The Press Republican

Wiley Wandering

« Daring to Do the Daring: Storytellers and the Stories They Tell | Main | Interracial/Anti-social Implications of Dating »

Making Statements: A Personal Epiphany on not Hating Haters

Recently previous SUNY Plattsburgh student body president, commencement speaker, Chancellor Award winner, and current CDPI graduate assistant Angel Acosta (quite the accomplished young man, isn’t he) and I had the pleasure of addressing Plattsburgh High School’s student body. I was quite flattered when approached by teacher Tony Perez and asked to engage their student body on the possibility of a visit this week from an infamous hate monger and/or his hate harassing crew, hate mongers who also have plans on visiting SUNY Plattsburgh as well. I asked Angel to join me in engaging the students because of how quick witted and creative he is, and how passionate he is about social justice. Also, since it was the day before Black History Month ended, I thought his now rather large afro might assist the audience in pausing for that cause, a reaction that my shaved head doesn’t appear to generate. I mean growing an afro is a statement in itself, though people shouldn’t think that all afros make the same statement. When I had mine, back in the day, it was about Black pride, style, and making me taller.

Hate mongers attempt to make statements as well, though they often make more statements about themselves than they may consciously realize. The hate mongers scheduled to visit our community do this often, and have attempted to generate a reaction from the Plattsburgh community before when a few years back they came to town to antagonize our previous mayor because of their disagreement with his identity.Whether these hate mongers are authentic in their overt disdain for people who have an identity that they don’t agree with is quite intriguing to consider. If it is true, as an internet site claims, that the leader of the hate mongers once was a successful, award winning civil rights attorney (, then it is even more intriguing to consider the possibilities of his actions and our response(s) to them. Yes, people do change their perspectives in significant ways at certain points in their lives. Saul, a persecutor of Christians, traveling along the road to Damascus where once he arrived at his destination was going to put a hurting on more Christians, had an epiphany and converted to Christianity, symbolically changing his name to Paul. Our soon to be visiting hate monger appears to have had a similar epiphany, except he has gone from defending the underrepresented to hating them.

It is conceivable that some significant event in his life may have motivated a shift in his ideology, perhaps out of self preservation. Considering he was disbarred from legally practicing law in Kansas, and subsequently from practicing law at the federal level as well, it is difficult to not view his hate mongering as a pathetic way to pay the bills. Another possibility is that his Civil Rights efforts were actually about paying his bills and he really could care less about the people he was defending. One last possibility that comes to mind for me is that he is simply a very sick person who has been sick for sometime, yet is lucid enough to articulate a position to others that is attractive enough for them to come on board and assist him in promoting hate. Do you have any theories/thoughts on his actions?

Whatever may be the case for his motivation, one thing is for sure, people have choices on how they see this hate monger and how they respond to him. I often tell the story of a personal epiphany I once had when speaking to my African American Culture course at SUNY Plattsburgh. I was engaging my students on the legacy of lynching that so-called Negroes had to endure for decades in this country and entered into the contemporary tale of James Byrd, the Black man who was dragged from the back of a pick-up truck by three white supremacists in Jasper, Texas. In the middle of telling this tale it occurred to me that the anger I had always had difficulty managing when speaking about this type of hateful action, anger aimed at the perpetrators, was misguided. Yes, they needed to be apprehended. Yes, they needed to be incarcerated, perhaps for life, perhaps even executed to ensure that they could never perpetrate such a crime again, unless of course they could somehow transcend recidivism, which necessarily could be guaranteed, which is probably not possible. One could even make an argument that their families should pay for the trauma they brought on the Byrd family and that community with their heinous crime. But my anger at the three murderers, an anger that flirted with becoming hatred, was as misguided as our anger/hatred for the hate mongers who are poised to enter our community with their venomous mission to ridicule and demonize people whose identities they don’t agree with. My anger wasn’t serving me well when I aimed it at these three men who were so filled with hatred that they demonstrated their hate by brutally ending the life of another. My anger needed to be aimed at the educational system that contributed in creating them. It isn't far fetched to entertain the thought that if we had conversations with our children at young ages that helped them to see the differences that exist between us many of the hate crimes that take place might not!

