We Are Starting to Enjoy Hatred(wsj.com)
wsj.com
We Are Starting to Enjoy Hatred
https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-are-starting-to-enjoy-hatred-c3005b05
28 comments
I think you can convince just about anyone to hate given time and the right circumstances, but it's even easier IMO when it is prescribed to groups. Then in-group dynamics reinforce the behavior.
Yeah, that’s the beauty of it. within two hours, the movie has convinced the audience that a delusional murderer is their ingroup, society at large is their outgroup, and we should rejoice as the world burns and innocents are killed.
They're not rooting for a schizophrenic murderer, they're rooting for an agent of chaos and antihero who represents their own alienation, frustration and hatred of "the system," a need for catharsis in a world that won't allow them praxis. That interpretation of the Joker has been around for a long time.
I mean, America was founded by people who thought the government should be risen up against and torn down with violence every other decade, just to keep things spicy. And that was the rich, white, Christian gentry that the American political system was created to empower and protect. Just imagine how women, non-Christians, non-white immigrants and black people, indigenous people, gay and transgendered people, and everyone else for whom that system has been at best callous and indifferent and at worse actively malicious feels.
A misanthropic hatred of society and its constructs is hard-coded into the American zeitgeist, by way of the sanctifying of revolutionary violence as a virtue by the Second Amendment and the ideals of the founders. "Hatred" in this sense has been the primary engine by which America has been forced, incrementally and often against its own instincts, to live up to its own ideals, and the more "free" America becomes, the more the hatred of America and its own hypocrisy and self-contradiction spreads. This is nothing new, it's always been there.
I mean, America was founded by people who thought the government should be risen up against and torn down with violence every other decade, just to keep things spicy. And that was the rich, white, Christian gentry that the American political system was created to empower and protect. Just imagine how women, non-Christians, non-white immigrants and black people, indigenous people, gay and transgendered people, and everyone else for whom that system has been at best callous and indifferent and at worse actively malicious feels.
A misanthropic hatred of society and its constructs is hard-coded into the American zeitgeist, by way of the sanctifying of revolutionary violence as a virtue by the Second Amendment and the ideals of the founders. "Hatred" in this sense has been the primary engine by which America has been forced, incrementally and often against its own instincts, to live up to its own ideals, and the more "free" America becomes, the more the hatred of America and its own hypocrisy and self-contradiction spreads. This is nothing new, it's always been there.
> America was founded by people who thought the government should be risen up against and torn down with violence every other decade
What? Source?
Constant violent transfers of power was a very minority view.
What? Source?
Constant violent transfers of power was a very minority view.
Read the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Smith about Shay's rebellion, where we get the prosaic notion of watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
He thought the rebellion was an act of ignorance and failure of society to properly educate and inform the populace, but also felt that regular rebellion itself was necessary for any democracy, and shouldn't even be a crime. Essentially, he wanted to normalize the French Revolution as a regular facet of civil society.
Obviously that point of view didn't make it into the framework of the state (apart from, arguably, the Second Amendment) and the same government that created the Second Amendment put Shay's rebellion down, but the ideal has become a foundational part of American culture and beliefs about the nature of liberty and government as inherently hostile to liberty.
He thought the rebellion was an act of ignorance and failure of society to properly educate and inform the populace, but also felt that regular rebellion itself was necessary for any democracy, and shouldn't even be a crime. Essentially, he wanted to normalize the French Revolution as a regular facet of civil society.
Obviously that point of view didn't make it into the framework of the state (apart from, arguably, the Second Amendment) and the same government that created the Second Amendment put Shay's rebellion down, but the ideal has become a foundational part of American culture and beliefs about the nature of liberty and government as inherently hostile to liberty.
[deleted]
> the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Smith about Shay's rebellion
Nothing in Jefferson’s letter suggests a revolution every other decade, he simply states a preference for insurrection more frequently than “every century and a half” [1]. He also refers to insurrection in general, not French Revolutions; Jefferson supported executing Robespierre for his brutality [2].
In short, one founder believed in insurrection more frequently than every 15 decades. He decried brutal violence in even revolutions he supported. And he joined a government that rejected the notion of violent insurrection.
America was not “founded by people who thought the government should be risen up against and torn down with violence every other decade.”
[1] https://shaysrebellion.stcc.edu/shaysapp/person.do?shortName...
[2] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-28-02-0...
Nothing in Jefferson’s letter suggests a revolution every other decade, he simply states a preference for insurrection more frequently than “every century and a half” [1]. He also refers to insurrection in general, not French Revolutions; Jefferson supported executing Robespierre for his brutality [2].
In short, one founder believed in insurrection more frequently than every 15 decades. He decried brutal violence in even revolutions he supported. And he joined a government that rejected the notion of violent insurrection.
