Social Dogma Debunked: "Kill Them With Kindness"

I hate the idea of "killing someone with kindness" or never getting upset because it burns so much more for the other guy when you don't react. I think this phrase needs to be replaced.

The sentiment that this phrase was born from is great (the idea of responding to hate with love), but the propagation of the phrase itself creates a different sentiment of "winning" and "fighting back" that is bad. As people take it and use it for themselves, it gets used to disguise or enable their own hate in a self-righteous manner. All it does is bury the truth, prolong the grieving process, and undermine the real intention of the phrase. I love the idea of pursuing yourself and everyone, including your enemies, with love. But we need a different phrase for this idea that might be more healthy for our culture in the long run.

Is hurting someone, getting back at someone for something they did to you really the point of "taking the moral high ground"? Is it even really taking the moral high ground? Even THAT phrase, with the "high ground", implies that you are preparing for and engaging in war. Which is not the morally, ethically better place to be if someone is trying to start a fight or there's a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I think in most cases that the peaceful course of action suggested is the best one. But the motive is the worst. And motive is the most important part. You might as well just start throwing punches. Because it shouldn't be about getting back at someone, teaching them a lesson or getting what you want. That motive undermines the very principles that I suspect those sayings were intended to uphold.

You don't do it for your ego or for anyone else. You do it for the sake of your personal dignity, respect, and integrity. You do it because it's honestly the right thing to do by your heart. You do it because you have a responsibility to your community and yourself to stand as an example of peaceful integrity.

What you do is make a better decision with this current situation than your pursuer made with the problem under discussion. The decision is not better because you are better than them. It's better because their decision did not work. Better because if you throw the fight right back at them, it would just be your ego, and the fight would just continue, and the situation would end worse than it began.

So what about the old phrase, "turn the other cheek" from the Bible? I think people have misinterpreted this phrase in our generation to fit with the dogmas suggested by "kill them with kindness". I don't think Jesus meant turning your head, sticking your nose in the air, and walking away like a self-righteous prick. I think he meant to give the ultimate love--that if the person really wants to slap you in the face (and already did), turn the other cheek out and let them slap that one, too. Of course, doing this in real life requires an extremely high level of self respect and self love for it to not make you self-implode in depressive misery. And I don't think Jesus would expect you to turn the other cheek if you couldn't handle it. But we actually have examples of activists doing things like this today, chaining themselves to trees, standing in front of tanks, or lying down in front of construction equipment.

"Love your enemies as yourself." Much better. Also from the Bible.

When you are attacked, you choose to be better. Not better than them. Better than you. For you. For your attacker. For the greater good. The only way we can progress toward peace as a world is if each individual person makes this decision in those moments. Taking care of yourself is a responsibility you have to your world.

I love the idea of pursuing yourself and your attacker with love. If you'd like to explore that concept more, look into Aikido, a martial art based on love.

I would love to hear your ideas on a better phrase to capture this philosophy in a contemporary way.