I hate you because you're a Republican

[NinjaSurfer]

It seems interesting to hate someone because of an opinion or set of opinions they hold. Democrats hate Republicans, Christians vs non-Christians, etc. Where does this instinctual hate come from? Are we naturally scared of something that is different from our own? Or, have we become brainwashed to believe our livelihood is at stake? Maybe different is synonymous with enemy. Maybe we are led to believe that it is always a zero-sum game, and that the mere existence of the other different party means less for us; and, therefore we wish for their demise.

Even regarding topics as harmless as "what is a genius?" seems to arouse animosity. Whenever divergent opinions emerge, resentment towards ones holding such ideas/beliefs also emerge. We tend to see opposing opinions as challenges to our own way of life, and thus develop hate towards those who hold those ideas.

 

[Cogwulf]

Because the human race evolved in tribal and familial groups. It's in our nature to separate ourselves into "us and them", it doesn't just apply to things like politics, our entire society is built upon it, from the school playground to the world leaders.
There is a double whammy here, as we are born with the mental programming to do this, and then society continually reinforces these tendencies until adulthood.

It has always seemed to me as though if you limit peoples ability to form groups, it actually causes people to lose their identity rather than gain individuality. It is much more common in the more common types, but even the most individualistic INTPs seem to have loose associations to particular groups.

 

[scorpiomover]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#The_role_of_Group_Membership]The role of Group Membership[/url]

Based on general altruism research which suggests that helping behaviour is more likely where there is similarity between the helper and the person being helped, recent research has considered the role of similarity, and more specifically, shared group membership, in encouraging bystander intervention. In a 2005 experiment, researchers found that passers-by were more likely to help an apparently injured person if that person was wearing a football jersey which supported the same team as them than an opposing team. However, when their shared identity as football fans was made salient instead, supporters of both teams were likely to be helped, significantly more so than a person wearing a plain shirt. [13]

In 2008 a study by Mark Levine and Simon Crowther found that increasing group size inhibited intervention in a street violence scenario when bystanders were strangers but encouraged intervention when bystanders were friends. They also found that when gender identity is salient group size encouraged intervention when bystanders and victim shared social category membership. In addition, group size interacted with context-specific norms that both inhibit and encourage helping. The bystander effect is not a generic consequence of increasing group size. When bystanders share group-level psychological relationships, group size can encourage as well as inhibit helping.[14]

These, and many other findings, which suggest that helping behaviour in general, and specifically bystander intervention is more likely in the context of shared group membership can be explained in terms of self-categorization and empathy. From the perspective of self-categorization theory, a person’s own social identity, well-being is tied to their group membership so that when a group based identity is salient, the suffering of one group member can be considered to directly affect another group member. This shared identity, referred to as self-other merging, is able to form the basis of empathy, which has been found to predict helping behaviour. For example, in a study relating to helping after eviction where both empathy, social identification and helping behaviour were measured, both social identification and empathy were found to predict helping, however, when social identification was controlled, empathy no longer predicted helping behaviour.[15]

See?

 

[Fukyo]

It seems interesting to hate someone because of an opinion or set of opinions they hold.

I don't find it odd, beliefs and opinions are reflections of their holder.

 

[TriflinThomas]

I don't hate republicans, but I do think (today's) conservatives are annoying.

 

[EditorOne]

"Are we naturally scared of something that is different from our own?"


We are naturally cautious upon confronting something not experienced or encountered before. Pretty good inherited instinct or whatever, keeps you from sticking your hand in the lava flow or whatever. I know if a space ship lands and giant bug gets off, I'm going to wait to see what happens before I go smile and shake hands. That's a little different than being afraid, though, isn't it?

Some of what's happening today is natural caution with gasoline poured on it by politicians eager to heighten emotions, polarize differences, and get votes as a result. Having a plausible authority figure point to something different and tell you to be afraid seems to overcome the ability to reason in a lot of folks, almost as if they want to indulge their fears and let them run their minds and lives. Doesn't particularly make sense or appeal to me, but it's the way a lot of people are. Short of slapping them all silly -- our arms would get tired -- I'm not sure there's much one can do about it except set a good example and ridicule the worst examples of groundless fears used in decision making by overwrought ninnies.

