SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - I finally understand why hate SHV and the devs

Decoman · 04-08-10, 04:53 AM

'Hate' is an interesting word. I would argue that it unfortunately means more than the obvious angry discontent with something or someone.

What ought to be the topic of serious contemplation or reflect, is the fact that 'hate' is not really directly associated with 'racism' or 'violence'. Anger or ill will would surely be a more apt description of something emotional or expressive, merely *associated* with the word 'hate', 'hatred' or 'hating'.

I am not trying to be clever here to justify ill will in any way, but a discussion of 'hate' or how we use the variants of the word 'hate' ought to be a serious one, because it seem obvious that once there is a watering down or outright condemnation of the word 'hate', it trivialized and barres something serious. It's like condemning people for being or expressing anger in normal ways.

And one way of talking about a normal way, is to point out the fact that people are sometimes really angry, and it is then of little or no importance that the word 'hate' is used, as if the use of the word as such made people angry.

Now, I tried to learn the etymological knowledge about the word 'hate' and so far, it seems like the noun hate or verb hating is linked to the more common word 'hat'. This link is probably not of great importance, but helps sketching out how words are used, and I would say that this link show an example of how this scary word 'hate' can be said to have a more trivial meaning. Afaik, etymology is useful in dealing with dead metaphors, for understanding the forgotten or also subtle meaning of a what can be said to be a dead metaphor. 'Flower bed' is supposedly an example of a dead metaphor.

So, what I came across some time ago (and I have to believe that what I read is not something just made up) is that convicts (unknown of time or place) were tagged by an item, and without any real explanation of the link between hat and hate, (if I remember correcty) the older word 'hatting' was supposedly used for this event. And it seem obvious that in this respect, that 'hate' might very well be understood as a simple exposition by event or some kind of tagging. Simliar to any common mental processes putting words to context. From this there is the obvious danger of harassing others, if one were to try brand or dispose or exlude someone physically. It is safe to claim that noone presently *really* bothers about controlling thought processes, and I don't see how this will change anytime soon other than influencial or a quasi-manipulative media (like being passively relating to *something* by reading newsitems)(probably simply a question of situational acceptance more than anything concrete), but then there is the unavoidable situations where for example the accusation of a 'scandal' of someone/something would only be sensible by means of various forms of expression. As in flat out saying 'I think this blah blah is a scandal and that you (someone) is to be blamed for it'. The legal repercussions or social backlash of such expressions probably simply vary (for a variety of reasons) with levels of, well I don't really know, but I suppose that a policeman or school teacher is likely to risk some kind of negative feedback rather than some guy on the internets.

Now, given our ability to put words to things, even in anger and simple discontent, *to hate x for something* (any reason really) is not really anything like a crime as such. So I am subscribing to two sensible interpretations when 'hate', 'hating' or 'hated' is used. And these two interpretations or ways of understanding is nothing like the stupefying use of categories. 'Hate' never was and probably never will have a categorical meaning, where the word 'hate' is simply a denominator of an action of attitude, doing or simply an interpretation or condemnation. The attitude part is correct of course, but it would be silly to imply that one cannot or should not be angry with something. There is also something odd by the use of 'freedom' in our days, and it probably does not the same thing for every person. For example, it seem obvious that there is a difference in being free (to do something) and having so called 'freedom'. I am undoubtedly free to move about in my appartment as I wish and what is probably known as 'freedom' has nothing to do with this capacity of me moving about, unless one would argue that my very life is depending on society in not outright killing me (it would be absurd, and it would imply that a state or organization owns me like a slave).

Pheu, this became a long text. The world/life is complicated and I see no reason to always trivialize it.

So if I were to state that 'I hate this or that game' for whatever reason stated or otherwise, there probably is something to it, and I mean it would be wrong to categorically dismiss such an expression on the basis of some kind of hate crime. Apologies for mixing the notion of hate-crime with computer games, but I am really trying to make a point.

In Norway, when one hate something, a common way to express this seem to be something of an understatement, where one would say 'I don't like it'. And I want to change that, at least personally. So far, it seem to me that people seem unable to grasp the nuances in the language, probably a result of the trivial use of words in the media the last 20 years or so. Or they just don't care. Maybe they simply have been thinking that I am complaining and that they don't have to listen or understand it because they think I simply intend to argue. It is really simple to deal with critisism. People ought to make points and they ought to explain. Both making points without explanation, and explaining something without making points is bad. Then it perhaps leads to a neverending argument of definitions and problematics of actualizations.

I suppose some kind of ironic distance is healthy, but I really can't relate to things this way, and I don't want my newspapers to relate to people this way.

Hehe, I would say that I hate the newspapers in Norway. They seem to practice shoddy journalism.

I suppose frequent use of 'hate' is stupefying, but then again, what isn't stupefying when used over again and again categorically or generally.

