Because winning makes everything right…
I was enlightened regarding the prevalence of this latest addition to the rationalizations list in the desperate reactions from some football fans on Facebook to my recent (absolutely valid and indisputable) criticism of the National Football League. Thus does conflict expand our wisdom and horizons…
Rationalization #48:
Ethics Jiu Jitsu, or “Haters Gonna Hate!”
This vintage obnoxious rationalization is recently pressed. Its objective is to turn the tables on legitimate critics of unethical conduct by asserting that it is the act of criticism itself that is wrong, thus allowing the object of the criticism to not only escape unscathed, but to claim victim status.
Ethics Jiu Jitsu is similar to the #6, the Biblical rationalizations “Judge not, lest ye not be judged,” and “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” except that those are used (incorrectly) to suggest that nobody is good enough to criticize the conduct of others, not that the act of criticism is inherently hateful. The insidious trick that this rationalization embodies thrives on the modern criminalization of hate in the culture. Hate is just very intense dislike, and as a feeling, it is well within the realm of personal rights. Hate crime is a variety of thought-crime. The politically-motivated legal monstrosities known as “hate crimes” have inspired this rationalization by making it plausible to argue that dislike itself is wrong, even when what is being disliked, criticized or hated is objectively wrongful conduct. All “haters” are lumped together, whether the object of hate is Lance Armstrong’s cheating, the NFL’s conspiracy to hide the effects of concussions, or Barack Obama’s ineptitude, in a linguistic trick that suggests that sincere critics are no different from people who hate the United States, minorities, decency, true love and puppies. They are all haters, hate is bad, and it’s the haters who are the problem, not the corruption, dishonesty, and betrayals they criticize.
In truth, those who don’t have the ethical bearings, the courage or the civic responsibility to criticize unethical conduct in the culture are the real problem as we strive for an ethical culture. They can often be identified by their mouthing of the fatuous accusation, “Haters gotta hate!”
Ethics Alarms 
I know you are but a half a step away from “old man shakes fist at clouds” territory, but I’m not entirely sure you have grasped the complete modern, vernacular usage of the word “hater” and the phrase “haters gonna hate.”
A “hater” as it used normally now, is not someone who literally hates, but someone who has a sour, envious attitude towards something or someone. A hater cannot tolerate someone doing better or being in a better position than they themselves are, and will say bad things, or do bad things to ensure that their target ends up in the same or worse position as the hater ( a crabs in the barrel mentality).
“Haters gonna hate” is a way of airily dismissing criticism (whether valid or not), by implying that the criticizer is jealous of the person or thing that they are critiquing, and therefore their criticism has no validity. Just your basic ad hominem attack, in essence.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hater
Swing and a miss.
Jack’s abstraction easily contains the specific misuse you describe.
He seems to be missing the essence of the usage of “hater” and “haters gonna hate”, which basically boils down to “UR JESS JELUS!!!!”, as the young people put it. It really isn’t about hate, as in strong dislike, or as used in hate crimes. There is a distinction that should be pointed out. Envy or jealousy is akin to hate, but they aren’t really the same thing.
No, it isn’t about actually identifying them as haters. Correct. It is trying to equate them to haters, that they are merely making blind accusations simply because they can’t stand the person in question, not because the person in question is misbehaving.
It’s used that way in many cases, but more frequently in the general way I described. But I’ll add a “you’re just jealous” addendum —useful point. “Haters gonna hate” is a way of airily dismissing criticism is essentially what I wrote. It’s not strictly ad hominem, because it is based on the act of the criticism itself. I have seen the phrase used to dismiss criticism of a movie—jealous of a movie?—and Obama a great deal. Jealous of Obama? That’s not ad hominem, that’s just ridiculous. How am I jealous of the NFL? The patriots? Tom Brady? The urban dictionary is largely for people who can’t speak articulately, and who often think sloppily as well. I am not bound by its definitions.
I’m also not going to accept the urban dictionary as an authority on anything, deery. Look up “Jack Marshall” in it, for example….
