I took part at the Internet in a chat forum called "Culture." After an initial welcome by the relatively few "veterans," I expressed strong opposition to certain posts that went against religious subjects that I don't particularly cherish yet qualify as deserving respect. Worse, I really expressed strong disapproval of other posts that I found disgusting, although I might have exaggerated my criticism. As a result, I became the butt of systematic, shameful rhetoric attacks. I decided to respond in kind, to the point of writing not less shameful posts when I really felt angry. But mostly, I enjoyed making fun of the clique, in a way that I considered witty. Truly, they gave up their losing battle against me, and left the chat forum, which has remained almost deserted since then. I'm confessing here and now, unabashedly, that I fully enjoyed those rhetoric fights.

Still, I consider myself a philosopher, and as such, I looked for lessons to learn from the experience. I posted at the chat forum the following two writings, intending to expose a philosopher as a frail human being.

To the 'Culture' wackos: I have received in the course of a week the following two hate mails. They are added to a long list of previous hate-filled manifestations. Please, could somebody be so kind as to tell me, "Jake, you awaken in me a deep, ineffable emotion of utter INDIFFERENCE?" There are in this forum a number of manipulators, male and female, the latter either not knowing --or preferring not to know-- their childish character. I choose to give them a good slap in their childish behinds, for lack of better means to stimulate their emotional grow.

The first: "Jake, I read your disgusting response to me. You are aggressive and lacking of basic class. I am not impressed by your pretentious posts, and I use a different criteria to determine if someone is a "mench" or not. You are not a mench, not by a stretch. I do have a lot of patience and giving energy with a friend. I have come to a point of determining you are not a friend to me. This is perfectly ok with me, but I will not bullshit (too bad, shut your eyes), and pretend I believe you are a friend. I tell it like it is, Jake. I will not tell you now "take it or leave it", since you don't have that option anymore with me. You are leaving it as of this moment."

The second: "Jacob, referring to my past at Culture defines your character. What kind of a man would do such a thing? I do not owe you nor anybody else any explanation. I know the innocent character of that post of mine. You were wrong!!! (in your evaluation of it.) I hate you because of what you just wrote at the forum and expect you to leave it. At any rate, you should know that such offense is unerasable. And I prefer to leave it at that."
(Note: this has been the second time that she has decided to hate me...)

I had believed that Hate is the 'other side' of Love. Recent observations at the study-field chat forum known as 'Culture' have provided me with revolutionary insight on the subject. The inmates were submitted to scathing stimuli, to which they responded with extraordinary vigor, as manifested by their primordial hate responses. In the hate mails reported above, I find support to Nietzche's contention that the sexes are prone to fight in order to preserve their independence and their feeling of self-value. In fact, it might be argued that Love tethers under the danger of leading to submission and acceptance. Hate, on the other hand, is an all-powering leader toward feelings of superiority and independence.
In a wider scale, Hate saves the Self from subtraction by another Self. Quite oppositely, it feels capable of subtracting rival Selves. This entirely new insight of my D-SP explains also:

1. - Unwarranted hatred.
Indeed, it should be clear by now that such hate serves to enhance the self-image by creating a sense of self-importance. It is tantamount to thinking, "I consider myself superior to those I hate."

2. - Hate preserves individuality and creativity.
Not that humans should welcome such apparent "values." It is just a path that evolutionary pressures found valid for the preservation of our species. Specifically, such trait developed in advanced primates, reaching its climax in H. Sapiens' brain. Survival of the species benefited by the development of collective hate toward predators, which were eventually considered as envoys of malignant spirits.
As human groups emerged, hate promoted means for surviving competition for scarce resources. It becomes now clear, through D-SP, that hate thrives wherever and whenever an unexpected state of resources deprivation visits a society accustomed to a good standard of living, which it considers as a given. Then, at an individual level, hate is a mover, because a clear target has been defined. Love, in contrast, is forgiving, resulting in the absence of clear targets, since love is acceptance and submission.
It ought to be understood that hate is tamed by education, assuming then milder manifestations, such as "a feeling of hostility."

Well, I can't think of more to add, so that there it goes, fresh from the neuronal oven, to the learned visitors of Culture forum. Learned reactions are expected to deluge this forum.

(Note: not a single response was posted, learned or not)

. ADDENDUM: I have edited and expanded somewhat the present post --on Hate and Love-- for purposes of publication here at my Page in Geocities.