Angel and I challenged the Plattsburgh High School students and staff to be wary of hating the haters. More so, we challenged our PHS audience to make a statement about their sophisticated way of seeing. They have the ability to recognize that none of these haters emerged from the womb during their birth hating this world and its inhabitants. They were either taught to hate or are somehow sick enough to not have the ability to love. In either case, what statement is made about us, what does it reveal about us if we lose our perspectives and begin to hate the hater? Our hating the hater is not far removed from being angry at an infant who is incessantly crying. It makes no sense. When the hate mongers arrive what we really should be doing is staying away from them, far away. They are undoubtedly either quite sick, or deviously calculating. Either way, they don’t deserve a moment of our time. And more than anything else, while we are earnestly trying to not succumb to hating the hater, we should also be conscious of the statements we make about ourselves when we do succumb to hating someone who is obviously quite sick.

The PHS students impressed us with their energy, maturity, and wisdom on this subject. Angel and I left their auditorium feeling quite pleased with the conversation we had with them. At SUNY Plattsburgh we are also preparing for various discussions along similar lines. The Center for Diversity, Pluralism and Inclusion is hosting this Wednesday at 4:00 in Hawkins Hall’s Krinovitz Recital Hall, our spring semester Faculty Panel Discussion on the topic “Inflammatory Rhetoric: Building an Ethical Community Response,” in anticipation of their visit. It will feature University Police Chief Arlene Sabo, Anthropologist Dr. Richard Robbins, CDPI Asst. Director Deb Light, Communications Dr. Justin Gustainis, Political Scientist Dr. Daniel Lake, and will be moderated by Dr. Thomas Moran. Aside from the fact that you just witnessed one of the most shameless plugs for an event, on some bizarre level, we owe the hate mongers thanks for serving as the catalyst for community conversations.

What are the statements that come to mind when you think about hating haters? What are your thoughts?


TrackBack URL for this entry:


Hate is not the opposite of Love, JW, they are the two sides of the same coin. Both are strong emotions that usually cause a response. I can no more hate Fred Phelps than I can love Barack Obama, although I detest the message of the former and greatly admire the latter. I can, however, hate or love their messages. Both men inspire me, in very different ways, to work for the American Ideal. Both make me care about my country and my community. Both men cause me to react. The true antithesis of love (and hate) is indifference…or the INABILITY to illicit any response from me whatsoever. And, in the case of the visit from Mr. Phelps and his Klan, I fear indifference is the worst action (inaction?) we could possibly take. While “hating the hater” may not be the ideal, it’s better than nothing.

Some messages are so repugnant to society and damaging to the soul of anyone who hears them that they beg a response, if for no other reason than to exercise the words from the brain before they can do irreparable harm. Society must push back against these messages, ideally with love and compassion, but, with aggressiveness, and yes even hate if that's what it takes to motivate people of conscience to action. I believe Dr. King once said that, should the Civil Rights struggle fail, it will not be the actions of the bad people that will be most distained by history, but rather, the inaction of the good people. We show respect for the values under which we all live by doing nothing to infringe on the rights of Mr. Phelps and his group to protest in the manner they’ve chosen. But we must combat his message with action, counter protests, meetings like the one you “plug,” stickers that says “Stop Hate”, engaging our kids in conversations about “others” and “differences” and love and hate, and by making sure his group leaves believing that they have failed to convert even a single person for even a single second to their way of thinking. We do all these things not for him or his followers but for ourselves and our community. We do them so that rather than being showered by Phelp’s hateful words, our neighbors may bathe in the positive values of our community. Let our children see our passions raised against a message worth combating. Let them realize there are indeed some things worth fighting for, and by extension, some things against which we must also fight.

*** CB, As ever you frame your message quite philosophically. Somehow you seem to suggest that I think indifference is a tact that may be worthy of consideration as a response to the soon-to-be visiting hate mongers. Actually, I agree with you that indifference can be problematic (and perhaps impossible to even attempt to implement within oneself, either you are indifferent to something or you aren't) as a community response to hate mongers. I wasn't promoting indifference, nor inaction (though inaction is arguably still an action) when I challenge people to not hate haters.

