Hate Group registry

I think we need one, like a child sex offender registry.

Hate Group registry and for individuals who hate as well.

I have one of the list

Folau’s church, called the Truth of Jesus Christ Church.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/israel-folaus-tiny-congregation-could-soon-be-forced-to-find-a-new-church-space-to-rent-after-footy-star-blasted-transgender-kids-in-his-latest-sermon/ar-AAD0R5z

Hating transgenders when they don’t even understand the underlying chemical nature.

Israel Folau, stop hating things you don’t understand.

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

Not keen on the idea.
The word hate has been so corrupted that it now often includes mild disagreement.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

Not keen on the idea.
The word hate has been so corrupted that it now often includes mild disagreement.

You’re such a hater!

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

Not keen on the idea.
The word hate has been so corrupted that it now often includes mild disagreement.

You’re such a hater!

A veritable mad hater hatter.

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

I reckon it will egg them on. Gives them the attention they crave.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

Not keen on the idea.
The word hate has been so corrupted that it now often includes mild disagreement.

This would be for individuals like Frazer Anning who publicly push hatred

and for church groups who preach hatred

not for chat disagreements

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

I reckon it will egg them on. Gives them the attention they crave.

A form of Troll feeding.

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

I reckon it will egg them on. Gives them the attention they crave.

Remove their tax exemptions and remove other other religious benefits

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

Not keen on the idea.
The word hate has been so corrupted that it now often includes mild disagreement.

I’m inclined to agree.

OTOH, if this list was restricted to groups that really did promote hate in a hateful sort of way, and if you were not allowed to refer to a group as a hate-group unless it was on the list, then maybe it would do some good.

I’m not sure that TN would approve though.

These hate groups are harming people and that fact should be made public.

The harm that they cause needs to be considered and laws created to reduce it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A publicly accessible Hate Group Registry for these hate groups might offer some motivation to change their behaviours towards others.

Not keen on the idea.
The word hate has been so corrupted that it now often includes mild disagreement.

I’m inclined to agree.

OTOH, if this list was restricted to groups that really did promote hate in a hateful sort of way, and if you were not allowed to refer to a group as a hate-group unless it was on the list, then maybe it would do some good.

I’m not sure that TN would approve though.

Yes. I approve.

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Not keen on the idea.
The word hate has been so corrupted that it now often includes mild disagreement.

I’m inclined to agree.

OTOH, if this list was restricted to groups that really did promote hate in a hateful sort of way, and if you were not allowed to refer to a group as a hate-group unless it was on the list, then maybe it would do some good.

I’m not sure that TN would approve though.

Yes. I approve.

Even if none of the groups you have mentioned make it onto the list?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m inclined to agree.

OTOH, if this list was restricted to groups that really did promote hate in a hateful sort of way, and if you were not allowed to refer to a group as a hate-group unless it was on the list, then maybe it would do some good.

I’m not sure that TN would approve though.

Yes. I approve.

Even if none of the groups you have mentioned make it onto the list?

This stuff is actually difficult.

For instance, there are interpretations of a certain religion that say that people who reject or insult that religion should be killed, along with people who practice various forms of consensual sexual activity. Presumably there are people in Australia who promote that interpretation as being the one true truth.

Should these people be declared as being in a hate-group, and if so what should we do about it?

I don’t know.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m inclined to agree.

OTOH, if this list was restricted to groups that really did promote hate in a hateful sort of way, and if you were not allowed to refer to a group as a hate-group unless it was on the list, then maybe it would do some good.

I’m not sure that TN would approve though.

Yes. I approve.

Even if none of the groups you have mentioned make it onto the list?

If there is evidence then they go on the list.

If there is no evidence then they don’t go on the list.

I think people and groups have the night to their opinions so individuals and groups can have the freedom to disagree

Its when they push their opinions onto other people in an offensive threatening way is when they become abusers.

And how do you deal with ambiguous language?

For instance, our Dear Leader has seen the light, and now thinks we should all support “Patriotism”, rather than “Globalism”.

