What do you think?
Rate this book
The Opposite of Hate: A Field Guide to Repairing Our Humanity
“Brilliantly illustrates the immense and disarming power of changing course and driving not toward division, but toward civility and mutual respect.” --Ms. magazine As a progressive commentator on Fox News and now CNN, Sally Kohn has made a career out of bridging intractable political differences. In this age of dangerous partisan resentment and rising bigotry, she decided to investigate hate itself--to better consider how we can stop it. With her trademark humor and humanity, Kohn introduces us to leading researchers and scientists who are exploring the evolutionary and cultural roots of hate. She travels to Rwanda, to the Middle East, and across the United States, talking with former terrorists and reformed white supremacists, and even sitting down with some of her own Twitter trolls. What she discovers is All of us harbor hate but the powerful acknowledgment that we are all in this together can lead us out of the wilderness. The opposite of hate is connection.
273 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 10, 2018
277 people are currently reading
6069 people want to read
About the author
Sally Kohn
4 books68 followersSally Kohn is one of the leading progressive voices in America. She is currently a CNN political commentator and a columnist for The Daily Beast. Kohn was previously a Fox News contributor, and she has been a frequent guest on MSNBC. Sally is currently working on a book about hate — why there's so much hate in our world today, why it's getting worse, and what we can do to stop it. THE OPPOSITE OF HATE will be published by Algonquin Books in April 2018.
She writes regularly for media outlets including the Washington Post, the New York Times, New York Magazine, Refinery29, Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan, Yahoo, Salon, Time and many more. She also works as a communications consultant and was previously a campaign strategist for the Center for Community Change, a fellow at the Ford Foundation, and a strategic advisor to the Social Justice Infrastructure Funders, as well as a fellow at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. She has a joint degree in law and public policy and lives in Brooklyn with her partner, Sarah Hansen, and their daughter, Willa.
She writes regularly for media outlets including the Washington Post, the New York Times, New York Magazine, Refinery29, Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan, Yahoo, Salon, Time and many more. She also works as a communications consultant and was previously a campaign strategist for the Center for Community Change, a fellow at the Ford Foundation, and a strategic advisor to the Social Justice Infrastructure Funders, as well as a fellow at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. She has a joint degree in law and public policy and lives in Brooklyn with her partner, Sarah Hansen, and their daughter, Willa.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 201 reviews
February 21, 2018
The Opposite of Hate: A Field Guild to Repairing our Humanity by Sally Kohn was a hard book to read, delving into the roots of hate, and yet I was given hope by stories of recovered haters and the offered toolkit of how to move beyond hate.
I was a freshman in high school in 1967 when my Civics teacher Mr. Warner taught us that there is no such thing as 'race', that we are all one 'race'--the human race. I was a sophomore in college when Dr. Sommers told my anthropology class the story of a community who believed they were God's Real People and across the hill lived sub-human others. Two stories that succinctly sum up social conflict: are we connected or are we disconnected?
In my late 20s, working in an all black office, I learned that, even raised in a home and school culture that did not teach hate towards perceived 'others', hate is so ingrained in our society that one cannot escape it. To rise above hate one must be on perpetual guard, thoughtful of our unvoiced thoughts and emotions as well as our spoken words and deeds. We all hate. It is a choice every day what we do with this knowledge.
Kohn reflects on her own childhood acts of bullying and her training as a community activist who found hate was a "useful tool in their civic-engagement tool belt." Catching herself in hateful hypocrisy made her reflect on hate--its universality, its manifestations from name calling to hate crimes, and how the dehumanization of 'others' creates a deadly climate.
Kohn sat down and talked to people who held beliefs that were diametrically her opposite, learning their story. We all know how hard this is to do. We cut off Facebook friends and even relatives, and avoid certain gatherings were we may run into people whose opinions we object to--even hate. Kohn shares a technique from Compelling People by Matt Kohut and John Neffinger. Instead of arguing or telling folk they are wrong, follow ABC. Affirm: find a mutual concern; Bridge with an 'and' statement and follow with Convince, in which you present your view. She calls it connection-speech, a friendly and respectful way of communicating.
Several times over the last year I have found myself fumed at something an acquaintance has said. I stated my case and apologized if they felt attacked, saying I feel passionate about the issue. Reading ABC makes me recall a professor, who when a student said something he did not agree with, calmly said, "that could be" or "that is interesting" and then stated his convincing argument. I have been forgetting to affirm.
Each chapter addresses aspects of hate:Why We Hate, How We Hate, Hating Is Belonging, Unconscious Hate, When Hate Becomes Pandemic, Systems of Hate, and The Journey Forward.
The opposite of hate, Kohn contends, is not love or even liking those we don't agree with. It is not giving up one's passionately held ideals. It is connection--treating others with respect as fellow human beings.
I appreciated Kohn's honest confession, how she drew lessons from the people she interviewed, and especially for a blueprint of how to overcome America's most dangerous threat.
I received a free ebook from the publisher through NetGalley in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.
April 12, 2018
At least one of the quotes in this book was fabricated, and the relationship with the person quotes was mischaracterized, and the author admitted she did zero fact checking for the book.
If she made up one quote, probably she made up others, I would stay away from this one.
If she made up one quote, probably she made up others, I would stay away from this one.
February 4, 2018
I was convinced after just a few pages that I wasn’t going to learn anything new about hate or human behavior. And while some of Kohn’s references weren’t surprising, the more I read, the more I wanted to keep reading. And I found myself thinking more about my own prejudices, and also what I didn’t see as harmful biases - using phrases like pennsyltucky for example. I do believe I played a role in where our country finds itself now. I hold myself accountable even if I am not directly responsible.
Is connection the opposite of hate? It isn’t that simple but it is a start. And this book is a good place to get started.
Is connection the opposite of hate? It isn’t that simple but it is a start. And this book is a good place to get started.
April 12, 2018
Horrifying that this author has admitted to not fact-checking her quotes and, indeed, grossly misquoting people. Just gross.
May 22, 2019
A tsunami of liberals “unfriending” Trump supporters followed his 2016 election victory. Sally Kohn's book starts out as an antidote to this virtual ostracism and to escalating levels of virulence. As a television political commentator she was the target of many of these trolls. She launched the novel project of speaking to some of the most egregious ones by phone and was surprised by the connections she was able to forge. Admittedly, her sample size was small, but the experience initiated her examination of the many facets of hate. She structures her inquiry around psychologist Gordon Allport's “Pyramid of Hate”: stereotyping; bullying and exclusion; institutionalized discrimination; and acts of terrorism and genocide.
As implied by the subtitle, parts of this book lean toward self-help. Because she is appealing to a general audience across the political spectrum, she approaches her subject with a combination of personal anecdote and scientific research. The two approaches did not quite mesh for me. I found the research more compelling, a preference which increased my chagrin at the all too common practice of dumping footnotes at the end of the book without corresponding numbers in the text.
