Once I thought of a certain person that: 'if the truth took two sentences and a lie would take one, he'd lie.' Even about trivial stuff he was constantly lying. It occurs to me it could be that he was just (and is) uncomfortable with speaking much. And also perhaps not so good with words. So he tries to keep things very short. And that perhaps he's got enough fear/nervousness in him that it causes him to say really stupid things.

Perhaps I incorrectly thought he was 'evil'? And thus in return was fearful of him and thus somewhat indifferent?

---

In regard to a recent email was also thinking somewhat related that perhaps this is the main cause of indifference, that people are too busy being afraid, too busy being suspicious, fearful, too busy erring on the side of selfish caution, and thus just simply avoid others.

Over and over again I can look at indifference and see this at it's heart. Which is to say again, that it simply takes strong/happy people to be compassionate. Where 'strong' and 'happy' mean about the same thing.

Where someone can be rich and 'successful', have tons of 'friends', have great health and even seemingly be happy (to some extent...?), yet be full of suspicion of others and thus indifferent and even hateful.

And so then the obvious thing to do is to try to reduce their fear, their suspicions, and to somehow make them 'stronger' and 'happier'. The end result being that they can manage to find more time to have concern for others instead of being selfish. (This as opposed to the zombie basis for compassion. The too far future. What a good blog title that was.) The end result also being they become wiser perhaps? And thus don't need to err quite so far towards selfish caution.

But it means that at times two seemingly contradictory things must be done. You must manage to truly show them that you want them personally to be happy while at the same time making very clear that you disagree with their actions. Successfully doing that is so difficult because their suspicion gage will go into the red the moment you express any disagreement.

What way to cure indifference?

Should we shower love and compassion on indifferent people?

In this way can we show them what it's like to live in a world where people are something other than indifferent to each other?

But what of the hate usually mixed in? What when their indifference is also tied into suspicions of evil all around them? When they perceive evil they respond with hateful actions and cause harm, how should we then respond?

The same. We respond still with love and compassion even when they hurt us exactly to show that their perception that we're evil is simply wrong.

Against this though is the worry that we're thus letting them get away with the hurt that they've caused. That instead of punishing them for their harmful actions were basically sending a message that they can get away with such actions.

But we already know that a world based on punishment and force doesn't work so very well.

Whether it's hate or indifference or a mixture of both (and indifference is the worse of the two) we should respond with love and compassion. At the same time we still need to try to somehow speak out and say when an action (or lack thereof) is causing harm.

This is complicated. Because speaking out may likely mean they'll think you wish them harm. They'll think you're 'attacking' them. To both speak out against their actions and to still love them and truly try to make their life better is something between difficult and impossible.

In this industrial society if you ever speak out against someone's actions you're immediately someone who should just go away. There's millions living in some proximity of one another. Those who have any disagreement have no reason to have anything to do with one another.

In this industrial society there's no reasons to bother caring about the welfare of people. To show such love and compassion in and of itself is considered strange.

In this industrial society there's no reasons to bother trying to work through disagreements.

The system is setup so that what should be done is basically impossible. But still, to what extent it can be done, it must be done.

i gather) is the transcript of a TV advert for "Hefty" bin-bags -
__________________________

Actress 1) If I had a man like Hefty…
Actress 2) If I had a man like Hefty…
Actress 3) He'd always be coming up with new ways to impress me
Female Voice) Introducing Hefty The Gripper. The first kitchen bag with the stretch and grip top so it hugs the can and won't slip

Actress 3) oh, and he'd know how to hold on tight
Actress 1) …then he won't cave under pressure
Female Voice) Nothing is made like the gripper. It stretches, grips, and stays put so it can take it like a man.

Actress 3) and when I'm done with him…
Actress 1) (shown dropping a bag of trash into a garbage can)
Actress 3) Ciao baby
Actress 2) Bye-bye!
Actress 1) So long!

Female Voice) The Gripper – new from Hefty. The strong dependable type.

__________________________

I think that it's.... horrible. (O.o) really. Morally obnoxious, plain and simple.

I think it also exemplifies the whole 'disposable' society mentality....