That’s open to a fair bit of interpretation, but I bet Dutton will be mis-using it in the near future.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes. I approve.

Even if none of the groups you have mentioned make it onto the list?

This stuff is actually difficult.

For instance, there are interpretations of a certain religion that say that people who reject or insult that religion should be killed, along with people who practice various forms of consensual sexual activity. Presumably there are people in Australia who promote that interpretation as being the one true truth.

Should these people be declared as being in a hate-group, and if so what should we do about it?

I don’t know.

These are questions of philosophy really… which doesn’t make them wrong, but by definition have no right or wrong answers

kii said:

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Hmmmm…seems NM has lost a few hate groups. Sure there was 3 a while back.

The Rev Dodgson said:

And how do you deal with ambiguous language?

For instance, our Dear Leader has seen the light, and now thinks we should all support “Patriotism”, rather than “Globalism”.

That’s open to a fair bit of interpretation, but I bet Dutton will be mis-using it in the near future.

Nationalism is being used here as a way of avoiding international commitments, most especially on climate change.
The UN is evil. Faceless unelected bureaucrats telling us what to do, yadda yadda yadda.
It’s the kind on nonsense arguments they used to sell Brexit.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes. I approve.

Even if none of the groups you have mentioned make it onto the list?

If there is evidence then they go on the list.

If there is no evidence then they don’t go on the list.

I think people and groups have the night to their opinions so individuals and groups can have the freedom to disagree

Its when they push their opinions onto other people in an offensive threatening way is when they become abusers.

The trouble is, what is “evidence” is a matter of opinion.

I mean there would certainly be some people who would suggest you should go on the list for your anti-religious views.

I disagree, but it’s hard to produce real “evidence” that everyone could agree on.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes. I approve.

Even if none of the groups you have mentioned make it onto the list?

This stuff is actually difficult.

For instance, there are interpretations of a certain religion that say that people who reject or insult that religion should be killed, along with people who practice various forms of consensual sexual activity. Presumably there are people in Australia who promote that interpretation as being the one true truth.

Should these people be declared as being in a hate-group, and if so what should we do about it?

I don’t know.

They can always change their interpretations.

>>>This stuff is actually difficult.

Yes.

Tau.Neutrino said:

These hate groups are harming people and that fact should be made public.

The harm that they cause needs to be considered and laws created to reduce it.

Hmm. A good starting point would be organisors of protest demonstrations.
The TV news would be the next port of call, because they show haters all the time.
Then, perhaps, activists of all kinds, including terrorists and PETA.
Then, perhaps, armies, secret armies and vigilante groups.
Then rabble rousing politicians.
Newspapers and selected web groups.
Finally, cults and religions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes. I approve.

Even if none of the groups you have mentioned make it onto the list?

This stuff is actually difficult.

For instance, there are interpretations of a certain religion that say that people who reject or insult that religion should be killed, along with people who practice various forms of consensual sexual activity. Presumably there are people in Australia who promote that interpretation as being the one true truth.

Should these people be declared as being in a hate-group, and if so what should we do about it?

I don’t know.

Should we allow nature to take its course?

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And how do you deal with ambiguous language?

For instance, our Dear Leader has seen the light, and now thinks we should all support “Patriotism”, rather than “Globalism”.

That’s open to a fair bit of interpretation, but I bet Dutton will be mis-using it in the near future.

Nationalism is being used here as a way of avoiding international commitments, most especially on climate change.
The UN is evil. Faceless unelected bureaucrats telling us what to do, yadda yadda yadda.
It’s the kind on nonsense arguments they used to sell Brexit.

true enough.

you’ll be leading a group of master hater haters

your idea reminds me of the theme of many western movies. Seemingly an ideological device was delivered into your head with little resistance

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

These hate groups are harming people and that fact should be made public.

The harm that they cause needs to be considered and laws created to reduce it.

