Two words that get thrown around a lot nowadays are "hate" and "evil." Whether you read them online, hear them on TV, or speak them to your friends, these two words, particularly "hate," are clearly a fairly common part of our vocabulary. While many people don't really regulate their use of these words — they often throw them out there without much thought — I prefer to attach some guidelines to my use of these supposedly potent words.
Dictionary.com defines "hate" as "to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest." Now I'm well aware of the existence of hyperbole and the benefits it has for getting across messages, but I feel like saying "The class is so difficult — I hate Professor Smith" is a bit unnecessary. Call me oversensitive, but using very negative hyperbole like that to describe people probably does not reflect one's true feelings (the hypothetical student very likely does not actually hate Professor Smith). Saying things like "I am totally in love with these shoes/that waitress/the scientific method" is also hyperbole, but it has the potential to introduce more happiness and compassion into the world, rather than contempt (or, in the more-often-than-not case of using "hate" when it doesn't reflect one's actual feelings, the potential for contempt).
Continuing the Professor Smith example, I would instead say "I don't like Professor Smith — he's not a very nice man and he makes the class too hard." I feel as if saying "I hate him" would imply that there is nothing at all about him that could be redeeming or likable and that he is intentionally a malicious person. And it's not just people I hesitate to say I hate, but people's efforts and creations too. For example, I don't like country music, but would never say "I hate Garth Brooks' songs." There's nothing inherently bad about them — I just don't find them at all pleasurable to listen to. I also find it distasteful to use it to describe animals, who do not act out of spite, with words such as "I hate dogs" or "I hate the way dogs always need attention."
When it comes to things that aren't people, organizations, and people's hard (or not so hard) work, I'm fine with using "hate" as hyperbole because it doesn't direct contempt or possible contempt at people and things that very likely don't deserve it. Examples include "I hate it when I bring the wrong notebook to class" or "I hate it when it rains during cross country practice" or "I hate toast." Sure it's more than likely that you don't actually feel extreme aversion or hostility for bringing the wrong notebook, running in the rain, or bread that has been browned due to exposure to heat, but you're not, by using "hate," demeaning anyone or their work.
Wiktionary defines "evil" as "Intending to harm; malevolent." It describes people like Adolf Hitler and
Anders Behring Breivik, people who one can hate without invoking hyperbole. Like "hate," using "evil" as hyperbole introduces unnecessary contempt into the world when the world really doesn't need any more. More often than not, I hear it used to describe politicians. Particularly fringy right-wingers have called President Obama evil (in their defense, many have duped themselves into honestly believing he's out to destroy America and embodies the definition of "evil") and I've heard many times my family members refer to Republican politicians as evil when they hear about them on the news. While politicians often take actions we believe are the opposite of what the country needs, they're taking them because they believe it's what is right (even if it's not), not because they hate the country. Many awful positions are held and acted upon by politicians, but very, very rarely do they cross the line of being evil.
There are certainly people out there, however, who are hateful. Fred Phelps is a great example. He routinely condemns various groups, particularly homosexuals, with vitriolic rhetoric and would not be happier if the people he despises were to disappear from the face of the earth. Mitt Romney, despite statements such as his 47% comment, is not. Sure, you can argue that he didn't care about 47% of the country's vote or that his economic policies were not geared toward helping middle-class families, but he never stated his dislike of the middle-class nor would he have enacted policies specifically meant to hurt them. Saying someone or something is "hateful" should be avoided if it invokes hyperbole, otherwise the inaccurate phrase will only serve to hurt people rather than speak the truth.
So next time your professor, boss, or peer says or does something you don't really like, maybe take a moment to consider how serious a transgression it actually is.
Dictionary.com defines "hate" as "to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest." Now I'm well aware of the existence of hyperbole and the benefits it has for getting across messages, but I feel like saying "The class is so difficult — I hate Professor Smith" is a bit unnecessary. Call me oversensitive, but using very negative hyperbole like that to describe people probably does not reflect one's true feelings (the hypothetical student very likely does not actually hate Professor Smith). Saying things like "I am totally in love with these shoes/that waitress/the scientific method" is also hyperbole, but it has the potential to introduce more happiness and compassion into the world, rather than contempt (or, in the more-often-than-not case of using "hate" when it doesn't reflect one's actual feelings, the potential for contempt).
Continuing the Professor Smith example, I would instead say "I don't like Professor Smith — he's not a very nice man and he makes the class too hard." I feel as if saying "I hate him" would imply that there is nothing at all about him that could be redeeming or likable and that he is intentionally a malicious person. And it's not just people I hesitate to say I hate, but people's efforts and creations too. For example, I don't like country music, but would never say "I hate Garth Brooks' songs." There's nothing inherently bad about them — I just don't find them at all pleasurable to listen to. I also find it distasteful to use it to describe animals, who do not act out of spite, with words such as "I hate dogs" or "I hate the way dogs always need attention."
When it comes to things that aren't people, organizations, and people's hard (or not so hard) work, I'm fine with using "hate" as hyperbole because it doesn't direct contempt or possible contempt at people and things that very likely don't deserve it. Examples include "I hate it when I bring the wrong notebook to class" or "I hate it when it rains during cross country practice" or "I hate toast." Sure it's more than likely that you don't actually feel extreme aversion or hostility for bringing the wrong notebook, running in the rain, or bread that has been browned due to exposure to heat, but you're not, by using "hate," demeaning anyone or their work.
Wiktionary defines "evil" as "Intending to harm; malevolent." It describes people like Adolf Hitler and
Anders Behring Breivik, people who one can hate without invoking hyperbole. Like "hate," using "evil" as hyperbole introduces unnecessary contempt into the world when the world really doesn't need any more. More often than not, I hear it used to describe politicians. Particularly fringy right-wingers have called President Obama evil (in their defense, many have duped themselves into honestly believing he's out to destroy America and embodies the definition of "evil") and I've heard many times my family members refer to Republican politicians as evil when they hear about them on the news. While politicians often take actions we believe are the opposite of what the country needs, they're taking them because they believe it's what is right (even if it's not), not because they hate the country. Many awful positions are held and acted upon by politicians, but very, very rarely do they cross the line of being evil.
There are certainly people out there, however, who are hateful. Fred Phelps is a great example. He routinely condemns various groups, particularly homosexuals, with vitriolic rhetoric and would not be happier if the people he despises were to disappear from the face of the earth. Mitt Romney, despite statements such as his 47% comment, is not. Sure, you can argue that he didn't care about 47% of the country's vote or that his economic policies were not geared toward helping middle-class families, but he never stated his dislike of the middle-class nor would he have enacted policies specifically meant to hurt them. Saying someone or something is "hateful" should be avoided if it invokes hyperbole, otherwise the inaccurate phrase will only serve to hurt people rather than speak the truth.
So next time your professor, boss, or peer says or does something you don't really like, maybe take a moment to consider how serious a transgression it actually is.
No comments:
Post a Comment