Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

[Crazyjayde]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

On the original debate, I would expand the label to determine of what nature between bigotry or sociopathy a misanthropic individual is more akin to being associated/mislabeled. Knowing how much of ignorance and/or lack of empathy is included in the shaping of the common misanthrope would significantly help in understanding its nuances.

IMO, misanthropy can either consist of the gray area between the two, in which the balance can sway lightly or heavily between either, or even the complete lack of both. The latter being closer to misology, where it's more disinterest than scorn. The ideology itself seems to be distributed organically within certain demographics, self-proclaimed or not (some base themselves on certain extent of rationality, some don't and rely on prejudice, some... etc.)* and I find it hard to pinpoint a common ground. Hence why I think the ambiguity of the misanthropic condition can set the table for a more profitable discussion.

*Following link serves as a relevant example of the diversification between misanthropic beliefs: http://www.whyihatepeople.com/forum/...php?f=7&t=2704

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

If someone comes and claims that their "version" of misanthropy is just seeing humanity as inherently flawed, I'll obviously not have a problem with that. But if you expand the label to that point, it seems somewhat pointless for it to even exist.

Firstly, that's not what misanthropy is. It's that and more. You're missing the very important notion that on top of humanity being flawed, the misanthropist believes that humanity does not meet the expectations they have. I believe humans are flawed but I'm not a misanthropist.

Secondly, if you're going to come into a critical thinking thread and make an argument or even ask a question, you should be clear about what it is you want. We couldn't answer your questions very well because it took about 2 pages of posts to figure out what you were even trying to ask. If you use the term "misanthropy" we're gonna assume it's the dictionary definition. If you have a different definition then you need to describe it.


EDIT: LOL

To some degree though, I understand where you're coming from. When you're talking about "misanthropy being glorified in our culture" you could be referring to cynical people (like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAmazingAtheist) who spout a lot of negativity and become very popular. I'm not a fan of this guy because I think almost everything he says is cliche criticism without any real insight. If this is what you're talking about, this isn't misanthropy.

[Crazyjayde]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

If someone comes and claims that their "version" of misanthropy is just seeing humanity as inherently flawed, I'll obviously not have a problem with that. But if you expand the label to that point, it seems somewhat pointless for it to even exist.

This sole belief isn't restricted to misanthropy in any way, but it can become the basis of it. However, it's still only the morality part of the philosophy.

EDIT: okay wow

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

Why the edits?

Well, anyhow, I know I shouldn't have bumped this. People had already answered the original question in the first page. The bump was because I felt the need to reply to the last post by fido123. The rest of the discussion arised from that, but some people still thought I was discussing only the things in the original post, when I really wasn't.

I should have been clear, though: my issue is not with the DISTRUST, my issue is with the HATRED. I think it's stupid and by no means "better" than what people would call bigotry. How is hatred of everyone better than hatred of a single group?

I get the thing said in the link, but the fact that it comes from a website called "why I hate people" is a bit hard to ignore. It's just so profoundly stupid that people create a whole website, based on technologies made by other people, to talk to other people about why they hate people.

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I should have been clear, though: my issue is not with the DISTRUST, my issue is with the HATRED. I think it's stupid and by no means "better" than what people would call bigotry. How is hatred of everyone better than hatred of a single group?

The people you probably consider intolerant might have trouble putting themselves in another person's shoes, and ironically that might be what you're having trouble doing with these people. You hate the people who hate. Hatred of a single group can be justified just as hatred of everyone can be justified. Whether or not we feel it is right is a different matter. Different people in different environments are obviously likely to reach different conclusions.

Example to show you that in principle this is possible:

Imagine you're a black man living in oppression because of white men. You might hate white men. Not because you hate every individual white man, but because from your experiences, the large majority (or even all) of white men you meet treat you badly, leading you to come to the generalization that white men are abusive. You make this conclusion as a way to protect yourself and prepare for what you know is most likely to happen. You may not think it's right, but can you really blame this person for thinking this way?