Hmm. A good starting point would be organisors of protest demonstrations.
The TV news would be the next port of call, because they show haters all the time.
Then, perhaps, activists of all kinds, including terrorists and PETA.
Then, perhaps, armies, secret armies and vigilante groups.
Then rabble rousing politicians.
Newspapers and selected web groups.
Finally, cults and religions.

What percentage of society is toxic?

transition said:

you’ll be leading a group of master hater haters

your idea reminds me of the theme of many western movies. Seemingly an ideological device was delivered into your head with little resistance

I remember back to the “international year of tolerance”

their catch cry was , seriously.. “we will not tolerate intolerance”

you had to laugh.

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

These hate groups are harming people and that fact should be made public.

The harm that they cause needs to be considered and laws created to reduce it.

Hmm. A good starting point would be organisors of protest demonstrations.
The TV news would be the next port of call, because they show haters all the time.
Then, perhaps, activists of all kinds, including terrorists and PETA.
Then, perhaps, armies, secret armies and vigilante groups.
Then rabble rousing politicians.
Newspapers and selected web groups.
Finally, cults and religions.

What percentage of society is toxic?

The feminists are going on about toxic masculinity so there’s about 50% of the population to begin with.

Dropbear said:

transition said:

you’ll be leading a group of master hater haters

your idea reminds me of the theme of many western movies. Seemingly an ideological device was delivered into your head with little resistance

I remember back to the “international year of tolerance”

their catch cry was , seriously.. “we will not tolerate intolerance”

you had to laugh.

I have a sign on my desk which says: “Be tolerant. Do it my way.”

transition said:

you’ll be leading a group of master hater haters

your idea reminds me of the theme of many western movies. Seemingly an ideological device was delivered into your head with little resistance

Ethics requires some consideration, to approach it in a dismissive way is foolish.

Do you have the same feelings with the sex offenders registry ?

To have groups of people inflicting harm onto others using religions ideologies is unacceptable.

These people are not above the Law.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even if none of the groups you have mentioned make it onto the list?

This stuff is actually difficult.

For instance, there are interpretations of a certain religion that say that people who reject or insult that religion should be killed, along with people who practice various forms of consensual sexual activity. Presumably there are people in Australia who promote that interpretation as being the one true truth.

Should these people be declared as being in a hate-group, and if so what should we do about it?

I don’t know.

Should we allow nature to take its course?

No, we shouldn’t.

Or yes, we should.

Depending on what you mean by “allow nature to take its course”.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

you’ll be leading a group of master hater haters

your idea reminds me of the theme of many western movies. Seemingly an ideological device was delivered into your head with little resistance

Ethics requires some consideration, to approach it in a dismissive way is foolish.

Do you have the same feelings with the sex offenders registry ?

To have groups of people inflicting harm onto others using religions ideologies is unacceptable.

These people are not above the Law.

my guess is you couldn’t explain the most basic aspects of shaming, you’d be scrambling for dictionary definitions, worse than NFI even after that, you’d have an idea worse than none at all

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

you’ll be leading a group of master hater haters

your idea reminds me of the theme of many western movies. Seemingly an ideological device was delivered into your head with little resistance

Ethics requires some consideration, to approach it in a dismissive way is foolish.

Do you have the same feelings with the sex offenders registry ?

To have groups of people inflicting harm onto others using religions ideologies is unacceptable.

These people are not above the Law.

my guess is you couldn’t explain the most basic aspects of shaming, you’d be scrambling for dictionary definitions, worse than NFI even after that, you’d have an idea worse than none at all

Using pretence to put down people is also foolish.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ethics requires some consideration, to approach it in a dismissive way is foolish.

Do you have the same feelings with the sex offenders registry ?

To have groups of people inflicting harm onto others using religions ideologies is unacceptable.

These people are not above the Law.

my guess is you couldn’t explain the most basic aspects of shaming, you’d be scrambling for dictionary definitions, worse than NFI even after that, you’d have an idea worse than none at all

Using pretence to put down people is also foolish.

well, you want to release the shamers

tell me what it is, how it works, before you put your big plans to work, using shame

you apparently have some genius, on the subject

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This stuff is actually difficult.

