Hate

February 28, 2025 by Dr Rajiv Desai

Hate:

Figure above shows Klansman (member of the Ku Klux Klan) raises his left arm during a “white power” chant at a Ku Klux Klan rally in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois, on December 16, 2000.

_____

Section-1

Prologue:

Human beings are biologically predisposed to divide humanity into ingroups and outgroups, and this comes with a great social cost – the capacity for hate. While we may view ourselves and our communities as benevolent and egalitarian, we often view outsiders as inhuman, unworthy, or alien, allowing us to victimize them in conscious and unconscious ways. Hate is among the most powerful of human emotions—it has caused great sorrow and suffering. All over the world, researchers are studying hate from disciplines like education, history, law, leadership, psychology, sociology and many others. After the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis in World War II, the expression “Never Again” became a familiar refrain. Yet, during the last half of the twentieth century and the first quarter of twenty-first century, society has witnessed staggering numbers of brutal and hateful acts. News sources are filled with reports of white supremacist groups murdering members of minority groups, religious zealots killing doctors who perform abortions, teenagers violently clashing with their classmates, genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia, and Israel Hamas war. These are not random or sudden bursts of irrationality, but rather, carefully planned and orchestrated acts of violence and killing. Underlying these events is a widespread and hazardous human emotion: hate.

Through the ages, music, art, and performance have grappled with how to portray hate, it’s devastating impact, and the relief of giving it up. We’re a society that loves to hate things. 67% of a survey respondents hate admitting their wrong, 5% of US workers admit they hate their job, and tragically, one person in every 1,000 in the US was a victim of a nonfatal hate crime in 2019. With the same word describing such a huge range of experiences, you might wonder what hate actually is. Hate is an intense aversion or hostility towards someone or something. It involves a strong negative emotional response and often includes a desire to harm, devalue, or exclude the target of hatred. According to Freud, “hate” is defined as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness. Hate is an emotion that masks personal insecurities. Hatred is traumatizing physically, emotionally and morally. It therefore demands greater attention because the most common and lasting effects of hatred involve mental health concerns. Not only is it important to know the impact of hatred on the victim but perhaps more important is to understand the psychology of the person who hates (the hater). This may help in the prevention of various crimes like rape, murder and even genocide.

After the England men’s football team reached their first major final in 55 years, the national headlines should have been celebrating their exceptional achievement. Instead, the focus quickly turned to the vile racist abuse targeted at three Black players: Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka, and Jadon Sancho. These young men were subjected to widespread racist hatred and threats on social media platforms. The magnitude and ferocity of such incidents of hate is, regrettably, just the tip of the iceberg. “Whites don’t kill whites,” a witness quoted Gregory Bush as saying; he was arrested in the murders of two black shoppers at a Kentucky grocery store in 2018 and pleaded guilty to federal hate crimes. According to a recent study, there are at least 917 organized hate groups in the United States. Hate crimes start with hate speech, which often thrives in times of crisis. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Jonathan Mok, a college student from Singapore, reported being punched and kicked on the street in London. His attackers shouted, “We don’t want your coronavirus in our country.” Mok posted photos of his injured face on social media, writing, “Racism is not stupidity — racism is hate. Racists constantly find excuses to expound their hatred.”

Religion is contextual, and it can manifest itself in extremely damaging and violent ways. It can divide us from one another. It can create supremacist outlooks. It can create and be influenced by ethno-nationalist outlooks. But so many people find spiritual and political inspiration from their religions. As horrifying scenes of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the relentless bombing of the Gaza Strip that followed continue to dominate the news, incidents of antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism have surged in the world, leaving parents across the world struggling to calm their children’s fears and answer their questions — and to remind them that every person, everywhere, has the right to feel safe and respected. In an academic paper entitled The Palestinian–Israeli conflict: a disease for which root causes must be acknowledged and treated, authors noted that hatred goes side by side with violence. Hatred self-perpetuates, usually through cycles of hatred and counter-hatred, violence and counter-violence — sometimes manifested as revenge.

While the hate crime problem has moved up the political agendas of policymakers at every level of government in recent years, the phenomenon is hardly new. From the Romans’ persecution of Christians and the Nazis’ “final solution” for the Jews to the “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and genocide in Rwanda, hate crimes have shaped and sometimes defined world history. In the United States, racial and religious biases largely have inspired most hate crimes. As Europeans began to colonize the New World in the 16th and 17th centuries, Native Americans increasingly became the targets of bias motivated intimidation and violence. During the past two centuries, some of the more typical examples of hate crimes in United States include the lynchings of African Americans, cross burnings to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods, assaults on homosexuals, and the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues.

“Hate speech”, a shorthand phrase that conventional international law does not define, has a double ambiguity. Its vagueness and the lack of consensus around its meaning can be abused to enable infringements on a wide range of lawful expression. Many Governments use “hate speech”, similar to the way in which they use “fake news”, to attack political enemies, non-believers, dissenters and critics. However, the phrase’s weakness (“it’s just speech”) also seems to inhibit Governments and companies from addressing genuine harms, such as the kind resulting from speech that incites violence or discrimination against the vulnerable or the silencing of the marginalized. The situation gives rise to frustration in a public that often perceives rampant online abuse. Hate speech is spreading faster and further than ever before as a result of social media user growth and the rise of populism. Both online and offline, hate speech targets people and groups based on who they are. It has the potential to ignite and fuel violence, spawn violent extremist ideologies, including atrocity crimes and genocide. It discriminates and infringes on individual and collective human rights, and undermines social cohesion.

“In its published, posted, or pasted-up form, hate speech can become a world-defining activity, and those who promulgate it know very well—this is part of their intention—that the visible world they create is a much harder world for the targets of their hatred to live in,” says Jeremy Waldron in his book The Harm in Hate Speech. This statement summarises succinctly the deleterious impact of hate speech: a phenomenon that negatively alters reality to make it harder for the ones at the receiving end of such hate speech to live, as equals with dignity in the society. During the Rwandan Genocide which saw the killing of the ethnic minority Tutsis, one of the most used propaganda tools to spew hatred against the Tutsis was the Rwandan Radio which broadcasted inciteful anti-Tutsi propaganda. The radio station RTLM allied with leaders of the government incited Hutus against the Tutsi minority, repeatedly describing the latter as inyenzi, or “cockroaches,” and as inzoka, or “snakes.” Hutus, by reputation, are shorter than Tutsis; radio broadcasters also urged Hutus to “cut down the tall trees.” Within 100 days, an estimated 1 million people, the overwhelming majority of whom were Tutsis, lay dead. After all, what could be better used to convince a majority population to commit violent and gruesome acts against the minority ethnic groups than carefully crafted, provocative and inciteful words. Many wonder how is that possible? Tutsis are human beings. Researchers who study dehumanization know that not all people see it that way. It is very common for people around the world to look at entire groups of people — Muslims, Native populations, Romani people, Africans, or Mexican immigrants — as not fully human.

In America many years ago, they began to create laws, which were meant to protect the civil rights of African Americans. All these many years later there are still shootings, and riots and bigotry, and hatred all over the streets of America. Why is that? Well, it’s pretty obvious that laws can’t dictate the human psyche. We put the laws into effect, but people still hate. Only recently have laws begun to be put on the books about LGBT issues, so that while gays, lesbians and bisexuals can now marry in all 50 states, transgendered persons still can’t go into the appropriate bathrooms in some. And there are still very few laws that actually protect the LGBT person from getting fired for being LGBT. We have a long way to go here and the hate is still rampant. During a rally supporting then former President Trump, a 40-year-old male devotee was asked by a reporter who he hates. He quickly listed some famous Democrats whose behavior he found “disgusting.” When asked how far he was prepared to take his hatred, he recalled a story when he told his Democratic sister that if there was ever a civil war in the country, he would not hesitate to kill her. For many years, scientists have been trying to discover where in the brain something so terrible could originate.

Around the world, we are seeing an alarming rise of xenophobia, racism and intolerance – including rising anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred. Public discourse is being weaponized for political gain with incendiary rhetoric that stigmatizes and dehumanizes minorities, migrants, refugees, women and any so-called “other”. This is not an isolated phenomenon or the loud voices of a few people on the fringe of society. Hate is moving into the mainstream in liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes alike – and casting a shadow over our common humanity. It undermines social cohesion, erodes shared values, and can lay the foundation for violence, setting back the cause of peace, stability, sustainable development and human dignity. We’re having a master class on hate because we’ve no choice; it has moved from the part of our character we work hardest to suppress to the part we can least afford to ignore. Hate slipped its bonds and runs loose, through our politics, platforms, press and private encounters. And the further it travels, the stronger it grows. People unaccustomed to despising anyone, ever, find themselves so frightened or appalled by what they see across the divide that they are prepared to fight it hand to hand. Calls for civility are scorned as weak, a form of unilateral disarmament. It is us versus them, it is natives versus outsiders, it is whites versus blacks, it is Hindus versus Muslims and so on and so forth. So, I decided to study hate with the intention to reduce it.

_____

Glossary:

Discrimination = The practice of unfairly treating different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, national origin, gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

Bias = The disproportionate weight in favor of or against a person or an idea or thing, usually in a way that is inaccurate, closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair.

Prejudice = An adverse or hostile attitude toward a group or its individual members, generally without just grounds or before sufficient evidence.

Racial Slur = A derogatory, insulting, or disrespectful nickname for a person’s race.

Slander = An intentional false statement that harms a person’s reputation, or which decreases the respect or regard in which a person is held.

Gender = The social and cultural codes (linked to but not congruent with ideas about biological sex) used to distinguish between society’s conceptions of “femininity” and “masculinity.”

Hate = Hatred when used in a noun context.

______

Section-2

Introduction to hate:

Commentary on the nature of hate may have begun with Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E), who believed that “hate rises without previous offense, is remorseless for the person experiencing it, incurable by time, and strives for the annihilation of its target.” Darwin, in 1872, described hate as a feeling that lacks a distinct facial expression and manifests itself as rage. Hatred has been studied for centuries by philosophers and theologians, and more recently by social psychologists, anthropologists and evolutionary scientists. There is no consensus on a definition of hatred that is scientific, comprehensive and holistic. Hatred is more than just an emotion. Eric Halpern, an Israeli psychologist and political scientist, defined hatred as “a negative emotion that motivates and may lead to negative behaviours with severe consequences.” Typically, hate is viewed as an extreme form of dislike, an amplified version of anger, disgust, or contempt and a readiness to do harm. Psychologists believe that hate is most likely to emerge in the presence of moral violations particularly when the targets of hatred are perceived as bad, immoral, and dangerous. Psychological studies have found that people feel more emotionally aroused, personally threatened, and inclined toward attack when experiencing hate as compared with disgust, contempt, anger, and dislike. People also report that hate feels more intense and durable than dislike, anger, and contempt. Hate between groups can also be intense but is typically based less on past one-on-one interactions, but rather on differences in beliefs such as one’s association with a political party. In studies that compared hate with other emotions, disgust shared the most commonalities with hate. Hate was not significantly different from disgust in terms of intensity and duration.

There is ample evidence in historical records, art, and artifacts that hate has very deep roots and that it stands tall, often pushing aside its counterparts, love and hope. As such, it is archetypal in nature, suggesting a biological and/or cultural origin that transcends history and geography. This idea is well articulated by the archetypal psychology of Carl Jung. The archetypal nature of hate can be understood in Jung’s conception of the shadow, the darker, repressed parts of the psyche that resist the pressures of self and society to conform and, when acted out, often assume violent forms of expression. There is so much hate in the world because hate is hard-wired in the brain. Like the role of killer, it is archetypal, motivating, and common to all human beings. And yet, according to researcher and primatologist Robert Sapolsky, the brain that hates others can be re-trained if human beings can imagine a role-reversal, where the hated ‘them’ and the righteous ‘us’ are experienced equivalently, in order to conceive of an integration of human existence. Sapolsky’s optimism, to many, may be contrary to reason and empirical evidence supported by grim statistics. And yet, if the killer is a role and if roles, when integrated with counter-roles, can be reconceived, maybe there is hope. It certainly appears hopeful to at least understand that biology is not necessarily destiny and that therapy of many kinds does have a salutary effect upon brain and behavior.

Everyday observations suggest that hate is so powerful that it does, not just temporarily but permanently, destroy relations between individuals or groups. An illustration comes from a story of a 20-year-old Kosovar Albanian woman who was asked to describe an experience of hatred in the context of a study by Jasini and Fischer (2018):

I was 10 years old when Serbian paramilitary men broke into my house with violence. They had guns in their hands and they approached my dad and my brothers and asked them all the money we had in the house. They threatened to kill them all if the family did not leave the house immediately. Few hours after this horror moment, my family and I left the village to seek refuge in the Albanian territory. Even now, ten years after the Kosovo war, I still hate the Serbians and can’t forget their hatred for us, nor their maltreatment of my family, relatives and neighbors [emphasis added]. I often talked about this event with my family members and friends, but never with Serbian people. Hate can thus remain long after an incident, and therefore can take a different form than a short-term emotional reaction to a specific event (like anger or disgust).

Hate begins with Bias:

Bias is the disproportionate weight in favor of or against a person or an idea or thing, usually in a way that is inaccurate, closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Hate generally starts with bias that is left unchecked. Bias is a preference either for or against an individual or group that affects someone’s ability to judge fairly. When that bias is left unchecked, it becomes normalized or accepted, and may even escalate into violence. The U.S. Department of Justice defines hate as “bias against people or groups with specific characteristics that are defined by the law.” These characteristics can include a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and national origin. When the word “hate” is used in law, such as “hate crime law,” it does not mean rage, anger, or general dislike. In this context, “hate” means bias against people or groups with specific characteristics. Bias leads to discrimination. While bias can lead to discriminatory behavior, it does not always.

Bias leads to Prejudice:

Given the centrality of ‘prejudice’ to definitions of hate crime in the British criminal justice system, it is worth considering how prejudice has been understood in academic research and how it can help us to explain the phenomenon of hate crime.

A concise definition of prejudice has been provided by Abrams (2010):

‘Bias that devalues people because of their perceived membership of a social group’

However, most theoretical analyses of prejudice amplify that definition to emphasise its multi-faceted nature and its underlying antipathy. A recent example would be: ‘any attitude, emotion or behaviour towards members of a group which directly or indirectly implies some negativity or antipathy towards that group’ (Brown, 2010, p. 7)

But why do people hold prejudiced attitudes, emotions and behaviours? Social psychological theories offer several explanations for why perpetrators target people belonging to certain minority groups. These range from the purely psychological (for example, in terms of personality or cognitive processes), through accounts based on education and familial and group influences (for example, learning prejudiced attitudes at school, in the home or from peer groups), to ‘intergroup perspectives’ (that is, where prejudice is seen as the result of conflicts or tensions that exist between groups of people).

Hate is a form discrimination:

Discrimination is the practice of unfairly treating different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, national origin, gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation. Hate is a harmful action against a person or property that is based on an unreasonable opinion about the other person’s identity. Hate often relates to race, colour, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender expression, and other personal characteristics. Hate is a form of discrimination. Examples of hate as a form of discrimination include:

threatening a co-worker because of their gender identity or gender expression
making offensive comments during a job interview about a candidate’s Indigenous identity
refusing to serve someone at a restaurant because of the person’s culture
refusing to rent to a couple because of their sexual orientation
displaying hateful comments about a person or community in a public place, including online

Pyramid of hate:

One way to think about hate is as a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid, hate is a feeling that grows from biased attitudes about others, like stereotypes that certain groups of people are animals, lazy or stupid. Sometimes these biased attitudes and feelings provide a foundation for people to act out their biases, such as through bullying, exclusion or insults. For example, many Asian people in the U.S. experienced an increase in hate incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic. If communities accept biases as OK, some people may move up the pyramid and think it is also OK to discriminate, or believe that specific groups of people are not welcome in certain neighborhoods or jobs because of who they are. Near the top of the pyramid, some people commit violence or hate crimes because they believe their own way of being is better than others. They may threaten or physically harm others, or destroy property. At the very top of the pyramid is genocide, the intent to destroy a particular group – like what Jewish people experienced during World War II or what Rohingya people have experienced in Myanmar.

The pyramid of hate (below) shows how bias can escalate from attitudes to more severe forms of hate.

In the Pyramid, Biased Attitudes, such as stereotypes, misinformation and micro-aggressions, form the bedrock that enables escalation of hate and discrimination. Microaggressions are defined as the everyday, subtle, intentional — and oftentimes unintentional — interactions or behaviors that communicate some sort of bias toward historically marginalized groups. Pyramid shows a progression towards acts of bias, including dehumanisation and slurs, to Discrimination, Violence and, eventually, Genocide. Hate at the middle and higher levels of the pyramid happens because no one took action to discourage the biased feelings, attitudes and actions at the lower levels of the pyramid. The pyramid of hate shows how bias can escalate from attitudes to more severe forms of hate. Genocidal acts cannot occur without being upheld by the lower stages that act as a base for mass atrocities.

Hate in war:

The dehumanization of an enemy is a common tactic in warfare. Dehumanization reduces people to the status of animals or automata, and therefore not subject to the normal moral rules. It is a well-known method for persuading soldiers to kill indiscriminately when invading a country. By characterizing the enemy as not really human, worthy of hatred and contempt, leaders may try to justify their acts. Hate-based violence can lead to persistent cross-generational trauma, as research has shown. Yet it may be easier to encourage hateful actions than to prevent them. Chambers noted that avoiding hate in war was difficult: “Maintaining a level of empathy and compassion during conflict and war has to be an intentional action. It has to become an empowered response.”

_____

The word hate:

According to James W. Underhill in his ethno-linguistic and cultural concepts, hate, just like love, is socially and culturally constructed. Hate, in the English language, invariably involves an object or a person, thereby implying a relationship with something or someone. But on a higher emotional plane, hatred is a form of animosity, frustration and hostility which churns within the subject and gives rise to an aimless desire for destruction. Hate describes a sense or feeling of deep hostility. It is a feeling that has many people in its grip, particularly in our current age. The word has also become standard in our descriptions of both communication and community. The terms “hate mail,” “hate speech,” “hate groups,” and “hate crimes” may be all too familiar, but they also contain an irony: the connection and bonding suggested by the words “speech” and “group” seem to work at crosscurrents with hate, which insists on maintaining separation between people.

Maybe we should explore the origins of this word! For starters, many people are likely to define hate as an emotion or feeling—or maybe a very negative attitude toward another person. But hate actually comes from the Old English word hata, which meant something like “enemy” or “opponent.” And like so many other English words, hate has made pretty big leaps and has come to take on a variety of meanings. Later in the Middle Ages the word would come to refer to intense anger, for example wrath, whether divine or human. In religious contexts, to hate something (sin, for example) meant to avoid, shun, or refrain from an action regarded as (spiritually) harmful. Nowadays we speak of “hating” a particular insect or cold pizza. There does not seem to be a deeply emotional hostility at work here. On the other hand, by hating individuals or whole groups of people—because of who they love, what they believe, or how they look—we go far beyond emotional hostility or even treating them as an adversary; we reject their very humanity.

Hate vs hatred:

Hate is the verb, hatred the noun. Hate is also used as a noun, but hatred is not a verb. From an intensity viewpoint, and when used in a noun context, there is no difference i.e. hate = hatred. The hate he felt for her matched the hatred she felt for him. You could switch the two words around in that sentence with no difference to the meaning. They’re both defined as meaning the same thing. In terms of how they feel… you could say hatred is a more intense version of hate. In terms of language, hate can also be used as a verb and a modifier (“I hate you”; “hate speech”), while hatred is only a noun.

Public display of hatred (PDH):

If I dislike you and can find your social media accounts, I can declare my dislike, using my real name or not. With just a few clicks, I can lacerate your looks, work, intellect, or politics. I can call you a lazy fascist slug. I might be wrong, of course, but I can call anyone anything at any moment. So can you. In a historical sense, this is new. For most of history, PDH required not just will but muscle, force, and risk. Our ancestors lacked the technology by which to proclaim instantly and effortlessly, for an audience of millions, “I just can’t stand this guy.” Public display of hatred (PDH) defines our times and has changed the way we interact. The very fact that PDH exists has transformed daily life into a battle zone. Hate is a hobby, a career, a mission, and a sport. It’s even creepier in that, for all its power to destroy, PDH manifests not face-to-face but at a distance, in virtual space. We have reached a point at which we love to loathe. We love it better when we loathe together. As a social species, we want millions to like our dislikes. The prevalence of PDH has changed our sense of being in the world. We feel constantly judged and watched as if through gunsights, subject to discussion, accusation, defamation, mockery, or bigotry. Certain public displays of hatred are sometimes legally proscribed in the context of pluralistic cultures that value tolerance.

Slow hate:

‘Slow hate’ is a term developed from Princeton Professor Rob Nixon’s idea of ‘slow violence’, often invisible, accumulative activities that degrade the natural environment and ‘slow hate’ does the same for the social environment. It involves minor violations of people and their culture that all add up; spiteful, discriminatory, denigrating or mean-spirited speech, for example, can be deeply problematic in its most extreme and explicit forms.

______

Delve deep in hate:

Hatred or hate is an intense negative emotional response towards certain people, things or ideas, usually related to opposition or revulsion toward something. Hatred is often associated with intense feelings of anger, contempt, and disgust. While hate relates to other negative emotions, it also has some unique features, such as the motivation to eliminate the object of your hate. Hatred is sometimes seen as the opposite of love. A number of different definitions and perspectives on hatred have been put forth. Philosophers have been concerned with understanding the essence and nature of hatred, while some religions view it positively and encourage hatred toward certain outgroups. Social and psychological theorists have understood hatred in a utilitarian sense. Hatred may encompass a wide range of gradations of emotion and have very different expressions depending on the cultural context and the situation that triggers the emotional or intellectual response. Based on the context in which hatred occurs, it may be viewed favorably, unfavorably, or neutrally by different societies.

Recently, neuroscience research has made the first steps toward mapping a hate circuit in the brain involving the putamen, the insula and the frontal cortex (Zeki & Romaya, 2008). But what is hate exactly? Most typically, hate is conceptualized as an extreme form of dislike, as well as an amplified version of specific emotions such as anger, disgust, or contempt (Allport, 1954; Aumer & Hatfield, 2007; Ben-Ze’ev, 2000; Darwin, 1872; Frijda, 1986; Staub, 2005). However, is hate indeed conceptually the same as dislike and these emotions? And if not, how is hate different from dislike and these emotions? Considerable theorizing has described what hate is, how it develops, how it relates to other discrete emotions, and what its cognitive, motivational, and behavioral characteristics are (e.g., Allport, 1954; Brewer, 1999; Fischer et al., 2018; Kucuk, 2016; Royzman et al., 2005; Staub, 2005; Sternberg & Sternberg, 2008). Nevertheless, research testing this theorizing empirically is remarkably scarce (Halperin et al., 2012; Royzman et al., 2005; Sternberg & Sternberg, 2008), and only a handful of studies have focused on the differences between hate and other emotional experiences such as anger, fear or dislike (Fischer et al., 2018; Halperin, 2008; Roseman & Steele, 2018; Van Bavel et al., 2018). Hate can develop both in interpersonal and intergroup relationships as a strong emotion. At the intergroup level, hate plays a role in for instance intergroup intractable conflicts (Halperin, 2008), political intolerance (Halperin et al., 2009), and war (Halperin et al., 2011). At the interpersonal level, hate has been characterized as the counterpart of love (Aumer et al., 2016; Jin et al., 2017), another strong and long lasting feeling with shared characteristics like its duration and intensity (Ben-Ze’ev, 2018), especially toward close targets (Aumer & Hatfield, 2007).

Unlike anger-emotions, hate is directed at a whole person rather than a specific action or event. It involves the belief that the other person is inherently bad or evil, and that there is little to no chance that this could change. This belief is usually not established from a single action, but a pattern of behavior. Furthermore, because you think this person is bad beyond change, you believe there is no point in any constructive approach. Rather, you just wish something bad would happen to them, or at least, that they would disappear from your life. Although hate can definitely lead to violent behavior, this is not necessarily the case, depending on the person and the situation. Often, someone will just avoid the hated person. If that is not possible, for example, because they work closely together, other strategies are used to create psychological distance. Hate can also be directed towards groups, a form that is often actively stimulated in wartime. Hating the enemy can relieve feelings of guilt for one’s own wrongdoings.

What we do know is that hate is intense and enduring, and it seems to be based on a view of its targets as essentially bad and threatening. For example, when the Hutus slaughtered the Tutsis in the Rwanda genocide of 1994, the hate they experienced appears to have been based on the perception that the Tutsis were essentially evil and that they should be eliminated. The hate embodied by the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups often goes back decades or longer, transcending generations and sometimes lying dormant until finding a new trigger. We also know that people can hate close individuals such as family members, friends or romantic partners. Whether one considers intimate violence between family members, the carnage of the World Wars or the wholesale slaughter of genocides around the world, the damage that humans can do to each other presents a serious threat to all of us. Theorists from Freud to the present have faced the challenge of developing an understanding of hate and violence.

The concept of hate can be operationalized as an instance of negative prejudice. As such, hate is a prejudice held by a person toward another individual, group, social object, category, or institution; it has distinct cognitive and emotional components. Hate is marked by intense emotional arousal and high meaningfulness, or conceptual salience, to the person. Hate is a simple word connoting extreme enmity and, as a construct, is readily understood, even by young children. Yet its prima facie obviousness is deceptive. Hate comes in various degrees and forms. Some hates are more powerfully felt and enduring than others. Some are socially shared, others are peculiar to an individual; some are one-way, others are mutual; some are enacted, others are not; and some are directed at individuals, others are directed at groups ranging from small family units to larger religious, ethnic, and political groups. Commenting on one of these dimensions of hate–severity–Kernberg described hate as occurring on a spectrum that includes mild, intermediate, and severe forms.

Hate is no stranger to humankind. Most (or maybe all) people are capable of experiencing the “intense hostility and aversion” toward some entity that is characteristic of this emotion. “True haters,” Gaylin observed, “live daily with their hatred. Their hatred is a way of life…. They are obsessed with their enemies, attached to them in a paranoid partnership.” In Gaylin’s view, the hatred they feel is a long-lasting enmity focused on some person or group that seeks the destruction of this target, more for the pleasure this will bring than for purposes of advantage, material gain, or revenge. But even more narrowly, the author focuses much of his attention on hate crimes, especially on the more extreme cases in which someone is deliberately killed because of his or her membership in a hated group. Hate crimes are typically differentiated from other types of crimes on the basis of the victim’s group membership; the offense probably would not have occurred if he or she had not belonged to that particular group.

Hate has personal, interpersonal, and societal dimensions. Unlike anger, hate resists efforts at emotion regulation; it typically takes life-changing events to reduce its effects. Where anger is about prevailing against perceived threats, hate is about destroying them. Once anger and resentment cross the line into hate, it’s extremely hard to come back from it, in part because it relieves self-doubt with an artificial sense of moral superiority. Hate endures because it justifies the harm done while hating.

When people feel unsafe within themselves, the expression of hate makes them feel empowered. It provides a sense of purpose in tearing down or destroying that which we hate. People without a sense of purpose are especially susceptible to hate.

Hate is heavily embedded with bias and distorted or oversimplified thinking. This makes it difficult on an interpersonal level to mitigate projection, to discern whether people we hate merely reflect qualities we don’t like about ourselves. Hate expressed on an interpersonal level is almost certain to evoke hateful responses from others. Expressing hate creates more hate.

On a societal level, hate holds groups together with a common enemy but tears them apart without one. Hate groups invariably develop factions and infighting, if not civil war.

Hate is embedded in presumed righteousness. Every hate group asserts its hate and aggression in the name of justice (human or divine). They feature indoctrination and forced reeducation, which, of course, increase hate.

Hate or hatred is an emotion of intense revulsion, distaste, enmity, or antipathy for a person, thing, or phenomenon; a desire to avoid, restrict, remove, or destroy its object. The emotion is often stigmatized; yet it serves an important purpose, as does love. Just as love signals attachment, hatred signals detachment. In psychology, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness. In a more contemporary definition, the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a “deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object.” Because hatred is believed to be long-lasting, many psychologists consider it to be more of an attitude or disposition than a (temporary) emotional state.

Hatred can be based on fear of its object, justified or unjustified, or past negative consequences of dealing with that object. Often “hate” is used casually to describe things one merely dislikes, such as a particular style of architecture, a certain climate, a movie, one’s job, or some particular food.

“Hate” or “hatred” is also used to describe feelings of prejudice, bigotry or condemnation against a person, or a group of people, such as racism, and intense religious or political prejudice. The term hate crime is used to designate crimes committed out of hatred in this sense.

Sometimes people, when harmed by a member of an ethnic or religious group, will come to hate that entire group. The opposite situation occurs too, where an entire group hates a single person. Some consider this to be socially unacceptable–Western culture, for example, frowns on collective punishment and insists that people be treated as individuals rather than members of groups. Others view such generalizing behavior as rational and indeed, necessary in order to ensure group survival in the face of competing groups or individuals who often have differing points of view.

Hate is often a precursor to violence. Before a war, a populace is sometimes trained via political propaganda to hate some nation or political regime. Hatred remains a major motive behind armed conflicts such as war. Hate is not necessarily logical and it can be counterproductive and self-perpetuating.

One of the characteristics of hatred is the need to devalue the victim more and more (Staub, 2005). At the end of the process, the object of the hatred loses all moral or human consideration in the eyes of the hater. When hatred intensifies, a certain fanatical obligation to get rid of the person or group that is the object of the hatred can easily arise (Opotow, 1990). Getting rid of that person sometimes means inflicting considerable damage or, taking it to an extreme, physical disappearance or murder: a frequent recourse in situations of intense hatred. In the end, it can produce a reversal of the moral code: killing the hated person or group is a right. The history of mankind is full of such examples: deportations of potential enemies by Stalin; ethnic cleansing in the Balkans war; the many cases of domestic violence ending in the murder of the partner.

There are two factors at the root of hatred: the devaluation of the victim and the ideology of the hater. Both of these factors mould and expand hatred. They reduce empathy, because the hater moves increasingly away from the object of their hatred. They remove obstacles that could limit our hatred towards others, by transforming our feelings into hatred. They not only change our ideas and feelings, but even the social norms that guide our behaviour towards the object of our hatred. The new behaviour ends up being accepted and normal; and institutions may even be created to promote and spread hatred. Palestinian children learn to hate Jews at school and Jewish radicals do the same with their children; Saharan children are taught to hate Moroccans; sometimes in the Basque Ikastolas, history is distorted to justify the existence of the Spanish invaders. We could continue with examples from everywhere.

Hate is conceptualized by multiple authors as an intense negative emotion, which is often compared with other negative emotions such as contempt, or anger, but has a much stronger response against the target such as complete avoidance or elimination of it. From a neurobiological perspective, multiple areas of the brain are involved in the experience of hate i.e., the parts of the limbic system, prefrontal cortex, premotor cortex, etc. The experience of hate can take place at a self, interpersonal and intergroup level. Wherein, the latter has a much greater involvement of people with a far greater outreach surpassing the local boundaries due to the presence of the internet and other social media sites. Intergroup hate is often used by some people with a vested economic, social or political interest.

Hate Duration and Intensity:

In terms of duration, hate’s single episodes take more time to dissipate compared with other discrete emotions like anger (Verduyn & Lavrijsen, 2015), as it can remain dormant for decades (even across generations) waiting to be triggered (Sternberg, 2003). Lay people deem hate as an extreme, long-term, and highly emotional experience (Halperin, 2008) and report more long-lasting hate than short-term hate toward different out-groups (Halperin et al., 2012). In terms of intensity, it has been suggested that people experience hate with higher intensity than dislike (Goodvin et al., 2018). Previous attempts to categorize hate by intensity have proposed mild, moderate, and severe degrees of hate, with subcategories within each level (Sternberg & Sternberg, 2008), but without enough empirical evidence for such a taxonomy.

Hate Motivations:

Previous theorizing suggests that a key motivational goal underlying hate is to protect individuals from pertinent threats in the social environment. It has been assumed that hate emerges in the presence of a number of threats to the self, the in-group, or cultural values (Staub, 2005). For example, hate is associated with threats to life, freedom, resources, ideas, and the fulfilment of basic needs (Fromm, 1992; Staub, 2011), threats to selfesteem, self-interest, and personal goals (Baumeister & Butz, 2005; Beck, 2000), and threats to justice (Kucuk, 2016; Opotow & McClelland, 2007; Van Doorn, 2018). Also, hate is most likely to emerge in the presence of moral violations (Van Bavel et al., 2018) and when targets are perceived as essentially bad, immoral, and dangerous (Baumeister, 1997). However, few empirical studies have tested this association between threat and hate. At an interpersonal level, it has been speculated that hate serves isolated functions such as self-redress after interpersonal conflicts, motivating revenge, communicating emotional states, or reestablishing autonomy (Aumer & Bahn, 2016; Rempel & Sutherland, 2016). At the intergroup level, hate has been described as functional for political behaviors such as affiliation and in-group cohesion (Halperin et al., 2012).

Hate Action Tendencies:

It has been typically argued that hate’s particular goal is harming or eliminating its targets (Allport, 1954; Baumeister & Butz, 2005; Fischer et al., 2018; Staub, 2005; Sternberg & Sternberg, 2008). Hate has been linked to attack action tendencies ranging from verbal aggression and hate speech to moral exclusion, physical aggression, and extreme violence (Chetty & Alathur, 2018; Opotow & McClelland, 2007; Sternberg, 2003). Alternatively, other studies have suggested instead that hate’s broader goal is to keep the targets out of one’s life, associating hate to avoidance-oriented action tendencies (Aumer & Bahn, 2016; Roseman & Steele, 2018). The distinctive action tendencies of anger, contempt, and disgust are less controversial. It is well-established that whereas anger prepares individuals for approach-oriented behaviors, disgust, and contempt promote avoidant-oriented behaviors (Hutcherson & Gross, 2011). Disgust aims at avoiding infectious agents, undesired sexual contact, and, more relevant for the present purposes, immoral actions and individuals (Tybur et al., 2009). On the other hand, contempt is associated with looking down, derogating, and excluding the targets (Schriber et al., 2017). Thus, whereas anger is primarily focused on changing a target’s unwanted behaviors, and contempt and disgust are focused on excluding and avoiding the targets, hate is focused on the target itself, and aims to physically, socially or symbolically eliminate it (Fischer et al., 2018). We expect, therefore, that as compared with dislike, anger, contempt, and disgust, hate will elicit more attack-oriented and less withdraw-oriented behaviors. However, there are many ways to cause hate-motivated harm in interpersonal relationships without necessarily engaging in physical violence (Rempel & Sutherland, 2016), and it is rather unlikely for a single individual to eliminate or harm an entire group. Thus hate’s attack-oriented behaviors do not necessarily always take extreme forms such as aggression or violence.

Desire to harm in hate:

Hate is an intense, negative emotional reaction to a target considered intrinsically malicious and unchangeable in its evilness (Fischer et al., 2018). The hated object is seen as dangerous, a threat to one’s values and identity, so the aim is its social, physical, mental, and symbolic destruction. A distinction can be made between interpersonal and intergroup hate, depending on whether the target is hated because of their membership to a particular group or their personal characteristics (Fischer et al., 2018).

There are many definitions and conceptions of hate. However, despite the conceptual discrepancies, there’s one component of hate that’s been accepted in all of them: the desire to harm. This desire can be a means to an end or an end in itself. Thus, an individual may yearn to harm another in order to restore an established order, elevate themselves, gain pleasure, assert their autonomy, or prevent abandonment. In all of these cases, regardless of the intent, the goal is to harm.

At the interpersonal level, it’s been claimed that hate fulfills different functions. For instance, self-repair, revenge, communicating an emotional state or restoring autonomy. At the intergroup level, it’s been considered a functional means for political behaviors, such as affiliation and cohesion within a group.

Hate, understood as a short or long-term feeling, is altered and intensified by other emotions, such as revenge, anger, and contempt. Different factors intervene in the complexity, chronicity, and stability of this feeling, especially motivational ones. Thus, hate is influenced by a motivation that intensifies the basic tendencies to action. Roseman (2008) has suggested that these action tendencies are an inherent part of emotional experience. He labeled them as ’emotional’ components of the emotional system.

Intolerance and hate:

The human race is an intolerable species. We are seldom welcoming of varying views, belief systems, and behaviors. We shun or outwardly reject those who differ from our own person. As a species, we are more apt to disregard or completely ignore anyone we disagree with. Such intolerance is no different than blatant acts of hate and discrimination. You may be asking yourself, how can ignoring or shunning be as reprehensible as violent acts. While the acts of shunning or ignoring lack the physical violence of the fist; shunning and ignoring are intentionally setting a precedent of intolerance and bigotry. It is this sort of behavior, attitudes, and percepts that is directly linked to instilling negative emotions (i.e. fear, distrust, hatred, worry, and personal distress). The prejudices of an individual can invoke rage, hostilities, and an overall spirit of negativity. While the intolerance begins within the mind and psyche of the individual, seldom does the intolerance keep isolated within the mind of the individual. Sadly, the venomous nature of intolerance is capable of creeping itself slowly into the minds of others who directly and indirectly interact with the ill mind. The spoils of intolerance are capable of diminishing and destroying every thread of communication. It is the egregious nature of intolerance that spurs on the prejudices and bigotry developed within the minds of those effected by such hate.

Hate & contempt:

Contempt and hate are both negative evaluations of a person. For example, a group of soldiers may feel both contempt and hate towards a fellow soldier who betrayed them and defected to the other side. The important difference is that hate is an evaluation that someone is evil or dangerous, whereas contempt judges someone to be inferior. In the example of the soldiers, the contempt is directed at the defected soldier’s lack of loyalty and patriotism, while the hate is directed at the fact that the soldier puts his comrades at danger. Someone can feel contempt for a very lazy person, but not hate him, because he poses no threat. Similarly, someone can feel hate for a tough competitor, as they pose a threat, but not feel contempt, because they are not seen as inferior.

Hate & Anger:

When you hate a person, you are likely to also be angry with them. However, the opposite is often not true. For example, a father can be angry with his children, but this does not mean that he hates them. An important difference is that anger evaluates someone’s action (you did something bad), whereas hate evaluates and entire person (you are bad). This also means that anger is usually temporary: if the person has apologized or if they have changed their behavior, there is no need to keep being angry. Hate, on the other hand, is more enduring. If you hate a person, you are convinced that they are beyond improvement, so it will likely last a long time, if not forever.

Hate is often misunderstood:

Hate involves an appraisal that a person or group is evil. While hate relates to other negative emotions, it also has some unique features, such as the motivation to eliminate the object of your hate. Revenge is often a part of hate, because the idea behind revenge is to want to hurt the person/group as much as you have been hurt by them. In daily life, the word hate is used very casually (e.g., I hate my teacher because she gave me a bad grade). People don’t usually mean that. When we ask participants to recall an experience when they felt hate, they do not usually recall these types of casual events. In fact, one of the challenges of studying hate is that most people can’t think of a time when they experienced true hate.

It seems easier to hate groups than individuals:

One surprising finding from research is that hate spreads and increases quicker if it’s directed at a group, rather than an individual. When you hate a group, the intensity of your hate can grow without you being confronted with specific persons or contrasting information from the group—you are basing your hate on stereotypes and prejudices. If you hate an individual, your hate may be countered with empathy or a reappraisal of the person when you encounter their positive side. In fact, when we asked people in conflict regions to tell us stories in which they hated someone, 80% talked about groups and not individuals.

______

Hate is a sentiment or emotion or extreme dislike:

Philosophers from the ancient time sought to describe hatred and today, there are different definitions available. Aristotle, for instance, viewed it as distinct from anger and rage, describing hate as a desire to annihilate an object and is incurable by time. David Hume also offered his own conceptualization, maintaining that hatred is an irreducible feeling that is not definable at all. There is strong disagreement about the nature of hate. Scholars of hatred have continually debated the question of whether hatred is an emotion, a motive (Rempel & Burris, 2005), or an (emotional) attitude or syndrome (Royzman et al., 2005). This debate is driven by the fact that one of hate’s core characteristics is that it generally lasts longer than the event that initially evoked it. The enduring nature of hatred is based in the appraisals that are targeted at the fundamental nature of the hated group. Given that hate is often not a reaction to a specific event, and not limited to a short period of time, the question is raised whether hate actually is an emotion, or rather an emotional attitude or sentiment (Allport, 1954; Aumer-Ryan & Hatfield, 2007; Frijda, 1986; Frijda, Mesquita, Sonnemans, & van Goozen, 1991; Halperin et al., 2012; Royzman et al., 2005; Shand, 1920, as cited in Royzman et al., 2005; Sternberg, 2005). In the last two decades, scholars (e.g., Fischer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016; Halperin, 2008; Sternberg, 2003) have resolved this contradiction between emotions and sentiments by suggesting that some “emotions” can occur in both configurations—immediate and chronic, and thus can be conceived of as a (short-term) emotion as well as a (long-term) sentiment.

Emotions are short-lived states that arise from a subjective experience, while sentiments are long-lasting states that are a person’s interpretation of their emotions.

Hate has been generally conceptualized as a negative emotional attitude (Allport et al., 1954; White, 1996) toward persons or groups who are considered to possess fundamentally negative traits (Allport et al., 1954; Ben-Ze’ev, 2000; Royzman et al., 2006; Sternberg, 2003). Similarly to other affective states (Frijda et al., 1991), hatred can be experienced both as an emotion (“acute hate”) and as a sentiment or emotional attitude (“chronic hate”) (Bartlett, 2005; Halperin et al., 2012).

The emotion hate (also referred to as “immediate hate”; Halperin et al., 2012) is much more urgent and occurs in response to significant events that are appraised as so dramatic that they lead to the kind of appraisals (e.g., “the ougroup is evil by nature”) and motivations (e.g., “I would like it to be destroyed”) that are usually associated with hatred. This intense feeling is often accompanied by unpleasant physical symptoms and a sense of fear and helplessness (Sternberg, 2003, 2005). It provokes a strong desire for revenge, a wish to inflict suffering, and, at times, desired annihilation of the outgroup. Studies by Halperin et al. (2012) unequivocally show that people are capable of short-term hate, following an unusual, mostly destructive, and violent event. In that very short period of time, they attribute the negative behavior of the outgroup to its innate evil character.

The two forms of hatred are related, yet distinct, and one fuels the occurrence and magnitude of the other. Frequent incidents of the emotion hate may make the development of the sentiment more probable (see also Rempel & Burris, 2005). At the same time, the lingering of hate as a sentiment constitutes fertile ground for the eruption of hate. Chronic haters, who encounter their targets or the consequences of their targets’ actions, most likely react with immediate hatred. These people evaluate almost any behavior of the hate target through the lens of their long-term perspective that the hate target is malevolent. As such, haters are probably more susceptible than others to systematic biases, such as the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977). What follows is that the mere presence, mentioning, or even internal recollection of the hated person or group can fuel hate as a sentiment. At the same time, the causal mechanism can work the other way as well. Repeated events of immediate hatred can very easily turn the hatred feeling into an enduring sentiment. Indeed, it is only natural that after repeated violent events of that kind, it becomes very difficult for people to forget earlier instances, and such feelings remain present for longer periods of time. In a way, hatred is an emotion that requires more time to evolve, but once it happens it takes much longer to dissolve, and it will always leave scars.

When hate is defined as an emotional attitude (versus hate as an emotion), it is a more stable disposition towards a hated object that relies significantly on cognition (Halperin et al., 2012). In this respect, hatred can be conceptually compared to dislike, which can be defined as a preference or negative disposition towards an object that influences our behavior (de Houwer & Hughes, 2020). Hatred and dislike have been historically conceptualized as two related concepts. For instance, German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe famously speculated that “Hatred is active, and envy passive dislike; there is but one step from envy to hate” (Edwards, 1908) and Darwin (1872) argued that “Dislike easily rises into hatred”, suggesting that the two belong on a common conceptual spectrum.

From a modern psychological perspective, what we label dislike and hatred both share some characteristics in terms of their dispositional nature and negative valence. However, the things that we say that we hate, as opposed to dislike, are transmissible, lead to false attributions, and motivate violent crimes (Sternberg, 2005). And these differences may be understood by taking into account the moral dimension of hate.

Is hate simply a stronger version of dislike? Or is it qualitatively different?

In a project, Cunningham, Dennis and Postdoctoral Researcher Jay J. Van Bavel conducted a scientific analysis of hate to identify its psychological underpinnings and motivational implications. The investigators studied the nature of hate through a series of seven studies using two methods: latent semantic analysis and social cognitive neuroscience.

Latent semantic analysis uses computers to take a body of text such as participant interviews and produce a vector space representation of how key words are related. The researchers used this method in a series of studies that included:

Participants reporting three objects, people or concepts they hate, three they dislike, and detailed explanations why
Participants reporting one object, person or concept they dislike, extremely dislike, and hate
Analysis of real-world conflicts in which collective attitudes reflect hate.

Social cognitive analysis investigates the role of the human brain in producing thoughts and emotions. Here, the investigators did two studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG). In both experiments, participants were instructed to think about people and issues they dislike and those they hate so the investigators could see if different regions of the brain were involved.

Preliminary results show that hate is qualitatively different from dislike. While dislike was associated with avoidance, hate was associated with approach. Hate was also based on core moral or ideological beliefs, thus reducing positive attitudes or empathy toward others and possibly triggering violent motivations. By understanding the psychological nature of hate, the investigators hope that interventions can be introduced to reduce or eliminate it.

The Psychology of Hate: Moral Concerns Differentiate Hate from Dislike, a 2022 study:

Authors investigated whether any differences in the psychological conceptualization of hate and dislike were simply a matter of degree of negativity (i.e., hate falls on the end of the continuum of dislike) or also morality (i.e., hate is imbued with distinct moral components that distinguish it from dislike). In three lab studies in Canada and the US, participants reported disliked and hated attitude objects and rated each on dimensions including valence, attitude strength, morality, and emotional content. Quantitative and qualitative measures revealed that hated attitude objects were more negative than disliked attitude objects and associated with moral beliefs and emotions, even after adjusting for differences in negativity. In study four, authors analyzed the rhetoric on real hate sites and complaint forums and found that the language used on prominent hate websites contained more words related to morality, but not negativity, relative to complaint forums. The overall pattern of findings suggests that morality helps differentiate expressions of hate from expressions of dislike.

________

Hate and morality:

In general, moral values are strongly implicated in intergroup prejudice. Typically, this is a positive association, with the idea that morality—i.e. concerns about right and wrong—helps to combat prejudicial attitudes and actions. This is supported by research in psychology: works such as Rutland et al have proposed that morality plays a crucial role in children’s development of prejudice. Specifically, by way of an interaction with the emergence of group identity, children variably apply their “emerging beliefs about fairness, inclusion, and equality”. However, the positive influence of morality on prejudice—e.g. its reduction when applied during childhood development—is potentially at odds with the wider literature on morality and its potentially deleterious consequences. Specifically, moral motives may actually be a driver in acts of violence, rather than a pacifier. In the same vein, humans’ moral motives may drive them to out-group hatred and, consequently, hate-based behaviors including violence and forms of hate crime. Recent work has suggested such a connection, theorizing that moralized threats are a key instigator of acts of intergroup hate. There is now an emerging literature demonstrating that acts of hate and genocide are not committed due to lack of awareness, but because the perpetrators believe that “what they are doing is right”. Only recently have researchers begun to propose that violence and prejudice may have roots in moral intuitions. Can it be the case that the act of verbalizing hatred involves a moral component, and that hateful and moral language are inseparable constructs? A 2023 study ‘The (moral) language of hate’ attempt to find the answer. In this work, authors hypothesize that morality and hate are concomitant in language. In a series of studies, they find evidence in support of this hypothesis using language from a diverse array of contexts, including the use of hateful language in propaganda to inspire genocide, hateful slurs as they occur in large text corpora across a multitude of languages, and hate speech on social-media platforms. In post hoc analyses focusing on particular moral concerns, authors found that the type of moral content invoked through hate speech varied by context, with Purity language prominent in hateful propaganda and online hate speech and Loyalty language invoked in hateful slurs across languages.

______

Hate-Motivated Behavior:

Hateful acts, especially hate crimes, are rooted in biases or even the simple preferences all people possess. For some people, these biases may manifest as prejudicial or stigmatizing beliefs. Prejudicial processes happen when people engage in cognitive shortcuts via stereotypes, which are exaggerated beliefs about a group or evaluations of an object, person, or group. Prejudicial beliefs also stem from negative emotional reactions to members of a targeted group. Prejudice ultimately shows up as discriminatory behaviors directed toward another person on the basis of group membership. Hate-motivated behavior, which is highly prevalent and likely underreported, comprises a continuum of behavior from subtle discrimination to violent crime. Targeted groups are heterogenous. Hate-motivated behavior can be thought of as verbal or nonverbal expressions of discrimination. For instance, hate speech comprises the verbal or written expression of prejudice aimed at harming another group. Hate crimes are commonly defined as harmful acts toward a person or group based on actual or perceived group membership. Acts of hate are thought to be effortful or intentional.

Hate-motivated behavior poses a threat to the population’s well-being, especially for vulnerable populations. Targeted communities are heterogenous—in its cataloging of hate crime statistics, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recognizes myriad groups targeted on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, and disability. The negative health consequences for victims are numerous, with much of the literature focused on the victimization of people on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and gender minority status. Experiences of hate are associated with poor emotional well-being such as feelings of anger, shame, and fear. Moreover, victims tend to experience poor mental health, including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and suicidal behavior. Medically, impacts include poor overall physical health, physical injury, stress, and difficulty accessing medical care. Victimization is also associated with poor health behaviors such as alcohol or drug use and unhealthy coping strategies such as emotion suppression. The experience of hate-motivated behavior can result in blaming of and lower empathy toward fellow victims.

Research demonstrates that perpetrators of hate crimes tend to be of younger age, male sex, and White race. Personality traits such as high emotional instability have been shown to be background risk factors for discrimination. Potential drivers of hate-motivated behavior include a range of attitudes (for example, high social dominance orientation) and prejudices, mental shortcuts (for example, dichotomous thinking), and disinhibiting behaviors (for example, alcohol use). The same prejudices and attitudes (for example, social dominance orientation) that drive hate are also empirically linked to support of far-right political figures and movements, such as President Donald Trump, Brexit, and the UK Independence Party. Interpersonal risk factor research highlights the impact of both negative family and peer group influences on subtle discrimination and far-right extremist behavior, respectively. A variety of perceptions of outgroup members (for example, as a threat) may also precipitate hateful acts. Lack of exposure to diversity may also be associated with sexist behavior.

______

Do animals feel hate?

No, animals don’t really hate, that emotion is solely for humans.

People disagree about the nature of emotions in nonhuman animal beings (hereafter animals), especially concerning the question of whether any animals other than humans can feel emotions (Ekman 1998). Pythagoreans long ago believed that animals experience the same range of emotions as humans (Coates 1998), and current research provides compelling evidence that at least some animals likely feel a full range of emotions, including fear, joy, happiness, shame, embarrassment, resentment, jealousy, rage, anger, love, pleasure, compassion, respect, relief, disgust, sadness, despair, and grief (Skutch 1996, Poole 1996, 1998, Panksepp 1998, Archer 1999, Cabanac 1999, Bekoff 2000). The tendency to feel hate can be useful in a survivalistic sense but animals are incapable of feeling hate. They can have aggression towards another animal or person but that does not mean they “hate” them. Animals can be wary and they certainly can feel fear, anger and love. Wild creatures will explode with rage and anger, but they will not hate. That takes a capacity for abstraction and judgement they don’t have. While dogs can experience a range of emotions, including fear, anxiety, and affection, the concept of hate is typically beyond their cognitive capacity. Negative behaviors exhibited by dogs are often rooted in instinct, learned responses, or underlying stressors.

_______

What breeds hate?

Hate is a negative feeling of hostility and aversion towards certain people, things, and ideas. Hate is often associated with feelings of fear, anger and discomfort. It often induces harmful behaviour and rift among the people and increases violence, discrimination, and oppression. The hate is change with the individual perspective and hence can be manifested in various forms. It can be racial hatred (hate based on the person’s race or creed), religious hatred (prejudice against individuals or groups based on their religious beliefs), homophobia (hate on the basis of sexual orientation mainly people with LGBTQIA+), sexism (prejudice against someone based on their gender), political hatred (hate because of political belief) and class hatred (prejudice of economic background). Hate can be induced by several factors, which include individual, societal and psychological elements. It can stem from a variety of sources, such as cultural, social, political, and personal factors. The reasons for hatred can be complex and multifaceted, making it a challenging topic to tackle.

Fear:

The common denominator in most acts of hatred is fear, usually fear of different types of people or ideas. This is why hatred is most often directed toward people of differing race, sexual orientation, religious background or some other criterion. People are threatened by the unknown and seek to extinguish this fear, resulting historically in massive death tolls, slavery and other injustices. Merriam-Webster defines xenophobia as “fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange and foreign.” Some psychologists assert that hatred isn’t inherent at birth. Instead, they believe this emotion is learned over time, sometimes rearing its ugly head later in life in the form of bigotry, prejudice and even hate crimes.

Long before the existence of codified law, uncivilized people lived defensively and territorially. These people didn’t take kindly to unfamiliar people on their turf. Rather than approaching with a handshake and a smile, they usually responded to possible threats with violence. Since the people who took the “kill rather than be killed” approach survived and reproduced, this attitude evolved over time into the instant classification of strangers. As such, the idea of “us vs. them” became instinctual and socially acceptable.

Hatred is the natural reaction to fear. Fear of rejection, abandonment, suffocation, and mortality can all lead to hate. When a group threatens our beliefs, we may fear and then hate them. Everyone fears pain, injury, and death. If we did not have hatred, we would have no incentive to overcome the source of the fear and subdue or eliminate it, and therefore we would succumb to it and allow ourselves to die.

From the neurological point of view, fear and aggression are motivated by an automatic response to perceived threats, the well-known fight, flight, or freeze phenomenon that is wired into our limbic system. This familiar trifecta of stress responses is rooted in the desire to stay alive—as well as to live well and to avoid injury of all kinds, including to our self-esteem, self-identity, and emotional well-being. This fear-driven motivational system designed to protect us involves the amygdalae, a pair of small structures deep in the brain, which are the center for primitive emotions, including fear. And here’s the thing: two-thirds of the cells in the amygdalae are designed to respond to unpleasant experiences. The amygdalae react far more rapidly and completely to negative than to positive stimuli. To put it another way, the “stick” sticks in your mind while the “carrot” makes much less of an impression. This leaves you predisposed to make negative interpretations and jump to fear-based conclusions. It’s not hard to see how we might have ended up with this negatively biased hardwiring. In evolutionary terms, natural selection favors the negativity bias. Mistaking a benign situation for a threatening one may be hard on your nervous system, but it is not as immediately dangerous as the opposite mistake—not recognizing a threat. Our brains are designed to look at the worst-case scenario in order to survive. We need to recognize threats in our environment, whether we’re avoiding a tripping hazard or a cheating ex. Our bias toward negativity helps us determine who to cooperate with and who to compete with.

Hatred is a forced, adaptive response to unrelenting fear. No one arrives in this world with the ability or will to hate others. It is a learned internal response in reaction to inescapable, or repeated painful experiences inflicted by others. Hate can be a necessary ‘psychological defense’ when a child (or adult) is — 1) fully dependent/subjugated by another and is, 2) unable to control, predict, mitigate, or escape the terror or suffering. Experiences that breed hatred include:

-chronic physical or emotional abuse of a child by a parent or other trusted adult

-victimization that occurs in ‘forced’ environments (school, jail, camp, slavery)

-chronic abuse from those with ‘absolute’ authority (police, doctors, parents, teachers, priests)

-abuse or torment among unequal siblings, neighbors, teammates, classmates, etc. in which access is inevitable.

Within groups or populations, hatred is sown during the terrors of war, genocide, oppressive dictatorships, etc.

Second-hand hate can be bred indirectly as it is ‘taught’ through indoctrination, training, harsh example, fear manipulation, etc. Tribal war-cultures, extremist military groups, terrorist organizations, and extreme cults may be examples here.

There are other key factors, which can easily influence hate:

Personal Experience: People who have experienced negative attitudes from a certain group of people are likely to develop a negative feeling towards them. For example, if a person gets bullied by an individual of a specific race may develop a racist attitude towards the whole race.
Fear and insecurity: Hate is often influenced by the fear of losing something, it can be identity or privileges.
Socialization: People can learn about hate from their family, peers, and communities. If an individual is exposed to negative messages about a certain group. They are most likely to adopt a negative attitude towards that group which influences hate.
Media: Media plays an important role in influencing hate. If a news channel is broadcasting stereotypical negative news about a certain group, then, the people who are watching are most likely to develop a negative attitude towards that group and this ultimately influences the hatred and prejudice.
Economic Factor: Economic inequality can contribute to, and influence prejudice and hatred. People who feel economically threatened often scapegoat minority people.
Political Factor: Political agendas and propaganda can manipulate the people and induce hatred and prejudice among their followers.
Psychological factor: An individual can include the personality trait an individual owns by birth. Some people have hatred in their basic trait due to low levels of empathy and high levels of aggression.

The psychology of hate involves the following aspects:

-Hate is an appraisal that a person or group is evil.

-It includes a strong negative emotional response and often a desire to harm, devalue, or exclude the target.

-Hate is a secondary emotion learned from personal experiences, social conditioning, and cognitive processes.

-It often stems from mistrust, feelings of powerlessness, or vulnerability.

-Experiences of hate are associated with poor emotional well-being and mental health issues.

Hate can cause a number of consequences which can be devastating for both individuals and society:

Physical and emotional harm: Hate influences an individual to commit a crime which harms the beings physically and causes emotional disbalance. Victims of hate crime are most likely to experience stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder).
Social isolation and exclusion: People do not like to be with a person who is full of negativity so, the person who shows the feeling of hating is most likely to experience social isolation and exclusion from peers and society. This results in them having mental distress and disturbance in well-being.
Reduced opportunities: Job opportunities can be reduced as hate can lead to people being discriminated against in employment and areas of job, which can affect your potential to achieve higher goals.
Increased violence and crime: In extreme cases, hatred can increase the rate of violence and crime among the people who are influenced by the negative attitude which can result in acts of genocide, physical harm, and loss of lives.
Social unrest and division: Hatred can create social unrest and division among a group of people. It also creates distrust among the group of people and makes it difficult to build a cohesive and just society.

These consequences can be harmful to the individual and the whole society, so one should combat these consequences by making some changes in your behaviour and actions.

Synopsis of hate:

Hate is an intense aversion or hostility towards someone or something rooted in personal experiences, social conditioning, and cognitive processes.
Reasons for developing strong feelings of dislike or hatred include misunderstanding, negative experiences, societal influence, fear of the unfamiliar, and personal insecurities or biases.
Hate is influenced by social and cultural factors, such as upbringing, cultural background, and the desire for belonging. It often stems from an “us vs. them” mentality, leading to discrimination, violence, and division.
Psychologically, hate can be fueled by negative personal experiences, the need for a scapegoat, insecurity, and unconscious reactions to non-verbal cues.
Different types of hate include microaggressions, hate speech, hate crimes, and cyberbullying. They significantly impact individuals, perpetuating self-hate, interpersonal conflicts, and societal divisions.
Addressing hate requires challenging biases, promoting inclusivity, fostering empathy, and encouraging dialogue and cooperation among diverse groups. It starts with self-awareness, choosing constructive communication, seeking common ground, and practicing active listening.

_____

How our brains learn to hate:

There are three things our brains cannot tolerate: rejection, cognitive dissonance and the most incendiary of all, unfairness. Each, in its own way — and not always — weaponizes us to defy logic and reason to manifest hate.