Thought-provoking questions thread their way through Allport's pyramid levels. Why do we hate? How do we hate? Kohn attempts to apply Allport's model to the Rwandan genocide, which, she points out, did not simply erupt out of nowhere. An abbreviated historical recap traces obscure animosities created by colonial governments. Then, over the course of two decades, President Habyarimana and his wife encouraged anti-Tutsi propaganda and organized a network of localized paramilitary groups to further that agenda. The media was commandeered into a state propaganda machine (documented by Maria Armoundian in her book, KILL THE MESSENGER: THE MEDIA'S ROLE IN THE FATE OF THE WORLD). Three tiers of Allport's pyramid had already been laid down by the time the outbreak erupted.
Kohn relies on the Milgram experiment as well as other research to document the power that group conformity has on individual decision-making. She references a conversation with philosophy professor Elizabeth Minnich who speaks of the arrival at a critical tipping point, the normalization of genocide — the creation of a new social norm. Despite the persuasive research Kohn cites, it is still difficult to imagine in this compressed form how such widespread horror came to be enacted against neighbors, family members, infants and children. Kohn's neutral tone also fails to capture how easily and perhaps even inevitably an entire population becomes complicit in normalizing evil. (see this powerful interview with Minnich for contrast: https://www.humansandnature.org/banal... )
In her concluding chapter Kohn writes: “We have a crisis of hate in the United States and around the world, and we can't begin to address it if we don't first learn to see it — making the invisible visible — uncovering the inadvertent, implicit, deliberate, and conscious forms of hate all around us and in ourselves.” (p.227) She goes on to cite the writer Anand Giridharadas in a passage about the need for “self-implicating” in order to effect institutional change. However, Giridharada's speech is actually much more incendiary. He is speaking not just to the ordinary public, but specifically to the capitalist elite, and the critique he is advancing is the theme of his recent book, WINNERS TAKE ALL; THE ELITE CHARADE OF CHANGING THE WORLD. Whereas Kohn is addressing her message to ordinary people, Giridharada is calling out the kind of people that attend Davos. Giridharada supplies a telling anecdote to illustrate one of three illusions: “that you can change the world one starfish at a time.” (https://medium.com/@AnandWrites/why-r... )
Giridharada's powerful declaration is an important departure from Kohn's prescription that we build bridges through civil discourse. It illustrates the major disconnect Kohn's examination of hate encounters. Can self-awareness alone prevent our being manipulated by those who employ hate as a tool?
One of Kohn's most interesting passages occurs at the outset of her book. She discusses the psychological concept of attributive errors. However, she prematurely jumps to an application of the concept that seems similar to an example of the double standard (rationalizing our own motives versus being judgmental about someone else's). Actually, the concept distinguishes between ascribing actions to a core personality trait (being arrogant, selfish, or malign) vs. ascribing actions to external circumstance (getting fired, becoming ill). Kohn introduces the concept in the context of reacting to trolls, and it serves as a reminder to refrain from branding people as racists, traitors, etc. from the outset. However, simply understanding the concept fails to establish any guideline for when it is applicable. Obviously, some people really are arrogant, selfish or malign; and people really do need to take responsibility for their hurtful acts. Moreover, it fails to be a useful tool in analyzing the dynamic that drives societies to the top of the hate pyramid.
Kohn's book has the virtue of being both succinct and ambitious. However, I can't help but think that the subject is explored with greater conviction through fiction. Is there a better examination of bullying than Margaret Atwood's CAT'S EYE? Is there a more ironic narrative about Mexican stereotyping than T.C. Boyle's TORTILLA CURTAIN? Kohn has written an interesting book and worked hard at researching her subject and adopting an unbiased tone. However, I suspect that she will be preaching to the choir, and the book will have little impact on our political discourse.
NOTES:
I searched for a review of this book from a conservative viewpoint. This was the only one I could find:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/18/...
As implied by the subtitle, parts of this book lean toward self-help. Because she is appealing to a general audience across the political spectrum, she approaches her subject with a combination of personal anecdote and scientific research. The two approaches did not quite mesh for me. I found the research more compelling, a preference which increased my chagrin at the all too common practice of dumping footnotes at the end of the book without corresponding numbers in the text.
Thought-provoking questions thread their way through Allport's pyramid levels. Why do we hate? How do we hate? Kohn attempts to apply Allport's model to the Rwandan genocide, which, she points out, did not simply erupt out of nowhere. An abbreviated historical recap traces obscure animosities created by colonial governments. Then, over the course of two decades, President Habyarimana and his wife encouraged anti-Tutsi propaganda and organized a network of localized paramilitary groups to further that agenda. The media was commandeered into a state propaganda machine (documented by Maria Armoundian in her book, KILL THE MESSENGER: THE MEDIA'S ROLE IN THE FATE OF THE WORLD). Three tiers of Allport's pyramid had already been laid down by the time the outbreak erupted.
Kohn relies on the Milgram experiment as well as other research to document the power that group conformity has on individual decision-making. She references a conversation with philosophy professor Elizabeth Minnich who speaks of the arrival at a critical tipping point, the normalization of genocide — the creation of a new social norm. Despite the persuasive research Kohn cites, it is still difficult to imagine in this compressed form how such widespread horror came to be enacted against neighbors, family members, infants and children. Kohn's neutral tone also fails to capture how easily and perhaps even inevitably an entire population becomes complicit in normalizing evil. (see this powerful interview with Minnich for contrast: https://www.humansandnature.org/banal... )
In her concluding chapter Kohn writes: “We have a crisis of hate in the United States and around the world, and we can't begin to address it if we don't first learn to see it — making the invisible visible — uncovering the inadvertent, implicit, deliberate, and conscious forms of hate all around us and in ourselves.” (p.227) She goes on to cite the writer Anand Giridharadas in a passage about the need for “self-implicating” in order to effect institutional change. However, Giridharada's speech is actually much more incendiary. He is speaking not just to the ordinary public, but specifically to the capitalist elite, and the critique he is advancing is the theme of his recent book, WINNERS TAKE ALL; THE ELITE CHARADE OF CHANGING THE WORLD. Whereas Kohn is addressing her message to ordinary people, Giridharada is calling out the kind of people that attend Davos. Giridharada supplies a telling anecdote to illustrate one of three illusions: “that you can change the world one starfish at a time.” (https://medium.com/@AnandWrites/why-r... )
Giridharada's powerful declaration is an important departure from Kohn's prescription that we build bridges through civil discourse. It illustrates the major disconnect Kohn's examination of hate encounters. Can self-awareness alone prevent our being manipulated by those who employ hate as a tool?
