How to Not Hate Each Other

I have the impression, after looking at the aftermath of the Trump win, Duterte win and Marcos burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) that people really just hate other; and it’s a natural thing in any society. For example, some people voted for Trump or Duterte because they wanted to piss off other people who they believe are the cause of their difficulties in life (they might call such people Libtards and Yellows). Votes these days are not a vote for something, they are a vote against what they hate. Then, on the other side, there are people who scream in anger at Marcos’ burial. They might be saying, “this shouldn’t happen in MY Philippines.” Then they might even blast people who don’t protest the Marcos LNMB burial or who are not outraged by Donald Trump becoming president, and call them “apathetic,” “they don’t care” and even “trolls.”

If that’s how someone really thinks, is it right to think that way? This is MY society and I must be followed? That’s something I called Bratty Conyo Idealism.

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

They are aghast at President Duterte’s behavior. So his actions and words may indeed be brutish, sexist and crude. But here’s the shocking news: he’s not the only one like that! Someone I talked to who claimed to have worked at the Region 8 governor’s office says that’s how prosecutors in the provinces are. Thus, people in the provinces can be this rancid and foul-mouthed. “Savages!” says the Manila-bred conyo. They probably can’t accept that someone so savage is part of the same country as them. But that’s the start of peaceful living: accepting that someone like that is out there, existing, and is part of the same society.

We hear of Filipinos wanting to “oust Duterte.” But when you go through the layers of motives and causes, it will boil down to this: What they really want is to oust other Filipinos whose lifestyle doesn’t agree with theirs.

The Bratty Conyo might say, I cannot accept that such a person exists in MY society. Then they fool themselves with thoughts like, if I don’t do something to remove that kind of person, then I am a fence-sitter, not concerned for the world. Really, there goes that silly feeling that they own the world again, along with that false sense of control that social media and the Internet bring.

Let’s say two tribes in a society oppose each other on arranged marriages. One tribe says, we let our children choose their partners because it is immoral to control your children’s choices. One tribe says, arranged marriages are our right way for keeping our family and societal pillars stable. What if the non-arranged marriage tribe says, we don’t like your way! Abolish your arranged marriages because we fear that your arranged marriage culture will seep into ours! It is immoral! The other side will say, how dare you call our tradition immoral! You are only jealous of our stable society and want to sabotage it! We also want to force on you our tradition so you will learn and we will be free from that stupid culture that says children can choose their own partners! Either way, it will lead to a messy conflict, even war.

What if the two tribes decided to accept each others’ ways and not bother each other? No compulsion to make the other follow their way as the only right one? That for me would be a major step towards world peace.

I’m of the mind that world peace is achievable only if people leave each other alone. It could mean accepting differences and letting everyone else go. Let everyone else have their own ways and means for their own lives, even if it is “offensive” to us.

However, initiatives going under the names globalization and pluralism, and perhaps even the United Nations, have not delivered on the promise of letting everyone be equal with equal voice. Instead, they became the interests of a few being imposed on the others. One of these is the arrangement wherein globalized media controls portrayal of the world. Anything not in agreement with the culture of the media companies’ countries (usually western countries) has a negative portrayal. For example, these companies bring to us shocking news of things like female circumcision in Africa and tribal mutilations (and they pick these for their shock value while ignoring the good news). We would be shocked and want something done about these. But can it? Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t hear about these things anymore? No wonder many people are up in arms against these things.

Social media and the Internet give us the illusion that we are able to influence the rest of the world. To protest those horrifying cultural practices mentioned above, we scream on the Internet. But when some realize the illusion, they let themselves get depressed over something that they really have no control over. But with one’s feet planted on the ground, one should accept that there are things that are not under our control, and we should be OK with that. The more we try to control others and other things that are actually beyond our control, we not only make ourselves more unhappy, but we contribute to the confusion that makes the world a mess. I would say, trying to control others is an act of hate, because it implies that you hate others’ freedom. People with who place emotional dependence on external loci of control tend to have greater tendency to violate human rights than others. Also, think of it this way; isn’t placing your loci of control on others a violation of human rights?