The more attention given these — and any feelings — the more they strengthen those neural pathways. Good or bad, this reinforcement leads to automaticity, the basis of habit formation — and the way our brain learns.

No. 1: Rejection:

When we feel excluded, singled out, belittled or even just accused, that alarm resounds in the area of our brain sponsoring our strongest emotions. As part of its multiple-times-per-second monitoring duties, our brain keeps us on perpetual watch for how we compare, connect, relate. Are we in the “ingroup” or “outgroup?” Something as trivial as being left on an email chain, subtly admonished or not included in a meeting or team assignment registers in the same part of our brain as physical pain. If people feel connected and included, their status goes up; reward chemicals, like dopamine and oxytocin get released. We exhibit “approach” and inclusive behaviors. When we categorize ourselves as part of a group, our perspective shifts from “I” to “We.” Conversely, if we feel excluded, rejected or disconnected, we reach for our sharpest defense mechanisms. “Others” who may compete with our interests or job or status become capable of doing us harm, thus targets for hostility — or hate.

No. 2: Cognitive Dissonance:

Cognitive dissonance is described as the mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions and actions are inconsistent or contradictory. You want to be healthy, but you don’t exercise regularly or eat a nutritious diet. You feel guilty as a result. You know that smoking (or drinking too much) is harmful to your health, but you do it anyway. You rationalize this action by pointing to your high stress levels. When your expectations collide with inputs (i.e., a sudden layoff, bad performance review or project off the rails) we experience cognitive dissonance. To alleviate the dissonance, our brain instigates a cavalry-style search for any means possible to reduce or overcome its intensity. The more major the disturbance, the stronger the response. We do what we need to do to resolve the incongruity, including, according to one psychologist, to “deny reality, alter previous feelings, project anger onto the world.” Convince ourselves that what is wrong is right: “It wasn’t my screw up; it was his or No one understands how hard I work.” Whether that alarm unleashes a dose of reflexive hatred, remains a function of our previous experience with such disruptions. Our brain doesn’t go looking for trouble, it simply reacts.

No. 3: Unfairness:

Unfairness taps those places in our brain’s hell reserved for some of our strongest responses. Feelings of injustice can help rationalize extreme acts as a form of retribution for irreconcilable frustration, or worse: “Why am I always being blamed for other people’s mistakes?” or “Hey, they keep taking credit for my ideas; no way I’m going to share my findings!” The code red level sensitivity to perceived unfairness awakens our strongest defensive reflexes, the kind that ignite extreme emotions. A reorganization that bypasses or purges, an edict that arbitrarily demands office presence, or a new requirement seemingly applied indiscriminately can trigger previously installed resentments or anxieties. A quick assessment of recent public displays of aggression, like those following recent election cycles or workplace violence, invariably reveal unfairness as a root cause.

______

How do you know whether someone hates you?

When a person hates another person, they are likely to perform behaviors that seek to create separation or render the individual no longer a threat. This can mean many things, such as perhaps distancing themselves from you, being passive aggressive, or acting out verbally or even physically.

Some common actions people take when they dislike or believe they hate you are:

Avoidance: Because of the negative association they have of you in their mind, they might choose to stay away from you, spending less time interacting with you and choosing to avoid situations where you are present. This could look like not returning texts or phone calls, disengagement from you, or them physically staying away.
Defensiveness: When someone hates someone else, they can often become bothered by the things the other person does and the choices they make, even if those are not the main reasons they have a problem with you. They might take to nitpicking you, assigning blame onto you, or withdrawing.
Verbal aggression: Being around someone one hates and being exposed to the behaviors that feel frustrating or irritating can cause someone to lash out verbally, perhaps resorting to threats, name calling, or even slurs.
Physical aggression: While some people might tend toward verbal fighting or aggression, others express emotions like anger or hate through hitting, kicking, or pushing.
Disrespectful behavior: Another common behavior that someone might choose to employ when they “hate” you is to be disrespectful. Disrespect can come in many forms, such as exclusion, ignoring, and lying, among other behaviors.
Threats or threatening gestures: People that “hate” you might wish to intimidate you or make you feel uncomfortable in order to exert power over you. This could look like intimidation and expressing intent to do you harm.

______

Reactions to Hate:

Natural reactions to witnessing or experiencing hate can vary depending on the individual and the circumstances, but they generally fall into “fight, flight, or freeze” categories. Some common reactions may include:

Anger and Frustration: Seeing or experiencing hate can evoke anger and frustration stemming from a sense of injustice and the violation of fundamental human rights.
Emotional Distress: Witnessing or being subjected to hate can lead to emotional distress, such as sadness, fear, anxiety, or feelings of powerlessness. It can profoundly impact one’s mental and emotional well-being.
Empathy and Solidarity: Some individuals may respond with empathy and solidarity, feeling a sense of connection and support towards the targets of hate and seeking ways to stand up against it.
Motivation for Action: Hate can serve as a catalyst for individuals to take action, whether through advocacy, activism, or promoting positive change in their communities, aiming to combat hate and promote tolerance and inclusivity.
A Desire for Understanding: Some individuals may feel a strong urge to understand the roots of hate and its underlying causes, seeking knowledge and awareness as a means to address and prevent it.

______

Polarization and hate:

Political polarization: Democrats and Republicans:

Polarization is a social phenomenon characterized by the fragmentation of society into antagonistic factions with vehemently opposed values and identities that impede cooperation and the pursuit of a common good (Stewart et al., 2020). Not only does polarization increase the likelihood of violence in societies (Piazza, 2022), but violent demonstrations may exacerbate polarization and divide individuals along partisan lines. There are serious stakes to the election, including democracy issues and abortion rights — but the intense, vitriolic polarization we’re experiencing now is largely based on our perceptions about each other, according to research from Johns Hopkins University professor Lilliana Mason. Mason, a professor of political science at the university’s Stavros Niarchos Foundation’s Agora Institute, says this type of division, which she calls affective polarization, doesn’t require us to have wildly different policy disagreements to hate each other. Instead it’s based on feelings as well as misunderstandings about which groups, and what kind of people, are on the other side. Through a series of surveys and experiments over four years, Mason and Nathan Kalmoe, a political communication professor at Louisiana State University, studied the origins of extreme partisanship among ordinary Americans for the 2022 book, Radical American Partisanship. Mason and Kalmoe found that around 40 percent of Americans surveyed were willing to use dehumanizing language about the other party — a metric she says can be a precursor to even more serious political violence. The data really say that people of different parties dislike or even hate each other. The classic understanding of polarization is that we are disagreeing about issues. So, Democrats are really liberal and Republicans are really conservative on all of these different issues. But increasingly, what we’re finding now is that the polarization is partly about that, but it’s also about how we feel about each other. Republicans think that the Democratic Party is majority Black. It’s not. Democrats think that the Republican Party is majority wealthy people who make over $250,000 a year. It’s actually like 2 percent. And so we tend to assume that the stereotypical group that we think of when we think of that party, we tend to assume that that makes up the whole party and we’re all wrong. And in fact, political scientists and sociologists have done experiments to correct people’s misperceptions and it actually makes them hate the other party less because they hadn’t realized that the party wasn’t made up of maybe people they didn’t like or wasn’t made up of people who are really extreme in their policy preferences. We are overestimating the extent to which the other party is made up of people that we assume we would really dislike.

Religious polarization:

Polarization is to blame for spike in hate crimes on Muslims and Jews in US as Israel-Hamas war rages. While the Israel-Hamas war is raging on one side of the world, hate crimes against Jews, Muslims and Arabs are increasing in other parts of the globe. Ethnic tensions spilling over and prompting retaliation against entire groups of people is not an uncommon reaction to hostilities — even if they’re happening thousands of miles away, says Gordana Rabrenovic, assistant professor of sociology and director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict at Northeastern University. In the United States, polarization is one of the foremost reasons for the violence, says Rabrenovic. The manifestation of religious polarization and the spread of hatred in India have recently been illustrated vividly through videos that have circulated widely. Anti-Muslim hate speech sustains polarisation that benefits the ruling party in India and anti-Hindu hate speech sustains polarization that benefits opposition parties in India. Indian political parties have made Hindu vote bank and Muslim vote bank through polarization to gain power at the cost of development and progress.

_____

Hate and dehumanization:

Dehumanization is one of eight forms of “moral disengagement” described by the psychologist Albert Bandura. Humans are capable of terrible crimes, and civilization has developed ways to inhibit aggression. However, we have not eliminated violence, in part because of techniques for creating (false) excuses and justifications for immoral behavior. All moral disengagement techniques are tricks to get people to accept behaviors that they would otherwise immediately recognize as unethical and unfair. Dehumanization involves redefining the targets of prejudice and violence by making them seem less human (that is, less civilized or less sentient) than other people. The classic strategy for this is to use terms like “animals” and “vermin.” Referring to people as “illegals” is also dehumanizing. You’ll see dehumanization at work in most large-scale atrocities or genocides committed by governments, armies, or terrorists. The main purpose is to get people to accept or even engage in behaviors that they know are wrong. Haslam (2006) conceptualized dehumanization as denying someone’s basic humanness. It can be observed in various social contexts, from dehumanizing marginalized groups (women, racial and ethnic groups, disabled individuals) to viewing medical patients, students, and criminals as lacking individuality and agency (Haslam, 2006; Tang & Harris, 2015). Dehumanization research suggests that when people see others as less than human, empathy centers in the brain deactivate. For example, people who commit mass violence, cruelty, or hate crimes often rationalize these actions by comparing the victims to animals. Individuals who would typically balk at murdering another person may find it easier to kill a “subhuman” enemy. In any real-life situation with high levels of dehumanization, the stakes are high, as it is a strong predictor of aggressive outcomes, such as support for torture, reluctance to provide aid to victims of violence, support for armed conflict, and support for hostile policies.

Hate is an understudied emotion in psychology, despite the rich literature on related issues, such as aggression, anger, prejudice, and discrimination (Haslam & Murphy, 2020). More specifically, there is a critical gap in the research on the relationship between hate and dehumanization. Historically, intergroup hate has been characterized by the dehumanization of victims (Haslam & Murphy, 2020). For instance, Tutsis were referred to as cockroaches by Hutus in the Rwandan genocide, and natives were declared primitive savages by colonialists. Thus, there seems to be a link between the two concepts, but the exact nature of the relationship is still understudied (Haslam & Murphy, 2020). Recognizing how dehumanization and morally-fueled hate led to violent acts like hate crimes could contribute to their reduction (Rai et al., 2017; Tang & Harris, 2015). Throughout history, dehumanized groups were targets of hate (e.g., Jews, Tutsis, natives, African slaves) (Haslam & Murphy, 2020). Thus, when researchers first directed their attention towards the link between hate and dehumanization, the implicit consensus was that they are inseparable. However, contemporary studies have found that hatred is not inherently dehumanizing (Brudholm & Lang, 2021; Haslam & Murphy, 2020). Still, there are cases where they develop concomitantly as there is a correlation of approximately 0.5 between them indicating a moderate positive correlation (Kteily & Bruneau, 2017). The belief that the American government is justified in separating migrant or refugee children from their parents isn’t necessarily a values-driven belief or one infused with hatred. It can be a cold, rational evaluation: these children are just less human, and less deserving of moral concern. There is dehumanization but without hate.

The Routledge Handbook of Dehumanization is the first comprehensive and multidisciplinary reference source on the subject and a survey of the key concepts, issues, and debates within dehumanization studies. In their chapter, Associate Professor Thomas Brudholm (University of Copenhagen) and Senior Researcher Johannes Lang (DIIS) analyze the relationship between hatred and dehumanization. When persons or groups are objects of hatred, they are often perceived to be lesser humans, less than human, or even categorically nonhuman. But the link between hatred and dehumanization is more complicated than one might think. Brudholm and Lang object to claims that hatred is inherently dehumanizing as well as to arguments which imply that dehumanization and hatred are mutually exclusive. The authors argue against several reductive conceptions of dehumanization: against restricting it to a complete denial of the victim’s humanity, against always seeing dehumanization as a work of negation, against separating dehumanization entirely from moral emotions and motivations, and against limiting dehumanization to psychological processes in the minds of the perpetrators. Brudholm and Lang prefer to think of dehumanization not as one distinct phenomenon, but as a plurality of different phenomena sharing certain family resemblances. Scholars of hatred, dehumanization, and violence should also take care not to proceed as if all haters are mad, bad, or dangerous dehumanizers. For hatred can, despite its dangerous and dehumanizing potentials, be part of a morally permissible or even virtuous response to dehumanization.

______

Hate and enmity:

The term “enemy” seems to have a wide range of meaning. According to Jones and Loersch, an enemy is a person someone dislikes, believes to be malevolent or threatening, and on whom one wishes some degree of social, psychological or physical harm. If such feelings exist between two individuals/ groups/ communities it is called as enmity. It is said that guns do not kill, persons do. To be more specific, person’s minds do. Before killing the enemy physically by pressing the trigger, one needs to envision the destruction of the enemy in his/her mind. Enmity suggests true hatred, either overt or concealed.

When we talk of enmity, there are 4 terms which deserve clarity. These terms are “in-groups and out-groups, pseudo-species, propaganda and splitting.”

Regarding “in-groups and out-groups” the history of human evolution deserves an exploratory glance. Since the beginning of human society, persons have always belonged to various units, clans, races, tribes, castes, etc. This by itself is not bad. But what is crucial in the development of enmity is the transition from the accurate and realistic perception of inter group differences to associating the in group/ one’s own group with a higher level of humanity than the out group which is regarded as “subhuman”, dangerous or bad and thus to be eliminated.

The term Pseudo-species was coined by Erik Erikson. By the term “pseudo-species”, Erikson describes the way humans developed separate units and then began to act as if these units were separate species. They began to have a (pseudo)perception of the “uniqueness” of their own group. This was done at the expense of losing the broader/ global human identity and by devaluing the humanity of the other “pseudo-species”. Thus enmity with other groups enhanced their own in-group cohesion, identity and loyalty.

Propaganda in the context of Enmity is defined as the expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view to influencing the opinions or actions of other individuals or groups for pre-determined ends and through psychological manipulations. This term was coined by Harold Lasswell. Propaganda in the context of enmity can be done through explicit means, for example, distributing leaflets, sticking posters or through media and literature. It can also be done through implicit means, for example, misinforming, telling lies, with holding factual information.

Splitting is a defense mechanism in psychology where people view things in extremes, as all good or all bad. It’s also known as black-and-white thinking, binary thinking, or dichotomous thinking. This psychological coping strategy may involve idealizing our loved ones or the close “tribes” to which we belong–while redirecting anger and hate toward others. Just like in the case of hatred, even in the process of making enemies or harboring enmity, there is a split or a dichotomy between “us vs them”, “good vs evil”, “safe vs dangerous”. The general ability to dichotomize and judge is essential for survival and safety of any being/species. But when this basic ability translates into a rigid, polarized view, which always sees races/cultures/specific people or even countries as either all good or all bad, with no overlap in between, hatred is translated into the process of enmity. Hatred fuels and paves the way to enmity and the so called “enemy” is to be feared, hated, destroyed, killed or murdered for us to feel safe. Several cognitive distortions, besides splitting, play a role in translating hatred into enmity. They are polarizing, exaggerating and rigidifying.

Some people who hate employ splitting when they cannot deal with the fact that the object of their hate has “good” elements. When someone engages in splitting, they adopt a polarizing perspective towards the hated entity as being all bad, even though that entity obviously has good traits. Society often plays a large role in encouraging us to split. We can see this currently in politics where opposing parties make use of propaganda to incite hatred for the enemy. You can also see it in fundamentalist religions that encourage hatred toward certain groups. For example, a person who is extremely disturbed by terrorist acts conducted by Islamic extremists may experience cognitive dissonance when they see Muslims advocating peace and anti-terrorist beliefs. Since the idea that Muslims may not be inherently violent does not affirm his hatred of Muslims, the person “splits” his perspective and decides to hate all Muslims. Essentially, splitting reduces the amount of psychological energy it takes to cope with hating something that may or may not deserve to be hated.

______

Hate and language:

Language is an indispensable tool for facilitating and establishing social connections, strengthening social institutions, and spreading ideas and culture. And yet, throughout history it has also been used to mark supremacy of the ingroup, dehumanize the outgroup, and even call for acts of hate. Indeed, language has been used to express, spread, and mobilize hatred against other social groups, resulting in intimidation, discrimination, dehumanization, hate crime, and genocide. The language of hate is used not only in the margins of society but is arguably foundational to certain aspects of government and religion; indeed, hateful language can be found in ancient legal documents and some religions’ texts. The power of language to incite hatred and spur violence is as clear today as it has been throughout history: propaganda in print and on the airwaves was used by Nazi leaders to turn a nation to genocide and hateful extremists in Rwanda spurred a genocide against the minority Tutsi population via dehumanizing and incendiary rhetoric on the radio; and even today, rhetoric in speeches and on social media by some Buddhist monks has led to genocide against the Rohingya population in Myanmar. Clearly, language is too often subverted by hateful individuals and groups to harm outgroup members.

The power of language to incite hate-based violence is accompanied by the threat it poses to safe and civil discourse: online social media are infected by hate speech targeting ethnicity, gender, and other social identities, contributing to the spread of hateful ideology with a direct negative impact on its targets. The problem posed by the language of hate, in all its forms, is uncontroversially unsolved. The functions of such language remain largely understudied, but researchers have pointed to a number of social functions such as prejudice perpetuation, maintenance of status hierarchies, legitimization of violence against the outgroup, norm compliance, and ingroup cohesion. Societies and governments often attempt to combat hate speech through structural means, including sweeping censorship by social-media platforms (e.g. Facebook’s banning of the Myanmar military), “deplatforming”, and criminalization. Notably, most Western democracies have passed legislation against hate speech, but the United States remains an exception, with hate speech being protected under the First Amendment Right to free speech. Although, many aspects of such structural approaches are controversial; indeed, the merit of censoring hate speech, versus allowing unfettered free speech, is a constant debate among experts.

In the last few years, the problem posed by online hate speech has motivated a wave of research in Natural Language Processing (NLP) toward its automated detection and removal. Understandably, the vast majority of computational studies in this area have the objective of effective, unbiased detection of hate speech (or language resembling hate speech). But like ripping away a bothersome weed at the surface, structural methods lack lasting power due to their failure to target the problem at its root. Recently, some scholars have made the case that such major effort in hate-speech detection may be better directed toward building holistic solutions, which requires a deeper understanding of the antecedents of online hate, rather than methodological problem-solving; in short: detection is not a solution.

______

Hate in Politics and Society:

Some characteristics of a culture or society form fertile grounds for the development of hate. In his book on the roots of evil— genocide and mass killing—Staub (1989) argues that, first of all, difficult life conditions such as extreme economic problems leading to poverty of large groups of people, but also political, criminal, or institutional violence, facilitate evil intentions. The second set of features refers to culture, especially the rigidity or adaptability of a society. The more rigid the cultural values in a society, the more difficult it is to cope with changes or disturbances of one’s traditional values and ways of life. According to Staub (1989), this may lead to scapegoating, trying to protect oneself and one’s group to defend one’s way of life, safety, health, and values. Blaming others helps to fulfill these needs in times of chaos and uncertainty, and this forms the basis for the development of hate towards groups in society that are seen as the cause of all problems. Other characteristics, such as strong leaders, strong respect for authority, nationalism, and a slow progression of devaluing outgroups are the further ingredients for the slow but steady development of societal hate (Staub, 1989). Waller (2002) refers to this latter set of characteristics as collective potentiation, the social augmentation of individual actions in a group, whether good or bad. In the case of hate, it may refer to all the characteristics of a society or culture at a specific point in time when the devaluation of an outgroup may turn into real hate, and activate its associated goals to annihilate that group.

Under such conditions, the initial development of hate can be a consequence of short-term conflict-related events, but then may automatically result in support for initiating violent actions and for further escalating the conflict. That is also the reason that Staub (2005) and others (e.g., Petersen, 2002; Volkan, 1997) have pointed to hate as the most dominant emotion in past and recent mass murders and genocide (see also Mishra, 2017). If one is convinced of the destructive intentions of the outgroup and feels total despair regarding the likelihood that the outgroup will change its ways, the violent alternative may seem the only reasonable and successful way out. Indeed, research has shown that feelings of hatred may increase the tendency to support extreme military action toward outgroups (e.g., Halperin, 2011). The perception of increased threat is a powerful amplifier of hatred. Ongoing terrorist attacks elicit stress, fear, and uncertainty (Canetti, Russ, Luborsky, Hobfoll, & Gerhart, 2014), and become fertile ground for increasing hate for groups perceived as responsible for the turmoil. Additionally, the aftermath of such events demonstrates that perceived security threats prevail over other issues, such as individual rights and freedoms (Canetti-Nisim, Ariely, & Halperin, 2008).

Hate has also been described as part of a broader societal sentiment coined “ressentiment” (Betz, 1994; Salmela & von Scheve, 2017) in theories on the growing support of right-wing populism. These scholars consider hate as part of a cluster of negative emotions. In particular, feelings of insecurity and shame can easily be transformed into anger, resentment, and hate towards other groups, like immigrants, refugees, or the political elite (Salmela & von Scheve, 2017). However, whereas various negative emotions may play a role in mobilizing people to support outgroup derogation and even violence, and to oppose compromises for peace and forgiveness, intergroup hate is the most powerful one. There are two main reasons for this. First, hate is associated with very low expectations for positive change and with high levels of despair, and as a consequence, its associated political action tendencies are by definition destructive rather than constructive. If one does not believe that positive change in the outgroup’s violent and immoral behavior is possible, then constructive political reactions—like negotiations, compromises, gestures, or even apologies, which are usually meant to establish more friendly relations—seem just irrelevant (see also Tausch et al., 2011). In addition to that, the emotional goal associated with hate, namely to do destroy or eliminate the outgroup, also leads to one-sided political actions that do not leave any room for positive or constructive change. This is apparent from the hate speech spread by ISIS, who describes their online propaganda as “the Internet army” (Shaaban, 2015).

Hate can even be a destructive force in the midst of peace negotiations. Two studies found that individuals who experienced short-term episodes of hatred in times of negotiations in the Middle East expressed an emotional goal of harming and eliminating the opponent (Halperin, 2008). They likewise tended to reject any positive information regarding the opponent (i.e., lack of openness) and opposed the continuation of negotiations, compromise, and reconciliation efforts (Halperin, 2011). Importantly, given that hatred is associated with a fundamental negation of the outgroup as a whole, and not merely of the group’s concrete actions or behavior, those who feel hatred toward the outgroup oppose even the smallest gestures and symbolic compromises, thus refusing to even entertain new ideas that may lead to peace. Two experimental studies conducted in 2011 on the eve of an important peace summit between Israelis and Palestinians show that inducing anger toward Palestinians increased support for making compromises in upcoming negotiations among those with low levels of hatred, but decreased support for compromise among those with high levels of hatred (Halperin et al., 2011).

There is also evidence that hate fuels political intolerance. Political intolerance is the support or willingness to denounce basic democratic values and equal rights of individuals who belong to a defined outgroup in a particular society (Gibson, 2006; Stouffer, 1955) and is considered one of the most problematic phenomena in democratic societies. Results of four large-scale nationwide surveys among Jews in Israel showed that intergroup hatred is the most important antecedent of political intolerance. It has a stronger effect in the face of heightened existential threat and is especially present among politically unsophisticated individuals—that is, those lacking exposure to political information, intellectual capacity, or efforts to obtain and understand political information (Halperin et al., 2009).

The question is what makes hate so persistent and prevalent in politics, more so than anger or fear. Hatred seems an effective, simple, political tool that is commonly used by politicians to attain ingroup solidarity and political benefits and/or outgroup exclusion. Campaign ads, canvassing, and slogans based on collective hatred are the bread and butter of successful campaigns because the message is simple and emotionally appealing (Hutchings, Valentino, Philpot, & White, 2006; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944). Hatred has been employed in a number of local and national political campaigns in Israel, Europe (Mudde, 2005), and the United States (Kaplan & Weinberg, 1998). The simple and extreme nature of hatred increases its recurrence in the political realm (Leader et al., 2009). The intensity, swiftness, and superficiality of current political communication in many countries enforce cues, symbols, and extreme emotions such as hatred (Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Kinder & Sears, 1985).

_____

Spread of hate:

There is abundant evidence that many emotions can be experienced at both an individual and group level. Yet, not all emotions have the same potential to transcend from the individual to the group or collective level. Hatred can more easily go through a transformation from individual to group level than other negative emotions; some will even claim that it is the most “group-based” emotion. Aristotle succinctly states that whereas anger is customarily felt toward individuals, hatred is often felt towards groups. One reason for this can be found in the core characteristics and the nature of hate. Hate is based on the generalized attribution of an action to the basic traits and features of a person. In other words, the specific antecedent event of one hateful incident may become less important over time, and the character of the person or group becomes the sole reason for the hate. Generalizing these characteristics to members of a group further enables a parsimonious justification of one’s hate. This facile transition of hatred from the interpersonal level to the group level makes it a pivotal agent in group-based political dynamics in general and in intergroup conflicts in particular. There are four factors that further contribute to the flourishing of hate specifically at the intergroup level.

-1. First, hate seems often shared among ingroup members (Jasini & Fischer, 2018). According to Rimé (2009), the extent of sharing one’s emotions is influenced by the intensity of the emotional experience, and the primary targets of sharing generally are close family members and friends. In contexts where intergroup relations are tense, groups share collective narratives about their own group and other groups. For example, previous studies on social sharing have found that people who are victims of violence and ferocities and thus experience collective trauma, often share their emotional experience with other group members (Rimé, 2009). In intractable conflicts, collective narratives are dominated by the memory of past victimization and by ongoing intergroup violence (Bar-Tal, Chernyak-Hai, Schori, & Gundar, 2009; Canetti, Elad-Strenger, Lavi, Guy, & Bar-Tal, 2017; Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012; Vollhardt, 2012). Thus, collective victimhood evokes sharing one’s feelings about the target of hate with similar others. Knowing that other ingroup members experience an event in a similar way further reinforces the experience and expression of one’s own emotions. The sharing of strong negative emotions can in turn strengthen feelings of collective victimhood that may make the original feeling of hate even more intense and enduring (Bar-Tal, Halperin, & De Rivera, 2007; Kuppens, Yzerbyt, Dandache, Fischer, & van der Schalk, 2013). Thus, sharing past negative emotional experiences caused by an outgroup increases the probability for the development of intergroup hatred.

-2. Second, while collective victimhood keeps the memory of hate alive across generations, it may also direct the appraisal of future events. Accumulated group knowledge on the immoral and violent behavior of an outgroup affects the evaluation of future behavior, thereby confirming the sentiment that the outgroup is a homogeneous malicious entity. In the eyes of those who see themselves as part of a transgenerational victimized group, the outgroup is malicious, even though they did not personally suffer from the outgroup behavior, or only for a relatively short time. The fact that the outgroup’s behavior is considered consistent across generations reflects on its innate negative characteristics. Moreover, shared appraisals on similar emotional events reinforce the emotional fit between individuals and their cultural group (De Leersnyder, Boiger, & Mesquita, 2015), as does identification with the group (Delvaux, Meeussen, & Mesquita, 2015). In turn, the emotions also influence self-categorization, suggesting that similar emotions strengthen feelings of belonging to the same group (Livingstone, Spears, Manstead, Bruder, & Shepherd, 2011; Porat, Halperin, Mannheim, & Tamir, 2016).

-3. Third interesting aspect of hatred that makes it more susceptible to become an intergroup sentiment that spreads fast, is the fact that it can increase in the absence of any personal interaction between the hater and members of the hated group. According to Jasini and Fischer (2018), the lack of personal interactions with the targets of one’s hate further diminishes chances of perspective taking from the side of the victim. Allport (1954) already mentioned the lack of direct interaction as one of the most powerful engines behind hate and prejudice. According to his approach, supported by studies in the framework of contact theory (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), lack of direct interaction amplifies hate because the negative appraisal of the malicious character of the group will never be reappraised or contradicted by other information. For example, since Israel completed the construction of the separation wall, Jewish Israelis do not need to suppress their hate towards the Palestinians anymore, because the wall prevents direct encounters with individual Palestinians. Thus, Israelis are not confronted anymore with exceptions to the Israeli view of Palestinians and the hateful image of the Palestinians can easily remain intact. This does not necessarily mean that social interactions with hated group members automatically reduce hate. However, under the right circumstances, haters may learn more about the motives and circumstances of the hated group’s actions, which could result in some perspective taking.

-4. Fourth aspect is: negativity spreads faster than positivity: Research shows that mutual dislike evokes a stronger response than mutual like. In one study, people were shown a video of two people conversing in which the man politely hit on the woman. After being asked if they liked or disliked the man, they were told they would meet people who shared their opinion of them and asked how likely they were to get along with the person they met. People who had a negative opinion of the man were far more likely to say they would get along well with someone who shared their negative opinion than those who had a positive opinion. This concept can explain why highly ideological groups—political or social—often find great success in slamming people or ideas from the opposing side.

_____

Books on Hate:

-1. Perspectives on hate: How it originates, develops, manifests, and spreads:

With hate crimes on the rise, it is more important than ever to understand how hate originates, develops, manifests, and spreads — and how it can be counteracted. In this book, renowned psychologist Robert J. Sternberg assembles a diverse group of experts to examine these central issues from the perspectives of multiple disciplines. The book is anchored by Sternberg’s FLOTSAM theory, which identifies key conditions that enable the development and transmission of hate, including fear, license, obedience to authority, trust, sense of belonging to a valued group, amplification of arousal, and modeling. Chapters work through various manifestations of hate: hate as a thought, a feeling, or an action; forms of hate that are rooted in group bias, or that stem from a single relationship; and hate that varies in intensity, from the mundane to the extreme. Authors also explore the various cognitive and emotional processes at work, as well as the political motivations that can spark violent acts of hate. The book also considers the role of hate crime legislation and the relationships among hate speech, free speech, and group violence.

-2. The Nature of Hate.

What is hate and why is there so much of it? How does it originate, and what can we do about it? These are some of the questions addressed in The Nature of Hate. This book opens with a discussion of how hate makes its presence felt in the real world. Then it discusses various definitions and theories of hate. Next, it describes a duplex (two-part) theory of hate. According to the first part of the theory, hate has three components: negation of intimacy, passion, and commitment. According to the second part of the theory, this structure of hate originates from stories people create about the target that, say, a group comprises enemies of God, or monsters, or vermin, or power-crazy tyrants, or any of a number of other stories. The book also discusses hate in the context of interpersonal relationships and surveys the connection of propaganda and hate. The role of hate in instigating terrorism, massacres, and genocides is analyzed, and possible cures for hate are discussed.

-3. Undue Hate:

It’s well known that the political divide in the United States—particularly between Democrats and Republicans—has grown to alarming levels in recent decades. Affective polarization—emotional polarization, or the hostility between the parties—has reached an unprecedented fever pitch. In Undue Hate, Daniel F. Stone tackles the biases undergirding affective polarization head-on. Stone explains why we often develop objectively false, and overly negative, beliefs about the other side—causing us to dislike them more than we should. Approaching affective polarization through the lens of behavioral economics, Undue Hate is unique in its use of simple mathematical concepts and models to illustrate how we misjudge those we disagree with, for both political and nonpolitical issues. Stone argues that while our biases may vary, just about all of us unwisely exacerbate conflict at times—managing to make ourselves worse off in the long run. Finally, the book offers both short- and long-term solutions for tempering our bias and limiting its negative consequences—and, just maybe, finding a way back to understanding one another before it is too late.

-4. Online Hate and Harmful Content Cross-National Perspectives:

Over the past few decades, various types of hate material have caused increasing concern. Today, the scope of hate is wider than ever, as easy and often-anonymous access to an enormous amount of online content has opened the Internet up to both use and abuse. By providing possibilities for inexpensive and instantaneous access without ties to geographic location or a user identification system, the Internet has permitted hate groups and individuals espousing hate to transmit their ideas to a worldwide audience.

Online Hate and Harmful Content focuses on the role of potentially harmful online content, particularly among young people. This focus is explored through two approaches: firstly, the commonality of online hate through cross-national survey statistics. This includes a discussion of the various implications of online hate for young people in terms of, for example, subjective wellbeing, trust, self-image and social relationships. Secondly, the book examines theoretical frameworks from the fields of sociology, social psychology and criminology that are useful for understanding online behaviour and online victimisation. Limitations of past theory are assessed and complemented with a novel theoretical model linking past work to the online environment as it exists today.

-5. The Science of Hate:

Why do people hate? A world-leading criminologist explores the tipping point between prejudice and hate crime, analysing human behaviour across the globe and throughout history in this vital book. Are our brains wired to hate? Is social media to blame for an increase in hateful abuse? With hate on the rise, what can we do to turn the tide? Drawing on twenty years of pioneering research – as well as his own experience as a hate-crime victim – world-renowned criminologist Matthew Williams explores one of the pressing issues of our age. Surveying human behaviour across the globe and reaching back through time, from our tribal ancestors in prehistory to artificial intelligence in the twenty-first century, The Science of Hate is a groundbreaking and surprising examination of the elusive ‘tipping point’ between prejudice and hate.

______

UN and hate:

The United Nations has a long history of mobilizing the world against hatred of all kinds to defend human rights and advance the rule of law. The impact of hate speech cuts across numerous existing United Nations areas of focus, from human rights protection and prevention of atrocity crimes to sustaining peace and achieving gender equality and supporting children and youth. Because fighting hate, discrimination, racism and inequality is at the core of United Nations principles and work, the Organization is working to confront hate speech at every turn. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, in the international human rights framework and in the global efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Hate speech incites violence, undermines diversity and social cohesion and “threatens the common values and principles that bind us together,” the UN chief said in his message for the first-ever International Day for Countering Hate Speech on 17 June 2022. “It promotes racism, xenophobia and misogyny; it dehumanizes individuals and communities; and it has a serious impact on our efforts to promote peace and security, human rights, and sustainable development,” underscored Secretary-General António Guterres. He explained that words can be weaponized and cause physical harm. The escalation from hate speech to violence, has played a significant role in the most horrific and tragic crimes of the modern age, from the antisemitism driving the Holocaust, to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, he said. “The internet and social media have turbocharged hate speech, enabling it to spread like wildfire across borders,” added the UN chief.

_____

The world’s most comprehensive anti-hate conference:

Eradicate Hate Global Summit:

The Eradicate Hate Global Summit was formed as a response to the largest anti-Semitic attack in U.S. history. On October 27, 2018, a gunman motivated by hate ideologies murdered 11 Jews and injured others worshiping at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. The Eradicate Hate Global Summit is a vehicle for worldwide action. It held its first conference in the Fall of 2021 during the COVID pandemic, and almost 100 speakers from around the globe attended. The second conference in September 2022 attracted more than 260 speakers and over 1,600 people attended either in person or virtually. The Summit’s annual conference breaks down silos to bring together the world’s leading anti-hate experts from many disciplines and sectors, including representatives from public policy organizations; tech and platform companies; federal, state, and local government and law enforcement; the military and veterans; judges and lawyers; doctors and other mental health professionals; educators and students; academic researchers and data scientists; journalists and film-makers; and former members of hate groups. They are inspired to collaborate and develop new solutions to prevent hate-motivated violence by the personal experiences of survivors and victims’ families whose voices are heard at the conference. International participants include the United Nations Special Advisor on Prevention of Genocide along with foreign government representatives, civil society organizations, and researchers from around the globe, including Australia, Canada, Europe, UK, and New Zealand. The Eradicate Hate Global Summit now stands as the most comprehensive anti-hate conference in the world, and the next conference will be held on September 15-17, 2025.

_____

Positive Aspect to this Negative Emotion:

According to the object relations theory, to enhance individuation, a child needs to experience the safe hating of the caregiver (Winnicott, 1949). Hate facilitates the organization of ego and develops an individual identity, social adaptation, and anomalous forms of object relations. Contrarily, excessive hate is a threat to the perseveration of self as well as the ego organization (Blum, 1997). Aristotle long ago asserted that ‘to enjoy the things we ought and to hate the things we ought to have the greatest bearing on excellent character’’ (Bartlett, 1982). A healthy hatred, thus, can be understood as the normal hate for one’s enemies and tormentors and also hate against those who tyrannize and torment others. Hate plays a role in mobilizing for the services of higher ideals and values, such as hatred against poverty, corruption, brutality, tyranny, defense of the family, and self-defence as well. From the adaptation perspective, hate may be preferable to panic, which embodies helplessness.

Example of healthy hatred:

Imagine John, an honest employee whose colleague is a bigot and a harasser of women. From their first interaction, John didn’t like the way his coworker made inappropriate jokes. He recently called John ‘too soft’ after John declined his proposal to steal from their company to make some ‘extra money’. While he might never openly admit to hating anyone, John privately thinks to himself: This guy represents the worst in our society; I hope something bad happens to him and he goes away; I hate him.

Hate as a Motivator:

Hate burrows deep within us, fueling hostility that may lead to feelings and thoughts of revenge. It can be a powerful impetus to take action–to hurt or even destroy the target of our hatred. Hatred may actually support our self-protective nature in times of warfare or when reacting to domestic violence. But hate may also be a response to what or who exposes us to experience unbearable shame. Shame encompasses a strong inclination to hide from oneself and is strongly associated with an intense sense of isolation and perceived alienation. It is a massive fracture in our sense of belonging and hope of belonging. The observing “I” is so caught up in self-doubt, self-criticism, and the desire to hide that it is unable to reflect more objectively. It is then easy to understand how, when intense, hatred may lead to a sense of being cornered and feeling that aggression is the only way out.

______

Section-3

Hate versus anger:

Back to Aristotle who, in Rhetoric, 1382a, conceptually differentiates anger from hatred in two features: while anger is directed to the particulars, as against Callias or Socrates, hatred is also against kinds. On the other hand, Aristotle mentions a second feature, since anger “is curable in time, whereas the latter [hatred] is not curable.” From this last remark of Aristotle’s, it would seem that anger and hatred can indeed be clearly distinguished conceptually. Anger is only directed at the particular, while hatred “also” at kinds. And also anger can be cured by time, but hatred, and Aristotle is decisive on this aspect, “cannot be cured.” That is to say, it is the nearest thing there is to a pure moral vice or a form of moral bestiality like those that intrigued Aristotle.

When we compare hate with anger, contempt and disgust, the differences are a bit more nuanced. People get angry when others misbehave, and the anger is aimed at changing the behaviour of the misbehaving person in the short-term. For example, if somebody lights a cigarette in a non-smoking area, people around might get angry, and their overt expression of anger (via direct remarks or body language) could induce the smoker to put out the cigarette or leave. However, unlike anger, hate seems to be aimed not at the targets’ behaviours, per se, but at the targets themselves (i.e., who they are or what they represent). Hate’s goal is therefore not to change the target’s behaviours but to get rid of the targets, based on the perception that they are essentially bad and unchangeable. That is likely one reason why people tend to experience hate for significantly longer periods of time than anger, which often dissipates relatively quickly once the unwanted behaviours cease. Hate seems to be related to fundamental and non-negotiable disagreements in core moral beliefs.

Anger and hate are two powerful and complex emotions that often intertwine, but they have distinct characteristics that set them apart:

Anger is a temporary emotional response triggered by specific events or circumstances, often driven by unmet needs or perceived injustices. It ranges in intensity from mild irritation to intense rage and can result in heightened arousal, increased heart rate, and physical manifestations of anger. Anger can provide certain benefits, such as giving us the energy to oppose an obstacle or threat. However, if not effectively managed, anger can lead to conflicts, strained relationships, and negative consequences in personal and professional settings.

Hate is a deep-seated and enduring negative attitude characterized by intense hatred and hostility towards individuals or groups. It involves deep resentment, bitterness, and a desire for harm or destruction toward the object of hate. Hate is not a spontaneous emotion like anger; it is deliberate and isolating, often shutting down the mind and limiting the ability to communicate intelligently. Hate can have far-reaching consequences and is often fueled by resentment, hostility, and prejudice.

Fisher et al. pointed out that hatred is usually based on a belief that the person who is hated is always deserving of hate. Hating someone is based on the idea that the hateful things about them are stable and always present. As they say, there is little room for constructive change; this is just the way the person is. And therefore [the only] options left [are] to act upon one’s hate.

While hate may have some similarities to anger, it is also distinct from anger. As explained by one researcher, we hate persons or groups more because of who they are rather than what they do (Fischer et al., 2018). In effect, hate is also a cognitive response, one that is shaped by and shapes our thinking and attitudes. While anger may originate from our more primitive minds, hate derives from both our rational and emotional minds. Studies using imaging suggest that whereas anger is reflected primarily in the threat response areas of our brain, hate includes greater activation of parts of the cortical areas of the brain, areas responsible for motor planning, and those strongly associated with contempt and disgust (Zeki & Romaya, 2008).

Attribute	Anger	Hate
Definition	Intense emotional state often associated with feelings of displeasure, hostility, and a strong desire to retaliate.	Intense feeling of extreme dislike or aversion towards someone or something.
Emotional Response	Immediate and intense emotional reaction triggered by a perceived threat, injustice, or frustration.	Deep-seated and long-lasting emotional response characterized by a strong desire to harm, hurt, or destroy.
Intensity	Can range from mild irritation to intense rage.	Can range from mild dislike to extreme loathing.
Duration	Can be short-lived or prolonged depending on the situation.	Can be long-lasting and persistent, often fueled by resentment and grudges.
Target	Can be directed towards a person, situation, or even oneself.	Usually directed towards a person, group, or specific object of hatred.
Causes	Can be triggered by various factors such as injustice, betrayal, frustration, or personal offense.	Can be caused by factors like prejudice, fear, envy, or past negative experiences.
Expression	Can be expressed through verbal outbursts, aggression, or physical violence.	Can be expressed through verbal or physical hostility, discrimination, or even acts of violence.
Impact	Can lead to increased heart rate, blood pressure, and potential health issues if not managed.	Can lead to deep-seated resentment, social conflicts, and even acts of violence or discrimination.
Consequences	Can lead to conflicts, strained relationships	Can result in discrimination, violence, and breakdown of communities

_______

Anger, Revenge, and Hate:

It seems that hate can be distinguished from the related emotions anger and feelings of revenge by a difference in focus: Anger focuses on changing/restoring the unjust situation caused by another person, feelings of revenge focus on restoring the self, and hatred focuses on eliminating the hated person/group. What anger, feelings of revenge, and hate have in common is that they typically involve negative situations and lead to behaviors that can be disadvantageous to others. The review by Fischer, Halperin, Canetti, and Jasini takes a functional perspective on hate, in which this and other important similarities and differences between hate and closely related emotions are discussed.

The goal of anger is to restore or change the (unjust) situation. Fischer et al, clearly demonstrates that hate goes beyond this restoration goal. Instead, the goal of hate is to hurt and eliminate the hated target. Compared to anger, feelings of hate often involve deep and repeated violations of one’s (sense of) justice, which might explain a shift in focus: instead of observing an unjust situation caused by the other (anger), one observes an example of the other’s unjust nature (hate; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). Although research on revenge is even scarcer than research on hate, the few studies that do exist seem to indicate that the experience of feelings of revenge (Elshout et al., 2015) is closely related to the experience of hate. Both hate and feelings of revenge are elicited by humiliation, seem to last longer than other emotions, and have the goal to apply suffering (Elshout et al., 2015; Fischer et al). One might question whether “feelings of revenge” should be regarded as a separate emotion or whether this is actually an experience one would call hate. After all, it has been argued that revenge is an act of hate (BarElli & Heyd, 1986). Unfortunately, recent studies measuring feelings of revenge did not include a measure of hate or compare characteristics of feelings of revenge and hatred (Elshout et al., 2015). Furthermore, studies measuring hate did not measure potential feelings of revenge.

Nonetheless, there are some indications that hate and feelings of revenge are not one and the same emotion. Elshout et al. (2015) suggest that feelings of revenge induce a focus on the self. That is, vengeful responses often result from offences that induce a self-threat, eliciting negative self-conscious emotions, such as shame and humiliation (Elison & Harter, 2007). Experiences of humiliation or ridicule can be regarded as an appraisal shared both by hate and feelings of revenge. However, it seems that hate is less likely to induce such a self-focus as compared to feelings of revenge. As mentioned previously, hate is an emotion with a focus on the innate nature of the other. It could therefore be argued that feelings of revenge involve an intrapersonal focus (Frijda, 1994), whereas hate involves an interpersonal focus. This might explain why revenge is typically an act that is performed by the person him/herself: in order to restore the self, one cannot let someone else do “the dirty work” (Bar-Elli & Heyd, 1986). When it comes to hate, it seems that others can perform “on behalf of” the person him/herself. For example, in cases of intergroup hatred directed at a particular outgroup, one member of the ingroup can perform a negative act towards the outgroup on behalf of the whole ingroup. In that sense, one could argue that feelings of revenge contain a more explicit personal aspect than hate (Bar-Elli & Heyd, 1986). The self-focus that characterizes feelings of revenge is also important in explaining the enduring nature of both hate and feelings of revenge. On the one hand, hate generally lasts longer than other emotions because it is not so much a reaction to a specific event, but one that is based on the appraisals of the fundamental nature of the hated person (Fischer et al.). On the other hand, feelings of revenge are generally a reaction to a specific event and last longer because they may involve more planning and there is not always an opportunity to act upon them. Research indeed seems to indicate that the opportunity for revenge is a key variable in differentiating whether feelings of revenge turn into behavior (Elshout, Nelissen, van Beest, Elshout, & van Dijk, 2017).

______

Anger Turns to Hate:

According to Ron Potter-Efron, author of “Angry All the Time — An Emergency Guide to Anger Control,” hate begins as anger. It may follow this scenario: You feel upset about something. You blame someone else for causing the problem. The problem doesn’t get solved, and you get angrier. You can’t stop thinking about it. You begin to resent the other person and dwell on what they did to you. The injuries feel unforgivable, and the resentment turns into hate, like slowly hardening concrete. Your attitude toward the other person becomes rigid, and nothing they say or do makes a difference. Hate provides a perfect excuse to stay angry.

______

Section-4

Hate versus love:

Love and hate are antonyms, i.e. they are two opposite terms in meaning. Even though they mean complete opposites, they are two of the strongest emotions we human beings are capable of feeling. Love and hate are the two most important feelings anyone could ever feel in their entire lives but not only are they the most important but they are also the strongest. Many people would say these two emotions are completely the opposite of one another but others might say that they are almost exactly alike. Some people believe that they are linked to each other because they both lead us to the same kind of crazy behavior. Throughout history love and hate has defined human kind; there has been many wars fought for the love in our hearts and many more for the hatred in our souls. Love is wanting the best for people, hate is wanting terrible things for them. Love is to show affection from the heart and hate is to show despise and cold-heartedness. To love is to give someone something special and not expect anything in return, to hate is to not give anything at all and expect everything in return. Love can make you produce a life; hate can make you take a life away.

Love, often described as a universal language, has the power to heal, unite, and transform. It is a force that transcends racial and religious boundaries, cultures, and differences. Love listens, it nurtures compassion, empathy, and understanding, fostering deep connections between individuals and communities. It inspires acts of kindness, selflessness, and sacrifice, reminding us of our shared humanity.

Love has the power to mend broken relationships, bridge divides, and bring about reconciliation. It can heal wounds, both physical and emotional, and provide solace during times of hardship. Love empowers individuals to support one another, lend a helping hand, and stand up for justice and equality. It fuels the desire to create a better world where compassion and empathy prevail.

On the other hand, hate is a destructive force that can poison hearts, fuel conflicts, and perpetuate cycles of violence. It breeds discrimination, dehumanisation and racism. Hate is an intense dislike towards a person or a thing. Hate is often associated with negative feelings such as anger, hostility and violence. Hate is a destructive emotion and could originate from sentiments like dislike, ignorance or jealousy. Many religions in the world, advocate against hate and encourage love.

Love and hate are similar in being directed toward another person because of who he or she is. Despite this similarity, the two seem like polar opposites. Very often when we love someone, we want them to thrive. When we hate someone, we are more likely to wish they would suffer.

Romantic and maternal love are highly rewarding experiences. Both are linked to the perpetuation of the species and therefore have a closely linked biological function of crucial evolutionary importance. The newly developed ability to study the neural correlates of subjective mental states with brain imaging techniques has allowed neurobiologists to learn something about the neural bases of both romantic and maternal love. Both types of attachment activate regions specific to each, as well as overlapping regions in the brain’s reward system that coincide with areas rich in oxytocin and vasopressin receptors. Both deactivate a common set of regions associated with negative emotions, social judgment and ‘mentalizing’ that is, the assessment of other people’s intentions and emotions. Human attachment seems therefore to employ a push–pull mechanism that overcomes social distance by deactivating networks used for critical social assessment and negative emotions, while it bonds individuals through the involvement of the reward circuitry, explaining the power of love to motivate and exhilarate. Like romantic and maternal love, hate is a complex biological sentiment which throughout history has impelled individuals to heroic as well as evil deeds. Unlike romantic love, it need not be directed against an individual; it may instead assume many varieties, being directed against an individual, a society, or an ethnic group.

The inextricable knot between love and hatred has been well articulated since the ancient tale of Cain and Abel. Myths, scripture, drama, and sacred texts throughout the ages have warned against the fragile nature of human attachments; the closer the affiliative bond, the more it is prone to turn into hatred, aggression, jealousy, intrigue, suspicion, and even murder. Greek drama is replete with fathers, brothers, close friends, and fellow soldiers becoming, in a heartbeat, each other’s worst enemy, as echoed by the famous “Et tu, Brute?” Even maternal love, the most sacred symbol of eternal devotion, can lead to murder, as depicted by Euripides’ Medea. Humans may discard old affiliations not only for the development of new ones but also for commitments to a variety of Gods, Gurus, or Grand Causes, from “workers of the world” to transcendental meditators. The formation of a new attachment may be triggered by hatred to an old love, affiliative bonds can turn sour, and even a lasting and generally benevolent relationship often involves moments of pure hatred that, after passing, leave partners wonder at the intensity these moments elicit. Love and hatred seem to be closely intertwined and the split between them stems more from the human need to keep these two intense emotions apart than from the day- by- day reality of long- term attachments. Still, while human love and hatred have been depicted by any possible art form; poetry, literature, drama, dance, painting, sculpture, and cinema, the scientific foundations of love, and even more so of hatred, have not yet been described fully.

Love and hate are important human affects that are of long-standing interest in psychology. Increasingly, empirical research has been carried out on the relationship between love and hate. However, traditional psychological theories have mainly focused on love, especially romantic love. These include Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love and the three-stage model of love (Fisher, 1989; Fisher et al., 2006). Love has been defined as an action (Swensen, 1972), attitude (Rubin, 1970), experience (Skolnick, 1978), and even as a prototypical emotion (Fehr and Russell, 1991; Post, 2002; Sober, 2002; Wyschogrod, 2002). Collectively, these definitions suggest that love is a multi-faced phenomenon (Ekman, 1972; Izard, 1977; Tomkins, 1984). Hate, within the context of a romantic relationship, arises mainly from a relational betrayal. Researchers have proposed a concept related to romantic hate, romantic jealousy, which describes the negative attitudes, anger, and fear associated with having a relationship partner (Yoshimura, 2004).

______

Thin line between love and hate:

Love and hate seem like opposites. Both can be extreme, intense emotions, but they seem to exist on opposite ends of a spectrum. With love, you feel immensely positive towards someone, and with hate, you feel extremely negative towards someone. Despite these two emotions seeming worlds apart, some may argue that the line between the two may be thin, and it could be easy to shift between the two extremes with one small event. And sometimes, you can switch between the two rather quickly. At first, this may sound contradictory. If you love someone, how could it turn to hate so easily?

However, if you’ve ever experienced the complexity of “love hate” emotions, you may be familiar with how it can be. People may experience this sudden, extreme shift when the person they love hurts them deeply or betrays them in some way, for example, causing the emotions to swing quickly. If you have such strong feelings towards someone, these feelings can swing in the opposite direction once something makes those feelings come crashing down. This can be because you were deeply invested in this person and your expectations for them were so high. If you loved someone, you may have had high expectations for them and for the bond between you two. Whenever they disappoint you, you likely feel more hurt and let down than you would if the person was someone you didn’t love. It can feel like a bigger loss and betrayal since you cared about this person so much. Yes, love can turn into hate. This transformation often results from unresolved issues, betrayal, or a significant shift in relationship dynamics. Understanding this process is crucial for addressing underlying issues and preventing negative emotions from escalating.

______

Loving and hating someone at once:

Another emotion that some claim to experience is this idea of both hating and loving someone at the same time. This sounds like a contradiction, but again, you may understand if you’ve been in this situation and have felt those emotions. A love–hate relationship is an interpersonal relationship involving simultaneous or alternating emotions of love and hate—something particularly common when emotions are intense. For example, there may be someone with whom you have romantic and intimate connections but has some major personality flaws that can make you very mad and frustrated, but not enough to make you want to hate them entirely. These mixed emotions can lead to a rollercoaster of a relationship, where the two of you are fighting one second and then loving each other the next.

Generally, close and intimate relationships evoke intense feelings between the parties, which may be due to the nature of the relationship. First-degree relatives (parents, siblings, and children), spouses or romantic partners, and close friends are connections that can elicit intense emotions, including deep feelings of love and hate. They may be susceptible to “love-hate feelings” because of the intimacy between these parties and the expectation of genuine care and concern for each other under almost any circumstance. However, if the expectation is not met, feelings of disappointment and pain may arise, which can brew into anger and eventually hate.

According to some research, love and hate are closely linked within the brain. Researchers have found that some of the nervous circuits in the brain that are responsible for hate are also used during the feeling of romantic love (vide infra). In fact, some researchers found that the “deeper the love, the deeper the hate, but that love will remain the dominant feeling (Jin, Xiang, & Lei, 2017, vide infra). It may be hard to imagine any close relationship where these emotions do not occur. The critical factor is the importance of what keeps the people together: e.g., obligations, appearances, financial issues, children, external impressions, and fear of making the break. Clearly, feelings of hate may be a signal that the relationship is in trouble and that attention should be paid to the cause, particularly if the hate is becoming greater than the love.

_____

Love versus hate: chemically and biologically:

There are many chemicals involved in love and hate. It has been shown by the scientists that same circuit of brain is being used in love and hate. A lot of research work has been done by different workers to see state of mind of a person who is in love (Zeki, 2007), being in love (Acevedo, Aron, Fisher, & Brown, 2011; Fisher, Aron, & Brown, 2006; Ortigue, BianchiDemicheli, Patel, Frum, & Lewis, 2010) as well as those following a romantic break up (Fisher, Brown, Aron, Strong, & Mashek, 2010; Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith & Wager, 2011 ), little is known about the chemistry of the brain during the experience of falling out of romantic love.

Certain chemicals involved in chemistry of love are as follows:

DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone)-it is secreted by adrenal glands, most of sex hormones as well as pheromones are derived from it.

Pheromones-it signals for both sexes and is sensed by the vomeronasal organs.

Oxytocin-released by pituitary glands when touched by loved one.

PEA (phenylethylamine)-it is called molecule of love & euphoria and is produced in brain capillaries (endothelium)

Estrogen-it makes women sexually attractive and receptive.

Testosterone-it increases sex drive in both sexes

Endorphins-produced in the brain, it is also released in response to touch.

Progesterone-it is testosterone antagonist, it lowers sex drive, and it is sedative and causes calmness.

Serotonin- it is a neurotransmitter at low level it intensifies sex drive and at high level it decreases it.

Dopamine-this is a neurotransmitter associated with all pleasure; it increases sex drive.

Prolactin-it decreases sex drive, especially in men

Vasopressin-it is a hormone produced by pituitary gland, it increases blood pressure, and also increases focus in lovemaking.

All the above chemicals fluctuate during the day and with age and environmental events. While in love there is feelings of exhilaration, intrusive thinking about the loved one, and a craving for emotional union with the partner (Fisher, Aron, Mashek, Li, & Brown, 2002; Zeki, 2007). These feelings, thoughts, and cravings are brought on by changes in brain activity and peripheral hormonal levels (Schneider man, Zilberstein-Kra, & Leckman, 2011). There is a complex interplay between hormones and neurotransmitters at work in the human brain during this time.

There are reports that elevated levels of central dopamine and norepinephrine and decreased levels of central serotonin (Fisher et al., 2002; Zeki, 2007) play a central role in the focused attention, motivation, and goal-oriented behaviors associated with romantic love. Feelings of exhilaration and euphoria are experienced as a result of the dopamine being produced in the brain of a person in the throes of love (Zeki, 2007). Dopamine and phenylethylamine work in combination on the reward pathways of the brain that leads from the limbic system to the cerebral cortex (Carter, 1998; Zeki, 2007).

Bonding, both for sexual intimacy and parent-child -connectedness are created by the brain hormone, oxytocin (Schneiderman, Zilberstein-Kra, & Leckman, 2011; Zeki, 2007). It is created in the hypothalamus. When released in the brain, oxytocin is known to produce the sensation of satisfaction or gratitude (Freeman, 1995). This bonding may be the chemical basis of LOVE.

Oxytocin keeps couples together, it is released when there is physical affection, especially through skin contact, hugging, massage and foreplay. It produces strong feelings of intimacy, contentment and trust (Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. 2005). Studies have also shown that Oxytocin selectively improves empathic accuracy (Bartz, J., Zaki, J., Bolger, N., Hollander, E., Ludwig, N., Kolevzon, A., & Ochsner, K. 2010). Studies have proved that Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism (De Dreu, C., Greer, L., Van Kleef, G., Shalvi, S., & Handgraaf, M.2011). Oxytocin regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism (De Dreu, C., Greer, L., Handgraaf, M., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G., Baas, M., Ten Velden, F., Van Dijk, E., & Feith, S. 2010).

Oxytocin does not allow a lover to see fault in other person whom he/she is in love, it is for this reason it is said that love is blind, also romantic love is a chemically induced form of madness (Carter, 1998, p. 76). Also, Oxytocin is best known for keeping us monogamous, or “pair bonded” as the scientists say.

The hormonal changes keep on changing with passage of time. It has been suggested that fathers undergo hormonal changes when he lives beside his pregnant wife and then beside his young children (Brizendine, 2010; Schneider, Fletcher, Shaw, & Renfree, 2010). According to Fisher’s (2004) the love starts fading away after four years of relationship.

Biology of Hate:

The study by Professor Semir Zeki and John Romaya of the Wellcome Laboratory of Neurobiology at UCL, examined the brain areas that correlate with the sentiment of hate and shows that the ‘hate circuit’ is distinct from those related to emotions such as fear, threat and danger – although it shares a part of the brain associated with aggression. The circuit shares at least two common structures with circuit of romantic love. The activity in hate circuit in response to viewing a hated face is proportional in strength to the declared intensity of hate.

The hate circuit includes parts of the brain called the putamen and the insula, found in the sub-cortex of the organ. The putamen is known to be involved in the perception of contempt and disgust and may also be part of the motor system involved in movement and action. Putamen and the insula are also both activated by romantic love. Large parts of the cerebral cortex associated with judgment and reasoning become de-activated during love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate.

Professor Semir Zeki, stated that to biologists hate is a passion that is equal to love. In his research with John Paul Romaya-a scientist at University College London–they used an MRI scanner on human subjects to discover the biological basis for the two most intense emotions, which showed that love and hate are to be intimately linked within the human brain. This case was proved when the neural circuits become active when people look at a photograph of someone they claim to hate, and it works the same as a photo of someone they love is shown. This research unveiled the reason why love and hate seem to overlap so much in life as both emotions can lead someone to show identical behaviors. Both love and hate can lead individuals to commit bold, heroic, courageous, and evil actions because when we hate someone too much, we would be seeking information about them to find a reason to hate them even more. Yet it could bring us to the state where we give them too much attention to everything they do. The same thing also happens when we’re in love with someone. We want to know everything about them-find reasons to love them even more.

