In Defense of the "Haters"

Holy Week came and passed. Holy Week is that time of the year when Filipinos set aside some special time for God and attend to spiritual matters. After that, it's back to the usual sinning and immorality.

El Presidente claims to have spent the Holy Week praying for his "haters". His words: "Siguro pagmumuni-munihan ko 'yung 'di ba some quarters have this intense hate that they have continuously exhibited. Siguro I'll concentrate in praying for them."

I've already gone over previously that if you look at the President as an egotistical narcissist, every stupid thing he says and does begins to make sense. His hypersensitivity to hearing bad things from people, whether it's his own men or his critics, is further evidence of my humble theory.

I wonder what he was praying for specifically. Was he praying for them to have good health and long lives or was he praying for God to shove lightning bolts up their asses, given that he's a vindictive man-child? I digress.

I find the use of the word "hate" a very interesting choice. What is hatred? Simply put, hatred is an intense and passionate dislike for something or someone. "Hate" was a very revealing choice of word because hate is seen as something negative. In a Christian culture such as ours, "hate" is seen as something to be avoided. To hate is to sin; we must love God and neighbor. Hatred is evil and is not seen as a positive in any way, at least over here.

PNoy dismisses his critics as merely people who have intense hate for him. Hate is a very strong word. In this way, he paints his critics as evil people who hate. To be fair, there are probably people who do hate the President but remember that there are also people who simply disagree. There are those who criticize not out of personal hatred but out of, I dunno, genuine concern for national affairs or sense of civic duty to hold leaders accountable for mistakes?

To lump all your critics into one category, no matter how valid and fair their grievances, is a whole lot easier than having to deal with them. If you simply say they're "haters" then it becomes easier to dismiss them rather than having to listen to them. To label someone a "hater" makes them evil and it makes them seem irrational. Better to call them haters than critics. "Critic" has an air of legitimacy to it. "Hater" on the other hand, delegitimizes a person.

In the broader culture, it's becoming trendy to simply label your critics as haters. "Haters gonna hate" is the popular phrase. The point of the hater label is to dismiss criticism outright. "You're a hater, I don't have to listen to you since you just hate for no reason!" Pop culture is narcissistic and whatever convenient delusion we cook up for ourselves to block out "negativity", we are eager to use. So call them haters! That way, you don't have to engage. There doesn't have to be any actual debate or exchange of ideas. That way, you don't have to change. Nothing changes. Everything stays exactly the way it is because you're already perfect the way you are, right? Narcissists are so into the present.

The hater label is problematic. It is not good also to label every critic as a hater. If a person is making valid criticisms out of real concern for you, a knee-jerk reaction to label that person a hater won't do either of you any good. Taken to its extreme, just look at the President. He doesn't listen at all to his critics. To PNoy, everyone who doesn't toe the line and say what he wants to hear, is just a hater. No need to talk. No need to answer questions. NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE. Just shut them out. After all, that's democracy, right?

For the record, I don't hate PNoy; I pity him.