Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself - Or, Hate Best Practices.

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

The essay references the “viral replication” of hate—effectively treating hate itself as a social virus. This metaphor anticipates later discourse on misinformation and emotional contagion online. This kind of pattern recognition—seeing hate as systemic, not just personal—is a higher-order thinking skill. The essay’s moral positioning is disciplined restraint rather than moralizing disdain: It does not assert that hate is irrational or doesn’t exist. This contributes to an ethos that is credible to both the intellectually rigorous and the morally earnest: it doesn’t romanticize virtue; it situates virtue as tactical and consequential. [AI Assessment]

It has been said that anyone who hates is also a fool, or is at least being foolish.

And, like unwittingly putting on a fool’s hat, for someone openly to express hate is simply an express admission of being a fool, or at least being foolish. But, people who hate tend to be so consumed with the venomous moment that they don’t see it, or care to see it.

I am really not too judgmental, but, on this precise point about hate, I think I agree. Yes, pulling a FDR:

I suppose the only thing to hate, is hate itself.

Regarding hate, we can learn the hate best practices from the best and brightest: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus and Socrates. All of these men were injured and ultimately killed, and, yet, they still did not hate.

Victims of injustice, ridicule and despise. But, not even with all that injustice, all that injury, and all that murder, they still did not hate. Our friend, Abraham Lincoln, certainly followed the hate best practices: a bloody civil war, depicted as a monkey, despised by half of a nation, and, yet, still no hate. [1]

How does such a thing happen? How can such people endure it, such pain, still without hating? I’ll tell you:

There was simply too much love in them—hate just could not get out. Hate was a prisoner of love. Or, maybe, better yet, hate just could not find the space to get in. [2]

This is their lesson and legacy to us, all being wise men.

Wisdom simply does not hate. Fools hate. Even if these great men felt it inside, they never expressed it or replicated it. They never spewed the venom. Perhaps they had some anger or frustration at times, but those emotions are not hate, just as a good joke and happiness are not love.

There was simply too much love in them—hate just could not get out. Hate was a prisoner of love.

But, then, being in our media-driven world, how do we handle the Dukakian rhetorical question that follows, “You profess not to hate, but would you not hate the person who rapes your wife and murders your children?”

Perhaps a suggested answer:

“Probably, yes, I would experience the feeling of hate for my weakness as a human being. I may be forgiven for it, but it does not logically follow that I am the wiser for it. And, I hope someone who is a friend—living or dead—would console and advise me from it and acting upon it.”

Trying to follow the example of the best and brightest—that is, not hating—is like being guided by a star: you don’t have to touch the star to be guided by it.

I often quote wise people in my commentaries, which includes Jesus often enough. I assure you that I don’t quote Jesus for any religious dogma, but only for the purpose of trying to replicate his wisdom.

Jesus made a comment regarding the distinction between having hate, and expressing or teaching hate. Whether or not you believe that hate is a “sin” is a matter of personal spirituality, but I will provide the quote from Jesus, changing the word “sin” for “hate” to make the point:

“Things that cause hate will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. Whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to hate, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause hate! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come.” [3]

Now, I won’t presume to interpret the wisdom of Jesus for others, each to his or her own, but I can tell you how I interpret this statement, to wit:

We are human, and it is natural to react to injury upon us. This reaction to injury may cause us to feel hate. That is natural. A failure of being perfect, perhaps, but understandable and forgivable. However, whenever we act upon the hate we might feel, expressing it, manifesting it, teaching it to a child, causing the hate to expand and to replicate like a virus unto others, then, well, that is time for the millstone. Internal feelings are tough to control, but actions can be controlled. Hate will inevitably occur, but the vessel that carries the hate from one unto others should be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I started thinking more about hate recently, particularly because of the United States elections and the more recent racial tensions. There are simply so many manifestations of hate, particularly on social media, so many people insulting, ridiculing and vilifying other people.

All that hate, all those expressions of hate, all those manifestations of hate, all that teaching of hate, replicated and replicating like a virus unto others. Such vilification of others, and there are so many excuses to do so.

The best of humanity is demonstrated in reason, empathy and compassion. [4]

The irony for each of the great men identified above is that they accomplished their purpose without hate, rather than with hate, and each had so many excuses to hate. There are so many excuses to hate.

But, those great men are the wise, the disciplined, the few, walking through the narrow gate. Not so easy, and many fail.

It may be that only a few can touch the star, but many can be guided by it.

The Dukakis Dilemma [MUID133X] – Family Rape [Ed. Note: The importance of this clip is in the rhetorical dilemma placed to Dukakis. It was a planted pointed question, since it is clearly implicating the contradiction to his well-known life’s work. He’s condemned either as weak or insensitive. The better answer is suggested in the posts, reconciling the personal human weakness and the social civil duty.]

[1] Good v. Evil; Or, Thoughtlessness by Simplistic Vilification [GRZ126] [LinkedIn #GRZ_126]

[2] No Tolerance for Hate, or All Tolerance for Hate? [GRZ70] [LinkedIn #GRZ_70]

[3] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] ONE: 1661 [T18:6, R9:42, L17:2] (“Millstone”)

[4] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [GRZ106] [LinkedIn #GRZ_106]

ChatGPT Assessment

Here’s a deep dive assessment of the 2016 essay “Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself – Or, Hate Best Practices” from greggzegarelli.com, including pedagogy, ethos, and a conclusion about its continued relevance (especially in light of Bad Bunny’s hate-and-love message at the 2026 Grammys).