As stated before, hatred can turn into love, and vice versa, as both neurologically do the same things in our brains. This phenomenon happens because we know the person too well be it their good or bad side. It’s also common for someone to have a love-hate relationship with their close ones, such as significant others, family members, or friends-whom they share a romantic and intimate connection with. This could happen because they have some major personality flaws that can drive you mad, yet at the same time, you’re still entirely in love with them.

In conclusion, there is a unique pattern of activity in the brain in the context of hate. This pattern, while being distinct from that obtained in the context of romantic love, nevertheless shares two areas with the latter, namely the putamen and the insula. This linkage may account for why love and hate are so closely linked to each other in life. Love and hate are two sides of same coin, as scientists have shown that mind uses same major portion during two extremes of being in love or being in hate.

Professor Zeki said the difference between the emotions of love and hate is that large parts of the cerebral cortex become deactivated with love, but only a small part becomes deactivated with hate. ‘This may seem surprising since hate can also be an all-consuming passion, just like love,’ he said. ‘But whereas in romantic love, the lover is often less critical and judgemental regarding the loved person, it is more likely that in the context of hate, the hater may want to exercise judgement in calculating moves to harm, injure or otherwise extract revenge.

______

The Deeper the Love, the Deeper the Hate, a 2017 study:

Love and hate are basic human affects. Previous research has focused on the classification, functions, and other aspects of these two affects. However, few studies have been conducted on the relationship between love and hate. The present study investigated whether similarity within romantic partners was associated with greater feelings of love in the absence of betrayal, and greater hate induced in the presence of betrayal by using vignettes to induce love and hate in a sample of 59 young adults. The results showed that people who shared similar values and interests with the target persons were more likely to experience stronger love. Additionally, stronger feelings of love were associated with greater hate after the relationship was broken, suggesting a link between romantic love and hate. This study revealed a complex picture of love and hate. People have different emotional reactions toward different target persons in the context of romantic love and hate. If one loves someone deeply and sometimes hates that person, the feeling of love may still be dominant in the context of betrayal. However, if one does not love that person, hate will be a much stronger feeling than love.

_______

Section-5

Types of hate:

Types of hate based on Target of Hate:

Scientific literature divides hatred into seven types, namely – accepted; hot; cold; burning; simmering; furious; and all-embracing. Hate has wreaked havoc on the world for centuries and will probably continue to do so for many more. Below are some examples of the different ways hatred targets:

-1. Racism:

Racism is characterized by racial prejudice or discrimination. To narrow it down a bit, prejudice is defined by Merriam-Webster as “an irrational attitude of hostility directed toward an individual, a group, a race or their supposed characteristics.” This hostility has been known over the years to lead to some pretty heinous errors in human judgment, including the slave trade, racial profiling and countless hate crimes. Interestingly enough, it does not appear that humans are hardwired to hate based on skin color.

Racial biases are a fundamental form of social control that support the economic, political, and personal goals of the majority group. Because of their functionality, racial biases are deeply embedded in cultural values, such as in widely accepted ideologies that justify inequality and exploitation and institutional policies and practices. Although the racial climate in the United States has changed because of shifts in social norms over the last several decades, racial biases may still be openly expressed by Whites who strongly adhere to traditional values and conventional beliefs or who see the superior status of Whites relative to Blacks as legitimate. The recent prominence of white supremacists as a political force seems inextricably tied to the rise of Donald Trump: On white supremacist networks on Twitter, users focused on retweeting content about two primary topics: “white genocide” and Donald Trump, the George Washington University’s report found. In the wake of the Charlottesville events, movement leaders like David Duke praised Trump’s statements that decried violence on “both sides.”

Racism is deeply ingrained in our systems, institutions, and interpersonal interactions. It is rooted in anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, and the continued impacts of imperialism, settler colonialism, and slavery. Crimes motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry were the largest category of hate crimes, accounting for 56% of all reported hate crimes in the US. Of the 6,570 reported race-related crimes, 3,434 were anti-Black or African American. Racism is a root cause of ill health for communities of color, and hate incidents are one manifestation of racism. Marginalized racial and ethnic groups, including but not limited to Asian Americans, have been the target of highly publicized violence, hate, and discrimination which has been amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hatred is believed to be a learned emotion, and recent studies have shown that racism is also learned, rather than innate. When ancient people adopted the “us vs. them” theory, they were being territorial, rather than racist because they probably never saw people who looked different from them. Many psychologists believe that, although people do classify others based on race, they are more likely to mentally classify them based on age and gender. According to author Michael Shermer, who wrote The Science of Good and Evil, if all humans had the same skin color we would find a new way to divide groups up and perpetuate the “one of us” or “one of them” habit.

The Holocaust is considered by many to be an example of racism, and they are right. Jews were attacked for being of a different race (even though the vast majority were white), belonging to a different culture (despite being mostly German), and believing in Judaism (many of them not practicing).

-2. Religious and politically-based hatred:

If you need further proof that humans don’t require differing skin colors to find fault with each other, simply look to the many religious and political wars that have occurred throughout history. Catholics and Protestants are both Christian denominations with different beliefs and practices, and have fought bloody wars. Although all Muslim groups consider the Quran to be divine, Sunni and Shia have different opinions on hadith. In recent years, the relations between the Shia and the Sunnis have been increasingly marked by conflict. Terrorist attacks are almost always related to political arguments, religious disagreements or both. Religious and politically motivated atrocities have traditionally been inspired by greed, envy and fear.

-3. Hatred based on sexual orientation:

According to the American Psychological Association, homosexuality and bisexuality are often subject to social stigmas such as prejudice, violence and discrimination. LGTBI+phobia encompasses all hatred towards non-cisheterosexual people Thus, within this type of hatred we find several modalities such as homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and any hatred aimed at people who feel identified in the acronym LGTBI+. Although it is rare in the most advanced and civilized countries, hate crimes motivated by aversion towards people with a non-normative sexual orientation or gender identity still continue to be committed.

-4. Xenophobia:

Closely related to racism we have xenophobia, although they are not synonymous terms. Xenophobia is based on ethnic prejudice, that is, false beliefs about people with a specific nationality or who belong to a specific culture It can be combined with religious hatred, linguistic discrimination and racism towards people of a certain ethnic group. There are several recent events motivated by xenophobia, a hatred towards people who do not have to come from outside the country they are in but rather be part of a different culture. We have an example of this in the Yugoslav wars, in which people who until recently shared the same nationality killed each other for feeling like Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, Bosnians and other ethnicities.

-5. Ideological intolerance:

People are very diverse, even living in the same country, sharing the same language and being of the same race; this is evidenced in the great diversity of political ideologies that we can see materialized in the form of all types of parties and associations. Each political ideology has its pluses and minuses, but as long as it does not promote harm to other people or the denial of fundamental rights, each person can defend the idea that they consider most appropriate. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks this way, there are people who defend attacking and harming people who do not have the same opinion as them. This is a display of hatred called ideological intolerance. Hatred between democrats and republicans is based on ideological intolerance.

-6. Linguistic discrimination:

There is the kind of hatred associated with a language and its speakers. This is known as linguistic discrimination, based on the idea that there are better and worse languages and, also, in the myth that languages are specific to certain places, despite the fact that the earth does not have a specific language nor does it have a race, a culture or a religion naturally associated with it.

An example of hatred for linguistic reasons would be the discrimination against Catalan, Basque or Galician in multiple periods in the history of Spain and also by certain current political movements. In most cases, it is the speakers of minority languages who suffer this type of hatred, which in turn produces situations of linguistic minoritization, something common in countries such as Italy, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Ironically, Linguistic discrimination does not have to be directed towards minority languages, but speakers of majority languages seen as “invasive” can be victims of this type of hatred. An example of this is when posters in Spanish in Catalonia or in French in Corsica are crossed out, or Spanish speakers are attacked in the United Kingdom and the United States.

-7. Misogyny:

Misogyny is hatred towards women. Although stating that a society is completely misogynistic is an exaggeration, it is clear that violence against women, sexist murders, feeling free to sexually abuse a woman who is walking down the street at night and other acts against women are fueled by misogynistic visions. Structurally, we live in a very sexist society and we have proof of this in the form of lower salaries for women.

______

Types of hate based on Expression of Hate:

Understanding the different ways that hate can express in day-to-day interactions is crucial to identifying and addressing issues before they escalate.

-1. Microaggressions:

Microaggressions are subtle, often unintentional, everyday actions or comments that marginalize and demean individuals based on their identity or background. One study indicated that in a twelve-month period, up to one in four Black and Latinx students were victims of racial microaggressions. Often, microaggressions are more obvious to the recipient than the speaker. In some cases, the comment wasn’t intended to be hurtful and needs to be pointed out for the speaker to realize the impact of their statement.

-2. Hate Speech:

Hate speech is when someone says or writes things that spread hate, discrimination, or prejudice against people based on things like race, religion, gender, or other protected characteristics. It is generally more intentional than microaggressions but more challenging to address. Hate speech may lead to hate crime and genocide.

-3. Hate Crimes:

Hate crimes are criminal acts committed against individuals or groups based on their perceived race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics. They can take various forms, including physical assault, vandalism, threats, harassment, or even murder. They not only harm the immediate victims but also have a broader impact on the targeted community, spreading fear, intimidation, and division.

-4. Cyberbullying:

Hate plays a significant role in cyberbullying as it fuels the intent to harm, intimidate, or humiliate others online. Perpetrators often use hateful language, slurs, or derogatory remarks to target their victims based on their perceived differences or vulnerabilities. Meanwhile, the anonymity and distance provided by the digital environment can amplify the expression of hate, enabling cyberbullies to freely spread messages of discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry with potentially severe psychological and emotional consequences for their victims with minimal consequences for themselves.

______

Types of hate based on Characteristics of Hate:

In the field of psychology, hate is an intense emotion that can manifest itself in various forms and levels. Throughout history, hate has been studied from different approaches, and it has been identified that there are several types of hate, each with its own characteristics and manifestations. Understanding these types of hate can help us recognize it in ourselves and others, and more effectively manage this powerful emotion.

-1. Rational Hatred:

Rational hatred refers to a type of hatred that arises from specific logic or reasoning. In this case, the person can justify their hatred towards someone or something based on rational arguments, such as negative past experiences, ideological differences or personal conflicts. This type of hatred is usually based on objective perceptions that the person considers valid and legitimate.

-2. Irrational Hatred:

In contrast to rational hatred, irrational hatred has no logical or reasonable justification. This type of hatred can arise from prejudices, stereotypes or uncontrolled emotions, and is not based on an objective evaluation of the situation. Irrational hatred can be irrational to the extent that it lacks a solid and coherent basis for its existence.

-3. Narcissistic Hate:

Narcissistic hate is characterized by a strong sense of superiority and contempt for others. People who experience this type of hatred often consider themselves superior compared to others, and feel aversion toward those they perceive as inferior or threats to their ego. Narcissistic hate can manifest itself in arrogant, manipulative, or belittling behavior toward others.

-4. Pathological Hate:

Pathological hate refers to a type of hate that goes beyond the normal and healthy limits of emotion. People who experience pathological hatred may have obsessive and destructive thoughts toward an individual or group, which can lead to aggressive or violent behavior. This type of hatred may be related to underlying mental disorders, such as personality disorders or psychopathy.

-5. Collective Hatred:

Collective hatred refers to the hatred shared by a group of individuals towards another group or individual. This type of hatred can arise in contexts of intergroup conflict, ethnic, ideological or social discrimination, and can manifest itself in forms of violence, discrimination or exclusion. Collective hate can be fueled by group narratives that reinforce division and hostility toward the other.

-6. Disguised Hate:

Disguised hate refers to hate that is hidden under the guise of another emotion or behavior. In some cases, people may express hostility, rejection, or contempt covertly, disguising their true feeling of hatred under a cloak of false kindness, indifference, or condescension. Disguised hate can be especially insidious, as it can be difficult to detect with the naked eye.

-7. Maladaptive hate:

Gaylin (2003) uses the terms like ‘true” or “raw haters” to describe individuals who experience maladaptive hate. In other words, the people who live with hate and may be obsessed with their hate targets or enemies attached to them in a paranoid relationship. Such hatred is often found in persons with cluster B personality disorders including histrionic, passive-aggressive, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. These individuals along with tendency to hate chronically often have pervasive and long lasting dysfunctional relationships.

______

Hate: toward a Four-Types Model, a 2021 study:

Drawing on insights found in both philosophy and psychology, this paper offers an analysis of hate and distinguishes between its main types. Author argues that hate is a sentiment, i.e., a form to regard the other as evil which on certain occasions can be acutely felt. On the basis of this definition, author develop a typology which, unlike the main typologies in philosophy and psychology, does not explain hate in terms of patterns of other affective states. By examining the developmental history and intentional structure of hate, author obtain two variables: the replaceability/irreplaceability of the target and the determinacy/indeterminacy of the focus of concern. The combination of these variables generates the four-types model of hate, according to which hate comes in the following kinds: normative, ideological, retributive, and malicious.

The first variable is the target, which is either replaceable or irreplaceable.

When the target is replaceable, hate has a general object and is directed mainly toward groups and social categories. It is only directed toward individuals insofar as they are exemplars of these groups or categories. All members are regarded as instantiating the same hated properties and as such they are replaceable.

When the target is irreplaceable, we hate a specific person as that person. The origin of this hate is usually personal. This hate can have different motivations.

The target is either replaceable or irreplaceable. However, it might happen that a hate with a replaceable target develops into a hate where the target is irreplaceable. We might hate racists, but if by chance we come to interact with one, we can come to hate this singular exemplar. Conversely, it is possible that our hate initially focused on an irreplaceable target but shifted to a class, category or group. There is, in hate, a tendency to generalize (Hadreas 2007). For instance, a person from a specific ethnic group might have attacked us and we hate this person as this person; but it might also happen that we end up hating all members of her ethnic group.

The second variable is the focus of concern. This can be determinate or indeterminate.

When the focus is determinate, the attribution of evil is traceable and it is based on a real threat. The other is evil because we have learned that some actions and qualities, such as killing, robbing, being malicious or wicked, are wrong (environment). We can also attribute this property to the other on the basis of a particular experience (personal). These are cases of “rational hate,” as Allport put it: the target is evil for violating our rights.

The focus is indeterminate when the connection between the target and the property of evil cannot be established. In these cases, the attribution of evil is character-conditioned. The indeterminacy can have two different origins.

First, an indeterminate focus can be an indicator of some negative attitude from our side (personal). Rather than having been attacked by the other, what has led to the formation of this hate is that we “feel” attacked by her because we envy her, are jealous of her, etc. Since we are not prone to attribute aggressive emotions to ourselves, self-deception is not unusual in this form of hate.

Second, the focus can be indeterminate because we perceive the other as evil by virtue of biases, prejudices, and ideologies (environmental). In Szanto’s example, the person hating refugees will claim that they endanger our ethnic homogeneity, yet it is not clear why this would be considered evil. In describing the anti-Semite, Sartre argued that if we press him about the reasons for his hate, he will “abruptly fall silent,” indicating that the time for argument has passed (Sartre 1976, p. 20). In Sartre’s view, there is an element of bad faith involved in this reaction: the anti-Semite is not completely unaware of the motivations behind his hate, but he is not interested in examining their validity.

This variable presents itself in degrees: the focus can be more or less determinate or indeterminate. Consider these two cases of indeterminate focus. First, imagine you hate foreigners and that one day you become aware of your xenophobia. The indeterminate focus becomes determinate (you become aware of your biases and inherited emotions). The natural consequence would be to abandon your hate. Second, imagine you hate someone whom you envy. The focus is indeterminate because the link between the other and the property of evil is missing. The only reason why the target is evil is that you envy her. In general, you do not want to admit to yourself that you are envious. But given that envy, unlike Ressentiment, is not totally self-deceiving, it can be the case that on certain occasions you become painfully aware of the real reason for your hate.

The Four-Types Model of Hate:

From the interaction between these two variables—the replaceability or irreplaceability of the target and the determinacy or indeterminacy of the focus of concern—four types of hate can be obtained: normative, ideological, retributive, and malicious.

	Target is replaceable	Target is irreplaceable
Focus is determinate	Normative Hate	Retributive Hate
Focus is indeterminate	Ideological Hate	Malicious Hate

Examples:

Normative Hate: Tom hates people who lie for breaking norms and values.

Ideological Hate: Tom hates foreigners for endangering ethnic homogeneity.

Retributive Hate: Tom hates John for having attacked him and being unrepentant.

Malicious Hate: Tom hates Max because he is a better philosopher.

Type of Hate	Description	Causes	Impacts
Normative Hate	Against norm violators	Perceived social threat	Social exclusion
Ideological Hate	Based on ideologies	Political, religious beliefs	Polarization, violence
Retributive Hate	Desire for revenge	Personal harm	Retaliation, conflict
Malicious Hate	Pure malice	Anger, envy	Harm, discord

Author argued that hate is a mechanism of self-affirmation that appears when our self-worth is threatened. This self-affirmative character has different functions in each type of hate and this should be examined carefully. Normative hate can contribute to reinforce societal rules. In retributive hate, the self-affirmation can have a therapeutic dimension. But in ideological and malicious hate, the self-affirmation is merely illusory and even self-deceptive. In ideological hate, the self-affirmation has a tautological and redundant character: no matter what the other does or how the other is, the self-affirmation has the function of reinforcing the existing ideology. Malicious hate can lead to a destruction of the other, but our feeling of being uplifted is unreal: we keep experiencing the target as desirable and superior to us.

_____

Interpersonal and intergroup hate:

Hate at an Interpersonal Level:

One important factor in the development of hate, compared to most other negative emotions, is the relationship between the person who hates and the target of this hate. In the previous sections, I have described the goal of hate to eliminate or destroy. Interestingly, at an interpersonal level, the relationship between hater and hated can be intimate. Studies by Aumer et al. (2016) for example show that when individuals were asked to report on a person they currently love but at one time hated in the past, in contrast with a person they loved and never hated, they report in both cases on persons they know very well, such as family members, romantic partners, or colleagues. However, not surprisingly, the quality of the current relationship with the person whom was once hated, was shown to be characterized by less intimacy and love, and more hate. Indeed, in another study of hate and love in close relationships, hated persons were found to be perceived as less open, less agreeable, less conscientious, and less emotionally stable than loved ones (Aumer et al., 2015). Thus, although at an interpersonal level hated persons are often intimates, suggesting that love and hate are not necessarily diametrically opposed (Ben-Ze’ev, 2008), the quality of the relationship with a person one once hated is less satisfactory (Aumer-Ryan & Hatfield, 2007; Rempel & Burris, 2005).

This more negative quality of relationships in which hate is involved is not restricted to marital or family contexts, but can also occur in work contexts, where hate has been found to be associated with experiences of humiliating and demeaning treatment (Fitness, 2000; Fitness & Fletcher, 1993). This is especially the case when such treatment comes from others who are considered as more powerful than oneself (Fitness, 2000). It may be expected that recurrent experiences of humiliation, ridicule, or public shame by a partner or coworker may contribute to the development of intense hate towards them. In addition, previous hate feelings towards the other may leave traces of hurt feelings and resentment, which may put a strain on the relationship. These different lines of research thus suggest that past occurrences of hate seem to linger on in current relationships and are not forgotten, nor completely forgiven. From an emotion theoretical perspective this makes sense, because we can only have intense and extreme emotions such as love and hate when the objects of these emotions touch upon our concerns (Frijda, 1986). In other words, we cannot love or hate persons we are indifferent to. Although we maybe would like or pretend not to care, and to easily forgive or forget, we do care about the neglecting, aggressive, or disgusting character of another person, especially if we once loved this person.

When moving from an interpersonal to an intergroup level, it is interesting to observe that we do not need to know the persons we hate. It is very well possible to hate groups because of what they represent (in terms of power, values, past behaviors, identity). People may hate Germans for what they did during WWII, even though they do not know any German involved in these atrocities. People may hate homosexuals or lesbians because they think that they are deviants from human nature, even though they do not know any such person. The hatred of groups, thus, does not require a personal connection with a member of this group. In such cases, there is only a symbolic relationship with a group member on the basis of one’s perception of this person as part of a negative outgroup.

Hate at an Intergroup Level:

Similar to other intergroup emotions, intergroup hate is an emotion experienced on behalf of one’s own group and targeting the outgroup. Intergroup emotions are instigated by events that advance or threaten the ingroup (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). For instance, if group members perceive that their ingroup is unjustly treated or humiliated by another group, they may experience negative emotions towards outgroup members as well as form negative attitudes about them. In addition, the strength of identification with the ingroup may contribute to the intensity of intergroup emotions, with high compared to low identifiers generally reporting stronger emotional experiences (Gordijn, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Dumont, 2006; Iyer & Leach, 2009; Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003).

Intergroup hatred is directed at a particular outgroup, aiming to eliminate the group (e.g., Halperin, 2008, 2011; Halperin, Canetti-Nisim, & Hirsch-Hoefler, 2009; Halperin et al., 2011). Hate at the intergroup level requires a clear distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup, and is facilitated by the perception that the outgroup is a rather homogeneous entity. The perception of outgroup homogeneity is essential for people to be able to generalize from a negative behavior of a single outgroup member to appraisals targeted at the entire outgroup. For example, a Palestinian who suffered from an abusive behavior of an Israeli soldier in a military checkpoint will develop hate towards all Jews only to the extent that she believes that all Jews are the same, and that the behavior of that one soldier actually represents the innate characteristics of the entire Jewish people. Especially a loathed outgroup that has attacked the interests of the group, makes the ingroup identity salient and is most likely to become the target of one’s hate.

Studies on intergroup hate show very similar patterns of appraisals and motives to those that we have reported for interpersonal hate. In a study on the appraisals of hate and two related emotions (anger and fear), Halperin (2008, Study 2) provided Israeli participants with a questionnaire that included a detailed description of four emotionally conflicting scenarios (e.g., a terror attack, intergroup violent event in a nightclub), followed by a manipulation of the cognitive appraisals of the protagonist in the story regarding five dichotomous appraisal dimensions: (a) just/unjust event, (b) outgroup/circumstances were responsible, (c) intentional/unintentional harm, (d) outgroup is evil/not evil, and (e) low/high coping potential. After reading the scenario and the protagonist’s appraisals, participants were asked to rank the extent to which the protagonist experienced hatred, fear, and anger (separately) in response to that event. The results support the assumption that hate has two unique appraisals: outgroup harm is intentional and due to their stable, evil character. On the other hand, the attribution of responsibility to the outgroup and the appraisal that the event was unjust were found for both hatred and anger, and the appraisal of low coping potential (powerlessness) was found for both fear and hatred. Jasini and Fischer (2018) found a similar pattern of appraisals for intergroup hate in their study in another specific intergroup context, namely in Kosovo. The study was conducted with Albanian Kosovars who suffered ethnic cleansing by Serbian (para)militaries during the Kosovo War (1998– 1999). They asked Albanian participants to imagine an interpersonal assault carried out by Serbian individuals, and then to rate the emotions and appraisals in response to the event. They found that—after controlling for anger—the intensity of hate was positively associated with appraisals of malicious intent and immorality, and marginally with powerlessness.

Intergroup hate can also be characterized by specific emotivational goals and action tendencies. Jasini and Fischer (2017) found that hate was positively associated with the goal to take revenge and to exclude the other, and with the tendency to attack (and not to forgive or withdraw). This is in line with the findings from Halperin (2008, Study 1). Participants in this study (83.3%) stated that they would have wanted something very bad to happen to the hated group and its members. In another study (Halperin, 2008, Study 3), Jewish-Israelis were asked for their emotivational goals and action tendencies in reaction to certain Palestinian actions. The results showed that group-based hatred is characterized by specific emotivational goals mentioned earlier: to do harm to, to remove, and even eliminate the outgroup. Such goals are accompanied with specific action tendencies such as the tendency to attack and not forgive (Jasini & Fischer, 2018) or the tendency to engage in a violent action with the hated people, up to a point where respondents supported the killing of members of the outgroup (Halperin, 2008, Study 1). Still, in the latter study with Israeli participants, only a few participants (16.6%) reported the actual execution of a violent action. The three most common actions reported by the participants were complete detachment from the object of the hatred (83.3%), delight at the failure of the hated other (36.6%; see also Smith & van Dijk, 2018; van Dijk & Ouwerkerk, 2014), and political action taken against the other (56.6%). In short, intergroup hate follows the pattern of interpersonal hate and is characterized by appraisals of harm or malicious intent on the part of the outgroup, reflecting their evil nature. This can lead to the goal to take revenge and to eventually eliminate the outgroup from one’s environment. The bodily aspect of collective hatred seems less salient than the cognitive and motivational elements, although we assume it may sometimes also include unpleasant physical symptoms (Sternberg, 2003, 2005), particularly when the hate is collectively experienced, for example, during a mass demonstration or a sports event.

Behaviorally, hate can lead to actual attempts to eradicate the outgroup (White, 1996). Extensive research has demonstrated that, in some situations, there is a connection between hate and its various active political manifestations, such as outgroup exclusionism (Leader, Mullen, & Rice, 2009), terrorism (Sternberg, 2003), the motivation to fight and kill in battle (Ballard & McDowell, 1991), and hate crimes (Berkowitz, 2005). We should note, however, that the (behavioral) expression of hate can differ, depending on the relation between ingroup and outgroup, the (violent) history between the two groups, the specific incidents that have taken place, the dominant (negative) narratives about the outgroup, and the possibility to act upon one’s hate. For example, one can be motivated to destroy the outgroup out of perceived self-defense, driven by fear, or one can hate a powerless outgroup, which may be accompanied by contempt and could lead to actions to completely ban the group from one’s environment. Still all these forms of hate seem to share the common goal to eliminate the hate target, either physically or socially. In other words, while fear can sometimes lead to flight rather than fight tendencies and anger can lead to constructive rather than destructive corrections (see Fischer & Roseman, 2007; Halperin, 2011; Halperin et al., 2011; Reifen Tagar, Federico, & Halperin, 2011), hatred will always motivate people for destructive action. The belief in stable, extremely negative characteristics implies that there is no merit in trying to correct or improve the outgroup’s behavior, and as such, only more extreme reactions seem applicable.

Rebecca Saxe, a professor of cognitive neuroscience, and associate department head at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, stated that violence between groups can occur when resources are considered to be limited. In those scenarios, protecting one’s own group and its resources at the expense of another group, even through the use of physical force, is deemed imperative. Even when the resources at stake are not commodities but “existential ideals and fundamental values,” feelings of hate for the opposing group can develop. In a lecture given at Harvard in 2019, Saxe said: “If we think that the survival, autonomy, and dignity of our ideals is a scarce resource in a zero-sum conflict with the survival, autonomy, and dignity of another group, then it could be my obligation to destroy the other group.” Saxe further stated: “Hate is a mixing of both intense dislike with moral contempt and disgust. The moral motive of extreme violence in which the other must be destroyed [is] to make a better, more just world for that which I hold most dear.” She has concluded that hate and violence are not caused by sociopathic tendencies but “the extreme culmination of perceiving an existential threat to one’s in-group.”

______

Why People hate certain Groups:

-1. Firstly, to understand the psychological manifestation of hatred, it is necessary to acknowledge the role of sociology and normative conformity. Certain forms of discrimination are institutionalized and systematically embedded into the structure of society (Tourse, Hamilton-Mason & Wewiorski, 2018). An individual then prefers to follow the prevailing view of their culture and avoid confronting their beliefs (Czopp, 2019). This phenomenon is known in psychology as normative conformity, the tendency to yield to group expectations to gain acceptance (Qin et al., 2022). If people are constantly exposed to prejudicial remarks, they will reduce cognitive dissonance and justify their inaction by believing them (Aroson et al., 2021). The combination of institutionalized discrimination and individual normative conformity is one dimension of hatred.

-2. Secondly, heuristics lead to cognitive biases that form stereotypes and discrimination. In order to reduce cognitive overload, the brain has developed a few mental shortcuts to make quick and efficient judgments that are known as heuristics (Waltman & Mattheis, 2017). The availability heuristic assumes that easily remembered events are more common (Furnham, Arnulf & Robinson, 2021). The representativeness heuristic is classifying something according to its similarity to a mental prototype (Aroson et al., 2021). While both heuristics enable the brain to make fast decisions, they also introduce many errors, overgeneralization, and generally inaccurate judgments (Ceschi et al., 2019). For example, people begin to stereotype all Muslims and Arabs as terrorists and begin to hate them. Availability and representativeness heuristics explain the cognitive component of stereotyping and ensuing hatred.

-3. Thirdly, another factor that contributes to hatred is the construction of a social identity based on us versus them. A person develops a concept of self-depending on their affiliation with a certain group, whether it is national, religious, occupation, or political (Heslam, Cornelissen, & Werner, 2017). Preferential treatment is then given to members of one’s own group, while outsiders are considered different, dangerous, and threatening. This in-group favoritism and out-group hatred are known as in-group out-group theory (Abbink & Harris, 2019). Furthermore, members of the out-group are dehumanized and perceived as more homogenous (Aroson et al., 2021). Hating people perceived as “dangerous outsiders” is due to in-group out-group social identification.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the psychology of hatred has a social and cognitive dimension. Normative conformity states that people are incentivized to endorse institutionalized hatred to be accepted by their peers. According to availability and representativeness heuristics, the human brain facilitates problem-solving through stereotypes and prejudice in order to avoid cognitive overload. Finally, social identity is based on in-group affiliation and favoritism, while the out-group is demonized as a dangerous threat. The hatred of certain groups is thus normalized and perpetuated through numerous cognitive biases and a need for social belonging.

_______

Hate: Toward Understanding Its Distinctive Features Across Interpersonal and Intergroup Targets, a 2021 study:

Is hate fundamentally different from other negative emotions? Despite a fair amount of theorizing about hate, there is little empirical evidence that helps to answer this basic question. The present research examines how people construe interpersonal and intergroup hate and provides an empirical analysis of how hate is conceptually different from dislike, anger, contempt, and disgust. In five preregistered studies, using exploratory (Pilot Study) and confirmatory (Studies 1, and 2a through 2c) within-subjects designs, authors asked adult participants in the United States (Ntotal = 1,074) to describe examples of their interpersonal and intergroup targets of hate, dislike, anger, contempt, and disgust. Authors assessed their subjective experiences of each emotion by measuring the associated intensity, duration, arousal, valence, perceived threats, and action tendencies. Across studies, results revealed that participants feel consistently more emotionally aroused, personally threatened, and inclined toward attack-oriented behaviors when experiencing hate as compared with dislike, anger, contempt and disgust toward interpersonal targets. At the intergroup level, results revealed that participants experience hate as more arousing than the three moral emotions, more intense than dislike, anger and contempt, and feel more inclined toward attack-oriented behaviors than when they feel dislike and contempt. Results are in line with a general pattern of increasing differentiation suggesting that hate is conceptually closer to disgust and contempt than to anger and dislike. We discuss the specific differences and similarities between hate and these emotions across targets and their implications for future research on hate and negative emotions.

_______

Self-Hate:

Self-hate is an intense dislike, loathing, or hostility toward oneself. It’s particularly insidious because it can manifest in socially acceptable ways and can be hard to identify from the outside. It involves a pervasive pattern of self-criticism with a tone of contempt or disgust. Such persons not merely criticize themselves, but do so with a strong sense of harshness and disgust towards their own actions or failures such as (e.g., How could I even think I might do a good job?! I’m a useless slob and I always will be!). Consequently, such harsh and brutal criticism towards self leaves the person self loathing, helpless, hopeless and with a lasting sense of emptiness making them vulnerable to depression.

It can present as:

Perfectionism
People pleasing
Self-deprecating humour or other negative comments
Body image issues that can lead to mental and physical illness

The pain of self-hatred can be due to different reasons:

Abusive parenting or childhood trauma can prevent the development of self-esteem. Perfectionism can lead people to believe that they’ll never be good enough and dissatisfaction with a particular trait, such as intelligence or appearance, can lead to doubt and inadequacy. A grave error, such as a betrayal or misconduct, can also fuel self-loathing.

Why it can be both good and bad:

In self-hatred, the self becomes the object of hate. Self-hatred happens when one’s own self comes in the way of one’s happiness and well-being. Self-hatred is like your inner police. If you fail to reach your goals and believe you’re responsible, self-hatred is logical. Self-hatred motivates you to take responsibility for your happiness and well-being. Self-hatred tells you: You’re responsible for the mess you’ve become.

Unfortunately, self-hate can lead to low self-worth, increased stress, anxiety, depression, or other mental health challenges and hinder personal growth and relationships. Moreover, there exists empirical support that links self-hate as predictor of onset, severity and relapse in a range of psychiatric disorders including social anxiety, eating disorders and substance abuse (Pascal-Leone et al., 2013). Despite major advances in psychological counselling and treatment, self-hatred remains a problem for many people around the world. Attempted and successful suicide is all too often the result of these feelings of self-loathing and despair.

_____

Hate based on religion:

Hatred can be sanctioned by religion. The Hebrew word describing the psalmist’s “perfect hatred” (Ps. 139.22) means that it “brings a process to completion”. Religion can employ extreme speech in an attempt convert new adherents and that extreme speech made against other religions or their adherents can result in situations of religious hatred. Hatred on the basis of religion or belief can be motivated and aggravated by factors relating to religions or beliefs and their doctrines. Its proliferation and the violence that it engenders, whether direct or structural, are understood by some as legitimate and desirable in religious or belief terms. Hateful attitudes based on religion or belief and their promotion in society often serve concrete political and economic ends. They may be mobilized to justify restrictions on freedom of movement or other rights of refugees, asylum-seekers or migrants; dispossession of land; closure of businesses; boycotts; or the resignation of a religious or belief minority or caste to menial or dangerous work opportunities. Fostering religious or belief disdain may serve a political function in that promoting division and “othering” is considered expedient to certain groups or forms part of their ideology. In addition, it may serve as a tool in a quest for superiority on an individual or group basis. Exploiting and encouraging widespread prejudicial attitudes in society therefore forms part of a cynical strategy to gain or defend political influence or power. It is notable how often expressions of hatred and violence on the basis of religion or belief accompany electoral periods, times of political or economic strife or upsurges in violence. Of note also is the dangerous tendency for politicians and political parties to adopt the rhetoric of, or to strike electoral pacts or coalitions with, extreme-right political parties in order to maintain or gain political power.

Widespread advocacy of hatred based on religion or belief is among the key drivers of polarisation and conflict around the world, and must be addressed comprehensively. Various forms that hatred on the basis of religion or belief can burdens members of society individually and collectively, and its intersections with other forms of discrimination. Threats, harassment, conspiracy theories, myths, and accusations of blasphemy and apostasy, both online and offline, are common experiences which can have significant psychological and even physiological impacts on individuals and communities. The disproportionate attention is given to ‘lone wolf’ actors and hate entrepreneurs, at the expense of overlooking the perpetuation and implementation of extensive State policies of intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.

Due to immigration and mobility globally, many countries are becoming more religiously plural than they used to be (hackett et al., 2015). In turn, this means increasing acquaintance and possible confrontation with individuals and religions that were not previously salient, thus possibly increasing the risk of religiously motivated hate crime victimization (Hackett et al., 2015). In addition to processes of globalization (which can differ in speed from country to country) and increasing religious heterogeneity, the proliferation of conspiracy theories, media portrayals of specific groups, and distinct political events may instigate peaks in religious hate crimes. Examples include the 9/11 attacks leading to anti-Islam hate crimes, and anti-Jewish hate crimes following Israel’s conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah (Deloughery et al., 2012; Disha et al., 2011; King & Sutton, 2013; Obaidi et al., 2022; Vergani et al., 2022). White supremacists, sovereign citizens, militia extremists and violent anti-abortion adherents use religious concepts and scripture to justify threats, criminal activity and violence.

Islamophobia and the Public Health Implications of Religious Hatred, a 2018 review:

Islamophobia is a form of prejudice, fear, or hatred towards Muslims or the religion of Islam. It can be expressed through verbal abuse, physical violence, or more subtle forms of discrimination. This review documents the effects of Islamophobia from a sample of 53 English-language studies of Muslims conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The findings implicate religious discrimination, racism, and hatred directed toward Muslims as significant determinants or correlates of a host of negative outcomes. This review is groundbreaking for reasons other than its affirmation of the deleterious health impact of Islamophobia. For one, little in the way of health-related outcome data has appeared up to now on determinants of physical health or psychological distress among Muslims. Relative to other faith traditions, we know much less about how the experience of being a Muslim and of practicing Islam serves as a risk or protective factor against subsequent morbidity, mortality, or disability, whether physical or psychological.

Although the reviewed studies surveyed respondents from different countries and different Muslim ethnic populations and involved different outcome measures, basic trends across the studies are apparent. Religious discrimination targeting Muslims is significantly associated with poor physical and mental health outcomes, including greater psychological distress; more depressive symptoms; higher levels of fear, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder; more self-harm; lower self-esteem; poorer self-rated health; less physical activity and more activity limitation days; unhealthier diet; higher body mass index; worse blood pressure and cholesterol readings; less access to health care services (e.g., maternity care); and less health care–seeking behavior, including screening tests.

Anti-Muslim hate speech and hate crime:

In 2023, India recorded 668 documented hate speech events that targeted Muslims, according to a report released by India Hate Lab, a Washington DC-based group that documents hate speech against India’s religious minorities. The report also flagged the use of the Israel-Gaza war “to peddle anti-Muslim hate”. Of the 193 hate speech events held between October 7 and December 31, 41 (21%) used the war “to fuel fear and animosity towards Indian Muslims”, with “far-right leaders insinuating that Muslims were inherently violent and therefore posed a threat to Hindus”. Another report, released recently by India Hate Lab, documented 1,165 such instances in 2024 adding that politicians like Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah were among the most frequent purveyors of hate speech. Muslims were targeted the most, with 98.5% of recorded instances of hate speech directed against them.

Anti-Muslim hate crime falls under the category of religious hate crime, which is where it is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon a person’s religion or perceived religion. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers in the UK, online hate crime includes illegal hate content that aims to incite hatred based on the grounds of race, religion, and sexual orientation. This could include words, posts, forums, videos, chatrooms, pictures, and websites. It is important to recognize that the visibility of Islam is key to revealing the individual’s Muslim identity and thus triggering online and/or offline anti-Muslim attacks. Indeed, a key finding that emerges from UK studies is that the visibility of victims’ Muslim identity is key to triggering anti-Muslim attacks, both online and offline. For example, in terms of social networking sites individuals might be perceived as “Muslim” because of their name, appearance in their profile picture (dress for women and beard for men), and comments indicating their affiliation with Islam. With respect to public spaces, individuals might be identified as “Muslim” primarily because of their appearance, dress, and location (for example, attending the mosque). Similarly to the virtual world, where actual and potential victims are identified through the visibility of their Muslim identity, “perceived” Muslims are equally vulnerable to intimidation, violence, and abuse on the street. Public visibility is a critical element to prejudice given that “perceptible differences are of basic importance in distinguishing between out-group and in-group members” (Allport, 1979: 132). The power of social perception along with negative attributions ascribed to those viewed as visibly different is a key element to understanding hate crime in general and anti-Muslim hate crime committed against individuals more specifically. Typically, males are overwhelmingly the victims of hate crime but in the case of anti-Muslim hate crime, it is the females who are most often attacked (Perry, 2015). This applies to both online and offline anti-Muslim hate crime. Zempi and Chakraborti (2014) point out that gender precipitates manifestations of anti-Muslim hostility on the basis that the visibility of the Muslim veil, coupled with popular perceptions about veiled Muslim women as oppressed, dangerous, and segregated, mark them as “uniquely” vulnerable to online and offline manifestations of anti-Muslim hostility. Participants in Zempi’s (2014) study made explicit reference to the type of language used by the perpetrators, which signified their motivations for the attack. For example, they had been called names such as “terrorists,” “Muslim bombers,” and “suicide bombers,” which indicate the perpetrators’ perceptions of veiled Muslim women as a security or terrorist threat. More recently, both online and offline anti-Muslim hate crimes increased following terrorist attacks of national significance such as the Woolwich attack and terrorist attacks of international significance such as the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, and attacks in Copenhagen and Tunisia.

The Delhi-based socio-cultural organisation, Act Now for Harmony and Democracy (ANHAD), recently released a report on India’s rising hate speech and hate crime cases in a book Hate Grips the Nation marking 20 years of the Gujarat pogrom. It shows that anti-minority cases have been growing by an alarming rate across India, primarily against the Muslim and Christian communities.

Figure below shows rising cases of hate speech and hate crime in India: 2014-21

From figure above, it is visible that from 2014-22, around 878 cases of hate speech (54%) and hate crime (46%) have occurred. In eight years, the highest number of cases was recorded in 2017. Hindutva groups appear to be the core facilitators of hate speech and hate crime against minorities in India. ANHAD’s recent report reveals that hate speech and hate crimes have primarily targeted Muslims (73.3%) and Christians (26.7%) in India.

Hindu-phobia in Bangladesh:

Lot of painful incidents of violence against Hindus have taken place during the protest for change in regime in Bangladesh during August, 2024 including the incidents of murder, looting, arson and heinous crimes against women. There were several reports of incidents of violence against Hindus and other minorities, their homes and business establishments and of attacks on temples/ religious places, including in the month of August 2024, across Bangladesh. The Chief Adviser to Bangladesh’s interim government, Muhammad Yunus, has referred to attacks against Hindus as “exaggerated” and argued that such incidents were political in nature, not religious. The fundamentalists and right-wing parties such as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jatiya Party often portray Hindus as being sympathetic to India, making accusations of dual loyalty and allegations of transferring economic resources to India, contributing to a widespread perception that Bangladeshi Hindus are disloyal to the state. Also, the right wing parties claim the Hindus to be backing the Awami League. Despite more than 200 attacks on religious minorities, including Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, and damage to about 20 temples since 5 August, the intelligentsia and global news coverage have portrayed the plight of Bangladeshi Hindus as just another case of minority oppression. This oversimplification does a disservice to the victims. There is an undeniable underlying deep-seated hatred for Hindus and Hinduism in Bangladesh.

_______

Antisemitism:

Anti-Semitism, sometimes called history’s oldest hatred, is hostility or prejudice against Jewish people. The Nazi Holocaust is history’s most extreme example of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism did not begin with Adolf Hitler: Anti-Semitic attitudes date back to ancient times. In much of Europe throughout the Middle Ages, Jewish people were denied citizenship and forced to live in ghettos. Anti-Jewish riots called pogroms swept the Russian Empire during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and anti-Semitic incidents have increased in parts of Europe, the Middle East and North America in the last several years. The term anti-Semitism was first popularized by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in 1879 to describe hatred or hostility toward Jews. The history of anti-Semitism, however, goes back much further.

Hostility against Jews may date back nearly as far as Jewish history. In the ancient empires of Babylonia, Greece, and Rome, Jews—who originated in the ancient kingdom of Judea—were often criticized and persecuted for their efforts to remain a separate cultural group rather than taking on the religious and social customs of their conquerors. With the rise of Christianity, anti-Semitism spread throughout much of Europe. Early Christians vilified Judaism in a bid to gain more converts. They accused Jews of outlandish acts such as “blood libel”—the kidnapping and murder of Christian children to use their blood to make Passover bread. These religious attitudes were reflected in anti-Jewish economic, social and political policies that pervaded into the European Middle Ages.

Anti-Semitism in Medieval Europe:

Many of the anti-Semitic practices seen in Nazi Germany actually have their roots in medieval Europe. In many European cities, Jews were confined to certain neighborhoods called ghettos. Some countries also required Jews to distinguish themselves from Christians with a yellow badge worn on their garment, or a special hat called a Judenhut. Some Jews became prominent in banking and moneylending, because early Christianity didn’t permit moneylending for interest. This resulted in economic resentment which forced the expulsion of Jews from several European countries including France, Germany, Portugal and Spain during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Jews were denied citizenship and civil liberties, including religious freedom throughout much of medieval Europe. Poland was one notable exception. In 1264, Polish prince Bolesław the Pious issued a decree allowing Jews personal, political and religious freedoms. Jews did not receive citizenship and gain rights throughout much of western Europe, however, until the late 1700s and 1800s.

Russian Pogroms:

Throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, Jews throughout the Russian Empire and other European countries faced violent, anti-Jewish riots called pogroms. Pogroms were typically perpetrated by a local non-Jewish population against their Jewish neighbors, though pogroms were often encouraged and aided by the government and police forces. In the wake of the Russian Revolution, an estimated 1,326 pogroms are thought to have taken place across Ukraine alone, leaving nearly half a million Ukrainian Jews homeless and killing an estimated 30,000 to 70,000 people between 1918 and 1921. Pogroms in Belarus and Poland also killed tens of thousands of people.

Nazi Anti-Semitism:

Adolf Hitler and the Nazis rose to power in Germany in the 1930s on a platform of German nationalism, racial purity and global expansion. Hitler, like many anti-Semites in Germany, blamed the Jews for the country’s defeat in World War I, and for the social and economic upheaval that followed. Early on, the Nazis undertook an “Aryanization” of Germany, in which Jews were dismissed from civil service, Jewish-owned businesses were liquidated and Jewish professionals, including doctors and lawyers, were stripped of their clients. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 introduced many anti-Semitic policies and outlined the definition of who was Jewish based on ancestry. Nazi propagandists had swayed the German public into believing that Jews were a separate race. According to the Nuremberg Laws, Jews were no longer German citizens and had no right to vote.

Kristallnacht:

Jews became routine targets of stigmatization and persecution as a result. This culminated in a state-sponsored campaign of street violence known as Kristallnacht (the “night of broken glass”), which took place between November 9-10, 1938. In two days, more than 250 synagogues across the Reich were burned and 7,000 Jewish businesses looted. The morning after Kristallnacht, 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to concentration camps.

Holocaust:

Prior to Kristallnacht, Nazi policies toward Jews had been antagonistic but primarily non-violent. After the incident, conditions for Jews in Nazi Germany became progressively worse as Hitler and the Nazis began to implement their plan to exterminate the Jewish people, which they referred to as the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem.” Between 1939 and 1945, the Nazis would use mass killing centers called concentration camps to carry out the systematic murder of roughly 6 million European Jews in what would become known as the Holocaust. Nazi Germany dehumanized and devalued entire groups of people on the basis of Nazi ideology. Ideology is a set of beliefs about how the world operates. Nazi ideology was racist, antisemitic, and ultra-nationalist. It drew on a number of existing concepts. These concepts included racism, nationalism, antisemitism, anticommunism, antigypsyism, and eugenics. The Nazis combined these concepts and took them to destructive, murderous extremes. The Nazis evaluated people according to biological, racial, political, and social criteria. According to Nazi ideology, certain groups of people—such as Jews and Roma—were racial threats that undermined the racial purity of the German people. Others—such as people with disabilities—were considered biological threats. The Nazis believed they compromised the genetic health of the German people. Still others were seen as social, political, and/or ideological threats to Nazi control in Germany and beyond.

Anti-Semitism in the Middle East:

Anti-Semitism in the Middle East has existed for millennia, but increased greatly since World War II. Following the establishment of a Jewish State in Israel in 1948, the Israelis fought for control of Palestine against a coalition of Arab states. At the end of the War, Israel kept much of Palestine, resulting in the forced exodus of roughly 700,000 Muslim Palestinians from their homes. The conflict created resentment over Jewish nationalism in Muslim-majority nations. As a result, anti-Semitic activities grew in many Arab nations, causing most Jews to leave over the next few decades. Today, many North African and Middle Eastern nations have little Jewish population remaining.

Anti-Semitism in Europe and the United States:

Anti-Semitic hate crimes have spiked in Europe in recent years, especially in France, which has the world’s third largest Jewish population. In 2012, three children and a teacher were shot by a radical Islamist gunman in Toulouse, France. In the wake of the mass shooting at the satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris in 2015, four Jewish hostages were murdered at a Kosher supermarket by an Islamic terrorist. The U.K. logged a record 1,382 hate crimes against Jews in 2017, an increase of 34 percent from previous years. In the United States, anti-Semitic incidents rose 57 percent in 2017—the largest single-year increase ever recorded by the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights advocacy organization. 2018 saw a doubling of anti-Semitic assaults, according the ADL, and the single deadliest attack against the Jewish community in American history—the October 27, 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Antisemitic hate crimes in the United States surged 63 percent in 2023 with 1,832 recorded incidents, the highest on record, compared to 1,122 the previous year, according to statistics released Monday by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It was not immediately clear how many of the incidents occurred after Hamas’s deadly October 7 attack on southern Israel, when terrorists killed some 1,200 people and took 251 hostages, starting the ongoing war between Israel and the terror group. Antisemitic hate crimes shot up worldwide in the wake of the attack, and have remained at record levels since, amid the ongoing war in Gaza.

________

Why antisemitism:

Why do a people who constitute 0.2% of the world’s population elicit so much hatred? Why does a country that occupies 0.1% of the land mass in the Middle East get blamed for most of its problems?

Much of the history of the Jewish people can be found in the Old Testament, in which we learn that the Jews are the ‘chosen people’. By making a covenant with God, they would, in return for being chosen, obey his laws. After their exile in Egypt the Jewish people were led back by Moses into Israel, where, by force of arms, they were able to carve out a land of their own around 1100 BC.

In the century before the birth of Christ, the Middle East and Judea were conquered by the Romans under Pompey and became part of the Roman Empire. From the New Testament, Christians learn how the Romans governed Judea, and it is under Pilate’s orders – and amid Jewish cries of ‘Crucify him!’ – that Jesus was executed. The Romans found the Jews with their one God to be a troublesome people. They would not allow Roman gods to be worshipped in their temples even though the Romans (although not always) respected the God of the Jews.

Unrest broke out and the Romans put down the disturbances ruthlessly. After the fall of Masada, Jewish resistance was broken and the Romans expelled the Jews from Judea in AD 135 (the Diaspora). At this point we would expect the Jews to leave history in the manner of the other ancient civilisations, such as the Babylonians and the Hittites; but no, the Jewish people survived even though they were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. If we understand why, we also begin to understand the persecution that followed.

The first persecutions against the Jewish people were religious. They were ‘killers of Christ’ and ‘black magic worshippers’ who did not follow or believe in Jesus.

In the 19th century religious persecution gave way to racial persecution. The Jews were seen as parasites. This change in attitude came from a volatile brew of Social Darwinism and rising European nationalism. The Jews were seen to be the outsiders who not only did not belong but needed to be removed as a threat to society. This is the sort of emotion Hitler experienced when living in old Imperial Vienna before 1914.

More sinister, in both cases, religious and racial persecution are a facade for the real reason that the Jews were seen as threatening, namely the fear and threat from an outside group who through history had a position of power that created jealously which turned to violence in troubled times.

Hitler did not invent the hatred of Jews. Jews in Europe had been victims of discrimination and persecution since the Middle Ages, often for religious reasons. Christians saw the Jewish faith as an aberration that had to be quashed. Jews were sometimes forced to convert or they were not allowed to practise certain professions.

Jews have long recognized that the rest of the world may look on with sympathy, real or feigned, when they have been targeted – whether it was the czar’s Cossacks, Hitler’s SS, the Munich massacre of Israeli Olympians, or the October 7 massacre. The late prime minister Golda Meir once observed, “The world hates Jews that hit back. The world loves us only when we are to be pitied.”

Antisemitism is of course a complex phenomenon. The simple answer for what lies behind it is that Jews are a religious and cultural minority who insist on maintaining their own identity. Given the possibility of converting to Christianity or Islam, they chose to remain Jewish. Given the possibility of assimilating into a modern, secular culture, they chose to retain their ancient customs. To some, their stubbornness is profoundly insulting: “How dare they not believe what I believe, eat what I eat or celebrate what I do? They must think they are better than I am, and therefore I hate them.” The sad truth is that when hatred becomes part of a person’s worldview, it tends to dominate everything else.

_______

Book:

Hate Spin:

The Manufacture of Religious Offense and Its Threat to Democracy:

by Cherian George, 2017

In the United States, elements of the religious right fuel fears of an existential Islamic threat, spreading anti-Muslim rhetoric into mainstream politics. In Indonesia, Muslim absolutists urge suppression of churches and minority sects, fostering a climate of rising intolerance. In India, right wing supporters instigate communal riots and academic censorship in pursuit of their Hindu nationalist vision. Outbreaks of religious intolerance are usually assumed to be visceral and spontaneous. But in Hate Spin, Cherian George shows that they often involve sophisticated campaigns manufactured by political opportunists to mobilize supporters and marginalize opponents. Right-wing networks orchestrate the giving of offense and the taking of offense as instruments of identity politics, exploiting democratic space to promote agendas that undermine democratic values.

George calls this strategy “hate spin”—a double-sided technique that combines hate speech (incitement through vilification) with manufactured offense-taking (the performing of righteous indignation). It is deployed in societies as diverse as Buddhist Myanmar and Orthodox Christian Russia. George looks at the world’s three largest democracies, where intolerant groups within India’s Hindu right, America’s Christian right, and Indonesia’s Muslim right are all accomplished users of hate spin. He also shows how the Internet and Google have opened up new opportunities for cross-border hate spin.

George argues that governments must protect vulnerable communities by prohibiting calls to action that lead directly to discrimination and violence. But laws that try to protect believers’ feelings against all provocative expression invariably backfire. They arm hate spin agents’ offense-taking campaigns with legal ammunition. Anti-discrimination laws and a commitment to religious equality will protect communities more meaningfully than misguided attempts to insulate them from insult.

______

Hate based on gender:

Misogyny:

Misogyny is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of sexism that can keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide. An example of misogyny is violence against women, which includes domestic violence and, in its most extreme forms, misogynist terrorism and femicide. Misogyny also often operates through sexual harassment, coercion, and psychological techniques aimed at controlling women, and by legally or socially excluding women from full citizenship. In some cases, misogyny rewards women for accepting an inferior status. Misogyny can be understood both as an attitude held by individuals, primarily by men, and as a widespread cultural custom or system. Sometimes misogyny manifests in obvious and bold ways; other times it is more subtle or disguised in ways that provide plausible deniability.

Online misogyny:

Misogynistic rhetoric is pervasive online and has grown more aggressive over time. Online misogyny includes both individual attempts to intimidate and denigrate women, denial of gender inequity (neosexism), and also coordinated, collective attempts such as vote brigading and the Gamergate antifeminist harassment campaign. In a paper written for the Journal of International Affairs, Kim Barker and Olga Jurasz discuss how online misogyny can lead to women facing obstacles when trying to engage in the public and political spheres of the Internet due to the abusive nature of these spaces.

Coordinated attacks:

The most likely targets for misogynistic attacks by coordinated groups are women who are visible in the public sphere, women who speak out about the threats they receive, and women who are perceived to be associated with feminism or feminist gains. Authors of misogynistic messages are usually anonymous or otherwise difficult to identify. Their rhetoric involves misogynistic epithets and graphic or sexualised imagery. It centres on the women’s physical appearance, and prescribes sexual violence as a corrective for the targeted women. Examples of famous people who spoke out about misogynistic attacks are Anita Sarkeesian, Laurie Penny, Caroline Criado Perez, Stella Creasy, and Lindy West. These attacks do not always remain online only. Swatting was used to bring Gamergate attacks into the physical world.

Incels:

Individuals tend to act differently depending on whether they are acting alone or if they are in a group. To explain this phenomenon, researchers created the concept of deindividuation, which can be described as a situation where individuals no longer view themselves as individuals, because they are acting in a group. In such situations, inner restraints often reduce which can extract suppressed behaviors and people generally feel less self-aware and more anonymous. The sense anonymity is even stronger in groups on the internet, where individuals can post and engage in discussions without disclosing their real identity. This can make individuals say and do things that they would not have said or done in real life. The influence of others can lead to groups norms being created. Group norms are abstract concepts which are created through social interaction. Members of the group are affected by observing how other group members behave and by being confronted about, for example, their beliefs and opinions. Thereby, group norms are created and continuously enforced by the opinions, behaviors, and arguments of the group members. An example of how groups emerge on the internet, how they interact with each other and the consequences it may have both online and in the real world is the phenomenon of incels.

Incels, or involuntary celibates, is an online community of men who believe they cannot get into heterosexual relationships. They share a common belief that women pick partners based solely on looks, so due to their unattractiveness, they will be alone forever. Due to this perception of themselves, incels in turn hate women, and believe that men are systematically discriminated against. Stacy is a word that incels use to describe women that are very feminine and attractive. Incels have a large network of male-oriented websites dedicated to the cyber hate of women, discrimination, and networking of misogyny. In the incel form of misogyny, all women are discriminated against, however, women of colour are doubly denigrated by sexism and racism. Incels endorse and participate in sexism, racism, and mass violence. They are not only a threat in online communities, but they also carry their misogyny over to killing sprees, like the 2014 Isla Vista massacre that inspired other incel acts of violence. Incel existence and rhetoric is a good example of misogyny online.

Gender based hate crime:

There are a number of indicators that can help to identify a gender bias in a potential hate crime. Such indicators, known as “bias indicators”, can prompt authorities to investigate a crime as a gender-based hate crime, enabling a tailored response. Gender-based Hate Crimes disproportionately affect women and girls as it is driven by misogyny, the belief that women are a lesser gender than men and should always remain at a lower status than men. Gender-based Hate Crimes are used as a form of intimidation and suppression of different ways of life and expressions of identity that are not perceived to be following “traditional” gender roles and norms. In England and Wales, 2 women are killed by their partners every week. Of all female homicides, 40% are killed by gendered violence, which means sexual violence, domestic violence, honour killing, etc. Every minute of the day the UK police receive a call about domestic abuse, in which 89% of which are about a woman being abused by a man (Amnesty UK). According to Women’s Aid, only 24% of cases of domestic violence are reported. Gender inequality, including both stereotypes and sexism, is believed to be the root cause of gender-based violence against women. Gender-based Hate Crime can also affect men. It is known as misandry and is defined as hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys.

_____

Hate based on sexual orientation:

Terminology:

Bisexual = The sexual orientation of a person who is sexually and romantically attracted to both women and men.

Gay = A synonym for homosexual in many parts of the world; used specifically to refer to the sexual orientation of a man whose primary sexual and romantic attraction is toward other men.

Heterosexual = The sexual orientation of a person whose primary sexual and romantic attraction is toward people of another sex.

Homophobia = Fear of, contempt of, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality, usually based on negative stereotypes of homosexuality.

Homosexual = The sexual orientation of a person whose primary sexual and romantic attractions are toward people of the same sex.

LGBT = Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender; an inclusive term for groups and identities sometimes also grouped as “sexual and gender minorities.”

LGBTI/LGBTQ/LGBTIQ/LGBTQI = Umbrella terms used to refer inclusively to those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender along with those who are queer and/or intersex.

Sexual Orientation = The way in which a person’s sexual and romantic desires are directed. The term describes whether a person is attracted primarily to people of the same or other sex, or to both or others.

Transgender = The gender identity of people whose sex assigned at birth does not conform to their identified or lived gender. A transgender person usually adopts, or would prefer to adopt, a gender expression in consonance with their gender identity but may or may not desire to permanently alter their physical characteristics to conform to their gender identity.

Transphobia = Fear of, contempt of or discrimination against transgender persons, usually based on negative stereotypes of transgender identity.

Camila Díaz Córdova, a 29-year-old transgender woman, tried for years to escape the violence that had characterized her life in El Salvador. She made her way to the United States in 2017 to seek asylum, but after four months in immigration detention, in November 2017, she was deported to El Salvador and to her eventual death. On July 27, 2020, a court in El Salvador convicted three police officers of killing Díaz. Prosecutors alleged that on January 31, 2019, the officers had forced her into the back of a pickup truck, beaten her, and thrown her from the moving vehicle. She died several days later. The judge held that the evidence, including the vehicle’s GPS tracking, the location where Díaz was found, and Díaz’s autopsy report established the officers’ criminal responsibility. It was the first time anyone had ever been convicted for killing a transgender person in El Salvador. While this ruling represented a much needed first step toward accountability for anti-trans violence in El Salvador, hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people there and in neighboring Honduras and Guatemala have continued. Recent research reveals that, over the course of their lifetimes, about one in five lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans will experience hate violence. More than one in four transgender people face the same risk. LGBT people are nine times more likely than non-LGBT people to be victims of violent hate crimes. LGBT make up only 3.5% of the total U.S. population yet are highly overrepresented as victims of hate crimes.