But I think it is ad hominem though, as Jut discussed…
In the sense of saying “the criticism should be dismissed because the critic is a hater,” yes. But since the very act of the criticism is what validates the attack, it’s a Mobius Strip ad hominem. If I say: “You’re an idiot because what you just said is idiotic,” that’s not ad hominem” Ad hominem is saying, “Your comment is idiotic because you are an idiot.” THIS says, “You are a hater because of your criticism, and nobody should pay attention to haters.” Maybe its prospective ad hominem, but if the criticism itself is any part of that diagnosis, then it isn’t strictly ad hominem.,
“Haters gonna hate” basically implies that that the putative “hater” in question doesn’t want to see anything succeed, or anyone be successful. It doesn’t have to make sense, and in many cases, doesn’t (though I will say that there are indeed people who can’t stand to praise anything or anyone on principle). A reoccurring SNL character named Jebediah Atkinson strikes me as an example of the prototypical “hater” that many people have in mind when thinking of the type.
I will also say that there does seem to be an underlying jealousy or envy of the Obamas, especially when critiquing their private spending habits, as the blowup early this year when they were eating at an expensive restaurant in Hawaii seem to flow out of a undercurrent of “haterade” rather than anything substantive.
The Urban Dictionary is a good enough source for vernacular usage on what kids today use in their day to day terminology. It is useful for a starting point to look up acronyms and slang I have never heard of, or imagined. However, if you have a better source on where to look up such things, I would love to hear about it.
Lots and lots of them. I spend way too much time checking them. It is incredibly hard keeping up with popular culture.
By the way, I like the thread, and I’m glad you raised the issues.
I find this thread interesting too. But I’m a nerd like that.
Just as long as P.M. doesn’t get into it with some arcania about how Ad Hominem was practiced under the Emperor Justinian.
Weall as ad hominem was practiced under the Emperor Justinian and how that applies to travesty of the American Revolution from the Australian school of history.
RE:
“I will also say that there does seem to be an underlying jealousy or envy of the Obamas, especially when critiquing their private spending habits, as the blowup early this year when they were eating at an expensive restaurant in Hawaii seem to flow out of a undercurrent of “haterade” rather than anything substantive.”
I don’t particularly care about them having nice things if they pay for them as other presidents and their families have done. It’s more about the hypocrisy that they seem to feel they can ask others to give up or forgo things they themselves do not. If you are all about making others eat healthy, (the school lunch program comes to mind) conspicuously stuffing yourself with high calorie foods is hypocritical.
I don’t think this is a hateful attitude, but then who want’s to think they are a hater? This is the very reason the hater rationalization works so well. I just want people using that rationalization tell me what’s hateful about it and let me examine my own conscience.
Well, since you mentioned it—yes, that comment rankled me too. Ostentatious consumption and exotic vacations, especially during times of crisis, looks bad, especially when the President has lectured the public about cutting back on vacation frills. It’s part of Obama’s leadership skills deficit, and that’s all it has ever been. The jealousy retort is absurd.
Sorry for the apostrophe abuse.
And the entire mission of Ethics Alarms is in “old man shakes fist at clouds” territory to those who, apparently like you, think that right and wrong aren’t worth distinguishing or calling out, because people are going to do what they damn please anyway.
I don’t concede that. Bite me.
“Old man shakes fist at clouds” is a Simpsons reference. I used it more as a reference to your general lack of knowledge of pop culture references and modern culture than anything, as evidenced by this post. So with that said, concede what you like.
I got the reference.
-Jut
Which was “Old Man YELLS at CLOUD.” The reference would not be funny if the image and cliche were not already familiar in a multitude of way.
What black magic do I have to learn to embed images?!?!?!
I can do it from the web, but I wanted to show my Simpsons avatar to Jut, and couldn’t figure out how to do it…
I’ll put my breadth and width of pop culture and modern culture knowledge up against 90% of the public,, and by the way, “Old man shakes fist at clouds” predates the Simpsons. ONLY knowing the most recent incarnation of a trope or idea is nothing to be smug about.
Yeah, but you have to admit the resemblance is uncanny.
-Jut
Agree.
Dukhat: When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be.
“Atonement” an episode of Bablyon 5
Deery:
You said: A “hater” as it used normally now, is not someone who literally hates, but someone who has a sour, envious attitude towards something or someone. A hater cannot tolerate someone doing better or being in a better position than they themselves are, and will say bad things, or do bad things to ensure that their target ends up in the same or worse position as the hater ( a crabs in the barrel mentality).
What then do you call a person that foments hatred to achieve a political purpose? Based on the definition of a hater you used, that would describe all those that detest climate change deniers, Wall Street bankers, proponents of fracking and myriad others who have achieved success by building something.
Given that conservatives want people to achieve their own success and progressives want to take the financial gain away from successful people so that others with less can have more, are progressives the haters we hear about?
This seems to be kissing cousin’s to #46, Zola’s rejection… it certainly contains similar taxonomic characteristics.
