively immature or dysfunctional.


I saw that this past week in a Mythvision livestream.

A common guest speaker was pretty critical of atheists who admit to something like hating Islam or Christianity (note: this not-at-all the same as saying someone "hates the believers").


I see the same thing in "Stoicism" groups; where the norm is to pretend to be as SPOCK as possible.


They won't even say they "hate" child molesters, or slave traffickers; because:
Then they'd be admitting to a strong negative emotion.


So they'll just say
"It's a shame when such things happen. But I don't hate anything. I merely see some things as negative, without letting myself feel emotional about it.


So I'll stand against an injustice, but I won't feel strongly about it; because only people whose emotions own them ... ever let emotions grow that tall.
It's like the lawn. You gotta keep it short, so you don't get lost in it.".


For philosophy's sake, and for mental health sake, I get that.
I do.


But when I look up the word "hate" in a dictionary,
it reveals that position to be (in most cases) pretty disingenuous and unfair. Because:


The same people who will say "I don't hate X", will say "Instead, I ____ X";
and then they use the DEFINITION of "hate" in place of the word.
---
~However~ most Stoics and "balanced, objective, mature intellectuals" feel about predators (and otherwise good people whom have been duped into helping predators)
[people who do a lot of real damage to other people's lives]
...
They either:
a.) actually, secretly DO "hate" certain destructive religions
(they just won't admit it; even to themselves)
or otherwise
b) Why in the hell not?
----
I don't hate the infected.


I hate the disease.


I hate the immeasurable suffering it causes,
and the social TABOOS used to shield it from accountability.


I don't hate delivery agents and supporters.
But I do hate the mafia they are unwittingly working for.


If you don't hate the disease, then fine. But someone is not really a more healthy, balanced, or mature person
on the basis of romanticizing or downplaying it.


Nor is anyone ~necessarily~ angry, toxic, or unhinged,
to express a ~definitively negative regard~ for something which rationally and ethically warrants a ~definitely negative regard~.


[Directly relevant materials will be posted in comments]