One of Kohn's most interesting passages occurs at the outset of her book. She discusses the psychological concept of attributive errors. However, she prematurely jumps to an application of the concept that seems similar to an example of the double standard (rationalizing our own motives versus being judgmental about someone else's). Actually, the concept distinguishes between ascribing actions to a core personality trait (being arrogant, selfish, or malign) vs. ascribing actions to external circumstance (getting fired, becoming ill). Kohn introduces the concept in the context of reacting to trolls, and it serves as a reminder to refrain from branding people as racists, traitors, etc. from the outset. However, simply understanding the concept fails to establish any guideline for when it is applicable. Obviously, some people really are arrogant, selfish or malign; and people really do need to take responsibility for their hurtful acts. Moreover, it fails to be a useful tool in analyzing the dynamic that drives societies to the top of the hate pyramid.
Kohn's book has the virtue of being both succinct and ambitious. However, I can't help but think that the subject is explored with greater conviction through fiction. Is there a better examination of bullying than Margaret Atwood's CAT'S EYE? Is there a more ironic narrative about Mexican stereotyping than T.C. Boyle's TORTILLA CURTAIN? Kohn has written an interesting book and worked hard at researching her subject and adopting an unbiased tone. However, I suspect that she will be preaching to the choir, and the book will have little impact on our political discourse.
NOTES:
I searched for a review of this book from a conservative viewpoint. This was the only one I could find:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/18/...
April 16, 2018
Civility should start with fact-checking your sources to make sure that they corroborate your quotes, particularly if you attribute something incendiary to them that could perpetuate racist stereotypes about black women in a book about "repairing our humanity": https://jezebel.com/the-opposite-of-r.... Not to mention the degree to which this makes her source a potential target of online abuse and possibly much more.
White authors with large platforms have a professional ethical responsibility to go beyond measures like NY state's one-party consent laws to ensure that their attributions are both truthful and fair. Kohn's mishandling of this situation is white privilege at work, and damages the trust that actual, responsible social activists are trying to build to ensure their work is intersectional.
White authors with large platforms have a professional ethical responsibility to go beyond measures like NY state's one-party consent laws to ensure that their attributions are both truthful and fair. Kohn's mishandling of this situation is white privilege at work, and damages the trust that actual, responsible social activists are trying to build to ensure their work is intersectional.
May 1, 2018
I received a copy of this book for free from Goodreads Giveaways.
I was so hype for this book. I wanted to love this book. It had everything I thought would be great. AND THEN I saw the way that Kohn had treated Aminatou Sow and it all fell apart. I was about two chapters in when that broke and then it was just impossible for me to feel the same way about this book. To write a book with the central conceit that "connection will save us" and then to not have connected with people quoted in the book is just....privileged is the word that comes to mind. I know that word is charged, and I know that word has a lot of problems but that's exactly what this is. Preach connection to me to solve our problems, but then cause more problems by quoting people potentially incorrectly, don't connect with them to check, and then blame the industry and not yourself when it comes to being called out on that. No thanks. The advice is solid, but it's feels like just another person trying to cash in on the "woke" train at this point. I'm not here for it.
I do think this could be a solid starter book for your liberal, white Aunt Sharon who has NO IDEA how to even BEGIN a journey to understanding with most people who aren't just like her. So it has value in that sense, and that's my two stars.
I was so hype for this book. I wanted to love this book. It had everything I thought would be great. AND THEN I saw the way that Kohn had treated Aminatou Sow and it all fell apart. I was about two chapters in when that broke and then it was just impossible for me to feel the same way about this book. To write a book with the central conceit that "connection will save us" and then to not have connected with people quoted in the book is just....privileged is the word that comes to mind. I know that word is charged, and I know that word has a lot of problems but that's exactly what this is. Preach connection to me to solve our problems, but then cause more problems by quoting people potentially incorrectly, don't connect with them to check, and then blame the industry and not yourself when it comes to being called out on that. No thanks. The advice is solid, but it's feels like just another person trying to cash in on the "woke" train at this point. I'm not here for it.
I do think this could be a solid starter book for your liberal, white Aunt Sharon who has NO IDEA how to even BEGIN a journey to understanding with most people who aren't just like her. So it has value in that sense, and that's my two stars.
April 14, 2018
Quotes are fabricated or used without consent. No standard of fact checking. Next!
March 30, 2018
Wonderful book. Kohn made me think twice about my own biases and the way I treat and approach others, even if most of this thinking is somewhat unconscious. She utilizes scientific studies, current events, humor, and her own life experience to shine a light on so many issues we turn a blind eye to. In Trump's America, I struggle to not hate the haters. Kohn, however, encourages us all to not fight hate with hate, to be conscious of when our biases present themselves, and admit our failures because none of us are perfect. When a book has been recommended by both Sean Hannity and DeRay McKesson, it is worth picking up!
May 24, 2018
I was really excited to read this book after winning it in a Goodreads Giveaway, but then found out that Sally Kohn misquoted Aminatou Sow. I was really frustrated with that, but decided to read it anyway. While I was still frustrated with Kohn's misquote, I did enjoy the book. I really like the chapter on the Israel/Palestine conflict and the overall message that we should confront hate in our lives.
June 21, 2018
"The bad news is: we all hate. All of us. That includes me--and I'm afraid it also includes you. I promise that although this is a book about hate, it will end on an uplifting and positive note. But we first have to face the hard truth. In different ways and to different degrees, consciously or unconsciously, all of us, in one way or another, sometimes treat other individuals and entire groups of human beings as though they are fundamentally less deserving than we are." (5)
****
"Attribution errors and essentialism are like blinders, which stop us from truly seeing others accurately and fairly scrutinizing ourselves." (31)
****
"Before I went to the Middle East, I brushed up on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also read social science on the dynamics of what are called 'intractable conflicts.' In particular, I delved into the concept of competitive victimhood...and discovered the work of Israeli psychologist Daniel Bar-Tal. 'Very often both sides believe that they are the victim,' writes Bar-Tal with his colleagues in a paper on competitive victimhood. 'The struggle over the status of the sole victim can enhance aggressiveness and lead to the employment of harsher means against the rival out-group.' It's related to scapegoating, where one group perceives that its problems are the result of the other group, even if the group being scapegoated is in fact the group that is suffering more than and even because of the other.
