I’ve seen “hater” misused far too frequently.
A hater is not someone who simply “hates.” A hater is someone who hates someone for being successful. A hater points out a negative detail about the person that is irrelevant to the person’s success.
The Urban Dictionary defines “hater” best: “A person that simply cannot be happy for another person’s success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.”
To use an extreme example, when people say, “I hope Bin Laden is killed,” they are not “hating” on Bin Laden. Bin Laden is indeed an evil man who deserves to die.
When someone says, “Fedor Emelianenko has a gut,” they are hating on him. This is so even though it’s true that he has a gut. However, his gut does affect his athletic performance, and thus it’s irrelevant to the conversation. (If he were an underwear model, pointing out his gut might be a fair criticism.)
Likewise, if a CEO of Coca-Cola has a bad haircut, noting that he has a bad haircut when discussing his business performance is hating on the man. If stock decreased 50% under his watch, but he made $50 million as compensation for being CEO, noting that he raided the company would not be hating.
When someone makes a stupid comment and gets called out on it, no one is “hating” on that person. Rather, people are simply noting that the comment was stupid. The criticism is relevant to the comment. That’s the key - relevance.
When someone does something immoral and people judge him, those people are not hating. Rather, they are pointing out the person’s immorality.
I thought this distinction was obvious. But “hater” is so often overused that obviously it’s not.
