The word hate has become epithetic in the past thirty years as it has been indiscriminately used to replace such common-sense terms as distrust, disgust, aversion, repulsion, caution, etc. until it has been turned into a defensive word which only has approbation when used to describe one's critics.
The political debate as all debate, depends on terms and he who defines the terms has the upper hand in the debate.
It is time to resurrect the old-fashioned term revile instead for it, at least, requires a bit of thought before it spurts forth from the mouth unbidden or with malice.
spik inglish!
> The word hate has become epithetic in the past thirty years as it has been indiscriminately used to replace such common-sense terms as distrust, disgust, aversion, repulsion, caution, etc. until it has been turned into a defensive word which only has approbation when used to describe one's critics.
Hear, hear!
HATE is an ugly term that is over-used and thus loses effect as a result. HATE digs at the very basest, the lowest of human emotion: it should be reserved for the very, very few rather than applied generally.
Ours is a childish society that "hates" too frequently and too easily, yet fails to HATE the hateful things often enough, consistently enough, passionately enough.
(People "hate" broccoli, fer Petessake!)
People should require a license to HATE. Because most folk do not fully know what HATE means or what it entails. As such it is a dangerous substance not for general-purpose use.
*DieHard*