For instance, there are interpretations of a certain religion that say that people who reject or insult that religion should be killed, along with people who practice various forms of consensual sexual activity. Presumably there are people in Australia who promote that interpretation as being the one true truth.

Should these people be declared as being in a hate-group, and if so what should we do about it?

I don’t know.

Should we allow nature to take its course?

No, we shouldn’t.

Or yes, we should.

Depending on what you mean by “allow nature to take its course”.

:) By it’s nature, it has absolutely nothing to do with any meaning I could concoct.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

my guess is you couldn’t explain the most basic aspects of shaming, you’d be scrambling for dictionary definitions, worse than NFI even after that, you’d have an idea worse than none at all

Using pretence to put down people is also foolish.

well, you want to release the shamers

tell me what it is, how it works, before you put your big plans to work, using shame

you apparently have some genius, on the subject

Trying to use nonsense as a distraction now?

Or are are suggesting that haters should be shamed?

Israel Folau belongs to a hate group

The Truth of Jesus Christ Church is a Hate group

I hate the people who leave rubbish on our streets, footpaths and beautiful beach. In fact there’s a whole group of us here that hate these litterbugs. Some of us take bags with us and pick litter up and put it in the put it in the rubbish.

We’re certainly a hate group. Should we be registered?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Should we allow nature to take its course?

No, we shouldn’t.

Or yes, we should.

Depending on what you mean by “allow nature to take its course”.

:) By it’s nature, it has absolutely nothing to do with any meaning I could concoct.

OTOH, your understanding of what those words mean has everything to do the meanings you could concoct.

And my understanding of your understanding flows from that.

Michael V said:

I hate the people who leave rubbish on our streets, footpaths and beautiful beach. In fact there’s a whole group of us here that hate these litterbugs. Some of us take bags with us and pick litter up and put it in the put it in the rubbish.

We’re certainly a hate group. Should we be registered?

Hate in this instance is a watering down of the true meaning of the word hate.

Michael V said:

I hate the people who leave rubbish on our streets, footpaths and beautiful beach. In fact there’s a whole group of us here that hate these litterbugs. Some of us take bags with us and pick litter up and put it in the put it in the rubbish.

We’re certainly a hate group. Should we be registered?

What about people who don’t hate things that should be hated?

Maybe they should be registered too?

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

I hate the people who leave rubbish on our streets, footpaths and beautiful beach. In fact there’s a whole group of us here that hate these litterbugs. Some of us take bags with us and pick litter up and put it in the put it in the rubbish.

We’re certainly a hate group. Should we be registered?

Hate in this instance is a watering down of the true meaning of the word hate.

I hate it when people so that.

Michael V said:

I hate the people who leave rubbish on our streets, footpaths and beautiful beach. In fact there’s a whole group of us here that hate these litterbugs. Some of us take bags with us and pick litter up and put it in the put it in the rubbish.

We’re certainly a hate group. Should we be registered?

If you violate other people’s rights, then yes. If you keep your opinions within the group then no.

There is a difference between having opinions, and having opinions and acting on them using justified presumptions in which the outcome is a crime or a human rights violation.

Or really bad behaviour which is offensive.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

I hate the people who leave rubbish on our streets, footpaths and beautiful beach. In fact there’s a whole group of us here that hate these litterbugs. Some of us take bags with us and pick litter up and put it in the put it in the rubbish.

We’re certainly a hate group. Should we be registered?

What about people who don’t hate things that should be hated?

Maybe they should be registered too?

What are your thoughts on the sex offenders registry?

>Or are are suggesting that haters should be shamed?

i’ll leave it to you to explain what you mean, what the exact purpose of any registry might be, i’m sure you’ll include in an explanation of its purpose the likely unintended consequences, what it might lend to

or, you may fail to go near the subject of the likely unintended consequences, prefer to see those as accidental, even trivial

you can obliviate a lot of practical realities with enthusiasm for a good idea

I hate this thread.

