The wider the hate, the better?

This seems to be the conclusion of at least one writer.

The recent shooting rampage at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin put the media spotlight on music groups that have hateful lyrics in their songs. The accused shooter, Wade Michael Page, had apparently played guitar for several music groups that have been accused of promoting neo-Nazi ideas.

The article concerned a certain music group that was apparently wrongly identified as white-supremacist. Key quote:

But if you really wanted to defend the group [Hatebreed], you had to put your lyrical criticism hat on, which, surprise!, didn't always reveal the most pleasant things about the band with songs like "A Call for Blood," "Kill and Addict" and "Destroy Everything," as the Houston Press's Craig Hlavaty wrote in his defense of the group:

Hatebreed is in fact not a Jew-hating, racist, Nazi, hate-filled act. Their hatred is more geared towards people in your everyday life, like ex-girlfriends, local politicians and law enforcement, and other meanies. Nowhere in the band's history have they ever called for racial cleansing.

Obviously, it's preferable to be an equal-opportunity hater than the type of hater that focuses exclusively on religious and ethnic minorities. Still, there's something ironic about excusing a band's reputation by explaining that they hate everybody just the same.

I am not sure what to make of the last two lines in the above article. It is possible that the author, John Hudson, was being tongue in cheek.

Nevertheless, the notion that some kinds of blind, unreasoning hate are better than others is pretty warped.