Talk:Hatred

How does hate affect others and you?

How do your action of hatred when based on impulse effect others? Thats pretty much the question! Hate is an important concept in buddhism, so it would be nice to see it from a buddhist perspective.--71.184.11.46 (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This article does not mention evolutionary cause and/or purpose of hatred

Does a lion hate its prey? It would be interesting to know. Why is there hate? Is hate an extreme state of "normal" agression? This article needs more background information. Do animals hate? I believe the wolf indeed hates sheep. The wolf has to hate sheep in order to be able to kill them, or without hate he would not succeed. The Nazi's needed to hate the Jews first, before they gained the willpower to exterminate the Jews. This means hate is a value-free system, which can be used for good (wolves feeding their children) and evil (men exterminating entire peoples). But other people also hate the Nazi's, which helped the resistance fight back, and helped many Jews escape from the camps.

Again, hate is value-free, it does not judge. But it is a valuable evolutionary tool to accomplish aggressive social change (killing). For people, hate both helps us win at sports, or to succeed in careers (defeating "the other guys") as much as it drags us down in wars (erasing "the other people"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.141.127 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Animals are psychopaths since they cannot feel emotions intensely if at all. Wolves and lions act on instinct and are constantly aggressive because they have no emotions to stop them from acting aggressively just like human psychopaths. For people who feel emotion hate is just a strong disliking for something or someone, it causes them to not want to be around that thing or person because of the negative feeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.143.63 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

An Improvement

This is a huge improvement but I still think the philosophy section should be removed. This article is supposed to be about hatred it is not titled "the philosophy of hatred". If we start putting peoples opinions in it then why not "Joe the plumber defines Hatred as..." and Sarah Palin thought that Hatred was... and man I can't believe you guys left out what Britany Spears thinks about hatred. I mean when I pull up the Wikipedia entry for the Holocaust I don't have to read about what the Olson twins define the holocaust as. If they have done some sort of research or studies about hatred that can be cited then fine but putting peoples opinions in there is ludicrous. Rene Descartes opinion is no more or less valid than the great philosopher Tom Cruise. The Holocaust article also needs to be added to the Links section I can't think of anything more relavent to the definition of hatred than that. You can define hatred as this or that but when you actually go to the holocaust article and see what hatred can do well that's more moving than any definition you will ever be able to give. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.76.124 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of definitions.

This article needs scientific and philosophical backgrounds. It needs to answer the question "What is hate?" and provide background information. Indeed, we do not need to know what pop artists and movie stars think hate is. But the well thought through conclusions of men and women of great intellect, some scientific and others philosophical, are valuable additions to any Wikipedia topic. It helps us understand better, gives us frames of reference, adds sources to the article. And was the holocaust really an act of hate, or of mechanical apathy? The true horror of the holocaust is that German men "went to work" without feeling anything for the Jews they would exterminate that day - mot even hate. That mechanical, systematic destruction of a people is the true holocaust. 98.14.141.127 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

First of All

Sigmund Freuds opinion is no more valid than mine. Rene Descartes i don't care how she viewed hate just because she is famous does not magically make her opinions more valuable than mine or anyone else’s, same goes for Baruch Spinoza. I thik it would be a lot better if we stopped putting other peoples opinions and views in it and got around to putting some facts in this article or short of that at least delete all the BS. This article needs to be based on facts not opinions. Studies and research, I see none of these things in this article. If Freud or any of the other people have done some sort of famous or obscure study or research that sheds some light on the subject then fine. However, throwing together a bunch of peoples opinions no matter how well known they are does not make a valid wikipedia entry.

-- In reaction to the above by someone else: Rene Descartes is a man. And the opinions of philsophers and other great minds matter a lot, and should be added to every wiki article. It's called citing and referencing. 98.14.141.127 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

-- Hate is one of many words that are tremendously challenging to approach head on, with the fact based approach you seek. Love, God, Good, and Evil are all such words with similarly "fuzzy" Wikipedia pages. Throuought the miliniea, scholars have found it is more useful to try to capture such concepts in fuzzy words rather than pin them down. The opinions of famous philosophers matter not because the philosopher was famous; they matter because the quotes they produced have stood the test of time and thousands of hours of scrutiny by eager minds. They should not be thought of as a thought of a single mind, but the collective consensus of those that came before us.