"This is how we have a dynamic in the United States today in which Christian conservatives claim they are being oppressed by the nation's incremental progress toward queer rights, despite the reality that, over decades, it was the disproportionate power and influence of those same Christian conservatives that kept basic rights from queer people. And that actually still do--it is legal for same-sex couples to marry but still also legal in most states to fire someone for being gay or gender-nonconforming. Yet the sense of competitive victimhood keeps the tension brewing--including, yes, smears from the gay community against Christian conservatives. Each side literally makes the other side suffer more to express anger over how much their side is suffering. Which is ridiculous, but there you have it." (59)
****
"What makes competitive victimhood so pernicious in intractable conflicts and in general is that whatever side you're on, your arguments for being the worse victim and blaming the other side seem so rational. Of course, hate isn't rational, but it feels rational, and therefore it feels justified. That's why we keep doing it. It's not that we're irrational; our hate is a rational reaction to our often one-sided and deeply biased perceptions." (62)
****
"The vast majority of people who hate--even extremists who commit violence in the name of hate--are ordinary people who also love and worry and fear and care, and who can point to a number of what to them feel like well-justified reasons for their hatred. We don't just hate for the sake of hating. We hate because we feel under siege, and hate is our response. That's a s true of terrorists as it is of bullies." (68)
****
"Our identities aren't the problem. The choices we make around those identities--the meanings that we and society give them--that's the problem." (117)
****
"White families don't have twice as much wealth on average today as black families because white people are smarter or harder-working but because of slavery and segregation and discrimination, through with generations of white people exploited black people for their sole gain. And, yeah, their great-great-grandkids don't own slaves or believe in separate water fountains, but they're still born at the top of the pile because of their race. It's not necessarily that their parents and grandparents handed them places on top because of their disproportionate wealth or education or good jobs, though that certainly happens for some. But the shape of the hill, and who is generally on top versus on the bottom, has been contoured by that bias, which, in turn, actively shapes our lives today.
"The people who aren't at the bottom of the dog pile think they got where they are not because of history or luck but because they deserve to be there. And the irony is that these are the people who believe the other 'deep story ' myth, the one about the orderly line. The people in the middle and top of the dog pile often believe life is an orderly line--when in fact, that's all the people at the bottom are asking for. The people at the bottom are desperate for the world to work the way that the people at the top insist it already does, for opportunity to be truly equal and for achievement to be merit-based. It seems we can all agree on the ideal. What we disagree on is whether we've already achieved it or not." (143-144)
****
"Such mass atrocities can happen only because many fundamentally decent human beings participate and many other decent people fail to intervene. When we take that in, we realize that genocide is terrifying not only because it happened to them but because it could also happen to us--and that we could just as easily be the victims or the perpetrators." (160)
****
"...the way to stop us from discriminating against or hating various identity groups isn't actually to pretend that those different identities don't exist. The lesson is not that we need some people who feel like outsiders or who haven't fully integrated their sense of cultural affiliation into a seamless whole--indeed, having low bicultural identity integration is associated with greater rates of anxiety and depression. The lesson is that we need to combat negative otherizing without forcing assimilation or conformity. We can still have groups--the problem is when they are pitted against one another as dominant versus inferior." (178)
****
"We must foster group bonds not by imposing a homogenous identity on everyone but by building a sense of shared humanity that not only respects but actively appreciate everyone's differences, especially because those differences help us resist dangerous groupthink banisters." (189)
****
"What I've learned is that all hate is premised on a mind-set of otherizing. The sanctimonious pedestal of superiority on which we all put ourselves while we systematically dehumanize others is the essential root of hate. In big and small ways, consciously and unconsciously, we constantly filter the world around us through the lens of our explicit and implicit biases. This abets rationalization and looking the other way about widespread injustices, such as dismissing entire communities that don't have access to health care, or entire nations locked in civil war because they fall outside the sphere of our moral concern.
"We think we're good people, but we don't see how that sphere of moral concern is constricted by hate, by the history and habits and culture of who matters and who doesn't in our society, which we have all bought into, whether we mean to or not. So we shake our heads about excessive corporate greed and we shake our fists against neo-Nazis marching in the streets, but not enough of us admit that they're reflections of the society we've all created, let alone acknowledge that they're reflections of ourselves." (226-227)
****
"Attribution errors and essentialism are like blinders, which stop us from truly seeing others accurately and fairly scrutinizing ourselves." (31)
****
"Before I went to the Middle East, I brushed up on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also read social science on the dynamics of what are called 'intractable conflicts.' In particular, I delved into the concept of competitive victimhood...and discovered the work of Israeli psychologist Daniel Bar-Tal. 'Very often both sides believe that they are the victim,' writes Bar-Tal with his colleagues in a paper on competitive victimhood. 'The struggle over the status of the sole victim can enhance aggressiveness and lead to the employment of harsher means against the rival out-group.' It's related to scapegoating, where one group perceives that its problems are the result of the other group, even if the group being scapegoated is in fact the group that is suffering more than and even because of the other.
"This is how we have a dynamic in the United States today in which Christian conservatives claim they are being oppressed by the nation's incremental progress toward queer rights, despite the reality that, over decades, it was the disproportionate power and influence of those same Christian conservatives that kept basic rights from queer people. And that actually still do--it is legal for same-sex couples to marry but still also legal in most states to fire someone for being gay or gender-nonconforming. Yet the sense of competitive victimhood keeps the tension brewing--including, yes, smears from the gay community against Christian conservatives. Each side literally makes the other side suffer more to express anger over how much their side is suffering. Which is ridiculous, but there you have it." (59)
****
"What makes competitive victimhood so pernicious in intractable conflicts and in general is that whatever side you're on, your arguments for being the worse victim and blaming the other side seem so rational. Of course, hate isn't rational, but it feels rational, and therefore it feels justified. That's why we keep doing it. It's not that we're irrational; our hate is a rational reaction to our often one-sided and deeply biased perceptions." (62)
****
"The vast majority of people who hate--even extremists who commit violence in the name of hate--are ordinary people who also love and worry and fear and care, and who can point to a number of what to them feel like well-justified reasons for their hatred. We don't just hate for the sake of hating. We hate because we feel under siege, and hate is our response. That's a s true of terrorists as it is of bullies." (68)
****
"Our identities aren't the problem. The choices we make around those identities--the meanings that we and society give them--that's the problem." (117)
****
"White families don't have twice as much wealth on average today as black families because white people are smarter or harder-working but because of slavery and segregation and discrimination, through with generations of white people exploited black people for their sole gain. And, yeah, their great-great-grandkids don't own slaves or believe in separate water fountains, but they're still born at the top of the pile because of their race. It's not necessarily that their parents and grandparents handed them places on top because of their disproportionate wealth or education or good jobs, though that certainly happens for some. But the shape of the hill, and who is generally on top versus on the bottom, has been contoured by that bias, which, in turn, actively shapes our lives today.