The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting remains the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history. On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded more than 50 at Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The act has been described by investigators as an Islamic terrorist attack and a hate crime. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) people frequently experience violence directed toward their sexuality, gender identity, or gender expression. This violence may be enacted by the state, as in laws prescribing punishment for homosexual acts, or by individuals. It may be psychological or physical and motivated by biphobia, gayphobia, homophobia, lesbophobia, aphobia, and transphobia. Influencing factors may be cultural, religious, or political mores and biases. Currently, homosexual acts are legal in almost all Western countries, and in many of these countries violence against LGBTQ people is classified as a hate crime. Outside the West, many countries are deemed potentially dangerous to their LGBTQ population due to both discriminatory legislation and threats of violence. These include countries where the dominant religion is Islam, most African countries (except South Africa), most Asian countries (except such LGBT-friendly countries as Israel, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines), and some former communist countries such as Russia, Poland (LGBTQ-free zone), Serbia, Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such violence is often associated with religious condemnation of homosexuality or conservative social attitudes that portray homosexuality as an illness or a character flaw. All LGBT people are potential targets of hate crimes — of which the most frequent are vandalism, criminal threats, and assaults — yet individual rates of victimization also vary by race, age, gender, or other characteristics. For example, LGBT people of color typically experience more serious hate crimes than white LGBT victims. And even though transgender people experience the same types of crimes as lesbian, gay, and bisexual victims, they report higher rates of injury from these incidents.

The homophobia definition is the fear, hatred, discomfort with, or mistrust of people who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Biphobia is fear, hatred, discomfort, or mistrust, specifically of people who are bisexual. Similarly, transphobia is fear, hatred, discomfort with, or mistrust of people who are transgender, genderqueer, or don’t follow traditional gender norms. Although transphobia, biphobia, and homophobia are similar, they’re not the same thing. Both gay and straight people can be transphobic and biphobic, and people can be transphobic without being homophobic or biphobic. Homophobic people may use mean language and name-calling when they talk about lesbian and gay people. Biphobic people may tell bisexual people that it’s “just for attention,” or that they’re inherently cheaters. In its most extreme forms, homophobia and biphobia can cause people to bully, abuse, and inflict violence on lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

Internalized homophobia:

Internalized homophobia refers to people who are homophobic while also experiencing same-sex attraction themselves. Sometimes, people may have negative attitudes and beliefs about those who experience same-sex attraction, and then turn the negative beliefs in on themselves rather than come to terms with their own desires. This may mean that they feel discomfort and disapproval with their own same-sex attractions, never accept their same-sex attractions, or never identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. People dealing with internalized homophobia may feel the need to “prove” that they’re straight, exhibit very stereotypical behavior of straight men and women, or even bully and discriminate against openly gay people.

Outing:

Outing is the act of revealing someone else’s sexual orientation without their permission. If you share information about someone’s sexual orientation against their wishes, you risk affecting their lives very negatively by making them feel embarrassed, upset, and vulnerable. You may also put them at risk for discrimination and violence. If someone shares their orientation with you, remember that this is very personal information and it’s an honor that they trusted you enough to tell you. Always ask them what you’re allowed to share with others and respect their wishes.

The roots of antigay bias:

Prejudice toward sexual minorities is rooted in what psychologists call sexual stigma. This is an attitude that reflects “the negative regard, inferior status and relative powerlessness that society collectively accords to any nonheterosexual behavior, identity, relationship or community.” Sexual stigma exists and operates at both individual and society-wide levels.

At the societal level, sexual stigma is referred to as heterosexism. The conviction that heterosexuals and their behaviors and relationships are superior to those of sexual minorities is built into various social ideologies and institutions – including religion, language, laws and norms about gender roles. For example, religious views that homosexual behavior is immoral support heteronormative norms, which ultimately stigmatize sexual minorities.

On an individual level, heterosexuals can internalize sexual stigma as sexual prejudice. They buy into what they see around them in their culture that indicates sexual minorities are inferior. Consider the Defense of Marriage Act. This legislation, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, denied homosexuals the rights held by heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can incorporate that stigmatizing view into their own belief system.

Sexual minorities themselves can internalize sexual stigma, too – a process called self-stigma. Aligning their own self-concept with society’s negative regard for homosexuality results in myriad negative health outcomes.

The heterosexism of our society and the sexual prejudice of individuals are interrelated, reinforcing each other. When cultural ideologies and institutions espouse heterosexism, they provide the basis for individuals’ sexual prejudice – and perpetration of violence based on it. Conversely, researchers theorize that pro-gay attitudes reduce heterosexism that exists within these same institutions.

Beyond prejudice: a masculinity problem:

Heterosexual masculinity is a fundamental factor that starts to explain anti-LGBT violence. To be masculine, one must be heterosexual, so the thinking goes. The logic continues that any man who’s not heterosexual is therefore feminine. In essence, a man’s aggression toward sexual minorities serves to enforce traditional gender norms and demonstrate his own heterosexual masculinity to other men.

Other norms can also lead to violence under certain circumstances. For instance, recent data indicate that alcohol intoxication may trigger thoughts that men need to be tough and aggressive. Being drunk and having toughness in mind may influence men to act in line with this version of masculinity and attack gay men.

Studies also indicate that perpetrators of hate crimes, including violence toward sexual minorities, seek to alleviate boredom and have fun – termed thrill-seeking. It’s important to note that for thrill-seeking assailants, the selection of sexual minority targets is not random. Given that sexual stigma devalues homosexuality, it sanctions these perpetrators’ strategic choice of a socially devalued target.

Hate crimes against LGBT people: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017-2019:

Authors estimate the prevalence and characteristics of violent hate crime victimization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the United States, and authors compare them to non-LGBT hate crime victims and to LGBT victims of violent non-hate crime. Authors analyze pooled 2017-2019 data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (n persons = 553,925; n incidents = 32,470), the first nationally representative and comprehensive survey on crime that allows identification of LGBT persons aged 16 or older. Descriptive and bivariate analysis show that LGBT people experienced 6.6 violent hate crime victimizations per 1,000 persons compared with non-LGBT people’s 0.6 per 1,000 persons (odds ratio = 8.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.94, 14.65). LGBT people were more likely to be hate crime victims of sexual orientation or gender bias crime and less likely to be victims of race or ethnicity bias crimes compared to non-LGBT hate crime victims. Compared to non-LGBT victims, LGBT victims of hate crime were more likely to be younger, have a relationship with their assailant, and have an assailant who is white. Compared to LGBT victims of non-hate violence, more LGBT hate crime victims reported experiencing problems in their social lives, negative emotional responses, and physical symptoms of distress. Authors findings affirm claims that hate crimes have adverse physical and psychological effects on victims and highlight the need to ensure that LGBT persons who experience hate crime get necessary support and services in the aftermath of the crime.

_____

Section-6

Hate in children:

How Hatred is Programmed into the Minds of Children:

It has been suggested that the “Psychological Descent into Violence” is associated with a continuum of attitudes that progress from simple bias, to prejudice, to bigotry and finally to hatred. It is only when hatred is developed in the minds of individuals that there is the likelihood of premeditated violence directed against a particular target group. Hatred is an emotion or passion and a form of delusional thinking. It requires an object, the choice of which may be rational or irrational.

The increased volume of the cerebral cortex of Homo sapiens provides the potential for more complex cognitive functions than other species. Studies using fMRI indicate that mature decision making is largely dependent on cortical functions involving mainly the prefrontal areas. The more primitive limbic structures, the hippocampus and amygdala play an important role in affective responses. The hippocampus functions to form and retrieve both verbal and emotional memories, whereas the amygdala creates the emotional content of memory (i.e. fear and aggressive responses). The concept of the prefrontal cortex modulating output from the more primitive brain areas seems fairly well established, all be it a probably over simplified concept. It is, however, important to point out that prefrontal activity can either enhance or suppress limbic urges. How the prefrontal areas are programmed and function will ultimately determine person to person and person to group behaviors.

There is a growing body of evidence that psychological insults in the first several years of life can have undesirable consequences. Critical brain structures are often irreversibly altered by exposure to physical, emotional or sexual abuse. Imaging studies have demonstrated that structures involving the limbic system are often diminished in size, probably secondary to the effect of stress hormones. These structures include the amygdala, the hippocampus and the vermis of the cerebellum. The middle part of the corpus callosum also is smaller than expected. The functional result of these changes seems to be a “hyper excitable” limbic system primed to respond to “fight or flight” with minimal sensory input. Such a neurophysiologic setup may have been adaptive for survival in primitive times but is clearly a hindrance to thoughtful interpersonal relationships.

In addition to adversely altering brain structure and physiology, psychological maltreatment creates a feeling of intense anger in the abused towards the abuser or abusers. This anger which is often suppressed in authoritarian societies due to the realistic fear of immediate retribution should be expressed. Nonetheless, a channel for expression of this anger may later result in the victimization of others.

It is clear from anthropological studies that human beings can be “sold a bill of goods” during growth and development. Stories propagated from childhood are accepted as truth, even though objective observers often marvel at the preposterous nature of some of the “learned” scenarios. Should the storyline portray the members of a society as victims of another group, then the stage is set for the full expression of the psychological defense mechanism of splitting. As described by Burdman, splitting has its roots in the buried emotions of childhood trauma. Moreover, splitting is a process “whereby antagonistic feelings toward the parent and toward the individual himself continue as a damned up source of predominately subconscious anger”. Later, this anger is discharged by projection outward onto a socially endorsed target.

It appears that indoctrination to particular scenarios provides the vehicle for hatred that is fueled by dammed up anger from early childhood experiences. That is not to say that the storylines generating various false beliefs could not in and of themselves produce high levels of animosity toward specific individuals and groups. The teaching of storylines that distort history, promote false beliefs and propagate negative feelings toward particular ethnic or racial groups for political purposes creates a major problem.

Certainly, childhood psychological, physical and sexual abuse, could contribute to future violent behavior. Unfortunately, there are authoritarian societies where these kinds of mental and physical maltreatments are part and parcel of the culture. Parents, schools and local and national authorities can be implicated as the source of such maltreatment.

If the mental and physical maltreatment of children and the indoctrination to false beliefs were stopped, the development of hatred in children could be virtually eliminated.

_______

Theories of development of hate in children:

-1. SELF PSYCHOLOGY THEORY BY HEINZ KOHUT:

According to this theory, a new born has an undifferentiated self, meaning that it exists only in relationship to its primary care giver. Newborns are not able to differentiate that the good parent who gratifies them by picking them up, feeding them, cuddling them is also the bad person who frustrates them- does not pick them up or does not feed them at times. When infants are 8 months old, the process of integration of this “split” begins and by 36 months, they are able to integrate fairly well that “good” and bad person are the same and thus good and bad qualities can exist within the same person.

If they receive good enough parenting, (not perfect or best) they are able to tolerate ambivalence much better, that is, they are able to both love and hate the same person at different times and do not feel guilty. Such persons are less prone to enmity and are able to resist peer/ group pressure better. Similarly blame, externalization and denial are all defense mechanisms used by toddlers or very young children.

Later on, the extent to which the children develop beyond these primitive levels of functioning determines their attitude towards enmity. If blame, denial or externalization persists into adolescence or adulthood, such a person “needs” and, therefore, makes enemies.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A CHILD DOES NOT RECEIVE GOOD-ENOUGH PARENTING?

The following are the situations in which the child does not receive good enough parenting:

(1. Excessive criticism by authoritarian and rigid parents.

(2. Neglect (Emotional/ Psychological) by self- absorbed, narcissistic or histrionic parents.

(3. Physical and psychological abuse by violent/ aggressive parents.

In such cases, the child develops low self-esteem, a sense of emptiness and rage. Children may find it too threatening to direct their anger towards parents so they direct their anger inwards towards themselves. Such a child becomes self-destructive.

Sometimes children externalize their anger, that is, direct their anger to an external object or person. Such children “need” enemies in order to let out their anger and in such cases the “other person or object” becomes their enemy at whom they can vent out their rage without guilt.

Figure below is an example of a child who harbors negative feelings:

-2. JUNG’S THEORY:

According to Jung, each child harbors a dark, unacceptable part of his/her personality in which are embedded unacceptable drives, emotions and impulses about themselves and their parents. Jung calls this dark side of the personality as the “shadow”. So each child or even an adult initially disowns (denies) these feelings and then projects them outwards on to someone else, who then becomes the enemy. Thus the enemy is nothing but a shadow, a dark part of one’s own self. Hence, the popular saying by POGO, the cartoon character, “we have met the enemy and it is us.”

-3. ALLPORT’S THEORY OF PREJUDICES:

According to Allport, at the age of 5-7 years, children are capable of forming prejudices towards/ against others. They are aware of racial and ethnic differences and adopt their parent’s views in order to please them. In the next 4-5 years, the young children echo their parent’s biases and prejudices. However when they reach adolescence, abstract reasoning and logic supervenes and as they gain “autonomy”, they become capable to draw their own conclusions. Thus the adolescents have a more autonomous and a less rigid thinking and hence are less prejudiced and biased and rarely need enemies. However if their autonomy is hindered or disapproved by parents, they continue to be biased and prejudiced and need enemies to project/ vent out these inner biases and prejudices.

-4. POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION THEORY:

Political socialization is defined as the process by which the individual learns to conform to the values and norms of the group to which he/ she belongs and becomes a fully functional member. According to this theory, parental attitudes as well as other socializing agents like schools, peers, media are important means to learn about enmity, biases and prejudices. Thus children learn about enmity from all these and internalize the enemy image in order to become fully functional members of that particular culture.

_______

Hate Speech among Children and Adolescents:

Children and young people are particularly vulnerable to hate speech, both online and in person. When children hear or read hate speech aimed at them directly or a part of their identity – such as their race, colour or gender – it can make them feel like there is something different or wrong about them. This can impact their self-esteem and can lead to a deterioration of their mental health, such as experiencing feelings of anxiety and depression, even thoughts about self-harm and suicide. Children and adolescents are deemed to be especially vulnerable to the detrimental effects of this phenomenon. Recent research has revealed that young people who are exposed to online hate speech (cyberhate) commonly experience negative feelings (e.g., anger, sadness or shame; UK Safer Internet Centre, 2016) as well as diminished levels of trust (Näsi et al., 2015). Exposure to hate speech may also be associated with processes of political radicalization (Bilewicz & Soral, 2020). Victims may lack appropriate coping strategies to mitigate the harm of hate speech (Krause et al., 2021) and even seek revenge (Wachs et al., 2020). Therefore, it seems crucial to carefully monitor how frequently children and adolescents encounter hate speech.

Hate speech vs bullying:

For research on children and adolescents in particular, hate speech needs to be differentiated from bullying (e.g., Lehmann, 2019). Globally, more than 30% of young people report that they have been bullied by their peers (United Nations Children Fund, 2018). Thus, a theoretical and empirical need arises to clarify whether or not hate speech and bullying have identical features and to what extent they are jointly experienced by young people. Bullying is known with its repetitive act to the same individual, unlike hate speech which is more general and not necessarily intended to hurt a specific individual. Bullying denigrates the characteristics of specific individuals, whereas hate speech denigrates the characteristics of specific social groups. Conceptually, hate speech and bullying share specific characteristics, but both constructs also differ in several aspects as seen in the figure below:

Hate speech and Bullying are different but closely related. Some young people will be involved only in either hate speech or bullying. Hate speech incidents might be the root of some bullying cases. Teachers and educators must be aware of this form of violence. Despite the rising developmental significance of the internet (specifically social media) as a socialization context for adolescents (Boer et al., 2020), hate speech incidents may still also take place in the context of face-to-face encounters (e.g., with peers or teachers at school; Krause et al., 2021). There may be links between on- and offline experiences of hate speech.

______

Section-7

Psychology of hate:

In a comprehensive review of classic as well as more contemporary conceptualizations of hatred, Royzman, McCauley, and Rozin (2005) described hatred as the most destructive affective phenomenon in the history of human nature. These destructive implications of hatred on human life have been widely documented in several recent contributions (e.g., Halperin, 2011; Levin & Nolan, 2015a, 2015b; Opotow & McClelland, 2007; Sternberg, 2005; Sullivan, Ong, La Macchia, & Louis, 2016). This literature shows that hate has been defined in a variety of ways, a problem characteristic for emotions in general. Hate has been considered an emotional attitude (Ekman, 1992), a syndrome (Solomon, 1977), a form of generalized anger (Bernier & Dozier, 2002; Frijda, 1986; Power & Dalgleish, 1997), a generalized evaluation (Ben-Ze’ev, 2000), a normative judgment (McDevitt & Levin, 1993), a motive to devalue others (Rempel & Burris, 2005), or simply an emotion (Elster, 1999). Despite these different views, it is remarkable that there is little theorizing about hate, although the topic seems to be getting increasing attention in recent years. Even more surprisingly, there is not much in-depth empirical research on hatred, especially not in psychology. Interestingly, other disciplines, such as sociology, political science, communication, and social justice research have provided interesting new empirical data, in particular on hate crime and hate speech.

The fact that hate is an under researched topic in psychology may be due to several factors.

First, hate is a phenomenon that is complex to empirically investigate with the standard psychological methods and samples. The standard student population of the majority of psychological studies report that they have never experienced hate (e.g., Aumer, Krebs Bahn, & Harris, 2015; Halperin, 2008). For example, Halperin (2008, Study 1) aimed to examine people’s lay theories of hatred. For that purpose, he asked 40 Israelis to think of one event in their lives in which they felt hatred. All 40 interviewees immediately said that they had never experienced hatred. They further stated that they had felt extreme anger, that they knew other people who experienced hatred, and that they were aware of the prevalence of hatred in conflict zones. But to feel hatred towards other people? Not them. Ironically, some of the participants who said that they had never hated someone throughout their entire lives then described specific situations in the history of the Israeli– Palestinian conflict in which they had wanted to throw a bomb on a large Palestinian city, or situations in which they wanted to do everything to annihilate or destroy the Palestinians. These examples illustrate the social inappropriateness of hate and the unwillingness to acknowledge feeling such a destructive emotion.

Second, hate has never been conceived as a standard emotion and thus did not gain from the rising popularity of the psychological study of emotions in the last decades. For example, in most empirical investigations based on appraisal theories (e.g., Roseman, 1984; Scherer, 2005), one can find emotions such as dislike, anger, or contempt, but hate is systematically lacking (Fitness & Fletcher, 1993; Halperin, 2008).

Most authors who have written on hate agree that it is a powerful negative emotional phenomenon (Aumer-Ryan & Hatfield, 2007; Royzman et al., 2005; Sternberg, 2003), although not all scholars would define it as an emotion. Hate is assumed to develop when others mistreat or humiliate someone, or whose deliberate actions have become an obstruction to someone’s goals (Aumer-Ryan & Hatfield, 2007; Baumeister & Butz, 2005; Royzman et al., 2005; Sternberg, 2003). Hate obviously shares characteristics with several other negative emotions, especially anger, contempt, or moral disgust (Fitness & Fletcher, 1993; Frijda, 1986; Halperin, 2008; Oatley & Jenkins, 1996). Indeed, hatred is partly characterized by features that are not unique to hatred. To make the demarcation with other emotions even more complex, it is highly likely that hate feelings are often accompanied by other negative emotions, maybe especially because hate is such an intense feeling. For example, individuals may report hate if appraising an event as contradicting their goals and interests (relevant to all negative emotions), perceiving the other’s behavior as unjustified and unfair (characteristic of anger), morally inferior (characteristic of contempt), or morally nauseating (prototypical for disgust). In other words, anger, contempt, disgust, humiliation, revenge feelings, and hate can all be elicited in reaction to a similar event, namely when another’s action is perceived as negative, intentional, immoral, or evil (Haidt, 2003; Rozin, 1999).

The question then is whether and how hate is different from these closely related emotions. We can theoretically distinguish these emotions on the basis of their appraisal patterns, action tendencies, and motivational goals. With respect to appraisals, hate is different from anger, because an anger target is appraised as someone whose behavior can be influenced and changed (Fischer & Roseman, 2007; Halperin, 2008; Halperin, Russell, Dweck, & Gross, 2011). A hate target, on the contrary, implies appraisals of the other’s malevolent nature and malicious intent. In other words, hate is characterized by appraisals that imply a stable perception of a person or group and thus the incapability to change the extremely negative characteristics attributed to the target of hate (Allport, 1954; Royzman et al., 2005; Schoenewolf, 1996; Sternberg, 2003). Its appraisals are targeted at the hate target itself, rather than at specific actions carried out by that target (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). While we feel anger because a certain action by a certain person or group is appraised as immoral, unfair, or unjust, if that very same person changed their behavior, the levels of anger would be reduced and the person would be forgiven. However, the entire configuration of hatred appraisals focuses on the innate nature, motives, and characteristics of the target itself and therefore a momentary change in certain behavioral patterns will not necessarily diminish levels of hatred. One hates one’s father because he is perceived as a bad father in one’s entire youth, not just once. An individual hates his wife because she has betrayed him and humiliated him deeply and repeatedly. In such cases, there is nothing the hate target can do to make up or repair. The other is malicious, not just acts maliciously. This assessment also contributes to feelings of powerlessness, which have often been reported as a characteristic condition in the development of hate (Sternberg, 2005). Indeed, Fitness and Fletcher’s (1993) prototype analysis of hate (vs. anger, jealousy, and love) shows that the concept of hate includes low levels of control, high levels of obstacles, and intense unpleasantness, because one feels badly treated, unsupported, humiliated, ignored, or uncared for. This sense of powerlessness may be fed by the appraisal that hate targets are dangerous and may execute their malicious intentions at any time.

In short, when individuals experience hate, they typically perceive their hate target as having malicious intentions and being immoral, which is accompanied by feelings of lack of control or powerlessness. Such appraisals are not the result of one specific action, but of a belief about the stable disposition of the hated person or group. This stable and dispositional attribution of negative characteristics to the target of one’s emotion can also be found in appraisals of contempt (Halperin, 2008; Jasini & Fischer, 2018) and disgust (Russell & Giner-Sorolla, 2011). In the case of contempt, however, the target of one’s emotion is seen as inferior (Fischer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016), and in the case of disgust, appraisals are more specifically related to violations of a moral code in relation to what happens with one’s own body, such as bodily contamination (Fischer & GinerSorolla, 2016). Appraisals of humiliation are more specific than those of hate, entailing the appraisal of a specific act as extremely derogating and a threat to one’s self-worth (Mann, Feddes, Doosje, & Fischer, 2016), which is also the case for feelings of revenge (see Seip, 2016). In sum, the core set of appraisals of hate seems to be the attribution of stable and malicious intentions to the target, accompanied by appraisals of danger and feelings of powerlessness.

However, the main difference between hate and other negative emotions lies in its action tendencies known as emotivational goals. It refers to the action that the emotion brings out in a particular individual experiencing hate towards someone. The coercion goal of hate, for instance, is related to the goal of attacking someone either physically or verbally. The exclusion goal is related to the tendency of the hater to completely ignore or look down upon the hate target (Roseman et al., 1994). According to Roseman, Wiest, and Swartz (1994), an emotivational goal reflects what the emotion tries to bring about, and thus drives the emotional experience. Emotivational goal can implicitly be found in others’ theorizing as well. White (1996) for example describes hatred as the desire to harm, humiliate, or even kill its object—not always instrumentally, but rather to cause harm as a vengeful objective in itself. Bar-Tal (2007) also suggested that hatred is a hostile feeling directed toward another person or group that consists of malice, repugnance, and willingness to harm and even annihilate the object of hatred. Whereas anger implies a coercion goal, that is, the motive to change another person by attacking, confronting, or criticizing, contempt implies an exclusion goal (Fischer & Roseman, 2007), motivating individuals to exclude others from their social environment (Halperin, 2008; Halperin, Canetti, & Kimhi, 2012; Jasini & Fischer, 2018). Adopting a social functional perspective on emotions (Fischer & Manstead, 2016; Keltner & Haidt, 1999), the emotivational goal of hate is not merely to hurt, but to ultimately eliminate or destroy the target, either mentally (humiliating, treasuring feelings of revenge), socially (excluding, ignoring), or physically (killing, torturing), which may be accompanied by the goal to let the wrongdoer suffer (Ben-Ze’ev, 2008). Although actions and expressions related to hate, anger, contempt, disgust, humiliation, or revenge can be similar, their emotivational goals are different (see Figure below). Anger has the emotivational goal to change the target (e.g., by attacking), contempt has the goal to socially exclude (e.g., by avoiding or derogating), and revenge has the goal to restore the equity in suffering and deter (Seip, 2016). Humiliation has shown to have different goals, depending on the specific context: to withdraw and protect oneself (Mann et al., 2016) or to rehumiliate, that is, take revenge.

Figure below shows the overlap of appraisals and action tendencies, characteristic of anger, contempt, hate, humiliation and revenge.

The emotivational goal associated with hate is to destroy the hate target, whether physically, socially, or symbolically. This goal is associated with the aforementioned appraisals and is different from the goals of contempt (social exclusion), disgust (distancing oneself), revenge (getting even), humiliation (withdrawal), or anger (attack). Still all these emotions can occur together with hate and each of them can become associated with the sentiment hate.

How exactly the emotivational goal of hate is translated into a specific action will differ, depending on why someone has developed hate and what the relation between the victim and perpetrator is. The best way to eliminate the parent one hates, for example, is to completely ignore them and ban them entirely from one’s life, whereas the best way to destroy hated CEOs may be to derogate, ridicule, and scorn them. In extreme occasions, violence or actual murder may be a viable option, but if this is not feasible, then one can cherish feelings of revenge.

From a functional perspective, hate is part of a self-defense system by attempting to eliminate the target of one’s hate. In an intergroup context, one’s group identity is threatened by an outgroup member, and self-defense implies defense of one’s group membership. Hate seems particularly prone to spreading at this intergroup level because it helps us to defend ourselves by strengthening the ties with our ingroup and putting all the blame for insecurity and violence elsewhere. Because hate is based on the perception of a stable, malevolent disposition of the other person, haters perceive little room for constructive change, and therefore there seem only radical options left to act upon one’s hate. In case of most emotions, the fulfillment of the emotivational goal reduces the emotion. For example, one may seek revenge in order to get even in suffering, and once this has been established, feelings of revenge decrease (see also Seip, Rotteveel, van Dillen, & van Dijk, 2014). In the case of hate, this means elimination of the target. This leaves the question whether hate can be changed or down-regulated. This is difficult, and the only way to regulate hate would be to reappraise the malevolent intentions of the outgroup as stable and as a result of their identity or character. Trying to explain the hated target’s actions in terms of circumstances rather than nature would be a first step. In the same vein, merely being angry, devoid of hate, would be a much more constructive emotion because its intensity can be decreased if the target apologizes or changes their behavior. Whether we can down-regulate hate, and how it relates to perspective taking, empathy and forgiveness are interesting and socially relevant venues for future research.

Agneta Fischer, Eran Halperin, Daphna Canetti and Alba Jasini conclude that people hate persons and groups more because of who they are, than because of what they do. Psychologists José I. Navarro, Esperanza Marchena and Inmaculada Menacho add that hatred is based not just on a negative perception of others, but also depends on one’s personal history; its effects on one’s personality; one’s feelings, ideas or ideologies, beliefs, and their identity. In his ‘duplex theory of hatred’, Robert J. Sternberg also argues that hatred, like love, has its origins in personal stories that characterise one’s emotions.

Hatred due to frustration at under-achievement:

All those who spew hatred, including jingoists and the hyper-nationalists are often under-achievers in life. This leads to a deep-rooted inferiority complex and frustration. They must blame something for it, which also becomes an object of resentment and later, hatred. However, in an effort to salvage some of their sagging self-esteem, they try to compensate for it by latching on to something, which, in their perception, is visibly, tangibly an ‘achiever’ – such as a political party or some well-known organisation. By associating themselves with that organisation, they feel that the prestige, recognition or glory of the organisation will ‘rub off’ onto them and compensate for what they could not achieve individually.

Precisely for this reason, the most fanatical supporters of political parties anywhere in the world which make hyper-nationalism their plank are generally found amongst those people who, on an individual level, have not been able to do well in life. Donald Trump’s first victory in the US presidential elections, as the New York Times analysed, was based largely upon low-income white Americans without a college degree. Trump attacked undocumented immigrants and Muslims vehemently and thus addressed their hidden fears directly, something which they themselves had been reluctant to give expression to for fear of being derided as non-liberal and thus inconsistent with the very idea of America. Trump unabashedly said what they always wanted to say and captured their hearts. You can apply the same logic to the Indian context and you will understand the phenomenon of communal hatred.

One of the crucial components that underlie the psychology of hatred is low self-esteem and poor self-image. This leads to fear of other groups and individuals taking over resources that one desires to establish. It also results in catastrophic thinking and in order to compensate they attempt to commit cold impulsive acts that they believe can aid their perception of self. Observing others’ failures and sufferings can somehow alleviate their ongoing distress. Research in psychology indicates that hate can be a response to perceived threats or significant social and economic stress. For example, studies have shown that individuals who feel economically threatened may be more likely to harbor prejudices against those they view as competitors for resources.

For under-achievers, adversity or difficult times can act as a catalyst too. Navarro et al conclude that adversity in life can trigger and intensify hatred as well as jealousy.

Group behaviour leads to greater negativity:

In Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics, Reinhold Niebuhr had established that people are more likely to sin as members of groups than as individuals. Bernard Golden observes that when haters participate in a group, it fosters a sense of connection and camaraderie that fills a void in their individual identity. Hatred comes with an unstated ‘legitimisation of violence’ against the object of hatred because he is devalued so much that he does not ‘deserve’ any empathy. However, an individual restrains the beast that lurks within his subconscious to some extent because he is afraid of the consequences. It bursts forth and becomes more monstrous in groups. The psychology of people hating more virulently when they are part of groups or organisations is essentially the same as that of people committing rapes or other crimes during mass crimes like riots. In both, you have the shield of protection from the group itself or the anonymity offered by the group. Simply put, the in-group is what we are part of and the out group is what they are a part of. This quite literally creates an “us vs. them” mentality which can be a very potent catalyst for acts of hatred. It’s extremely easy for us to place blame on “the other” to suit the in-group’s agenda. An article published in the Association for Psychological Science by Nir Halevy, Gary Bornstein, and Lilach Sagiv in 2008 discusses how groups will employ solidarity tactics, highlighting similarities among members as well as reinforcing collective group identity in order to strengthen in-group altruism and increase punishment of those who reject the group identity. This drastically boosts the amount of aggression toward the out-group, due to the fact that such a difference exists.

Resonance with a leader:

Generally, even as many people harbour communal hatred, they are apprehensive of giving it a public expression lest it meets with social opprobrium. However, a leader who shamelessly espouses blatantly communal or racist hatred and blames certain racial groups or communities as the source of all evil and all failings of the people of the target audience, immediately strikes a chord in the hearts of those people. Swearing allegiance to such leaders frees the followers from any guilt. Individually, they might be insecure in their convictions; however, latching on to a strong leader ‘hardens’ their beliefs as well as hatred. Political scientist Matthew MacWilliams had found that individuals with a disposition to authoritarianism and a fear of ‘the other’ tended to support Trump. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had told Trump the same thing, “You rely on a frightened America for your plunder.” In the BBC TV documentary ‘The Power of Nightmares’, Adam Curtis observed, “In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.” Conversely, a leader who helps bring out the ‘demon within’ the collective subconscious of the people immediately becomes popular. A similar phenomenon has been working in India too.

______

Hate as emotion:

Currently, there is no consensus among scholars about hate’s nature. Hate has been described widely as an emotion, but also as an attitude or a sentiment. Some scholars think that hate is an extreme version of anger or dislike; some describe hate as a blend of emotions such as anger, contempt and disgust; and others regard hate as a distinct and unique feeling. Theories also diverge in their descriptions of hate’s antecedents, triggers, functions and behavioural outcomes. Nevertheless, people confidently talk about hate speech, hate crime, or anti-hate campaigns.

Hatred has been described: an emotional attitude, a syndrome, a form of generalized anger, a generalized evaluation, a normative judgment, a motive to devalue others, or simply an emotion. Lee Chambers, psychologist and founder of Essentialise Workplace Wellbeing, noted that: “Hate is part of that range of human emotions. It is quite distinct; in that it is a longer-term emotion. It’s not an immediate, acute emotion, like anger or sadness.” According to Dr. Rebecca Saxe, hate shares characteristics with other negative emotions, such as anger, contempt, and disgust. It differs from them in that it focuses on the innate nature, motives, and characteristics of the target. “A hostile feeling toward another person or group that consists of malice, repugnance and willingness to harm or even annihilate the object of hatred,” she says. Dr. Saxe regards hate as an extension of the human tendency to form groups — and for those groups to become “us,” the in-group, versus “them,” the out-group. In a 2018 article, Prof. Agneta Fischer from the University of Amsterdam and her co-authors described hatred as “the most destructive affective phenomenon in the history of human nature.” Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness, stressing that it was linked to the question of self-preservation. Adam Phillips went so far as to suggest that true kindness is impossible in a relationship without hating and being hated, so that an unsentimental acknowledgement of interpersonal frustrations and their associated hostilities can allow real fellow-feeling to emerge.

Primary emotions:

Primary emotions are the core, underlying feelings that are most fundamental to an individual’s experience in a given situation. They are not reactions to other emotions, but are the original, direct emotional responses. Imagine that you find out you won a competition, and your primary emotion may be to feel extreme joy. Or if you receive some bad news that you were not expecting, you may feel a surge of sadness. These primary emotions are the body’s first response directly connected to the event or stimulus. Primary emotions are often very strong, which makes them easy to identify. They are thought to be instinctive, primal, and sensitive. Primary emotions are adaptive as they make us react a certain way without the emotion being contaminated or analyzed by thoughts or habits. Psychologist Paul Ekman identified six primary emotions: Anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. He theorized that these human emotions are innate and shared by everyone across cultures. Another psychologist named Robert Plutchik identified eight primary emotions, which he grouped into four pairs of polar opposites: joy-sadness, anger-fear, trust-disgust, and surprise-anticipation. He famously developed the Feelings Wheel to display these emotions alongside their secondary emotions.

Secondary emotions:

Secondary emotions are the emotions that are often felt after the primary emotion has been experienced. They are the reactions to our primary emotions and are often habitual or learned responses. For instance, after feeling the primary emotion of anger, you may feel the secondary emotion of shame afterward; instead of feeling joy, you may feel relief or pride; instead of feeling fear, you may feel hateful. Secondary emotions are thought to arise from higher cognitive processes and come after the primary emotion. The purpose of secondary emotions is to cover up the sensitive primary emotions with something less sensitive. In this way, they are a way of protecting the self from being vulnerable. Some secondary emotions, such as guilt, shame, resentment, frustration, and remorse, can lead to more hurt and pain as they build up over time. These emotions are often learned in childhood from parents or other people in our lives.

The main difference between primary and secondary emotions is that primary emotions are how we react to events and situations, whereas secondary emotions are reactions to how we feel. For example, feeling shame (secondary) about feeling fear (primary) in a certain situation. The distinction helps in understanding emotional reactions and their underlying causes more deeply.

If you are unsure as to whether you are feeling a primary or secondary emotion, ask yourself if the emotion is directly a reaction or not. If it is a direct reaction, it is likely primary. If it is not a direct reaction, it is likely secondary.

You can also ask yourself whether the emotions receded after the initiating event receded. If the emotion was strong at first but has since diminished, it is likely a primary emotion. If the emotion continues long after the event and interferes with your abilities in the present, it is likely secondary.

Primary emotions, like anger, fear, or disgust, are fundamental to evolution, survival and adaptation. They are universal, shared across cultures, and present from infancy. These basic emotions have distinct physiological and facial expression patterns.

From a psychological standpoint, hate is a secondary emotion, a learned response from personal experiences, social conditioning, and cognitive processes. Although hate is influenced by other emotions, such as anger, disgust, and contempt, it shouldn’t be equated with them. In fact, research claims that it’s more arousing than these three moral emotions and that it’s closer to disgust and contempt than anger and loathing. Hatred or hate is an intense negative emotional response towards certain people, things or ideas, usually related to opposition or revulsion toward something. Hatred is often associated with intense feelings of anger, contempt, and disgust.

Figure below shows that Hatred is a combination of primary emotions, including anger, fear, and disgust, that can lead to secondary emotions.

Hate is not inherent, it is taught:

No one is intrinsically hateful. It is a learned action. No one is born to look at another human being and feel intense vitriol and loathing, like you are better than them for some characteristic that neither you nor they have any control over. Psychological research overwhelmingly supports the idea that hatred is learned, not innate. Studies in developmental psychology show that infants as young as 13 months demonstrate a preference for fairness and cooperation over discrimination. The famous Robbers Cave Experiment illustrates how group-based prejudice is artificially created through competition and dismantled through cooperation. Implicit bias research reveals that societal conditioning shapes prejudice over time, reinforcing the idea that hate is not an instinct but a learned response to cultural and environmental influences. The Bobo Doll Experiment shows that children learn aggressive, mean and hateful behavior only after watching someone else act in that way. It is a slow and deliberate breeding of prejudice reinforced by the environment, media and those in positions of power. It is the casual remarks of a parent, the online echo chambers of misinformation and the president of a country and those he surrounds himself with fearmongering and empowering hateful individuals time and time again.

______

Role of cognition in hatred:

When we consider the amount of violence between family members, the tragedy of the two World Wars and the many local ones, terrorist attacks or the genocides we have seen happen, we become aware that the harm that humans can do to each other represents a serious threat to us. Theorists from Freud to the present day have faced the difficult task of understanding the reason for hatred and violence (Post, 2005). In recent decades, the cognitive-behavioural perspective has provided a useful explanation, and the hope that it may lead to strategies for prevention and intervention. The cognitive perspective developed from the intuition that people’s thoughts strongly influence their emotional responses and behaviour. Ideas of rejection, failure or loss make us feel sad and we have a tendency to get carried away by such feelings. Ideas of achievement, success and approval from others encourage us to keep going. Ideas of danger or fear drive us to be anxious and to do something to prevent it. The thought of being wrong or of being mistreated produces anger and impels us to seek revenge. These ideas are floating in our minds, are involuntary, and sometimes are not recognized by people until a good therapist teaches them to look closely at these automatic thoughts (Beck, 2005). In short, thoughts sometimes trigger very strong emotional reactions, and have a significant impact on behaviour.

Automatic thoughts play an important role in emotional problems, and are often completely out of proportion to the problem posed. They are usually disproportionate or exaggerated interpretations of actual events. Two factors make this possible:

-1. Humans are subject to a high risk of errors in our thinking (cognitive distortions) that can have a major impact on how the individual interprets what happens. For example, people with a tendency to be angry tend to interpret what happens with other people in an egocentric way (Why does this have to happen to me?) and they often exaggerate the frequency of adverse events (She never shows me any respect).

-2. We interpret what happens to us in terms of certain beliefs and preconceptions that we have gained from our previous experience. These may include certain unconditional beliefs (I am not important to anyone), others are conditioned (If I do not make myself respected, I am no-one), or interpersonal strategies (I have to make people respect me). These beliefs lie dormant until a major event occurs, and they then trigger and shape our behaviour. These dysfunctional beliefs may influence what aspects of a situation we focus on more; how we interpret that experience; and how we respond to it.

Clinical observations show that in patients who are led by their exaggerations and misinterpretations, emotional reactions and behaviour are in proportion to these distortions of their thoughts. However, when they learn to focus their attention on their automatic thoughts, to look at them with a critical eye, and intentionally replace them with more realistic ones, they start to take advantage of and learn to deal with their emotional problems (see figure below). For example, when a mother who is easily provoked by her children can recognize her thinking: “My kids are bad, they make my life hell, I have to punish them”, and replace it with: “They behave like all children of their age”, she may experience that her anger is less intense and disappears more quickly.

Figure above shows the automatic thoughts cycle.

Cognitive distortions are irrational or exaggerated thoughts that can cause a person to have an inaccurate perception of reality. Some of these cognitive distortions are very common and can trigger feelings of hatred and extremely violent reactive behaviours. Let us consider some of the most common:

Overgeneralization: a particular event is perceived as characteristic of life in general, not just one event of many. For example, concluding that a single nasty response shows that his wife does not care about him at all, even though on many other occasions she has been attentive and considerate to him.

Read the thought: assuming that one knows what the other is thinking, or how they will react, despite having little or no evidence for it. For example, “He is going to leave me, I know it” and act as if it were definitely true.

Emotional reasoning: assuming one’s emotional reactions necessarily reflect a real situation. For example, concluding that because you feel desperate at one point, the situation is really desperate.

Customization: assuming that one is the cause of an event, when in fact there are many other factors responsible. For example, “He was not very nice to me today, he must be angry with me,” without considering different factors that could have affected his mood that day.

Maximization or minimization: treating some aspects of the situation, personal characteristics and experiences as trivial and others as very important, regardless of their actual significance. For example, “I know that people respect my work, but it does not matter because my wife does not respect me in the least.”

Catastrophic thinking: treating current negative events as catastrophic, without putting them into perspective. For example, thinking “Oh my God, I’ve got a lump in my breast, I’m sure I have cancer and I’m going to die like my neighbour.”

______

Theories of hate as emotion:

There are multiple theories on what characterizes the emotion of hate. Gordon Allport believed that hate stems from extreme prejudices or dislike. He believed that people don’t feel remorse when they harm someone out of hatred because they are certain it is the victim’s fault (Allport, 1954).

Aaron Beck and James Pretzer (2005) theorize that hatred comes from a reactive process in which there is a perceived threat to the person. The person then distorts their perception of the perpetrator through their own biases and polarized thinking. This distortion replaces the real perpetrator. The person experiencing hate will also have their own interpretation of the situation that will dictate their emotional reaction. They distort their perception of the situation based on the same biases and polarized thinking that distorted their perception of the perpetrator. If the person believes they have been wronged in some-way intentionally, they will move to attack in order to hurt the perpetrator, if possible, to make them suffer. If this perceived threat is for an extended period of time and the other person is perceived as evil, hatred will develop (Beck & Pretzer, 2005).

Roy Baumeister’s theory is that there are four roots of evil and violence that form the basis of hatred. The first is ideological hate. This operates under the belief “my side is good and wholesome; the other side is my enemy and is evil”. Because they consider the out group as being evil, the violence begot from their hate is justified and is a means towards what they believe is the greater good since the target of hatred can’t be changed. People feeling hate then take action to get rid of the threat in some way. The second basis is the desire for revenge because of an injustice or humiliation. The third basis is self-interest if denied a basic need or desired resource. People will resort to illegal or evil means if they believe the end goal is good and is in their best interest. The fourth is sadism and is less relevant to hate as an emotion and more to hate in a hate crime context. This is when repetition of the wrongdoing by the ‘hater’ makes the person adapt to violence and doing harm to the point they are not bothered by it anymore (Baumeister, 1997).

Susan Opotow’s theory is that people will turn to violence when morally justified. This justification comes from the belief that the other person can’t be changed and can’t be forgiven (Opotow, 2005).

_____

R. STERNBERG’S THEORY OF HATE:

Sternberg has recently reflected on hatred from a strictly psychological point of view. He developed his duplex theory of hatred (Sternberg, 2005, p. 69) whose basic tenets are:

-1. Hatred is psychologically related to love.

-2. Hatred is not the opposite of love, nor is it the absence of love. Their relationship is quite complex.

-3. Hatred, like love, has its origins in personal stories that characterize our emotions.

-4. Hatred, like love, can be described as a triangular structure whose origin is these personal stories: the components of the structure are the negation of intimacy, passion and commitment.

-5. Hatred is one of the major mechanisms that triggers acts of great violence (massacres, terrorism, and genocide).

This theory argues that the structure of hate can be understood in terms of three components—negation of intimacy, passion, and commitment—and that these components are manifested through stories about hate. The duplex theory comprises two component theories. The two component theories work in tandem. The first component theory is a triangular theory of hate. Second component is theory of hate as a story where hate is rooted in stories about the target of the emotion.

Triangular Theory of Hate:

Typically hate is thought of as a single emotion. But there is reason to believe that hate has multiple components that can manifest themselves in different ways on different occasions. According to a triangular component of the duplex theory of hate, hate potentially comprises three components. There are three components of hate: negation of intimacy, passion, and commitment.

The triangular theory of hate is depicted in figure below:

The first potential component of hate is the negation of intimacy. Negation of intimacy in hate is characterized by repulsion and disgust. Whereas intimacy involves the seeking of closeness, the negation of intimacy involves the seeking of distance. Often distance is sought from a target individual because that individual arouses repulsion and disgust in the person who experiences hate. This repulsion and disgust may arise from the person’s characteristics or actions or from propaganda depicting certain kinds of characteristics and acts. Negation of intimacy also can be experienced in individual hate relationships, as when one comes to view a person one knows as inhuman. The hated individual may have committed a crime against one’s person, and in the case of a sexual crime, a reaction of disgust and revulsion is common.

A second potential component of hate is passion, which expresses itself as intense anger or fear in response to a threat. Anger leads often leads one to approach, fear to avoid, the object of hate. Propaganda may depict the targeted individuals as an imminent threat to approved society, and one that should be feared because of this threat. Targeted groups may be depicted as rapacious warriors bent on defiling women or attacking children or as monsters that threaten the very fabric of society (as well as the individual rights of its members). This component of hate is typically rapid in its growth and often rapid in its demise. The two subcomponents of the passion component are anger and fear. They appear to be distinguishable. And both are again distinguishable from the feelings of disgust characteristic of the negation of intimacy.

The third potential component of hate is decision/commitment, which is characterized by cognitions of devaluation and diminution through contempt for the targeted group. The hater is likely to feel contempt toward the target individual or group, viewing the target as barely human or even as subhuman. The goal of those who foment hate is to change the thought processes of the preferred population so that its members will conceive of the targeted group(s) in a devalued way. Often these changes are accomplished through some kind of instructional or otherwise “educational” program, whether in school or without. In other terms, this kind of program could be viewed as constituting “brainwashing.”

The combination of these three components forms different types of hatred (seven) described in nominal categories. Some types may overlap with one another:

-1. Accepted hatred. Denial of intimacy only. The hater hates the other, but does not want to act against him.

-2. Hot hatred. Only passion (anger, fear). Extreme feelings of hatred toward someone who is seen as threatening; the reaction may be to attack or escape. A traffic incident can be an example of this hot hatred.

-3. Cold hatred. Only feelings of devaluation or commitment. Something is wrong with the members of the hated group. We have been indoctrinated to characterize this group as the axis of evil, or the evil empire, as the USSR was called.

-4. Burning hatred. There is commitment and passion. Characteristic of the hatred towards a group. They are seen as sub human or inhuman and threatening, and something must be done to reduce that threat. The hated group may change from time to time.

-5. Simmering hatred. There is denial of intimacy and devaluation of commitment. The individual is seen as unpleasant and always will be. Premeditated killings are sometimes a result of this hatred.

-6. Furious hatred. There is passion and devaluation of commitment. There is a feeling of revenge towards the person. These people have always been a threat and always will be. Mass violence often has this feature.

-7. All-embracing hatred. There is denial of intimacy, devaluation of commitment and passion. The result is the need to annihilate the other.

______

PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY:

According to Freud, “Hate” is defined as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness. Hate itself has two modes- the “pride mode” and the “hate mode”. Hatred in “Pride mode” rejects another person, whereas in “Hate mode” rejects any pleasant attachment to the other person. Thus “hate “is regarded as a “general purpose tool” for severing positive attachments in relationship with other beings or objects. Hatred and the aggression associated with hatred can also be explained on the basis of Denial, Projection and Projective Identification.

Projection is defined as a defence mechanism in which one’s own unacceptable wishes, desires or impulses are forced into the other person. The people who use projection may deny the existence of unacceptable desires in themselves while attributing/ projecting them onto others. For example: – A liar accuses another person of lying, a thief accuses another person of stealing, a hater accuses another person of hating. Latest research shows that projection does not take place arbitrarily but rather seizes on or exaggerates an element that already exists on a small scale in the other person.

Projective Identification is defined by Melanie Klein to describe a process whereby unacceptable parts of the ego (desires, impulses or wishes) are forced into another person who is then expected to become identified with whatever thoughts or feelings have been projected. The projector’s behaviour towards the object of projection invokes in that object of projection precisely those very thoughts, emotions or behaviours which have been projected earlier. In other words, the projector relates to the other person on whom he has projected his unacceptable thoughts/feelings in such a way that the other person alters his/her behaviour to make those beliefs come true.

According to latest research, unlike in projection, in Projective Identification, the individual does not fully disavow what is projected. Instead the individual remains aware of his or her affects (unacceptable/undesirable) or impulses but misattributes them as justifiable reactions to the other person. All this may happen outside the awareness of both parties involved. For example, an angry person accuses the other person of being angry and relates to the other person in such a way that he (the other person) actually becomes angry. A hater accuses the other person of hating him and behaves with him in such a way that the other person actually starts hating him.

Hate can be explained on the basis of denial, projection and projective identification, the equation for which is cited in figure below:

_______

The philosophical and psychological typologies developed by Hampton (1988), Sternberg (2005), and Sternberg and Sternberg (2008) assume that the term hate does not describe a homogeneous state, but rather various negative attitudes or combinations of negative attitudes. More specifically, Hampton describes hate in terms of other emotions, while Sternberg and Sternberg & Sternberg argue that hate has other emotions as components. Both typologies are “pattern typologies” because they explain hate in terms of “patterns” of feelings and desires/actions corresponding to other affective states. Both are mainly focused on the phenomenology or the “what it is like” of hate.

Overall, it seems that hate is a distinct emotion by the criteria of having distinct antecedents, distinct responses, and a distinct strategy or aims. Those that experience hate say that it is because they perceive someone as intentionally harming them, and think it is both undesirable and unfair. In their experience of hate, they report thinking that the other person is evil and has no good qualities, can’t be changed, and cannot be forgiven. The person experiencing hate thinks they would be justified in attacking and looks for an opportunity to take action against the offending party, fantasizing about bad things happening to them. The person feeling hate reports feeling their eyes narrow when looking at the other person and feels like hitting and attacking the person, either verbally or physically, including encouraging other people to attack. In fact, the person experiencing hate wants to get back at the other person to hurt them in some way and make them feel bad; wants them to suffer.

_______

Section-8

Neurobiology of hate and its associations:

Roots of Prejudice Across Neural Circuits:

Both humans and animals instinctually classify others rapidly based on immediately discernible characteristics like age, gender, and ethnicity. While such pattern recognition and stereotyping aided survival in the past, it often breeds harmful prejudice in modern life. A variety of neural mechanisms contribute to hardwired biases despite societal progress:

– The amygdala activates more when viewing other-race versus own-race faces, indicating unconscious wariness towards ethnic outsiders. However, people from diverse environments show weaker amygdala race bias, highlighting the importance of early inter-group contact.

– Snap judgments of individuals based on their faces significantly correlate with neural signatures in response to faces as measured by EEG. This confirms that facial appearances evoke prejudiced neural signals.

– When experimental participants played trust games with unfamiliar partners, activation of the anterior insula cortex predicted more distrustful financial decisions independent of objective reputation. Again, disgust circuits drive discrimination.

– Oxytocin, a hormone associated with parental attachment, increases in-group favoritism and cooperation when administered artificially. Though it promotes in-group bonds, it also amplifies outgroup derogation. This exemplifies neurochemicals’ dual role.

– Patients with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) exhibit exaggerated utilitarian bias and willingness to sacrifice one person to save many actively. This indicates that moral emotions like empathy are necessary to complement cerebral cost-benefit analysis.

These findings demonstrate that human social biases have deep neurological underpinnings spanning ancient regions like the amygdala to more recently evolved prefrontal areas. While the environment shapes prejudice, its neurological substrate proves frustratingly persistent. Multifaceted approaches are imperative to overcome hardwired prejudices.

______

Neurobiology of disgust:

The emotion of disgust demonstrates how primitive drives amplify hatred. Disgust has been called the “wisdom of repugnance” and underlies rigid moral attitudes. Research insights into the neuroscience of disgust reveal why it is so central to hate:

– The insular cortex once again plays a key role. It is highly active in responding to nauseating sights or smells and reacting to morally offensive social situations. Insula activation correlates with harsher moral judgments.

– People more easily disgusted by gory images, foul odours, or unhygienic behaviors score higher on authoritarianism, relative intolerance, and purity fixation personality measures. This illustrates how visceral disgust response predisposes people towards stricter moral attitudes.

– Conservatives exhibit more excellent physiological disgust reactions than liberals when shown things like a video of a person eating worms. Conservatives also have more cleaning supplies in their homes. This demonstrates tangible links between moral values and biological sensitivity to disgust.

– Inducing incidental disgust, such as through foul odours, unsanitary environments, or recalling past experiences of being disgusted, causes people to make more disapproving moral judgments, primarily related to sexual purity and foreign cultural practices.

– Viewing faces of unfamiliar ethnic groups elicits heightened insula response indicating unconscious disgust, contributing to implicit biases. Historical propaganda also routinely depicted other races and ethnicities in disgusting ways to amplify feelings of revulsion.

– Social groups considered high in disgust evocation are particularly prone to dehumanization by being denied moral protections afforded to other groups. For example, homeless individuals and drug addicts commonly face contempt rather than empathy. Disgust is a major psychological precursor of hatred.

This multifaceted body of research establishes disgust as a consistent precursor to prejudiced attitudes and morally exclusionist beliefs. Greater disgust sensitivity promotes outgroup intolerance, whether cultivated through politics, environments, or media. Visceral feelings of disgust trigger ancient food avoidance circuits that subconsciously extend to avoidance of unfamiliar social traditions. While disgust at cruel behaviors can motivate moral courage, it can also induce blind hatred unmoored from principled foundations. The primitive neurobiology of disgust makes it incredibly potent for fueling hate.

______

Neurobiology of Dehumanization:

Hate, defined as intense aversion that encourages the elimination of others, involves dehumanization, or the denial of human qualities to others. “In-group/out-group” categorizations are made in the brain, and, when coupled with negative stereotypes, can result in feelings of fear, revulsion, and dehumanization. Scientific studies have demonstrated that viewing pictures of people from a different race or culture activates the amygdala, which is an area of the brain linked with creating fear. Seeing or thinking about an out-group like the homeless or people who use drugs can also attenuate activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, an area associated with social cognition and empathy. This decreased activity gives rise to feelings of dehumanization. In other words, seeing the other group as less than human, which creates an increased risk for violence. A review of the existing, albeit limited, literature suggests that hate depends on sufficiently dehumanizing others in order to permit their elimination. A potential brain mechanism for hate appears to involve an “animalistic” infrahumanization that results in withholding empathy from the devalued targets; this mechanism may be mediated by the inferior frontal cortex (IFC).

The literature on dehumanization and its relation to the brain distinguishes two main forms of dehumanization: treating others as animals (devaluing through infrahumanization) and treating others as objects (a mechanistic unawareness of their basic humanity). Investigators describe infrahumanization as the perception that outgroup individuals lack uniquely human traits, particularly secondary emotions, while retaining the basic emotions evident in other animals. Haslam’s dual model further applies the term “animalistic dehumanization” to this devaluing of others as subhuman or nonhuman animals (e.g., “swine,” “monkeys,” and “vermin”), which arouses feelings of disgust and revulsion toward outgroups and makes harming them easier. Animalistic dehumanization normally occurs as a restraint on empathy when needed, such as situations involving social dominance or self-protection (e.g., averting one’s eyes from a panhandler) and probably originates from activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal region—most probably the IFC. Haslam’s dual model further distinguishes a second form of dehumanization that results from a perceived lack of human nature or a perceived lack of being a human with an intentional mind. This form of “mechanistic dehumanization,” which denies the existence of a mental life (“mentalization”) with thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and agency in others, sees those who are hated as nonliving machines or objects, resulting in feelings of indifference toward them. Mechanistic dehumanization is associated with decreased mesial prefrontal activity involving the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and perigenual anterior cingulate cortex and decreased parietal and default mode network function.

Taking the theories of hate and the studies on dehumanization into consideration, hate may depend on animalistic infrahumanization with heightened activity in the IFC facilitating disdain and disgust for the devalued target. The absence of moral emotional engagement, including hate, among frontolimbic brain-injured patients, such as those with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), highlights the differential association of hate with animalistic dehumanization rather than with mechanistic dehumanization. Although the neuropathology of FTD is centered in the mesial frontal, anterior insula, and anterior temporal lobe structures —regions purported to overlap with a proposed hate network —patients with damage to these structures may have prominent mechanical dehumanization and indifference to others without the presence of hate.

______

Neurobiology of Hate:

The discipline of psychology characterizes hate as an emotion, more specifically a negative emotion. It is understood that the limbic system is the center of all kinds of emotions that humans experience. However, the emotion of hate is not exclusively localized to the limbic system and it involves other parts of the brain along with the limbic system (Glaser, 2008).

A basic pattern is determined, which is unique to the emotion of hate even though individual sites within it are active in other conditions that are related to hate. The neurobiological network of hate has components that have been considered to be important in:

(b) Translating this behavior into motor action through motor planning (premotor cortex). Finally, and most intriguingly, the network involves regions of the putamen and the insula (Zeki & Romaya, 2008).

Neural Correlates of Hate, a 2008 study:

In this work, authors address an important but unexplored topic, namely the neural correlates of hate. In a block-design fMRI study, authors scanned 17 normal human subjects while they viewed the face of a person they hated and also faces of acquaintances for whom they had neutral feelings. A hate score was obtained for the object of hate for each subject and this was used as a covariate in a between-subject random effects analysis. Viewing a hated face resulted in increased activity in the medial frontal gyrus, right putamen, bilaterally in premotor cortex, in the frontal pole and bilaterally in the medial insula. Authors also found three areas where activation correlated linearly with the declared level of hatred, the right insula, right premotor cortex and the right fronto-medial gyrus. One area of deactivation was found in the right superior frontal gyrus. The study thus shows that there is a unique pattern of activity in the brain in the context of hate. Though distinct from the pattern of activity that correlates with romantic love, this pattern nevertheless shares two areas with the latter, namely the putamen and the insula. In summary, the results show that there is a unique pattern of activity in the brain in the context of hate. This pattern, while being distinct from that obtained in the context of romantic love, nevertheless shares two areas with the latter, namely the putamen and the insula. This linkage may account for why love and hate are so closely linked to each other in life.

Brain’s Hate Circuit:

This fMRI study scanned normal human subjects while they viewed the face of a person they hated. For comparison, they also viewed faces of acquaintances for whom they had neutral feelings. The study discovered a unique pattern of activity in the brain that has been termed the hate circuit. The insular cortex, putamen, and left superior frontal gyrus are the main components of the hate circuit. These three brain regions showed a specific type of activation when individuals viewed pictures of people who they hate. Interestingly, the activity in some of these structures in response to viewing a hated face is proportional in strength to the declared intensity of hate, thus allowing the subjective state of hate to be objectively quantified. This finding may have legal implications in criminal cases, for example.

