So you are making a distinction that I am not. If you label something as "mental patterns of hate" and rejecting it on those grounds, you are, by definition making a moral judgment against it.
Excuse me, but have you read any history at all? The psychology of othering and its role in the justification of human evils is long and sordid.
What you consider hateful, I may not consider hateful
This is your word game of double standards. The hateful mindset in human brains is a tangible, measurable thing. There is no debate about this. Your cop-out is nothing more than a common-sense defying ideological re-labelling.
I have given you a concrete working example to demonstrate my moral logic.
I also note that you have not given me quotes to back your 3 unjustified assertions (attempt to put words in my mouth) which I called out. This kind of cognitive distortion resulting in a lack of intellectual dishonesty is something that I have observed in association with hateivism, and is simultaneously a symptom and pernicious effect.
I really don't want people unmotivated by anger to be activists.
Read carefully much? In a preceding comment, I make a point of saying it's ok for people to be motivated by anger in activism. The problem is when it becomes the guiding force.
No one hates you. You're not really doing anything worthy of hate. You're just making grandiose statements about your comprehension of other human beings and it's slightly more obnoxious than stepping on gum, but probably less obnoxious than being hit with the stink of sewer gas while walking through Cambridge.
No one hates you. You're not really doing anything worthy of hate.
Have you noticed that you keep generating falsehoods because you keep jumping to conclusions or making assumptions about me? (I keep having to point these things out. None of which you have bothered to acknowledge, by the way. That is not intellectually honest.) On the contrary, I have often encountered de-facto hate. To the point where police got involved, caught the perpetrators, then had to ask me not to press charges to keep the event of their records.
You're just making grandiose statements about your comprehension of other human beings
There is a wealth of historical and philosophical writing about how group psychology and hate works. You might recognize some of the names, like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. There are a number of relevant psychological studies as well. If you study those writings then re-read what you have written here on HN and were honest with yourself, you might well become embarrassed.
It's amazing how people who have succumbed to ideologies of hate and who are self-justifying this manage to point fingers in a way that implicates themselves -- and how unaware they are of this.
Excuse me, but have you read any history at all? The psychology of othering and its role in the justification of human evils is long and sordid.
What you consider hateful, I may not consider hateful
This is your word game of double standards. The hateful mindset in human brains is a tangible, measurable thing. There is no debate about this. Your cop-out is nothing more than a common-sense defying ideological re-labelling.
I have given you a concrete working example to demonstrate my moral logic.
I also note that you have not given me quotes to back your 3 unjustified assertions (attempt to put words in my mouth) which I called out. This kind of cognitive distortion resulting in a lack of intellectual dishonesty is something that I have observed in association with hateivism, and is simultaneously a symptom and pernicious effect.
I really don't want people unmotivated by anger to be activists.
Read carefully much? In a preceding comment, I make a point of saying it's ok for people to be motivated by anger in activism. The problem is when it becomes the guiding force.