"The people who aren't at the bottom of the dog pile think they got where they are not because of history or luck but because they deserve to be there. And the irony is that these are the people who believe the other 'deep story ' myth, the one about the orderly line. The people in the middle and top of the dog pile often believe life is an orderly line--when in fact, that's all the people at the bottom are asking for. The people at the bottom are desperate for the world to work the way that the people at the top insist it already does, for opportunity to be truly equal and for achievement to be merit-based. It seems we can all agree on the ideal. What we disagree on is whether we've already achieved it or not." (143-144)
****
"Such mass atrocities can happen only because many fundamentally decent human beings participate and many other decent people fail to intervene. When we take that in, we realize that genocide is terrifying not only because it happened to them but because it could also happen to us--and that we could just as easily be the victims or the perpetrators." (160)
****
"...the way to stop us from discriminating against or hating various identity groups isn't actually to pretend that those different identities don't exist. The lesson is not that we need some people who feel like outsiders or who haven't fully integrated their sense of cultural affiliation into a seamless whole--indeed, having low bicultural identity integration is associated with greater rates of anxiety and depression. The lesson is that we need to combat negative otherizing without forcing assimilation or conformity. We can still have groups--the problem is when they are pitted against one another as dominant versus inferior." (178)
****
"We must foster group bonds not by imposing a homogenous identity on everyone but by building a sense of shared humanity that not only respects but actively appreciate everyone's differences, especially because those differences help us resist dangerous groupthink banisters." (189)
****
"What I've learned is that all hate is premised on a mind-set of otherizing. The sanctimonious pedestal of superiority on which we all put ourselves while we systematically dehumanize others is the essential root of hate. In big and small ways, consciously and unconsciously, we constantly filter the world around us through the lens of our explicit and implicit biases. This abets rationalization and looking the other way about widespread injustices, such as dismissing entire communities that don't have access to health care, or entire nations locked in civil war because they fall outside the sphere of our moral concern.
"We think we're good people, but we don't see how that sphere of moral concern is constricted by hate, by the history and habits and culture of who matters and who doesn't in our society, which we have all bought into, whether we mean to or not. So we shake our heads about excessive corporate greed and we shake our fists against neo-Nazis marching in the streets, but not enough of us admit that they're reflections of the society we've all created, let alone acknowledge that they're reflections of ourselves." (226-227)
June 25, 2018
This book is a thoughtful and sometimes provocative look at the subject of hate with some strong tactics on how to combat it. I feel that this is a compelling work well worth the read, but it is not without its problems. I guess a couple of people have issues with how she portrayed their actions and their work in the book. That's a shame, and I've deducted a star for that issue, but those sections are brief, and the bulk of the book is quite solid.
May 1, 2018
1.5 stars.
I picked up this book because it relates so closely to the work I do convening people in conversations across deep difference. As a result of that work, I spend a lot of time reading and talking to people about the questions Kohn explores here: How does hate develop? Can we combat it? Should we combat hate? (Or is it an essential tool in the fight against injustice?) Assuming we should, how do we combat it?
Kohn's book provides no new insights, which would be forgivable if she provided a particularly well-organized or well-written account of contemporary research and thought regarding these questions. She does not. Both her writing and her research are lazy/hasty, and she has a poor sense of when to include herself in the narrative and when to leave herself out.
I learned from other reviews here about the controversy surrounding an anecdote about Amitou Sow that was included in the book. I'd normally be willing to put that aside, but it seems characteristic of the haste with which this book was published...
I picked up this book because it relates so closely to the work I do convening people in conversations across deep difference. As a result of that work, I spend a lot of time reading and talking to people about the questions Kohn explores here: How does hate develop? Can we combat it? Should we combat hate? (Or is it an essential tool in the fight against injustice?) Assuming we should, how do we combat it?
Kohn's book provides no new insights, which would be forgivable if she provided a particularly well-organized or well-written account of contemporary research and thought regarding these questions. She does not. Both her writing and her research are lazy/hasty, and she has a poor sense of when to include herself in the narrative and when to leave herself out.
I learned from other reviews here about the controversy surrounding an anecdote about Amitou Sow that was included in the book. I'd normally be willing to put that aside, but it seems characteristic of the haste with which this book was published...
November 17, 2018
EDIT: after reading other readers' reviews and the controversy surrounding this book, I am lowering my original rating of 4 stars to 2 stars. I like the idea behind the book, but I can't condone the practice of: misusing other people's words--especially when it can result in abuse for that person, not apologizing to the person for said misuse, and not fact-checking a nonfiction book. As a white woman, I will admit that I fell for the woke white woman trope. I have more work to do in my role as an ally.
Here is an article in regard to the controversy: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018...
Here is an article in regard to the controversy: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018...
April 12, 2018
Kohn like the majority of Americans despaired when Donald Trump was elected after his campaign of hate mongering. She started researching hate, from individuals, groups and nationalities. During her research she interviewed former white nationals, Palestinians, Jews, Hutu and Tutsi Rwandans and many others.
Why I started this book: Title and the need to confront the hate in my life and in my country.
Why I finished it: Short but powerful book. I know that I will need to return to it later, to soak up the insights and to inspire myself to build connections.
Why I started this book: Title and the need to confront the hate in my life and in my country.
Why I finished it: Short but powerful book. I know that I will need to return to it later, to soak up the insights and to inspire myself to build connections.
January 4, 2019
A Quick Gameplan to Get the Online World Back on Track
Sally Kohn is the flip side of Glenn Beck.
I read Beck's Addicted to Outrage and saw a right-leaning but still somewhat neutral gameplan for us to stop yelling at each other.
Kohn's The Opposite of Hate is a left-leaning but still somewhat neutral gameplan for us to do the same.
She encounters Twitter trolls and then talks to them. Most are normal people, who never thought anyone could hear them. To them Twitter was talking to themselves, and venting - nothing more.
She notes how both sides play the victim while also doing everything they can to play the aggressor:
She interviews former KKK members and former terrorists.
She confronts her own friend - who set up a Donald Trump pinata for a kid's birthday party.
In short, she takes a look at hate all around.
And she gives a gameplan - though one that is a bit difficult to see at times
Kohn as an author is closer to Glenn Beck than Yuval Noah Harari.
Like Beck, she has a lot of words, a lot of case studies, a lot of text - and her message could often be a line that might be the title of the chapter.
Yuval Noah Harari distills every one of his many messages to their essence - and not a word is wasted. Sapiens is over 500 pages, and yet every word counts. You can say the same for Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, at least in my opinion.
Kohn does not write like that. The chapters are long, and have a lot of Twitter interactions. Like Beck she has a lot of words, a bit more than she needs.
But the message is there - and that gives the book value
If not a concise journalist, Kohn is still a journalist - and she goes where even Harari might not. She interviews former terrorists, and travels to meet a former White Supremacist, and gets to the root of what made them act in the way that they did, and what got them to change.
And she finds themes -
* Twitter trolls often don't know anyone is listening, or at least don't think that
* KKK members are often looking for a group to belong to, and nothing else. You can say the same for Terrorists
* Both sides are susceptible to Attribution Errors - ie when they do something bad it's because they are bad. When I do something bad, it's because I am provoked and am defending myself.
And more.
In short - it might be a difficult pill for your conservative friends to take, just because of the reaction Kohn elicits. But the message is still there - and it is one that might resonate with just about anyone.
Sally Kohn is the flip side of Glenn Beck.
I read Beck's Addicted to Outrage and saw a right-leaning but still somewhat neutral gameplan for us to stop yelling at each other.