It is off topic, but an analogy came up in my head. The next mars lander is expected to be a tensegrity structure. This has a huge, interesting consequence: even describing how to tumble the structure over flat ground to move from point a to point b is almost impossible. The equations are just too nonlinear to put into hard concrete facts and have it still be useful. In exchange? Tensegrity structures can be several times stronger by weight than their counterparts with describable logical locomotion. So which is more important? Hard non fuzzy descriptions of its movement, or the chance to send more things into space by bringing their weight down?70.176.41.197 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Player Hating

I think the topic of "Player Hating" should be elaborated on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.138.12 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC) waraa waxaa adiga lee laudhahaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.237.66 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC) We can't use something picked out of urban dictionary.--72.74.112.203 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Love

The emotion is often stigmatized; yet it serves an important purpose, as does love. Just as love signals attachment, hatred signals detachment.

This setence is banal, arbitrary, and, insofar as hatred serves to bind or otherwise identify a person in terms of the object she hates, factually wrong. I recommend changes in line with the following suggestions:

1. The claim that hatred serves an important purpose needs to be qualified. As it stands this could mean anything or nothing.

2. I think something more interesting could be said about hatred than that it is the inversion of love. This is simple-minded and boring.

3. Attachment/detachment seems the wrong contrast here. It is not clear to me that hatred involves any less attachment than love, or that (some forms of) love need involve attachment at all.

Here's a quote from a psychoanalyst on the relationship between love and hate: "Persistent hate always reveals itself as a derivative of frustrated love". There's a little more detail here, http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PAQ.023.0136B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.88.63 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Love-Indifference

The following sentence:

...others (incorrectly) consider the opposite of hate to be indifference...

I have changed to

..."other consider the opposite of hate to be indifference"...

The insertion of incorrectly places a bias against the aforementioned opinion and destroys the neutrality prerequisite for a wikipedia article.

-Could someone edit the article: Broken Heart? It needs some work. K thanx :) Lordofchaosiori 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Meaningless rambling

I don't mean to be rude, but I think that this article should be entirely rewritten. Most of it has no relevance at all. The third paragraph starts with the rather non-informative statement that "Hatred is not necessarily irrational or unusual". What does that mean? Why write about what something is not? Next, it makes general statements about people, which an encyclopaedia article probably shouldn't. There are many possible reasons for hate or objects of hate, but they do not belong here either.

And why does the author go on and talk about racism, Western culture, what's socially acceptable, war training and logic?

The usage of the word by certain groups in describing prejudice against a group of people doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the article, which is presumably about hate, the emotion. It should be in a separate section, and include a reference to the person, field or group that defines it in this way.

I agree

How have we managed to list a few banal summarizations from pop psychology and ignored anyone who has spent any meaningful time and effort reflecting on the nature of hate. Let's hear some relevant expositions. It has been somehow completely omitted that hatred is a condition of imbalance and pathological illness in the mind of the hater.

--APDEF (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Article

The article was mostly written when I got here, but I added the 'meaningless rambling' because the article made 'hate' seem like a fundamentally bad thing. Hate is sometimes a rational emotion; if you mean to talk about the emotion of hate it certainly matters where hate comes from and why it evolved. It's been implicated in some pretty destructive things, so it's important to understand it rationally, which is what the encyclopedia should faciliate.

I expect only angry people and peace activists would be interested enough to write an article about hate, so it's not going to come out very well. However I do think it's better than nothing, and there's nothing wrong with listing some common causes of human hate because this is an encyclopedia for humans. I didn't write the hate crimes stuff, I think those laws are irrational and hypocritical, but they are part of the real world so we should acknowledge them. I tried to respect the existing article's perspective while introducing other ideas. Maybe we should write more now, then trim things later if necessary.

What should the article be? A medical description? A history of hate? A rant from philosophers? A subjective description of what it feels like? A taxonomy of animals that feel this emotion and animals that don't? An evolutionary history? A religious diatribe? Hate factors in to many aspects of the modern world, and I think our article here should accommodate as many of those as possible.