Not hating haters is putting them and their actions in perspective. Not hating haters requires taking quite a bit of energy in attempting to understand what makes them tick, what is the pain that causes them to lash out so vehemently and venomously at others that they themselves most likely haven't taken the time to truly consider. You do acknowledge that part of not hating haters plays out in our organized communal response, so I am confused as to how you think I'm suggesting any type of inaction. Not hating haters requires quite a bit of energy in itself, but it is a proactive type of energy that doesn't have our community responding hatefully to a hate monger who actually wants to generate those types of responses from us. The moment we hate, the hate monger wins. I am human and might succumb for a moment to a hateful action against me or mine, but the hate monger then has only won a battle, not the war.

I promote more of a case study approach to people with negative energy that come into our lives. It is similar to an out of body experience, where when you are in a conversation with someone who is spewing negativity you simply go into analytical mode where you are both in the conversation and analyzing it at the same time. Doing this allows me to take stock of how I am handling mine during the dysfunctional exchange, which has me very conscious of my participation in the escalation or potential to deescalate the situation. It takes time and effort to arrive at this state of mind, but when we can attain it, it is worth the effort. Hate mongers can get my energy for a moment, but that is about all they get, a moment.

CB, if you and I have an argument, how does it serve me to still be wrapped up in anger at you, discussing my frustrations with you hours later to others, while you may be out enjoying your life not giving me, or our argument a second thought? I can't go out like that, and don't believe our community has to either. I agree with you that "our neighbors may bathe in the positive values of our community" and that we should "Let our children see our passions raised against a message worth combating" and that we should "Let [our children] realize there are indeed some things worth fighting for, and by extension, some things against which we must also fight." I am suggesting we fight that fight for the self same reasons you are, I am only suggesting we fight it on our terms, not terms dictated by a hate monger! *** -- J.W.

JW, how are you?? Good post, I agree with your final statement and wanted to start with that. It is good that the Phelps family is coming to Plattsburgh (constant optimist here); it raises important issues and leads to good, healthy conversation. I am hopeful with the discussion already taken place, hopeful that student apathy is a complete myth.

I agree with your (and many others) general assertion: hate leads to hate. As intelligent students and faculty, we cannot hate this group, and, then advocate an open mind. I do not, in any way support them and the cause, but if they feel strong enough to voice their concerns (not breaking any laws), then so be it. This is the only way we can survive in a free society; allowing people to speak their minds, allows me to speak my mind. Free speech can sometimes be a double edge sword. You can’t just get your side of the story all of the time.

However, what really gets under my skin are two occasions that I witnessed from the news that involve this family. The first is protest at funerals with “God hates Fags” posters and other signs. As I previously mentioned I am completely for free speech, but when your free speech encroaches on others free speech, freedom of religion, etc., there needs to be a conversation. Please, not at the funeral. Ok, if you want to on another block, although I have major issues with the wording, but the point is also allow people the same right as granted to you, privacy if you will. I also realize this bring up the debate when is the appropriate time, I will let that wait for another possible conversation.

Second, I watched FOX news a few months ago. One of the newsperson was interviewing a member for the Phelps family. After a few minutes the women from the Phelps family seemed to put her blinder and ear muffs on and went on a tirade about how God hates homosexuals, America, etc, etc, etc. And then the news anchor started yelling back at her, about how she is an abomination. AND THEN, the head of media (the head person at the station) got involved and quietly said “you should be ashamed”, then cut her video and went on with more stories. The point is, neither side was listening at all to each other. They where stuck in their opinion and put blinders and ear muffs on. This is not right, and I hope this does not happen in Plattsburgh. If both sides are willing to talk, that is great, have a conversation. But please, please, do not put the blinders up.

I also feel the previous comment hits the nail on the head. Especially with the use of MLK Jr. quote. I like the “Stop Hate” bumper stickers around the city. It begs the question “Why are they there?”, which I asked my first year at Plattsburgh. I was inspired by the story, as little as it may seem, a city supporting its Mayor not on ideology, but on morality.

In conclusion, I agree with another aspect of what you said, and I commend what you and Angel did at Plattsburgh High School, Education is key. I believe the silver bullet to most our issues in the United States. I believe strongly that people are not born with hate. Yes, there is evil in the world, I think we all understand that, and we cannot do much to eliminate that. BUT we can allow people to questions things, we need to teach how to have constructive conversation and teach character. This comes from both our classrooms and our homes/families. So allow in-depth debate, it’s the only way to survive.