 

[Vladimir]

Does some of it have to do with pride?

 

[walfin]

what is a genius?

What is a Republican?

 

[Words]

I hate most people who have strong opinions oppositional to mine, because most of them are downright stupid. Why do i hate? Because i hate falsehood and because i value truth. It's different from tribalism.

 

[intpz]

Because they are stupid, overly-emotional fucks...

Because they are manipulated.

Because a familiar environment feels warm.

Because an unfamiliar environment is suspicious.

Because they think that what they think is the absolute truth.

Because of more because points.

 

[scorpiomover]

I hate most people who have strong opinions oppositional to mine, because most of them are downright stupid. Why do i hate? Because i hate falsehood and because i value truth. It's different from tribalism.

"Of course it is.", said the guy who has the opposite opinion than you. That's why he hates you too, because he values truth, and he is sure that you are being downright stupid.

:smiley_emoticons_mr

 

[Words]

"Of course it is.", said the guy who has the opposite opinion than you. That's why he hates you too, because he values truth, and he is sure that you are being downright stupid.

I can understand how I may be perceived in such a way, but I'm rarely on the side of falsehood, I rarely err. This is not because I am so intelligent, it is because I'm the most insecure. I doubt. I argue against myself. The truths I do believe in are obvious. And although "obvious" is quite a relative term, I have better credibility than most people, seeing as i have higher standard for truth. So, yes, I do have a right to be arrogant about people being too arrogant about the untrue.

Because they are stupid, overly-emotional fucks...

Because they are manipulated.

Because a familiar environment feels warm.

Because an unfamiliar environment is suspicious.

Because they think that what they think is the absolute truth.

Because of more because points.

In case you are experiencing paranoia, I am not referring to you when I mention "stupid people." I am mostly talking about people irl.

 

[intpz]

I know @Words, I know... You hate people with different opinions. I don't blame you for assaulting me in the middle of the day.

 

[Words]

I know @Words, I know... You hate people with different opinions. I don't blame you for assaulting me in the middle of the day.

I take it back. You are now in my list. >.>

 

[intpz]

I hope you're not the guy with lipstick and a shotgun.

 

[skip]

It seems interesting to hate someone because of an opinion or set of opinions they hold. Democrats hate Republicans, Christians vs non-Christians, etc.

Thinking people don't do this.

 

[Jennywocky]

Thinking people don't do this.

Well, as long as their thought patterns aren't subservient to their prejudices...

 

[Jedi]

If you lived in the rural midwest you probably would hate republicans.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@TriflinThomas

I don't hate republicans, but I do think (today's) conservatives are annoying.

You mean neo-cons or Barry Goldwater type conservatives?

I'm just wondering. ^_^

 

[Trebuchet]

I didn't hate Republicans, but I am a Democrat in a largely Republican area, and they clearly hate us. They use rhetoric involving violence toward us, implying that Democrats aren't patriotic, or even that we want to destroy our country, and a lot of other hateful stuff. I've heard them say they hate Democrats. It is hard not to hate in return, in the face of that.

I was raised to hold tolerance in high esteem, and I don't like this antipathy in myself, but it is hard to fight it.

 

[TriflinThomas]

You mean neo-cons or Barry Goldwater type conservatives?

I'm just wondering. ^_^

Neo-cons

 

[EditorOne]

"I rarely err. "

If you ask them, Words, you'll hear the people with whom you disagree say the same thing....