Ian said:

I hate this thread.

I hate Hate Groups

Toxic

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ian said:

I hate this thread.

I hate Hate Groups

Toxic

Another misused word.

Ian said:

I hate this thread.

I love it.

I love Jennifer Eccles.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ian said:

I hate this thread.

I hate Hate Groups

Toxic

Another misused word.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ian said:

I hate this thread.

I hate Hate Groups

Toxic

You and I can be in top place on the list of meta-haters list.

Peak Warming Man said:

I love Jennifer Eccles.

My favourite Eccles:
The Famous Eccles, complete and utter idiot. An amiable, well-meaning man with no wits or understanding. When people tell him to shut up, he frequently joins in and often goes on telling himself to shut up long after everyone else has given up.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Ian said:

I hate this thread.

I hate Hate Groups

Toxic

Another misused word.

Hatred Is a chemical or part of a groups of chemicals in the human body which itself a chemical body which exists within a chemical environment

so we really have hatred chemicals which cause people to abuse others for no reason other than justified presumptions driven by hatred

yeah, right, really intelligent, wasting their fucking time bothering other people.

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I love Jennifer Eccles.

My favourite Eccles:
The Famous Eccles, complete and utter idiot. An amiable, well-meaning man with no wits or understanding. When people tell him to shut up, he frequently joins in and often goes on telling himself to shut up long after everyone else has given up.

I used to listen to the Goon Show every Saturday at 12 noon.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I hate Hate Groups

Toxic

Another misused word.

Hatred Is a chemical or part of a groups of chemicals in the human body which itself a chemical body which exists within a chemical environment

so we really have hatred chemicals which cause people to abuse others for no reason other than justified presumptions driven by hatred

yeah, right, really intelligent, wasting their fucking time bothering other people.

Don’t you mean toxic not hatred chemicals?

Governments are hate groups even democratic ones, many of the members hate some group of people based on outdated wrong ideals.
As a collective they are even worse they can start a war and kill many people minding their own business all in the name of some bullshit they make up to justify it. The worst often seem to be nice old religious people who spout hatred because some reprint of a reprint of a novel told them so.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

Another misused word.

Hatred Is a chemical or part of a groups of chemicals in the human body which itself a chemical body which exists within a chemical environment

so we really have hatred chemicals which cause people to abuse others for no reason other than justified presumptions driven by hatred

yeah, right, really intelligent, wasting their fucking time bothering other people.

Don’t you mean toxic not hatred chemicals?

Are you suggesting that negative emotions are toxic?

or that toxic substances are a part of hatred behaviour

maybe haters have allergies to substances and that drives them to hate?

but whatever is is, there are reasons why these people hate, and as we chemical in nature and our brains are electro chemical then part of the answer will involve a molecular description.

>Hatred Is a chemical or part of a groups of chemicals in the human body which itself a chemical body which exists within a chemical environment

probably dislike is more healthily expressed as or in common aversion, hatred is likely more active, going to a force of attraction

so I could ask, does normal avoiding or aversion, go to attraction and indulgence, sometimes, neutrino?

I’m not entirely unacquainted with examples of what i’d define as hate, bothersome examples, so i’m with you there, they exist. The thing is though all the examples I have in my mind also exhibit an enthusiasm to pathologize. I’d guess to compensate for some poverty of internal mental states.

so, i’m thinking the social equilibrium (and personal equilibrium) is in-great-part courtesy a reluctance to pathologize

transition said:

>Hatred Is a chemical or part of a groups of chemicals in the human body which itself a chemical body which exists within a chemical environment

probably dislike is more healthily expressed as or in common aversion, hatred is likely more active, going to a force of attraction

so I could ask, does normal avoiding or aversion, go to attraction and indulgence, sometimes, neutrino?

