Hatefulness used in a sentence

Hatefulness in a sentence as a noun

Either you exclude hateful people, or you exclude people who don't enjoy hatefulness. Pick one.

I already have a free platform for hatefulness, it's called America.

The majority contents of lots of cultures is bigotry and hatefulness towards those not in the culture. I am fine with losing it.

Be/SSH5EY-W5oM I'm a firm believer that the antidote to hatefulness is connection, which leads to empathy, which leads to love

The whole article reeks of jealousy and hatefulness. Good to see that our industry merits TMZ-esque content, albeit not to the same circus-esque depths.

Thankfully he was swiftly attacked by those he offended and subsequently arrested for his hatefulness, Lol wtf. None of that should be "illegal speech."

The one thing that bugs me when these types of threads start is the hatefulness of others to bash MS for trying to make a profit and lock in when everyone else here is trying to earn a profit on their must have technology. Why single MS out on this?

In any case, I have no further interest in arguing with you; I doubt you're going to stop being outraged that someone won't give you a free platform for hatefulness.

Trying to censor the hatefulness out of Roald Dahl is a futile gesture. Performatively-cruel comedy is a core feature of classic British children's lit.

The content [of your comment] isn't abjectly worthless, it's just wrapped in unnecessary hatefulness that honestly does nothing to further a high quality of discussion. Can't we do better here?

There is, perhaps, a thin line between satire and hatefulness, bigotry, or even the simple promulgation of cultural superiority. At a minimum, he's asking us to be aware of that line.

Basically, a hateful slur is the N-word, boomer is not the N-word, and equating them in any meaningful way belittles the legitimate hatefulness of the N-word. It's disingenuous to say that boomer is as bad at something like "*****", but they're a lot closer.

When someone calls someone a "hater" they are saying that the "hater" is a person who lets their perceptions get distorted by hate, or some other source of negativity that is being channeled into hatefulness. Usually that accusation is justified.

Not just for things like "hatefulness" or "incoherence", which is what this seems to be detecting, but other things as well, like "helpfulness" or "erudition" or apparent areas of interest.

The only major culture shock that most people are in for is the degree of hatefulness and shamelessness that you encounter on 4chan, especially in the memes and vernacular. It's the one place left on the internet where truly Nothing is sacred, and the userbase is happy to make that clear whenever possible.

Thankfully he was swiftly attacked by those he offended and subsequently arrested for his hatefulness, but just imagine how many hateful things like this are said behind closed doors every day. The amount of offensive things said to English footballers on Twitter during the world cup was horrible for example.

B: It is obvious that his intent is not hateful, there is nothing in that sentence that denotes hatefulness. The vehemency with which he is being attacked makes it kind of obvious that he poses a real threat to the political establishment and that attaching the classic pejorative labels "antisemite", "bigot", "racist", etc are a tactic to stop him.

That's my ladder of hatefulness, with Reddit still having issues with bigots working as Admins, and twitter simply being a hate filled cesspit of racism, sexism and all other forms of bigotry, with no meaningful attempts to moderate it... .

That said, online communities tend to very easily turn elitism into hostility, and hostility into hatefulness. Incredibly toxic.

And what is the objective criteria used to determine hatefulness and vileness? I am interested in how such a thing can be formulated in a definitively objective way. I think by "objective" you probably mean "almost universally agreed", not actually "objective", because I don't think that any truly objective measurements of hatefulness and vileness are known.

At the risk of Godwinning myself, Hitler was friends with a young Jewish girl, and personally intervened to protect a Jewish man who had been his commanding officer in WWI. Obviously Dahl was nowhere near Hitler's level of hatefulness, but the point is that being kind and generous to a handful of Jews you know personally is perfectly compatible with being an anti-Semite. Especially when you also openly describe yourself as an anti-Semite.

And then this fringe hatefulness just seems to have pervaded everything... even computing forums that are dedicated to what I thought were relatively dispassionate topics that are quite arcane have had death threats lobbed at people who just have a different opinion.

In 1975, plenty of people were be shamed and denigrated for expressing political views -- both left and right -- that were nowhere near the order of hatefulness of joining the KKK. There being some people that would attribute disagreements to certain prominent person's of non-white descent to racism certainly isn't something that wasn't happening in 1975 and earlier. It might be somewhat more likely that such an attitude will get noticed and magnified by both those that agree with it and those that are offended by it in the age of the internet, so more people will be exposed to the response.