Significantly, the putamen and insula are also both activated by romantic love. This is not surprising. The putamen could also be involved in the preparation of aggressive acts in a romantic context, as in situations when a rival presents a danger. Previous studies have suggested that the insula may be involved in responses to distressing stimuli, and the viewing of both a loved and a hated face may constitute such a distressing signal. A marked difference in the cortical pattern produced by these two sentiments of love and hate is that, whereas with love large parts of the cerebral cortex associated with judgment and reasoning become deactivated, with hate only a small zone, located in the frontal cortex, becomes deactivated. This is so because in romantic love, the lover is often less critical and judgmental regarding the loved person, it is more likely that in the context of hate the hater may want to exercise judgment in calculating moves to harm, injure or otherwise extract revenge.

The most striking and perhaps surprising part of Zeki and Romaya’s research is not that hate and love are tangled together. It is that the main difference in the two brain patterns activated was that areas of the frontal, temporal and parietal cerebral cortices – linked to judgement and reasoning – deactivate in love compared to hate. It implies that people in love make less rational decisions, and are less judgemental of their partners, whereas focus and logic are maintained in behaviour towards an enemy. It is more likely that in the context of hate the hater may want to exercise judgment in calculating moves to (cause) harm.

Another aspect of hate this research does not seem to explain is how hatred can be directed towards entire groups of people, whilst love is often steered toward specific individuals in our lives. We rarely claim to love all people of a particular social group or ethnicity, whereas groups defined by their race, gender, social, political or cultural background are often detested as a collective.

Overall, this research shows we are less critical and less rationally inclined when it comes to those we may be infatuated by, lust after, or platonically cherish. This could all be taken to mean we really do let our hearts rule our heads.

Another study, looking at whether members of one group derived pleasure from another group’s misfortune, found that the ventral striatum was activated during failure by members of the other group. The ventral striatum is an area of the brain associated with reward. So negative thoughts or actions, such as hate, may lead to reward.

_______

The neurobiology of hatred, a 2023 study:

Myths, drama, and sacred texts have warned against the fragile nature of human love; the closer the affiliative bond, the quicker it can turn into hatred, suggesting similarities in the neurobiological underpinnings of love and hatred. Here, author offer a theoretical account on the neurobiology of hatred based on their model on the biology of human attachments and its three foundations; the oxytocin system, the “affiliative brain”, comprising the neural network sustaining attachment, and biobehavioural synchrony, the process by which humans create a coupled biology through coordinated action. These systems mature in the context of the mother– infant bond and then transfer to support life within social groups. During this transition, they partition to support affiliation and solidarity to one’s group and fear and hatred towards out-group based on minor variations in social behaviour. During that critical shift from the mother– infant bond to life within social groups, these systems partition to support both love and hatred by cementing the bond to one’s own group but, at the same time, clearly demarcating the in-group from the out-group and consolidating one’s perception of the outgroup as frightening, dangerous, and worthy of destruction. This double-edged perception is engraved into the young human’s brain and neurobiological systems and, from this perspective, one may argue that the capacity to “hate” (i.e., demarcate, fear, and prepare to destroy the “outgroup” whose social behaviour is different, strange, or scary) enables the biological possibility of “love” (i.e., forming lasting bonds to both exclusive others and larger social groups). This model is depicted in Figure below and describes the three foundations of the biology of love – as well as hatred: the oxytocin system, the “affiliative brain”, that is, the neural attachment network, and biobehavioural synchrony.

Figure above shows the transition from affiliative bonds to group living partitions into the neurobiology of love and hatred. Figure describes how the three foundations of the biology of attachment – the oxytocin system, the affiliative brain, and biobehavioural synchrony – mature in the context of the mother– infant bond and then transfer to support life within social group. During this transition, these systems partition to support love, empathy, cooperation, and compassion towards members of the in-group while simultaneously underpinning vigilance, fear, demonisation, and hatred towards the outgroup on the basis of minor variations in social behaviour.

______

Can mirror neurons explain how hate speech incites violence:

In ‘A Hypothetical Neurological Association between Dehumanization and Human Rights Abuse’, Gail Murrow and Richard Murrow posit a biological explanation of how hate speech can spur violence, not only among individuals but, even, on a societal scale. They elaborate historical examples, cite to neuronal studies on patterns of responses in observation of pain and suffering to explain the dehumanization that often results from hate propaganda. The authors’ points about the harmful effects of hate speech are salient and erudite. However, their scientific premises rely on significant extrapolations from neurological theories on manifold human behavior.

Hate speakers rely on dehumanizing images to justify exclusion, discrimination, and, in genocidal cases, elimination of identifiable groups. Dehumanization can be both an attack on the target’s dignity and a justification for harmful actions. Statements dehumanizing hated groups often influence the commission of discriminatory conduct. The critical role of rhetoric in motivating nefarious action is evident in the histories of genocides in Germany, Turkey, Sudan, and Rwanda. In all of these countries, the official spread of malignant and distorted images of the other (Jews, Armenians, Darfuris, and Tutsis, respectively) made it easy to bring the hated groups into disrepute with the population and cleared the way to their mass killing and divestment of property.

That neurology can help explain these phenomena cannot be doubted, given that our brains are intrinsic to thought, but that neurology is a sufficient explanation of dehumanization is suspect given the socialization of repeated group defamations. Chiefly, Murrow and Murrow rely on the scientific discussions on ‘mirror neurons’, a relatively new concept in neurobiology, to explain a neurological link between dehumanization and violence on a societal scale. The mirror neuron studies often involved training monkeys for months to imitate specific hand motions, and then studied neuronal discharge of specific areas and neurons after implantation of titanium electrodes. Such studies have not been, and ethically cannot be, conducted in humans. To make scientific statements, one must be able to demonstrate reproducibility. Therefore, investigators rely on a different mechanism to investigate neuronal activities, mostly through imaging technologies, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The difference in study format necessitates a significant extrapolation of hypotheses about mirror neuron functions between species. In fact, mirror neuron function studies on humans report mixed results. However, here there is no intention to argue that no mirror neurons exist in humans. Rather, the aim is to draw attention to the fact that mirror neurons have been studied by scientists in order to explain physical movements and observations associated with motor learning, a primitive function; not highly complex, societal events like animus, advocacy to violence, and other forms of discrimination.

In summary, societal hatred is an extremely complex social phenomenon that takes years to form and evolve, and subsequently, lead to action. Propaganda tools include visual cartoons, ‘catchy’ and memorable phrases (‘the Jews are our misfortune’, ‘He gypped me’, ‘Yellow Peril’, and the like), and overt or implicit incitements to violence or discrimination. Murrow and Murrow provide an extremely articulate discussion about the poisonous nature of hate speech. However, connecting the scientific concept of mirror neurons as a potential explanation for individuals’ capacities to participate in discrimination, and worse, is too much of an extrapolation. The original authors of the scientific papers on mirror neurons described them as part of a motor function process, not a theory to help explain the darkest times of history and human behavior.

Then how hate speech incites violence?

Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain, that immersion in a hateful environment leads to empathic numbing: people exposed to hate speech have limited ability to attribute the psychological perspective of others, regardless of their group membership. Listening to hate speech can increase prejudice toward an out-group and even prime the brain for violent actions. Words themselves are enough to trigger simulations in motor, perceptual and emotional neural systems. Your brain creates a sense of being there: The motor system is primed for action and the emotional system motivates those actions.

______

How emotion override reason in hate:

Hate is one of the most destructive yet perplexing emotions in the human experience. Though it has been a recurrent theme across history and cultures, the scientific understanding of its psychological and biological roots still needs to be improved. In recent years, rapidly advancing fields like neuroscience, genetics, and psychology have started shedding light on the complex underpinnings of hatred in the brain.

The Primitive Brain Grapples with Abstractions:

The most remarkable finding from neuroscience is that the human brain does not adeptly handle symbolic thinking and abstract concepts despite our vaunted cognitive powers. Even though humans are capable of sophisticated abstractions like metaphors, analogies, and visual symbols, the neural circuits that process them remain surprisingly primitive. This helps explain why hateful messaging and propaganda appealing to reflexive emotional responses often override rational faculties.

To illustrate, let us examine the insular cortex — an area implicated in processing feelings of disgust. In most mammals, the insula plays a straightforward role related to taste and digestion. If a rat ingests a toxic substance, neurons in the insula activate within milliseconds to stimulate an array of defensive reflexes — gagging, vomiting, spitting, etc. This rapid visceral response protects against tainted food. Nevertheless, in humans, the same insular region has also been coopted evolutionarily to deal with abstract moral disgust.

Remarkably, just seeing offensive symbols like a swastika (Hitler) triggers activating the same insular circuits as tasting something revolting. The neurons cannot tell the difference between concrete sensory and abstract moral disgust.

In another example, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) processes physical pain but activates when we imagine or observe a loved one in pain. Again, the ACC treats real and metaphorical pain interchangeably.

This blurring of literal and symbolic meanings indicates that the human capacity for abstraction relies heavily on primitive emotional circuits adapted originally for tangible threats or rewards. While the neocortex allows sophisticated conceptual thinking, the evolved mechanisms for implementing abstract concepts remain crude. The higher cortical areas effectively improvise by linking novel symbolic meanings to primal brain modules tuned for visceral experiences like contamination, injury, or hunger.

So, when responding to abstractions related to morality, social norms, or ethnic stereotypes, we do not have specialized neural architecture. Instead, evolution has cobbled together makeshift solutions that reuse circuits for perception, emotion, and basic drives. This neurobiological constraint explains why propaganda depicting other races or groups as vermin, parasites, diseases, or other repulsive things powerfully activates hate. The simplistic emotional reactions triggered often bypass abstract reasoning. As such, the primitive roots of human cognition make us highly vulnerable to hateful demagoguery despite our nuanced intellectual abilities.

How is it possible to control hate if the drive to hate is located in a primitive and unconscious part of the brain?

The higher-order brain structures, like the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), among others, allow us to choose anger and hatred or to let it go.

______

Section-9

Why do we hate?

Hate, a word that carries immense weight and consequences, is a complex phenomenon deeply rooted in our society. To truly understand hate, we must embark on a journey of exploration, delving into its origins and unravelling the intricate web of factors that contribute to its existence. Whether it is prejudice, discrimination, or the psychological roots of hatred, addressing the root cause of hate is crucial for building a more inclusive and compassionate world.

Moreover, hate finds fertile ground during times of crisis and uncertainty. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities in our society, leading to an upsurge in hate crimes and discriminatory behavior. Fear and anxiety intensify negative emotions, causing individuals to lash out against those who they perceive as different or responsible for their distress.

While hate has always existed, its visibility and mainstream presence have surged in recent years. The digital age has provided a platform for hate to spread rapidly and anonymously, amplifying its impact. It is crucial for us to confront the root causes of hate head-on. The reasons are complex, but following are some of the factors that may play a role in helping us understand hate and, hopefully, work toward change.

-1. Fear of “The Other”

Human beings have traditionally self-organised into different groups. One reason provided for why we hate is that we fear that which is different to us. According to A.J. Marsden, assistant professor of psychology and human services at Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida, one reason we hate is because we fear things that are different from us. Behavioral researcher Patrick Wanis, cites the in-group out-group theory, which posits that when we feel threatened by perceived outsiders, we instinctively turn toward our in-group—those with whom we identify—as a survival mechanism. Wanis explains, “Hatred is driven by two key emotions of love and aggression: One love for the in-group—the group that is favored; and two, aggression for the out-group—the group that has been deemed as being different, dangerous, and a threat to the in-group.” In short, it can be seen as a type of survival mechanism, in which case, hate becomes a functional emotion that can be used to protect oneself and ensure the survival of those close to us. This can be useful in times of war and when in combat in the battlefield. However, feelings of being in war or impending danger can be artificially generated via political campaigns and exaggerated stories in the media leading to disastrous consequences. We begin to fear the other, because of the stories that we have been told about them.

-2. Fear of ourselves and projection:

According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I’m not terrible; you are.” This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project “badness” outward and attack it: “We developed this method to survive, for any ‘badness’ in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. Hate of a whole race of people; hate of a whole set of people of certain sexual orientations or gender identities; that kind of hate is projection. I’m insecure in myself, in my identification with my culture, in my sexual orientation, in my gender—so I project hatred onto you because if I don’t, I will hate myself. If we find part of ourselves unacceptable, we tend to attack others in order to defend against the threat. If we are okay with ourselves, we see others’ behaviors as ‘about them’ and can respond with compassion.

-3. Group connection:

When hate is associated with participation in a group, it can act to foster closeness and connections. Stereotypes and prejudices fuel hate. As a result, hate spreads easier when directed at a group as opposed to an individual. Our views of an individual can change due to interactions and new data; however, the in-group and out-group dynamic doesn’t allow for individual changes as the identity of both are assigned to the group. Therefore, the person who hates may unconsciously be waiting for permission from the in-group to change their views. The change would need to be somewhat collective or their identity as an in-group member could be challenged. Most people are not strong or brave enough to be able to take a different position to those who are close to them and find it easier to conform. This is evidenced by history, when looking at Nazi Germany, the genocide in Bosnia, or the genocide by China of the Uyghur Muslims. The people of those communities largely stood by or participated to later wake up to the horrors of what their hate entailed.

Many people join hate groups because it fills their need for friendship and belonging. You don’t need to do or be anything special; all you have to do is be negative toward other people. It feels easy. Likewise, some people find it easier to make connections by putting others down and seeing who agrees than to prove to people that they are interesting and valuable companions.

On an interpersonal level, research has shown that closer bonds are formed between two people when negative emotions are shared towards a third person, as opposed to the sharing of positive emotions about the third person.

-4. It fills a void:

Psychologist Bernard Golden, author of Overcoming Destructive Anger: Strategies That Work, believes that when hate involves participation in a group, it may help foster a sense of connection and camaraderie that fills a void in one’s identity. He describes hatred of individuals or groups as a way of distracting oneself from the more challenging and anxiety-provoking task of creating one’s own identity:

“Acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy and shame. Hate is grounded in some sense of perceived threat. It is an attitude that can give rise to hostility and aggression toward individuals or groups. Like much of anger, it is a reaction to and distraction from some form of inner pain. The individual consumed by hate may believe that the only way to regain some sense of power over his or her pain is to pre-emptively strike out at others. In this context, each moment of hate is a temporary reprieve from inner suffering.”

-5. Fundamental attribution error:

The fundamental attribution error is a cognitive distortion where people will understand the action of a person as a representation of their character, as opposed to a result of their circumstances. Paradoxically, we understand our own actions as being due to our circumstances. People’s behaviour is characterological, whereas ours is circumstantial. For example, Abdul is a lazy guy who doesn’t want to find work; I, on the other hand, can’t find work as the economy is in a recession. The in-group, out-group dynamic may allow us to extend this courtesy to those we subconsciously identify with. For example, Tim was bullied in school and has mental health issues but Amir is an evil psychopath who enjoys suffering. People who hate are more susceptible than others are to systematic biases, such as the fundamental attribution error.

-6. Social And Cultural Factors:

Hate is often influenced by social factors that shape our beliefs and attitudes. Our upbringing, cultural background, and our society can play a significant role in fostering hate. Humans desire structure and certainty in their social lives. To establish that, people naturally divide into in-groups (social circles where everyone feels like they belong with one another) and out-groups (people who exist outside of social circles and are typically not welcomed into them). When people declare their dislike for others, it helps people understand the boundaries between social circles. This is a powerful motivator for people to form bonds because it satisfies their need to feel connected to others. Fundamentally, hate stems from an “us vs. them” mentality, a psychological inclination to identify with our own group and view others as different or threatening.

For example, studies show infants can differentiate between black and white faces, and by nine years old, children understand the social implications of race, including stereotypes. Unchecked, this mentality leads to implicit bias within a society or culture—which has prompted conflicts and divisions based on religion, ethnicity, and nationality throughout history.

Think of religious conflicts like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, racial and ethnic conflicts such as slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, or political ideologies that fueled hatred, such as fascism and totalitarianism.

Group dynamics and the desire to fit in can lead people to adopt and amplify hateful views to gain acceptance or maintain their identity within a particular social circle. Additionally, competition for resources, power, or status can fuel animosity.

The answer to why we hate, according to Silvia Dutchevici, LCSW, president and founder of the Critical Therapy Center, lies not only in our psychological makeup or family history, but also in our cultural and political history. “We live in a war culture that promotes violence, in which competition is a way of life,” she says. “We fear connecting because it requires us to reveal something about ourselves. We are taught to hate the enemy — meaning anyone different than us — which leaves little room for vulnerability and an exploration of hate through empathic discourse and understanding. In our current society, one is more ready to fight than to resolve conflict. Peace is seldom the option.”

-7. Psychological and Emotional Factors:

The psychological roots of hate are complex and multifaceted. They often come from negative personal experiences where the person’s identity or beliefs are attacked. Such experiences can breed deep anger, resentment, and fear.

In other situations, people want a scapegoat. When you struggle with problems at work, low self-esteem, conflicts in your relationships, etc., it feels much better to funnel your negative energy into blaming someone else than to confront your role in your problems.

Hatred also surfaces when people are highly insecure. Often, they’ll compare themselves to other people. When they conclude that the other person may be better than them or possess undesirable traits that they don’t want to acknowledge having themselves, people may speak out against that person to project their anxiety onto them.

-8. Economy and hate:

It is hard to separate socio-political and economic factors from the feelings of hate that reside within a community. Difficult life conditions such as extreme economic problems, or perhaps the expectations of future economic difficulties such as the loss of a job, which can have a knock-on effect on one’s identity, can raise feelings of hate. Economic factors can contribute to hate through competition for resources, income inequality, and the political incentives of politicians. Hate can also have economic effects, such as increased costs for basic services and higher insurance rates for minorities.

-9. Politics and hate:

Politicians deepen existing divides when they use inflammatory language, such as hate speech, and this makes their societies more likely to experience political violence and terrorism. President Donald Trump is not the only world leader who is accused of publicly denigrating people based on their racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds. In the 2019 parliamentary campaign in India, politicians from the ruling party targeted Muslims as part of a widespread electoral strategy to galvanize Hindu nationalism. Similarly, in the 2019 Polish election, incumbent president Andrzej Duda made demonization of the LGBT community as well as foreigners the center-piece of his successful re-election campaign. Hate speech has also figured prominently in the recent rhetoric of political leaders in a variety of countries including Russia, Colombia, Israel, Egypt, Ukraine, the Philippines, Italy, Greece, Sri Lanka and Iraq. Polarization between republicans and democrats in the US, and between BJP and Congress in India promote political hatred.

-10. Our Trust has been Broken:

We are afraid of one another. We no longer trust one another. Our trust has been betrayed.

Trust forms the basis of all relationships. And the desire to experience fulfilling relationships is at the core of life. The child trusts the parents to look after her/him. The husband and wife trust each other to be loyal and to have each other’s concerns at heart. We trust the educational institutions to give the best education to our children. We trust the government to provide the basic infrastructure to live, commute and work. We trust corporations to be fair and just in treating employees and creating a safe working space. We trust institutions to ensure justice, transparency and accountability as they go about trying to ensure society lives in a fulfilling manner. We trust law enforcement bodies to protect our rights. We trust our money in the bank will be safe. We trust our religious leaders to guide us. We take so many things for granted because we trust.

However today our trust stands shredded in almost every sphere of our lives creating a deep hurt. Having continuously been let down, our anger wells up within us and a spark is enough to transform that anger into a conflagration of hate. It may be a trivial incident of a car grazing another car which is sufficient to throw the floodgates of wrath open and result in the killing of people. There are too many frustrations fuelling our smouldering hate.

-11. Media and Hate:

We see how social media is being weaponized. In Myanmar, Facebook was used to spread rumours and hate speech against the Rohingya population. Trolling to create discord and posting inflammatory messages online seems to be the new normal. Media taunts interact with gang violence. We have reduced conscious dehumanisation of opponents in media debates to active entertainment. Even death has become entertainment in media as we see how often the video of the knee lock used on George Floyd has been shown on TV and other media platforms. The use of media to spread hate threatens the well-being of humanity.

Hate media is media that contributes to the demonization and stigmatization of people who belong to different groups. It has played an influential role in the incitement to genocide, with notable examples of it being Radio Televizija Srbije during the wars in Yugoslavia, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) during the Rwandan genocide, and Nazi Germany’s Der Stürmer newspaper.

In 2022, the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on hate in the Indian media, blamed the audience. “Hate drives TRPs, drives profit,” one judge commented. There is, of course, some truth to this. Hate does have an audience. But does it have such a major viewership amongst India’s Hindi and English speakers that media channels can get away with mainly showing hate? Many Indian anchors spread hate on daily basis.

-12. Power and control:

Hate, at its core, is built upon issues of power and control. Hate comes from the idea that certain people can or should have power and control over others. Throughout history, certain groups have sought to establish dominance and exert control over others, creating an environment where hate can flourish. Societal systems perpetuate inequality, fueling negative assumptions, stereotypes, and beliefs about certain groups. These deeply ingrained biases not only shape individuals’ perspectives but also influence societal attitudes towards others.

People also hate when they feel powerless. Rather than turning their anxiety and shame inward, they may project that negativity onto an external target. In some cases, people who experience bullying or abuse may grow to hate the person who harmed them.

_______

Why do perpetrators commit hate crimes?

Green, McFalls and Smith (2001) provide a useful overarching typology of the key orienting perspectives that have been used to engage with the ‘why?’ question:

-A. psychological;

-B. social-psychological;

-C. historical-cultural (not discussed as not enough quality material was identified through the literature search);

-D. sociological; and

-E. economic and political.

___

Psychological:

Psychological explanations tend to start from an assumption of some ‘animus’ – an individual level of hostility to a victim’s social group. Such individual-level accounts limit themselves to the analysis of the ‘cognitive and affective’ processes by which perpetrators identify their victims, generate hostility and engage in aggression and violence. Key works defining and explaining hate crime as an extreme or disproportionate form of prejudice include Kleg (1983) and Roberts (1995). These and other similar studies invariably draw, either explicitly or implicitly, on Gordon Allport’s (1954) seminal ‘The Nature of Prejudice’. Allport argued that stereotyping coupled with ‘affective disorders’ of frustration, guilt avoidance, projection and paranoia, pushes individuals to acts of discrimination, including hate speech, avoidance, and various forms of interpersonal violence. The latter ranging from low-level physical assault, through to homicide and even genocide of whole groups.

Approaches based on prejudice are limited because they do not answer the question why the prejudices were acquired and are maintained. In the view of Simpson and Yinger (1985) cited in Brown (2011), “prejudice exists because someone gains by it” (Brown R. (2011) Prejudice: its Social Psychology) p. 12.

Theories of authoritarian personality (Adorno et al 1950; Altmeyer 1981) elaborate this model of hate crime by characterising the psychological attributes of individuals most likely to resort to prejudiced violence (see Mazz 1991, Heitmeyer 1992, Hopf et al. 1995, Modena 1997 and Pfeiffer in Sharma 1999). Importantly, whilst personality profiling appeals to many policy-makers and practitioners, Green, McFalls and Smith (2001) conclude that individual psychological accounts are not sufficiently diagnostic. They point to largescale attitudinal surveys (see Green et al. 1998 confirming that while hate crime perpetrators may have authoritarian tendencies, only a small subset of authoritarians are hate criminals (Green, McFalls and Smith 2001 p485).

____

Social-Psychological:

Social-psychological explanations of the causes of hate crime offending, seek to identify not only the source of potentially violent prejudicial orientations, but also the circumstances under which they will be expressed. Models of small group dynamics suggest how contagion, conformism, the influence of extremists ideologies on moving people to more extreme attitudes, disinhibition, and the yearning for group acceptance, can all conspire to ‘push’ a person to commit acts of hate crime (Bohnisch and Winter 1993; Erb 1993; Williams et al. 1993; Watts 1996; Rieker 1997; Wahl 1997).

Also featuring in such accounts is the influence of mass media. Sensationalist coverage of hate crime events has been shown to cause ‘contagion’ events or ‘spikes’ in hate crime (Brosius and Esser 1995). Media reports can play an active role in formulating, propagating and legitimating stereotypes about target populations. Allied to this, is the dissemination by political parties and other organisations, such as far-right and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, of ‘hate amplifying’ political discourse. This was found to be of particular significance in Blee’s (2007) study of female members of extreme far-right/white supremacist groups in the United States. Interestingly, this analysis also highlights the increasing influence of the Internet in propaganda and recruitment.

Within this branch of the literature is a particular ‘psychosocial’ approach, seeking to provide an interpretive account of why some individuals and groups engage in hate crime offences. Psychosocial studies draw upon conceptual resources from across the disciplines of Sociology, Social Work, Counselling and Forensic Psychotherapy. The defining quality of such accounts is the notion that psychological phenomenon (personalities, emotions, dispositions) and sociological phenomenon (class, gender, inequality, strain, poverty) should not be reduced to each other. “Reduced to each other” means that two problems or concepts can be transformed into one another, essentially meaning that solving one problem is equivalent to solving the other. This leads advocates of this position to question social scientific notions of ‘typicality’ as fundamentally problematic, on the grounds that one should not assume that people from any particular demographic group are likely to think and feel the same: a critical insight for considering questions about the motivations of hate crime offenders.

Gadd and Jefferson (2007) and Gadd and Dixon (2011) seek to show how, in relation to hate crime motivations, a blending of post-structuralist and relational psychoanalytic insights can be used to theorise the behaviour of an individual who is not merely conditioned by social circumstances or upbringing, but able to choose within limited contemporary circumstances how to present themselves. Where this becomes particularly important in explicating why people commit hate crimes, is the notion that such individuals may be motivated to act out feelings, which they cannot fully articulate. So for example, someone who has committed a racist crime, might elect to project a social identity of themselves as ‘able to get along with everyone as long as they don’t interfere’, as well as being someone ‘tolerant of other faiths’, but at the same time ‘worried about unrestricted immigration’. Such depictions involve the individual actively positioning themselves through a number of competing discourses – ‘the laid back individual’, ‘the multiculturally sensitive’, and the ‘economically rational and reasonable’ man – that sometimes fit well together, but can also fall into tension (i.e. when someone perceived as an immigrant is perceived to be staking a claim that restricts the individual’s choices). Psychosocial accounts are thus interested in the way in which individuals invest in various discourses. This includes hate crime offenders’ post-offence rationalisations, as well as how the general populace positions themselves in relation to other individuals and groups in their communities, including those labelled ‘outsiders’. The strength of this position is it enables a complex and multi-layered approach to how individuals position in relation to complex social problems. The idea that people are entirely rational, conscious beings whose thoughts all hang together in a unitary and uncomplicated way is profoundly questioned. Instead psychosocial analyses accent how most people espouse attitudes that are at least a little contradictory. It happens in our work lives, schools, politics and in local communities; all the places where hateful attacks are mounted.

Psychosocial criminologists adopt the psychoanalytic view that such contradictions are commonly managed using psychological defence mechanisms that protect the individual from feelings of vulnerability. This can mean burying certain feelings – like shame, disgust and guilt – in the unconscious, from whence they are likely to come forth occasionally in ways that are not always strictly controllable, such as slips of the tongue, sudden outbursts, dreams. For example, Ray et al (2004) apply the work of Scheff (1990,1994,1997) to the motivations of hate crime perpetrators convicted of racially aggravated offences in Greater Manchester. In their interviews with those on probation they detected unacknowledged shame where offenders saw themselves as weak, disregarded, unfairly treated and made to feel small by their Asian victims. In some instances an act of violence represented an attempt to re-establish control, to escape from shame into a state of pride.

These unconscious or barely conscious states can also be managed through psychic splitting and projection processes whereby unwanted feelings are attributed to others where they can be attacked. This might be the case, for example, in a homophobic attack where someone who feels insecure about their heterosexuality will attack someone else for their perceived homosexuality. The motive may not be intrapersonal, as much as to demonstrate to their male peer group that they are not gay. According to Jennings and Murphy (2000) the shame explanation for hostility towards homosexuality, is that the individual male is ashamed of his homoerotic feelings and represses them. The humiliation theory, on the other hand, is that the great majority of men are not homophobic because they fear their homosexual tendencies, but because they fear that other men will think they might be homosexual. Herek’s et al (1992) work informed by first hand accounts of homophobic perpetrators, points out that in many cases of hate crime, ‘hate’ is not the primary motive. Instead, the act expresses culturally pervasive bias, hostility or prejudice towards gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

In Losing the Race (2011), Gadd and Dixon argue that many people’s investments in racist discourses are motivated by unconscious perceptions of loss. Some of these losses are social or cultural, following from economic decline – the loss of jobs, loss of respect, loss of a certain way of life – that can be found in many deindustrialising towns and cities. Others’ losses are more deep-rooted and personal (including the loss of a loved one, parent or child, or the loss of one’s physical or mental sense of health and security). The sense that such losses are ‘eating one up’ – all consuming – can take many forms; some collective, like the nostalgic celebration of mythical bygone times before cultural diversity presided; and some quite individualistic and/or extreme, for example, a personal obsession with miscegenation. What is personal and what is cultural can, of course, suddenly become reconfigured in the political landscape or by media coverage, so that personal fears about catastrophe are merged with wider political noise-making about the risks of unrestrained migration. For this reason, hate crime perpetrators and the general populace are not always easy to distinguish. The contingent nature of interpersonal conflict, the multiplicity of discourses through which prejudices are articulated and reinforced, and the defended nature of the emotions that underpin many forms of violence and harassment, often combine to make it difficult for those who commit hate crimes to see themselves as committed hate crime perpetrators. That is, in the same terms as the criminal justice system tends to conceive of them.

____

Sociological:

Sociological accounts of hate crime are many and varied, although there is a general tendency to treat hate crime as a variant of youth violence and delinquency. From this perspective, hate crime results principally from either the ‘anomic’ outbursts of poorly integrated individuals within society, or from a solidarity reaction to a threatened community or group (Green, McFalls and Smith 2001 p.487). While Hamm’s (1993) study of American skinheads showed that some appeared ‘hyperactively bonded to the dominant social order’. For others, as Kathleen Blee’s (2007) research shows, there seems to be an attraction to violence per se. These offenders become attached to extremist groups for the violence, rather than an attraction to any particular racist or supremacist ideology. Members of the White Power skinhead groups she observed, commonly violently attack each other as part of ritualised group dynamics. Further, members sometimes change sides and joined anti-fascist groups in order to engage in violent clashes with former allies. Blee (2007:263) concluded that ‘violence makes a group’, rather than being necessarily an ‘outcome of group strategy’.

Another significant sociological contribution to the question of why people commit hate crime, is the ‘Defended Community Perspective’ (Suttles 1972). This conceives, particularly racial hate crime, as strategies for defending against threats posed to valued identities and ways of life. This perspective can be conceived as a variant of traditional racial threat, or as Green, Strolovitch and Wong (1998:376) suggest, “a rapprochement between symbolic and realistic perspectives”. This is important because hate crimes symbolically target whole social groups, not just individual victims (Boyd, Berk, and Hamner 1996; Levin and McDevitt 1993). As such, these crimes may have particularly pernicious consequences that reverberate across communities. Such that, even relatively minor acts in terms of criminal law, may disproportionately affect communities exacerbating any existing tensions and increasing the potential for retaliation and escalating violence (Craig 1999). In addition, acts of this kind are likely to be seized upon by extremist groups on all sides as ‘evidence’ of their extreme political stance.

____

Economic:

Developing some of the themes of defended communities discussed above, a number of economic accounts of why hate crimes happen have gained significant traction. Although an emphasis on social change links the two, sociological theories of hate crime stress anomie engendered by social disintegration, whereas economic theories see the roots of hate crime in displaced frustration and stress for scarce material resources (Banton, 1983; Bjorgo, 1993). In their investigation of lynching patterns over time, Tolnay and Beck (1995) contend, “whites attacked when they believed that blacks were threatening their privileged access to society’s scarce resources” (1995, p59). Realistic group conflict theory, LeVine and Campbell (1972) argue, focuses on hostilities arising from power differentials amongst groups. This has prompted a series of studies on post-reunified Germany and the proliferation of racist attitudes there (Legge 1996: Krueger and Pischke 1997; McLaren 1999). An important addition to the debate made by Green et al (1998) and Olzak (1989) is that the subjective perception of ‘realistic‘ conflict may well depend on whether frustrations are made salient and mobilised by political elites and interest groups. National interest groups may seek to pick up on and ‘amplify’ local agitation around specific intergroup grievances for their own political advantage.

______

Motivation for hate crime:

Sociologists Jack McDevitt and Jack Levin’s 2002 study into the motives for hate crimes found four motives, and reported that “thrill-seeking” accounted for 66 percent of all hate crimes overall in the United States:

Thrill-seeking – perpetrators engage in hate crimes for excitement and drama. Often, there is no greater purpose behind the crimes, with victims being vulnerable because they have an ethnic, religious, sexual or gender background that differs from their attackers. While the actual animosity present in such a crime can be quite low, thrill-seeking crimes were determined to often be dangerous, with 70 percent of thrill-seeking hate crimes studied involving physical attacks. Typically, these attacks are perpetrated by groups of young teenagers or adults seeking excitement.
Defensive – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of a belief they are protecting their communities. Often, these are triggered by a certain background event. Perpetrators believe society supports their actions but is too afraid to act and thus they believe they have communal assent in their actions.
Retaliatory – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of a desire for revenge. This can be in response to perceived personal slights, other hate crimes or terrorism. The “avengers” target members of a group whom they believe committed the original crime, even if the victims had nothing to do with it. These kinds of hate crimes are a common occurrence after terrorist attacks.
Mission offenders – perpetrators engage in hate crimes out of ideological reasons. They consider themselves to be crusaders, often for a religious or racial cause. They may write complex explanations for their views and target symbolically important sites, trying to maximize damage. They believe that there is no other way to accomplish their goals, which they consider to be justification for excessive violence against innocents. This kind of hate crime often overlaps with terrorism, and is considered by the FBI to be both the rarest and deadliest form of hate crime.

Types of hate crime perpetrators according to motivations:

Type of Perpetrator

Motivations

Other causal factors can include:

Example of hate crime

Thrill Seeker

Excitement; boredom; dislike of outgroup

Peer pressure; alcohol; machismo; male/peer bonding

A homophobic attack in a city centre by a group of young men encouraging each other to escalate violence

Defensive

Protecting territory or geographical ‘turf’ of ingroup by ‘othering’ newer communities

Perception of threat to ingroup’s socio-economic security; socioeconomic deprivation; anger; internalised shame

Anti-immigrant or antiGypsy/Roma/traveller abuse directed towards individuals who are new to an area

Retaliatory

Seeking revenge for a (perceived) attack against ingroup

Perception of threat/change to

social and cultural norms

Anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic attacks and criminal damage to Mosques or Synagogues

following trigger events (for example, murder of Lee Rigby;

Paris Attacks)

Mission

Ideological/world view; desire for Power

Extremist/hate group links;

influenced by masculinity; socioeconomic

deprivation; anger;

internalised shame

Neo-Nazi organised racist

violent attacks; organised

marches involving physical or

verbal attacks on Muslims

In a later article, Levin and fellow sociologist Ashley Reichelmann found that following the September 11 attacks, thrill motivated hate crimes tended to decrease as the overall rate of violent crime decreased while defensive hate crimes increased substantially. Specifically, they found that 60% of all hate motivated assaults in 2001 were perpetrated against those the offenders perceived to be Middle Eastern and were motivated mainly by a desire for revenge. Levin and McDevitt also argued that while thrill crimes made up the majority of hate crimes in the 1990s, after September 11, 2001, hate crimes in the United States shifted from thrill offenses by young groups to more defensive oriented and more often perpetrated by older individuals respond to a precipitating event.

The motivations of hate-crime offenders are complex. Therefore, there is no one theory that can completely account for hate-motived crimes. However, Mark Austin Walters attempted to synthesize three interdisciplinary theories to account for the behavior of hate-crime offenders:

-1. Strain Theory: suggests that hate crimes are motivated by perceived economic and material inequality, which results in differential attitudes towards outsiders who may be viewed as “straining” already scarce resources. An example of this can be seen in the discourse surrounding some people’s apprehension towards immigrants, who feel as though immigrants and/or refugees receive extra benefits from government and strain social systems.

-2. Doing Difference Theory: suggests that some individuals fear groups other than their own and, as a result of this, seek to suppress different cultures.

-3. Self-Control Theory: suggests that a person’s upbringing determines their tolerance threshold towards others, here individuals with low self-esteem are often impulsive, have poor employment prospects, and have little academic success.

Walters argues that a synthesis of these theories provides a more well-rounded scope of the motivations behind hate crimes, where he explains that social, cultural, and individual factors interact to elicit the violence behavior of individuals with low self-control.

Additionally, psychological perspectives within the realm of behaviourism have also contributed to theoretical explanations for the motivations of hate crimes particularly as it relates to conditioning and social learning. For instance, the seminal work of John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner illustrated that hate, a form of prejudice, was a conditioned emotional response. These studies are of interest when considering modern forms of prejudice directed towards ethnic, religious, or racial groups. For instance, there was a significant increase in Islamophobia and hate crimes following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Simultaneously, the news media was consistently pairing Islam with terrorism. Thus, the pairing of verbal stimuli in the media contributed to widespread prejudice towards all Arab individuals in a process that is known as semantic generalization, which refers to how a learned behavior can generalize across situations based on meaning or other abstract representations. These occurrences continue today with the social and political discourse that contribute to the context in which people learn, come to form beliefs, and engage in behavioural actions. Although not all individuals with prejudicial attitudes go on to engage in hate-motived crime, it has been suggested that hate-crime offenders come to learn their prejudices through social interaction, consumption of biased news media, political hate speech, and internal misrepresentations of cultures other than their own.

______

Why We Hate, a 2018 study:

Authors offer a functional perspective on hate, showing that hate has a unique pattern of appraisals and action tendencies. Hate is based on perceptions of a stable, negative disposition of persons or groups. We hate persons and groups more because of who they are, than because of what they do. Hate has the goal to eliminate its target. Hate is especially significant at the intergroup level, where it turns already devalued groups into victims of hate. When shared among group members, hate can spread fast in conflict zones where people are exposed to hate-based violence, which further feeds their hate. Hate can be reassuring and self-protective, because its message is simple and helps confirming people’s belief in a just world.

_____

Hate crime towards minoritized groups increases as they increase in sized-based rank, a 2022 study:

When the minority group becomes larger, the majority group feels more threatened. The study, published in Nature Human Behaviour, suggests that hate crimes against minorities tightly track with the relative rank of a group in any given community. A minority group ranked as the largest experiences the most discrimination, followed by the second-largest group, and so on. Authors propose the group reference dependence hypothesis: violence and negative attitudes towards each minoritized group will depend on the number and size of other minoritized groups in a community. Specifically, as groups increase or decrease in rank in terms of their size (for example, to the largest minority within a community), discriminatory behaviour and attitudes towards them should change accordingly. Authors test this hypothesis for hate crimes in US counties between 1990 and 2010 and attitudes in the United States and United Kingdom over the past two decades. Consistent with this prediction, authors find that as Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and Arab populations increase in rank relative to one another, they become more likely to be targeted with hate crimes and more negative attitudes. The rank effect holds above and beyond group size/proportion, growth rate and many other alternative explanations.

______

Section-10

Impact of hate:

Impact on Hater:

Hatred is a feeling that we all have felt and experienced at some point in our lives, especially when we have been betrayed or hurt by someone that we are attached to. Hateful feelings are normal when they occur sporadically. However, the effects of feeling hatred over a long period of time can have devastating effects on your mind and body. Feelings of rage and hatred build up in the mind affect the body’s organs and natural processes and breeds further negative emotions. Hatred is a form of neurosis, fixation and judgment that is harmful to you. If continued, it leads to conflicts in relationships and to bodily disease.

Research shows that hatred changes the chemistry in the brain as it stimulates the premotor cortex which is responsible for planning and execution of motion. This prepares us to act aggressively when feeling hateful, either to defend or as an attack. This activation also triggers the autonomic nervous system, creating “fight or flight” responses, increasing cortisol and adrenalin. Both these hormones contribute to weight gain, insomnia, anxiety, depression and chronic illness. Hatred also triggers the mind to try to predict what the actions of the person being hated may do, as a way to protect you. This leads to further anxiety, restlessness, obsessive thinking, and paranoia, which affects overall mental health. Hatred negatively impacts the nervous system, immune system, and endocrine system. Extreme emotions trigger the release of stress hormones in the brain. Over time, these stress hormones lead to increased inflammation throughout the body, resulting in significant health consequences. The more intense an emotion becomes, the more physically demanding it is to contain it. Holding on to hate can be exhausting. It can cause involuntary clenching of the jaw, grinding the teeth, and tensing the muscles. It’s important to note that all these reactions affect only the hater, and not the hated, breaking down your nervous – immune – and endocrine system, and your mental well-being.

Impact on Hated:

As cited in the Home Office thematic review of hate crimes (2018): “Studies have found that, although not universal, victims of hate crime often experience greater post-victimisation distress (including anxiety, depression, and withdrawal) than victims of equivalent non-prejudice offences.” Such experiences can seriously alter the ways in which they lead their lives, having pervasive implications not only for the victims but also for the wider community. Research also suggests how victims and people of targeted communities modify their behaviour in terms of how they dress, and where they go, often avoiding certain areas and services.

The Sussex Hate Crime Project examines the direct and indirect impacts of hate crimes particularly on LGBT and Muslim communities. The report underlines the severe emotional impacts of hate crimes with twice as many victims suffering a loss of confidence or feelings of vulnerability compared with victims of non-hate crimes. The victims were also more than twice as likely to experience fear, difficulty sleeping, anxiety or panic attacks, or depression. Research suggests that fear of hate crime can become normalised among groups that are routinely targeted, making them hesitant to seek help or follow reporting procedures. As the purpose of hate crimes is not only to target one victim but an entire group of people the victim identifies with, they also have far-reaching consequences on the communities too. The study concluded that hate crimes reverberate through targeted communities with significant consequences for individuals, communities, and society as a whole, causing entire groups of people to feel stigmatized and rejected, potentially resulting in community tensions and social isolation.

Experiencing incidents of hate can cause trauma. The impact of trauma can also manifest in various forms of behavior and mood changes as seen in figure below:

There is significant trauma caused to the witnesses of the hate crimes and often involves the family members of the victim. The impact is worse if the witness is a child who may experience psychological damage that haunts them for life.

______

The impact of hate speech includes:

Human rights violation

Atrocity crime

Terrorism

The spread of violent extremism

Gender-based violence

Communal Violence

Polarization of communities and sections of the society

Threat to the protection of civilians, minorities, refugees, women and children

Alleviate the fight against all forms of racism and discrimination

Erosion of democratic values

Mobocracy and Mob lynching

Deteriorate peace, growth and development

Hate speech alienates, marginalizes and undermines personal dignity

Hate crime

Property damage- public and private

Rape

Genocide

It can even deteriorate bilateral relations and lead to tussles/wars

There are historical precedents showing that hate speech can be a precursor to atrocity crimes. In recent years, the world has witnessed several mass atrocities. In many of these cases, hate speech was identified as a “precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide”. While the use of social media and digital platforms to spread hatred is relatively recent, the weaponization of public discourse for political gain is unfortunately not new. As history continues to show, hate speech coupled with disinformation can lead to stigmatization, discrimination and large-scale violence.

_______

Hate speech as a silencing mechanism:

Does receiving hate speech discourage people from publicly expressing their opinions?

Hate speech is found to have a range of consequences for individuals, such as fear and other emotional symptoms, lowered self-esteem, loss of dignity, and withdrawal from the public –both physically and in terms of participation in public debate (Boeckmann & Liew, 2002; Boeckmann & Turpin-Petrosino, 2002; Eggebø, Sloan, & Aarbakke, 2016; Gelber & McNamara, 2016; Herek, Cogan, & Gillis, 2002; Leets, 2002; Midtbøen & Steen-Johnsen, 2016; Pew Research Center, 2014). All instances of hate speech will of course not have these consequences, but the empirical studies demonstrate that hate speech can produce such outcomes.

One possible consequence of receiving hate speech is discouraging people from voicing their opinions publicly. One purpose of hate speech is to incite fear in the groups targeted, and to remind those who are considered ‘different’ or ‘other’ of where they belong (cf. Perry, 2001). If hate speech works to silence its targets, it can be seen to pose a social boundary on free speech. Furthermore, if certain groups are more likely than others to refrain from voicing opinions publicly due to experiences with hate speech, hate speech is potentially a democratic problem. A precondition for an enlightened democratic debate is that all group-based interests are represented in public discourse (cf. Phillips, 2009). A Norwegian study found that, compared to the majority population, ethnic minorities are substantially more prone to become cautious about expressing their opinions after experiencing harassment.

Digital hate not only puts a strain on the psyche of those affected. It also leads to people withdrawing from the internet out of fear of hate comments. They no longer actively participate in political and social discourse. This effect is called “silencing”. It poses a real danger to democratic processes. At the same time, it shows how strongly hate on the net affects the well-being and sense of security of those affected. People who are attacked on the net often find it difficult to assess the actual threat situation. Intimidation and threats trigger a diffuse feeling of fear in them. If this stress is not recognized as such or is repressed, serious mental illnesses can be the result. In such cases, it is important to seek concrete help – and to support those affected.

_______

Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain, a 2023 study:

The widespread ubiquity of hate speech affects people’s attitudes and behavior. Exposure to hate speech can lead to prejudice, dehumanization, and lack of empathy towards members of outgroups. However, the impact of exposure to hate speech on empathy and propensity to attribute mental states to others has never been directly tested empirically. In this fMRI study, authors examine the effects of exposure to hate speech on neural mechanisms of empathy towards ingroup (Poles) versus outgroup members (Arabs). Thirty healthy young adults were randomly assigned to 2 groups: hateful and neutral. During the fMRI study, they were initially exposed to hateful or neutral comments and subsequently to narratives depicting Poles and Arabs in pain. Using whole-brain and region of interest analysis, authors showed that exposure to derogatory language about migrants attenuates the brain response to someone else’s pain in the right temporal parietal junction (rTPJ), irrespective of group membership (Poles or Arabs). Given that rTPJ is associated with processes relevant to perspective-taking, its reduced activity might be related to a decreased propensity to take the psychological perspective of others. This finding suggests that hate speech affects human functioning beyond intergroup relations. The study suggests that immersion in a hateful environment leads to empathic numbing: people exposed to hate speech have limited ability to attribute the psychological perspective of others, regardless of their group membership. This very basic psychological transformation is not only important from the perspective of human intergroup relations, but it also shows that hate speech poses a threat to any harmonious human interactions and everyday compassion.

_______

The impacts of hate crime:

Hate crimes often have a disproportionate impact on the victim because they are being targeted for a personal characteristic. Hate crime not only impact the individual victim but also the wider community. Hate incidents as one-offs or a related series of events can send reverberations through communities, they affect individual’s emotional wellbeing being and create fear, humiliation and anger, reinforcing established patterns of prejudice and discrimination. Individuals themselves do not have to be targeted to be impacted: simply knowing someone who has been victimised is sufficient to cause these effects.

Hate crimes, whether experienced directly, indirectly, through the media, in person or online were consistently linked to:

increased feelings of vulnerability, anxiety, anger, and sometimes shame
being more security conscious, avoidant, and more active within the community
states of fear and withdrawal from society, leading to lack of participation in educational opportunities, employment and cultural life. Fear leads to increased isolation which can then lead to increasing the likelihood of further victimisation.

Critics of hate crime legislation have argued that such laws are prosecuting thoughts rather than actions, and that crimes, regardless of their underlying motivations, should be prosecuted in the same way. However, not only does this argument misinterpret the true nature and dynamics of hate crime, but it also fails to recognise that criminal responsibility must reflect both an offender’s level of culpability for committing an offence and the level of harm it is likely to cause. There is now considerable research that shows hate crimes are unique because the motivations underpinning such offences have additional traumatic effects both on individual victims and entire communities of people

On the individual level, research shows that hate crime victims report feeling more anxious, fearful, and vulnerable than victims of comparable non-hate crimes. Hate crime victims are also more likely to suffer more violent attacks, resulting in substantial physical injuries and in turn extensive psychological trauma. Furthermore, as hate crimes specifically target individual’s core identities and beliefs, victims are more likely to feel ostracised and marginalised, forcing them to question their place and worth in society.

The impacts do not stop there. Hate crimes act as messages of intolerance to entire communities. By targeting one member, these crimes reverberate throughout communities who share the victim’s identity characteristic causing ‘waves of harm’, in which all members are shown (or reminded) that they are vulnerable to targeted violence because of who they are.

In the research which involved 20 separate studies with over 7000 individuals in England and Wales, it was consistently found that hate crimes have a significant impact on targeted community members’ perceptions of threat (against their physical safety and rights as equal citizens), which in turn has significant negative effects on their emotional wellbeing, and their behaviours. For example, when LGBT+ participants personally knew of, or read about, other LGBT+ individuals’ experiences of hate crimes, they reported feeling vulnerable, anxious, angry, and even ashamed. While many community members sought solace with fellow LGBT+ people and were more determined to fight injustice, many also chose to avert potential prejudice-based abuse by avoiding certain locations and people, restricting public displays of affections to their partners and were less likely to reveal their sexual orientation to others.

These ‘social harms’ have significant implications for society in general, making it less open, less equal, and less diverse. In other words, hate crimes don’t just hurt those groups who are targeted, they hurt everyone who wants to live in a diverse and open society. In this sense, hate crime laws reflect the greater seriousness of such offences, not only acknowledging the enhanced harms they cause to those targeted, but they also recognise that they are a direct attack against liberal democracy’s commitment to fundamental principles including freedom and equality. Here we are reminded of the indelible words of Martin Luther King Jr who stated, ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’.

_______

The Psychological Impact of Hate Crime on Individuals:

Hate crimes are under-reported worldwide, providing limited information on the incidents. However, the existing data on hate crimes relies on those cases reported to the police, thus depending not only on the willingness of victims to report, but also on their ability to provide sufficient evidence of the hate motive to police personnel. Iganski (2008) points out that in only a minority of hate crime incidents do offenders use force or physical violence. The majority of offenses range from verbal abuse to harassment, to assaults and criminal damage, and many of these offenses go unreported.

Data collected over the last two decades reveals that hate-crime represents a severe threat to the physical and psychological safety and well being of its victims. In fact, what distinguishes ‘hate crime’ from other types of crimes is that “all ‘hate crimes’ generally hurt more than general crimes. The notion that ‘hate crimes’ inflict greater harms on their victims is therefore the fundamental dimension in its conceptualization.”

Several authors suggest that individual victims of hate crime may suffer more extreme mental health and well-being consequences from hate crime victimisation compared to other types of crime victimisation (Iganski, 2008; 2001; Perry, 2003; D’Augelli & Grossmann, 2001; Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997). As indicated by the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, Inc., common signs and symptoms of trauma reactions and excessive stress include physical, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural factors. In order to assess psychological impact, these additional factors also need to be considered.

The American Psychological Association recognises that “this kind of attack takes place on two levels; not only is it an attack on one’s physical self, but it is also an attack on one’s very identity”. Thus the association highlights that psychological and emotional damage, intense feelings of fear, vulnerability, anger, and depression, physical ailments and learning problems, and difficult interpersonal relations – all symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder – can be brought on by a hate crime.

It is said that the motivation of the hate crime offender violates the equality principle, striking at the core of the victim’s self. The study by Iganski (2002) quotes a hate crime victim: “…it scars the victim far more deeply… You are beaten or hurt because of who you are. It is a direct and deliberate and focused crime and it is a violation of really a person’s essence, a person’s soul, because…you can’t change who you… And it’s much more difficult to deal with… Because what a hate crime says to a victim of hate crime is ‘you’re not fit to live in this society with me. I don’t believe that you have the same rights as I do. I believe that you are second to me. I am superior to you.”

Victims of hate crime not only have the direct experience of the crime, but often also encounter double or secondary victimisation through biases and the blame of people and institutions they come in contact afterwards. The fear of being treated unfairly and negatively by those who are supposed to help affects the willingness of the victims to report and seek help for recovery.

Hate crime victims can also develop depression and psychological trauma. They suffer from typical symptoms of trauma: lack of concentration, fear, unintentional rethinking of the incident and feeling vulnerable or unsafe. These symptoms may be severe enough to qualify as PTSD. In the United States, the Supreme Court has accepted the claim that hate crimes cause ‘distinct emotional harm’ to victims. People who have been victims of hate crimes avoid spaces where they feel unsafe which can make communities less functional when ties with police are strained by persistent group fears and feelings of insecurity. In the United States, hate crime has been shown to reduce educational attainment among affected groups—particularly among black, non-Hispanic victims.

_______

Impact of hate on public health:

Population health scholarship over the past two decades has illuminated how prejudice, discrimination, and segregation, linked to inter-personal hatred and antagonism, have a pernicious and pervasive effect on the health of populations. Duncan and Hatzenbuehler, for example, linked lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth suicide in Boston with neighborhood-level LGBT hate crimes involving assaults, and found that sexual minority high school students who lived in neighborhoods with higher rates of assault were significantly more likely to report suicidal ideation or attempts. They also found evidence of a higher prevalence of marijuana use among these same LGBT students in higher hate crime neighborhoods. Another study found that “structural stigma,” defined as anti-gay prejudice at the community level using the General Social Survey, was associated with higher all-cause mortality among sexual minorities. Ilan Meyer put forward a conceptual framework that links stigma and prejudice to mental health disorders among LGBT people through hostile social environments.

Experiences of racial discrimination are consistently linked with mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as physical ailments such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Young adults who faced discrimination frequently—at least a few times per month—were around 25% more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health disorder and twice as likely to develop severe psychological distress than those who hadn’t experienced discrimination or did less often, according to a 2021 study in the journal Paediatrics. Hate crimes can lead to a wide range of mental health issues, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance use. A 2020 study found experiences of hate are associated with poor emotional wellbeing such as feelings of anger and shame. Victims tend to experience poor mental health, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. Some research also points to the finding that the experience of hate-motivated behavior can result in blaming of and lower empathy toward fellow victims.

There are many studies that have shown the negative effects of this feeling. For example, a study conducted by the University of California, San Francisco found that people who experienced hate had a higher risk of death from heart disease. Another study, conducted by the University of Michigan, found that hateful people had higher levels of stress and anxiety. These studies show that hate is an emotion that can have a significant impact on our health. On the individual level, Kessler and colleagues found that respondents to the MIDUS national survey who personally perceived any kind of major lifetime discrimination were more likely to have major depression. Discrimination following a specific, collective event also has been studied. Arab Americans living in the U.S. who perceived abuse after the 9/11 attacks were more likely to report high levels of psychological distress and lower levels of happiness.

The literature extends well beyond the negative health effects among the minorities who are targeted by specific discrimination. One study found that racial resentment, which also can be referred to as symbolic racism, was associated with smoking among non-Hispanic whites, suggesting that the consequences of hate reach out-groups and those in majority groups. The link between smoking and a host of physical health problems is, in turn, inarguable. Additionally, there is a robust literature about the relationship between segregation, often a proxy for racial tension in a community, and health outcomes. One systematic review found that isolation segregation was associated with poor pregnancy outcomes and mortality. A paper from our research group a few years ago estimated that about 176,000 deaths annually may be attributed to racial segregation.

There are many reasons, beyond health, why hatred and intolerance should have no place in a pluralistic, enlightened society. But health is a shared and universal aspiration. A desire to maximize the health of populations should galvanize us. It should push us to engage with the social fractures that threaten our potential to become healthier people. This argues strongly for the centrality of a social justice agenda to an activist public health approach—one that is concerned with understanding and creating the conditions that promote health in populations.

_____

Section-11

Hate speech:

Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation”. The Encyclopaedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is “usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation”. There is no single definition of what constitutes “hate” or “disparagement”. Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. In Germany, for example, laws forbid incitement to hatred; you could find yourself the subject of a police raid if you post such content online. In the US, on the other hand, even the vilest kinds of speech are legally protected under the US Constitution. People who live in the same country — or next door — often have different levels of tolerance for speech about protected characteristics. To some, crude humour about a religious leader can be considered both blasphemy and hate speech against all followers of that faith.

Hate speech consists of statements that attack or insult a person or group. According to the UN, it is any form of communication that uses derogatory or discriminatory language against a person or group based on their religion, nationality, so-called race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, gender or other element of their identity. Such statements are punishable by law if they exceed the legal limits of freedom of speech.

Examples of hate speech:

Hate speech can take various forms: posts on social media, texts or images in print or online, radio or TV broadcasts, videos, oral statements, etc. The following examples qualify as hate speech:

Football supporters shout at a Moroccan man in the street: “Hey Mohammed, go back to Marrakesh, we don’t want Muslims in our country.”
A man applies stickers with far-right slogans such as “our socialism is national” on road signs and on the windows of the Museum Kazerne Dossin.
A man posts on Facebook that “he wants to bring back gas chambers, see Jews put in them and that Adolf Hitler was doing great work.”

There is no consensus on a definition for ‘hate speech’ in International Human Rights Law. Upholding free speech is hugely important to open societies that respect human rights. Human Rights Treaties outlaw offensive speech when it poses a risk or threat to others. Speech that is simply offensive but poses no risk to others is generally NOT considered a human rights violation. Hate Speech becomes a human rights violation if it incites discrimination, hostility or violence towards a person or a group defined by their race, religion, ethnicity or other factors. Hate Speech typically targets the ‘other’ in societies. This is manifested through the ‘othering’ of minority groups such as racial, ethnic, religious and cultural minorities, women and the LGBTQI+ community. In 1997 the Council of Europe issued a recommendation on hate speech which defines it as ‘all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance’. The 2019 UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines it as communication that ‘attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender, or other identity factor’.

There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and hate speech legislation. The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or that disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify protected groups based on certain characteristics. In some countries, including the United States, what is usually labelled “hate speech” is constitutionally protected. In some other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

There is a fine line between what can and cannot be considered hate speech. Therefore, it is important to carefully distinguish hate speech from other insulting, unpopular or extreme views and expressions. For example, a statement can be contrary to the majority’s opinion, considered offensive and feel hateful, but it might not exactly incite hatred or violence. Hate speech involves not only public verbal statements, but can also be expressed in other forms such as pictures, films, cartoons etc. It is important to realize that hate speech can be disseminated in many different ways nowadays, including the Internet. Hate speech online is propagated and amplified and its consequences are underestimated. Hate speech is generally accepted to be one of the prerequisites for mass atrocities such as genocide. Incitement to genocide is an extreme form of hate speech, and has been prosecuted in international courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

______

The term ‘hate speech’ is more than a descriptive concept used to identify a specific class of expressions. It also functions as an evaluative term judging its referent negatively and as a candidate for censure. Thus, defining this category carries serious implications. What is it that designates hate speech as a distinctive class of speech? Some claim the term ‘hate speech’ itself is misleading because it wrongly suggests “virulent dislike of a person for any reason” as a defining feature (Gelber 2017, 619). That is not, however, the way in which the term is understood among most legal theorists and philosophers. Bhikhu Parekh (2012) lists the following instances as examples different countries have either punished or sought to punish as hate speech:

Shouting “[N-words] go home,” making monkey noises, and chanting racist slogans at soccer matches.
“Islam out of Britain. Protect the British people.”
“Arabs out of France.”
“Serve your country, burn down a mosque.”
“Blacks are inherently inferior, lecherous, predisposed to criminal activities, and should not be allowed to move into respectable areas.”
“Jews are conspiratorial, devious, treacherous, sadistic, child killers, and subversive; want to take over the country; and should be carefully watched.”
Distribution by a political party of leaflets addressed to “white fellow citizens” saying that, if it came to power, it would remove all Surinamese, Turks, and other “undesired aliens” from the Netherlands.
A poster of a woman in a burka with text that reads: “Who knows what they have under their sinister and ugly looking clothes: stolen goods, guns, bombs even?”
Speech that either denies or trivializes the holocaust or other crimes against humanity.

Robert Post’s four bases for defining hate speech might help us organize the features of Parekh’s list. The four definitional bases are in terms of: (1) harm, (2) content, (3) intrinsic properties, i.e., the type of words used, and (4) dignity.