So many people nowadays expect (or at least aim) to live in a way where they just throw away anything they don't want, with no guilt, repercussion or responsibility involved.... just maximum convenience for them.

:-P I guess that some people revel in applying such a superficial mindset to relationships too, hoo boy... I wish that I was cool like those people.... Gee, I guess that I'd better hurry up and get me some of those cool hefty bin bags, huh ?

Especially since I'm female, so am clearly the exclusive target audience for the advert.... which also doesn't manage to come across as being blatantly sexist, at all.

Because of the violence in our societies, women can be very afraid to dump men, so being able to do so as easily as throwing out the trash, without worrying about repercussions is seen as empowering.

OTOH we do live in a society where ultimately if a person just suddenly dumps you with no explanation, you're expected to just not even care, to the extent you instead are filled with moral outrage and want some kind of explanation at least, you're considered a stalker.

Ultimately with so many people stuck together instead of living in tribes of a hundred or so people, what people do is instead of trying to work on relationships, they just bounce around from person to person and when they aren't quite happy with someone, why bother talking about differences at all? Just say, "this isn't working out, bye."

If that isn't considered an adequate reason, if the other person wants more explanation than that, then they're a stalker. And they need to just piss off, there's millions of people, what the hell's their problem? Just go away. Geez, what a pyscho.

...so it's potential violence (anger, hate, etc... stalking) on one side and indifference on the other. And with millions of people living together, there's nothing for it but that indifference must be considered OK, as it would be so very difficult to not be indifferent to most people when there's so many of them. While of course violence, anger, hate isn't considered OK for obvious reasons.

But speaking unpractically, speaking philosophically, indifference is actually worse then hate, anger, etc. In that hate is ALWAYS a reaction to indifference. Or at least a reaction to the perception of indifference.

Which isn't to say that hate, anger, etc is a good thing. It definitely isn't. But generally I try to respect it more then indifference. I try to understand that it arose from the perception of injustice thanks to indifference on some person's part.

But the social norms of our society go the opposite way. Indifference is basically OK while expressions of anger are very seriously looked down upon.

Looking at the planet as a whole, indifference is the real problem. Millions of animals are killed daily not from hate but from indifference. The destruction of the environment is a matter of indifference. Ultimately the suffering of billions in poverty is the result of indifference.

...the idea of having an actual society though means not being indifferent to those around you. It means you don't just dump a man like you're throwing out the trash. The commercial, while 'empowering' women, is ultimately praising an anti-society social norm. A social norm which destroys the idea of people having meaningful connections to each other in a society.

In India they have arranged marriages. This is seen as horrible to people in the west. But there is a beautiful thing in it. It is similar to the guy from a commune I met who says the members were married just at random. Again, sounds horrible (and the two examples: India and the commune) are of course quite different in some ways, but both show the ideal where people are Openminded. And thus open to discussing differences and seeing where they may be wrong and ought to change in certain ways, see how some of their actions maybe are causing harm. And furthermore Openminded in the sense of being able to see the good, the beauty in one another. And thus being able to love anyone.

This openmindedness, suggests that if something isn't working in a relationship, you should talk about it.

But when you've got tons of people thrown together, people will instead learn to be closeminded. And from a closeminded point of view, there's no reason at all to discuss differences as it's accepted that people don't change. Thus no point in pointing them out. This closemindedness comes about in a number of ways. One way is simply by using force to get people to do what you want them to. They learn that being 'wrong' equals pain, thus they try to avoid ever changing their minds.

Another way is just simply with tons of people around you, there's no need to work things out with people. Just drop them and find some other ones that are more identical to you.

For our society to work we have to learn to not be indifferent to one another despite the fact that there's so many of us. We have to learn that despite the fact that hate, anger and violence certainly aren't solutions, they aren't the real problem. The problem is indifference.

We can't hate that which we understand.
-
If you truly understand someone you cannot help but love them.
-
I vaguely remember thinking of love as truly understanding someone and that ideally with truly understanding everyone we could love everyone. And I mean by 'love' a very deep euphoric feeling. This contrasted to an idea lately of 'love' being more or less the opposite, where instead it's based on idealizing someone. Basically just pretending they're someone other than who they actually are. Or doing that to some extent anyway.

