Thread: The General Guidelines of Hate

what do you think about my general outline of hate?

Seems reasonable, and I certainly agree with your view of history. As I said in IM I believe Churchill once called history 'a set of lies, collectively agreed upon,'

It is my personal opinion that feminism(using my thoughts) at first was a fine thing and therefore they had moderate hate, which painted men and "the patriarchy" as evil which caused it to spiral out of control and turned it to much hate.

I disagree with this. If feminism painted men as patriarchy, and this as evil then how can you call it a fine thing? Some of its goals may have been worthwhile, but that idealogy and methodology is dysfunctional. It brands half the bloody world as morally defunct members of some conspiracy.

Quote from Lady Catherine

Also never forget the old saw about history. History is written by the winners. Overthrow a hated government and let the people prove they have the ability to rule instead of nobles? Well, after you've killed all the nobles, guess who is writing down that history about what they did, about the revolution and about events related? Not the guys that have suddenly dropped 8" in height.

While not forgetting that old saw, I will debunk it.

In the days when the written word was rare and verbal communication was geographically restricted, it is reasonable to point out that history was written by the victors. So what we know of the French Revolution, the American War of Independence, etc. is mostly from the viewpoint of those who won the war.

By the time of the Great War (the First World War) many people could read and journalists were close to the action on all sides of the conflict. Even though each nation would put out its propaganda at the time and would produce history books for its schoolchildren in the years after, we now have access to ALL of the journalist's writings from ALL of the countries and history is being written to account for all the various views and happenings, regardless of what the victors might want. This has continued and accelerated until the gap now is less than ten years between the propaganda, the slanted history and the more rounded, balanced views that go to make up historical records. Consider, as an example, the propaganda of 'assisting' Iraq remove its 'hated' leader that 'no Iraqi wants' through the slanted idea of how Iraq was 'liberated' into the common acceptance today that Iraq was (probably illegally) invaded by a group of nations (probably for the financial and oil benefits). So much evidence is available from so many aspects that victors can no longer write just their version of history: history is recorded as events occur and will be summarised by people with wide-reaching access to information.

Quote from Richard

I am surprised you made this post.
I partly understand as the reality which we build is fragmented and we all say contradictory things – even at the same time.

For example, in this post you preach tolerance, but in a parallel post you talk of dark sadistic desires (ever read Freuds Civilisation and its Discontents?). Here is a conflict in you. Some say “conflict is the locomotive of history”.

OK, back to your main point. So why hate?

Lets take, for example a religion – it can be any centralized/monolithic religion. Lets take the example of a vague, unknown one, for the purposes of example, lets choose – say a Norse one – after all the Scandanvians are very civilized, and what harm have they done to anyone?

What can be more harmless than an ancient religion, that say use runes, and which is the plaything of witches, wizards and fortune tellers?

Now take Norse, inject a bit of pride (lets call that pride nationalism), lets also inject elements of a people that have been humiliated and feel they are being denied their rightful place in the world, lets add to that a technologically advance civilization, add to that a charismatic leader. The religion acts as an “ideological cement” – rightly or wrongly – castles as built, midnight tourchlghts parades are held, add a couple of mystic symbols, a cult of death, oh, and in case this mixture is missing something, add an economic depression - and hey presto, you have a Third Reich on your hands.

Of course the key question is what in this mixture was the most important one.


I could easily substitute the Norse religion for militant Islam (contemporary world), Christainity (crusades), or if you want it on a more lower cultural level, I could have talked about locating a BDSM club in a born-again christian area, or for the Brits on this forum, how about sending your english child to a school full of immigrants who hardly speak English and who demand the removal of the Christian cross, or lets teach them against their parents wishes how same sex marriage or adoption is acceptable? (imagine a scene where a son comes how and tells dad “Dad, today at school, the teacher told us its alright if Bob and Ben want to adopt, while a normal hetro couple who object to homosexuality are denied the right to adopt”).

Maybe conflict is the locomotive of history? Maybe peace and harmony is a dream, which we can grab tiny pieces of throughout our lives, and which we can only fully experience after death? Is this not the basis of every religion – including Norse?

I am a bit surprised how you talk about your dark desires in another post – as you can see if you open your eyes there is already enough hell here on earth, far more than your dark desires could ever dream up. I can only guess you have enjoyed a very sheltered upbringing. If you have, good for you, we need more idealists.

So why did you post two very contradictory posts?
Maybe to provoke
Maybe because you are pregnant and wish to celebrate life and hope for a better world.

Didn't take long this time.

Quote from dad_savage

It brands half the bloody world as morally defunct members of some conspiracy.

Assume that when I'm talking about patriarchy, I am talking about the feminist definition: a social system based on hierarchal elitism and privilege. It is a critical analysis theory. I will give an example assuming it was correct., using you and Percywinkles. According to patriarchy theory, Percywinkles has more privilege than you(he's highly educated, white, straight, cisgendered, probably moderately wealthy, and male), you on the other hand are not as privileged.(probably some post high school education, bisexual, cisgendered, probably moderately weathy, white, and male). The only reasons why Percywinkles has more theoretical privilege than you is because he's straight and more educated than you, and it would be more pronounced if you was romantically involved with another man(lack of civil union rights, latent homopobia in society, etc.) I do however accept that reality does not mesh with the theory(and that they don't use it how it's supposed to be used) and since things like privilege is subjective(note that I actually do think that some things on the privilege lists hold some water). To me, it is just a fancy way of denigrating men but with academia.

That all said, it is my opinion that feminism encouraged a lot of positive changes in women, at first, but it doesn't hold women to accept responsibility for their actions. However, since I have came to this site, I accept that positive changes needed to have happened to men.

Assume that when I'm talking about patriarchy, I am talking about the feminist definition: a social system based on hierarchal elitism and privilege.

The alleged system doesn't exist, that's why I call it a conspiracy. The 'feminist definition,' of patriarchy is offensive, and blatantly wrong.

As for speculation about Percy and I, vs. priveledge, it simply shows how defunct is this methodology. The only workable indicator of priveledge is class.

Quote from dad_savage

The alleged system doesn't exist, that's why I call it a conspiracy.

Fair enough.

The 'feminist definition,' of patriarchy is offensive, and blatantly wrong.

Funnily enough, I consider feminism patriarchal using their definition and my analysis of feminism.

As for speculation about Percy and I, vs. priveledge, it simply shows how defunct is this methodology.

All it was, was that-speculation. I honestly don't think Percywinkles is out to oppress anyone and I'm pretty sure you two would see each other as equals if you ever met.

I don't really think it's an accurate representation of my experiences as a pan-romantic demisexual woman anyway, and... I really have a strong dislike of making scapegoats out of a)men, b)straight people, and c) fully sexual people for any misogyny, homophobia, or acephobia that I might encounter, because these attitudes aren't exclusive to those demographics. In fact, the worst thing I have encountered has been blatant denial that demisexuality existed.

The only reasons why Percywinkles has more theoretical privilege than you is because he's straight and more educated

Theoretical is a lot 'righter' than parctice, unfortunately. My theoretical privliges have landed me in genteel poverty.

Quote from Percy

Theoretical is a lot 'righter' than parctice, unfortunately. My theoretical privliges have landed me in genteel poverty.

Aha! So you are privileged after all! There is nothing genteel about my poverty.
(But I'm glad to see someone else who has a problem spelling 'privilege' :-) )

All hail teh spill-chucker.