Good luck with the forum, wish I could be there. JW, take care.

*** Avery, I agree with you, people should be allowed to grieve without people (hate mongers in this case) adding additional drama to an already dramatic situation. I don't know if you were in the class when we added "Lars and the Real Girl" to address a community's ability to have a collective response to something significant occurring within their community, but if not, you should check this movie out. That is what comes to mind for me when I think of the hate mongers visiting Plattsburgh. We don't need to put blinders on, nor do we need to converse with them, primarily because they don't want to talk with us. They want us to react. If I happen to encounter these hate mongers I will either do it with a note pad, or popcorn, but my emotions, to the best of my ability, will be deep in my pocket. Well, all of my emotions except pity. Yes, if anything, I pity the hater who hates just to hate.

It is always a pleasure hearing from you Avery (I so bad want to violate your anonymity and refer to you by first name). Thanks for taking the time to join the conversation. *** -- J.W.

Mr. Wiley,

I’m confused.
In the course of any of your postings you quickly respond back to your friend “Card Buddy” regarding any of his replies. Has his advocacy to “stand up” to the hate mongering, societal dregs that will be visiting P-burg left you speechless? I sincerely doubt that, but what if he is right?

To partially quote CB, “some messages are so repugnant to society and damaging to the soul of anyone who hears them that they beg a response, if for no other reason than to exercise the words from the brain before they can do irreparable harm. Society must push back against these messages, ideally with love and compassion, but, with aggressiveness,……….”

So, when do you “stand up” and when do you “stand down”?

THIS country, OUR country, MY country (as long as Immigration can’t find me), has been far too good for far too long to far too many people who attempt to exploit its generosity through, among many things, the abusive interpretation of the Freedom of Speech and any other amendment they can bastardize.

Mr. Wiley, I’m tired of the many repugnant injustices that individuals are allowed to inflict on one another. When I voice my concern I’m met with “oh, we can’t do anything because it violates THEIR freedom/rights (even if they are illegal aliens on welfare)”. What about my rights? What happen to them? So let me see if I understand this: you can violate my rights and I can’t defend myself? Hmm, let me get my club and let’s try that one again and while I’m at it I’m NOT pressing “1” to speak English in my own country. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Early in our lives many of us were taught to ignore certain situations with the explanation that “the person was sick or they didn’t know any better”. Such could be applied soon to be visiting spawns of Satan. Did you ever notice that these people never got well or even better for that matter? We were fed this excuse to rationalize and avoid repugnant behavior. Sadly, we were encouraged to tolerate these people (and behaviors) at our expense. So, with the groundwork laid, we continue to tolerate nonsensical behaviors that perpetuate cycles of inappropriate behaviors that are detrimental to the overall wellbeing of the community. For me, the nonsense stops - NOW!

If I understand you correctly, by your standard, let’s welcome this hate mongering ilk into our community and stay away from them. OK. And when undesirables (such as those who spew hatred) etc move into your community (or next door), are you going to ignore them too? Or are you going to welcome them, shower them with love, affection, keep your dog from tinkling on their lawn, explain the value and benefits of a diverse culture, and sing Kum Ba Ya? Sorry but not happening on my block or my shift – well maybe the Kum Ba Ya part and I’ll pee on their lawn instead (which I am currently doing at night).

We’re not going to “change” these people – remember, THEIR mission is to judge and punish US for what we believe is fair, reasonable and right. These drones are not our “peers” but rather a walking cancer that needs to be excised. So let’s stop this insanity (thank you Dr. Phil) and do it.

For those of us who are opened minded (or as much as we can be while living in the land of ice, snow and sub-Arctic temperatures nine months out of the year), law abiding (What a cliché! I still have unpaid parking tickets from SUNY), generally good people (which sums up 99% of the North Country and the nearly 1% who jack deer in my yard before the season starts), and who are trying to live a fulfilling life without scribbling too much outside of the lines (notice how I avoided saying “coloring outside of the lines” cause it might offend the Peach person in my box of Crayolas), CB has hit this one head on: there are messages and behaviors that are repugnant and we DO NOT have to sit idly by and allow it to happen in our community. It is time that we took back our communities and it starts HERE and it starts NOW. (Sounds like something Obama would say doesn’t it?)

