The term "hate," in its modern political usage, is an invalid concept and has dangerous implications.
Hate is defined in the dictionary as "intense or passionate dislike." What's wrong with intensely disliking something? For example, I hate serial killers and cancer. As George Reisman recently tweeted: "There are things that deserve to be hated, and people must be free to hate them. It is an essential requirement of fighting evil." You could also hate cute puppies and roses, and that might make you a bad or strange person, but it doesn't invalidate the concept or necessity of rational hatred or judging evil to be evil.
Today, the term hate is being used as a way to conflate the concept of bigotry with the concept of judgment. On this premise, to be a bigot is to be guilty - not of irrationality or bad judgment - but, rather, guilty of judging in and of itself. In other words, by conflating these concepts, it creates the impression that intensely or passionately disliking something, anything, is itself an evil. Such a premise tends to paint anyone who thinks on principle, or who projects moral certainty, as necessarily evil, a so-called "hater."
Ironically, this term is used mostly by leftist progressives who themselves vehemently, and in many cases violently, hate anyone who disagrees with their political views. Consequently, they have not only twisted the meaning of the word hate in a way that makes any judgment sound sinister, they have also succeeded in tying this concept, not to themselves, but only to their opponents.
The net result is that anyone who opposes them on any issue, in their mind, is guilty of hate, or, equivalently, guilty of bigotry and irrationality. Consequently, they regard their opponents as not just wrong or mistaken, but as morally evil monsters, beyond rational argument, that must be stopped by any means necessary.
It's time to challenge this invalid concept every chance we get.