I came here expecting the philosophical and psychological views of hate and at the moment it looks a lot like someone's self-reflection on hatred (violating the no research rule) and then goes into the politics of hatred. I'm disappointed with the article, but I'm not interested in re-writing it.

Give it time. Hate like torture is a taboo topic that few professionals seem to have the courage to face head on. I imagine we will have better content as others who share your concerns bring in better sources.

LaVey quote

Can't we find a better quote regarding hate than one from the self-proclaimed head of the Satanic Church? If you read his books, you'll find within the half-baked moral 'theology' a somewhat skewed sense of most things, not least the concept of hate.

Since there's a link to Wikiquote anyway, I got rid of that quote.

External Links

Perhaps we should move "Hate group" to a new section labeled "See Also".

Disgusting, shameful - loathing

The Wiki article on Love bears the image of a Roman Eros statue - what is the corresponding image for Hate? And isn't it time we banned Hollywood, with its little mickeys and round tits?--shtove 04:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Eros is just one kind of love (and be honest ladies as eros can be hate too!). I seem to remember philia (sp) and agape as other forms of love. Seems to me we should show all forms of hate and love here and there.

Spinozistic Definition of Hate

Hate is belief that an external object will decrease the probability of your Perpetuation and Peace-of-Mind. The intensity is proportional to the decrease feared. Ethics:3P7.

Yeah

The true nature of life must be love. To love is to expand. To hate is to contract. Who wants to die alone?

you wish. Life has both good and bad, light and dark, love and hate. Who wants to die with a 'love' that is a loathsome lie? Hate has it's uses as it causes separation rather than contraction. We need to show hate here with NPOV here so that it is included as part of the whole sprectrum of human emotion. Hate is only the emotion...hate-associated deeds can be either 'good' or 'bad' depending on their consequences. I, for one, hate a lot with very loud rage releases everyday but most people who notice seem to fine with my hates as I harm no one and no thing. For me, hate has been quite freeing as it separates me from my mother who uses loathsome lie-love, low slow nice-vices and insidious covert incests to predate upon her children. I always love myself and others a lot more after I hate than before. IMHO we need to study hate a lot more before we make judgements on it.

Hate is an important factor in right, and wrong. To hate those who murder, kill, rape, and destroy life is considered good. Though it also has it's opposite effects. Hatred is not good in the sense of hating everything around you. Somethings are meant to be hated. 1: I hate ignorance. 2: I hate people that insult others. 3: I hate how this article is and because of that I wish to improve it, and make it better.--72.74.112.203 (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate your family

In the Bible, Jesus Christ said to "hate your family". It is often misread to literally mean despise. But Jesus actually meant by the Hebrew translation of hate, to love less than. He told people to show less love to fellow man, and fully love God.

As far as I know: 1. There is no word in Hebrew which means "love less than" (I am a native Hebrew speaker). 2. The current version of the New Testament is a translation from Greek. 3. No one can claim to know what "Jesus actually meant". 4. The trem "Jesus Christ" is not neutral.

Thanks.

I agree this article is very...dsigusting to say at the least.

For example

"Some believe that hate does not exist; and is merely a tragic misinterpretation brought on by misunderstanding."

A very loose tie between hate and being rascist... ""Hate" or "hatred" is also used to describe feelings of prejudice, bigotry or condemnation (see shunning) against a person, or a group of people, such as racism, and intense religious or political prejudice. The term hate crime is used to designate crimes committed out of hatred in this sense."

%%%%%%WHOA....Jesus NEVER said to hate your family. He said to LOVE your neighbor as yourself...if He said to love your neighbor, why would he say to HATE your family?????? Please quote where this is in the bible if you want to say that....thanks!! :) %%%%%%%%

I agree with the user above me, Jesus NEVER said to hate your family.Mooncrest (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Jesus said "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (King James, Luke 14:26)

What he meant was do not put people("family") first then God because people can turn away from you.Mooncrest (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Need to avoid toxins?

Where did that come from?! And what does it have to do with hate? --froth^{T C} 20:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Shameful

This article is a shame to Wikipedia; I thought surely this topic would have an extensive article, yet not only is it barely more than a stub, it is rife with nonsense (I removed some of it). Also, to the person above complaining about the LaVey quote: way to keep in line with Wikipedia standards of neutrality. If LaVey has a good quote that is relevant, it should be used. This isn't the place for religious bigotry or opinions.