I’m not entirely unacquainted with examples of what i’d define as hate, bothersome examples, so i’m with you there, they exist. The thing is though all the examples I have in my mind also exhibit an enthusiasm to pathologize. I’d guess to compensate for some poverty of internal mental states.

so, i’m thinking the social equilibrium (and personal equilibrium) is in-great-part courtesy a reluctance to pathologize

Are you suggesting that loneliness causes psychological abnormality?

Maybe someone living with a partner who is driving them mad can cause psychological abnormality?

I suppose any environment given the right conditions can cause psychological abnormality.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

>Hatred Is a chemical or part of a groups of chemicals in the human body which itself a chemical body which exists within a chemical environment

probably dislike is more healthily expressed as or in common aversion, hatred is likely more active, going to a force of attraction

so I could ask, does normal avoiding or aversion, go to attraction and indulgence, sometimes, neutrino?

I’m not entirely unacquainted with examples of what i’d define as hate, bothersome examples, so i’m with you there, they exist. The thing is though all the examples I have in my mind also exhibit an enthusiasm to pathologize. I’d guess to compensate for some poverty of internal mental states.

so, i’m thinking the social equilibrium (and personal equilibrium) is in-great-part courtesy a reluctance to pathologize

Are you suggesting that loneliness causes psychological abnormality?

Maybe someone living with a partner who is driving them mad can cause psychological abnormality?

I suppose any environment given the right conditions can cause psychological abnormality.

i’m highlighting the importance of a reluctance to pathologize, as I see it

Hate groups are no different to bullies.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Hate groups are no different to bullies.

Not really, the hatred is bully behaviour seeking to impose ones will on someone different.

Hatred is a strong emotion if the person isn’t intimately associated with what they hate.
The exceptions being something like hatred for a nation as they just bombed the shit out of you and killed your family even though the person that did it has no connection to you

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Hate groups are no different to bullies.

Not really, the hatred is bully behaviour seeking to impose ones will on someone different.

ok. slightly different.

I still dont understand hate groups as much as I would like to.

Cymek said:

Hatred is a strong emotion if the person isn’t intimately associated with what they hate.
The exceptions being something like hatred for a nation as they just bombed the shit out of you and killed your family even though the person that did it has no connection to you

Yes, emotions are a strong part of it.

and behaviour is a strong part of it.

Some people can become very emotionally connected to innate concepts.

Then those emotions drive their behaviour towards others.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Hatred is a strong emotion if the person isn’t intimately associated with what they hate.
The exceptions being something like hatred for a nation as they just bombed the shit out of you and killed your family even though the person that did it has no connection to you

Yes, emotions are a strong part of it.

and behaviour is a strong part of it.

Some people can become very emotionally connected to innate concepts.

Then those emotions drive their behaviour towards others.

Fanboi behaviour has turned into this, these so called fans of something are extremely nasty towards the person/band that doesn’t fulfil their expectations of how it should have been. They act like the own them and how dare they do something we don’t like.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Hatred is a strong emotion if the person isn’t intimately associated with what they hate.
The exceptions being something like hatred for a nation as they just bombed the shit out of you and killed your family even though the person that did it has no connection to you

Yes, emotions are a strong part of it.

and behaviour is a strong part of it.

Some people can become very emotionally connected to innate concepts.

Then those emotions drive their behaviour towards others.

Fanboi behaviour has turned into this, these so called fans of something are extremely nasty towards the person/band that doesn’t fulfil their expectations of how it should have been. They act like the own them and how dare they do something we don’t like.

I sometimes sense ownership with trolls and other people.

or really strong controlling behaviours.

Here’s a list of overt hate grops, bit old but it’s a start.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_21st_century

mollwollfumble said:

Here’s a list of overt hate grops, bit old but it’s a start.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_21st_century

Interesting take on this from Chat.

“I think it’s because outrage is a commodity, I think it’s something that has been a commodity for a while..”

I’m surprised there’s no anti-Rump hate group.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m surprised there’s no anti-Rump hate group.

Set up by sirloin lovers?

kii said:

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Interesting

Thanks kii