America was not “founded by people who thought the government should be risen up against and torn down with violence every other decade.”
[1] https://shaysrebellion.stcc.edu/shaysapp/person.do?shortName...
[2] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-28-02-0...
I’m not particularly looking for a debate, and think most of what we are picking up on is compatible.
I agree that their frustration is the key, but find it fascinating that they will accept the delusion and murder in their agent of change. That their cynicism and frustration is enough to overlook the mayhem rape and murder, and it's consequences for their future.
I don’t think I’m as cynical about the innate American spirit, or its exceptionalism. I think these are common human sentiments that wax and wane in different cultures at different times. I think it often be attenuated by factors and narratives outside one’s own hardships, or lack theirof.
I don’t think I’m as cynical about the innate American spirit, or its exceptionalism. I think these are common human sentiments that wax and wane in different cultures at different times. I think it often be attenuated by factors and narratives outside one’s own hardships, or lack theirof.
This reminded me of an old essay: "Isn't it Outrageous?" by Tim Kreider [0]:
> Outrage is like a lot of other things that feel good but over time devour us from the inside out. And it’s even more insidious than most vices because we don’t even consciously acknowledge that it’s a pleasure. We prefer think of it as a disagreeable but fundamentally healthy involuntary reaction to negative stimuli thrust upon us by the world we live in, like pain or nausea, rather than admit that it’s a shameful kick we eagerly indulge again and again.
Note that Kreider's essay is from 2009: it's not like this dynamic is new!
[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
> Outrage is like a lot of other things that feel good but over time devour us from the inside out. And it’s even more insidious than most vices because we don’t even consciously acknowledge that it’s a pleasure. We prefer think of it as a disagreeable but fundamentally healthy involuntary reaction to negative stimuli thrust upon us by the world we live in, like pain or nausea, rather than admit that it’s a shameful kick we eagerly indulge again and again.
Note that Kreider's essay is from 2009: it's not like this dynamic is new!
[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
The American people are keenly aware of the grave and evil hazards to our freedom and
to our way of life which international communism is eternally dedicated to destroy.
I speak of another danger we confront, not as dread or as foreboding, but equally offensive and evil to all reasonable, rational, free American citizens.
It is the danger of hate and venom, of slander and abuse, generated by fear and heaped indiscriminately upon many great Americans by another relative handful of zealots, in the ranks or clutches of self-styled “I am a better American than you are” organizations.
In every day’s deluge of mail at my office, there are generally a hundred and even two hundred letters which I describe simply as “fright mail.”
[ ... ]
Lunatic columnists, apostles of hate and fear on radio and television; and loony letters to the editor provoke their share of fright mail.
The curious fact is that the fright peddlers, from the simple simpletons to the wretched racists, all claim to be conservatives.
They are anything but patriotic. It is curious to me that they all have generally the same aims: Get the United States out of the U. N. Stop all foreign aid. Repeal the income tax. Abandon NATO and bring our troops home from Europe.
It is ironic that these very aims are very likely identical to the real hopes and aspirations of the Kremlin.
And I find it hard to believe that the followers of the fright peddlers are all wholly oblivious to the anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and outright racism of many of their “saviors.”
Thomas Kuchel, CA(R)
"The Fright-Peddlers", Cleveland State Law Review 1963
The more things change, huh.
I speak of another danger we confront, not as dread or as foreboding, but equally offensive and evil to all reasonable, rational, free American citizens.
It is the danger of hate and venom, of slander and abuse, generated by fear and heaped indiscriminately upon many great Americans by another relative handful of zealots, in the ranks or clutches of self-styled “I am a better American than you are” organizations.
In every day’s deluge of mail at my office, there are generally a hundred and even two hundred letters which I describe simply as “fright mail.”
[ ... ]
Lunatic columnists, apostles of hate and fear on radio and television; and loony letters to the editor provoke their share of fright mail.
The curious fact is that the fright peddlers, from the simple simpletons to the wretched racists, all claim to be conservatives.
They are anything but patriotic. It is curious to me that they all have generally the same aims: Get the United States out of the U. N. Stop all foreign aid. Repeal the income tax. Abandon NATO and bring our troops home from Europe.
It is ironic that these very aims are very likely identical to the real hopes and aspirations of the Kremlin.
And I find it hard to believe that the followers of the fright peddlers are all wholly oblivious to the anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and outright racism of many of their “saviors.”
Thomas Kuchel, CA(R)
"The Fright-Peddlers", Cleveland State Law Review 1963
The more things change, huh.
Trump, with his love of fossil fuels and his deletion of environmental protection policies, is most definitely not going to make America great unless you take America to mean only the top 0.1% and all his friends. For everyone else, it'll become a toxic hellhole. If you enjoy gasoline, methane, PFAS, and carcinogens in your tap water, by all means vote for him.