______

Typical hate speech involves epithets and slurs, statements that promote malicious stereotypes, and speech intended to incite hatred or violence against a group. Hate speech can also include nonverbal depictions and symbols. For example, the Nazi swastika, the Confederate Battle Flag (of the Confederate States of America), and pornography have all been considered hate speech by a variety of people and groups. Critics of hate speech argue not only that it causes psychological harm to its victims, and physical harm when it incites violence, but also that it undermines the social equality of its victims. That is particularly true, they claim, because the social groups that are commonly the targets of hate speech have historically suffered from social marginalization and oppression. Hate speech therefore poses a challenge for modern liberal societies, which are committed to both freedom of expression and social equality. Thus, there is an ongoing debate in those societies over whether and how hate speech should be regulated or censored.

The traditional liberal position regarding hate speech is to permit it under the auspices of freedom of expression. Although those who take that position acknowledge the odious nature of the messages of hate speech, they maintain that state censorship is a cure that causes more harm than the disease of bigoted expression. They fear that a principle of censorship will lead to the suppression of other unpopular but nevertheless legitimate expression, perhaps even of the criticism of government, which is vital to the political health of liberal democracy. They argue that the best way to counter hate speech is to demonstrate its falsity in the open marketplace of ideas.

Proponents of censorship typically argue that the traditional liberal position wrongly assumes the social equality of persons and groups in society and neglects the fact that there are marginalized groups who are especially vulnerable to the evils of hate speech. Hate speech, they argue, is not merely the expression of ideas, but rather it is an effective means of socially subordinating its victims. When aimed at historically oppressed minorities, hate speech is not merely insulting but also perpetuates their oppression by causing the victims, the perpetrators, and society at large to internalize the hateful messages and act accordingly. Victims of hate speech cannot enter the “open marketplace of ideas” as equal participants to defend themselves, because hate speech, in conjunction with a broader system of inequality and unjust discrimination that burdens the victims, effectively silences them.

The court system of the United States has, on the basis of the First Amendment and its principle of freedom of speech, generally ruled against attempts to censor hate speech. Other liberal democracies such as France, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand have laws designed to curtail hate speech. Such laws have proliferated since World War II.

_______

Forms of hate speech:

Hate speech can take many forms, so it is important to be aware of different situations where particular expression may be considered to be hate speech.

-1. Privately expressed forms of hate

There should be no illusions that expressions containing hatred and offensive language towards certain individuals and groups is a daily occurrence in the private sphere. Because of their general negative attitudes towards these persons (groups), some people tend to express opinions in harsh and offensive ways in their private communication. For example: Two buddies share multiple racist jokes while playing video games.

This private communication will not usually be considered to be hate speech, as the aim of hate speech is to publicly invite groups of persons and even society as a whole to hatred. Therefore, it will not amount to a human rights violation and will not be punished. However, if unchecked, privately expressed hate speech feeds back into the public sphere, inciting further tension and other forms of illegal discrimination and abuse. Thus, the State should make efforts to ensure proper education about the harm caused by hate speech and discrimination.

-2. Publicly expressed hate speech

Publicly expressed hate speech is considered to be very serious and punishable. Criminal Code in many countries allows for the sanctioning of hate speech through fines, arrests or imprisonment if the hate speech was public and delivered with intent to degrade, incite discrimination, hatred or violence. Hate speech can take different forms and can be disseminated not only in “real life” but also on the Internet. It can be classified in different categories. For example, hate speech aimed at incitement to religious or racial hatred, hate speech dedicated to the glorification of war crimes, etc. For example: A group of people held an unsanctioned public meeting near a local church where they shouted slurs aimed at Christians.

-3. Hate speech online

Online hate speech is tolerated more than hate speech expressed offline and is, unfortunately, more difficult to control. It is also easier for users to be abusive online than offline. Hate speech online is propagated and amplified by underestimating its effects and by the thought that users on the internet have some impunity or are protected by anonymity. However, such thinking is incorrect, as public authorities are also implementing the necessary measures to combat hate speech which is disseminated online. For example: Several internet users posted hateful comments under an article about a gay couple getting married and adopting a child. The users were later tried and found guilty of incitement to hatred.

Most of the time, hate speech online will be considered to be equal to hate speech expressed “offline”, namely, in real life, and the users spreading hate speech can be held accountable. Because of the way that the internet works, the platforms and portals that create the conditions for the dissemination of hate speech and do not remove comments containing it in a timely way, can be held accountable as well. For example: A news portal faced fines because the portal did not take any action after receiving reports about hateful comments under articles posted on the news portal about Jews.

-4. Denial, trivialization, condonation and glorification

The State has a responsibility to punish any intentional public condonation, denial, gross trivialization or glorification of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes directed against a group of persons or members of such a group, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against it or them. For example: During a TV interview, a person claims that the Holocaust led to the deaths of only a few Jewish people and not millions, thus disputing the existence of this crime.

_______

Hate speech vis-à-vis international human right:

Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and opinion. This includes the right to seek, receive, and share information and ideas. Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that restrictions on freedom of expression must be provided by law and necessary.

‘Hate speech’ is an emotive concept, and there is no universally accepted definition of it in international human rights law.

A definition of ‘hate speech’ that means any expression of discriminatory hate towards people captures a very broad range of expression, including lawful expression. This general concept, therefore, is too vague for use in identifying expression that may legitimately be restricted under international human rights law. Other elements have been included to contest what constitutes ‘hate speech’, creating disagreement and uncertainty over appropriate responses.

A typology is developed (figure below) for identifying ‘hate speech’ according to the severity of the expression and its impact, informed by international human rights law, to guide appropriate responses that consider the mutually reinforcing nature of the right to freedom of expression and equality.

-1. ‘Hate speech’ that must be prohibited

-2. ‘Hate speech’ that may be prohibited, complying with the three-part test under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR: (a) provided for by law; (b) in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and (c) must be necessary in a democratic society.

-3. Lawful ‘hate speech’

What expression is not automatically ‘hate speech’?

Deeply offensive expression: International freedom of expression standards protect expression that is offensive, disturbing or shocking, and do not permit limitations premised solely on the basis of “offence” caused to an individual or group.
Blasphemy or “defamation of religion”: International human rights law protects people, and not abstract concepts, such as religions or belief systems. It distinguishes between ideas or beliefs attached to individuals, and does not protect religions or beliefs per se from adverse comment or scrutiny.
Denial of historical events: While denial of historical events raises concerns of intolerance and may legitimately be considered ‘hate speech’, prohibitions on such expression should be limited to only those acts that reach the threshold of advocacy of discriminatory hatred that constitutes incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination.
Inciting terrorist acts and violent extremism: Under international law, States are obliged to prohibit incitement to terrorist acts. However, being a restriction on freedom of expression to protect national security, these measures must comply with the three-part test set out in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.
Protection of “the State” and public officials: International standards do not permit restrictions on the right to freedom of expression which are made in order to protect “the state” or its symbols from insult or criticism. These entities cannot be the target of ‘hate speech’, because they are not people and are therefore not rights-holders.
Defamation: legal protection for defamation does not require an individual to show any advocacy of hatred, defamation laws aim to protect reputation of individuals and should be distinguished from ‘hate speech’.

Rabat plan:

Analyzing the evolution of reports by UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) over the last two decades reveals a gradual advance toward greater protection of freedom of expression. This progress is due to, among other factors, broader rejection of the contentious concept of “defamation of religions” and the adoption of the Rabat Plan of Action in 2012. The Rabat Plan, the result of several expert workshops organized by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, includes a threshold test comprising six parameters to distinguish punishable from non-punishable hate speech. These parameters are the social and political context, the speaker’s status, the speaker’s intent, the content of the message, the extent of dissemination, and the likelihood, including the imminence, that the speech will cause real danger to the groups against whom the speech is directed.

How is ‘hate speech’ different from hate crimes?

‘Hate speech’ and ‘hate crimes’ are often conflated and used interchangeably, but they should be distinguished. Both are symptomatic of intolerance and prejudice, but while all ‘hate speech’ is a cause for concern, it will not always constitute a criminal offence. States are required to prohibit severe forms of ‘hate speech,’ including through criminal, civil, and administrative measures.

The most severe types of hate speech that may appropriately attract criminal sanction include “incitement to genocide”, and particularly severe forms of “advocacy of discriminatory hatred that constitute incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination.” In these cases, ‘hate speech’ may also be the expressive act itself that is criminalised. On the other hand, ‘hate speech’ may not be an element of a ‘hate crime.’ Although the term ‘hate crime’ is widely used, the use of the emotive term ‘hate’ may lead people to believe that any manifestation of ‘hatred,’ including ‘hate speech’, is a criminal offence. This is not the case. While all ‘hate speech’ is a cause for concern, it will not always constitute a criminal offence, and therefore is not a “hate crime” as seen in figure below:

The term “hate crime” refers to the commission of a criminal offence where the perpetrator targeted the victim in whole or in part out of a “bias motivation.” Many jurisdictions label certain criminal offences as a “hate crime” in order to acknowledge the broader prejudicial context in which a person was victimised. This acknowledgment also aims to build confidence among marginalised individuals in the criminal justice system, and allows them to feel that their full experience of the crime has been recognised.

______

Indicators of hate speech:

An indicator is “a sign that shows you what something is like or how a situation is changing”. Previous studies have looked at indicators of cyberbullying, operational indicators of fake news, and behavioral indicators related to sexting. Indicators are also frequently used in psychopathology as a means of conceptualizing and diagnosing mental health problems. The operationalizing hate speech in the form of indicators could fulfil the same purpose—provide objective, measurable cues to help “diagnose” hate speech and find effective interventions. Some existing research papers on hate speech deal with the content characteristics that describe hate speech and can be considered precursors to hate speech indicators. However, these are not primarily aimed at identifying hate speech indicators using an adequate methodology and so do not assess them satisfactory.

First, Fortuna and Nunes identified four dimensions (that can be considered analogous to indicators) that allowed them to compare definitions of hate speech: (1) hate speech has specific targets, (2) hate speech is to incite violence or hate; (3) hate speech is to attack or diminish; and (4) hate speech can be expressed through (and hidden in) humour.

Secondly, some computer science studies have gone further than producing a binary classification and have distinguished different aspects of abusive/offensive language (as a superior concept to hate speech). Waseem et al. proposed a typology of abusive language based on defining two dimensions: (1) directed versus generalized, and (2) explicit versus implicit abusive language. Zampieri et al. similarly annotated and automatically classified offensive language according to directness (targeted insult, untargeted) and target identification (individual, group, other). By emphasizing these critical aspects of offensive/abusive language, these studies reduce the ambiguity in definitions of hate speech and related concepts. Ousidhoum et al. focused specifically on hate speech and manually annotated a multilingual dataset of Tweets in three languages, distinguishing five aspects: directness, hostility type (e.g., abusive, hateful, offensive), target attribute (i.e., what is being targeted, e.g., origin, gender, religion), target group (i.e., who is being targeted, e.g., individual, women), and annotator sentiment (i.e., the emotion felt by the annotator after reading the Tweet, e.g., disgust, fear, anger).

Other things resembling indicators can be identified in data annotation methodologies as well. The manual annotation of hate speech is a subjective process and annotators need extensive cultural and societal knowledge. Human annotators must therefore be provided with detailed instructions on how to recognize and label hate speech consistently. For this purpose, Waseem and Hovy proposed a list of 11 criteria to guide annotators, examples items are: hate speech (1) uses sexist or racial slurs, (2) criticizes a minority and uses straw man arguments; and (3) defends xenophobia or sexism.

Finally, in NLP and ML models, training of detection models commonly involves a feature engineering step. Features utilized to train models (especially those with a strong prediction capability) can be considered a kind of indicator as well. Fortuna and Nunes analyzed a number of detection methods and identified two categories of features: general features commonly used in text classification approaches and specific hate speech detection features. The latter category, which is more closely related to the concept of indicators, was further divided into several subcategories of features that are intrinsically related to the characteristics of hate speech: (1) othering language, (2) perpetrator characteristics, (3) objectivity-subjectivity of the language, (4) declarations of superiority of the ingroup, (5) a focus on particular stereotypes, and (6) intersectionism of oppression.

_______

Hate speech scale:

Hate speech is often seen as a binary choice. This is in part due to attempts to automate its detection or censor/sanction it, thus needing clear demarcations to classify when a piece of communication is or is not hate speech. Babak Bahador offers a hate-speech intensity scale, a strategy that allows us to move beyond the binary approach that dominates current hate speech research. This concept can be operationalized to better identify and understand the evolutions of hate speech before it leads to real-world harms. To make the scale easy to follow, a color, number, title, description, and examples for each category were placed into a Hate-Speech Intensity Scale. Within this scale, a distinction is made between rhetoric and response. Rhetoric includes negative words or phrases associated with the targeted out-group, which could refer to their past, present, or future actions or character. Response includes proposed actions that the in-group should take, either in response to the actions of the out-group or independent of the out-group’s actions.

Table below shows Hate-Speech Intensity Scale.

The first is Disagreement, which involves disagreeing with the ideas or beliefs of a particular group. While there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with ideas or beliefs, what makes this category an early warning to future hate speech is the creation of the “us vs. them” framework. This is also problematic because in most cases, it will involve oversimplification and stereotyping of the out-group, as rarely will all members of the group think or believe in a uniform manner. Rhetoric will suggest, for example, that the out-group is wrong or hold incorrect beliefs while response will argue that we should take actions involving changing their minds or opposing them at the level of ideas.

The second involves rhetoric that highlights nonviolent negative actions associated with the out-group, such as claims that the group stole or withdrew from a positive event. When such alleged actions are ambiguous on the use of violence (e.g., they stopped them) or use of nonviolent negative metaphors, they fit in this category (if unambiguous on violence, it’s classified a 5 or 6). Responses involve nonviolent actions the in-group should do toward the out-groups, such as voting them out or protesting against them.

The third includes negative characterizations or insults. This is worse than just negative nonviolent actions, as it makes an intrinsic claim about the group as opposed to a one-off action claim. As this category is not action oriented (unlike #1, 2, 5 and 6), there are no responses. The fourth category is also the second typology and can be considered an extreme form of negative characterization involving dehumanization and/or demonization. Like the third category, there are no responses in this category.

The fifth and sixth categories involve violent actions and death. The fifth category refers to literal violence allocated to out-groups either in their past, present, or future nonlethal violent actions. This also includes metaphorical or aspirational violence that is either nonlethal or lethal. Responses call for literal nonlethal violence to the out-group such as assaulting them. The sixth category involves rhetorically referring to out-groups as killers (past, present, and future). Responses call for the in-group to kill the out-group.

A hate-speech intensity scale can offer an early warning that can be useful to a range of actors, including those producing the speech (for self-correction), platform companies, regulators, jurists, human rights advocates, journalists, and the targeted groups. If operationalized through a hate-speech monitoring system, such a scale can also be a proxy for potential real-world harm against different groups and societal polarization in general. Of course, any effort at hate-speech monitoring must be conducted with great care to avoid violating the free speech rights of individuals and prevent abuse by those who may use it for nefarious ends, such as limiting legitimate political dissent against those in power.

______

Hate speech, misinformation and disinformation:

While there are no universally accepted definitions of hate speech, mis- and disinformation, UN entities have developed working definitions. Hate speech, according to the working definition in the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, is “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. The difference between mis- and disinformation lies with intent. Disinformation is information that is not only inaccurate, but is also intended to deceive and is spread in order to inflict harm. Misinformation refers to the unintentional spread of inaccurate information shared in good faith by those unaware that they are passing on falsehoods. Misinformation can be rooted in disinformation as deliberate lies and misleading narratives are weaponized over time, fed into the public discourse and passed on unwittingly. In practice, the distinction between mis- and disinformation can be difficult to determine.

While both hate speech and disinformation can be harmful, the key difference is that hate speech specifically targets individuals or groups based on characteristics like race, religion, or gender with the intent to incite hatred or violence, while disinformation refers to deliberately spreading false information to deceive or manipulate people, often without a direct focus on a specific group; essentially, hate speech is about malicious intent towards a group, while disinformation is about spreading false information to achieve a goal, which can include influencing public opinion. Mis- and disinformation and hate speech are related but distinct phenomena, with certain areas of overlap and difference in how they can be identified, mitigated and addressed. All three pollute the information ecosystem and threaten human progress. Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.

____

Role of the media in hate speech:

Paying attention to language is important not only for understanding when the media is intentionally deploying speech to escalate tensions, but also for understanding how the media can affect events in the regular course of its work. Often the media does not merely observe but rather influences the very dynamics of a conflict, and this influence can be positive or negative. There are examples of remarkable journalists who risked, and, in some instances, even lost, their lives reporting with the utmost professionalism. But irresponsible or inaccurate coverage from local and international media can exacerbate violence. This can become particularly dangerous when hate speech is involved.

Media persuasion plays a role in the dissemination of ethnic hatred. There are two types of persuasion: direct and indirect. Direct persuasion with regard to mass media exponentially expands hatred that leads to violence against ethnic groups. Indirect persuasion exports hatred and directs behavior towards the execution of violence. A media presence spreads underlying messages that negatively portrays certain ethnic groups in the eyes of the public. For example, political elites use media exposure to influence the opinions of the viewers towards a certain propaganda. In Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the media’s presence in exposing propaganda in terms of hatred was effectively organized by Joseph Goebbels. Although recent US data (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee 1954; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 1944) shows media as a tool that does not carry “significant independent influence,” and media “strengthens people’s predispositions.” Furthermore, exogenous variation plays a role in utilizing media content towards escalating ethnic hatred presence according to recent economic studies. The effects of media on people varies in different platforms strengthening mass medias influence towards the public. Data polled from Muslim countries shows that exposure to Al-Jazeera is associated with higher levels of reported anti-Americanism in contrast to exposure to CNN associating with less anti-Americanism.

The continuous use of mass media as an apparatus to spread negative image of ethnic groups is seen throughout history. Most media hate speech that amplified worldwide attention are experienced in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Also, media’s control of hate speech that Nazi and fascist parties manipulate agitate and attract followers into advocating for hatred and violence. Indian TV is doing what Rwandan genocide trial warned us against and Indian media is using hate speech disguised as journalism. After the Tablighi Jamaat’s Nizamuddin headquarters in Delhi became one of India’s 10 coronavirus hotspots in early April 2020, a section of the media held the Muslim organisation almost solely responsible for the outbreak. In fact, it won’t be an exaggeration to say many Indians believe it was the Tablighis who brought the pandemic to India. TV anchors amplified news about the Tablighis for weeks, referring to them as the “Taliban Jamaat”, and accusing them of waging “corona jihad” or “spitting jihad”. A mainstream TV, stated in primetime show that “50 percent of India’s coronavirus cases are because of the Tablighi Jamaat Markaz”. There was, of course, no source or evidence cited for the 50 percent figure. In the case of Rwanda, misinformation and propaganda, along with provocation and violent rhetoric, grounded itself within the efficiency of its arguments for uniting the Hutu masses against Tutsis. This is how under the guise of freedom of speech, democratic language itself becomes a “technology” designed for totalitarian mobilisation. The media cannot and should not remain history’s blind spot. As the Rwandan trial shows, only journalistic accountability and the viewer’s vigilance can protect us against the looming danger. Once we reach the point of no return, of mass murder, it will be hard to trace the history of violence while counting the dead. The media must be free and fair, uninfluenced by corporate, political or state interests.

_______

Section-12

Free speech versus hate speech:

Freedom of speech is an extremely important right. Natural rights theory as developed by John Locke, for example, takes as its premise that the human being in a state of nature is fundamentally free to act, and voluntarily gives up a certain part of that freedom when entering into a social contract with other human beings. Consequently, society is justified in restraining people’s only actions insofar as they injure others. John Stuart Mill believed that freedom of speech was a necessary instrument in the pursuit of the truth. Similarly, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued in Abrams v. United States that ‘‘the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.’’ The European Court of Human Rights has developed an elaborate test designed to ascertain whether or not a restriction of the right to free speech is justified. Firstly, the interference with the right must be ‘‘prescribed by law’’: it must have an adequate basis in domestic law, which means that it must be ‘‘adequately accessible’’ and ‘‘formulated with sufficient precision.’’ Second, the interference must pursue a legitimate aim, that is, it must be in the interests of national security, public safety, or any other of the listed goals. Third, the restriction is subject to a proportionality test: it must be ‘‘necessary in a democratic society,’’ which has been interpreted to imply that it must correspond to a ‘‘pressing social need’’ and that it must be ‘‘proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.’’

Benefits of Freedom of Speech:

-1. Empowerment: Enables individuals to express their thoughts and ideas freely, empowering them to participate actively in society. It allows marginalized and underrepresented communities to voice their concerns and seek justice. It empowers individuals to challenge societal norms and advocate for progressive changes.

-2. Innovation and Progress: Fosters creativity and innovation by allowing free exchange of ideas and opinions. Open discourse leads to the sharing of diverse perspectives, which can inspire new solutions and advancements. It encourages a culture of questioning and critical thinking, driving intellectual and technological progress.

-3. Accountability: Holds those in power accountable through criticism and public discourse. Media and public scrutiny are vital in preventing abuse of power and corruption. It ensures transparency and keeps the government and other institutions answerable to the people.

-4. Social Change: Drives social change by highlighting injustices and advocating for reforms. Historical movements for civil rights, gender equality, and other social issues have relied on freedom of speech. It allows activists and reformers to mobilize support and push for legislative and societal changes.

-5. Democratic Function: Freedom of speech is essential for the functioning of a democracy. It allows citizens to participate in public affairs, engage in discussions, and make informed choices.

-6. Individual Autonomy: This freedom is really important because it reflects our personal autonomy and dignity as individuals. It lets us grow and shape our personalities by sharing what we think and believe.

Harms of hate speech:

Hate speech generally refers any communication that belittles or discriminates against individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. It can incite violence, discrimination, and hostility which can be threatening to public order and social harmony. Hate speech is a drawback that arises from the misuse of freedom of speech. It not only undermines the core values of free expression but also poses serious threats to social harmony and individual well-being.

It can lead to:

-1. Violence: Hate speech can incite violence and hostility, leading to social unrest and harm to individuals or groups. It can provoke violent actions against targeted communities, resulting in physical harm, communal war and loss of lives. Instances, such as genocides and riots, have often been fueled by hate speech.

-2. Discrimination: Spreads prejudice and discrimination, undermining social harmony and equality. It reinforces stereotypes and perpetuates systemic discrimination against marginalized groups. It makes it difficult for diverse communities to coexist peacefully.

-3. Psychological Harm: Causes psychological harm to targeted individuals or groups, affecting their mental well-being and sense of security. Victims of hate speech often experience anxiety, depression, and a sense of alienation, which can lead to suicide. It can have long-lasting impacts on their mental health and quality of life.

-4. Erosion of Social Fabric: Weakens the social fabric by fostering divisions and conflicts among different communities. Hate speech erodes trust and mutual respect, which are essential for a cohesive society. It polarizes communities, making it challenging to build inclusive and harmonious relationships.

_____

Freedom of expression and its limitations including hate speech:

Freedom of opinion and expression is a fundamental human right, protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Citation1948) and given legal force through all major international and regional human rights treaties. International human rights law requires States to guarantee to all people the freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas of any kind, regardless of frontiers, through any media of a person’s choice. The right to the freedom of expression is not an absolute right (ECHR, Citation2021), and under exceptional circumstances (e.g. incitement to violence, hate speech and racism, Holocaust denial and references to Nazi ideology), the State may restrict the right under international human rights law (Bychawska, Citation2017); however, any restrictions on freedom of expression must be enshrined in law and precisely defined to serve a legitimate interest. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. There are limitations to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to violence, and obscenity. These restrictions are in place to protect individuals from harm and maintain social order. Hate speech falls under one of these limitations, as it can incite violence or discrimination against marginalized groups. It is not protected under the law and can lead to legal consequences for those who engage in it.

Hate speech triggers a confrontation of two important values, namely freedom of expression on one side, and the right of others to dignity and respect on the other. In the United States, the prevailing forces have mostly sided with unrestricted freedom of expression and against legal regulation of hate speech, referring to the First Amendment of the Constitution. One of the most recognized advocates of the freedom of speech, John Stuart Mill claimed that the fullest liberty of expression was necessary if we wanted to explore the true limits of our arguments, and not the limits of what is socially acceptable. Otherwise, the price we have to pay for this sort of intellectual pacification is the sacrifice of moral courage of the human mind. However, Mill also believed that limits on freedom of expression are justified, but only in the cases when preventing harm to others.

Countries define and understand freedom of expression in different ways, and cannot agree on when and how this freedom should be protected and when instead it should be limited (Wimmer, Citation2006). For a very long time, freedom of expression has been considered a precondition for a functioning and democratic society and has therefore enjoyed legal protection, with the exception of particular situations. Germany, for example, decided to limit the freedom of expression in the aftermath of the WW2, when censorship of pro-Nazi propaganda seemed the only moral and possible reaction. Laws banning the buying and selling of literature such as Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as well as showing Nazi propaganda movies, e.g. The Triumph of the Will, were supported by many and passed in Parliament.

The complex balancing between the need to guarantee people the right to freely express themselves and to advocate their ideas on one side, and the defence of other people’s right to be free from verbal abuse and to be protected as equal members of a society on the other, is not easy. Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy; it facilitates open debate, a proper consideration of diverse interests and perspectives, and the negotiation and compromise necessary for consensual policy decisions. Efforts to suppress expression can allow unseen problems to fester and erupt in far more dangerous forms, which may lead to violence instead of ensuring peace and stability. The NGO Article19 believes that hate speech should be met at all times by counter claims, arguments and discussion. Suppressing it not only fails to resolve hatred but drives it underground and possibly encourages acts of violence (Coliver et al., Citation1992). When responding to hate speech, the States should not limit themselves to sanctioning, and should instead search for and target the underlying causes that drive hate speech, such as prejudice, intolerance, lack of information and similar. They should use positive measures to promote inclusive and intercultural dialogue, social plurality, respect and tolerance. Gagliardone et al. (Citation2015) believe that counter speech constitutes a better way of blocking potential harm caused by hate speech. This is advocated also by Lepoutre (Citation2017, p. 852), who admits that neither bans nor counter speech are without limitations and cannot be applied to all instances. What Lepoutre argues for is to rethink the use of bans in situations that might be better suited for counter speech. It seems that even stringent legislation regarding hate speech focuses only on the extreme cases of its presence in society, leaving unpunished or unaddressed the cases of hateful expressions that do not constitute an offence under international law or those that do not qualify for criminal or civil sanctions, but are nevertheless offensive and problematic with a view to civility, tolerance and respect for others. It is therefore obvious that limiting hate speech with legal bans and restrictions does not suffice and we, as society, need to address it on all levels of social endeavour. Gagliardone et al. (Citation2015) propose four types of initiatives to counteract the emergence and dissemination of hateful messages: monitoring and discussing hate speech; mobilizing civil society; lobbying private companies; media and information literacy campaigns.

Waldron (Citation2010) disagrees with the view that the targets of hate speech should learn to put up with it, and that the freedom of speech is more important than minimizing the feelings of anxiety or distress of the targets. Hate speech namely possesses harmful tendencies that endanger social cohesion and injure the dignity of targeted groups. It should be banned due to the general apprehension of its effects and not only when there is evidence of substantial harm, caused to social order or its victims (Waldron Citation2010, p. 1650). This reasoning leaves a lot of (too much) room for manoeuvre to governments and legislators who decide whether an instance of hate speech requires legal intervention, as can be seen in various legal practices and court proceedings in different countries. One of the claims underpinning the idea that hate speech does not need special, additional regulation argues that instances of harmful and harm causing speech are already regulated and banned in various other legal instruments (Boonin in Van Mill, Citation2021).

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship or retaliation. It is a cornerstone of democracy and allows for open and honest discourse. Hate speech, on the other hand, is speech that promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination against a particular group based on characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. While freedom of speech protects the right to express unpopular or controversial opinions, hate speech is not protected under the law as it can incite violence and harm marginalized communities. It is important to strike a balance between protecting freedom of speech and preventing the spread of hate speech to ensure a safe and inclusive society for all.

Comparison:

Attribute	Freedom of Speech	Hate Speech
Definition	The right to express one’s opinions without censorship or restraint	Speech that promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination against a particular group
Legal Protection	Protected by the First Amendment in the United States	Not protected if it incites violence or poses a clear and present danger
Impact	Allows for open dialogue and diverse viewpoints	Can contribute to social division and harm marginalized groups
Intent	Generally intended to express ideas or opinions	Intended to spread hate or incite violence

_____

American view:

Freedom of speech, Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo declared more than 80 years ago, “is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.” Countless other justices, commentators, philosophers, and more have waxed eloquent for decades over the critically important role that freedom of speech plays in promoting and maintaining democracy. Yet 227 years after the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified in 1791 as the Bill of Rights, debate continues about the meaning of freedom of speech and its First Amendment companion, freedom of the press. One point of regular debate is whether there is a free speech breaking point, a line at which the hateful or harmful or controversial nature of speech should cause it to lose constitutional protection under the First Amendment. As longtime law professor, free speech advocate, author, and former American Civil Liberties Union national president Nadine Strossen notes in her article, there has long been a dichotomy in public opinion about free speech. Surveys traditionally show that the American people have strong support for free speech in general, but that number decreases when the poll focuses on particular forms of controversial speech. The controversy over what many call “hate speech” is not new, but it is renewed as America experiences the Black Lives Matter movement and the Me-Too movement. These movements have raised consciousness and promoted national dialogue about racism, sexual harassment, and more. With the raised awareness come increased calls for laws punishing speech that is racially harmful or that is offensive based on gender or gender identity. At present, contrary to widely held misimpressions, there is not a category of speech known as “hate speech” that may uniformly be prohibited or punished in America. Hateful speech that threatens or incites lawlessness or that contributes to motive for a criminal act may, in some instances, be punished as part of a hate crime, but not simply as offensive speech. Offensive speech that creates a hostile work environment or that disrupts school classrooms may be prohibited. But apart from those exceptions, the American Supreme Court has held strongly to the view that America believes in the public exchange of ideas and open debate, that the response to offensive speech is to speak in response. The dichotomy—society generally favouring free speech, but individuals objecting to the protection of particular messages—and the debate over it seem likely to continue unabated.

______

Racial hatred act:

Does the legislation affect freedom of speech and expression?

The racial hatred legislation does not constrain free speech in Australia any more than existing laws which recognise that countervailing interests take precedence over freedom of speech in some circumstances. The Act was brought in to provide legal recourse to people in the community who might be offended by serious expressions of racism. The following example aired by a West Australian radio station prior to the introduction of the legislation caused distress to members of the Aboriginal community:

“When white babies die, they turn into angels and go to heaven. When Aboriginal babies die, they turn into blowflies.”

The racial hatred legislation was heatedly debated among politicians, the media and civil liberties groups before it eventually came into operation in October 1995. Much of that debate revolved around the concern that the new law might restrict freedom of expression.

These concerns were based largely on alarmist predictions which ignored the fact that, in many ways, freedom of speech is already affected by a number of laws in Australia. These laws have been part of our legislative landscape for decades, and journalists must take them into account in the course of their work. They include defamation, blasphemy, copyright, obscenity, incitement, official secrecy, contempt of court and of Parliament, censorship, and sedition. All of these laws recognise that some things are more important than freedom of speech. The Racial Hatred Act simply recognises that people have a right to live free of racial vilification and to have that right protected by law.

_____

Criticism of limiting hate speech:

Several activists and scholars have criticized the practice of limiting hate speech. Kim Holmes, Vice President of the conservative Heritage Foundation and a critic of hate speech theory, has argued that it “assumes bad faith on the part of people regardless of their stated intentions” and that it “obliterates the ethical responsibility of the individual”. Rebecca Ruth Gould, a professor of Islamic and Comparative Literature at the University of Birmingham, argues that laws against hate speech constitute viewpoint discrimination (which is prohibited by the First Amendment in the United States) as the legal system punishes some viewpoints but not others. Other scholars, such as Gideon Elford, argue instead that “insofar as hate speech regulation targets the consequences of speech that are contingently connected with the substance of what is expressed then it is viewpoint discriminatory in only an indirect sense.” John Bennett argues that restricting hate speech relies on questionable conceptual and empirical foundations and is reminiscent of efforts by totalitarian regimes to control the thoughts of their citizens.

Civil libertarians say that hate speech laws have been used, in both developing and developed nations, to persecute minority viewpoints and critics of the government. Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen says that, while efforts to censor hate speech have the goal of protecting the most vulnerable, they are ineffective and may have the opposite effect: disadvantaged and ethnic minorities being charged with violating laws against hate speech. Journalist Glenn Greenwald says that hate speech laws in Europe have been used to censor left-wing views as much as they have been used to combat hate speech. Miisa Kreandner and Eriz Henze argue that hate speech laws are arbitrary, as they only protect some categories of people but not others. Henze argues the only way to resolve this problem without abolishing hate speech laws would be to extend them to all possible conceivable categories, which Henze argues would amount to totalitarian control over speech.

Michael Conklin argues that there are benefits to hate speech that are often overlooked. He contends that allowing hate speech provides a more accurate view of the human condition, provides opportunities to change people’s minds, and identifies certain people that may need to be avoided in certain circumstances. According to one psychological research study, a high degree of psychopathy is “a significant predictor” for involvement in online hate activity, while none of the other 7 potential factors examined were found to have a statistically significant predictive power. Political philosopher Jeffrey W. Howard considers the popular framing of hate speech as “free speech vs. other political values” as a mischaracterization. He refers to this as the “balancing model”, and says it seeks to weigh the benefit of free speech against other values such as dignity and equality for historically marginalized groups. Instead, he believes that the crux of debate should be whether or not freedom of expression is inclusive of hate speech. Research indicates that when people support censoring hate speech, they are motivated more by concerns about the effects the speech has on others than they are about its effects on themselves. Women are somewhat more likely than men to support censoring hate speech due to greater perceived harm of hate speech, which some researchers believe may be due to gender differences in empathy towards targets of hate speech.

The most effective way to counter the potential negative effects of hate speech — which conveys discriminatory or hateful views on the basis of race, religion, gender, and so forth — is not through censorship, but rather through more speech. And that censorship of hate speech, no matter how well-intended, has been shown around the world and throughout history to do more harm than good in actually promoting equality, dignity, inclusivity, diversity, and societal harmony. You very frequently get public officials and even lawyers saying “hate speech is not free speech.” But that is not correct! The American Supreme Court never has created a category of speech that is defined by its hateful conduct, labeled it hate speech, and said that that is categorically excluded by the first amendment. Speech cannot be punished just because of its hateful content. But when you get beyond content and look at context, speech with a hateful message may be punished, if in a particular context it directly causes certain specific, imminent, serious harm — such as a genuine threat that means to instil a reasonable fear on the part of the person at whom the threat is targeted that he or she is going be subject to violence.

______

Section-13

Online hate (cyber-hate):

Stormfront is considered the first “hate website.” Launched in March 1995 by a former Ku Klux Klan leader, it quickly became a popular space for discussing ideas related to Neo-Nazism, White nationalism and White separatism, first in the United States of America and then globally. The forum hosts call for a racial holy war and incitement to use violence to resist immigration. and is considered a space for recruiting activists and possibly coordinating violent acts. The few studies that have explored the identities of Stormfront actually depict a more complex picture of seeing it as a space for coordinating actions. Well-known extreme right activists have accused the forum to be just a gathering for “keyboard warriors.” The Southern Poverty Law Center published a study in 2014 that found users of the site “were allegedly responsible for the murders of nearly 100 people in the preceding five years.”

The internet has changed the way we communicate. It has many positive values but has also allowed hateful content to spread to a broader audience, without editorial control and often behind a veil of anonymity. While you may come across a lot of material on the internet that offends you, a small proportion of it is actually illegal. Online Hate is posting and sharing hateful and prejudiced content against an individual, group or community. It can take the form of derogatory, demonising and dehumanising statements, threats, identity-based insults, pejorative terms and slurs. If a post is hostile towards a person’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, it could be viewed as Hate Speech. If it is serious enough, it may break the law, whether it is online or offline. Online Hate can be expressed through many types of media, including text, images, videos and audio. These different types of media content are sometimes combined. Online Hate can include Malicious Communications (sending letters, emails and messages that cause distress and anxiety), Cyberbullying, Cyberstalking, Harassment, Stirring up Hatred through Content (text, image, video, audio), and Incitement to Commit Violence.

Online hate versus cyberbullying:

Cyberhate and cyberbullying can overlap, but they are distinct experiences and need to be distinguished in research. Individual-based discrimination predicts cyberbullying, group-based discrimination predicts both cyberhate and cyberbullying. Both cyberbullying and online hate are serious and can cause victims a great deal of distress. Bullying usually targets an individual, while hate may incite violence towards an entire group of people. Bullying is known with its repetitive act to the same individual, unlike hate speech which is more general and not necessarily intended to hurt a specific individual but may harm communities.

Difference between online Hate and offline Hate:

Although Hate manifests online in similar expressions found offline, there are key differences between online and offline hate in terms of their nature and prevalence. While hate speech online is not intrinsically different from similar expressions found offline, there are peculiar challenges unique to online content and its regulation. Those challenges related to its permanence, itinerancy, anonymity and complex cross-jurisdictional character.

Online content once posted remains hosted on the Internet indefinitely. This means online Hate is usually permanent. Hate speech can stay online for a long time in different formats across multiple platforms, which can be linked repeatedly. The longer the content stays available, the more damage it can inflict on the victims and empower the perpetrators.
Cross-jurisdictional spread. A further complication is the transnational reach of the Internet, raising issues of cross jurisdictional co-operation in regard to legal mechanisms for combating hate speech. Unlike the dissemination of hate speech through conventional channels, victims of online hate speech may face difficulties knowing to whom they should turn to help, as the platform, their local law enforcement, and the local law enforcement of the person or people using hate speech, may all feel as though the issue does not fall into their jurisdiction, even when hate speech policies and laws are in place. Online Hate can spread and ‘travel’ across the web to a large audience quickly.
People who create online Hate content are usually anonymous. Anonymity can also present a challenge to dealing with online hate speech. Internet discussions may be anonymous or pseudonymous, which can make people feel more safe expressing their opinions but can just as easily accelerate destructive behavior. The Internet grants individuals the ability to say horrific things because they think they will not be discovered. This is what makes online hate speech so unique, because people feel much more comfortable speaking hate as opposed to real life when they have to deal with the consequences of what they say.
Itinerance. Hate speech online can be itinerant. Even when content is removed, it may find expression elsewhere, possibly on the same platform under a different name or on different online spaces. If a website is shut down, it can quickly reopen using a web-hosting service with less stringent regulations or via the reallocation to a country with laws imposing higher threshold for hate speech.

Evidence indicates that the sharing of hateful attitudes online can motivate people to commit harmful acts in the real world, such as physical assault, verbal abuse, damage to property. Hateful content can even lead to crimes such as shootings or bombings.

There is no accepted scientific understanding of how online hate manages to thrive at scale. Yet its societal consequences are widespread and occur daily globally, e.g., personal traumas; gender, race, and religion-based abuse; child sex abuse; and violent mass attacks. Making matters more complex from a scientific viewpoint, online hate is dynamic, adaptive and now looks set to surge armed with new AI/GPT tools. In addition to the obvious consequences for the direct victims of hate attacks and abuse, there is a huge secondary impact. Nearly 50% of all Americans now compromise aspects of their and their children’s daily lives in order to lower the risk of experiencing some hate-driven mass shooting, e.g., 6 May 2023 Allen, Texas shooting which appears to be one of an increasing number inspired by social media hate content. Separately, 2024 saw more than 60 elections across 54 countries including the U.S. and India, where the scope for online hate to cause voter intimidation is huge.

People leave hate comments on social media for a variety of reasons, according to social media experts. Some do it to attract attention, others to feel powerful, and still others to conceal their own insecurities. However, at the heart of all of these reasons is a deep sense of dissatisfaction and unhappiness. As social media grew in popularity, it became a platform for people to express their thoughts and feelings. However, this has made it easier for people to leave hateful comments anonymously. Because they can say whatever they want without fear of repercussions, people often feel empowered by their anonymity. Psychologists have also discovered that people who post hateful comments frequently have a need for control. They believe they have control over the conversation and can tell others how they should think and feel. This is frequently related to feelings of inadequacy or a lack of control in other aspects of their lives. Furthermore, people who leave hateful comments may have a deep need for attention. They want to be noticed, and leaving a derogatory comment is one way to get people to notice them. When others agree with their negative comments, they may feel validated. It’s important to remember, however, that not all hate comments are made by anonymous trolls. People we know in real life can also leave hateful comments. This is especially painful because we expect those closest to us to be supportive and kind.

Statistics on Online Hate Crimes in 2017/2018 were given for 30 out of 44 police forces. They showed that 1,605 online hate crimes were recorded in England and Wales, around 2% of all hate crimes. In November 2020, Facebook reported for the first time that the percentage of content exposure for hate speech was 0.11%. This means that for every 1,000 contents viewed on the platform, one of them will be hateful content. While we do not have recent and robust data on the prevalence of Online Hate, the issue of Hate Speech and how it trickles into our real world is a constant global discussion, especially on the backs of recent tragedies such as the 2019 Christchurch Mosque shootings in New Zealand and the 2021 Spa shooting in Atlanta, USA, the Plymouth Shooting in August 2021 and many other incidents where perpetrators had a history of spreading hate online against the personal identities of the groups that they attacked in real life.

Online Identity-based harassment:

Identity-based harassment refers to harassment based on membership in a marginalized group. Transgender people were most likely to be harassed for their gender identity, LGBQT+ people for their physical appearance, Black/African American and Asian Americans for their race/ethnicity, and Muslims for their religion.

Chart above shows the top reasons for identity-based harassment among marginalized groups online. LGBTQ+ people continued to experience the highest rates of harassment among marginalized groups in 2024.

_______

Online hate speech:

The rise of the internet and social media has presented a new medium through which hate speech can spread. Hate speech on the internet can be traced all the way back to its initial years, with a 1983 bulletin board system created by neo-Nazi George Dietz considered the first instance of hate speech online. As the internet evolved over time hate speech continued to spread and create its footprint. The structure and nature of the internet contribute to both the creation and persistence of hate speech online. The widespread use and access to the internet gives hate mongers an easy way to spread their message to wide audiences with little cost and effort. According to the International Telecommunication Union, approximately 66% of the world population has access to the internet. Additionally, the pseudo-anonymous nature of the internet emboldens many to make statements constituting hate speech that they otherwise wouldn’t for fear of social or real life repercussions. While some governments and companies attempt to combat this type of behavior by leveraging real name systems, difficulties in verifying identities online, public opposition to such policies, and sites that don’t enforce these policies leave large spaces for this behavior to persist.

Because the internet crosses national borders, comprehensive government regulations on online hate speech can be difficult to implement and enforce. Governments who want to regulate hate speech contend with issues around lack of jurisdiction and conflicting viewpoints from other countries. In an early example of this, the case of Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l’Antisemitisme had a French court hold Yahoo! liable for allowing Nazi memorabilia auctions to be visible to the public. Yahoo! refused to comply with the ruling and ultimately won relief in a U.S. court which found that the ruling was unenforceable in the U.S. Disagreements like these make national level regulations difficult, and while there are some international efforts and laws that attempt to regulate hate speech and its online presence, as with most international agreements the implementation and interpretation of these treaties varies by country.

Much of the regulation regarding online hate speech is performed voluntarily by individual companies. Many major tech companies have adopted terms of service which outline allowed content on their platform, often banning hate speech. In a notable step for this, on 31 May 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, jointly agreed to a European Union code of conduct obligating them to review “[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech” posted on their services within 24 hours. Techniques employed by these companies to regulate hate speech include user reporting, Artificial Intelligence flagging, and manual review of content by employees. Major search engines like Google Search also tweak their algorithms to try and suppress hateful content from appearing in their results. However, despite these efforts hate speech remains a persistent problem online. According to a 2021 study by the Anti Defamation League 33% of Americans were the target of identity-based harassment in the preceding year, a statistic which has not noticeably shifted downwards despite increasing self-regulation by companies.

Hateful Speech in Online College Communities:

Colleges are places where intellectual debate is considered as a key aspect of the educational pursuit, and where viewpoint diversity is venerated. Given the pervasive adoption of social media technologies in the college student population and as students increasingly appropriate these platforms for academic, personal and social life discussions, hateful speech has begun to manifest online. This adds a new dimension to the existing issues surrounding college speech. It is found to be a key driver of and an exacerbating factor behind harassment, bullying, and other violent incidents targeting vulnerable students, often making people feel unwelcome in both digital and physical spaces, and even causing psychological and emotional upheavals, akin to its offline counterpart.

_____

Hate Speech on Social Media:

Violence attributed to online hate speech has increased worldwide. Societies confronting the trend must deal with questions of free speech and censorship on widely used tech platforms. Social scientists and others have observed how social media posts, and other online speech, can inspire acts of violence:

In Germany a correlation was found between anti-refugee Facebook posts by the far-right Alternative for Germany party and attacks on refugees. Scholars Karsten Muller and Carlo Schwarz observed that upticks in attacks, such as arson and assault, followed spikes in hate-mongering posts.
In the United States, perpetrators of recent white supremacist attacks have circulated among racist communities online, and also embraced social media to publicize their acts. Prosecutors said the Charleston church shooter, who killed nine black clergy and worshippers in June 2015, engaged in a “self-learning process” online that led him to believe that the goal of white supremacy required violent action.
The 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was a participant in the social media network Gab, whose lax rules have attracted extremists banned by larger platforms. There, he espoused the conspiracy that Jews sought to bring immigrants into the United States, and render whites a minority, before killing eleven worshippers at a refugee-themed Shabbat service. This “great replacement” trope, which was heard at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, a year prior and originates with the French far right, expresses demographic anxieties about nonwhite immigration and birth rates.
The great replacement trope was in turn espoused by the perpetrator of the 2019 New Zealand mosque shootings, who killed forty-nine Muslims at prayer and sought to broadcast the attack on YouTube.
In Myanmar, military leaders and Buddhist nationalists used social media to slur and demonize the Rohingya Muslim minority ahead of and during a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Though Rohingya comprised perhaps 2 percent of the population, ethnonationalists claimed that Rohingya would soon supplant the Buddhist majority. The UN fact-finding mission said, “Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate, in a context where, for most users, Facebook is the Internet.”
Sri Lanka has similarly seen vigilantism inspired by rumours spread online, targeting the Tamil Muslim minority. During a spate of violence in March 2018, the government blocked access to Facebook and WhatsApp, as well as the messaging app Viber, for a week, saying that Facebook had not been sufficiently responsive during the emergency.

Does social media catalyze hate crimes?

The same technology that allows social media to galvanize democracy activists can be used by hate groups seeking to organize and recruit. It also allows fringe sites, including peddlers of conspiracies, to reach audiences far broader than their core readership. Online platforms’ business models depend on maximizing reading or viewing times. Since Facebook and similar platforms make their money by enabling advertisers to target audiences with extreme precision, it is in their interests to let people find the communities where they will spend the most time.

Users’ experiences online are mediated by algorithms designed to maximize their engagement, which often inadvertently promote extreme content. Some web watchdog groups say YouTube’s autoplay function, in which the player, at the end of one video, tees up a related one, can be especially pernicious. The algorithm drives people to videos that promote conspiracy theories or are otherwise “divisive, misleading or false,” according to a Wall Street Journal investigative report. “YouTube may be one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century,” writes sociologist Zeynep Tufekci. YouTube said in June 2019 that changes to its recommendation algorithm made in January had halved views of videos deemed “borderline content” for spreading misinformation. At that time, the company also announced that it would remove neo-Nazi and white supremacist videos from its site. Yet the platform faced criticism that its efforts to curb hate speech do not go far enough. For instance, critics note that rather than removing videos that provoked homophobic harassment of a journalist, YouTube instead cut off the offending user from sharing in advertising revenue.

How do platforms enforce their rules?

Social media platforms rely on a combination of artificial intelligence, user reporting, and staff known as content moderators to enforce their rules regarding appropriate content. Moderators, however, are burdened by the sheer volume of content and the trauma that comes from sifting through disturbing posts, and social media companies don’t evenly devote resources across the many markets they serve. A ProPublica investigation found that Facebook’s rules are opaque to users and inconsistently applied by its thousands of contractors charged with content moderation. (Facebook says there are fifteen thousand.) In many countries and disputed territories, such as the Palestinian territories, Kashmir, and Crimea, activists and journalists have found themselves censored, as Facebook has sought to maintain access to national markets or to insulate itself from legal liability. “The company’s hate-speech rules tend to favor elites and governments over grassroots activists and racial minorities,” ProPublica found.

The proliferation of hate online has become recognized as one of the biggest challenges to social media industries: ‘throughout 2020 and early 2021, major technology companies announced that they were taking unprecedented action against the hate speech, harassment … that had long flourished on their platforms … (yet) the level of online hate and harassment reported by users barely shifted’. Online hate is pervasive: surveys across several countries indicate that 42%–67% of young adults observed ‘hateful and degrading writings or speech online’, and 21% have been victims themselves. Online hate has negative effects on the well-being of both victims and observers, including ‘depression, isolation, paranoia, social anxiety, self-doubt, disappointment, loneliness, and lack of confidence’.

Artificial intelligence:

Some tech companies, such as Facebook, use Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems to monitor hate speech. However, AI may not always be an effective way of monitoring hate speech, since the systems lack the judgment skills that humans have. For example, a user might post or comment something that classifies as hate speech, or violates community guidelines, but if the target word is misspelled, or some letters are replaced with symbols, the AI systems will not recognize it. This weakness has led to the proliferation of attempts to circumvent censorship algorithms using deliberate misspellings, such as the use of “vachscenes” instead of “vaccines” by Vaccine hesitant persons during COVID-19. Therefore, humans still have to monitor the AI systems that monitor hate speech; a common problem in AI technology which is referred to as “Automation’s Last Mile.”, meaning the last 10% or 1% of the job is the hardest to complete.

Responding to hate speech on social media:

We all have to remember that hate crimes are preceded by hate speech. We have to bear in mind that words kill. Words kill as bullets. To speak about hate speech it is necessary to refer to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The article stresses the importance of freedom of expression, but it also calls attention to the responsibilities that come with it. The reality is that thousands of people publish hate filled content on their social media every day, sometime explicitly calling for violent actions against migrant populations and other vulnerable groups. What can each of us do to fight back against this content?

-1. Speak up against hate:

Silence and apathy can be taken as acceptance. Comments on social networks are more than just words, and should not be seen as harmless, especially when social networks are a source of information for migrants and contribute to their experiences. According to the Department of Justice of the United States, “insults can escalate to harassment, harassment can escalate to threats, and threats to physical violence.” Intervening assertively is important both in the digital world and in face-to-face situations. However, it is necessary to assess the risk in each context to avoid dangerous situations.

-2. Create positive content:

To counteract the weight of hate speech, it is necessary to create and share empathetic information. According to Cristina Gallach, High Commissioner for the 2030 Agenda, to combat this problem, we must present images that appeal to the best of us, and focus on powerful and universal messages that unite us through our shared values.

-3. Avoid sharing sensational videos and photos:

Even when it is to criticize this type of content, sharing it will increase traffic to the channels and users that broadcast negative media.

-4. Report on the platform:

Each social network has its own guidelines on which content is acceptable or not. While there are teams dedicated to verify this information, in many cases it is necessary to report it for it to be seen. Facebook continually checks if there are new vulnerable populations that should be included in their protected categories, and on previous occasions, migrants have fit within this group. According to the Facebook hard questions blog:

“When the influx of migrants arriving in Germany increased in recent years, we received feedback that some posts on Facebook were directly threatening refugees or migrants. We investigated how this material appeared globally and decided to develop new guidelines to remove calls for violence against migrants or dehumanizing references to them — such as comparisons to animals, to filth or to trash. But we have left in place the ability for people to express their views on immigration itself.”

There is a whole discussion about whether social media companies are the ones who should define, in their own platforms, what constitutes freedom of expression and what constitutes hate speech.

-5. Report to the authorities:

When there are personal threats to the physical integrity or the lives of others, it is time to report the situation to the competent authorities to intervene. Since the digital world moves faster than changes in laws, there may be “holes” in the regulations that will hinder intervention. Documenting hazardous materials through screenshots and collecting as much information as possible about the aggressor before they close their account will be useful for the reporting process. Platforms and companies can also be reported if they spread violent content. For example, a few months after the massacres in two mosques in Christchurch (New Zealand), the Australian government approved new legislation against spaces that do not quickly eliminate “violent and abominable material”.

_____

Online hate crime perpetrators:

In one study widely used by law enforcement, sociologists Jack McDevitt and Jack Levin classified hate offenders as having four main motivations: thrill-seeking, defensive, retaliatory and mission. This typology of hate crime perpetrators refers almost exclusively to hate crimes committed in the physical world. But there are hate-based offences that occur online are likely to dwarf the number of offences in the physical world. Little is currently known about the perpetrators of this type of abuse. While some researchers have begun to analyse the use of the internet by members of hate groups to communicate with each other (Bartlett and Krasodomski-Jones, 2015; Perry and Scrivens, 2016), few have examined in any detail the motivations of those cyber haters who specifically target individuals or the links to offline hostility. Awan (2014) has attempted to fill this gap by developing an online typology of anti-Muslim hate crime perpetrators. His research focused solely on Twitter and used an online content behavioural perpetrator typology. A random sample of 500 Anti-Muslim tweets was grouped into the following categories: trawler, apprentice, disseminator, impersonator, accessory, reactive, mover and professional as seen in table below.

Typology of offender characteristics:

Type	Characteristics
The trawler	Someone who has gone through other people’s Twitter accounts to specifically target people with a Muslim connection
The apprentice	A person who is fairly new to Twitter but nonetheless has begun to target people with the help of more experienced online abusers
The disseminator	Someone who has tweeted about and retweeted messages, pictures and documents of online hate that are specifically targeting Muslims
The impersonator	A person who is using a fake profile, account and images to target individuals
The accessory	A person who is joining in with other people’s conversations via Twitter to target vulnerable people
The reactive	A person who following a major incident, such as Woolwich, or issues on immigration, will begin an online campaign targeting that specific group or individual
The mover	Someone who regularly changes their Twitter account in order to continue targeting someone from a different profile
The professional	A person who has a huge following on Twitter and regardless of consequences has and will launch a major campaign of hate against an individual or group of people because they are Muslim. This person will also have multiple Twitter accounts all aimed at targeting Muslim communities

Awan (2014) found that 72% of these tweeters were male. The most common type of tweeter was ‘reactive’, closely followed by ‘accessories’, ‘impersonators’ and ‘disseminators’. Regardless of type, most perpetrators seemed to be motivated by similar factors to those discussed earlier (McDevitt), including a perceived grievance which was ultimately linked to a desire for power and a thrill gained by targeting vulnerable people (Awan, 2014). This has led Awan and Zempi (2015) to conclude that online and offline incidents should not be examined in isolation. The huge number of cyber hate incidents suggests that those who feel prejudices towards certain protected characteristics are more likely to act online than offline. This is likely to be because of the anonymity that the internet offers, combined with its private accessibility, ease of use, and its ability to reach massive audiences. Collectively, these features are likely to tip over many of those individuals, who might otherwise control their real-world behaviour, into becoming online perpetrators of hate. The resulting proliferation of internet-based hate incidents, combined with the anonymity that the internet can give its users, means that regulating and policing online hate speech is perhaps the most challenging contemporary aspect of preventing hate crime (Bakalis).

_____

The connection between online hate and extremist acts:

Online hate speech is widespread. It includes prejudiced comments about race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identification, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. Research indicated up to a third of internet users have experienced hate speech online. That number is even higher when looking at just the online gaming community—where about 50% have experienced hate speech. Those who post hateful or extremist speech online may do so in an effort to spread their ideologies.

Extremist attacks—such as those in Charleston, El Paso, and Colorado Springs—illustrate how exposure to hate speech online may have contributed to the attackers’ biases against people based on race, national origin, and sexual orientation. Additionally, these attacks showed how the internet has offered the perpetrators of such attacks a vehicle for disseminating hateful materials—such as manifestos containing disparaging and racist rhetoric prior to the attacks. The perpetrators of these three attacks were convicted of, or pled guilty to, federal or state hate crimes. Online hate speech and extremism can lead to offline hate crimes and terrorism.

Online hate and extremism are critical problems across the globe. Online, groups of like-minded, prejudiced individuals create communities on social media platforms, where they recruit new members and sometimes coordinate offline behavior. Users’ exposure to hate speech can have important negative consequences. At times, this online activity can fuel high-profile offline violence, such as the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. In turn, highly charged offline trigger events tend to be followed by sharp increases in online hate speech. Such spikes in online hate speech have, further, been shown to predict similar spikes in offline violent hate crimes.

______

Social media and online hate, a 2021 study:

Social media host alarming degrees of hate messages directed at individuals and groups, threatening victims’ psychological and physical well-being. Traditional approaches to online hate often focus on perpetrators’ traits and their attitudes toward their targets. Such approaches neglect the social and interpersonal dynamics that social media afford by which individuals glean social approval from like-minded friends. A theory of online hate based on social approval suggests that individuals and collaborators generate hate messages to garner reward, for their antagonism toward mutually hated targets, by providing friendship and social support that enhances perpetrators’ well-being as it simultaneously deepens their prejudices. Recent research on a variety of related processes supports this view, including notions of moral grandstanding, political derision as fun, and peer support for interpersonal violence.

____

Offline events and online hate, a 2023 study:

Online hate speech is a critical and worsening problem, with extremists using social media platforms to radicalize recruits and coordinate offline violent events. While much progress has been made in analyzing online hate speech, no study to date has classified multiple types of hate speech across both mainstream and fringe platforms. Authors conduct a supervised machine learning analysis of 7 types of online hate speech on 6 interconnected online platforms. Authors find that offline trigger events, such as protests and elections, are often followed by increases in types of online hate speech that bear seemingly little connection to the underlying event. This occurs on both mainstream and fringe platforms, despite moderation efforts, raising new research questions about the relationship between offline events and online speech, as well as implications for online content moderation.

The study findings have several implications for researchers and practitioners.

The first is that online hate speech is a large and growing problem that affects both mainstream and fringe platforms. Over the study period, the daily volume of hate speech posts began at an average of 20,000, peaked at around 50,000, and ended at around 25,000.

Secondly, the spikes in online hate speech following offline events are not limited to fringe platforms.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, authors find that online hate speech reacts to differing offline events in different and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. What factors explain the different relationships between individual offline events and online hate speech? A detailed analysis of this question is beyond the scope of this study, but media and elite attention likely play an important role.

____

Adaptive link dynamics drive online hate networks and their mainstream influence, a 2024 study:

Here authors adopt an engineering approach and show how it leads to an understanding of the machinery and link dynamics that manage to sustain online hate at scale. Online hate is dynamic, adaptive— and may soon surge with new AI/GPT tools. Establishing how hate operates at scale is key to overcoming it. Authors provide insights that challenge existing policies. Rather than large social media platforms being the key drivers, waves of adaptive links across smaller platforms connect the hate user base over time, fortifying hate networks, bypassing mitigations, and extending their direct influence into the massive neighboring mainstream. Data indicates that hundreds of thousands of people globally, including children, have been exposed. Authors present governing equations derived from first principles and a tipping-point condition predicting future surges in content transmission. Using the U.S. Capitol attack and a 2023 mass shooting as case studies, their findings offer actionable insights and quantitative predictions down to the hourly scale. The efficacy of proposed mitigations can now be predicted using these equations.