I may try to rewrite this just because it's presently so awful, but I'm no psychologist or expert, so I'd appreciate help. -Lvthn13 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

--I agree, this article blows chunks. ((it's also not a place for cussing.))

Used to be a lot longer. I am displeased. Kurrupt3d (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatred - major motive behind armed conflict

That's disputable, as an overwhelming majority of conflicts were caused by economic reasons - thus it would be not hatred, but greed... With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it well known that although greed can be a great motivator, hate propaganda is often used to motivate the troops?78.15.214.12 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, War is also as a means for protection. Some Entity attacks another, the other will fight back to stay alive... I believe it's called the "Flight Or Fight Response"... Hate as a motive for war is more of a theory... The it was probably stated in one of the books used as a reference...

BigBluntman 09:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This Article is PATHETIC!

Come on wikipedia - this article is soooo much more than just an encyclopedia. What about scientific categorisations of hatred? What about "genetic similarity theory and ethnic nationalism", which is a paper that shows that EVEN RATS don't kill their own blood? What about juicy links to genocide studies? Surely the single most powerful motivator in human history deserves more of a cross-examination than this pathetic article? Jesus fucking Christ (with all due respect).

In reaction to the above (by someone else): Categorizations are a good idea. And studies on qualitative differences. And we can even throw in race: i.e. why are more white men psychopaths than in other races? Even though rats don't kill their own blood, last time I checked certain spider women eat their males; chimpansees kill each other too; many, many other animals get into deadly fights with each other. The exception is no the killing, but the organization of the killing. Man is the true artist of organized violence, thanks to our communication skills (language) and rigid social hierarchies (top-down piramids). 98.14.141.127 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hate or hatred

The article's title is "hate", but the article only talks about "hatred". Please make the terminology consistent. I don't know the subtle difference in meaning between the nouns "hate" and "hatred". Dictionary reference for "hate" as a noun:

1. Intense animosity or dislike; hatred.

2. An object of detestation or hatred: My pet hate is tardiness.

Since meaning 2 is not mentioned in the article, the article would better be named hatred. Han-Kwang 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

==I agree with the above. Also, hate of certain styles of music (i.e. Rap) would be helpful. -vic

W H Y T H I S ? ? ?

The introduction is: Often the verb "to hate" is used casually as an exaggeration to describe things one merely dislikes, such as a particular style of architecture, a certain climate or some particular kind of food. This examples are completely stupid. How can somebody give an example for hate, the hate to architecture or food? It sounds just so funny. I really dont like mashrooms, but when I see a mashroom, I really do not need to feel hate. Why dont you take hate for ceramics instead of architecture? Cant you see how many people feel hatred to porcelain cups? --Lycantrophe 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

how about more of the psychology of hatred?

or the vemon it contains? this article just seems rather dull. also it talks about the separation caused by hatred, but can't it be just as binding as love? just in an opposite fashion?

21:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)meh—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.141.45 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This article certainly needs to be expanded upon. I agree that hate should be viewed from a Philosophic and scientific point of view. Someone mentioned above that they didnt like the opening. I didnt care for its placement in the article but I do think its a relevant point. In the english language the word hate is thrown around a lot. Hate is often said when the person simply dislikes, so i understand the writers point, but it certainly could be rewritten without the examples, and placed somewhere else in the article. It shouldnt be the opening.Odin1 17:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

the dummy that wrote this article should go back 2 second grade its not mashrooms its mushrooms i-d-i-o-t duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.161.190 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not a religious point of view?