Which is more correct? I think when I felt the former, the highly positive feeling about love, I was at the time idealizing actually. And that exactly because I was idealizing my 'understanding' equaled truly loving the person. (Because they just then happened to be exactly what I wanted them to be. Because I simply decided to perceive them as exactly what I wanted them to be.)

The above is an example of failing utterly to pangloss anything. Here I started out trying to hope to for a change successfully say something positive.

The first quote: "We can't hate that which we understand."
Is true. I made it up.

The second quote: "If you truly understand someone you cannot help but love them."
I took from someone off of facebook. And unfortunately I can't see that it's quite true at this time...

I was hoping it could be true because that which appears to be evil is hard to spend much time facing. I can face it and manage to see that it's not actually evil. It's never actually evil and thus something to hate, it's instead always some combination of stupidity and/or ignorance. If only understanding this led to love. But stupidity and/or ignorance is not a thing to love at all. It's still an ugly thing I'd rather not spend a lot of time thinking about.

If instead focusing on that which appears to be evil led to understanding it and thus loving it, then it would be much easier to want to spend one's time focusing on that which appears to be evil. As it stands it is instead an activity that it's hard to stand doing much of, this recognition of stupidity/ignorance.

So, can I make it about love?

Love is such a motivator.

And it seems to me that ultimately my art must be about investigating, examining and understanding that which appears to be evil. Understanding every little facet of IT. If at the end of the tunnel stood love I could stand to do it much much more. Instead all I see is ugly ignorance, stupidity... fear. Nothing worthy of love... And it's slightly torturous to spend time dwelling on it.

Although still it is an attempt, no matter how unlike it is of any meaningful success, to do good. Ah, but it is an almost surely futile attempt which instead only leads to endless time spent dwelling on stupidity and ignorance. It is like torturing one's self with Fox news.

If the end result was that I could learn to love Bill O'Reilly (lol) then it wouldn't be so bad. But instead I can at best just learn to feel sorry for him, just feel sad about the harm he's causing. I cannot love such actions.

It's just torture to face that which appears to be evil. But I think it is perhaps an essential thing to do for the production of 'worthwhile' art...

Or maybe I could love Bill O'Reilly. Maybe I could work on that. Brings me back anyway to the point that I love complex real antagonists instead of the 2D stuff. What is the reality really? I can only look inside myself and try to find common points with such people it seems...

Which reminds me to think about lying. As I feel asleep last night I was trying to remember the examples of me still having dishonesty lurking within me. (And not practical stuff like saying I loved my last job at a job interview).

First thing that strangely came to mind is lying about the number of women I've slept with. Which is truly silly. What's wrong with the number of women I've slept with? I was imagining a scenario where I felt the need to hide how low the number was... Then when I actually thought about it, actually just simply used my fricking brain, the idea of hiding such a thing was clear in so many ways as simply STUPID.

And I fear that in understanding that which appears to be evil; that which is stupid or ignorant, there is unfortunately not usually some complex and interesting thing going on. Instead of some mistake hidden amongst a complex line of reasoning there is usually just blank stupidity at work. Just simply not thinking at all.

Which I suppose then the point is to understand why people don't want to think in the first place. Surely somewhere in here there is something actually interesting. And there's a myriad of reasons for that....

...heh. Why do I fear that? Being interesting is only related to writing stories. As far as that what is more or less interesting is reading about the protagonist's reaction to these actions, thoughts, etc which cause harm.

This is two different things I've slightly convoluted I think. Real life 'evil' which usually isn't very interesting and 'evil' within fiction stories which also usually isn't very interesting of itself. But two different things. In real life I want to find a way to stand thinking about 'evil'. In fiction stories it doesn't necessarily matter that in truth 'evil' isn't interesting. The positive reactions of the protagonist hopefully are.

The Civilized Man versus the Violent Monkey

"Civilized" as in openminded, compassionate and honest.

'Openminded' as in seeking truth, wanting to hear the truth from others, can take an opinion different from their own and honestly consider if perhaps it is more correct than their own.