Authors have shown how their approach has led to a deeper understanding of the machinery and mechanisms that manage to sustain online hate at scale. By mapping out the dynamical structure of the online hate network across platforms, authors found that its dynamical features contradict current thinking. Instead of the large platforms being the key drivers, hate networks are bound together over time by waves of adaptive links across numerous smaller platforms. This allows the hate networks to progressively strengthen, sidestep mitigations, and exert greater direct influence on the massive mainstream neighbor.

Authors then derived deterministic governing equations from first principles to describe the link dynamics sustaining online hate. The equations are built on models of human grouping behavior, providing a framework akin to conventional engineering systems. This enables quantitative predictions about recent and future events at hourly resolution, offering enduring insights.

Such knowledge of the dynamical network and its underlying equations allows rigorously calculating and comparing expected impacts of different mitigation strategies. Formal control theory can now be leveraged to systematically design interventions.

_____

Automatic Hate speech detection tools:

Nowadays, people increasingly use social networking sites, not only as their main source of information, but also as media to post content, sharing their feelings and opinions. Social media is convenient, as sites allow users to reach people worldwide, which could potentially facilitate a positive and constructive conversation between users. However, this phenomenon has a downside, as there are more and more episodes of hate speech (HS hereafter) and harassment in online communication. This is due especially to the freedom and anonymity given to users and to the lack of effective regulations provided by the social network platforms. There has been a growing interest in using artificial intelligence and Natural Language Processing (NLP) to address social and ethical issues. Let us mention the latest trends on AI for social good, where the emphasis is on developing applications to maximize “good” social impacts while minimizing the likelihood of harm and disparagement to those belonging to vulnerable categories.

Given the vast amount of social media data produced every minute, manually monitoring social media content is impossible. It is, instead, necessary to detect HS automatically. To this end, many studies in the field exploit supervised approaches generally casting HS detection as a binary classification problem (i.e., abusive/hateful vs. not abusive/not hateful) relying on several manually annotated datasets that can be grouped into one of these categories:

-1. Topic-generic datasets, with a broad range of HS without limiting it to specific targets. For example, consider aggressive and bullying in their annotation scheme, while looks, in addition, for other expressions of online abuse such as offensive, abusive and hateful speech.

-2. Topic-specific datasets, where the HS category (racism, sexism, etc.) is known in advance (i.e., drives the data gathering process) and is often labeled. The HS targets, either person-directed or group-directed, can be considered as oriented, containing, as they do, hateful content towards groups of targets or specific targets. For example, in scholars sampled data for multiple targets, that is racism and sexism for, respectively, religious/ethnic minorities HS and sexual/gender (male and female) HS. Others focus on single targets including, for instance, sampling for the misogyny topic, targeting women. Similarly, for the xenophobia and racism topics the target are groups discriminated against on the grounds of ethnicity (e.g., immigrants, ethnic minorities, religious communities, Jewish communities, etc.).

Independently from the datasets that are used, all existing systems share two common characteristics. First, they are trained to predict the presence of general, target-independent HS, without addressing the problem of the variety of aspects related to both the topical focus and target-oriented nature of HS. Second, systems are built, optimized, and evaluated based on a single dataset, one that is either topic-generic or topic-specific.

Many different AI models have been developed to detect hate speech in social media posts, but it has remained challenging to develop ones that are computationally efficient and are able to account for the context of the post—that is, determine whether the post truly contains hate speech or not. A group of researchers in the United Kingdom has developed a new AI model, called BiCapsHate, that overcomes both of these challenges. They describe it in a study published in IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems.

______

Hate speech operationalization: a preliminary examination of hate speech indicators and their structure, a 2023 study:

Hate speech should be tackled and prosecuted based on how it is operationalized. However, the existing theoretical definitions of hate speech are not sufficiently fleshed out or easily operable. To overcome this inadequacy, and with the help of interdisciplinary experts, authors propose an empirical definition of hate speech by providing a list of 10 hate speech indicators and the rationale behind them (the indicators refer to specific, observable, and measurable characteristics that offer a practical definition of hate speech). A preliminary exploratory examination of the structure of hate speech, with the focus on comments related to migrants (one of the most reported grounds of hate speech), revealed that two indicators in particular, denial of human rights and promoting violent behavior, occupy a central role in the network of indicators. Furthermore, authors discuss the practical implications of the proposed hate speech indicators—especially (semi-)automatic detection using the latest natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) methods. Having a set of quantifiable indicators could benefit researchers, human right activists, educators, analysts, and regulators by providing them with a pragmatic approach to hate speech assessment and detection.

In Table below researches show how the proposed indicators occur in existing datasets or lexicons, which could be used to train models to automatically detect or quantify them. Given the available datasets and the current level of maturity of existing NLP approaches, the proposed indicators vary in readiness for automatic detection. Problematic hashtags, nicknames and symbols as well as slurs and vulgarisms can be detected with a high level of precision using simple word lexicons. However, the cultural sensitivity of certain word usages (words that are problematic in some cultures, but not in others) remains an open problem. Curated lexicons of problematic hashtags are still missing, although existing lists of hate speech words could be used for this purpose. Language aimed at the denial of fundamental human rights or promoting violent behavior can be detected with machine learning methods based on sufficiently large datasets, since it is often characterized by a relatively homogenous set of features. While existing datasets often contain a label pertaining to violence and aggressiveness, the denial of fundamental human rights is rarely explicitly labeled, despite our analysis showing it is a strong indicator of hate speech.

Table below shows the Map of proposed indicators to existing NLP datasets on hate speech and related phenomena, such as offensive and abusive language and the assessment of the current level of readiness for the automatic detection of each indicator given the availability of data and the capability of existing approaches.

Indicator	Level of readiness for automatic detection
Sexist language	Sexist language can to some extent be detected using machine learning methods and large enough datasets. However, certain types of sexist language are still hard to detect, e.g. latent sexist language, ambiguous statements or sexist language that draws on a broader context and not individual phrases or sentences
Attacking minorities as a “traditionally disadvantaged group”	Language attacking minorities can be detected using machine learning methods and large enough datasets, since it is often characterized by a relatively homogenous set of features. However, certain types of attack are still hard to detect, e.g. ambiguous statements or attacks that draw on a broader context and not individual phrases or sentences
Denial of fundamental human rights	Language containing the denial of fundamental human rights can be detected using machine learning methods and large enough datasets, since it is often characterized by a relatively homogenous set of features
Promoting violent behavior	Language promoting violent behavior can be detected using machine learning methods and large enough datasets, since it is often characterized by a relatively homogenous set of features
Problematic hashtags, nicknames, symbols	Problematic hashtags, nicknames and symbols can be detected with a high level of precision using simple word lexicons. Issues with the culturally sensitive usage of certain words (words that are problematic in some cultures, but not in others) remain an open problem
Ad hominem attacks (An ad hominem attack is a type of argument that criticizes a person instead of their ideas or position)	Certain types of ad hominem attacks can be easy to detect, especially attacks where other indicators are present, such as slurs, stereotypical language. But there are context-sensitive ad hominem attacks whose detection requires a natural language understanding level not yet achieved by the current systems. E.g. “He spends all his time in a library” might be an ad hominem attack aiming at a person’s lack of practical skills, but in other contexts it could in fact be praise
Negative stereotypes of a minority	Stereotypical language can be detected using machine learning methods and large enough datasets, since it is often characterized by a relatively homogenous set of features (e.g. specific words and phrases). Issues remain with the sheer amount of different stereotypes that exist in different cultures
Texts with ambiguous statements, irony, sarcasm	Despite the existing research, automatic irony or sarcasm detection is still a challenge. Current systems do not possess the level of natural language understanding to reliably detect such phenomena
Manipulative texts/misinterpretation of the truth	Despite the existing research, automatically detecting a manipulative style or misinterpretations is still a challenge. Current systems do not possess the level of natural language understanding to reliably detect such phenomena
Slurs and vulgarisms	Slurs and vulgarisms can be detected with a high level of precision using simple word lexicons. Issues with the culturally sensitive usage of certain words (words that are slurs in some cultures, but not in others) remain an open problem

_____

Section-14

Hate crime:

Hate crimes are criminal offenses motivated either entirely or in part by the fact or perception that the victim is different from the perpetrator. As used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a number of other law enforcement agencies across the United States, this definition has three important elements that have been widely accepted: first, it involves actions that have already been defined as illegal in state or federal statutes. Thus, the vast majority of hate crime laws do not criminalize any new behavior; instead, they increase the penalty for behaviors that are already against the law. Second, the definition specifies the motivation for committing the offense; it requires that racial, religious, ethnic, or some other identified difference between victim and offender play at least some role in inspiring the criminal act. Third, the definition of hate crimes provided here does not identify a particular set of protected groups to which the hate crime designation can be exclusively applied. Unlike statutes in many states in which protected racial, religious, and ethnic groups are specified, this definition includes any group difference that separates the victim from the offender in the offender’s mind.

The term hate crime first appeared in the late 1980s as a way of understanding a racial incident in the Howard Beach section of New York City, in which a black man was killed while attempting to evade a violent mob of white teenagers who were shouting racial epithets. Although widely used by the federal government of the United States, the media, and researchers in the field, the term is somewhat misleading because it suggests incorrectly that hatred is invariably a distinguishing characteristic of this type of crime. While it is true that many hate crimes involve intense animosity toward the victim, many others do not. Conversely, many crimes involving hatred between the offender and the victim are not “hate crimes” in the sense intended here. For example, an assault that arises out of a dispute between two white, male coworkers who compete for a promotion might involve intense hatred, even though it is not based on any racial or religious differences between them. Similarly, a love triangle resulting in manslaughter may provoke intense emotions, but may have nothing at all to do with race or religion.

There is no accepted definition at an international level as to what constitutes a hate crime, from organisations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe or the European Union. Not only that, but there is no agreed conceptualisation of the term across jurisdictions. Perry notes:

“For example, while several countries criminalize discrimination, or membership of ‘extremist’ groups, and include these acts within their national concepts of hate crime, most do not. Similarly, although all European countries criminalize hate speech, to some extent, there is a diverse approach to the threshold of ‘hate’ above which freedom of expression is no longer protected.” (2016)

Perry observes that, across Europe:

‘Recent bitter ethnic conflict, and the legacy of Nazism, colonialism, slavery and communism each influence affected countries’ understanding and conceptualisation of and approach to hate crime policy. (Perry, Citation2015, p. 78)’

Glet notes that in Germany, for example, the historical context has dictated a conceptualisation of hate crime in that country which is markedly different to that in the United States (and thus, the definition adopted by the OSCE):

‘In Germany, hate crimes are considered politically motivated offences because they present a threat to the human and constitutional rights of the victim and undermine the democratic, pluralistic directive of the country. In this regard, the German approach towards recording hate incidences is based on an offender-oriented system of classification, which focuses primarily on the political motive of the alleged perpetrator. (Glet, Citation2009, p. 1)’

Brudholm observes that there are four “constitutive features” of hate crime globally (Brudholm, Citation2016, pp. 34–35):

-1. If there is no crime, there can be no hate crime;

-2. There is general agreement that the proof of the hate crime lies in the answer to the question why the crime was committed;

-3. Implied in the definition is a requisite relation between the hate and the crime;

-4. There is also an implication that there is a specification of a list of protected characteristics: the hate must be directed towards categories of group identity.

The OSCE/ODIHR (Citation2009, p. 16) definition of hate crime is “criminal acts committed with a bias motive.” Thus, a hate crime is not a specific offence, but rather a “type of crime”, and can be committed, the OSCE/ODIHR argues, even “where there is no specific criminal sanction on account of bias or prejudice” in the country in which the crime was committed (OSCE/ODIHR, Citation2009, p. 16). This is important: hate crime statutes do not typically introduce new forms of offences, but rather attach a bias motivation to existing offences. It is the determination of what “bias” constitutes, as well as the groups to which that bias is directed, that forms the points of differentiation across jurisdictions.

The starting point for understanding hate crimes and their impact is to recognize that criminal activity motivated by bias is different from other criminal conduct.

First, these crimes occur because of the perpetrator’s bias or animus against the victim on the basis of actual or perceived status. The victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability is the reason for the crime. In the vast majority of these crimes, absent the victim’s personal characteristics, no crime would occur at all.

Second, because hate violence is intentionally and specifically targeted at individuals because of their personal, immutable characteristics, they are very personal crimes with particular emotional and psychological impacts on the victim – and the victim’s community. Hate crimes are considered message crimes, in that they’re intended to send a clear message to the intended group that they are not liked and are not welcome. Hate crimes physically wound and may effectively intimidate other members of the victim’s community, leaving them feeling terrorized, isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making the victim’s community fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups – and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them – these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” In the bureau’s report, released in March 2023, hate crimes reported in the United States increased nearly 12% in 2021 over the previous year. The FBI said close to 65% of victims were reportedly targeted because of their race or ethnicity, 15.9% were targeted for their sexual orientation, and 14.1% were targeted because of their religion.

Hate Crime vs Incident:

Hate Crime: At the federal level, a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

Bias or Hate Incident: Acts of prejudice that are not crimes and do not involve violence, threats, or property damage. Where the act of the perpetrator falls below the criminal threshold, the words, gestures or symbols used by that perpetrator are referred to as microaggressions in scholarly literature, and “hate incidents” in practice.

Hate based violence:

A hate crime is a crime motivated by bias or prejudice. Hate crimes usually involve violence. Prejudice and discrimination are typically the foundation of hate-based violence. This type of violence can take the form of verbal violence, which may include degradation, harassment, humiliation, and threats. Hate-based violence may also take the form of physical violence, such as bullying, sexual violence, and maiming, and can go as far as murder and genocide.

Levels of hate-based violence:

Ghafoori et al. (2019) provided a schematic that highlighted specific types of hate-based traumatic events and the escalating levels of threat and violence, from microaggressions to extreme violence such as rape and murder (Figure below).

Hate-based violence, like other forms of violence, is psychological, physical, behavioral, economic, sexual, and emotional and can take the following forms: (a) discrimination, which may include difference of opportunities, degradation, and public humiliation; (b) hate speech, which may include words, symbols, images, memes, emojis, and videos intended to vilify, bully, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group; and (c) hate crimes, which can include, but are not limited to, harassment, physical assault, sexual assault, murder, and genocide. It is important to note that all forms of hate-motivated behavior are forms of violence, regardless of whether an overt injury occurs, the intent is to cause harm (Sugarman et al., 2018).

Hate-based crimes are preceded or accompanied by discrimination, whether explicit or implicit, including negative stereotypes, distortions, and prejudice, and include acts such as exclusion, invalidation, and disqualification. Discrimination is the foundation of hate-based violence. Hate speech is a form of violence that refers to verbal and nonverbal statements that serve to present a group in a negative light, exacerbate negative stereotypes, diminish dignity and self-esteem, oppress and intimidate, or otherwise maintain a power imbalance, and it may precede or accompany hate-crimes (Gelber & McNamara, 2015). Discrimination, hate speech, and hate-based crimes are all forms of communicating that the out-group “should be kept in their place,” meaning in a status that denotes “other” and “less than” (Wilkerson, 2020).

______

The targets of hate crime:

A study found that 57.6% of single-bias victims were targeted because of bias against their race, ethnicity, or ancestry; 20.1% were targeted due to bias against their religion, and 16.7% were targeted due to bias against their perceived or actual sexual orientation. 64.4% of hate crime offenses were against person; 32.8% were crimes against property, and 2.8% were crimes against society (e.g. drug or narcotic offenses).

In its recent report, the FBI reported 11,862 hate crimes against persons, institutions and property in 2023, compared to 11,634 reported in 2022, a slight increase and the highest number ever reported since the FBI began collecting this data in 1991.

Of the 11,862 hate crimes reported in 2023:

5,900 were on the basis of race.
3,027 against Black people.
812 against Latinx people (the highest ever recorded).
422 against Asian American and Pacific Islanders.
123 against Arab Americans (the highest ever recorded).
2,699 were on the basis of religion.
1,832 against Jewish people (the highest ever recorded).
236 against Muslims.
2,077 on the basis of sexual orientation (the highest ever recorded).
492 on the basis of gender identity (the highest ever recorded).

Law enforcement officials acknowledge that hate crimes — similar to rape and family violence crimes — go under-reported, with many victims reluctant to go to the police. In addition, some police agencies are not fully trained to recognize or investigate hate crimes, and many simply do not collect or report hate crime data.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps data on hate-motivated crimes. In its “Hate Crime Victimization, 2005-2019 summary,” the Bureau noted that:

Nearly 90% of all reported hate crimes were violent crimes
About 59% of violent hate crimes were motivated by bias against the victim’s race, ethnicity, or national origin
Gender bias accounted for 24% of hate crimes
About 20% of victims believed their attackers targeted them due to their sexual orientation
Only about one-tenth of hate crimes were thought to be motivated by disability discrimination or religion

This hate crime data collection makes clear that bigotry remains a societal challenge.

_____

Perpetrators of Hate Crime:

People who commit hate crimes are not believed to be very different than most people. A study conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles profiled 550 hate crime criminals to determine which factors may contribute to the perpetration of hate crimes. The researchers found that the criminals tend to be more aggressive and inclined to exhibit antisocial behavior, but for the most part aren’t mentally unstable. Jack Glaser, Ph.D., with the University of California, Berkeley, says “hate crime perpetrators are not typically psychopaths. They are mostly ‘normal,’ but excessively prejudiced. If they are also relatively prone to violence or destructiveness this can lead to hate crime.” The UCLA study also showed that many of the perpetrators studied had a strong family history of violence and abuse. Typically, hate crimes are more likely to be planned and intentional than spontaneous.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also tracks hate crime statistics and bias incidents. In its “Hate Crime Statistics 2021” report, of the 6,545 known offenders:

55.8% were white
21.1% were Black or African-American
13.9% were unknown
6.4% were multiple races
1.0% were Asian American
0.9% were American Indian or Alaska Native
0.7% were Native Hawaiian

Some people commit hate crimes with their peers as a “thrill” or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Others are reacting against a perceived threat or to preserve their “turf.” Still, others are motivated by resentment over the growing economic power of a particular racial or ethnic group.

_______

Examples of Bias Categories:

Color (Scenario)

Six black men assaulted and seriously injured a white man and his Asian male friend as they were walking through a residential neighborhood. Witnesses stated the victims were attacked because they were trespassing in a “black” neighborhood.

Disability (Scenario)

A group home for persons with psychiatric disabilities who were in transition back into the community was the site of a reported arson. Investigation revealed that neighbors had expressed many concerns about the group home in town meetings and were angry that the house was located in their community. Shortly before the fire was reported, a witness heard a man state, “I’ll get rid of those ‘crazies,’ I’ll burn them out.” Twelve persons, including patients and staff, suffered second and third degree burns.

Ethnicity (Scenario)

Two Palestinian university students speaking in Arabic were attending a department reception when another student, a white male, deliberately bumped into one of them. When one Palestinian student said, “Hey, watch where you’re going,” the white student responded by saying, “I’ll go wherever I want. This is my country, you Arab!” The aggressor proceeded to punch the Palestinian student in the face.

Gender (Scenario)

A man entered a community college and shot and killed a female in a corridor. He then entered a classroom with 10 women and 48 men, fired a shot into the ceiling and said, “I want the women! I hate feminists!” He sent all of the men from the room, lined the women up against the wall and opened fire, killing 6 of the women and wounding the others.

Gender Identity (Scenario)

A transgender woman was walking down the street near her home when three men walking toward her said, “Hey, what’s your problem? Huh?” She kept walking, trying to ignore them. However, as they got close, one yelled “We don’t want no queers in this neighborhood!” and a second one knocked her to the ground.

Race (Scenario)

In a parking lot next to a bar, a 29-year-old Japanese American male was attacked by a 51-year-old white male wielding a tire iron. The victim suffered severe lacerations and a broken arm. Investigation revealed that the offender and victim had previously exchanged racial insults in the bar. The offender initiated the exchange by calling the victim by a well-known and recognized epithet used against the Japanese and complained that the Japanese were taking away jobs from Americans.

Religion (Scenario)

Overnight, unknown persons broke into a synagogue and destroyed several priceless religious objects. The perpetrators drew a large swastika on the door and wrote “Death to Jews” on a wall. Although other valuable items were present, none were stolen.

Sexual Orientation (Scenario)

Five gay, male friends, some of whom were wearing makeup and jewellery, were exiting a well-known gay bar when they were approached by a group of men who were unknown to them. The men began to ridicule the gay men’s feminine appearance and shouted “Sissy!” “Girlie-men!” and other slurs at them then escalated to physically attacking the victims, rendering them unconscious.

______

Patterns of hate crime:

A number of research studies show how hate crimes can sometimes form part of an ongoing process of victimisation that often makes up part of a victim’s everyday experiences of prejudice. This can present as a persistent build-up of targeted hostility, rather than single substantial incidents. The significant proportion of hate crimes are committed by perpetrators who are known to the victim. These motivational and situational factors can sometimes complicate decisions about how an incident should be addressed by justice agencies. To aid practitioners tasked with responding to hate crime, common types of incidents that have been shown to occur in communities, along with typical social/situational characteristics, victim–perpetrator relationships and levels of prejudice and causal links for each of these types have been displayed in table below. The table identifies the three most common types of hate crime that came to the attention and does not include every type of conduct that perpetrators may carry out.

Key types of ‘everyday’ hate crime/incidents:

Type of hate crime/incident	Characterisation	Common social factors	Victim/perpetrator relationship	Level of prejudice/ causal connection
Incident/s form part of an interpersonal conflict	Conflicts frequently escalate over protracted periods of time culminating in the commission of an incident often marked (for example) by the use of racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-religious or disablist language.	Can occur in and around social housing; noise pollution; neighbour disputes; alcohol- and drug abuse fuelled; multiple disputants.	Known, typically neighbours.	Low-medium/ Low medium.
Persistent targeted abuse	Persistent and ongoing targeted abuse of victims that occurs over prolonged periods of time (process-led).	In and around social housing, alcohol/drug abuse-fuelled.	Known, neighbours or local community members.	Medium-high/ High.
‘One-off’ Attacks	‘One-off’ incidents typically committed in public areas.	Incidents often occur during people’s routine activities. Offences frequently occur late at night during commercial transactions, such as takeaway food establishments. Alcohol intoxication is common.	Previously unknown (strangers); individuals often come into contact via commercial relationship based on goods/service provider and customer.	Medium-low/ Medium

_______

Types of hate crimes:

Analysis as to what acts are committed as hate crimes is surprisingly sparse. It is clear that hate crimes range from verbal abuse, through criminal damage of buildings and property, and on to ‘minor’ and ‘serious’ forms of violence. The latter being the exception rather than the rule. As Iganski (2008) describes it, most hate crime, most of the time, is possessed of an “everyday normality”. Some indication of the kinds of act that are committed against different groups, can be gleaned from Crown Prosecution Service data on hate crime prosecutions for the year 2010-11 (Crown Prosecution Service, 2012). Such data obviously do not provide a comprehensive picture of all kinds of hate crimes, as they are biased towards those types of act where prosecutions were undertaken. These limitations notwithstanding, they are useful in illuminating how different types of hate crime involve different acts.

Figure below shows CPS Prosecution Data for 2010-11

These data show that the most common types of offence for all categories of hate crime victim, are offences against the person, and public order offences, However, people with a disability are more likely than other victim groups to suffer from sexual offences, and crimes motivated by financial gain (Theft and Handling, Robbery, Burglary and Fraud and Forgery).

Hate crime can fall into one of four main types: physical assault, verbal abuse, incitement to hatred and criminal damage.

Type	Description
Physical assault	Physical assault of any kind is an offence. If you’ve been a victim of physical assault, you should report it to Police.
Verbal abuse	Verbal abuse, threats or name-calling can be a common and extremely unpleasant experience for minority groups. Victims of verbal abuse are often unclear whether an offence has been committed or believe there is little they can do. However, there are laws in place to protect you from verbal abuse.
Incitement to hatred	The offence of incitement to hatred occurs when someone acts in a way that is threatening and intended to stir up hatred. That could be in words, pictures, videos, music, and includes information posted on websites. Hate content may include: Messages calling for violence against a specific person or group Web pages that show pictures, videos or descriptions of violence against anyone due to their perceived differences Chat forums where people ask other people to commit hate crimes against a specific person or group
Criminal damage	If someone has deliberately destroyed or caused permanent damage to something that belongs to you, then you are a victim of criminal damage and should report it to Police. This includes hate related graffiti.

Alternative subculture hate crime:

Alternative subculture hate crimes are crimes committed against people for the way the dress or their lifestyle. The introduction of alternative subculture hate crime has been pioneered by Sylvia Lancaster, whose daughter, Sophie Lancaster, was tragically kicked to death in 2007, simply for the way she looked and her style.

_____

Equality and Human Rights Commission: 2016 report:

This report is the result of work commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on the causes and perpetration of hate crime in Great Britain.

The key points in this report are as follows:

-1. Perpetrators of hate crimes are not always motivated by a single type of prejudice or hatred but can be influenced by a combination of different prejudices.

-2. There is no single type of hate crime perpetrator. Research shows that in order to fully understand the nature of hate crime, practitioners need to appreciate that situational factors (that is, location and victim–perpetrator relationships) may differ depending on the type of offence (for example, verbal abuse, harassment etc.) and the type of hate-motivation (for example, homophobic, disablist etc.).

-3. There is no single type of hate crime. Research shows that some of the most common types of hate crime involve: (1. Incidents that occur during an ongoing local conflict (for example, between neighbours) that has escalated over time; (2. Incidents that form part of a targeted campaign of abuse directed against certain individuals within a neighbourhood; or (3. Incidents that occur in public spaces and are perpetrated by individuals who feel somehow aggrieved by the victim – sometimes occurring during commercial transactions or on public transport.

-4. Hate crimes may also be the product of our social environments. Some researchers assert that hate crimes are more likely to occur where society is structured in such a way as to advantage certain identity characteristics over others (for example, white, male, heterosexual). Systemic discrimination, typically codified into operating procedures, policies or laws, may give rise to an environment where perpetrators feel a sense of impunity when victimising certain minority group members.

-5. Perpetrators of hate crime can be motivated by a variety of different factors. Some research (from the US) suggests that there are four ‘types’ of perpetrators, including: thrill seekers (those motivated by a thrill and excitement); defensive (those motivated by a desire to protect their territory); retaliators (those who act in retaliation for a perceived attack against their own group); and mission (perpetrators who make it their mission in life to eradicate ‘difference’).

-6. Cyber hate is a growing phenomenon which, reporting figures suggest, vastly outnumbers offline hate crime. There is some research suggesting that perpetrators of cyber hate crime have similar motivations to those who act offline.

-7. Evidence of hate crime causation is not yet conclusive. However, there is some evidence within social psychology to suggest that perpetrators may be influenced by their perception that certain groups pose a threat to them. These threats can be divided into ‘realistic threats’ – such as perceived competition over jobs, housing and other resources, and physical harm to themselves or others – and ‘symbolic threats’ which are concerned with the threat posed to people’s values and social norms.

-8. Though there are some dissimilarities between types of hate crime, most, if not all, hate crimes are linked by perceptions of threat. Threats can be linked to economic stability, access to social/state resources, people’s sense of safety in society, and/or values and social norms.

Some differences in the nature and dynamics of hate crime can be observed across the protected strands. Research suggests that both anti-Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual (LGB) and transphobic hate crime can involve a greater propensity towards physical violence. Disability hate crime evidence shows high levels of sexual violence and property offences. Certain trigger events (such as global terrorist attacks) have been linked to sharp rises in anti-religious hate crime.

______

The Conundrums of Hate Crime Prevention, a 2023 study:

In 2020, hate crimes surged amid the worst pandemic in a century, racial justice protests following the police killing of George Floyd, and a divisive presidential election marked by the racist rhetoric of President Trump. Over the next two years, everyday acts of racial harassment, unprovoked assaults captured on video, and mass shootings targeting non-white or LGBTQ+ people in Atlanta, Buffalo, and Colorado Springs generated widespread fear in multiple communities. At the same time, the conversation on responding to hate crimes grew more complicated amid calls to defund the police and new attention to systemic racism in the criminal legal system. While some in targeted communities called for more policing and greater enforcement of hate crime laws, others sought alternative solutions that relied less on law enforcement and imprisonment to improve safety. And people on both sides of the debate queried what could be done to prevent hate crimes in the first place, rather than simply hold offenders accountable and help victims heal when such crimes occurred.

Efforts to prevent hate crimes outside law enforcement channels have taken a wide variety of forms, including educational initiatives, community escort programs to protect vulnerable people, conflict resolution efforts, advocacy against hate speech, and more. Such efforts have attracted significant support, especially at the state and local levels. While there is broad support for hate crime prevention, programs and proposals to prevent hate crimes reflect different approaches to the problem that stem, in part, from divergent perspectives on the causes of hate crimes. Hate crime prevention efforts outside the criminal legal system fall into three broad categories: (1) prejudice reduction measures; (2) political and structural reforms; and (3) socioeconomic investments in communities. Prejudice reduction measures, such as educational programs to reduce stereotyping, stem from a view of hate crimes as an extreme manifestation of bias. Advocacy for political and structural reforms corresponds to a conception of hate crimes as the product of intergroup struggles over power and resources, often influenced by the state. Calls for socioeconomic investments link hate crimes to the conditions that produce interpersonal violence more generally, such as economic distress or public health failures.

______

Difference between hate crimes and other crimes:

The number of hate crimes may seem small when compared with the incidence of other types of crimes in the United States. In 1993, for example, 11 of the 24,526 murders reported in the United States were classified as hate crimes, as were 13 of the 104,806 reported rapes. But the simple truth about hate crimes is that each offense victimizes not one victim but many. A hate crime victimizes not only the immediate target but every member of the group that the immediate target represents. A bias-motivated offense can cause a broad ripple of discomfiture among members of a targeted group, and a violent hate crime can act like a virus, quickly spreading feelings of terror and loathing across an entire community. Apart from their psychological impacts, violent hate crimes can create tides of retaliation and counterretaliation. Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far more weight than other types of criminal acts.

In the popular consciousness, hate criminals are often thought to be uniquely motivated by their hatred. This is, criminologist Paul Iganski writes, a function of which offenses get captured in the news, those in which “victims are usually targeted in premeditated violent attacks by offenders who are out-and-out bigots, hate-fueled individuals, who subscribe to racist, antisemitic, homophobic and other bigoted views, and exercise their extreme hatred against their victims.” That the most heinous hate crimes—e.g., the 2015 Emanuel AME Church shooting, the 2022 Buffalo Tops Market shooting—are clearly primarily motivated by deeply ingrained hatred gives credence to this view. In this account, hate-crime offenders are not like other criminals. Whereas other criminals offend for other reasons, hate criminals are thought to commit their crimes because of a worldview that is bigoted and motivated to harm individuals on the basis of the victims’ sex, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.

But not all hate crimes so neatly fit this mold. Consider an individual whose serious mental illness causes him both to assault another person and to denigrate his victim’s gender identity in the process; or a compulsively aggressive individual who uses a racial slur during an assault, primarily to add insult to injury. Under many statutes, both these offenses would qualify as hate crimes. Yet most of us would say that the offenders are not essentially motivated by hate—or at least not exclusively. Rather, other factors—serious mental illness, criminal entitlement—also determine the crime. Further, hate does not itself necessarily lead to hate crime. Many people hold bigoted views: 6% of Americans disapprove of interracial marriage, for example. Yet, in a given year, most of those people will not commit crimes motivated by that bigotry. Hate-crime offenders may not, in other words, be extremists prosecuting their bigoted agendas. They may be, as Iganski puts it, “‘ordinary’ people who offend in the unfolding contexts of their everyday lives.” And their choice to offend may be driven or primarily determined by more than just their hatred. Hate-crime offenders often resemble other criminals, which suggests that they commit crimes for similar, rather than unique, reasons. This does not mean that there is no bias component to their offenses but that hate crimes are not, in general, fundamentally caused by something different from non-hate crimes. That “hate criminals” resemble other criminals in their motives does not mean that hate crimes should not be separately recognized by the law. But it does mean that the traditional criminal-justice system is the best venue for controlling hate crime, as are efforts to remediate other pathologies associated with such offenses (mental illness, homelessness, and drug use). It also means, by contrast, that efforts to reduce hate crime through so-called bias reduction, education, or social media content moderation are unlikely to meaningfully affect hate-crime offending. Given finite resources to devote to bringing hate crime under control, policymakers should focus on deterring and incapacitating criminals, rather than changing the hearts and minds of the peaceful bulk of the public.

_____

What is not a hate crime?

A crime that is motivated by hate is a hate crime. If one of these components is missing, or if the motivation is unclear, it is unlikely to meet the specific legal standards of a hate crime.

An act or incident of hate, bias or discrimination that is not a crime, however, may nonetheless violate other laws, or may require de-escalation or restorative justice efforts, and should still be reported.

Hateful speech alone is not a hate crime, regardless of how offensive and abhorrent it may be. Speech is often used as evidence of the bias-motivation but is not a crime in and of itself.

Sometimes these legal nuances are best understood through scenarios.

Scenario A:

A person assaults another outside of a club because of their perceived race, religion, sexual identity, or other protected class. This is likely a hate crime. In this scenario there is a crime, hate, and the hate is the motivating factor in the crime.

Scenario B:

A person robs another and uses hateful language during the robbery. It is unclear if this is a hate crime because without additional detail, we do not know if the perpetrator’s decision to commit the robbery was motivated by hate or another factor. In this scenario there is a crime and hate, but it is unclear if hate is the motivating factor in the crime. The crime may still be prosecuted as a robbery, but additional information is necessary to determine whether it is a hate crime.

Scenario C:

Each morning, a person waiting for the bus makes hateful comments to another person at the same bus stop because of their perceived race, religion, sexual identity, or other protected class. This is not a hate crime. In this scenario there is hate but no crime. This street harassment should be reported to authorities because it is harmful behavior and could escalate to a hate crime. De-escalation, and restorative justice efforts may be helpful.

______

Hate crime vs. terrorism:

Differentiating terrorist attacks from hate crimes is essential to understanding motive, addressing the root causes of an offense and prosecuting the offenders. Hate crimes are motivated at least in part by an offender’s personal bias and are disproportionately committed by nonpolitical youths, acting alone, not under the direction of an organized hate group, often simply for the thrill of it. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, are violent acts inspired primarily by extremist beliefs and intended as political or ideological statements. In some cases, perpetrators target individuals or institutions associated with a specific identity – such as Jewish people or Muslims, as in a hate crime. In other cases, offenders target government installations or groups of civilians related more by proximity than by their individual identity. Sometimes, a violent crime can be considered both a hate crime and a terrorist attack. An example is the 2015 massacre of nine Black people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, by a young white supremacist. For the most part, though, terrorist attacks are not included in tabulations of hate crimes.

Close Cousins or Distance Relatives? The Relationship Between Terrorism and Hate Crime, a 2012 study:

Prior research has frequently drawn parallels between the study of hate crimes and the study of terrorism. Yet, key differences between the two behaviors may be underappreciated in extant work. Terrorism is often an “upward crime,” involving a perpetrator of lower social standing than the targeted group. By contrast, hate crimes are disproportionately “downward crimes,” usually entailing perpetrators belonging to the majority or powerful group in society and minority group victims. The latter difference implies that hate crimes and terrorism are more akin to distant relatives than close cousins. These divergent perspectives provide a backdrop for the present research, which empirically investigates the association between hate crimes and terrorism. In doing so, authors contribute to prior work on hate crimes and terrorism by emphasizing the temporal association between these behaviors and by empirically investigating the potential for one kind of violent event to trigger another kind of violence. Time-series analyses of weekly and daily data on terrorism and hate crimes committed in the United States between 1992 and 2008 reveal three primary conclusions. First, authors find no evidence to suggest that hate crimes are a precursor to future terrorism. Second, hate crimes are often perpetrated in response to terrorist acts. Third, the latter association is particularly strong for hate crimes perpetrated against minority groups after a non-right-wing terrorist attack, particularly attacks on symbols of core American ideals, indicating that some hate crimes may essentially constitute expressions of retaliation.

_____

Section-15

Hate and genocide:

Genocides do not start with bullets or machetes; they begin with hate speech. The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers, but with hate speech. The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda began with decades of hate speech exacerbated by ethnic tensions. The Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina began with constant nationalist propaganda throughout party-controlled media channels demonizing the Bosnian Muslim population. In recent years, the world has witnessed several mass atrocities. In many of these cases, hate speech was identified as a “precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide”. While the use of social media and digital platforms to spread hatred is relatively recent, the weaponization of public discourse for political gain is unfortunately not new. As history continues to show, hate speech coupled with disinformation can lead to stigmatization, discrimination and large-scale violence.

The UN’s top genocide prevention official warned that hate speech remains a significant threat to global peace and security, often targeting society’s most vulnerable. Alice Nderitu, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, emphasized that in addition to violence, hate speech also reinforces discrimination, stigma, dehumanization, and marginalization. “Violence does not start when physical attacks are launched. Violence often starts with words. Words of hatred spread intolerance, divide societies, promote and endorse discrimination and incite violence,” she told ambassadors at the Security Council. Ms. Nderitu warned that combined with disinformation, hate speech entrenches divisions and poses direct threats to civilians, potentially leading to severe crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. “The widespread use of social media … is allowing hate speech to be employed by anyone, reaching quicker distant audiences, and hence increasing the potential for offline harm. Minorities are particularly targeted. And so are women, especially those in public space,” Ms. Nderitu warned. At the same time, tackling hate speech should never be used to stifle freedom of expression, she stressed. “Blanket restrictions, bans and internet shutdowns are not the solution and may violate human rights, including freedom of expression. They may also silence the actors working to stand up against hate speech including civil society, human rights defenders, and journalists.”

Hate speech regularly, if not inevitably, precedes and accompanies ethnic conflicts, and particularly genocidal violence. Without such incitement to hatred and the exacerbation of xenophobic, anti-Semitic, or racist tendencies, no genocide would be possible and persecutory campaigns would rarely meet with a sympathetic response in the general public. History shows that hate speech typically precedes public incitement to violence and specific criminal acts, including genocide. All are part of and support an organized system of persecution that includes a variety of measures. The instigation of and specific calls for criminal acts, such as genocide, is not likely to be successful unless a climate of violence has first been created by means of hate speech. Such a climate is achieved primarily through the demonization and dehumanization of opponents, which invariably involves a violation of their human dignity through a process of humiliation equivalent to the victim group’s expulsion from the human community.

______

Incitement to genocide:

Incitement to genocide is a crime under international law which prohibits inciting (encouraging) the commission of genocide. An extreme form of hate speech, incitement to genocide is an inchoate offense and is theoretically subject to prosecution even if genocide does not occur, although charges have never been brought in an international court without mass violence having occurred. “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” was forbidden by the Genocide Convention in 1948. Incitement to genocide is often cloaked in metaphor and euphemism and may take many forms beyond direct advocacy, including dehumanization and accusation in a mirror.

Incitement involves a triangular relationship (figure below) between the three principal actors: the “hate speaker” advocating discriminatory hatred to a public audience; the public audience, who may engage in acts of discrimination, hostility or violence, and the target group, against whom these acts might be perpetrated.

Advocacy should be understood as an “intention to promote hatred publicly towards the target group.” The idea of “promotion” is integral to advocacy; it implies more than merely stating an idea, but actually engaging in persuading others to adopt a particular viewpoint or mind-set. This may be through any medium of communication, including spoken, written or electronic.

Example of advocacy:

A prominent personality uses his social media account to disseminate to the public a series of vitriolic messages against migrants, repeating harmful stereotypes and lies about them. Advocacy should be distinguished from discriminatory abuse or insults directed at a person because of their possessing a protected characteristic, where a third party audience is not present.

The lines separating hate speech, propaganda, and incitement are not clear. While patterns exist across the different case studies with regard to the tactics and strategies leaders employed to increase intergroup tensions, there is no consensus on what constitutes each of the three categories—hate speech, propaganda, and incitement—and international criminal law governing this area is still in flux. Speech is tied to context. The context in which speech occurs helps determine its impact, as does the position of the person or persons speaking. Additionally, hate speech alone does not indicate impending violence. It is only by analyzing contextual clues that the potential threat of any given speech can be evaluated.

Free speech issues:

Gordon argued that the benefits of free speech do not apply in situations where mass violence is occurring because “the ‘marketplace of ideas’ has been likely shut down or is not functioning properly.” Therefore, it is justified to restrict speech that would not ordinarily be punishable. Susan Benesch, a free speech advocate, concedes that free speech provisions are intended to protect private speech while most or all genocide is state-sponsored. Therefore, in her opinion, prosecution of incitement to genocide should take into account the authority of the speaker and whether they are likely to persuade the audience. Richard Ashby Wilson observed that those prosecuted for incitement to genocide and related international crimes “have gone beyond mere insult, libel and slander to incite others to commit mass atrocities. Moreover, their utterances usually occur in a context of an armed conflict, genocide and a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population.”

From Speech to Crime to Genocide, it’s clear to see how Hate Travels:

Groups of killers do not formulate spontaneously, and enumeration through inflammatory public speeches have always preceded mass violence. On January 30, 1939, Adolf Hitler, on the sixth anniversary of his chancellorship of Germany, delivered a speech to the Reichstag proclaiming the annihilation of ‘European Jewry’ from the earth. Two years later, mass-scale genocide had been committed by Nazis across Europe. However, Hitler was the by-product of the very society that had for centuries targeted Jews through hate speech and hate crime which later aided the Nazis to normalise the systematic annihilation of Jews.

______

Historical Evidence of how hate speech fuels genocide:

In recent history, the world has witnessed massive incidents of violence, including human atrocities and genocide in several countries driven and fueled by hate speech. At the same time, social media played a pivotal role in providing digital platforms to spread incendiary discourse coupled with disinformation, hateful slogans, and extremist ideology, leading to large-scale violence. Here are some examples of genocides resulting from hate speech:

-1. Cambodian Genocide

Cambodia was established in 1953 as a constitutional monarchy under Prince Sihanouk, who was later toppled by a US-backed coup in 1970, when the Khmer Rouge movement of Pol Pot led a vast propaganda campaign to mobilize the rural population and seize power. When it took power, it launched a massive campaign to build a society consisting exclusively of toiling masses of peasants, threatened all that had to do with Western influence, and forced urban residents to work on agricultural projects. As a result of propaganda campaigns and hate speech, many minority communities became their enemies, particularly ethnic Chinese, Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims. Other less clearly defined groups were targeted, such as those who wore spectacles or spoke foreign languages, and those who stopped working in agriculture under the pretext that they are cultured or educated. It is estimated that from 1975 to November 1978, some 1.25 million Cambodians died from Khmer Rouge crimes, and the genocide of Cambodian minorities ended after the Vietnamese army intervened and overthrew the Pol Pot regime in 1978.

-2. Rwandan Genocide

The Rwanda genocide was the result of an organized campaign of mass murder that happened over 100 days in April-July 1994. It resulted from decades of hate speech that exceeded ethnic tension by spreading unfounded rumours and dehumanizing the ethnic Tutsi community. Hate propaganda broadcast by various media outlets incited the Hutu, who represent over 80% of the population, to kill the Tutsi minority, who are better off in socio-economic and political terms. Hate messaging and anti-Tutsi propaganda escalated and in the period of three months, more than 800,000 people of the Tutsi minority were killed. The victims included children, women, and men and around 250,000 women were raped.

-3. Bosnian genocide

In early 1992, Bosnian Serb forces targeted Srebrenica to gain control over the territory in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their primary objective was to annex this territory and to incorporate it into the adjacent Republic of Serbia. In Serbian majority areas, constant propaganda campaigns were launched in the media against the Bosnian Muslim community, portraying them as violent extremist enemies plotting against the Serbs. In July 1995, Serbian forces killed 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and children. It is estimated that during the Bosnian genocide, over 100,000 people were killed, and 20,000 went missing. The three-year war ended eventually because of Western pressure on Serbia. However, survivors among Bosnia’s ethnic Muslim community are profoundly scarred.

-4. Myanmar genocide

The genocide of the Rohingya Muslims is a significant example of a “campaign of hate”, where grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law have been committed in northern Myanmar’s Rakhine State. Hate speech, incitement of violence, and misinformation, along with derogatory and dehumanizing language against the Rohingya Muslim minority of Myanmar have been linked to the genocide and extreme violations of human rights in Myanmar in 2012–2017. According to medic al charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), at least 6,700 Rohingya, including at least 730 children, were killed after the violence broke out, while 288 villages were partially or totally destroyed by fire in the northern Rakhine state. According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), more than 723,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh since 25 August 2017. The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, established by the United Nations Human Rights Council, released a report documenting the large-scale hate propaganda led by State officials, politicians, and military and religious leaders. It also found systematic atrocities, such as killing, gang rape, torture, and forced displacement.

_____

Genocidal Hatred: Now You See It, Now You Don’t.

In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The psychology of hate (pp. 185–209)

By Moshman, D. (2005)

People kill, one might think, because they hate. Thus, it is natural to assume that groups destroy other groups because of genocidal hatred. But people kill for other reasons too, and they may have other reasons for committing genocide. In this chapter, after defining genocidal hatred, the author examines its role in five genocides. Genocidal hatred, he concludes, is not necessary for genocide, and not as important as one might think. Some of the perpetrators of some genocides do indeed appear to be motivated, at least in part, by genocidal hatred, but it is far from clear that genocidal hatred is the usual or primary cause of genocide. Although genocides usually appear at first glance to be intrinsically hateful, closer examination of the beliefs, motives, and social contexts of individual perpetrators shows genocidal hatred to be a more elusive phenomenon than might have been expected. Genocides, the author concludes, are not caused by genocidal hatred. Like other complex historical phenomena, they have no single cause. A plausible account of any genocide must consider multiple interacting ideologies, identities, motivations, and social contexts. We resist such accounts, however, because they explain acts of genocide in the same terms that we use to explain our own behavior, and thus raise the spectre that we are not as different as we think from the perpetrators of genocide

_____

Facebook and the Rohingya Genocide in Myanmar:

The case of the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar has increasingly come to illustrate the harm of Facebook and its parent company, Meta. Yet most analyses of this case share a distinctive feature that radically narrows the scope of the problem: the focus is only on content that negatively characterizes the Rohingya, whether through hate speech, misinformation, or other efforts to construct them in ways that may be used to justify genocide. Such content is an important matter of concern. It warrants action, independent of causal effect. But the question of what conduct and content on Facebook may help cause violence must include analysis of a broader potential range that extends beyond characterizations of the victims. In Myanmar, Facebook was used to cast those who contested narratives of Buddhist-Burman dominance or signalled solidarity, even empathy, for the Rohingya as traitors, questioning their loyalty and positioning them as outsiders to the dominant community. Women, in particular, were targeted in attacks that were especially severe and degrading and which drew on the gendering of both anti-Rohingya discourses and the broader logics of Buddhist-Burman supremacy. These practices represent clear examples of in-group policing.

For years, Facebook, now called Meta Platforms Inc., pushed the narrative that it was a neutral platform in Myanmar that was misused by malicious people, and that despite its efforts to remove violent and hateful material, it unfortunately fell short. That narrative echoes its response to the role it has played in other conflicts around the world, whether the 2020 election in the U.S. or hate speech in India. But a new and comprehensive report by Amnesty International states that Facebook’s preferred narrative is false. The platform, Amnesty says, wasn’t merely a passive site with insufficient content moderation. Instead, Meta’s algorithms “proactively amplified and promoted content” on Facebook, which incited violent hatred against the Rohingya beginning as early as 2012. Despite years of warnings, Amnesty found, the company not only failed to remove violent hate speech and disinformation against the Rohingya, it actively spread and amplified it until it culminated in the 2017 massacre. The timing coincided with the rising popularity of Facebook in Myanmar, where for many people it served as their only connection to the online world. That effectively made Facebook the internet for a vast number of Myanmar’s population. After the U.N.’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar highlighted the “significant” role Facebook played in the atrocities perpetrated against the Rohingya, Meta admitted in 2018 that “we weren’t doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.” The independent report, commissioned by Facebook, said the platform had created an “enabling environment” for the proliferation of human rights abuse. Facebook has more than 18 million users in Myanmar. For many, the social media site is their main or only way of getting and sharing news. Much of Myanmar communicates online using the Zawgyi font, which is not easily translated into English and therefore using it makes it harder for bad content to be detected. Facebook has removed Zawgyi as a language option for new users and is supporting Myanmar’s transition to Unicode – the international text encoding standard. Facebook has already banned several Myanmar military and government figures it said had “inflamed ethnic and religious tensions”.

______

Section-16

Ways to Counter hate:

For weeks and years, we have seen escalating conflict, violence, death, and war in Israel and Palestine, in Russia and Ukraine, in innumerable other conflicts around the world, and in increasing division and polarization within many countries. None of these struggles are easy or straightforward to resolve. The histories lying behind such conflict and violence, and the motivations for the actions taken, are complex and not infrequently dark, manifesting not only hurt but also hatred, sometimes mutual. We can and should mourn the loss, mourn those who have died, and mourn the evil that has taken place. We can and should hope and pray for resolution, support those who are suffering, and assist communities and leaders in working toward peace. There are no easy steps to disentangle or prevent such conflict, and we will likely never be able to eradicate hatred from the human condition. But it is worthwhile nevertheless to ponder what is possible, what small steps we might take to counter and prevent hatred.

An old Cherokee told his grandson a Native American legend about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, “My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all. One is evil and filled with anger, envy and hate. The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.” The grandson thought about this for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one I feed.”

Hatred has to be learned, Golden says: “We are all born with the capacity for aggression as well as compassion. Which tendencies we embrace requires mindful choice by individuals, families, communities and our culture in general. The key to overcoming hate is education: at home, in schools, and in the community.”

According to Dutchevici, facing the fear of being vulnerable and utterly human is what allows us to connect, to feel, and ultimately, to love. She suggests creating “cracks in the system.” These cracks can be as simple as connecting to your neighbor, talking with a friend, starting a protest, or even going to therapy and connecting with an ‘Other.’ It is through these acts that one can understand hate and love.”

In other words, compassion towards others is the true context that heals.

‘Hate is a bit like debt, it can start very small but it can compound quite quickly, and it does similar things to us that debt does. It takes away more than we think. Sometimes it’s that same disempowerment that fuels it further. It can spiral and that’s always a challenge. From a wider perspective, how do we manage that?’

Lee Chambers

There is no consensus on hate in the research. Researchers cannot even agree on how to define it. So, how can we hope to combat it?

The American Psychological Association says that those responsible for hate crimes often show a high level of aggression and antisocial behavior, although they are rarely diagnosed as having a mental illness. They tend to target groups about which they know little, but what they think they know about these groups they do not like. Economic factors alone rarely drive hate crime, but they can be used by leaders to marshal resentment against minority groups. Another major driver of hate crime was threats to cultural identity, leading to prejudice against another group. Perhaps knowing more about that group might mitigate this hate. This idea is supported by a meta-analysis of studies showing that contact between groups can reduce prejudice, which is often a precursor of hate.

Chambers advised that to mitigate hate, one must first understand it, and therein lies the problem: “Because it’s a significant issue in our society, we need to continue to understand it. We need to understand what it is and what it can become.” However, he added some reassurance: “Many people have the capacity [to hate], but it’s less common than we might think.”

Bias is a human condition, and history is rife with prejudice against groups and individuals because of their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or other differences. The 20th century saw major progress in outlawing discrimination but stereotypes and unequal treatment persist, an atmosphere often exploited by hate groups. When bias motivates an unlawful act, it is considered a hate crime. Race and religion inspire most hate crimes, but hate today wears many faces. Bias incidents (eruptions of hate where no crime is committed) also tear communities apart — and threaten to escalate into actual crimes. Promote tolerance and address bias before another hate crime can occur. Expand your community’s comfort zones so you can learn and live together. Bias is learned early, usually at home. Schools can offer lessons of tolerance and acceptance. Reach out to young people who may be susceptible to hate group propaganda and prejudice. Look inside yourself for prejudices and stereotypes. Build your own cultural competency, then keep working to expose discrimination wherever it happens — in housing, employment, education and more.

Overcoming Hate:

Dr. Glaser notes that hatred was probably a good thing back in the days of primitive people, when it provided the necessary motivation to attack or avoid potential enemies. But hatred can actually be physically toxic. A recent study published in the journal Annals of Behavior Medicine found that a “love-hate” relationship with a friend could actually cause a person’s blood pressure to rise, at least in the short term. The study deduced that just being in the same room as a friend who tends to be critical, unreliable or unpredictable can send blood pressure up. Furthermore, many experts believe hatred causes a host of other physical problems, including reduced immunity to illness, migraine headaches and increased vulnerability to diseases like diabetes and cancer.

While it’s doubtful that anyone will ever be completely able to rid themselves of hateful thoughts and feelings, it is possible to minimize its presence in everyday life. One Buddhist quote, when translated to English, reads:

“…This eternal wisdom is to meet hatred with non-hatred. The method of trying to conquer hatred through hatred never succeeds in overcoming hatred. But, the method of overcoming hatred through non-hatred is eternally effective. That is why that method is described as eternal wisdom.”

Many religions espouse similar sentiments, citing that the best way to combat hatred is through forgiveness and love. Psychologists from Coping.org encourage people experiencing feelings of hate to identify the cause or causes of these feelings and how hatred is negatively impacting their lives. To overcome these feelings, the site urges people to determine whether or not real or imagined circumstances caused the hateful feelings and figure out whether their thought process was rational or irrational at the time these feelings were developed. Learning to “forgive and forget” is vital to overcoming hatred, as is the ability to admit that these negative emotions take serious emotional and physical tolls. Unfortunately, until all human beings can learn to practice tolerance and understanding, it is doubtful that hatred will ever be fully eradicated from the world.

Don’t be a “Hater”

In recent years, the word “hater” has become an increasingly common piece of slang, particularly in the hip-hop community, although it has become more mainstream lately. According to UrbanDictionary.com, the term is defined as “A person that simply cannot be happy for another person’s success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.” The word is believed to have originated from the popular phrase, “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” This, in turn, evolved into the phrase “player hater,” and has been used in many hip-hop, R&B and pop songs in recent years.

How to get rid of hatred:

People often ignore their emotions of hate or justify and blame others for their hate. Unaddressed negative emotions build up and intensify over time, affecting the mind and body. The following tips can help get rid of hatred:

Acknowledge that you feel hateful. Acknowledging this can begin to deal with this emotion and find a solution to the problem.
Understand the root cause of hate. Hate usually stems from fear, insecurity, or mistrust.
Do not compare yourself with others. Strive to be the best version of yourself instead.
Talk to someone you trust as talking to a close friend, family member or a psychologist about something painful, can help to alleviate the negative feelings you are having. They can often offer valuable advice or guidance.
When you feel hate or anger, it is best to take a step back and avoid reacting in heat of the moment. It is difficult to make the right decisions when you are feeling hateful and angry.
While feeling hate or anger, you may consider taking a break from the situation, going for a walk, mediation, playing with pets, or doing an activity you find enjoyable.
Face the problem instead of ignoring the issue. Try to find a solution to the problem. You may consider talking to someone you trust, such as a close friend, family, or partner. You can also consider seeking the help of a therapist or counsellor. They can assess you to understand your emotions and the origin of hate. Treatment generally involves counselling to help manage negative emotions and develop coping mechanisms. Medication may be prescribed if needed.

Following are some tips for combating hate:

Education and awareness: One should be aware of their actions and behavior; one must know the root cause of the hate and what can be done to normalize those feelings. One should be educated enough to stabilize the ingrowing feeling of hatred.
Promote Empathy: One should experience empathy by thinking about others’ perspectives and trying to understand them.
Confronting: Confronting hate speech is yet another way to combat hate. One should speak up when they listen to hate speech about anyone.
Not consuming biased content: One should use social media wisely; one should try to ignore the biased content. The biased content will influence your beliefs into a negative attitude, which can be harmful to both you and society.
Kind and compassionate: Be kind and compassionate to everyone, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or other protected characteristic.

Combating hate is an ongoing process that requires commitment and effort. By following these tips and actively working to create more inclusive communities.

Support for Victims:

In providing support services for victims, social reintegration refers to the usage of sensitive, understanding companions in the course of recovery from traumatic events. The goal is to be able to re-enter society without fear. For victims of violent crime, the process of investigation can be additionally traumatic, as depending on the way the national system is set to function, they may be questioned, cross- examined, brought to courtrooms, and sometimes even forced to be exposed to confrontation with the perpetrators, for instance, by sharing waiting rooms with the perpetrators.

However, most victims of violence never seek professional help to deal with the psychoemotional impact of traumatic events. Even if they would, treating trauma survivors can be a complicated and time-consuming endeavour. The implications of victimisation are profound, and deep-rooted symptoms can remain. For treatment of trauma survivors, many tools have to be applied. More frequently, simply the re-telling of the trauma story is not curative–the victims are unable to recollect without overpowering emotions.

Therapeutic tools for how to most effectively evaluate and serve traumatised clients are continuously being refined by clinicians. One of the modalities, Post Traumatic Therapy (PTT) recognises that “traumatised and victimised individuals, by definition, reacting to abnormal events, may confuse the abnormality of the trauma with abnormality of themselves.” Therefore, PTT applies the principles of (1) normalisation of the experiences; (2) empowerment of one’s diminished dignity and security; and (3) consideration of individuality, emphasising unique pathways to recovery.

An evaluation of each separate case is essential, as medical attention and even medication may be necessary for some victims. When patients are overwhelmed with symptoms such as insomnia, panic, and generalised anxiety, intermediate discussions on broader matters such as ‘the meaning of life’ have little application. Professional help has to be articulated in terms that are specific to the individual, not general or abstract. Such support and assistance is essential to victims of hate crime, and a system that provides and strongly encourages such victims to seek professional aid must be put in place.

_____

Societies have numerous options for curtailing the effects of hate speech:

There are various opportunities for intervention and engagement before, during, and after a violent conflict. These range from prevention and early warning, to deescalating the violence once it begins, to reconciliation and peace-building efforts to prevent a new cycle of violence from occurring. While some interventions can be taken directly with media professionals, engaging a broader spectrum of the public in societies at risk for genocide and crimes against humanity is also important.

Media reform can be an important element in preventing and responding to hate speech. Post-conflict societies often require some media reform, particularly when hate speech, dangerous rhetoric, and media abuses have in part fueled the conflict. In these instances, peace-building initiatives undertaken with the media must be integrated with other peace-building initiatives and must be situated within the context of the particular conflict.

Timing is also important. Media reform is usually reactive, occurring after the violence has taken place rather than as a preventative measure. Past initiatives have largely demonstrated only a short-term capacity to alter entrenched political and power relations, indicating a need for the development of more transformational processes that achieve long-term goals and lasting reform.

Examples of reform include conflict-sensitive journalism and training for those in charge of shaping public discourse. Media monitoring is a crucial preventative tool for tracking trends in ethnic tensions and violence, although translation and understanding of the local linguistic culture invariably provide significant challenges for nonnative groups or individuals to engage in this work.

Training can enable journalists to understand the root causes, dynamics, and resolution mechanisms of a given conflict. Training can also enhance their understanding of different types of violence and how to identify and explain them. The ways in which journalists frame conflicts can help to humanize the individuals and parties involved, identify underlying issues, and, ultimately, reduce tensions, encourage productive communication, and open the door for building consensus and seeking solutions.

Conflict-resolution or mediation training can help those who oversee public spaces to increase their awareness of the influence they wield. Local media needs to be able to provide a safe space where different people can come together and engage in dialogue. This may provide an outlet for people’s anger and the airing of grievances, but it must be done responsibly and be balanced with the promotion of solving problems through peaceable means. It should also strive to discourage all types of violence and divisive, contentious, or polarizing behavior. Local media professionals can have a powerful effect on a conflict through their direct and personal connection to those involved. Journalists from opposing sides of a conflict can help bridge the divide by not only working together and learning about each other, but also finding and reporting on common ground between the sides. Cross-ethnic team training and reporting have demonstrated past success in interethnic clashes and should be further pursued. There was some success in Bosnia specifically with a unique radio talk show called “Resolutions Radio” that incorporated multiethnic perspectives by training the talk show hosts in conflict resolution and selecting guests who represented all sides of the show’s topic. They offered their audience positive options for action and a “safe” and constructive place to air their concerns and opinions.

