Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When you are so mad at someone that you make a bad decision, even though you will be harmed by it as well, in order to harm that person; is there a good term for this?

For example burning $100 because he owns $20 of it.

share|improve this question
    
making a mountain out of a mole hill? acting out of spite? –  virmaior Feb 13 at 6:37
    
Should that term be strictly for an illogical action or can it mean merely the act of losing something in order to gain advantage over an adversary ? –  WYSIWYG Feb 13 at 10:06

4 Answers 4

up vote 21 down vote accepted

"Cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes close to what you are describing.

share|improve this answer
    
The ultimate example, a suicide bomber. –  bib Feb 13 at 0:27
    
This is it exactly. –  starsplusplus Feb 13 at 10:21
    
@bib I prefer to call suicide bombers "natural selection". –  jwenting Feb 13 at 12:08

For a single word, you can consider spite, which means to go out of one's way to harm another for a perceived wrong.

In other words, it means to do something unnecessary (which means there is a cost) to harm another for what may be no legitimate reason at all.

An example is the spite fence. This is a fence that is put up for no other reason than to annoy a neighbor. It is generally done so at some cost to the one putting it up (for the material or at least the for labor).

share|improve this answer
1  
+1 This is the correct answer; This is exactly what the word spite is good for. –  user867 Feb 13 at 4:31
2  
Disagree - "spite" doesn't imply any harm to the doer, only the recipient. –  Andrew Medico Feb 13 at 5:32
    
I agree with @Andrew. You could burn his $100 out of spite without necessarily doing anything to harm your own money. –  starsplusplus Feb 13 at 10:22

A Pyrrhic victory. The Greek King Pyrrhus was ruined beating the Romans.

share|improve this answer
    
Pyrrhus did not intentionally destroy his army to spite the Romans, and it was not "worth it" for him to incur grave losses just so that he could inflict minor ones on his enemy. So the situation described is manifestly not a Pyrrhic victory. –  choster Feb 13 at 6:13
    
@choster, what if he amends it to seeking a Pyrrhic victory? Admittedly that's not what happened to Pyrrhus but the contemporary use of the term seems to include something worse than what he did. Let me burn your eyes with this sentence: Pyrrhus victory is a pyrrhich victory not only because he lost his best generals in winning but because it leaves us remembering him for something he did not do and which does not do justice to his nobility. –  virmaior Feb 13 at 6:42
2  
"Seeking a Pyrrhic victory" sounds like a particularly verbose way of saying "stupid" –  Shadur Feb 13 at 8:19

If spite is not quite a good fit, then I would say "collateral damage".

This is when you inflict harm upon yourself in the attempt to attack your enemy.

share|improve this answer
1  
Not necessarily. A third person could be collateral damage. In fact, I would argue it's used that way more than meaning damage to yourself. –  starsplusplus Feb 13 at 10:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.