Kohn's The Opposite of Hate is a left-leaning but still somewhat neutral gameplan for us to do the same.
She encounters Twitter trolls and then talks to them. Most are normal people, who never thought anyone could hear them. To them Twitter was talking to themselves, and venting - nothing more.
She notes how both sides play the victim while also doing everything they can to play the aggressor:
We talk about politics and political engagement in aggressive, apocalyptic terms. Republicans are launching a “War on Women.” Democrats are launching a “War on Christmas.” Immigrants are “invading.” During the 2016 election, Donald Trump and his supporters repeatedly chanted, “Lock her up!” regarding Hillary Clinton.
She interviews former KKK members and former terrorists.
She confronts her own friend - who set up a Donald Trump pinata for a kid's birthday party.
In short, she takes a look at hate all around.
And she gives a gameplan - though one that is a bit difficult to see at times
Kohn as an author is closer to Glenn Beck than Yuval Noah Harari.
Like Beck, she has a lot of words, a lot of case studies, a lot of text - and her message could often be a line that might be the title of the chapter.
Yuval Noah Harari distills every one of his many messages to their essence - and not a word is wasted. Sapiens is over 500 pages, and yet every word counts. You can say the same for Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, at least in my opinion.
Kohn does not write like that. The chapters are long, and have a lot of Twitter interactions. Like Beck she has a lot of words, a bit more than she needs.
But the message is there - and that gives the book value
If not a concise journalist, Kohn is still a journalist - and she goes where even Harari might not. She interviews former terrorists, and travels to meet a former White Supremacist, and gets to the root of what made them act in the way that they did, and what got them to change.
And she finds themes -
* Twitter trolls often don't know anyone is listening, or at least don't think that
* KKK members are often looking for a group to belong to, and nothing else. You can say the same for Terrorists
* Both sides are susceptible to Attribution Errors - ie when they do something bad it's because they are bad. When I do something bad, it's because I am provoked and am defending myself.
And more.
In short - it might be a difficult pill for your conservative friends to take, just because of the reaction Kohn elicits. But the message is still there - and it is one that might resonate with just about anyone.
April 24, 2018
I wanted to like this, agreed with many of the ideas, but I was both bored and underwhelmed by the execution.
Also... If playing the bully is both the start and end of the story, is this really something to publish?
Also... If playing the bully is both the start and end of the story, is this really something to publish?
March 26, 2021
I have mixed feelings and serious misgivings about this book. This was a library impulse borrow, and was a quick read, but I don't think Kohn made the case she was trying to make.
I see there's a lot of controversy surrounding how a quote by Aminatou Sow was used. Ironically the reaction to that controversy does a lot more towards proving her point, for me, than her actual book did. A lot of people seem to have taken the word of an internet figure they look up to but have never met and drawn a line in the sand which they are prepared to defend with their lives. I don't myself see much difference in believing someone when they claim to have been misquoted, than believing that all quotes are accurate. In both cases you are deciding to trust someone in a situation where you can't possibly verify. FWIW, I looked it up, and Kohn maintained that the conversation was on the record, that she took notes during her interview with Sow, and that she has produced these notes to the relevant persons when the controversy erupted.
On the other hand, I'm not sure it matters. One of the things that troubled me most greatly about Kohn's book was her relentless focus on examining forms of hate that she herself does not experience. No part of this book is about misogyny or homophobia (the Pulse nightclub shooting is mentioned, but the impacts on victims and/or their feelings of hate or forgiveness journeys are not treated), and anti-Semitism barely comes up, but anti-black racism is dealt with exhaustively. And clumsily; regardless of the veracity of Sow's quote, how she and Oluo were used in the narrative was pretty gross. Kohn should not be talking about how Black people should respond to violent bigotry.
For this reason, if no other, it seems terribly unlikely that Sow's ideas will lead us towards repairing our humanity. But also, I'm not sure the problems she outlines show disrepair in humanity. They're clearly terrible and great crimes--I'm not standing up for genocide--but if, as she claims, almost everyone would participate in a genocide in the right conditions, how can it be claimed that this is contrary to humanity? It might not be the humanity we aspire to, it's certainly not the kind of human I want to be, but it appears to be a very fixed part of *being human.*
There's a good chunk of both-sidesism here (eg. the right hates gays, women, black people, indigenous people, the poor, immigrants, scientists, and Democrats, but the left hates Nazis and Republicans, so they're pretty much equally bad! etc.), which I did not like. I get she's going for both audiences and so didn't want to be perceived as banging on the right, but seriously, hating someone who wants to kill you is not the same thing as hating someone who wants to live in a nice house in proximity to yours, and they're not morally equivalent. No matter how much we might wish we could make them so, and thereby simplify our journey to humanity-repair.
But what I mostly struggled with was, basically, her entire premise: that "hate" is bad and we should get rid of it. I mean, it doesn't feel good. There are people in the world who I hate and I don't enjoy feeling that way towards them, but on the balance of the evidence and substantial experience with those people, I think the hate is well earned. Is that, in and of itself, a symptom of a terrible flaw or problem? It's just a feeling. I'm not attacking, trolling, abusing, or in any way harming the people I hate.
I think there's a lot of conflation of different mental and emotional processes under the banner of 'hate' (much like love, which can be applied as a term to anything from pasta to your spouse). And like all feelings, it has a context in which it is healthy and appropriate and continues to an organism's success, or it wouldn't have evolved. I'm not an expert so this is just me theorizing out of my ass, but I think a kind of directed animosity that evolved in a social context where you had direct experience and interaction with every human being who touched on your life makes total sense. Everyone you hated, very likely, would have been someone you knew, met, dealt with, and possibly who harmed you. The problem today is that we're functioning as a society in which the vast majority of humans who affect our lives (whether the people who make the laws or the people who make our clothes) are people we never interact with at all, and hate is increasingly directed towards these shadowy Others, where it can fuel mass actions that have no connection anymore to hate's evolved context. And the forms of connection Kohn talks about would likely help us reduce this kind of diffused hostility, but still, to me, the first priority is dealing with violent and hateful actions.
And towards that end, I do not believe a policy of unending and infinite Bridge Building is the best option. Yes, we need bridge builders and connections between different political, ideological, religious, ethnic, racial, gender, etc. communities, and a lot more than we have. But we also need people who are willing to make firm decisions about what constitutes acceptable conduct, where their loyalties lie, and cut ties. If all lefties or progressives became bridge builders or connectors, they'd just get walked all over by the right (or vice versa, if you think there's any actual chance of that happening); the 'independent thinkers' Kohn champions in her books, the ones who think without guardrails, as she put it, are quite likely to have firm convictions that lead to cutting off relationships with those who violate their principles. And that may involve some difficult emotions like anger and hate. Oh well?