> not going to make America great unless you take America to mean only the top 0.1% and all his friends
This assertion runs contrary to the lived experience of 2016-2020 for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
This assertion runs contrary to the lived experience of 2016-2020 for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Trump is easy to hate. It’s just a small step to hating anyone that supports him.
> Trump is easy to hate.
The mainstream media has instructed the hatred. There is plenty to criticize about Trump in a dispassionate manner. For example, he is no financial reformer, and offers no specifics about reforming much of anything.
Were Trump's detractors interested in offering a sound reform platform, they would watch the MAGA crowd drop the Donald like a bad habit.
Yet that reform platform is nowhere in view.
Curious.
The mainstream media has instructed the hatred. There is plenty to criticize about Trump in a dispassionate manner. For example, he is no financial reformer, and offers no specifics about reforming much of anything.
Were Trump's detractors interested in offering a sound reform platform, they would watch the MAGA crowd drop the Donald like a bad habit.
Yet that reform platform is nowhere in view.
Curious.
To the extent one hates those who behave badly, it’s probably normal to dislike those who celebrate bad behavior.
But to be fair, Trump's supporters hated everyone else first. That's their whole shtick.
Hate is transpartisan. It's largely recognition that someone else has values inimical to your own. That makes the impulse to hate fairly symmetrical.
IMHO if you understand Nazi values and don't hate them, you're hate-deficient. So the total amount of hate someone carries around is a bad proxy for the quality of their values. It may be a better proxy for moral awareness or sensitivity.
IMHO if you understand Nazi values and don't hate them, you're hate-deficient. So the total amount of hate someone carries around is a bad proxy for the quality of their values. It may be a better proxy for moral awareness or sensitivity.
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." - Jesus
Hate may have a place in a somewhat-developed moral system, but in a better-developed one, it's seen as a weakness in ourselves.
Note well: That doesn't mean that you do nothing and let Nazis run over other people. You still have to oppose them. But guard yourself against hatred when you do. Hatred will try to turn you into a Nazi-but-with-the-other-flag if you let it. (That is, one could have all the Nazi values, just point them at different people than the Nazis do.)
Hate may have a place in a somewhat-developed moral system, but in a better-developed one, it's seen as a weakness in ourselves.
Note well: That doesn't mean that you do nothing and let Nazis run over other people. You still have to oppose them. But guard yourself against hatred when you do. Hatred will try to turn you into a Nazi-but-with-the-other-flag if you let it. (That is, one could have all the Nazi values, just point them at different people than the Nazis do.)
There can be too much hate like there can be too much oxygen. The dose makes the poison. Saying hate is bad is like saying fuel is bad because too much will flood the engine. Hate, at the right temperature and flow rate, fuels our response to injustice. A reservoir of it is only as good or bad as the purpose of the engine that it fuels.
Why Biden and Trump?
I mean, I'd understand Obama and Trump, but Biden?
How can someone so bland polarize a country?
I mean, I'd understand Obama and Trump, but Biden?
How can someone so bland polarize a country?
I don't think Biden is a polarizing figure in himnself. He ran and won on being not-Trump.
But because Trump is a polarizing figure, not-Trump is too - just by being not-Trump, not due to any inherent polarizing-ness.
But because Trump is a polarizing figure, not-Trump is too - just by being not-Trump, not due to any inherent polarizing-ness.
Biden isn’t polarizing for who he is, but because he is seen as an usurper sitting in the rightful
King’s throne.
There is nothing polarizing about Obama. Republican strategy has been to go to the right of whatever policy a Democratic President champions. For instance, Obama enacted the Republican plan for healthcare reform without their support. They labeled it socialist even though it is essentially the Heritage Foundation’s plan.
The polarization is not personality based. It comes from tribal thinking along political lines. Whomever is on the opposite side is “bad” regardless of their personal failings or achievements. Trump is, objectively speaking, a terrible human being and is a truly polarizing figure.
The polarization is not personality based. It comes from tribal thinking along political lines. Whomever is on the opposite side is “bad” regardless of their personal failings or achievements. Trump is, objectively speaking, a terrible human being and is a truly polarizing figure.
Taken solely by their on camera presentations, Thomas Wayne, Murray, and the police seem pretty reasonable people. However, this is overshadowed by the screen time and depth given to the joker.[1] The audience might briefly wonder if they deserve to die, but before that question can sink in, the plot advances, and the question is forgotten. It is easy to see how time, perspective, speed, and narrative saturation drive emotion.
I think our modern political environment has a lot of parallels. It is all thinking fast and no thinking slow.
[1] Aside, I think it is a great example of cinematic dissonance, where multiple meanings are intentionally or unintentionally layered. Eneaz Brodski had a great article about that introduced me to the term: https://deathisbad.substack.com/p/cinemanarrative-dissonance...