dislike of ‘false’ members of a group
one of the ideas Jung had called “uncanny” refered to a form of horror/discomfort caused by things being close to right but off. in present technology occulus rift style virtual reality simulators could induce nausia/motion-sickness by being delayed enough that the brain realizes that the thing percieved is off. this is in contemporary terms due to the body interpreting the delay as drug induced thus emptying the stomach reduces or removes the poison impairing perception.
when it comes to ideologies people hate mild/minor disagreements more than large ones, arguably due to similar sensations. for example you might find some indigenous religion to be so different you might see it as more genuine than someone who shares nearly all the same structural beliefs as your own ideology, except one. like perhaps the holy spirt not existing, so there was a Jesus and god duality (or if still a trinity, maybe mary is considered a fully divine agent).
it is similar but different enough that it is challenging to world view perception. now either you can distrust your sensory perception like the lag of the VR helmet, or in this case the important parts of religion/ideology. but either way things seem wrong in terms of how they are presented by the other person. now you have a choice, you can either assume the error is in you, or project the error upon the speaker. most people do that projection also through another little ‘trick’ of the mind where people when ‘wronged’ (contextually being lied-to) they exacerbate the situation. this was tested with punching but it probably has a basal emotion escalation component as well which continues through to words.
in short, people hate others who are similar more often because it is easier to hate that group. it is easier to identify ‘something wrong’ and it escalates faster when you have a ventured interest like esteem, or personal identity in reality being that way. much of reality is what we (as social groups) make of it. i might say ‘isis and osiris are the same thing actually’, which by virtue of being something few care about, doesn’t cause a lot of emotional escalation (they aren’t btw).
my comments in my xanga blog were wondering if people can really define themselves well. in extension to this concept of uncanny, a rational person must realize that disagreements will happen. that how language works is through a process of evolution, mostly with intergenerational change and with the words generally migrating slowly but occationally completely flipping and inverting ir-regardless of what was before. some of the more obvious shifts are change in how technical a word is, which tends towards general use, and more rarely where words invert or double up a stem. x becomes para-x, pro-x, or anti-x.
in great britain it was recently noticed that the word christian had lost the meaning of christ in a literal sense. the general public thought christ was a general term for ‘good person’ (probably confused with the allegory of the good Samaritan) rather than the formal sense of a specific character. a similar thing happened with irony and the various “their/there/they’re”. christian had it’s meaning change due to argument type/grounds and the near ubiquity of the church of england. it isn’t hard to notice that people who see christ as a really important character, may be confronted with this and be upset because there are so many similarities besides that; protestant, nearly shared language/culture, similar worldview, similar place within worldview.
and that is where allot of the hate comes from. it is probably more basaly linked as Nadia mentioned (also on xanga), to creating and raising viable offspring.
the biggest problem with claiming group membership is what authority do you have the definition as being legitimate? is a Christian someone who does as chirst (water to wine for example), who does what christ demanded/dictated, who was an apostle of christ, someone who is socially part of the christian faith, someone who is ‘of the cloth’, someone who manifests the spirit on earth?
do they have to believe anything doctrinally? if so what and by whose authority?
there are allot of really hard questions about objective identity. and subjective identity where people can just claim to be part of a group means that they can corrode the meaning of the group if they so wish.
more simply, do people have the fundamental right to self define, or to label others?
do you have a right to interpret all object within reality, or are you obligated by cultural postmodernism to look beyond certain traits as grounds for relation or causation and grant no label upon others but merely accept their person hood through accepting their purported identity uncritically?
to reprise, is a jerk a jerk because of inherent self identity and their own explicit omission of guilt? or is it a projection of identity due to selfish interpretation of circumstance?
can someone’s character be judged for their actions or their repercussions, or do people have to explicitly identify as being something to be it, and does their self identity outclass cultural projections?