However, suppose you have an employer here in the US that just hates black people for some petty reason. When this employer decides to reject a fantastic applicant with an impressive profile simply because he is black (or any other race), that is considered bigotry because the person who is being treated unfairly is the black man looking for the job. The root of hatred and discrimination has no reasonable basis. Where the previous case the man had a reason to hate white men (to protect himself), this employer just hates black people for a petty reason that is not reasonable.


Hate is a perfectly natural emotion that almost all humans experience, for many different possible reasons. You seem to immediately target those that hate others due to generalizations as being unreasonable, and that's not necessarily true. There could be sound basis for why a person would make such generalizations, and he has every right to feel what he feels (and from a psychological standpoint changing one's way of thinking is not easy either if it's rooted heavily in habits and personality). What you should be judging is how reasonable these generalizations are, and how they affect how this person's behavior.

I have plenty of friends who are generally very spiteful and full of hatred, but they don't treat people unfairly. The hatred is simply due to their nature and environment. One of them experienced a very abusive childhood, and even though she hates humanity, is very close to me and trusts me.

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

Hatred of a single group can be justified just as hatred of everyone can be justified. Whether or not we feel it is right is a different matter. Different people in different environments are obviously likely to reach different conclusions. The people you probably consider intolerant might have trouble putting themselves in another person's shoes, and that might be what you're having trouble doing with them.

Example to show you that in principle this is possible:

Imagine you're a black man living in oppression because of white men. You might hate white men. Not because you hate every individual white man, but because from your experiences, the large majority (or even all) of white men treat you badly, leading you to come to that conclusion. You make this conclusion as a way to protect yourself and prepare for what you know is most likely to happen. You may not think it's right, but can you really blame this person for thinking this way?

However, when an employer here in the US decides to reject a fantastic applicant with an impressive profile simply because he is black (or any other race), that is considered bigotry because the person who is being treated unfairly is the black man looking for the job. The root of hatred and discrimination has no reasonable basis. Where the previous case the man had a reason to hate white men (to protect himself), this employer just hates black people for some petty reason.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. There is no rational excuse for hating a group, because you can't blame an entire group for the action of individuals. You can be cautious based on the experiences you've had with people from a certain group, but hatred is a whole different story. Hatred is a strong dislike, usually meaning that you'd desire that the hated thing would not exist nor interact with you.

A black person who hates whites is a bigot. No more, no less. Same with a white who hates blacks.

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. There is no rational excuse for hating a group, because you can't blame an entire group for the action of individuals. You can be cautious based on the experiences you've had with people from a certain group, but hatred is a whole different story. Hatred is a strong dislike, usually meaning that you'd desire that the hated thing would not exist or not interact with you.

A black person who hates whites is a bigot. No more, no less. Same with a white who hates blacks.

Another way to see this, with a particularly extreme case:

We have all heard of people who due to some early childhood trauma, develop a fear for something. For example, a child that originally was not afraid of snakes, but is then bitten by one, could end up being afraid of snakes the rest of his life. And this is just due to one experience.

Now imagine this trauma is caused by people of a particular group, who we know are aware of what they're doing. Then imagine this happening not just once but consistently throughout one's entire life, whenever he happens to encounter people of this group. I dare you to try and convince this person that this group of people isn't bad.

But that doesn't necessarily mean he'll never like anyone of this group. If some situation happens where a person of this group is very kind to this person and earns trust, then it's possible that hatred would subside for this individual. But that won't stop this person from hating the group.


Hating all members of a group and hating a group are two completely different things. The elements of a set is not the same as the set itself.

Why is it difficult to accept that some people can still be fair to other people while having a hateful nature?

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

...

Why is it difficult to accept that some people can still be fair to other people while having a hateful nature?

I think you're confusing hatred with general cautiousness or fear. These are not the same thing. Hatred is a highly destructive feeling, whereas fear and cautiousness are more about avoidance itself.

In my experience, people who claim to hate a group want more than just distance from the group. They believe that the reduction or destruction of the group would be a positive thing. I'm unable to see a person that holds this belief as being "fair".

For example: I fear bears, snakes and spiders. I wouldn't want them to die, but I'd be pretty terrified of being in the same room as them. I hate mosquitoes. I actually wish they would cease to exist where I live.