'Compassionate' as in a person who practices the golden rule, who is respectful of others, who cares for the welfare of others, wants them to be happy, is not indifferent to them.

'Honest' not just in the sense of not lying. People have incredibly strange notions about what it means to be honest. Actual honesty means not withholding any relevant information. Actual honesty means being direct with people.

The Violent Monkey is closeminded, owned primarily by hate although able to pretend instead to the societally acceptable position of indifference and of course utterly dishonest because considering the first two, he/she has no choice.

When you are indirect with someone, when you withhold truths from them, (and not because you think you, yourself, have done anything wrong) you are treating them like they are a violent monkey. You are treating them like they might be dangerous and they must be tiptoed around. Every bit of truth unconcealed is potentially dangerous.

I think once you started down this road with someone, it's maybe not possible to ever gradually reach a point where you understand that you can instead be direct and honest and open with them. You're instead stuck in falsity. You're also being insulting as hell and keeping things meaningless.

But if instead you are direct and honest with someone from the start in this antisociety, they'll most likely think you're nuts. And/or of course, they may be a violent little monkey most likely. And so in response to your directness, they'll respond with some combination of hate/indifference. They can honestly respond with hate. But as that's not acceptable in this antisociety, they'll more likely respond with indifference (simply not respond) and/or some combination of dishonesty (withholding mostly.)

And even worse, even if you think them "civilized", you still may be afraid to be direct with them because you're afraid your directness will be misinterpreted as some kind of aggressiveness. In response to you trying to treat them as if they're civlized you're just scaring them.

Thus you can't win.

What can be done?

You can be direct and honest. And then try to not mind as you get treated with indifference and hate by 99% of people for your trouble. But still, what about all those who you're just scaring? I suppose attempt to take extreme pains to make yourself clear...

Or just give it up and learn to enjoy solitude.

As to 99% just giving back hate or indifference, an additional problem is my memory isn't all that great. How could it be with regards to remembering that sort of thing? Having a bad memory about that sort of thing is a Good thing.... I think.........????
But the bad memory makes it harder to be sure exactly when I am getting exactly that (hate/indifference), makes it hard to differentiate...

Reminds me though of the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Yet, one must forget such negatives. But then because they are forgotten, one then endlessly repeats them. But of course with the understanding that that is exactly what is going on, still the desire is to go forth as a glutton for punishment knowing they will be endlessly repeated.

But solitude awaits eventually, most likely.

...and there is on top of it all me feeling that my idealistic goals are way too vague and ultimately meaningless and crackpot anyway. And thinking I ought to not subject others to such things. I'm wrong. Tradition is right and I should get back in line and shut up.

But clearly tradition is wrong.

Or is it? Perhaps this is the best we can possibly manage considering what we really are.

Several cups of tea

In our modern industrialized antisociety, it is considered actually pretty damm well fine to be indifferent, but it's not OK to feel hate. I think this needs to change.

That isn't to say it needs to be reversed. That isn't to say that hate is some good thing. Hate is wrong in all it's manifestations, from annoyance up to rage. But hate is at least always an attempt to right a wrong. Hate is always an attempt at what the person perceives as justice. The real fundamental problem is indifference.

The level of disconnection between people (and also animals), the incredible degree of indifference is just too much. I understand when you're surrounded by millions of people that it's impossible to treat everyone like they ideally should be treated. But instead we've decided to treat virtually everyone like they don't exist.

Man is a tribal creature. This means endless ugly things which we ought to recognize. It also means that we are supposed to have more meaningful connections than the majority of people currently have living in industrialized society. But the connections have been cut and indifference reigns supreme.

I met a guy living in a small religious commune in New Mexico. He told me one day their "leader" lined the men up on one side and the women up opposite and said, "whoever is across from you is who you'll marry."

This may sound horrible in a way. But it is also beautiful. Because if you had only people who were openminded, nonindifferent (compassionate), and honest with one another it would indeed work. Any two such people ought to be able to get along well enough to have a pretty good marriage.

