Obviously not. Definition "any organization" includes KKK and ISIS, but not acceptable. Same for definition "any organization which includes men". Now, if you defined as "only KKK and ISIS"... still not clear. Which KKK? There were many of them. What if some organization is named KKK but isn't related to US racist one? What about racists that aren't holding a formal membership of KKK - are they fine (if they steer clear of ISIS too)? Giving two examples which seem obvious to you (even those aren't as simple as yoh think) is not the same as giving workable definition.
Obviously also there are plenty of organizations that are labeled as hate by some people and other people disagree with it. Look up this week's controversy about SPLC for some examples, but they are in no way unique. You think of it as splitting hairs because you can't imagine how people can disagree with what you imagine to be obvious. But it's not as obvious as you think.
If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property, they are a terrorist organization. If the reasons they give for this are based on identity they are additionally a hate-group.
Seems pretty clear to me. A world with less moral clarity here is one with more (necessarily?) violence and destruction. Why do you think this line of argumentation is either morally permissable, or even virtuous? What argument convinced you?
> If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property, they are a terrorist organization
US Army has left the chat. All the militaries in the world joined them. The police and the FBI are not far behind.
> Why do you think this line of argumentation is either morally permissable,
Which "this" line? Questioning your definitions? I don't think I need anybody's permission for that.
But wait. Let's say the KKK 3.5, freshly reorganized, does not call for violence and destruction of property of Jews and black people. Make no mistake, they still hate them and think they are sub-human and should be oppressed and ultimately eliminated, but they are now vowed to act through strictly non-violent means - education, propaganda, investment, protest, boycotts, electioneering, lawmaking if they could make it - but no freelance violence. And, also, they are called LLL now, just because. By your definitions, they are not a hate group anymore? If yes, then what criteria did you use and why didn't you initially include them?
Obviously also there are plenty of organizations that are labeled as hate by some people and other people disagree with it. Look up this week's controversy about SPLC for some examples, but they are in no way unique. You think of it as splitting hairs because you can't imagine how people can disagree with what you imagine to be obvious. But it's not as obvious as you think.