Is this hatred of mosquitoes rational? Probably not. They happen to be one of the very few things I actually hate, besides evil, obnoxious and disgusting things in general.

I understand what trauma is, however, my point is precisely that the hatred of a group has no rational basis.

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I think you're confusing hatred with general cautiousness or fear. These are not the same thing. Hatred is a highly destructive feeling, whereas fear and cautiousness are more about avoidance itself.

No I'm not. If you're traumatized by snakes you could probably just fear them. However, in the case of humans, we know that humans are consciously aware of what they're doing, so in this case the fear easily transitions into hatred. Of course, fear from trauma is not exclusive either, you could just as much wish death upon all snakes just because one bit you as a kid.

I'm quite aware of what hatred is. And once again, I have friends that actually hate other groups or humanity in general, and yet treat people fairly. One of these friends does in fact wishes death upon all humans except for the ones she cares about, and as paradoxical as it may seem, the cause of this mindset is fairly clear and the distinction of humanity versus individual humans is also clear. Hatred for something doesn't necessarily mean you wish to eradicate it completely. It could just mean you don't want to encounter it because it causes you distress.

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

You literally just said that your friend wishes death upon all humans except for the ones she cares about. Do you realize how incredibly selfish, prejudiced and unfair that is?

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

It doesn't matter. It doesn't mean she'll actually go and kill every single human, or even a single human for that matter. Is simply thinking that still selfish and unfair? What's wrong with that view then?

Suppose someone you respected who did not harbor any kind of hate that you can observe secretly felt the same way, but never acts upon this feeling or communicates it. How could you ever tell that this person had any hate? If you couldn't tell, why does it matter?

Have you never felt hate for anything? Do you even hate these hateful people we're talking about?

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I was talking about what I find logical/reasonable. This is critical thinking, after all. Ideas are not harmless at all, and if hateful ideas spread, there can be some terrible physical consequences, as history clearly shows.

So, you never question people's unfair and poorly based beliefs because they might not motivate actions? I always thought truth should stand on its own.

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

I was talking about what I find logical/reasonable. This is critical thinking, after all. Ideas are not harmless at all, and if hateful ideas spread, there can be some terrible physical consequences, as history clearly shows.

So, you never question people's unfair and poorly based beliefs because they might not motivate actions? I always thought truth should stand on its own.

But that's exactly my point. Just because a person hates a group of people or hates humanity, that doesn't make it wrong. What would be wrong would be to act irrationally, unethically, unfairly, irresponsibly, etc. Spreading false and/or dangerous information would be an example of this.

You're criticizing these people for the wrong reason. If they hate a group of people and they treat them unfairly, sure, go ahead and criticize them for that. But don't generalize all people that hate a group as being illogical. You don't like it when others generalize, and you're doing it yourself with these people.

[Zaevod]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

No, I'm not generalizing anything. I'm making a statement based on the beliefs they have already shown.

Beliefs don't need to translate into actions to be stupid. I could believe that the center of the earth is made of candy and do nothing about it, but the belief would still be illogical and stupid on its own, and people would be free to call me out on my idiocy on that case.

Believing/wishing that every human should die except for the ones someone cares about is illogical, selfish, unfair and stupid. There is nothing logical that supports this feeling. If someone tells me that, I'll call them out on it regardless of whether they plan to kill anyone or not.

[stargroup100]

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

No, I'm not generalizing anything. I'm making a statement based on the beliefs they have already shown.

You:
"All people who hold hatred towards a group are illogical and idiotic."
The people you don't like:
"All people who hold hatred towards black people are illogical and idiotic."

The only way these two can be different is if you think "hatred towards a group" itself is idiotic. That could be your opinion. But the fact of the matter is there do exist idiots in this world. That doesn't make this concept in general unfair or wrong.

Even if it was idiotic and illogical, how does it make it unfair or selfish? Because they're blaming people for things they didn't do? The act of blaming still happens in their mind, just as the hate is solely in their mind. Thinking that is still unfair and selfish?

Remember we're still talking about "hating of a group", not acting upon it in any way that is irresponsible or unethical.