Meanwhile, what Trebuchet said. The hate rhetoric seems primarily to come from the radical conservative/Christian wing of what used to be the Republican Party. It is now, to quote, a discredited assemblage of wannabe warlords and religious fanatics. Quite like the Taliban, they preach destruction of their enemies, which is a dramatic scorning of the essential social contract in any form of government that has elections. The implicit bargain is that once elected, you are responsible for everyone's wellbeing even if you steer patronage and benefits to your supporters. The American Taliban is a throwback to medieval times, when there were no elections, government was decided by violence, and the losers lost life and property to the victors and, if they survived, often had to change religions. Really, I'd rather not see that happen, but the sociopathic nature of many of the Tea Party/neocons - they believe what they think as soon as their imagination provides it, and their imaginations are counseled by fear and hatred - means there's a real danger if they gain any more power. Give these people control over the United States military and we could have an end to personal liberties here and wars that will make the Crusades look like a Boy Scout hike.

 

[Words]

"I rarely err. "

If you ask them, Words, you'll hear the people with whom you disagree say the same thing....

i wish people would stop replying to a single sentence when it is within a very important paragraph. You have said the same thing scorpio said, and so i will only rephrase. I know myself, and I know most people. In a gladiator battle for truth, i know i'll triumph. This is generalization, but it is a reasonable one. The point of stating this in this thread is to present the idea that while some people are very dogmatic and despise others because of their dogmatism, others only despise others because of stupidity. It is different. One values a worldview, the other values only logic.

 

[EditorOne]

"i wish people would stop replying to a single sentence when it is within a very important paragraph."

It does get annoying.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

"i wish people would stop replying to a single sentence when it is within a very important paragraph."

It does get annoying.

An incomplete sentence would be more __________ than _________

 

[Irukanji]

It seems interesting to hate someone because of an opinion or set of opinions they hold.

It is natural to hate that which is different to us. In the "hunter-gatherer" days, they'd stick to their own tribe, and the enemy was the other tribe who was only there to steal your resources and women. So over time it became ingrained into us(humans) that those who are different to us, either in mental state, religious beliefs, skin colour, wealth, etc were the enemy.

People even hate each other over the type of clothes others wear, or whether they are a dog or cat person. If it could be explained, we might not have this problem of Christian vs Muslim, Dog vs Cat, Republican vs Democrat (or Liberal vs Labour for the Aussies).

 

[Atheist]

It seems interesting to hate someone because of an opinion or set of opinions they hold. Democrats hate Republicans, Christians vs non-Christians, etc. Where does this instinctual hate come from? Are we naturally scared of something that is different from our own? Or, have we become brainwashed to believe our livelihood is at stake? Maybe different is synonymous with enemy. Maybe we are led to believe that it is always a zero-sum game, and that the mere existence of the other different party means less for us; and, therefore we wish for their demise.

Even regarding topics as harmless as "what is a genius?" seems to arouse animosity. Whenever divergent opinions emerge, resentment towards ones holding such ideas/beliefs also emerge. We tend to see opposing opinions as challenges to our own way of life, and thus develop hate towards those who hold those ideas.

The majority of the species is irrational, and lets emotions rule them. People are so emotionally unstable that even a difference of opinion threatens the ego.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

It is natural to hate that which is different to us. In the "hunter-gatherer" days, they'd stick to their own tribe, and the enemy was the other tribe who was only there to steal your resources and women. So over time it became ingrained into us(humans) that those who are different to us, either in mental state, religious beliefs, skin colour, wealth, etc were the enemy.

People even hate each other over the type of clothes others wear, or whether they are a dog or cat person. If it could be explained, we might not have this problem of Christian vs Muslim, Dog vs Cat, Republican vs Democrat (or Liberal vs Labour for the Aussies).

I think part of the problem is that the beliefs that most people hold were not conclusions that they reached using logic. Many of their beliefs were taken from their parents, while many others came from friends or teachers. Most people either don't want to review all of their beliefs and update the ones that don't work or they aren't even capable of looking at them objectively. They may say, "I'm right, and if you don't hold my views, you must not be as smart (see inferior) as me because you are wrong," and start equating the people who believe something they disagree with their beliefs [which they (may) hate].