Hater, by Calvin Klein

Many ridiculous blog posts ago I wrote about how I define the word, and usage of the word, "hater." My definition of hater can be summed up by the Harry Truman quote, "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." When someone gets called a hater, it's usually because they are saying something of truth that the other person knows has truth, but can't or won't admit to.

Some of this inability to admit to things comes from the hard line stances people take, seemingly now more than ever. Most debates have become , "either/or" propositions. Some debates necessitate such stances because the two sides are diametrically opposed to each other, while other debates devolve into hard line stances because people seem to have a need to search for ultimate truth. Once someone has found his or her ultimate truth, it follows that everything else must be opposing to what he or she has found to be truth. To oppose someone's ultimate truth is to be a hater.

The other contributing factor to the labeling of the hater is the new way of the world to accept things, almost blindly, as they are sold to us at an ever quickening pace. There seems to be so much superficiality now that true quality has all but been erased in the name expedience and marketability. To question anything is to be called a hater, when in years past that person may have only been a skeptic.

I am a skeptic. I like calling something what it is and having an honest talk about the pros and cons of something. For me, it always goes back to sports for examples because I feel that sports encapsulates what is happening in the greater society.

I have to turn now to sports to put Tim Tebow squarely in the example crosshairs. Tim Tebow is a polarizing figure. To criticize him is to be a hater. I can understand this, because he engenders strong emotions from his supporters. I am a confessed hater of the media creation known as Tim Tebow: Legendary Quarterback. This is entirely different from hating the person. I take issue with the media obsession with him and their unfettered desire to proclaim him legendary. Can't we call him what he is? He is likable, and by all accounts works very hard in practice and games; he just isn't good at quarterback. Can't I say that he isn't a good quarterback without it being an attack on the other stuff? Can't I want to take a wait and see approach on him to see if he can make a career out of how he plays? Why does it have to be I either accept all of it or none of it? I just want to see if his skills can match his marketability.

This is just one current example of the problem of the search for ultimate black and white truth. There is no ultimate truth, there is only truth with all the shades of gray that come with it. To be a hater is to understand that it's ok to take issue with something and talk about it. A hater understands that truth is found in the gray between the sides of ultimate black and white truth.