We all see “hate” as an extreme. That’s how I used to think of the word, until recently being accused of it. Before, when I was accused of being hateful, I would immediately dismiss the idea. “I couldn’t possibly be capable of being hateful,” I had said to myself. Today, I gave it more thought.
I’m remembering of a first impression I had of a person. She just came into a social situation that it would be impossible for me to avoid. She introduced me to the guy she was seeing at the time and informed me that she was having dinner with him upon his behalf and was going to dump him in front of me and her new colleagues after he paid for the extravagant meal. Following this information, she laughed about it, thinking it would be a humorous event.
From that point, my defences were high. I had to protect myself from this person.
If someone were to show a very bad trait, does that give me the privilege to uphold that person on a higher than normal expectation because that person established an ethical shortcoming as a first impression? This person may express a very kind and fun rapport toward me. This person may even not have a single grudge against me in the slightest. But if this vice repeats itself in this person (as history and past behaviors often do), do I have the right to maintain an underlining repugnance toward this person?
Are you undergoing the bystander effect if you allow civility with the person you do not like? Do you become an accomplice if you let these behaviors manifest? Or do you get labeled (or label yourself) as a monster if you show a lowered tolerance to this person of poor behavior?
What would the “kind” person do in this situation? Support the unknowing victim and display irrational and distancing social behavior, or continue falsely constructed pleasantries?
Personally, I grew far less clement. As a result, I was accused of hating this person. Now I’m the one being judged.