As love is a fundamnetal feeling and term in religion, especially Christianity, also hate is one. Why not bring this into the article as well. For example the word hate is mentioned in the King James translation of the Bible 85 times and love is mentioned 281 times. I would like to see this somehow in the article. For example on interperation of the Bibles texts conserning hate is that one should not hate. On the other hand it would be interresting to hear what muslims, hindus etc. think about hate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.197.235.210 (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! Hell of a lot more relevant than anything Sigmund FRAUD has to say. (oh yes... I'm clever.. I can mockingly alter a name)

Irony

This talk page has a lot of hate in it, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Expanding

This article could and should be vastly expanded. I would do it myself, but I have neither the time or the patience. Hatred is just as important and real as love, and look at the size of the love article. This is ridiculous!!! Jn motto (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hatred In Animals

Humans are fairly unique species, because humans wage war. (Please help by expanding this section: When did hate evolve? How do humans compare with other species in their manifestations of hate, and how long they internalize hate?) 18.202.1.193

Oh Bull. Ants wage war. Bees wage war. Many fish wage war. War does NOT equal hate. War is a result of MANY things, not necessarily hate. Sounds like more liberal wikipedia psychobabble. Oh we humans are just so terrible, we are a unique species that wages war. BS! with a capital B exclamation point. War is not unique to Humans and neither is Hate. Grow up.

I heard once that ants love honey. When they arrive in mass and attack a bee hive to plunder the spoils, the result is a fight between bees and ants. Sounds like war to me.

I suggest you study the behaviors of the social animals. You'd be surprised at what happens in a pride of lions, a pack of wolves or a school of fish. Just because scientists choose not to call these conflicts war, it doesnt mean it is not indeed war. Hate is a manifestation of the survival instinct. Gawd you guys crack me up. Ban me, block me, ridicule me I dont care anymore. Wikipedia is a damn joke anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.157.78 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, I really sense hate here. Anyway we are mainly talking about interspecies war at large scale. It seems that humans are almost unique in that, but I'm not sure. And why do you have to scream liberal? 78.15.214.12 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It was thought to be so. Chimpanzees have been found to engage in warfare too, though. True war. Conflicts involving rival chimp factions each with their own commanders/leaders, rank and file, etc, that last for a number of years on end. Assasinations, too. Interestingly, however, chimpanzees' closest relatives - bonobos - are extremely peaceful apes that do not engage in any kind of violence with one another whatsoever. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hate is awesome.--168.212.104.61 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not if you are the victim. You probably hate feminists because you think they hate you as a man, so if hate can be a defence, sometimes, group hatred sucks.78.15.214.12 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can drugs Chemical imbalances in brain bring on "hate"/Rage?

Just a unusual(?) question Can drugs affect brain causieng HATE /Rage? Know that certain druigs i.e Cocoa]ine can cvause paranolinia . Perhaps a "Happy Pill" (If one doesnt exsiistt?) can be found to induce well happiness. This is a real question? What Drugs play a part in causeing(if any) hate?UFOFRIEND (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Ok have a suggestion maybe the Editors of wikipedia might take some sensitivity classes traing. Is it my imagination or a Chemical imbalaance release of brain chemicals that makes me WANT TO HATE A GRERAT MANY WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FOR THERE ARROGANT HIGH HANDED COMMENTGS DELEATIONS OF MY TALK! AM A PERFECT SUBJECT I SUPPOSSE FOR A TEST FOR HATE BRAIN CHEMICALS! BYE!UFOFRIEND (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Does lynching entail hatred?

An unnamed editor removed the photograph of a lynching on the grounds that we cannot know whether people who commit lynching hate those whom they lynch. I restored the photograph on the grounds that we very certainly can. That's the first time I ever reverted anything substantive, and I ask Those Who Watch to track this topic from the start. Ornithikos (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As I expected, 166.205.9.32 restored the deletion of the picture, claiming that we can infer nothing from the picture. Different people can infer different things, or refuse to infer anything if that seems appropriate. I don't think this picture presents much of a puzzle, but I'm going to try restoring it with a caption that lets the picture speak for itself. Ornithikos (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Im not sure one can take a picture of hate. We can infer the state of the minds of others by their actions but the scene from a lynching does not do. Per Wikipedia Lynching is an "extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob", this does not imply 'hatred' per se, but rather a misguided attempt at justice. The photo does not contribute any information relevant to the meaning of "hate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.247 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly we cannot photograph hate, or any emotion. We can only photograph correlates of an emotion, and use such photos to help indicate to others which emotion we refer to. For example, to illustrate hunger, I would show some pictures of emaciated people with a desiccated farm in the background, and other pictures of healthy people eating enthusiastically at a table full of food. We might not know for sure what any of the people feel, but no one capable of hunger would have much doubt about what emotion was represented.