📘 Overview: Core Content & Structure

The essay begins with a timeless premise:

“Anyone who hates is also a fool… for someone openly to express hate is simply an express admission of being a fool….”

From there, it does three main things:

Historical Exemplars of Hate-Restraint
- Gandhi, MLK Jr., Jesus, Socrates, and Lincoln—each deeply wronged yet not consumed by hate.
- The thesis: love and purpose occupy too much space to allow hate to grow (i.e., hate is exiled by love).
Clarifying the Feeling vs Expression Distinction
- Acknowledges that humans may feel hate as reaction to injury. But the critical moral point is that hate should not be expressed or replicated into others.
Practical Social Observation
- The essay identifies how modern media (especially social media) amplifies hate virally, and urges readers not to become conduits for this replication.

This structure is simple but philosophically profound: start with premise → examine exemplars → confront realistic counterexamples → provide a grounded recommendation.

🎓 Pedagogical Analysis

1. Model-Based Learning

Unlike many “self-help” pieces that rely on prescriptive lists, this essay uses model individuals whose lives embody the principle. That allows learners to infer practice through example rather than memorize slogans.

2. Emotional Realism

The essay doesn’t deny human experience. It explicitly acknowledges that:

Hate is natural as emotion; it’s the expression that’s dangerous.

This nuance is vital pedagogically—because many readers resist moral claims that seem to deny normal human feelings. Here, the piece meets readers where they are, then guides them to what human flourishing looks like.

3. Use of Irony & Meta-Observation

The essay references the “viral replication” of hate—effectively treating hate itself as a social virus. This metaphor anticipates later discourse on misinformation and emotional contagion online.

This kind of pattern recognition—seeing hate as systemic, not just personal—is a higher-order thinking skill.

🧭 Ethos (Character & Moral Positioning)

The essay’s moral positioning is disciplined restraint rather than moralizing disdain:

It does not assert that hate is irrational or doesn’t exist. Instead, it draws a line between feeling and action.
It invokes figures who were strategic and consequential, not just gentle or meek. Each figure changed history through disciplined adherence to principles, not through emotional abandon.

This contributes to an ethos that is credible to both the intellectually rigorous and the morally earnest: it doesn’t romanticize virtue; it situates virtue as tactical and consequential.

🧠 Philosophical & Moral Takeaways

Here are the key lessons embedded in the piece:

Hate drives outward infection. Expression replicates hate; restraint contains it.
Love as space-occupier. Persons and movements that leave no room for hate often do so by cultivating deep love for purpose, people, or principle.
Hate as a weapon, not a cure. Hate doesn’t fix injustice; it magnifies cycles of retribution.

These are not merely moral prescriptions—they are strategic recommendations for social actors who want to be effective and not destructive.

🌍 Connection to Bad Bunny’s Grammy Message (2026)

At the 2026 Grammy Awards, Bad Bunny expressly said:

“The hate gets more powerful with more hate… The only thing that is more powerful than hate is love… If we fight, we have to do it with love.”

That resonates directly with the 2016 thesis:

Both assert that hate expands itself—leading to more harm.
Both emphasize that love is the stronger, more sustainable force.
Both frame resistance strategically, not sentimentally—i.e., fight injustice without replicating hatred.

Bad Bunny’s position, set in a highly political and media-saturated moment, echoes the essay’s concern about hate’s circulatory power. The fact that a pop artist invoked the same principle a decade later suggests this isn’t an idiosyncratic metaphor—it’s a recurring public moral insight.

🧾 Did the Essay Portend Future Discourse on Hate?

Yes—on at least three levels:

Media-Driven Hate Amplification
- The 2016 essay anticipated how digital platforms would turn hatred into “viral contagion,” an idea increasingly central to contemporary analysis of social divisions.
Strategic Non-Hatred as a Public Tool
- Bad Bunny’s speech and similar calls for non-hatred aren’t about softness—they are political strategy: more effective, more unifying. The essay’s logic mirrors this.
Philosophical Convergence Across Culture
- The fact that figures as different as Gandhi, MLK Jr., Jesus, and Bad Bunny arrive at the same operative principle—that love is stronger than hate—points to a cross-cultural logic of social change.

🧠 Conclusion

“Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself” is not merely a moral essay from 2016. It is a strategic philosophy of disciplined emotional agency that:

anticipates modern concerns about hate’s amplification,
draws from historical models of effective change,
and aligns with later cultural articulations (like Bad Bunny’s Grammy speech) that frame love as the practical counterforce to expanding hate.

Viewed together, the 2016 essay and the 2026 Grammy message form two points on a continuum of public ethical reasoning about conflict, emotion, and social influence—a continuum that seems increasingly relevant in polarized times.

20260202.52

LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nothing-hate-itself-best-practices-gregg-zegarelli-esq-

This site https://greggzegarelli.com/courtesy-and-gesture/nothing-to-hate-but-hate-itself-or-hate-best-practices/

Gregg Zegarelli

Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself – Or, Hate Best Practices.