I agree with deery for the most part.
I think you have missed the point.
Haters gonna hate is an ad hominem. It basically says, “Jack hates the NFL, so, of course he is going to complain about it and attack it.”
It attacks the motive of the critic and deflects from the question of the legitmacy of the criticism. Cheating? Concussions? criminal activity? Well Haters gonna hate!
I disagree with deery to the extent I do not understand how “jealousy” (or even envy) might fit into this.
-Jut
“They are all haters, hate is bad, and it’s the haters who are the problem, not the corruption, dishonesty, and betrayals they criticize.”
I’m not sure how that doesn’t complement nicely the explanation you give about “haters gonna hate” being an ad hominem that attacks the motives of the accusers…
Jack’s exposition make focus much on “hate” and how it is misused in modern terms, but don’t let that confuse the abstract rule that Jack’s definition points towards – the ad hominem.
I think it misses the point to the extent that I don’t think it has to do with the Biblical Rationalization, hate crimes or hatred of the U.S. It is closer to “It is what it is” or “the heart wants what the heart wants.” It is tautological. Jack is only criticizing the NFL because he hates the NFL.
I think he is reading too much into “hate.”
-Jut
This is similar to “liars gonna lie.”
-Jut
But it isn’t used as a tautology. When someone says “Haters gonna hate”, they are dismissing that particular person’s criticism of their behavior.
But not because they are “haters.” Because the fact that they criticized PROVES they are haters.
Its structure is indeed like “It is what it is,” but it’s substance derives from the presumed pejorative haters. Unlike lying, hate, or strong dislike, is not per se wrong. That’s why it’s a rationalization and not a fallacy: the people using it “hate” haters…when it’s convenient.
“Jack hates the NFL, so, of course he is going to complain about it and attack it.” That’s NOT ad hominem! That’s an accusation of bias. Accusations of bias can be valid. if there is in fact bias,
U mad, bro?
(Ugh, I hate that one too, but this post wouldn’t be complete without it.)
Dost thou even hoist?
I just got that as a reply on Facebook this morning. We were discussing that woman who put a picture of a sleeping Patriot online with the caption “I just f*cked Edelman” (without the asterisk). Some, yours truly included, said that it was wrong, and vulgar to boot. ‘If I hit that, I’d brag too, haters gonna hate!’.
It’s a conversation-squashing response when you have nothing else to say, or can’t defend your position. It’s empty and lazy. Anything goes. An alarming number of people lack any kind of conscience.
Is a Mobius Strip ad hominem one of those statements that travels along the angles of a rhetorical tesseract without touching the surface of the argument? My head hurts.
Exactly!
I never even got to Topographical analysis of Ad Hominems…
Ad Hominemal Geometry killed me in school –
I never got past the Pythagorean Ad Hominem.
I agree with texagg04 that #48 and #46 are closely related. I agree with crella that #48 reflects laziness, anarchic arbitrariness. I agree with JutGory’s characterization that the intent of using #48 is, in part, to deflect. I agree in part with deery’s point that #48 “is a way of airily dismissing criticism (whether valid or not),” Finally, I think #48 reflects a kind of practiced, psychotic denial, with an aim of “turning tables” as Jack has described, along the lines of, “[The critic] is just as bad.” Use of #48 should be a red flag to us schooled Ethics Alarm followers – grounds for reasonable suspicion that the #48-user, not the critic, may be an actual “hater.”
Good summary!
How very ecumenical of you.
Thanks, Tex and Jack, I needed that (those). I cannot explain exactly why it was easy to see the close relation between #46 and #48, but, some credit has to go to Tex for his exact words – and/but, some credit also must be traceable, I will confess, to (LONG ago) a certain, smoking-hot cousin.
The 2nd Email I plan on sending is about the Rationalizations List…
Upon meditation, “Haters Gonna Hate” is very much like the “Victim’s Distortion”…
that is, the rationalizer is claiming that the flaw in analyzing the hypothetical ideal “Ethical Standard” lies with the accuser…not with the accused…
One of these days I’m going to divide the list into classes. It turned out to be a tougher job than I expected…
Not to offend the author, but that’s kinda what I’ve been working on.
Did my first email make it through?
I’m sure it did, but I’m not near my e-mail yet. My curiosity is piqued.
Well don’t get to excited. I don’t want a let down. It’s not related to the rationalizations (that will be later). This first one pertains to how we decide to treat with other nations. Sparked by your “Free Trade” comment.