Similarly, we can photograph people committing acts of hate, such acts themselves, and people experiencing the effects of such acts. Such photographs would help indicate what we mean by hate to anyone capable of recognizing that hate exists. The photos would be no less effective if they were actually all photographs of actors portraying hate. We need not stop trying to portray emotion merely because we are actually portraying only its concomitants. Essentially every photograph of a human shows emotional content.

To me the picture of the Duluth lynching is extraordinarily evocative of hate, even more so than the analogous pictures of certain Nazi activities: this is the English Language Wikipedia, and lynchings are an American phenomenon. However, others might regard some other picture as a better portrayal. If you can find a more evocative picture of hate, perhaps it should be used instead. You could display candidates on this Talk page. That technique was used successfully with the Cats article. Ornithikos (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking a little farther, as I should have sooner, I found that the disputed caption of this picture was not an interpretation of the picture. The caption and the picture are both extracts from 1920 Duluth lynchings. Nor does any source say that the men in the picture are the perpetrators. To further reduce subjectivity in the disputed caption, I'm updating it to replace the generic reference to the event with a pointer to the specific article that provides the details. Ornithikos (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychoanalytic view(s) ? Archaic?

Is psychoanalysis even part of contemporary social science? Psychology has moved away from its pseudoscientific roots and become a fully fledged evidence-based science. Psychoanalysis lacks evidence, and thus it's views on the topic are completely irrelevant to the topic and belong on the psychoanalysis page. We don't include the scientologist views on hatred here either.

Moreover, there is only one sentence in this section even pertaining to psychoanalysis ("In psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness."). The rest is not related to psychoanalysis. The dictionary is just that, and the last line has no source but since it mentions psychologists, and not all psychologists are psychoanalysts, it too has no place there.

I propose immediate eradication of this section. The dictionary entry can perhaps be salvaged and moved to another section, but it'd be more useful if someone opened it and checked what their source was, because this citation is meaningless as is as well (The Penguin dictionary is not akin in status to the APA's DSM; it is JUST (another) reference book.)

94.214.196.189 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hatred as Normal Pathology

This article would be greatly improved by incorporating ideas from The Pathology of Man, by Steven James Bartlett (2005) which includes what may be the most thorough treatment of hatred available (especially pages 237-252). Bartlett says that hatred is a natural human response to many situations involving other people, a potential waiting for an outlet, both self-fueling and self-reinforcing. Hatred is compulsive, obsessional, and defines reality in a special way. "Hatred is a normal emotional and cognitive state which is destructive and undesirable, and hence pathological. [It has] its own special logic and its own ontology....The hater sharply delimits the world in which he lives." Bartlett not only describes the different elements of hatred but explains why it persists because of a number of (short-term) psychological benefits, giving the hater a sense of emotional security, determination, excitement, a sense of community, personal superiority, and immediate relief by distraction from the anxieties of everyday life. Hatred can be shared and communicated like a contagion allowing individuals "to affiliate with others in a camaraderie of hatred." Also if the article contains Christian views of hatred it should also include other religious and philosophical views. 12.160.114.250 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Too Religious

This article would be improved a lot if it had more than just one religious point of view, or alternatively, a heavier focus on philosophical and scientific points of view. This page has sections on the Bible that seem almost like they're teaching more about that text than the general human understanding of hatred. It's unbalanced. This isn't the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I agree with this, it appears to be defining hatred as some religions understanding and the language appears to state them as facts instead of views. I've removed that section. Smk65536 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that more perspectives would improve the article, especially a scientific one. That being said, I don't see how removing a perspective that was already developed helps provide additional perspectives. Leaving one theological perspective included may encourage alternative perspectives to be researched and added. You are completely correct when you point out that this is not the Christian Encyclopedia (paraphrasing), and it is up to those of us who believe it should contain other perspectives to research and contribute them. If a certain perspective (Christian or otherwise) was straying too far from the main article, then the digression could simply be relocated to the appropriate article and a linked to. In any case, deleting the entire section of one theological perspective is unnecessary. After reviewing the deleted section, I think there is definitely a worthwhile element that draws connections between this theological perspective and the legal issues section. I've restored the section. If the section has a problem, let's identify them and correct or trim them rather than delete it entirely. Jayswolf (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hatred. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090103151609/http://www.plosone.org:80/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003556;jsessionid=0C68BB34FD6B6212E02B082F9B250990 to http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003556;jsessionid=0C68BB34FD6B6212E02B082F9B250990
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126153146/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/ to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Psychopaths do not want people to feel hate

Hatred protects people from psychopaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.229.227 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What does invailentsry mean?