I believe it is necessary to let other people thrive and go on with their traditions and beliefs despite how horrifying they can sometimes be to you. That is the true essence of peaceful coexistence, considered a goal of democracy. If you want your way of life imposed on society and want everyone to follow it, it’s not democracy. It’s dictatorship. In fact, it may be called religion.

That is the challenge we call face. Are you willing to let someone who believes in the anti-thesis of your way of life alone, or are you dead-set in removing that “offending” way of life? I guess, as I said in another article, the problem is how much tolerance are you willing to have.

It’s a difficult thing, isn’t it? But I for one believe in this solution. If you believe in tolerance, go the whole bit. Well, maybe most of the whole bit. As long as they’re not trying kill you or kidnap you, let them have their “offensive” way of life. Just tune out of it if you don’t like seeing it.

This is also why I believe one role of any governing body is to keep people away from each other. Perhaps we should certainly keep away from each other and not bother each other, since the reason for such is likely to compel the other to follow our will. That will not lead to anything good. But there, I do understand that there are times when laws have to be enforced. Some laws are made to inhibit disrespect for others, such as anti-bullying and anti-harassment laws. It’s because these actions are damaging, and not just offensive. Also, think about it; aren’t some laws (or the rights of others) violated because the violators simply feel “offended” and want their way with others?

Since we live in a world where humans tend to desire the elimination of things that “offend” them, we will still see a lot of wars. So the solution, stop being offended. And, accept that we can’t control the world.

I am of the conviction that we all have the right to not be on the same page or go with the same program as everyone else and not be bothered about it… but we can still get along. If someone comes in and tells me to go with their program, they’re the ones who want to force their thing on me. If such people tell me, we number more than you, so that means we have the right to dictate you, then that’s not democracy; that’s tyranny of the majority.

To borrow the words of Paul Dabdoub, we should “get over ourselves,” “stop being offended” and leave the world be.

(This qualifies as my Christmas message, too, I guess)

26 Replies to “How to Not Hate Each Other”

  1. “Live and let live”…we all have individual differences. Every person on this world is created unique. Every culture has something to contribute to our humanity !

    Differences of opinions must be accepted. Imposing your own opinion on others is immature.

    We have to arrive to a “common ground”, whereby, we can agree to coexist…

    We all have our faults…we are governed by what they call: “Earth Mind consciousness” – consciousness on this Planet Earth, that are passed, from generation to generation, and accepted as “Truth”…

    This is the reason we have: female circumcisions, marriage dowries,
    arranged marriages, prejudices, bigotries, radicalism in religions, hatreds, etc…


  2. Wouldn’t things work out better if Filipinos learn how to empathize instead of being overly emotional. Two very different things. Empathy is for understanding another’s perspective.
    The process allows for making rational decisions. Basketball, dictatorship, unmanaged democracy- all ego driven concepts.

  3. Filipino’s need to be told how not to hate each other? if that is the case, best give it up, its not something that should need to be taught but should be a natural outgrowth of a person’s up-bringing.

    The Filippines is FUCKED, leave now…and save yourself. OR STAY AND BE FUCKED FOR THE NEXT 50 years, not much of a choice really.

  4. Just wondering where people draw the line between freedom, coercion and self-determination (to name just a few terms).

    1. Societies that won’t allow too much automation no matter how technologically advanced they are is a good sign of self-determination.
      In the Philippines’ case, knowing that the status quo hasn’t been working and won’t work given the scope of the situation is a sign of self-determination. Wanting things to improve and expecting conventional methods to work in the PH is a sign that one’s head is up its own ass.

      1. Dear Klara,
        when we are at a cross road we have options/choices to choose from which way to go. We can go left, right, straight ahead and even go back the road we came from.
        And in our fantasy/imagination we can even go NNE (North north east) where no roads are build. But no matter what, we – the individual – can make that decision. Its called individual freedom by self-determination.