Or to put it another way: Kohn relies heavily on anecdotes about an incident where she bullied another child in elementary school. Her ideas overall are heavily preoccupied by what the bully is thinking and feeling, how to convince the bully that they've behaved badly, how to have a productive conversation with bullies about bullying, how to forgive and not hate bullies, and so on. But there's little to nothing here about their victims, just about the emotional reaction that victims often have towards their bullies (ie anger, hate) and what to do about those feelings, on the assumption that the feelings themselves are intrinsically, inherently bad.
But honestly, how the victims feel is no one's business but theirs. Whether they feel hate towards their perpetrators and abusers for the rest of their lives is none of my concern. We should preoccupy ourselves instead with how to protect potential victims from harm.
I see there's a lot of controversy surrounding how a quote by Aminatou Sow was used. Ironically the reaction to that controversy does a lot more towards proving her point, for me, than her actual book did. A lot of people seem to have taken the word of an internet figure they look up to but have never met and drawn a line in the sand which they are prepared to defend with their lives. I don't myself see much difference in believing someone when they claim to have been misquoted, than believing that all quotes are accurate. In both cases you are deciding to trust someone in a situation where you can't possibly verify. FWIW, I looked it up, and Kohn maintained that the conversation was on the record, that she took notes during her interview with Sow, and that she has produced these notes to the relevant persons when the controversy erupted.
On the other hand, I'm not sure it matters. One of the things that troubled me most greatly about Kohn's book was her relentless focus on examining forms of hate that she herself does not experience. No part of this book is about misogyny or homophobia (the Pulse nightclub shooting is mentioned, but the impacts on victims and/or their feelings of hate or forgiveness journeys are not treated), and anti-Semitism barely comes up, but anti-black racism is dealt with exhaustively. And clumsily; regardless of the veracity of Sow's quote, how she and Oluo were used in the narrative was pretty gross. Kohn should not be talking about how Black people should respond to violent bigotry.
For this reason, if no other, it seems terribly unlikely that Sow's ideas will lead us towards repairing our humanity. But also, I'm not sure the problems she outlines show disrepair in humanity. They're clearly terrible and great crimes--I'm not standing up for genocide--but if, as she claims, almost everyone would participate in a genocide in the right conditions, how can it be claimed that this is contrary to humanity? It might not be the humanity we aspire to, it's certainly not the kind of human I want to be, but it appears to be a very fixed part of *being human.*
There's a good chunk of both-sidesism here (eg. the right hates gays, women, black people, indigenous people, the poor, immigrants, scientists, and Democrats, but the left hates Nazis and Republicans, so they're pretty much equally bad! etc.), which I did not like. I get she's going for both audiences and so didn't want to be perceived as banging on the right, but seriously, hating someone who wants to kill you is not the same thing as hating someone who wants to live in a nice house in proximity to yours, and they're not morally equivalent. No matter how much we might wish we could make them so, and thereby simplify our journey to humanity-repair.
But what I mostly struggled with was, basically, her entire premise: that "hate" is bad and we should get rid of it. I mean, it doesn't feel good. There are people in the world who I hate and I don't enjoy feeling that way towards them, but on the balance of the evidence and substantial experience with those people, I think the hate is well earned. Is that, in and of itself, a symptom of a terrible flaw or problem? It's just a feeling. I'm not attacking, trolling, abusing, or in any way harming the people I hate.
I think there's a lot of conflation of different mental and emotional processes under the banner of 'hate' (much like love, which can be applied as a term to anything from pasta to your spouse). And like all feelings, it has a context in which it is healthy and appropriate and continues to an organism's success, or it wouldn't have evolved. I'm not an expert so this is just me theorizing out of my ass, but I think a kind of directed animosity that evolved in a social context where you had direct experience and interaction with every human being who touched on your life makes total sense. Everyone you hated, very likely, would have been someone you knew, met, dealt with, and possibly who harmed you. The problem today is that we're functioning as a society in which the vast majority of humans who affect our lives (whether the people who make the laws or the people who make our clothes) are people we never interact with at all, and hate is increasingly directed towards these shadowy Others, where it can fuel mass actions that have no connection anymore to hate's evolved context. And the forms of connection Kohn talks about would likely help us reduce this kind of diffused hostility, but still, to me, the first priority is dealing with violent and hateful actions.
And towards that end, I do not believe a policy of unending and infinite Bridge Building is the best option. Yes, we need bridge builders and connections between different political, ideological, religious, ethnic, racial, gender, etc. communities, and a lot more than we have. But we also need people who are willing to make firm decisions about what constitutes acceptable conduct, where their loyalties lie, and cut ties. If all lefties or progressives became bridge builders or connectors, they'd just get walked all over by the right (or vice versa, if you think there's any actual chance of that happening); the 'independent thinkers' Kohn champions in her books, the ones who think without guardrails, as she put it, are quite likely to have firm convictions that lead to cutting off relationships with those who violate their principles. And that may involve some difficult emotions like anger and hate. Oh well?
Or to put it another way: Kohn relies heavily on anecdotes about an incident where she bullied another child in elementary school. Her ideas overall are heavily preoccupied by what the bully is thinking and feeling, how to convince the bully that they've behaved badly, how to have a productive conversation with bullies about bullying, how to forgive and not hate bullies, and so on. But there's little to nothing here about their victims, just about the emotional reaction that victims often have towards their bullies (ie anger, hate) and what to do about those feelings, on the assumption that the feelings themselves are intrinsically, inherently bad.
But honestly, how the victims feel is no one's business but theirs. Whether they feel hate towards their perpetrators and abusers for the rest of their lives is none of my concern. We should preoccupy ourselves instead with how to protect potential victims from harm.
April 26, 2018
Sally Kohn's The Opposite of Hate is a well-written, engaging read about the evolutionary and cultural roots of hate and incivility. This quick read is sorted into six main chapters looking at why and how we hate, hate as belonging, unconscious hate, when hate become pandemic, systems of hate, and a concluding section on the journey forward.
This concluding section has a great paragraph...
"The opposite of hate also isn't some mushy middle zone of dispassionate centrism. You can still have strongly held beliefs, beliefs that are in strong opposition to the beliefs of other people, and still treat those others with civility and respect. Ultimately, the opposite of hate is the beautiful and powerful reality of how we are all fundamentally linked and equal as human beings. The opposite of hate is connection."
This is a good book to better understand why some twitter trolls are as mean as they are online and why people can be driven by political or religious propaganda to hate or even kill "others" (the Rwanda section was difficult to read).
I also love that she quoted one of my favourite analogies from Arlie Russell Hochschild's Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right about standing in line.
It's a great read if you are interested in better understanding your own hate biases and those of others, I highly recommend it!
This concluding section has a great paragraph...
"The opposite of hate also isn't some mushy middle zone of dispassionate centrism. You can still have strongly held beliefs, beliefs that are in strong opposition to the beliefs of other people, and still treat those others with civility and respect. Ultimately, the opposite of hate is the beautiful and powerful reality of how we are all fundamentally linked and equal as human beings. The opposite of hate is connection."
