Is it more likely? Does anyone assume that because they hate someone everyone else also does? I'd think it more likely that they'd believe everyone else should hate them - but that's a different issue.
I do, however, agree that the 80% hate / 20% tolerate / 0% like is an exaggeration.
This came off an LJ debate (which was locked so I'm being a bit wary about saying too much that might identify the author/other debaters) where the initial author was taking the line that annoying people should be engaged with despite their annoyingness and said that: 1. this would enhance their social skills through interactions with others and 2. this was the human/charitable thing to do.
There was some support (about 40%) for that and the people who objected generally put it down to a few key reasons: 1. Who the annoying people are is subjective (if you don't spend time with them, then someone who likes them will and that must be better) 2. That it isn't improving their social skills as you're effectively sending them a false signal 3. That it's stopping annoying people from finding others who genuinely like them as they are (this is another version of 1. really) 4. That they didn't see why it was their role to look after the annoying people
(and someone linked to the list - which is how I found it)
Interestingly, the closest anyone came to your point was 1. and 3. despite there seeming to be a wide range of viewpoints. I guess we all see things differently.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 02:30 pm (UTC)I do, however, agree that the 80% hate / 20% tolerate / 0% like is an exaggeration.
This came off an LJ debate (which was locked so I'm being a bit wary about saying too much that might identify the author/other debaters) where the initial author was taking the line that annoying people should be engaged with despite their annoyingness and said that:
1. this would enhance their social skills through interactions with others
and
2. this was the human/charitable thing to do.
There was some support (about 40%) for that and the people who objected generally put it down to a few key reasons:
1. Who the annoying people are is subjective (if you don't spend time with them, then someone who likes them will and that must be better)
2. That it isn't improving their social skills as you're effectively sending them a false signal
3. That it's stopping annoying people from finding others who genuinely like them as they are (this is another version of 1. really)
4. That they didn't see why it was their role to look after the annoying people
(and someone linked to the list - which is how I found it)
Interestingly, the closest anyone came to your point was 1. and 3. despite there seeming to be a wide range of viewpoints. I guess we all see things differently.