Hate speech is not simply a concern for media professionals; it affects entire communities and therefore response mechanisms need to engage many people. Leaders play a crucial role when they deploy hate speech, but they can also condemn it when it occurs, even from nonofficial sources. Silence in the face of hate speech can indicate that it—and any violence it promotes—is acceptable.

In societies where there is a climate of fear, violence, and intergroup tensions, it is helpful to create a public space that is safe for discussing ethnicity and other conflict issues. A national dialogue on ethnic relations is one option. Another is for post-conflict societies to acknowledge the past and the crimes that were committed. Creating a space for recognition of past events, based on documents and facts, can dispel the claims of extremists and limit the possibility that misrepresentations will be used to incite future conflicts or renew the cycle of violence. Successfully creating such a space is an extremely difficult and often protracted undertaking. Those involved in violent conflicts are often deeply invested in their own worldviews and in their own experiences of suffering; reconciling competing perspectives is no simple task, but the conversation is essential if any genuine resolution is to take place and have a lasting effect.

Reconciliation and peace-building must be based on the foundation of truth and justice, no matter how difficult that is. There are different narratives to the issues in Kenya, and each narrative needs to be heard and assimilated. As long we bury our heads in the sand, we can be certain that there will be more violence in 2012 in the elections.

—Maina Kiai, case study on Kenya

It is also important to collect primary source materials, objects, and testimonies from such conflicts to create and preserve an accurate record of the past. A comprehensive and centralized archive with materials located in one place enables accessibility and provides the foundation for future research. While some case-specific archives do exist, it is often not possible or desirable to create archives in the fragile political environments of post-conflict societies. A genocide archive to help fill this gap would be an enormous contribution to the field.

The Role of Institutions in Regulating Speech:

Public universities must uphold a broader spectrum of speech rights, being careful not to infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. They can, however, set reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to ensure educational activities proceed without disruption.

Private universities can adjust speech standards more closely to their mission statements, values, and community norms. They can implement codes of conduct that restrict expressions deemed harmful or antithetical to their community ethos.

Social media platforms, as private companies, assert their rights to moderate content within their domains. They establish community guidelines and terms of service outlining allowable speech, including measures against hate speech. This intersection of free speech with corporate policy raises questions about the role of these digital spaces in public discourse.

Delineating the roles and responsibilities of these institutions requires understanding both legal mandates and ethical considerations. While government-affiliated and private entities operate under different frameworks, both share an interest in balancing freedom of expression with community well-being and security.

_______

Hate studies:

Hate studies is an interdisciplinary academic field focusing on the causes, effects, and prevention of manifestations of hatred, such as microaggressions, hate speech, hate crime, terrorism, and genocide, that target individuals based on hostility towards their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, social class, disability, or other perceived conditions or identity categories. It may interest scholars, academic researchers, practitioner-experts, human rights leaders, policymakers, NGO/INGO leaders, and many others.

There’s a lot of hate in the world. UCLA’s scholars are asking why and what can be done:

UCLA is launching the Initiative to Study Hate, an ambitious social impact project that brings together a broad consortium of scholars to understand and ultimately mitigate hate in its multiple forms. Supported by a $3 million gift from an anonymous donor, researchers will undertake 23 projects. The three-year pilot spans topics that examine the neurobiology of hate, the impact of social media hate speech on kids, the dehumanization of unhoused individuals, racial discrimination in health care settings and more. The initiative’s research fellows hail from 20 disciplines across the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) campus. They include sociologists, psychologists, historians, education experts, cognitive scientists, public and community health experts, computer scientists, legal scholars and others. The initiative is housed in the UCLA Division of Social Sciences. Researchers in the first cohort will meet regularly in a monthly seminar to encourage sharing ideas across teams. Forthcoming years will fund new research projects.

The UCLA Initiative to Study Hate has launched 23 research projects to examine the genesis of hate and how to mitigate it.

Topics include:

How the Atlanta spa shooting of 2021 affected the mental health of Asian Americans, especially Asian American women
The impact of racial slurs directed against Latino high school students
The effects of bullying and the criminal justice system on LGBTQ+ youth
Reviewing how a person’s race correlates to when security is called at UCLA Health
The erasure of Black histories and spaces
Videogames as a tool to teach tolerance
The effect of Fox News on political extremism
How hatred is manifested against abortion providers
Rhetoric used around misinformation in both Russian and U.S. media
How artificial intelligence and machine learning perpetuate bias

______

THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS:

As the world’s only truly universal global organization, the United Nations is the foremost forum to address issues that transcend national boundaries and cannot be resolved by any one country acting alone. World history has shown us many times how hate rhetoric threatens democratic values, tolerance and social stability, and can lead to human tragedies, including genocide. Hate speech and its consequences goes against fundamental UN values. It also undermines the UN Charter’s core principles and objectives, such as respect for human dignity, equality and peace. As advancing human rights and fighting hate are at the heart of the UN’s mission, the Organization has a duty to confront the global scourge of hate speech.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR COUNTERING HATE SPEECH:

In July 2021, the UN General Assembly highlighted global concerns over “the exponential spread and proliferation of hate speech” around the world and adopted a resolution on “promoting inter-religious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech”. The resolution recognizes the need to counter discrimination, xenophobia and hate speech and calls on all relevant actors, including States, to increase their efforts to address this phenomenon, in line with international human rights law. The resolution proclaimed 18 June as the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, which was marked for the first time in 2022.

New UN policy paper launched to counter and address online hate in 2023:

Key recommendations include:

The need to ensure respect for human rights and the rule of law when countering online hate speech, and apply these standards to content moderation, content curation and regulation.
Enhancing transparency of content moderation, content curation and regulation.
Promoting positive narratives to counter online hate speech, and foster user engagement and empowerment.
Ensuring accountability, strengthen judicial mechanisms and enhance independent oversight mechanisms.
Strengthening multilateral and multi-stakeholder cooperation.
Advancing community-based voices and formulating context-sensitive and knowledge-based policymaking and good practice to protect and empower vulnerable groups and populations to counter online hate speech.

The policy paper builds upon earlier initiatives, including The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, which seeks to enhance the UN’s response to the global spread and impact of hate speech.

_____

Role of UNESCO:

Hate speech in the form of xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred, anti-LGBTQI+ hatred, misogyny and other types of intolerance is on the rise worldwide, spreading faster and further than ever before through social media. Both online and offline, hate speech targets and dehumanizes people and peoples based on who they are – often by actors seeking political gain. UNESCO counters hate speech through education, and media and information literacy, promotes international standards on freedom of expression to address root causes of hate speech, and supports countries to build effective responses, including by fostering the capacity building of regulators and judicial operators and advocating for enhanced transparency of internet companies.

Education is a powerful tool to combat disinformation, misinformation and hate speech. UNESCO supports countries to support regulators and judicial operators, develop education responses, and policy and legislation that promote, protect and uphold international human rights.

Hate speech spreads with unprecedented speed and reach through digital tools, notably social media platforms. UNESCO works to address online hate speech by equipping learners with digital citizenship skills, so people of all ages learn to navigate the internet safely and responsibly.

Media and Information Literacy can strengthen the resilience of learners to hate speech and build their capacity to recognize and counter mis- and disinformation, violent extremist narratives and conspiracy theories.

UNESCO advocates for increased transparency and accountability for digital platforms to counter online disinformation and speech that incite hatred and discrimination. This includes calling on social media companies to report on hate speech, how their algorithms may affect its spread, and the policies they apply to counter it. UNESCO has issued a set of 26 high-level principles to increase transparency among internet platform companies.

UNESCO also supports the enabling of a free, diverse, pluralistic media sector, including professional media self-regulation, as well as disseminating good practices against hate speech and training judicial actors and law enforcement on international standards on freedom of expression.

_______

Psychological ways to counter hate:

-1. Developing empathy to defeat hate:

Dr. Michele Borba, author of UnSelfie, has been educating students and people of all ages about the importance of developing empathy in our lives—especially in today’s world. “Empathy is not an inborn trait,” Borba shares. “Empathy is a quality that can be taught—in fact, it’s a quality that must be taught, by parents, by educators and by those in a child’s community. And what’s more, it’s a talent that kids can cultivate and improve, like riding a bike or learning a foreign language.” We’re never too old to learn. There is too much digital discourse right now and it’s time for adults to start taking action. Empathy is a verb according to Borba, and it can be taught to grown-ups too.

The opposite of dehumanization is empathy and respect, as perhaps best expressed by the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Some version of that belief is found in virtually all world religions. The Golden Rule is as humanizing as it gets, by calling for everyone to give others the same treatment that you would like to get yourself. The Golden Rule means that there should be no us-them thinking—that all humans, or in some philosophies all living beings, are part of “us.”

Given the primacy of emotion in moral decisions, appealing to compassion and fairness instincts is vital. Cultivating empathy, not just citing principles, is critical to eroding prejudice.

-2. Love to Overcome Hate:

While the form that love takes amidst conflict is complex, and while love itself may entail legitimate and just resistance and self-defense ultimately aimed at peace, an attitude of love and respect for the humanity of others has the potential to shape and limit and, perhaps also, help prevent violence. Even, and perhaps especially, in the midst of conflict and strife, it may be worthwhile to reflect upon how we can empower greater interpersonal love—a love to overcome hatred. The fostering of love is important in our day-to-day life and relationships. But fostering love is important for our society as well. Families and friendships form the fabric of our social life together. But, additionally, it is also the case that more general forms of love are also needed—a desire to be with and contribute to the good of all people on account of their inherent dignity, value, and humanity. The Jewish Law, the Christian New Testament, and the Quran all allude to, or even command, “love of neighbor,” with the Jewish Law extending this to “stranger” (Deuteronomy 10:19), and the New Testament even to “enemy” (Matthew 5:44).

It is not necessarily easy to have or to foster such universal forms of love, but it is worthwhile to consider how we might do so. The future of our society may in large part depend on the extent to which we are able to accomplish this. If we are to counter hatred, to work together across disagreement, and to try to prevent war and conflict, we need to understand and appreciate the inherent value and goodness of all people, including those with whom we are opposed. We need this love within our communities, within our leaders, and within ourselves. Even with such love, the path will not be easy, but understanding the value of each person and being disposed to contribute to their good has the potential to powerfully transform our own lives and our future.

-3. Managing Anger and Hatred Through Detachment and Introspection:

To successfully manage anger and hate, you must learn to recognize the irrationality of your feelings, remove yourself from the situation making you angry or hateful and consider your feelings objectively rather than subjectively. If anger persists for a long period of time, it builds up; you may react with rage or hatred to a perceived slight that may have been taken in stride in a calmer state. Minor occurrences turn into volcanic eruptions. The idea in preventing hatred means taking care of your state of mind before you reach this intense place.

-4. The emerging insights from neuroscience have salient implications for addressing enduring hatred between groups in the modern world:

Inter-group cooperation towards common goals engages reward circuits and oxytocin to facilitate the humanization of the “other.” Nevertheless, care is required to avoid provoking outgroup hostility. Psychological safety, equal status, and slow escalation are critical.

Younger ages possess heightened neuroplasticity for cultivating cross-cutting identities and diverse social exposure before in-group biases solidify. Schools thus have a high potential for a positive, lasting impact on inter-group attitudes.

Explicit approaches to reduce prejudice, like cultural sensitivity training, often fail as they do not remove unconscious neural biases. Holistic techniques debiasing both deliberate and reflexive cognition are essential. Stimuli conditioning can help erase automatic reactions.

_______

Tips for dealing with the psychological consequences of hate speech:

With these tips you can prevent the psychological consequences of online hate:

-1. Switch off

Turn off push notifications for certain apps on your phone. If you want to get informed, decide when the best time is to do so. Comments may catch you at the wrong moment when your phone is vibrating in your pocket.

-2. Reflect

Hate on the net is often a structural problem. Hate comments are often directed against people because of their membership in a group. Be aware that the attacks are not directed at you personally.

-3. Talk to others

Do you feel attacked and hurt? Then talk about it. Take your pain and suffering seriously. Find people with whom you can talk about your experiences.

-4. Draw boundaries

Counter-speech is important but destructive discussions in comment columns lead nowhere. If counter speech does not help, leave the discussion, block, and report the respective accounts.

-5. Report hate comments

Do not simply accept insults on the net. You can defend yourself or help others defend themselves by reporting hate comments to the platform provider.

-6. Seek support

You are not alone. If you need support, you can find various support services for victims of digital violence.

-7. Accept and show solidarity

It is important not to leave those affected by hate speech alone. One way to support them is through counter speech. It is especially important for those affected and for the silent majority who are reading along, because those who contradict hate on the internet signal that such comments do not reflect the general opinion. Silence and lack of solidarity hurt at least as much as the hate itself.

_______

Legal ways to counter hate:

Hate (or Bias) Crime Laws:

Enhanced criminal punishment for hate or bias crimes, a relatively recent legal phenomenon, continues to grow both in popularity and in scope, in the United States and around the globe. Almost all American states and a significant number of nations impose higher punishment if a crime (such as a murder, robbery, assault, or defacement of a building) is committed because of the actor’s hatred toward, or prejudice against, a member of a protected group or because the actor used the group characteristic as the basis for selecting the victim. The groups most commonly protected by hate crime laws are groups defined by race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

But enhanced punishment for hate crimes also continues to raise controversial questions about the proper scope and severity of the criminal law, including the following: whether such punishment amounts to punishing for thoughts or character; whether enhancement can be justified, on a retributivist, consequentialist, expressivist, or distributive justice account of the principles underlying the criminal law; deciding which groups should be “protected” by such laws (in the sense that bias against the group is the trigger for greater punishment); whether hatred or bias is the relevant criterion and whether this criterion is best framed as requiring animus toward the disfavored group or a discriminatory method of selecting the victim; whether, if motive is indeed required, the motive must be a necessary cause of the actor’s conduct, a sufficient cause, a primary cause, a sole cause, a substantial cause, or some disjunctive or conjunctive combination of these or other possibilities; and whether authorized punishments (which sometimes greatly exceed the permissible punishment for the parallel crime) are disproportionate to the harm or wrong or to the actor’s culpability. An additional question, rarely raised, is whether the law should require (as it typically does) that the actor’s conduct, apart from the bias motive or selection criterion, constitutes a crime.

A variety of justifications have been offered for hate (bias) crime laws:

-1. Greater Harm

One common rationale for enhanced punishment focuses on the greater harm caused by a bias crime than by the parallel crime. A violent act targeting a member of a minority or religious group might cause: (a) more physical harm to the direct victim than an act not so targeted, (b) more psychic harm to such a victim, or (c) fear and outrage in the entire minority or religious community.

-2. Greater Culpability

Another justification for enhanced punishment is that an actor who is motivated by bias, or who intentionally selects a victim on the basis of the victim’s membership in a protected group, is more culpable than an actor not so motivated. Just as a purposeful killing is more culpable than a reckless or negligent killing, and a purposeful defacement of another’s property is more culpable than a reckless or negligent defacement, a purposeful killing or defacement that is motivated by bias is more culpable. And both consequentialist and retributive principles support greater punishment for more culpable conduct.

-3. Expressive Wrong

Perhaps the strongest justification for bias crime laws is an expressive rationale: crimes motivated by bias express profound disrespect or disdain for the group of which the victim is a member, and the criminal law should counteract the offender’s message by sending its own message expressing condemnation of such conduct.

-4. Greater Vulnerability of Victims

Another justification for bias crime punishment enhancement sounds in distributive justice. According to Harel and Parchomovsky, the state has the duty to distribute fairly the good of protection from crime; thus, it must make special efforts to reduce crime against those who are especially vulnerable because of immutable personal characteristics such as race or ethnicity (Harel and Parchomovsky 1999). Greater enforcement of the criminal law is one way to discharge this duty, but another is harsher sanctions. And bias crime penalty enhancement, they argue, can be justified by this egalitarian duty.

Please note that hate crime laws are by no means the only or best solution to the serious social problem of bias-motivated violence. Nationalist leaders throughout the world increasingly inflame passions against immigrants, refugees, and racial and ethnic minorities.

Bias crime laws may or may not be an effective means of reducing the incidence of bias crimes. They may or may not diminish racial, ethnic, religious, and other social divisions. They may or may not express appropriate condemnation of bias and prejudice. They may or may not impose the punishment that offenders justly deserve. But at the very least, they target a genuine problem, a problem that demands serious attention.

_____

Hate speech laws:

After World War II, Germany criminalized Volksverhetzung (“incitement of popular hatred”) to prevent resurgence of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany. Most European countries have likewise implemented various laws and regulations regarding hate speech, and the European Union’s Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA requires member states to criminalize hate crimes and speech (though individual implementation and interpretation of this framework varies by state). Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. The laws designed to protect public order require that a higher threshold be violated, so they are not often enforced. For example, a 1992 study found that only one person was prosecuted in Northern Ireland in the preceding 21 years for violating a law against incitement to religious violence. The laws meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced.

With the advent of social media, the issue of offensive and threatening speech has become a global problem. Just as the U.S. is struggling to determine where free speech goes too far, hate speech laws in other countries are evolving. Examples of hate speech laws in other countries include:

Japan – Japan’s laws protect its citizens from threats and slander. However, derogatory comments directed at general groups of individuals remain unrestricted in Japan. Despite global calls for hate speech to be criminalized, Japan claims that hate speech has never reached such a point as to warrant legal action.

United Kingdom – Hate speech is widely criminalized in the U.K. Communications that are abusive, threatening, or insulting, or which target someone based on his race, religion, sexual orientation, or other attribute, are forbidden. Penalties for hate speech in the U.K. include fines and imprisonment.

Sweden – Hate speech, defined as public statements made to threaten or disrespect groups based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or skin color, is prohibited in Sweden. Constitutional restrictions determine which acts are and are not criminal, as do limits imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ireland – While Ireland’s constitution guarantees the right to free speech, there is an understanding that freedom of expression will not be abused to “undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.” Further, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 defines threatening or abusive speech or behavior as that which is likely to inspire hatred against a group of individuals based on their race, color, religion, or other attribute.

India – While freedom of speech and expression are protected under India’s constitution, “reasonable restrictions” can be imposed in order to maintain the “sovereignty and integrity of India,” as well as the country’s safety and its relations with other countries. Freedom of speech and expression may also come under fire in India with regard to offenses such as contempt of court, and defamation. Section 196 of BNS forbids using spoken or written language, as well as electronic contact, to promote enmity or conflict between groups on the basis of race, religion, language or community. Further, it punishes activities that disrupt public peace or teach people how to use violence against any group, which can create a sense of unease or fear.

Canada – Advocating for genocide in Canada against any “identifiable group” (any group that can be identified by their race, religion, sexual orientation, or other attribute) is a criminal offense that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, with no minimum sentence. It is also a criminal offense to provoke hatred against an identifiable group.

International tribunals have recognized that hate speech can, if certain conditions are fulfilled, constitute the crime against humanity of persecution.

______

Moral of the story:

-1. There is ample evidence in historical records, art, and artifacts that hate has very deep roots and it is archetypal in nature.

-2. Emotions are short-lived states that arise from a subjective experience, while sentiments are long-lasting states that are a person’s interpretation of their emotions. In philosophy, the camps were divided between those who consider hate as an emotion and those who regard it as a sentiment. This debate is driven by the fact that one of hate’s core characteristics is that it generally lasts longer than the event that initially evoked it. The enduring nature of hatred is based in the appraisals that are targeted at the fundamental nature of the hated group. Scholars have resolved this contradiction between emotions and sentiments by suggesting that some “emotions” can occur in both configurations—immediate and chronic, and thus can be conceived of as a (short-term) emotion as well as a (long-term) sentiment. Hatred can be experienced both as an emotion (“acute hate”) and as a sentiment or emotional attitude (“chronic hate”). The two forms of hatred are related, yet distinct, and one fuels the occurrence and magnitude of the other.

-3. There is no consensus on a definition of hate that is scientific, comprehensive and holistic. Hate is an intense, negative emotional reaction to a target considered intrinsically malicious and unchangeable in its evilness. The hated object is seen as dangerous, a threat to one’s values and identity, so the aim is its social, physical, mental, and symbolic destruction. There are many definitions and conceptions of hate. However, despite the conceptual discrepancies, there’s one component of hate that’s been accepted in all of them: the desire to harm. This desire can be a means to an end or an end in itself. Thus, an individual may yearn to harm another in order to restore an established order, elevate themselves, gain pleasure, assert their autonomy, or prevent abandonment. In all of these cases, regardless of the intent, the goal is to harm. Psychological studies have found that people feel more emotionally aroused, personally threatened, and inclined toward attack when experiencing hate as compared with disgust, contempt, anger, and dislike.

-4. The “Psychological Descent into Violence” is associated with a continuum of attitudes that progress from simple bias, to prejudice, to hatred. Hate begins with bias and bias leads to prejudice. The concept of hate can be operationalized as an instance of negative prejudice. As such, hate is a prejudice held by a person toward another individual, group, social object, category, or institution; it has distinct cognitive and emotional components. Prejudice leads to discrimination, dehumanization, violence and genocide. Hate manifests because no one took action to discourage the biased feelings, attitudes and actions. While hate relates to other negative emotions, it also has some unique features, such as the motivation to eliminate the object of your hate. It involves the belief that the other person is inherently bad or evil, and that there is little to no chance that this could change. Furthermore, because you think this person is bad beyond change, you believe there is no point in any constructive approach. Rather, you just wish something bad would happen to them, or at least, that they would disappear from your life. Hate is often a precursor to violence. Before a war, a populace is sometimes trained via political propaganda to hate some nation or political regime. Hatred remains a major motive behind armed conflicts such as war but societies recover much faster from war than from hate.

-5. It seems easier to hate groups than individuals. Hate spreads and increases quicker if it’s directed at a group, rather than an individual.

-6. Hate can increase in the absence of any personal interaction between the hater and members of the hated group. The lack of personal interactions with the targets of one’s hate further diminishes chances of perspective taking from the side of the victim. This lack of direct interaction is one of the most powerful engines behind hate and prejudice. Lack of direct interaction amplifies hate because the negative appraisal of the malicious character of the group will never be reappraised or contradicted by other information. This does not necessarily mean that social interactions with hated group members automatically reduce hate. However, under the right circumstances, haters may learn more about the motives and circumstances of the hated group’s actions, which could result in some perspective taking.

-7. Do animals feel hate?

No, animals don’t really hate, that emotion is solely for humans.

-8. Hate is a distinct emotion by the criteria of having distinct antecedents, distinct responses, and a distinct strategy or aims. In their experience of hate, haters report thinking that the other person is evil and has no good qualities, can’t be changed, and cannot be forgiven. The main difference between hate and other negative emotions lies in its action tendencies known as emotivational goals. It refers to the action that the emotion brings out in a particular individual experiencing hate towards someone. Although actions and expressions related to hate, anger, contempt, disgust, humiliation, or revenge can be similar, their emotivational goals are different. How exactly the emotivational goal of hate is translated into a specific action will differ, depending on why someone has developed hate and what the relation between the victim and perpetrator is. The emotivational goal of hate is not merely to hurt, but to ultimately eliminate or destroy the target, either mentally (humiliating, treasuring feelings of revenge), socially (excluding, ignoring), or physically (killing, torturing); and is different from the goals of contempt (social exclusion), disgust (distancing oneself), revenge (getting even), humiliation (withdrawal), or anger (attack). Still all these emotions can occur together with hate and each of them can become associated with the sentiment hate.

-9. Hate vs dislike:

Dislike and hatred both share some characteristics in terms of their dispositional nature and negative valence. However, the things that we say that we hate, as opposed to dislike, are transmissible, lead to false attributions, and motivate violent crimes. And these differences may be understood by taking into account the moral dimension of hate. Hate is based on core moral or ideological beliefs, thus reducing positive attitudes or empathy toward others and possibly triggering violent motivations. Hate is imbued with distinct moral components that distinguish it from dislike. Dislike is associated with avoidance; hate is associated with approach.

-10. Hate vs anger:

Hated targets are viewed as innately evil and incapable of change, while anger focuses on the actions attributed to an agent, who is perceived as malleable. Thus, hated targets pose an existential threat to subjects, who experience low levels of control and powerlessness. As a result, haters seek to avoid, hurt, or eliminate the object of hate, while anger entails motivational goals related to the subject’s desire to change the target. The goal of anger is to restore or change the (unjust) situation, while hate goes beyond this restoration goal. Instead, the goal of hate is to hurt and eliminate the hated target.

Whereas anger is primarily focused on changing a target’s unwanted behaviors, hate seems to be aimed not at the targets’ behaviours per se, but at the targets themselves (i.e., who they are or what they represent). Hate’s goal is therefore not to change the target’s behaviours but to get rid of the targets, based on the perception that they are essentially bad and unchangeable.

Whereas anger is about prevailing against perceived threats, hate is about destroying them. Whereas anger is customarily felt toward individuals, hatred is often felt towards groups.

In terms of duration, hate’s single episodes take more time to dissipate compared with other discrete emotions like anger, as it can remain dormant for decades (even across generations) waiting to be triggered. While fear can sometimes lead to flight rather than fight tendencies and anger can lead to constructive rather than destructive corrections, hatred will always motivate people for destructive action. Hate has been linked to attack action tendencies ranging from verbal aggression and hate speech to moral exclusion, physical aggression, and extreme violence.

When you hate a person, you are also likely to be angry with them. However, the opposite is often not true. For example, a father can be angry with his children, but this does not mean that he hates them.

-11. The experience of hate can take place at a self, interpersonal and intergroup level.

Self-hate is an intense dislike, loathing, or hostility toward oneself. In self-hatred, the self becomes the object of hate. If you fail to reach your goals and believe you’re responsible, self-hatred is logical. However, self-hate can lead to low self-worth, increased stress, anxiety, depression, or other mental health challenges and hinder personal growth and relationships.

“Interpersonal hate” refers to intense negative feelings directed towards a specific individual, while “intergroup hate” refers to strong animosity directed towards an entire group of people based on their social identity, like race, ethnicity, or religion; essentially, the difference lies in the target of the hate, being a single person in interpersonal hate and a whole group in intergroup hate. When moving from an interpersonal to an intergroup level, it is interesting to observe that we do not need to know the persons we hate. It is very well possible to hate groups because of what they represent (in terms of power, values, past behaviors, identity). People may hate Germans for what they did during WWII, even though they do not know any German involved in these atrocities. People may hate homosexuals or lesbians because they think that they are deviants from human nature, even though they do not know any such person. The hatred of groups, thus, does not require a personal connection with a member of this group. At the intergroup level, hate plays a role in intergroup conflicts, political intolerance, and war.

At the interpersonal level, hate has been characterized as the counterpart of love, another strong and long-lasting feeling with shared characteristics like its duration and intensity, especially toward close targets. Hate expressed on an interpersonal level is almost certain to evoke hateful responses from others. Expressing hate creates more hate.

-12. Love vs hate:

Love and hate are two powerful emotions that have shaped human history, influenced relationships, and driven individuals to both great acts of kindness and unspeakable acts of cruelty. These contrasting emotions hold immense power over our thoughts, actions, and the world around us. We can only have intense and extreme emotions such as love and hate when the objects of these emotions touch upon our concerns. In other words, we cannot love or hate persons we are indifferent to. Love and hate are antonyms, i.e. they are two opposite terms in meaning. Even though they mean complete opposites, they are two of the strongest emotions we human beings are capable of feeling. Love can make you produce a life; hate can make you take a life away. Very often when we love someone, we want them to thrive. When we hate someone, we are more likely to wish they would suffer. With love, you feel immensely positive towards someone, and with hate, you feel extremely negative towards someone.

Love vs hate neurobiologically:

Putamen and insula are both activated by romantic love and hate. Oxytocin is the chemical basis of love in brain. The same Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism and regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism. Ethnocentrism is the belief that your own cultural or ethnic group is superior to other culture or ethnic groups. Ethnocentrisms leads to prejudice, racism and discrimination. Parochial altruism is the tendency to favor people in one’s own group over people in other groups and leads to hostility towards those outside the group. This phenomenon is characterized by a combination of “in-group love” and “out-group hate”. Though it promotes in-group bonds, it also amplifies outgroup derogation. There is love for the in-group—the group that is favored; and hate for the out-group—the group that has been deemed as being different, dangerous, and a threat to the in-group. This exemplifies neurochemical’s dual role. The same Oxytocin is involved in love and hate. Love and hate are two sides of the same coin, as the brain uses the same neurochemical and the same areas during love or hate.

Not surprisingly, areas of the frontal, temporal and parietal cerebral cortices – linked to judgement and reasoning – deactivate in love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate. It implies that people in love make less rational decisions, and are less judgemental of their partners, whereas focus and logic are maintained in behaviour towards an enemy. It is more likely that in the context of hate, the hater may want to exercise judgment in calculating moves to cause harm. When you love someone, you ignore their shortcomings, when you hate someone, you search for their shortcomings. Love is blind while hate is mindful.

-13. Hate and morality:

Hatred is usually based on a belief that the person who is hated is always deserving of hate. Hate seems to be related to fundamental and non-negotiable disagreements in core moral beliefs. A study found that the act of verbalizing hatred involves a moral component, and that hateful and moral language are inseparable constructs. Moral motives may actually be a driver in acts of violence, rather than a pacifier. Hate is embedded in presumed righteousness. Every hate group asserts its hate and aggression in the name of justice (human or divine). Hate endures because it justifies the harm done while hating. Moral motives may drive them to out-group hatred and, consequently, hate-based behaviors including violence and forms of hate crime. Acts of hate and genocide are not committed due to lack of awareness, but because the perpetrators believe that “what they are doing is right”. However, hate is not necessarily logical and it can be counterproductive and self-perpetuating, leaving no room for constructive change.

-14. Hate: learned or innate:

Psychological research overwhelmingly supports the idea that hatred is learned, not innate. Studies in developmental psychology show that infants as young as 13 months demonstrate a preference for fairness and cooperation over discrimination. The famous Robbers Cave Experiment illustrates how group-based prejudice is artificially created through competition and dismantled through cooperation. Implicit bias research reveals that societal conditioning shapes prejudice over time, reinforcing the idea that hate is not an instinct but a learned response to cultural and environmental influences. The Bobo Doll Experiment shows that children learn aggressive, mean and hateful behavior only after watching someone else act in that way. It is a slow and deliberate breeding of prejudice reinforced by the environment, media and those in positions of power.

Hatred is believed to be a learned emotion, and recent studies have shown that racism is also learned, rather than innate. When ancient people adopted the “us vs. them” theory, they were being territorial, rather than racist because they probably never saw people who looked different from them. If all humans had the same skin color, we would find a new way to divide us in groups and perpetuate the “one of us” or “one of them” habit; so it does not appear that humans are hardwired to hate based on skin color.

-15. There are three things our brains cannot tolerate: rejection, cognitive dissonance and the most incendiary of all, unfairness. Each, in its own way — and not always — weaponizes us to defy logic and reason to manifest hate.

-16. There are two factors at the root of hatred: the devaluation of the victim and the ideology of the hater. Both of these factors mould and expand hatred. They reduce empathy, because the hater moves increasingly away from the object of their hatred.

-17. Why People hate certain Groups:

The psychology of hatred has a social and cognitive dimension. Normative conformity states that people are incentivized to endorse institutionalized hatred to be accepted by their peers. According to availability and representativeness heuristics, the human brain facilitates problem-solving through stereotypes and prejudice in order to avoid cognitive overload. Finally, social identity is based on in-group affiliation and favouritism, while the out-group is demonized as a dangerous threat. The hatred of certain groups is thus normalized and perpetuated through numerous cognitive biases and a need for social belonging.

-18. Splitting is a defense mechanism in psychology where people view things in extremes, as all good or all bad. It’s also known as black-and-white thinking, binary thinking, or dichotomous thinking. Some people who hate employ splitting when they cannot deal with the fact that the object of their hate has “good” elements. When someone engages in splitting, they adopt a polarizing perspective towards the hated entity as being all bad, even though that entity obviously has good traits. For example, a person who is extremely disturbed by terrorist acts conducted by Islamic extremists may experience cognitive dissonance when they see Muslims advocating peace and anti-terrorist beliefs. Since the idea that Muslims may not be inherently violent does not affirm his hatred of Muslims, the person “splits” his perspective and decides to hate all Muslims. Essentially, splitting reduces the amount of psychological energy it takes to cope with hating something that may or may not deserve to be hated.

-19. Projection is defined as a defence mechanism in which one’s own unacceptable wishes, desires or impulses are forced into the other person. The people who use projection may deny the existence of unacceptable desires in themselves while attributing/ projecting them onto others. For example: – A liar accuses another person of lying. If we find part of ourselves unacceptable, we tend to attack others in order to defend against the threat. The things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves.

-20. The common denominator in most acts of hatred is fear, usually fear of different types of people or ideas. This is why hatred is most often directed toward people of differing race, sexual orientation, religious background or some other criterion. We fear that is different to us. Hate is often a secondary emotion that stems from fear. Fear of rejection, abandonment, suffocation, and mortality can also lead to hate. A key motivational goal underlying hate is to protect individuals from pertinent threats in the social environment. It has been assumed that hate emerges in the presence of a number of threats to the self, the in-group, or cultural values. When a group threatens our beliefs, we may fear and then hate them. The in-group out-group theory posits that when we feel threatened by perceived outsiders, we instinctively turn toward our in-group—those with whom we identify—as a survival mechanism. In short, it can be seen as a type of survival mechanism, in which case, hate becomes a functional emotion that can be used to protect oneself and ensure the survival of those close to us. This can be useful in times of war and when in combat in the battlefield. However, feelings of being in war or impending danger can be artificially generated via political campaigns and exaggerated stories in the media leading to disastrous consequences.

-21. The neurobiological network of hate has following components:

(a) Generating aggressive behaviour (orbitofrontal, dorsal, and ventral prefrontal cortex), the amygdala (important in emotions, fear, and stress), and the angular gyrus (involved in language and cognition). And the network involves regions of the putamen (preparation of aggressive acts) and the insula (response to distressing stimuli).

(b) Translating this behavior into motor action through motor planning (premotor cortex).

(c) Getting pleasure from misfortune and failure of hated persons (ventral striatum). The ventral striatum is an area of the brain associated with reward.

-22. Primary emotions are often very strong, which makes them easy to identify. Primary emotions are adaptive as they make us react a certain way without the emotion being contaminated or analyzed by thoughts or habits. Primary emotions, like anger, fear, or disgust, are fundamental to evolution and adaptation. They are innate, universal, shared across cultures, and present from infancy. Disgust is a major psychological precursor of hatred. Disgust is a consistent precursor to prejudiced attitudes and morally exclusionist beliefs. Greater disgust sensitivity promotes outgroup intolerance, whether cultivated through politics, environments or media. The primitive neurobiology of disgust makes it incredibly potent for fueling hate.

Secondary emotions are the emotions that are often felt after the primary emotion has been experienced. They are the reactions to our primary emotions and are often learned responses. Secondary emotions are thought to arise from higher cognitive processes and come after the primary emotion. From a psychological standpoint, hate is a secondary emotion, a learned response from personal experiences, social conditioning, and cognitive processes.

Primary emotions arise from limbic system of the human brain include the amygdala, hippocampus, limbic cortex, and hypothalamus.

Secondary emotion involves modulation of limbic system by prefrontal cortex.

Type of emotion	Origin	Setting	Utility
Primary emotion	Innate	Limbic system (emotional mind)	Survival
Secondary emotion	Learned	Prefrontal cortex (rational mind) modulating limbic system (emotional mind)	Protection of the self

Hate is secondary emotion. So cognitive processes do influence hate especially cognitive distortions, beliefs and preconceptions that we have gained from our previous experience. As hate is secondary emotion, prefrontal cortex modulates primitive brain i.e. limbic system.

There is a blurring of literal and symbolic meanings indicating that human capacity for abstraction relies heavily on primitive emotional circuits adapted originally for tangible threats or rewards. While the neocortex allows sophisticated conceptual thinking, the evolved mechanisms for implementing abstract concepts remain crude. So, when responding to abstractions related to morality, social norms, or ethnic stereotypes, we do not have specialized neural architecture. Instead, evolution has cobbled together makeshift solutions that reuse circuits for perception, emotion, and basic drives. This neurobiological constraint explains why propaganda depicting other races or groups as vermin, parasites, diseases, or other repulsive things powerfully activates hate. The simplistic emotional reactions triggered often bypass abstract reasoning. So, emotion override reason in hate due to primitive emotional circuits doing abstractions rather than abstractions by neocortex.

How is it possible to control hate if the drive to hate is located in a primitive and unconscious part of the brain?

The higher-order brain structures, like the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), among others, allow us to choose anger and hatred or to let it go. If this neocortex is educated, trained and given right information, then it can control hate. Younger ages possess heightened neuroplasticity for cultivating cross-cutting identities and diverse social exposure before in-group biases solidify. Schools thus have a high potential for a positive, lasting impact on inter-group attitudes. Education is a powerful tool to combat disinformation, misinformation and hate. Good balanced education by parents, teachers and community to control bias & prejudice, combat disinformation & misinformation, stop indoctrination to false beliefs and cultivate empathy are the best ways to control hate since childhood as hatred is learned and not innate. This is my theory of hate.

-23. Polarization is a social phenomenon characterized by the fragmentation of society into antagonistic factions with vehemently opposed values and identities that impede cooperation and the pursuit of a common good. Political and religious polarization is one of the foremost reasons for hate speech, hate crime and genocide. Not only does polarization increase the likelihood of violence in societies, but violent demonstrations may exacerbate polarization and divide individuals along partisan lines. Polarization leads to hate and hate speech exacerbate polarization.

-24. Hate has often been used to accomplish political goals. Hatred seems an effective, simple, political tool that is commonly used by politicians to attain ingroup solidarity and political benefits and/or outgroup exclusion. Campaign ads, canvassing, and slogans based on collective hatred are the bread and butter of successful campaigns because the message is simple and emotionally appealing. Hatred has been employed in a number of local and national political campaigns in Israel, Europe, and the United States. Nationalist leaders throughout the world increasingly inflame passions against immigrants, refugees, and racial and ethnic minorities and thereby spread hate. Political considerations may set limits on our ability to confront hate, and may take precedence over law enforcement, by allowing hate crimes to occur for political reasons.

-25. Throughout history, dehumanized groups were targets of hate (e.g., Jews, Tutsis, natives, African slaves). Thus, hate and dehumanization are apparently inseparable. However, contemporary studies have found that hatred is not inherently dehumanizing. You may hate someone without dehumanising and you may dehumanize someone without hating them. Hatred can, despite its dangerous and dehumanizing potentials, be part of a morally permissible or even virtuous response to dehumanization.

-26. Enmity suggests true hatred, either overt or concealed. Just like in the case of hatred, even in the process of making enemies or harbouring enmity, there is a split or a dichotomy between “us vs them”, “good vs evil”, “safe vs dangerous”. The general ability to dichotomize and judge is essential for survival and safety of any being/species. But when this basic ability translates into a rigid, polarized view, which always sees races/cultures/specific people or even countries as either all good or all bad, with no overlap in between, hatred is translated into the process of enmity. Hatred fuels and paves the way to enmity and the so called “enemy” is to be feared, hated, destroyed, and killed for haters to feel safe. Several cognitive distortions, besides splitting, play a role in translating hatred into enmity. They are polarizing, exaggerating and rigidifying.

-27. Psychologists conclude that people hate persons and groups more because of who they are, than because of what they do; and hatred is based not just on a negative perception of others, but also depends on one’s personal history; its effects on one’s personality; one’s feelings, ideas or ideologies, beliefs, and their identity.

-28. All those who spew hatred, including jingoists and the hyper-nationalists are often under-achievers in life. This leads to a deep-rooted inferiority complex and frustration. They must blame something for it, which also becomes an object of resentment and later, hatred.

-29. When people feel unsafe within themselves, the expression of hate makes them feel empowered. It provides a sense of purpose in tearing down or destroying targets which they hate. People without a sense of purpose are especially susceptible to hate.

-30. The psychology of people hating more virulently when they are part of groups or organisations is essentially the same as that of people committing rapes or other crimes during riots. In both, you have the shield of protection from the group itself or the anonymity offered by the group. Simply put, the in-group is what we are part of and the out group is what they are a part of. This quite literally creates an “us vs. them” mentality which can be a very potent catalyst for acts of hatred.

-31. People who have negative opinion of someone are far more likely to say they would get along well with someone who shared their negative opinion than those who had a positive opinion. This concept can explain why highly ideological groups—political or social—often find great success in slamming people or ideas from the opposing side. Since hate is a negative emotion, haters get along very well with each other when they have common target of hatred.

-32. Positive Aspect to this Negative Emotion:

A healthy hatred can be understood as the normal hate for one’s enemies and tormentors, and also hate against those who tyrannize and torment others. Hate plays a role in mobilizing for the services of higher ideals and values, such as hatred against poverty, corruption, brutality, tyranny, defense of the family, and self-defence as well. From the adaptation perspective, hate may be preferable to panic, which embodies helplessness. Hate may also act as motivator in warfare and response to shame.

-33. There are various types of hate based on target (race, religion, ethnicity, language, gender, sexual orientation etc); based on expression (microaggression, hate speech, hate crime etc); and based on characteristics (rational, irrational, narcissistic, pathological etc).

-34. Widespread advocacy of hatred based on religion or belief is among the key drivers of polarisation and conflict around the world. Hateful attitudes based on religion or belief and their promotion in society often serve concrete political and economic ends. They may be mobilized to justify restrictions on freedom of movement or other rights of refugees, asylum-seekers or migrants; dispossession of land; closure of businesses; boycotts; or the resignation of a religious or belief minority or caste to menial or dangerous work opportunities. Fostering religious or belief disdain may serve a political function in that promoting division and “othering” is considered expedient to certain groups or forms part of their ideology. In addition, it may serve as a tool in a quest for superiority on an individual or group basis.

-35. Religious hate spin is a double-sided technique that combines hate speech (incitement through vilification) with manufactured offense-taking (the performing of righteous indignation) to orchestrate the giving of offense and the taking of offense as instruments of identity politics, exploiting democratic space to promote agendas that undermine democratic values. The intolerant groups within India’s Hindu right, America’s Christian right, and Indonesia’s Muslim right are all accomplished users of hate spin.

-36. Typically, males are overwhelmingly the victims of hate crime but in the case of anti-Muslim hate crime, it is the females who are most often attacked. This applies to both online and offline anti-Muslim hate crime. Gender precipitates manifestations of anti-Muslim hostility on the basis that the visibility of the Muslim veil, coupled with popular perceptions about veiled Muslim women as oppressed, dangerous, and segregated, mark them as “uniquely” vulnerable to online and offline manifestations of anti-Muslim hostility.

-37. Anti-Semitism, sometimes called history’s oldest hatred, is hostility or prejudice against Jewish people. Hitler did not invent the hatred of Jews. Jews in Europe had been victims of discrimination and persecution since the Middle Ages, often for religious reasons. The first persecutions against the Jewish people were religious. They were apparently ‘killers of Christ’ and ‘black magic worshippers’ who did not follow or believe in Jesus. In the 19th century religious persecution gave way to racial persecution and Jews were seen as parasites. Religious and racial persecution are a facade for the real reason that the Jews were seen as threatening, namely the fear and threat from an outside group who throughout history had a position of power that created jealously which turned to hate and violence.

-38. Misogyny is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide. Gender-based hate crimes disproportionately affect women and girls as it is driven by misogyny, the belief that women are a lesser gender than men and should always remain at a lower status than men. Gender inequality, including both stereotypes and sexism, is believed to be the root cause of gender-based violence against women.

Note:

Examples of gender stereotypes include the belief that men are better suited to leadership positions, that women are better caregivers, and that subjects such as math and science are more appropriate for men than for women.

-39. LGBT people are nine times more likely than non-LGBT people to be victims of violent hate crimes. The heterosexism of our society and the sexual prejudice of individuals reinforcing each other resulting in hate against LGBT.

-40. Experiences of hate are associated with poor emotional well-being such as feelings of anger, shame, and fear. Moreover, victims tend to experience poor mental health, including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and suicidal behavior. Medically, impacts include poor overall physical health, physical injury, stress, and difficulty accessing medical care. Victimization is also associated with poor health behaviors such as smoking, alcohol or drug abuse and unhealthy coping strategies such as emotion suppression. The experience of hate-motivated behavior can result in blaming of and lower empathy toward fellow victims. Experiences of racial discrimination are consistently linked with mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as physical ailments such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Victims of hate crime often experience greater post-victimisation distress (including anxiety, depression, and withdrawal) than victims of equivalent non-prejudice offences.

-41. Hatred negatively impacts the nervous system, immune system, and endocrine system of the hater.

-42. Children and young people are particularly vulnerable to hate speech, both online and in person. When children hear or read hate speech aimed at them directly or a part of their identity – such as their race, colour or gender – it can make them feel like there is something different or wrong about them. This can impact their self-esteem and can lead to a deterioration of their mental health, such as experiencing feelings of anxiety and depression, even thoughts about self-harm and suicide.

-43. Hate and media:

Sensationalist coverage of hate crime events has been shown to cause ‘contagion’ events or ‘spikes’ in hate crime. Media reports can play an active role in formulating, propagating and legitimating stereotypes about target populations. Media plays an important role in influencing hate. If a news channel is broadcasting stereotypical negative news about a certain group, then, the people who are watching are most likely to develop a negative attitude towards that group and this ultimately influences the hatred and prejudice. Media persuasion plays a role in the dissemination of ethnic hatred. Indian TV channels have used hate speech disguised as journalism. Media reform can be an important element in preventing and responding to hate speech. Fighting misinformation, disinformation and hate speech should be a top priority of both traditional and social media companies. Failing to do so is undermining our democracy and threatens the safety of their users.

-44. How hate speech incites violence?

Language has been used to express, spread, and mobilize hatred against other social groups, resulting in intimidation, discrimination, dehumanization, hate crime, and genocide. We all have to remember that hate crimes are preceded by hate speech. We have to bear in mind that words kill. Words kill as bullets. Words can be weaponized and cause physical harm. Words of hatred spread intolerance, divide societies, promote and endorse discrimination and incite violence. Genocides do not start with bullets or machetes; they begin with hate speech. Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain, that immersion in a hateful environment leads to empathic numbing: people exposed to hate speech have limited ability to attribute the psychological perspective of others, regardless of their group membership. Listening to hate speech can increase prejudice toward an out-group and even prime the brain for violent actions. Words themselves are enough to trigger simulations in motor, perceptual and emotional neural systems. Your brain creates a sense of being there: The motor system is primed for action and the emotional system motivates those actions.

-45. Hate speech is usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. Hate speech can take various forms: posts on social media, texts or images in print or online, radio or TV broadcasts, videos, oral statements, etc. Not only that it causes psychological harm to its victims, and physical harm when it incites violence, but also that it undermines the social equality of its victims. Hate speech coupled with disinformation can lead to stigmatization, discrimination and large-scale violence. Hate speech is generally accepted to be one of the prerequisites for mass atrocities such as genocide. Hate speech works as a silencing mechanism by discouraging people from publicly expressing their opinion.

Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. In Germany, for example, laws forbid incitement to hatred; you could find yourself the subject of a police raid if you post such content online. In the US, on the other hand, even the vilest kinds of speech are legally protected under the US Constitution.

While all ‘hate speech’ is a cause for concern, it will not always constitute a criminal offence. The most severe types of hate speech that may appropriately attract criminal sanction include “incitement to genocide”, and particularly severe forms of “advocacy of discriminatory hatred that constitute incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination.” States are required to prohibit severe forms of hate speech through criminal, civil, and administrative measures.

-46. Speech that is simply offensive, insulting or unpopular but poses no risk to others is generally NOT considered a hate speech.

-47. By providing possibilities for inexpensive and instantaneous access without ties to geographic location or a user identification system, the Internet has permitted hate groups and individuals espousing hate to transmit their ideas to a worldwide audience. While hate speech online is not intrinsically different from similar expressions found offline, there are peculiar challenges unique to online content and its regulation. Those challenges related to its permanence, itinerancy, anonymity and complex cross-jurisdictional character. Surveys across several countries indicate that 42%–67% of young adults observed ‘hateful and degrading writings or speech online’, and 21% have been victims themselves.

-48. Online Hate is posting and sharing hateful and prejudiced content against an individual, group or community. If a post is hostile towards a person’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, it could be viewed as Hate Speech. Evidence indicates that the sharing of hateful attitudes online can motivate people to commit harmful acts in the real world, such as physical assault, verbal abuse and damage to property. Hateful content can even lead to crimes such as shootings or bombings. The scope for online hate to cause voter intimidation is huge. Online hate speech is a critical and worsening problem, with extremists using social media platforms to radicalize recruits and coordinate offline violent events.

-49. The proliferation of hate online has become recognized as one of the biggest challenges to social media industries –for every 1,000-content viewed on the Facebook, one of them will be hateful content.

-50. The huge number of cyber hate incidents suggests that those who feel prejudices towards certain protected characteristics are more likely to act online than offline. This is likely to be because of the anonymity that the internet offers, combined with its private accessibility, ease of use, and its ability to reach massive audiences. Collectively, these features are likely to tip over many of those individuals, who might otherwise control their real-world behaviour, into becoming online perpetrators of hate. Online hate has negative effects on the well-being of both victims and observers, including depression, isolation, paranoia, social anxiety, self-doubt, disappointment, loneliness, and lack of confidence.

-51. Online hate activity can fuel high-profile offline violence. In turn, highly charged offline trigger events tend to be followed by sharp increases in online hate speech. Such spikes in online hate speech have, further, been shown to predict similar spikes in offline violent hate crimes. So, we have vicious cycle of online hate and offline hate crime.

-52. Hate speech vs bullying:

For research on children and adolescents in particular, hate speech needs to be differentiated from bullying. Globally, more than 30% of young people report that they have been bullied by their peers. Bullying is known with its repetitive act to the same individual, unlike hate speech which is more general and not necessarily intended to hurt a specific individual. Bullying denigrates the characteristics of specific individuals, whereas hate speech denigrates the characteristics of specific social groups. Hate speech and bullying are different but closely related. Some young people will be involved in either hate speech or bullying. Hate speech incidents might be the root of some bullying cases. Teachers and educators must be aware of this form of violence. Online hate and cyberbullying can overlap, but they are distinct experiences. Individual-based discrimination predicts cyberbullying, group-based discrimination predicts both online hate and cyberbullying although bullying usually targets an individual.

-53. Societies and governments often attempt to combat online hate speech through structural means, including sweeping censorship by social-media platforms, deplatforming, criminalization, and automated detection and removal of online hate, but structural methods lack lasting power due to their failure to target the problem at its root.

-54. Hate crimes are criminal offenses motivated either entirely or in part by the fact or perception that the victim is different from the perpetrator. It requires that racial, religious, ethnic, or some other identified difference between victim and offender play at least some role in inspiring the criminal act. Hate crimes are typically differentiated from other types of crimes on the basis of the victim’s group membership; the offense probably would not have occurred if he or she had not belonged to that particular group. Hate speech is an expression of prejudice, while a hate crime is an act of violence motivated by prejudice. Hate crimes are considered message crimes, in that they’re intended to send a clear message to the intended group that they are not liked and are not welcome. By targeting one member, hate crimes reverberate throughout communities who share the victim’s identity characteristic causing ‘waves of harm’, in which all members are shown (or reminded) that they are vulnerable to targeted violence because of who they are.

The term hate crime is somewhat misleading because it suggests incorrectly that hatred is invariably a distinguishing characteristic of this type of crime. While it is true that many hate crimes involve intense animosity toward the victim, many others do not. Conversely, many crimes involving hatred between the offender and the victim are not “hate crimes” in the sense intended here. For example, an assault that arises out of a dispute between two white, male coworkers who compete for a promotion might involve intense hatred, even though it is not based on any racial or religious differences between them.

-55. Hate does not itself necessarily lead to hate crime. Many people hold bigoted views: 6% of Americans disapprove of interracial marriage, for example. Yet, most of those people will not commit crimes motivated by that bigotry. Although not all individuals with prejudicial attitudes go on to engage in hate-motived crime, it has been suggested that hate-crime offenders come to learn their prejudices through social interaction, consumption of biased news media, political hate speech, and internal misrepresentations of cultures other than their own. Most, if not all, hate crimes are linked by perceptions of threat. Threats can be linked to economic stability, access to social/state resources, people’s sense of safety in society, and/or values and social norms.

-56. Hate crimes are under-reported worldwide, providing limited information on the incidents. In only a minority of hate crime incidents do offenders use force or physical violence. The majority of offenses range from verbal abuse to harassment, to assaults and criminal damage, and many of these offenses go unreported.

-57. Social harms of hate crimes have significant implications for society in general, making it less open, less equal, and less diverse. In other words, hate crimes don’t just hurt those groups who are targeted, they hurt everyone who wants to live in a diverse and open society.

-58. Terrorism vs hate crime:

Terrorism is often an “upward crime,” involving a perpetrator of lower social standing than the targeted group. By contrast, hate crimes are disproportionately “downward crimes,” usually entailing perpetrators belonging to the majority or powerful group in society and minority group victims. Hate crimes are motivated at least in part by an offender’s personal bias while terrorism is inspired primarily by extremist beliefs and intended as political or ideological statements. Occasionally, a violent crime can be considered both a hate crime and a terrorist attack. There is no evidence to suggest that hate crimes are a precursor to future terrorism. On the other hand, hate crimes are often perpetrated in response to terrorist acts.

-59. Free speech versus hate speech:

(1. The freedom of expression is applicable, not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb in order to cultivate pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness in the society. Offendedness, shock and social embarrassment are an unavoidable by-product of the advantages of freedom of speech. Please read my article FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (FREEDOM OF SPEECH) posted on January 1, 2013 in this website.

(2. Repeated rhetoric that freedom of expression is not an absolute right gives repressive forces a weapon to subvert freedom of expression under disguise of reasonable limits to it. Repeated use of the word “sensitivity” is the masquerade of fascist forces.

(3. Speech leading to violence or other unlawful activities can be restricted only if the ensuing lawless activity is likely to be “imminent” as a result of the speaker explicitly urging that activity. The state cannot abdicate its own duty to save lives under pretext that the speech is likely to cause violence and so ban it.

(4. Speech is tied to context. Speech cannot be punished just because of its hateful content. But when you get beyond content and look at context, speech with a hateful message may be punished, if in a particular context it directly causes certain specific, imminent, serious harm. The context in which speech occurs helps determine its impact, as does the position of the person or persons speaking. Prosecution of incitement to violence should take into account the authority of the speaker and whether they are likely to persuade the audience.

(5. Hate speech laws have been used, in both developing and developed nations, to persecute minority viewpoints, critics of the government, human rights defenders, and journalists.

(6. Blanket restrictions, bans and internet shutdowns are not the solution as it may violate human rights, including freedom of expression.

(7. Efforts to suppress expression can allow unseen problems to fester and erupt in far more dangerous forms, which may lead to violence instead of ensuring peace and stability. Suppressing hate speech not only fails to resolve hatred but drives it underground and possibly encourages acts of violence.

(8. The most effective way to counter the potential negative effects of hate speech — which conveys discriminatory or hateful views on the basis of race, religion, gender, and so forth — is not through censorship, but rather through more speech. The best way to counter hate speech is to demonstrate its falsity in the open marketplace of ideas by counter speech. And that censorship of hate speech, no matter how well-intended, has been shown around the world and throughout history to do more harm than good in actually promoting equality, dignity, inclusivity, diversity, and societal harmony. Counter speech constitutes a better way of blocking potential harm caused by hate speech. Counter speech is a non-censoring way to respond to harmful speech by presenting an alternative viewpoint. It can involve challenging, debunking, or critiquing harmful speech.

(9. American Supreme Court has held strongly to the view that America believes in the public exchange of ideas and open debate, that the response to offensive speech is to speak in response.

-60. Addressing hate requires challenging biases, promoting inclusivity, fostering empathy, and encouraging dialogue and cooperation among diverse groups. It starts with self-awareness, choosing constructive communication, seeking common ground, and practicing active listening. The best way to combat hatred is through forgiveness, empathy and love. The opposite of dehumanization is empathy and respect, as perhaps best expressed by the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Some version of that belief is found in virtually all world religions.

-61. If we are to counter hatred, to work together across disagreement, and to try to prevent war and conflict, we need to understand and appreciate the inherent value and goodness of all people, including those with whom we are opposed.

-62. Silence in the face of hate speech can indicate that it—and any violence it promotes—is acceptable. Hate can carry an aura of invincibility unless good people speak up. Our condemnation of Hate must be Loud and Clear. In the face of hatred, apathy will be interpreted as acceptance — by the perpetrators, the public and, worse, the victims. Decent people must take action; if we don’t, hate persists. Silence and lack of solidarity hurt as much as the hate itself.

______

Dr Rajiv Desai. MD.

February 28, 2025

_______

Postscript:

Those who spew religious hate ought to know that no God becomes great by targeting ordinary humans.

_______

6 comments on “Hate”

Бородавки says:

April 3, 2025 at 8:29 pm

Simply want to say your article is as amazing.
The clarity in your post is just cool and i can assume you are an expert on this subject.
Well with your permission allow me to grab your
RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the
gratifying work.
Салициловая кислота says:

March 27, 2025 at 8:45 pm

I think that what you published made a great deal of sense.
But, what about this? what if you were to create a killer
post title? I ain’t suggesting your content isn’t good, but suppose you added something that grabbed a
person’s attention? I mean Hate – Dr Rajiv Desai is kinda vanilla.

You might peek at Yahoo’s home page and note how they create news titles to get viewers to click.
You might add a video or a related picture or
two to get readers interested about what you’ve got to say.
Just my opinion, it could bring your posts a little livelier.
what kind of disease is acne says:

March 22, 2025 at 9:19 pm

Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification seemed to be
on the web the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to
you, I definitely get irked while people consider worries
that they plainly don’t know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also
defined out the whole thing without having side-effects
, people can take a signal. Will probably be
back to get more. Thanks
📆 Reminder- TRANSACTION 0.75266335 BTC. Withdraw => https://graph.org/GET-BITCOIN-TRANSFER-02-23-2?hs=078a17c62aeea87c5f8e949b659668d1& 📆 says:

March 12, 2025 at 8:31 pm

dh9sxr
Lechenie_iqkl says:

March 7, 2025 at 8:45 pm

Приветствуем вас! Мы, Шестаков Юрий Иванович, врач-дерматолог с многолетним опытом работы, и доктор Шестакова Т.В., врач-дерматолог, хотим поделиться с вами рекомендациями, которые помогут справиться с угревой сыпью.

Акне – это не просто косметическая проблема, а серьезное заболевание. За годы нашей практики мы помогли сотням пациентов восстановить чистоту кожи, используя новейшие технологии. Мы уверены, что любая кожа заслуживает здоровья и красоты, и хотим рассказать, как это получить.

Акне – это проблема, известная многим. Современные способы борьбы с воспалениями на коже позволяют достичь свежую кожу уже после первых сеансов.

Полное руководство по лечению акне: шаг за шагом, с гарантированными успехами
пилинг стоп акне [url=https://kpacota.top/]пилинг стоп акне[/url] .
🖨 + 0.75455821 BTC.NEXT - https://graph.org/GET-BITCOIN-TRANSFER-02-23-2?hs=078a17c62aeea87c5f8e949b659668d1& 🖨 says:

March 3, 2025 at 8:58 pm

0g8ygi

Dr Rajiv Desai

Hate

6 comments on “Hate”

Leave a Reply