When Is It Okay To Hate?

Urbandictionary.com defines a hater as, "A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person." The difference between this type of hater and someone that hates in a classical sense is that the prior doesn't necessarily feel an intense sense of loathing or hostility towards the object of their hater-ism whereas the latter does. Therefore the question, "with friends such as these, who needs enemies?". Is strikingly appropriate, because it is often the people that one holds dear and thus would least expect animosity from that project such an odious characteristic, and always someone who is close enough to us to witness our successes. The quality that likens the two terms is that they both generally stem from envy. Neither phenomenon is new, yet the term hater has been coined recently and comes to my attention because of it's increase in frequency.

Being a hater implies that envy has been acted or spoken upon often in an under-handed fashion. A hater is a coward because he is non-confrontational and likely to be indirect with his devices. I suggest that the flaw in a hater's personality is not that he experiences envy, only rather than better himself he focuses his attention outwardly and negatively. Instead of encouraging competition he under-cuts his opposition. Politicians may refer to this activity as "mud-slinging", and defenders of the hater's agenda would probably rely on the adage that "all is fair in love and war." The root of envy and therefore casually of being a hater is insecurity, whether that be the doubt that one can win a fair fight, or that one is not good enough in comparison to his rival. Those that accept the principle that all is fair in love and war may over look the distinction that it takes two parties to classify either love or war. A hater's aggression is one-sided and unprovoked actively.

To be fair; recipients of hater-ism may exasperate and antagonize the actions of a hater by either actively or passively boasting their possessions or successes. Arrogance is a vice that is glamorized in our culture and coined as swagger. Naturally the more successful you are will correlate with the amount of people who are exposed to your success, whether or not you are boastful. Humility may depolarize envy but a hater is unable to get past his emotions regardless. Also we perpetuate the acceptability of haters in our society through our own expectations as the quantity of one's haters qualifies one's success.

I have heard on numerous occasions that if you have haters then you are doing something right. Judas Iscariot betrayal of Jesus personifies hater-ism with in a biblical context, and the phenomenon is illustrated in the selling of Joseph into Egyptian slavery by his brothers who are envious of his "tunic of many colors" and his father's apparent favoritism of him as seen in Genesis. These two men did something right, so perhaps there is truth in that theory. However betrayal does not necessitate hater-ism as seen historically in Brutus' assistance with the assassination of the tyrant Caesar or Attila the Hun's killing of his brother Bleda. The difference being, that the two war lords had it coming to them because they projected hatred where as the two biblical figures were betrayed with out warrant.

While being a hater is nothing new to the world, a paradigm shift in our normative values has allowed this activity to grow unkempt. Lover's of positive thinking and attitudes should be aware and boldly and actively expose hater's intentions, motivations and actions in order to promote fair game. Expect haters to hate but at the end of the day, "it's better to be hated for who you are, than to be loved for who you are not."

P.S. Wilkinson IV