A Vicious Cycle
Hate vs. Hate

By Shane Collins

(Page 3 of 5)

Besides the violent effects of the attackers in those events, it’s also worth noting the types of responses from the public. Many people view these events and react with hatred. Wanting to stamp out these types of acts, they respond by calling for an aggressive response to stop violence. In one example, a Canadian newspaper, The National Post, ran an article after the Virginia Tech shooting titled Fighting the Columbine Copycats, suggesting the shooters be considered “not as individuals, but as terrorists sans ideology,” because if we “regard them as ‘troubled’ youth with ‘issues,’ the more vulnerable we are.” There is an underlying message of fear that seeks to lash out. This attitude is reiterated later in the article when the writer points out that in the U.S., in those states where concealed weapons are allowed on campus, there have been no shooting sprees. The idea is that perpetuating a climate of fear in an environment is a good thing because it’s a deterrent. In reality, it’s adding more fear to the fear that’s already present.

On the internet, many people express and exchange opinions on popular websites. One video-sharing website has many videos about the Virginia Tech shooting and, if we look at the comments left in response, we see a predominant trend of hatred toward the perpetrator. Comments attack him on grounds of race, sexual orientation, personal appearance, and express satisfaction that he’s “in hell.” Other comments which stress compassion for not only the victims, but also the shooter, are angrily attacked. An April, 2007 article at wcbstv.com spoke about how, on a social networking website, one girl, in response to the barrage of hatred at the Virginia Tech shooter, created a social ‘group,’ for people to offer prayers toward and honor him. In response, she received many hate-filled messages, such as “You’re an evil girl. God will never love you.” So many people are so intensely focused on hate; they don’t see how they are themselves becoming more and more like the person they hate.

Taking or craving revenge, which are forms of fighting hate with hate, are illogical. As long as one focuses on those emotions they can never subside, and as long as the emotions never subside, there will always be a desire to lash out at the perceived cause of suffering. It’s like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It only creates more of itself. Also, it perpetuates very strong dualistic views of situations.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, which was a very strong example of lashing out in hatred, the U.S. president declared three countries an “axis of evil” which left no room for true diplomacy. He also declared “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” to both individuals and countries alike in how to respond to U.S. policy. Countries which refused to get swept up in the push for immediate revenge were subjected to much anger from the U.S. France was particularly vilified. In a book released in 2006, titled The One Percent Doctrine, the Vice-President of the U.S., Dick Cheney, was quoted as saying, “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It’s not about our analysis ... It’s about our response.” In other words, if we suspect that someone might want to harm us, then we should lash out at them, just to be sure we stay safe.

Previous  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  Next

© HÜMÜH 2008