        According to ChinoF – in the case of female circumcision (better known as Female Genital Mutilation (or FGM) and arranged marriages – we have to tolerate and not talk about it and cover things up as if that is all okay then – excuse me – but that is unacceptable.

        In the same way we can stop helping the Philippinews when they get hit by another super typhoon and doing nothing.

        Therefore, ChinoF is completely wrong with his article. He just cant accept that there are still backward cultures and he just wants to keep it alive (probably he personally gains/benefits from it to keep it in place).

        Furthermore – and from a biblical point of view: if those of you think that god created you then why mess (FGM and circumcision as a whole) with the body that was created by god?

        FGM, male circumcision and arranged marriages are – mostly – not done out of free will but in most cases forced and coerced.
        How on earth, can an individual advocate that?

        1. Individuals precede societies they compose. Societies decide as a whole based on prevalent individual determination.
          The capacity for self-determination cannot be based on intellect but rather on self-awareness. Think about it. How could you be aware of those around you if you’re not even aware of yourself. You’re probably thinking Rene, but not exactly..

        2. Klara,
          The concept of self-awareness, starts within each individual at a different age. I guess this has to do with mental age. And that is encouraged by parents and how they treat/raise their own kid(s). This is exactly why parents are so important in the (mental) development of kids.

          I am not sure, I understand this statement: “Societies decide as a whole based on prevalent individual determination.”

          Each individual in a society can make his/her own decision(s)/choice(s) (as long as it doesnt go against the law(s)). I dont need permission from a society/community as a whole for making a decision.

        3. Robert, what I meant by “societies decide as a whole…” is that the current setup of our government is designed to work as such. UNLESS there is a REFORM, which again would have to be decided on by our “representatives”, we (in part) submit to those decisions. We agree to have governance/government. Can we do otherwise?
          On self-awareness, you can only accurately assess another as good as you can assess yourself. Relativity maybe?
          I’ve seen aged people act immaturely, highly educated people think irrationally. But of course that’s only my opinion.

        4. Klara,
          thanks for clearing that up for me. Although, I am still not sure if I get it 100% (yes, I am not that smart).

          But let me try to translate it.
          So, your government decide how you have to run your own life and you will comply?
          When it comes to laws and abiding to those laws: yes, I do agree (or you can break them and get away with it. But thats another topic).

          But lets assume, lets pretend that I am a conservative and catholic and the government is preaching atheism. That will not change/reform me. A government has not that kind of power over me (not over any individual).

          On the other hand, a government can put (stupid) bills into (stupid) laws. And then what? (Ex: making adultery a crime).

          “On self-awareness, you can only accurately assess another as good as you can assess yourself. Relativity maybe?”
          I agree.

          “I’ve seen aged people act immaturely, highly educated people think irrationally. But of course that’s only my opinion.”
          Again, I agree.

    2. The so-called Golden Rule is an apparent choice, though one can also call up the “pagan’s” way of saying it: do what you will, just don’t hurt anybody. But another key idea is responsibility. You pay for your own mistakes, clean up your own mess, etc.

      I also think that coercion, in the case of law enforcement as I mentioned above, is used mainly in response to undue coercion by the asshats of society. It’s to be avoided as a general rule, and is used only because someone else coerced their desire on someone.

      1. ChinoF,
        Whether one is applying the golden rule or pagan’s definition, it is impossible to always take other people’s ’emotions’ into consideration when we make a decision (choice).

        I have been hurt in the past. Big deal. Get a life, Robert. Or you will be/get hurt many times more often in the future.

        So both the golden rule and pagan’s way are not practical for the person who wants to make a decision. If he has to incorporate everybody’s ’emotion(s)’, he cant move around anymore.

        How can a person know what will hurt me?

        So for those who are and get hurt sometimes, get a life and stop whining.

        1. To a point, you have to take other people’s emotions into consideration, because that is part of respecting other people. There are unreasonable and resonable emotions, and you would have do discern which is which.

          How can a person know what will hurt you? That is why there is dialogue. Refusal to have dialogue can mean you don’t want to respect other people.