This is a good book to better understand why some twitter trolls are as mean as they are online and why people can be driven by political or religious propaganda to hate or even kill "others" (the Rwanda section was difficult to read).
I also love that she quoted one of my favourite analogies from Arlie Russell Hochschild's Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right about standing in line.
It's a great read if you are interested in better understanding your own hate biases and those of others, I highly recommend it!
June 18, 2018
This one made me think, and that's always a good thing. But I have serious issues with her scholarship after reading about her misquoting Aminatou Sow and her misuse of Ijeoma Oluo's tweets. That's a shame, because unconscious bias is something that we really need to talk about.
September 15, 2018
I wish I could throw zero stars at this book....anyone who doesn't check/verify their sources need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law..... other than that, if you're interested in learning how to get rid of your hate issues, turn elsewhere....
November 3, 2020
I find it ironic that I should finish this book on election day; this is not a book of how to love or forgive. This book is purely a push to be a Democrat. She lives her life with claiming a Democrat status as the highest focus of living. I do NOT live my life with a political party at the top - at all! I am not affilliated with any party.
Sally Kohn filled this with so many stories of hate and rarely any detail about how to love or forgive, that it was truly depressing. She added gruesome, horrific details that never needed to be printed in order to get the gist of the tale. She could have left those out and still her point would have come across. I didn't need to read some of that in such explicit explanations to be rambling around in my head, defiling my brain and harming my soul.
I don't recommend this book to anyone. It's filled with too much hate. People need 20 examples of love and forgiveness to combat one example of evil. This was backwards. It was not helpful, except for the fact that she made to point to look deeper into how the situations got to be where they are to begin with. That's the only good I take from this. I won't choose to be a Democrat, I won't choose to share awful details, I won't choose to fill everyone with hate.
Don't read this book...it's sad.
Sally Kohn filled this with so many stories of hate and rarely any detail about how to love or forgive, that it was truly depressing. She added gruesome, horrific details that never needed to be printed in order to get the gist of the tale. She could have left those out and still her point would have come across. I didn't need to read some of that in such explicit explanations to be rambling around in my head, defiling my brain and harming my soul.
I don't recommend this book to anyone. It's filled with too much hate. People need 20 examples of love and forgiveness to combat one example of evil. This was backwards. It was not helpful, except for the fact that she made to point to look deeper into how the situations got to be where they are to begin with. That's the only good I take from this. I won't choose to be a Democrat, I won't choose to share awful details, I won't choose to fill everyone with hate.
Don't read this book...it's sad.
December 11, 2018
The premise is 5 stars, the execution is decent, but obviously there are big issues to keep ship shape in non-fic and accurate quoting, permission, and attribution are very important. That controversy aside, and knowing that you then have to take all other quotes with a grain of salt, her personal insights were interesting, the science was an excellent inclusion, and the intention and premise of this book are powerful, I only wish there were more and better answers.
April 21, 2018
Where do I start with this book? I have felt such heaviness in my heart for the past 2 years. This book was like taking a deep breath and I feel 10x lighter after reading it. This book is about hate and hope. The book breaks down the very idea of in-groups and out-groups that we create as humans and takes a much broader view of hate in its various forms; from seeds of resentment, to unconscious bias, to genocide. Then, challenges readers from all backgrounds to consider how we dehumanize the other and are ultimately individually responsible to combat our own hate in its various forms. A sobering albeit hopeful look at the state of our humanity, offering a way forward.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 4, 2019
Interesting but incredibly heavy read that I probably shouldn’t have read at the time that I did. It’s an interesting look at why people hate and what we can do about it. Minus points for the author not censoring the n-word on multiple occasions when quoting other people because there really is no excuse for that and was quite jarring to listen to, especially in a book dedicated to fighting hate.
July 14, 2024
I liked this and appreciated when Sally Kohn shared anecdotes from people she interviewed and met with in person. Finishing this book on the day of an assassination attempt on Trump was intense and poignant. I’d be curious to read a second edition of this (or updated edition?) given the current election cycle and political climate in the US.
February 10, 2020
I listened to this on audiobook.
I had issue with the writing style at parts and wanted less memoir and more research. Still a good and quick read to help us understand that we are all capable of hate and how to combat that hate.
I had issue with the writing style at parts and wanted less memoir and more research. Still a good and quick read to help us understand that we are all capable of hate and how to combat that hate.
xx-dnf-skim-reference
February 13, 2024I've always been a fan of seeing other people's points of view. I hope this book is worthy of my understanding, helps me do even better, and reaches some of my friends who are just so angry they are currently incapable of reaching out to those with whom they disagree.
I see that the last chapter is titled 'The Journey Forward." In my opinion, what we need to do is spend more time talking with real people in real life, and less time anonymously on social media.
We need to sincerely reach out to learn and understand others' points of view, their perspectives, their concerns, their fears, their challenges. And then we can try to find common concerns, mutual goals, reasons to cooperate.
Lots of mottos apply:
Walk a mile in my shoes.
Don't feed the trolls.
Turn the other cheek.
Empathy, not pity.
You can catch more flies with honey.
"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." (Mark Twain).
"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." (Star Trek)
etc.
And now I'm off to read that final chapter. Let's see if she can add anything to what I already know and practice.
---
Not so much. I can honestly say that I don't need this book, because I have made it second nature to feel compassion, and respect, for people I disagree with, (in part because I am surrounded by them, also because this has been my lifelong quest).
I have no idea whether you might need it or not. If you find yourself Otherizing, or Name-calling, or just spending too much time online (whether in social media or in the news), you might. Or you might need to read some of the other books that I've read. For example, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Or innumerable children's books.
Feb. 2024
I see that the last chapter is titled 'The Journey Forward." In my opinion, what we need to do is spend more time talking with real people in real life, and less time anonymously on social media.
We need to sincerely reach out to learn and understand others' points of view, their perspectives, their concerns, their fears, their challenges. And then we can try to find common concerns, mutual goals, reasons to cooperate.
Lots of mottos apply:
Walk a mile in my shoes.
Don't feed the trolls.
Turn the other cheek.
Empathy, not pity.
You can catch more flies with honey.
"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." (Mark Twain).
"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." (Star Trek)
etc.
And now I'm off to read that final chapter. Let's see if she can add anything to what I already know and practice.
---
Not so much. I can honestly say that I don't need this book, because I have made it second nature to feel compassion, and respect, for people I disagree with, (in part because I am surrounded by them, also because this has been my lifelong quest).
I have no idea whether you might need it or not. If you find yourself Otherizing, or Name-calling, or just spending too much time online (whether in social media or in the news), you might. Or you might need to read some of the other books that I've read. For example, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Or innumerable children's books.
Feb. 2024
April 23, 2018
Read for SLJ Adult Books 4 Teens review.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 201 reviews