EDIT: I did not intend to start a discussion, but I just wanted to make a point. There are alot of issues that I could touch upon, but I just want to add here this link to a lecture class at Yale university (US) that ought to be inspiring.
Introduction to theory of literature:

04-08-10, 04:53 AM	#7
Decoman Frogman Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 306 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	'Hate' is an interesting word. I would argue that it unfortunately means more than the obvious angry discontent with something or someone. What ought to be the topic of serious contemplation or reflect, is the fact that 'hate' is not really directly associated with 'racism' or 'violence'. Anger or ill will would surely be a more apt description of something emotional or expressive, merely associated with the word 'hate', 'hatred' or 'hating'. I am not trying to be clever here to justify ill will in any way, but a discussion of 'hate' or how we use the variants of the word 'hate' ought to be a serious one, because it seem obvious that once there is a watering down or outright condemnation of the word 'hate', it trivialized and barres something serious. It's like condemning people for being or expressing anger in normal ways. And one way of talking about a normal way, is to point out the fact that people are sometimes really angry, and it is then of little or no importance that the word 'hate' is used, as if the use of the word as such made people angry. Now, I tried to learn the etymological knowledge about the word 'hate' and so far, it seems like the noun hate or verb hating is linked to the more common word 'hat'. This link is probably not of great importance, but helps sketching out how words are used, and I would say that this link show an example of how this scary word 'hate' can be said to have a more trivial meaning. Afaik, etymology is useful in dealing with dead metaphors, for understanding the forgotten or also subtle meaning of a what can be said to be a dead metaphor. 'Flower bed' is supposedly an example of a dead metaphor. So, what I came across some time ago (and I have to believe that what I read is not something just made up) is that convicts (unknown of time or place) were tagged by an item, and without any real explanation of the link between hat and hate, (if I remember correcty) the older word 'hatting' was supposedly used for this event. And it seem obvious that in this respect, that 'hate' might very well be understood as a simple exposition by event or some kind of tagging. Simliar to any common mental processes putting words to context. From this there is the obvious danger of harassing others, if one were to try brand or dispose or exlude someone physically. It is safe to claim that noone presently really bothers about controlling thought processes, and I don't see how this will change anytime soon other than influencial or a quasi-manipulative media (like being passively relating to something by reading newsitems)(probably simply a question of situational acceptance more than anything concrete), but then there is the unavoidable situations where for example the accusation of a 'scandal' of someone/something would only be sensible by means of various forms of expression. As in flat out saying 'I think this blah blah is a scandal and that you (someone) is to be blamed for it'. The legal repercussions or social backlash of such expressions probably simply vary (for a variety of reasons) with levels of, well I don't really know, but I suppose that a policeman or school teacher is likely to risk some kind of negative feedback rather than some guy on the internets. Now, given our ability to put words to things, even in anger and simple discontent, to hate x for something (any reason really) is not really anything like a crime as such. So I am subscribing to two sensible interpretations when 'hate', 'hating' or 'hated' is used. And these two interpretations or ways of understanding is nothing like the stupefying use of categories. 'Hate' never was and probably never will have a categorical meaning, where the word 'hate' is simply a denominator of an action of attitude, doing or simply an interpretation or condemnation. The attitude part is correct of course, but it would be silly to imply that one cannot or should not be angry with something. There is also something odd by the use of 'freedom' in our days, and it probably does not the same thing for every person. For example, it seem obvious that there is a difference in being free (to do something) and having so called 'freedom'. I am undoubtedly free to move about in my appartment as I wish and what is probably known as 'freedom' has nothing to do with this capacity of me moving about, unless one would argue that my very life is depending on society in not outright killing me (it would be absurd, and it would imply that a state or organization owns me like a slave). Pheu, this became a long text. The world/life is complicated and I see no reason to always trivialize it. So if I were to state that 'I hate this or that game' for whatever reason stated or otherwise, there probably is something to it, and I mean it would be wrong to categorically dismiss such an expression on the basis of some kind of hate crime. Apologies for mixing the notion of hate-crime with computer games, but I am really trying to make a point. In Norway, when one hate something, a common way to express this seem to be something of an understatement, where one would say 'I don't like it'. And I want to change that, at least personally. So far, it seem to me that people seem unable to grasp the nuances in the language, probably a result of the trivial use of words in the media the last 20 years or so. Or they just don't care. Maybe they simply have been thinking that I am complaining and that they don't have to listen or understand it because they think I simply intend to argue. It is really simple to deal with critisism. People ought to make points and they ought to explain. Both making points without explanation, and explaining something without making points is bad. Then it perhaps leads to a neverending argument of definitions and problematics of actualizations. I suppose some kind of ironic distance is healthy, but I really can't relate to things this way, and I don't want my newspapers to relate to people this way. Hehe, I would say that I hate the newspapers in Norway. They seem to practice shoddy journalism. I suppose frequent use of 'hate' is stupefying, but then again, what isn't stupefying when used over again and again categorically or generally. EDIT: I did not intend to start a discussion, but I just wanted to make a point. There are alot of issues that I could touch upon, but I just want to add here this link to a lecture class at Yale university (US) that ought to be inspiring. Introduction to theory of literature: Last edited by Decoman; 04-08-10 at 05:14 AM.