In comparison today it is perfectly OK to just endlessly blow people off. There is no need to work with people. When someone is different from us, instead of examining the differences and learning from one another we simply never speak to them again. We go from person to person looking for someone identical. Those who aren't identical are discarded.

And, we haven't just evolved into aggressive, warring people. We've evolved into work proles. Which is to say, people who spend so much time working that they generally would have to really enjoy working, working, working... (which is to say they have nothing else in them that needs fulfilled) to an extent that most of them no longer even know what to do with free time. And those who don't, don't prosper/don't reproduce as much (evolution.) And so what do the work proles do with free time? Drink beer and watch Nascar?

You're allowed to fuck one person. That's your spouse. You can drink beer and have light meaningless conversations here and there. And that's it. What else do people nowadays do with their free time? Not much. And you cannot have numerous meaningful close connections with people. You cannot reach out to people. Too many people. And who knows who's a predator anyway?

Zizek concerning sitcom canned laughter:

Why this laughter? The first possible answer –that it serves to remind us when to laugh – is interesting enough, because it implies the paradox that laughter is a matter of duty and not a spontaneous feeling; but this answer is not sufficient because we do not usually laugh. The only correct answer would be that the Other – embodied in the television set – is relieving us even of our duty to laugh – is laughing instead of us. So even if, tired from a hard day’s stupid work, all evening we did nothing but gaze drowsily at the television screen, we can say afterwards that objectively, through the medium of the other, we had a really good time. (Zizek, Slavoj The Sublime Object of Ideology. p. 35 Verso, 1989)

Is canned laughter also of the fake smile or the fake laugh that people do?

----

Is justice always the goal of hate?

Yes. We only feel hate as a result of believing in evil where evil is defined as causing harm, knowing it and not caring. IOW we Only feel hate in the face of indifference. Through curing this indifference there can be justice.

Point being Zizek claming on pg 92 of Violence that hate is so much worse than indifference basically.

Hate is an attempt at justice and hate is at least correctible. Indifference not so much. But it's the acceptable thing in society. As it can't be helped so much. And indifference generally only kills indirectly.

Indifference far away

http://thetoofarfuture.blogspot.com/2008/07/two-fundamental-problems-of-this-world.html

The two fundamental problems of this world are indifference to suffering and the misperception of indifference to suffering......

How much of this hell is a result of the former as opposed to the latter?

The two fundamental problems:
1. Indifference
2. Hate (The perception of a level of indifference (correct or not) that is deemed unacceptable and as a kind of evil.)

It may be nice to think about the second far more. It's complex while the first reduces life to 2D and what can be done about it anyway? With the second we can quit miscommunicating, we can quit believing in evil, etc. Still though, indifference is a far, far greater problem than hate. It's not even close.

What ways would reduce indifference?

Environmentally: systematically teaching people to take their mind outside of themselves. Trying to imagine being an animal, another person, a tree, disembodied. Try to imagine infinity/eternity. Force them to not just think happy thoughts. Push them towards the contemplation of suffering...

Of course it has occurred to me the cure could potentially be worse than the sickness.

The earlier thoughts about anger/hate/belief evil; my eradication of such thoughts; was time well spent. Very well spent.

Was helped by the fact that it's an absolute. I didn't conclude that it was a question of degree; certain situations, to a certain extent. If I had, it probably would have been too complicated for my mind to manage over any long term.

---

I can't stand the internet. I don't like the coldness. The lack of meaningful connection. It's a pulling back of the curtain. An awful truth.

I want to write a song called, "Put Your Clothes Back On."

On lyrics: I suck at writing them it seems. Which comes right back to keeping a sense of mystery, (IOW not pulling back the curtain, put your clothes back on). In lyrics it seems keeping mystery, being vague somehow is better so often. Which is a gimmick.... Or is it? Could it be just a nice sense of humility? Doubt it. Thinking awfully lately.

Also I'm too polemical.

The lyrics could just straight up be about how ugly the human body actually is with a few faint allusions to it possibly being about something more.