In the first paragraph it says "invailentsry" towards other people. What? --62.235.123.139 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. That was vandalism from a few weeks ago, which hadn't been spotted. Thanks for the heads-up! --bonadea contributions talk 06:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

References on 'Religious Perspectives on Hate'

In the discussion of how the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures' discussion of hate supports or contradicts a modern Western view of hatred (at least targeting persons or groups) as wrong, a quotation from Leviticus 19 is cited to argue that contemporary culture has changed a lot as the Levitical standard for non-hatred involved rebuking sin, while 'contemporary culture may consider the rebuking endorsed by the Bible to be hatred, especially if the behavior is permissible in secular society.' Three references are provided; the first is to a paper on Hate Crimes by the Williams Institute.

When I saw the language of the last paragraph as recited here, I immediately suspected it was written by someone holding an anti-LGBTQ Christian conservative view, one which I formerly held myself. It is reminiscent of slogans such as Operation Save America, 'Truth sounds like Hate to those that Hate the Truth' and memes which circulated following the Duck Dynasty controversy over Phil Robertson's statements on the Bible and sexuality in 2013. I would not delete the edit itself on that ground, as it reflects a truth: some Christians do believe the Bible to endorse a robust rebuking of individuals, for example, attending Pride events; many people exposed to such condemnation or simply holding a different religious/ethical perspective would indeed class it as hatred (dependent on words used, context and other factors); and this conflict will often arise when secular society has a different understanding to the Christians doing the rebuking of whether the targeted individuals are 'doing anything wrong'.

However, the Williams Institute reference (apart from confirming my inkling about the motivation of this edit) was a different matter. As even its title states, it covers"hate 'CRIMES ' " against LGBT+ folks as part of the specialist research of the WI within University of California (Los Angeles). Hate crimes as defined by this or other mainstream U.S. organizations DO NOT include 'rebuke', even if forceful and highly offensive to hearers and/or prevailing social norms. Rather, it refers to harassment, vandalism, and physical acts such as beating, punching, spitting at, torturing or even murdering individuals based on their membership in a particular community which the perpetrator holds animus towards. The effect of including this reference to support the point about how 'contemporary culture' views conservative Christian expression as hatred is to 1) further the myth that hate crimes protections in the United States are equivalent to "hate speech" restrictions and thus will deny 'Bible believers' their freedom of speech or 2) justify the kind of acts actually prohibited in these laws, suggesting that while 'contemporary culture' as represented by a major California research university's queer-focused (and queer-affirming) output might consider, say, beating a person for coming out as gay to be hateful those who are "endorsed by the Bible" have a different, legitimate view.

The former is the more likely interpretation, but neither is acceptable in a non-sectarian encyclopedia. Hence I removed the reference. If a reference could be found talking about the Duck Dynasty controversy I mentioned where Robertson's comments are labelled hateful by his critics, or one addressing street preaching (many fundamentalist street preachers use precisely the argument that true love is rebuking sinners to justify aggressive confrontational preaching and use of graphic signs in public, while many outside their community do not accept these tactics as manifestations of anything but hatred and misplaced anger) this would be an appropriate replacement.

Religious content loosely related to the page

This page should be focused on the subject of hatred itself. There was a sentence describing how Jesus' sermon on the mount overturned earlier Jewish theology about hatred. That's an interesting topic, but it does not belong on this page. The fact that the sentence capitalized "he" when referring to Jesus indicates that it was written by someone who holds Christian convictions, but that is not a reason to depart from MOS:GOD. I deleted the sentence because it does not deal with the definition of hatred in any way. Rather, it is about the emphasis on love for enemies in Christian thought, which is too indirectly related to the subject of the article to be included. Loving enemies is mentioned in Love and is appropriate there. Additional references to Christian thought in this article should focus on scriptural mentions of hatred.Chagropango (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)