Gandhi (nice segway in from the Obama thing eh?) pioneered resistance through mass civil disobedience. I don’t believe he would have issues with a collective community staring down its “intruders”. Didn‘t Martin Luther King and company do this too?

These visitors are not going to “get well”, change their minds or go away unless they are made very unwelcome and VERY uncomfortable. They are like a pebble in your shoe or beach sand in your bathing suit – irritating for as long as YOU let it remain there. The folks of P-burg have been far too accommodating over the years. So unless something of a sizeable magnitude is accomplished, such as permanently removing these folks from the community, you’ll be writing this same column year after year. By this time Card Buddy will have moved to a new state and I’ll be leading a rousing group sing of Kum Ba Ya with the P-burg Orthodox Choir while peeing on my neighbor’s lawn.

I’m not promoting a violent confrontation and matter of fact not one word needs to be uttered. If the people of P-burg are as opened minded as you believe and stand shoulder to shoulder, linked arm in arm, in a united show of force (yeah that’s the correct word) with the message “GO HOME”, done properly, we may have cleaned up the community just a bit. And you continue to do it until the message sinks in.

And please spell-check your sign before displaying it especially if you’re standing in front of the high school. I’ve seen too many misspelled signs in the Hornet’s gym. We don’t want to give these invaders any more cause to come back or say that the folks of Plattsburgh can’t spell.

*** Rockrabbit, don't be confused. Contrary to what you suggest, I don't always immediately respond to bloggers. Like everyone else, I have a life and it takes me a moment to cogitate on others' thoughts before I respond.

I didn't say anything about welcoming hate mongers into our community. I, like most that I know, would prefer they not come. But if the current legislation supports visits from hate mongers under the auspices of freedom of speech, then I must conform or flirt with putting myself and others that I might influence in a deleterious situation. I can't, and won't go out like that. I do agree that we should take action, but I don't agree that the action has to be such that it situates us in a response that validates the haters actions. I often share with students a poem I wrote when I was 17 years old. It is titled "Responsibility." The poem is very short.

"Puppets on strings aren't responsible for things."

I tell students this poem to reinforce in them the fact that they manifest their own destinies, if they choose to do so. The soon-to-be visiting hate mongers will not get the reaction they want from me. Your suggestion of silent, shoulder to shoulder, witnessing of their protest sounds like it could work. If you are comfortable doing that, then you should. Frankly, if you were even comfortable letting them manipulate you to react in a way they want you to react, then I would still say "do you" my brother, do you. After all, that is what diversity is all about. Just be prepared for the consequences.

I firmly believe that Plattsburgh will be a place they will cross off of their list if they arrive here and become the veritable tree falling in the forest with no one around. If they get paid from the litigation that ensues due to overreactions to their hate, and we choose not to overreact, how will they get paid?

I really think what we may be talking about is apples versus oranges. Either way, I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in. *** -- J.W.

To whom it may concern.. You should hear what you are saying. If you did, honestly, you would understand why our founding fathers wrote Free speech into our Constitution! Presently, these people [Phelps] have a Constitutional right to say what they believe, without the fear or reprisal or retaliation. They are protected under our present laws. Now, you want to silence them because you believe what they are saying is wrong and no one should be able to hear what Phelps and his group has to say. So, if I'm hearing you right, you want the right & protection of our Free speech laws so you can tell Phelps and his group that they have no right to say what they believe, even though they do have the same right and protection. Do you see where this is going? Sounds similar to what our settlers went through before the making of the U.S. Constitution. Been there done that...They left one country for another for this reason. They fought and died for these freedoms! They did not all agree on everything..but they did agree to allow others to disagree! Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. If we the people are denied these rights, then who's to say whose right? Should you be allowed to speak and live your opinion, while people like Phelps are stifled and punished for theirs? Sounds like you want to live under a dictator. Remember how Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese war lords openly expressed their contempt and scorned the democratic rights of free speech and press? Do you wish to live in a country where it's citizens exist only to serve the state and have no rights except those that the state chooses to give them? We do not need to change legislation. Come on now, do your homework in political history. America is the land of the FREE and home of the Brave. We are an intelligent and strong people! Opinions like those expressed by Phelps and his kind, come and go. We should not be so easily moved. We must agree to disagree. We can change the station..WE ARE FREE! At least we were the last time I looked! ***-- Alien