It seems it has to have at least a double meaning... in fact I suppose that is a huge part of what makes music enjoyable. The idea of more than one feeling being expressed simultaneously. If I write a song called Put Your Clothes Back On, what would be the feelings? There could be a sense of hopelessness. That of turning away from truth because actually the truth isn't any good. Nothing can be learned when looking at it. (This is just art here. Not what I truly ultimately think.) But it has to have more than one meaning. Just sounding hopeless won't do it. I could try to mimic the happiness of the exact opposite; some usual love song/making love. I could make it sound like entering a new period in life of great happiness, where we've agreed to turn away from the truth. There would have to be a track that was saying, "This is horrible!"

What are songs that come to mind? Christian Death's Romeo's Distress.
http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theatre-Of-Pain/dp/B0010B6O76/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1217829270&sr=8-5

It was a feeling of being hurried to the point of frantic and finally having a pay off in the end. Finally reaching happiness for your trouble. I want a hurried frantic feeling during which various imperfections of the human body are unfortunately pointed out. Then finally "the pay off" is the solution of turning away.

So the beginning would be hurried and in a major key but dissonant. At the point the solutin is reached, the song will start slowing down. Possible switch to a minor key, (is that possible?) and become consonant. This part will be happy and lovey while also something saying, "this is horrible!" and a feeling of hopelessness in the background. (But not too polemical, perhaps a little something that was earlier suggesting to keep up hope that now is expressing reservations...)

Just an experiment that won't work well; an example of trying to write more symbolically than I usually manage. So start off aspiring to lovey happy. Something in a major key that is kind of hurried and keeps falling into dissonance. Then the solution which gives consonance while falling into a minor key? Perhaps slowing way down (into giving up, death?)

---

The problem with writing symbolically is that it's such a failure in the sense of understanding how short I fall. Knowing how much I have to default to "duh, it sounds good." But just doing that from the beginning turns creativity into something a tad too random. This being "symbolic" at least puts on a cloak of meaning (over the truth); at least makes it appear as not pointlessly random.

This blog ruins mystery that's for sure.

It's hard to like the music of someone I think is stupid and harmful. There's a few people out there I wish I hadn't of gotten to know a bit. Doing so really ruined their music for me....

So I'll try to write such a song. Fall far short probably. But without a doubt I'll still manage to write a "song".

Silliness, silliness, silliness...

I know who the monster is!

The two fundamental problems of this world are indifference to suffering and the misperception of indifference to suffering.

This video (or at least the original Twilight Zone episode) is an example of how little it takes to ruin things through the latter.

How much of this hell is a result of the former as opposed to the latter?

Expressing anger

Just supposing one was still devo and occasionally forgot and went back to believing in evil, and feeling hate and anger, in the spirit of honesty should they express this anger?

Never express anger unless you are very close to actually using some force. Expressions of anger are Only a message that you think the person in question is evil (causing harm and just not caring, not possible to be reasoned with). All such expressions do is potentially cause the person to feel fear and thus you have indeed reduced the interaction to Force instead of Reason. We're all devo and feel anger anyway, but unless you're actually about ready to go beyond Reason, you should simply be Dishonest and Hide this.

Honesty isn't always the best policy. Finally. For the first time in my life I'm saying this.

For me you could express anger and it'd be OK. I have empathy and can see the pain which caused the anger and that you've reached a point where you feel like I'm just not even trying to understand. But apparently the vast majority of manking isn't like this. Everyone else sees the anger and assumes the worst; they assume force may be coming any second, and apparently that completely takes precedence over any attempts at empathy.

Express sadness only. And if that doesn't work, float away on the postindustrial wind.

All it takes

There's an island or whatever with 100 people as I have ten fingers. They're all good people. No one gets a kick out of hurting others. Each cares about each others pain. Nobody wants to be thought of as the most important person. Each person values the contribution made by each other.

One day a person gets killed by a freak accident while alone. Unfortunately the circumstances really really make it appear it was murder. Now, evil has been introduced (yes, this story has been done a few times before). Each person must view each other with the understanding that this might be the murderer. So they aren't as open with each other. They view each other with some suspicion and are apt to possibly think quite negative of one another.

In response to this less positive attitude people just naturally aren't as positive in return. And things go downhill.