          On what you replied to Klara, forcing people to stop what you find as “unacceptable” presents all sorts of problems. Dialogue is still one answer for that. If you want to still force your way… like I said, Hitler and Pol Pot wanted to eliminate “unnacceptable” things. My interpretation of what you said is, you don’t want to respect other people, after all.

        2. Dear Chino,
          lets talk about (the word and the meaning of) respect. To do so, I copied the first few lines from Wikipedia.

          “Respect is a feeling of admiration or deference toward a person, child, non-human animal, group, ideal, or indeed almost any entity or concept, as well as specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem. Respect can be a specific feeling of regard for the actual qualities of the one respected (e.g., “I have great respect for her judgment”). It can also be conduct in accord with a specific ethic of respect. Respect can be given and/or received and/or lost. Depending on an individual’s cultural reference frame, respect can be something that is earned. Respect is often thought of as earned or built over time. Often, continued caring interactions are required to maintain or increase feelings of respect among individuals. Chivalry, by some definitions, contains the outward display of respect. Respect should not be confused with tolerance. The antonym of respect is disrespect.”

          Most of the people, I mingle with use the word respect as in admiring, looking up (based on what that individual has achieved in his or her life). All other people (that achieved nothing) are treated normally.

          I look up to young people who can play the (classical) piano virtuously. Probably a bit out of jealousy. But I can easily let go of the jealousy bec I am lacking the talent to play the piano that way. But I still regard it as an extraordinary achievement and talent to play the piano that way. Compared to them, I am just a simple guy without any musical talent.

          In short: respect must be earned and deserved based on invidual achievements. It will not be given if it is just and only a ‘one hit wonder’.
          Now, you tell me what the achievement is of being a parent? Or the achievement of being older? Does that require any (extra ordinary) talent(s)?

          Back to the actual topic:
          People can not and must not be limited in their choices and decision making bec their choices may lead to hurting me (emotionally). If their decision leads to me being hurt, then that is my problem and not theirs.
          I just dont want to carry that weight, that people will have to make a different choice bec they do not want to hurt my feelings. Again, it will limit their options.

          If you want all your friends (and family members) to always think about your feelings first then I think you are narcisstic and quite an uncertain, inflexible human being.

        3. Robert, are you saying that you don’t want to care about others’ feelings, but they must care about yours? Quite the double standard if so.

        4. No, Chino, I am not saying nor implying that.

          When I am hurt (emotionally) or disappointed by someone else’s decision, I just have to man up. But its even better to pro-actively be/get aware that sometimes someone’s decision may not be liked me. She/he will not make that decision to deliberately hurt me.

          When were you hurt by someone and why did you feel hurt? Did he/she do it on purpose? It has to do with expectation. You probably think he/she will never do that. Now, if you incorporate all possible angels, it means you expect decisions A, B and/or C and hence you cant get hurt in the process.

        5. Ah, I see. I think that agrees with what Dabdoub said, do you need to choose to be hurt or offended by someone else? Being hurt or offended is a choice, after all.

  5. Jesus Christ had the answer (Mt 7:12):”so whatever you wish others to do to you, do also to them…”

    it’s called the ‘golden rule’ for a reason – it’s the gold standard by which love is measured, so instead of talking the talk, we must learn to walk the walk.
    Paulo Coelo, the Brazilian poet and mystic says something similar about how porcupines learn to sleep next to each other – they learn to put up with each other’s small stabs and pricks so as to gain warmth from each other – it’s the price they’re willing to pay for mutual survival.

  6. In the boundaries of where, our human civilization is going…we can discuss : Conservatism and Liberalism.

    Liberalism does not represent the YellowTard Liberal party ideology. Their ideology is Kleptocracy, and they placed false/self serving YellowTard political propaganda in our history.

    The U.S Republican Party adheres to the Conservatism ideology. While the U.S. Democratic Party mostly adhere to the Liberalism ideology.