*** Alien, you should reread what I wrote. You appear to become more energized with every word you wrote in defense of freedom of speech. While I am proud of your defense of a citizen's rights, I never said anything along the lines of hate monger's didn't have a right to speak their mind. I said we have options on how to respond and responding with intellectual curiosity is one of those ways. So, since I almost feel as if your post was somewhat prefabricated without a serious assessment of what I wrote I will patiently wait until you actually engage something I said that you either want to take to task or support. *** -- J.W.


I'm kind of with you one this one JW...although tangentially. I think it's kind of funny that people get all worked up when a creep like Phelps and his crew come to town.

What's so special about the once every few years he shows up in our town?

Where were all these people promoting social justice the day before...and the day after?

Why make a big deal once in a while and be silent the remainder of the year?

It's kind of like going to Church on Christmas and Easter...and skipping every other Sunday...

As far as I'm concerned...the ones to listen to are the ones who shout out loud everyday...not the ones with picket signs, scrambling to get in WPTZ's camera view.

*** Whaler, it always puts a smile on my face when you and I (and Card Buddy) are on the same, or at least similar pages. It is like a vacation of sorts for me, and perhaps for you as well. For me I know I am going to have to bring my A game to get your attention, believing that you will truly cogitate upon my arguments, hoping I actually may persuade you. I will enter bloggers heaven believing I have impacted your way of seeing. Don't ruin it for me by informing me otherwise.

On the recent participation by locals to the hate mongers visit you take a hard line, but not one that I can necessarily find umbrage with. I believe the average person who felt compelled to challenge the visiting hate mongers did so because it was in their face and they also couldn't resist the spectacle. Others had a strategy that they thought would be effective and I definitely don't want to disparage their efforts. I am not sure if I would have been in the Malcolm X or Dr. Martin Luther King camps during the Civil Rights Movement, but would have been scrutinized, perhaps even ridiculed by whichever constituency I didn't join. The problem in that scenario is that both camps had value, which is better seen retrospectively. So, hopefully the hate mongers were made aware by the various approaches that we took to dissuade them that there is no value to visiting Plattsburgh and will cross us off their list. After all, there has to be less organized and passionate venues they can visit.

Whaler, stay tuned for my next blog posting! I feel like going somewhere very different... *** -- J.W.

Mr Wiley:
I was intrigued by the statement in the header of your blog about your predisposition for conversations about diversity and such. I was also encouraged.
I have been engaged in urban ministry for nearly 20 years and concerns such as racial reconciliation, dismantling institutional racism, teaching on white privilege and renouncing white privilege, tolerance, peace, justice, nonviolence, community building, Etc. have been a preoccupation of mine in virtually every setting; Ministry priorities being one motive and transracial adoption and foster care helping to make these concerns personal.
Then came a move to Westport to serve as the pastor of Westport Federated Church, accompanied by both shock and teasing from my Black pastor buddies and former congregants followed by the question, How will the ministry landscape look in a virtually all white community where the majority of the people trace their roots in the area back 3 or 4 more more generations?
I haven't answered that question yet but I did smile and relax a little when I read that you were on the job a mere 35 miles north of me
Press on .....