A small bit of distrust results in feeling offended and returning that distrust twice as much. Just the possibility that one isn't liked makes people cold to one another.

Everyone is still trying to be good. But people have learned to suspect very negative things of each other. And misinterpret actions very, very negatively.

They begin responding with hate to what they perceive are just nonsensically harmful actions. Actions which couldn't possibly be performed just out of stupidity/ignorance (of the harmful consequences), that instead must be evil and thus deserve hate.

All it really took was just recognizing the possibility of evil. And communication that wasn't perfect.

And so I rail against indifference. I've been thinking it's the real problem. But even without it, maybe we're still lost.

Hate

To summarize: with thinking of evil as instead a sort of "profound stupidity" there is little to no reason in today's world to believe in hate. Hate is only of use if you think you need to physically apply force at a moments notice. Hate was probably more needed in the far past when physical violence was more of a way of life. Back then there may have been more reason to think of certain harmful acts as being based on "evil" instead of considering them a sort of profound stupidity.

To feel hate towards someone means believing in evil. Is there ever a good, logical reason to believe in evil? Does instead calling 'evil', 'profound stupidity' really change anything at all? If we instead call it profound stupidity, does the hate go away?

The way we treat one another can be loosely divided into two ways:
1. The leftwing way, where we try to reason with people.
2. The rightwing way, where we try to use force.

Does the rightwing way get good results ever?

If we believe that some people are truly incapable of being reasoned with, then the only way to get them to stop or start doing something, is to resort to force and/or threats of force.

Capitalism, BTW, is based on this concept. The idea that people won't diligently work unless they have the threat of unemployment/no money hanging over them.

Ideally we could always reason with people. But I must sadly admit it seems quite often that doing so doesn't get anywhere. The "rightwing" way often seems to be needed. Often force seems to be needed.

And so hate seems to be tied into force, is hate also needed then? Could it actually serve some useful purpose? Did we evolve it for a useful reason?

If a person is profoundly stupid (evil) or for that matter just stupid (I use the word 'stupid' very deliberately instead of ignorant as I'm talking of the situation where it definitely isn't just ignorance,) then perhaps it is unfortunately useless to reason with them. In which case there seems to be nothing for it but to turn to force. As this need for force is the same whether they are stupid or "evil" (profoundly stupid), hate does not naturally go along with force as there is no need for hate if an action can be labeled as just stupid.

In this way hate does not go along with force.

But force, which is also violence, is often better applied if you get angry, if you feel hate. The hormones get running, the blood vessels constrict, you can much better jump up and apply force.

So, although logically there is no need to feel hate in the face of harmful acts, as they can all be thought of as just different types of stupidity instead of being evil, any kind of stupidity unfortunately means that force is going to be needed. Profound stupidity (evil) may mean much more force is going to be needed as the person just flat out doesn't care that they're causing harm and is more likely to cause a lot of harm if you try to intervene.

And in order to apply that force in the past, it was very useful to get angry in order to be better able to apply that physical force. It was very useful to believe in evil in order to feel hate and thus get angry.

We have evolved to think of many harmful actions as evil instead of stupid. Thinking of them as evil caused us to feel hate. Feeling hate made us angry. Getting angry made us better able to physically apply the force that was necessary to combat the "evil", (really just stupid,) action.

It does seem that unfortunately hate serves a purpose. Or at least it really used to serve a purpose.

If I manage to remove all belief in evil from me by instead thinking of "evil" as profound stupidity, then I find I no longer feel hate. But in losing my hate towards such harmful people, I'm making myself less able to apply the force that at least in the far past was a very real part of life.

In today's world, the need for human beings to use their physical bodies to apply force upon others is mostly gone. As such, hate serves very little useful purpose. It mostly just stresses out the body and shortens the lifespan.

In today's world hate serves very, very little useful purpose. If we don't believe in evil and instead call it profound stupidity then there is no feeling of hate at all. Unfortunately we seem programmed to believe in evil. The mind must conquer the "instincts" in order to get rid of hate.

We do unfortunately still have to resort to force sometimes. But it is always the last resort. When we have to resort to force we have, to an extent, failed.