So, You Hate Anti-ism

So, You Hate Anti-ism

A while back, I had a discussion with my brother-in-law, Matt. He’s quite an interesting chap. Matt believes in the Philosophy of So--that is, the philosophy that any statement can be effectively responded to with the question “So?”--or, as he calls it, So-phism: which is not to be confused with sophism. (My only regret is that I couldn’t pack more punctuation into that sentence!)

“I like chocolate.”
“So?”
“My feet hurt.”
“So?”
“If we don’t fix this program, it will effectively wipe out the progress of the 20th and 21st centuries?”
“So?”

This is not to be confused with the Cornholio model of retort.

“I like chocolate.”
“Are you threatening me?”

Feel free to try either with your boss sometime. (Disclaimer: Neither Wentzmania.com nor any person associated with Wentzmania.com endorse your trying either with your boss sometime.)

That’s not what the discussion was about. But it is related. You see, Matt is a philosophical guru, of sorts. And when I say “philosophical guru, of sorts,” I mean he says some things that I have never thought of, heard of, or find life-affirming . . . of. But his thoughts are interesting.

It started when I made the incorrect assumption that he was “anti” something or other. He wasn’t, and told me so. (not “So?”)

He’s not anti-everything. He HATES everything. This threw me for I never knew of a discernable difference between the two. (I try not to clutter my thoughts with thinking.) And there is a difference.

Ironically (you’ll find out later), I asked him to explain himself. The following are my interpretations of his comments and then my own further depths of idea in the area.

Hate is an emotional response. Anti-ism is more of an intellectual response.

For examples:

Anti-ism:
“I’m anti-chocolate.”
“How could you be anti-chocolate? Explain yourself!”

Hate:
“I hate chocolate.”
“Oh, I like chocolate. Well, gotta go.”

As you can clearly see by these two bogus exchanges, anti-ism essentially begins a discussion whereas hate all but ends a discussion; especially if you hate it in a grumpy fashion. As someone who is anti- stuff, I can tell you that if you mention you’re anti- something, you’d better be “on.” People will often want to know exactly why you’re anti- that thing. That’s often difficult, considering that sometimes it’s been years since I’ve decided I was anti- something and I don’t necessarily remember ALL of the reasons why I was anti- it or ALL of the sources I used to arrive at those reasons. That’s the other thing with anti- ism: you have to have valid reasons.

Valid anti-ism
“I’m anti-Green Bay Packers. They’re considered great, even though they only have one great player. They play on a field that is artificially heated, but claim it to be frozen. They swindled money from the tax-payers to renovate the stadium. And they all too often beat the Vikings.”

Invalid anti-ism
“I’m anti-Green Bay Packers. They’re all boogerheads.”

Again, there is more expected from someone who is anti than from someone who hates. If you were to say you hate the Green Bay Packers and then launch into why you hate them, sooner or later the response would be “Yeah, you hate the Green Bay Packers. We get it.” (The correct response is, of course, “So?”)

Furthermore, there’s no counter to hate. That’s not true with anti-ism. If you say you’re anti-Green Bay Packers and give the above reasons, there’s a counter to every argument. Perhaps they are no longer considered great. Maybe they have more than one great player. Maybe it is a myth that they heat the “frozen” field. Perhaps the stadium was renovated with money collected from bake sales. Maybe they don’t have a good record against the Vikings. By being anti-something, you open yourself up to unfortunate verifications.

However, if you say you hate the Green Bay Packers, there are no points to counter. If you say “I hate the Green Bay Packers,” one could not realistically say “Actually, you don’t.” Well, maybe if you were hooked up to a lie detector. But how often are those things around when you’re talking about how much you hate the Green Bay Packers? Not very often, at least by my experience.

So the value in hate is that it takes much less effort and there is no counteraction. Debate starts. Debate ends. I win. What could be better?

Looking back on what I’ve written, Matt comes across as being negating, hateful, anti-social, impatient, and no fan of the Green Bay Packers.

So?

return to Commentary index

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.

mark@wentzmania.com.