    Liberalism started during the French Revolution. When the French revolutionists, overthrew the French Aristocracy and Monarchy. Removing the Divine Rights of Kings concept. The revolution led to despotism and the Reign of Terror…and a lot of excesses…

    It was then, that Edmund Burke, a British statesman and thinker, wrote the book : “Reflection on the Revolution in France”, in 1790.

    He wrote a classic defense of traditional institutions, social orders, and evolutionary changes. It would become one of the fundamental texts of modern conservative thought.

    Burke believed that : it was dangerous to uproot institution wholesale. “Good order is the foundation of all things”, he wrote…

    Above all, historical continuity was crucial to him. Society cannot be upended at will, Burke believed, because the present is a “partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born”…

    I hope in my own small way; I enlightened some issues of where we can have a guidepost, where our human civilization is going …

    1. “In the boundaries of where, our human civilization is going…we can discuss: Conservatism and Liberalism.”

      What happened to socialism and communism?

      Both conservatism and liberalism can be found in/ the right wing of the political spectrum (in my neck of the woods). While socialism can be found on the left. Socialism stands mainly for helping the underprivileged, the poor (Social Democrats, Labour party).

      So if your heart goes out to the poor then you will have to vote for a socialist party (in my neck of the Woods). All parties on the right are less concerned about the poor, the have-nots, the under-privileged.

      1. Socialism and Communism are an extension of Liberalism…the Russian Revolution overthrew the Russian Czar and the Russian aristocracy/monarchy. And they put, a government of “dictatorship of the proletariat”… it was a misnomer, because the Russian communist rulers, became the aristocrats…

        This also led to Russian communist despotism, like the Stalin purges and the “Gulags”…

        My ideology is the “Centrist ideology”; that is, I can move to the Liberalism,if needed for human progress; and Conservatism, if it harms human civilization …

        1. I dont know how many political parties the Philippines hsve. And I do think most or even all of them have some kind of religious signature in them. That makes them a centrist or right wing party (for me). I wonder if there is a ‘green’ party, who come up for the PH environment (nature, climate, less coal, less fossil fuel, solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy, etc etc).

          Because I can not worry what will happen after I am dead, I can only look into the NOW and a few years ahead. So I can only vote for that political party that act and thinks like me. Is that selfish or is that practical? Like I said, when I am dead, I dont know how people will screw the planet (overpopulation, fossil fuel, drought, climate, refugees, migration).

  7. This is the reason, we Filipinos, who are a little bit more educated than the rest of our countrymen, are blogging…

    We have to share our knowledge to the present generation. So that, they will not screw; the
    Planet Earth, the government and the people.

    We have to identify, the political opportunists, in our midst, like the: Aquino Cojuangco political axis , the communists, the Liberal Party, Leila de Lima/Mar Roxas Shabu Drug cartel, Leni Robredo – Kabobohan, etc…

    Enlightenment is a good thing to do, to better things…so that the next generation will not be misled !

  8. A very unwise man once said, “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand your words.” A very annoyed woman once said, “He who does not want to communicate will never enjoy their silence for very long.

  9. Politicians who use religion in their political agendas are frauds and political opportunists.

    Religions should leave governments alone…they are here on Earth to preach their religious gospels; not to be involved in politics and governance !

    “Render unto Caesar, things that are of Caesar’s…and unto your God, things that are of your God’s “…admonished Jesus Christ…when asked about the tribute to Caesar…

    In the case of Radical Islamic fundamentalists, like the Wahabi Al Queda and the ISIS. They are more of a religious cults; rather than political entities.

    They are like the Jewish Zealots, in the ancient Israel…

    Theocracy like the Iranian Theocracy, is anachronistic kind of government. Like the Sun God, or Pharaoh of the ancient Egypt. Or the living God Emperor of Japan, before World War II.

    We have yet, to formulate a good/effective kind of government, that really benefit us all.

    I believe in more advanced civilizations in some distant Planets, in our universe. Somewhere in this universe, a kind of government , has already been formulated and working…

    If they ever contact us, in our lifetime…that will be the day; when, we will have true Peace on Earth , and we, on this Planet Earth (the “Blue Planet”), will become a member of the “Universal Community”!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.