One blogger got it right, and I'm going to let my freedom of speech rain all over this blog and let it flow on down to your town. And if they got it wrong, I'm still going to let my speech reign free. I have been pondering some of the thoughts and ideas expressed on this topic, and I would like to contribute a practical, real life example of how "hating the hater" is worth hating. Nope, I take that back, it's not worth hating, nothing is worth hating, the word hate expresses the utter opposite of the ideal. Better, "hating the hater" must be deconstructed in oneself to allow more productivity and efficiency at creating positive relationships and thereby promoting positive action on issues of social justice. Follow this real life example: A knows B and has developed a relationship with B, although A has always questioned B's intentions and inabilities to be real or abilities to be fake. A hears and perceives comments made by B as being insulting, rude, contrary to social justice in a mode that perpetuates superior roles of individuality compared to less worthy individuals who can be treated like pawn, or arguably worse yet, treated with disrespect. One day, after several incidents of B making comments contrary to and frustrating A's desire to 1) communicate and connect with others to inspire feelings of friendship, acceptance, 2) to perpetuate a cycle of learning by attaining knowledge of another on a positive level involving positive flow for a socially justified effect; A is frustrated. A is beginning to depise, beginning to, dare I say, hate? Now, on some level, hate has attained a definition entirely too modest, and people take the word for granted. This allows the word to be thrown around at times when the word does not mean what the word is supposed to mean. Regardless, it carrys weight. Anyways, back to A. A is hot, he is burning up, he is cold, he is not ready to be told, told to love B anways. A drops a text to his favorite C. Wait, A was tired and mistakenly sent it to, guess who, B! A's message wasn't deeply serious, nor deeply violent, althought it carried violent implications to the wrong person, as opposed to the right person understanding the light level of "hate" supposed to be flying to them, C. So now B knows that A thinks "B is cruising for a bruising". You know what happened, right? A slipped up, retreated from an understanding that hating the hater in A's life is not productive. A could have confronted B the very moment B uttered a verbal assault insuating falsities, on a level that would have forced B to realize B's own words to the point of denial, as is common to the true hater. Everytime a hater is stopped like this and force is applied positively by the non-hater, the hater has a better chance of breaking the denial. Thus the non-haters have a better chance of converting any hater that can, and thereby should, be turned into a non-hater. Instead, A let what we call hate get A fired up, ready to rock out to loud macho stereotypes of screaming confrontations and fantasy's of KO's. On some level, A did good by avoiding that dillusional cling to the learned, allegedly natural and just behavior exibited by the, you guessed it, male psyche. Yet A's retreat from the most obvious hate was not enough. A's more subtle hate was still sufficient to give him the key to open the door for all of hate's best friends, that is, the consequences that inherently follow from hate. Yup, A sent that text message of his unexposed and covert hate to his closest C, or so A thought. Perhaps on some fateful level, A's thoughts provoking the desire of telling B to go jump in the lake or break B down dispresptfully in front of B's peers, manifested themselves by A subconsciously intending to get them to B via a text message consciously intended to go to C. A's hate got to B with out A ever overtly or consciously trying to do so. Hence, not hating haters is hard. It's real hard. Hard is often times very good. Yet check out the best friends of hate at play. These bad girls/boys (putting girls first to affirmatively act them up to speed as I often advocate, and no, I did not just express my view on the political and legal notion of "affirmative action") came to play with A on a level that A did not want. A got some stress when B, unbeknownst to B previously, (because of A's failure to control hate and ability to let it supress itself in A's mind to the point of an attempt to pass that hate to C rather than extinguish that hate by a non-hateful confrontation on B) learned of A's hate for him and then confronted A based on this bruising text message. Now, A, did not even have a minute, literally, to realize that A mistakenly sent the hate message to B. Then BAM- B, humiliates A by showing A his own message that was supposed to be sent to C. Now A, with the humiliation and embarassment, was unable to stand up to B and explain his text message and its origin in contempt for B's hateful comments. Sure, A regrouped and confronted B in a non-hateful positive way shortly there after, but that's not the point. A got victimized by his own hate created by B's hate. Rather than A acting by directly confronting and calling B out on his hate speech in a respectful, peaceful and effective manner at the time such confrontation was due (such as having the gathering proposed by JW when the hatemongers are in town), A was succomb by B's hate and, more importantly, A's hate. A must always practice the implications of JW's poem. It is not enough to just know that "puppets on strings aren't responsible for things," not enough to know that B is not always responsible for B's hate, it is necessary for A to start cutting A's strings that bind him to B's hate, thus tearing apart the hate attached to A and hopefully the hate attached to B.

realy thank you for starting this up. this website is something that is needed on the web, somebody with slightly originality. helpful job for bringing something new to the web!

This particular blog post Making Statements: A Personal Epiphany on not Hating Haters (Wiley
Wandering), contains really wonderful info and I figured out just
what I was initially looking for. Thanks.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)