The great English writer and philologist C.S. Lewis shows us how the use of the word gentleman has changed over time. The term once identified a man with property and a coat of arms. It was simply a statement of fact which then morphed into a compliment – “Oh, he’s such a gentleman” – before it became a throw-away synonym for guy, or fellow. What time is it? Go ask that gentleman over there.
Likewise, the word “hate” – definitely not to be used lightly, as its antithesis is love – is increasingly tossed around today like so much confetti. The word has itself become a bludgeon, used with the intent to shut someone up. Make them a straw person, diminish them. Dehumanize and disenfranchise.
The word hate is social media’s bread and butter.
Politicians clearly warm to using the word. MLA John Fustad recently chided Premier David Eby for supporting a “hateful protest” in which organizers chanted “hateful rhetoric” against police officers. B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender railed against “hate fuelled” anti-SOGI marches before the fact, and if you check out BC Gov News at news.gov.bc you’ll find 190 references to hate.
The Government of Canada’s website? You’ll find 7,046 search results for “hate” at canada.ca
Ironically, hate is a word often uttered in hatred. Hatred of something I don’t understand, you don’t understand, we don’t understand, and don’t care to either. Just step off the edge of the world, and do everyone a favour.
Join the lepers.
Of course, there exists good reason to use the word. There are things that rightfully should be hated. Evil, for one.
But too often, people spew forth the word hate in an all-too cavalier way: “I hate marmalade. And by the way, if you disagree with me you are a hateful hater filled with hate and therefore must be hated for hating.”
It must mean something more.
We do not currently live in an age of reason. Lamentably, most people don’t attempt to even arrive at an approximation of it. Sometimes, ignorance is mistaken for hatred.
The word hate, considering the weight and punch it carries, best be used only after all honest efforts are exhausted to understand why people think the thoughts they do, and are given adequate opportunity to civilly delineate why they think that way.
The process might reveal hate is indeed present, or not.
However, an accusation of hate should be a conclusion to, not an introduction to, an encounter.
Otherwise, it simply becomes a label that may or not have foundation, potentially rendering the term hate socially diluted, much like the word gentleman.
Next up, the news media love affair with the word brazen.
But that’s another column.