> Jehovah's Witnesses do, are they a hate group? Environmentalists? Libertarians? Socialist organizations?
Affirming the Consequent fallacy.
I'm saying "If A then B", at no point have I claimed "If B therefore A".
Hate Groups spread themselves across the internet and real life. (IE: If Hategroup, then spread). At no point I (or the article) claimed "If spreading therefore Hategroup".
----------------
If some group of KKK members meet up in some basement secretly and don't plan on spreading themselves, then I'm basically cool with them. I don't like their views but whatever, I know I can't convince them or otherwise change their viewpoints.
But if they're an advocacy group and try to grow, then yes I'm much more concerned about it.
> Hate-based, terrorist, and criminal organizations attempt to use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members (1).*
The point is that "attempt[ing] to use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members" is in no way exclusive to "hate organizations" so that can't be how you identify them.
Then you quoted a definition of hate speech from Facebook. But even putting aside the problems with "direct attack against people... on the basis of protected characteristics", that doesn't get you a definition of hate organizations.
Under this definition a feminist who advocates the killing of men is engaged in hate speech since sex is a protected characteristic. Does it satisfy you that once that has happened, feminists would be classified as a hate organization? I don't like that outcome, but if you don't like it either then you need a better definition.
Yes. When you omnislash posts and read them line-by-line, they don't make sense. That's your problem, not mine.
-------------
But whatever, I'll try to focus on your more legitimate posts and push this (already flagged /banned) discussion towards something that resembles a worthy discussion.
> Dose it satisfy you that once that has happened, feminists would be classified as a hate organization?
You've confused ideology with groups and organizations.
The Nazis can be identified as a Hate Group. They followed the Fascist ideology (among many other ideologies).
Planned Parenthood can be identified as a group. They don't seem to be a "hate group" however. They follow the feminist ideology (among many other ideologies). If hypothetically, Planned Parenthood as a group (or if their leaders) decided that killing men was part of their explicit group focus, then yes I'd be cool with calling them a hate group.
-----------
EDIT: Lets cut to the chase. Do you want to call #BLM or #MeToo a hate group?
> The Nazis can be identified as a Hate Group. They followed the Fascist ideology (among many other ideologies).
But the Nazis, as an organization, no longer exist. They used to control a country and have a government. Nazi ideology may still exist but the Furher is dead.
> Planned Parenthood can be identified as a group. They don't seem to be a "hate group" however.
So this is the other problem. If you want to claim they're a hate group you point to age as a protected class, and then you end up with everyone shouting at each other because whether that's true or not turns on the very point of contention. In particular, you now have to make a censorship decision where the "accused hate group" only doesn't get censored if the decisionmaker agrees with their ideology. That's... bad.
> Lets cut to the chase. Do you want to call #BLM or #MeToo a hate group?
I want not to have censorship, and I find a good way of doing this is to insist that censorship decisions be made on principled basis. Because when people realize that the rules they're proposing would also be applied to people they like, they stop liking those rules.
> If you want to claim they're a hate group you point to age as a protected class, and then you end up with everyone shouting at each other because whether that's true or not turns on the very point of contention.
Yes, people make bullshit troll arguments all the time. So cut through the trolling and reach the meat of the discussion. Don't fall for the bait.
If you really want to call Planned Parenthood a hate group, go on ahead. I don't think you'll get very far. But you're using it as a hypothetical false argument trying to prove a point, rather than relying upon a real life argument or real life example.
As I said before, I know you're trying to talk about a real situation. So try me. Who are you actually trying to talk about? This topic is [flagged] at this point so I don't think too many people are visiting here anyway.
> If you really want to call Planned Parenthood a hate group, go on ahead. I don't think you'll get very far.
That depends on who you're trying to get very far with. If it's pro-choice coastal elites, obviously not. But suppose the person making the decision is pro-life.
> Who are you actually trying to talk about?
It's not about any group in particular. It's about what happens when you open this can of worms.
Actual formal hierarchical "hate organizations" are basically dead. But there are a lot of unstructured collections of people with shared goals and in each of those groups there are extremists and people with mental illness and teenagers who think it makes them big to threaten someone else. It's no difficulty to find instances of bad behavior. But group-level enforcement is just playing into tribalism. There is a reason collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
And there is no reason to think censorship will ever end any differently than it always does, with whatever group is in charge of censorship decisions imputing them with whatever ideological biases they may hold.
I'm a pro-life coastal elite. Try me. Private Catholic school, cause I'm Catholic. About as elite as you can get (well, I went to Public High school I guess).
I can talk about other groups without falling into the fallacy of just calling them a "Hate Group" just because I disagree with them. Even on important issues like Abortion.
In any case, the anti-abortionists who go towards bombs and explosives are hate groups, and I have to work at making sure my Catholic (and Catholics, a group I'm part of) are not associated with such assholes. That's just life. Assholes exist, on my side of the political spectrum, on your side, on opponents side, etc. etc.
I'm not going to align myself with those violent assholes to score political points. I'm more than confident in my ability to argue about the life of the fetus on my own grounds without having to bring in strawman arguments or whatever.
----------
If anything at all, its become more important to distinguish myself from other assholes as these hate groups come up. I can be pro-life without being a hate group, but it does mean acknowledging that the hate-groups need to be moderated (both in my own groups, but also in the public spaces).
> I'm not going to align myself with those violent assholes to score political points.
It's not you who makes the choice. They align themselves with you. The first time you learn they even exist can be when opponents use their words to malign you.
BLM and its relationship with Black Bloc is an example I brought up for good reason.
----------
So we have the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys on the Right. Have Republicans clearly censored these more-violent groups out of their spaces? (Leadership of these groups have literally been prosecuted and sentenced for their involvement in January 6th conspiracy).
Or has the right coalesced support of them and promised to pardon them?
----------
Everyone knows that assholes exist in all forms. Not necessarily rising to the level of hate groups (Proud Boys are becoming more-and-more like a hategroup, but I don't think Black Bloc or Oath Keepers have risen quite to that level yet). But in all cases, these three groups are extremely problematic to the left, and the right.
Censoring those violent viewpoints, calling them out, and diminishing them is the least I expect of reasonable people. However, some politicians are calling on their supporters and offering public promises for them.
The extreme flanks try to out-extreme each other. Its up to the centrists and the reasonable people to pull them back and/or call them out and say "Those guys over there: they went too far and are not to be associated with us anymore". You can't just accept allies all the time, some of these allies are not worth their trouble.
-------------
Look, its my overall opinion that Republicans are bad at this because this is the first time they've decided to perform activism. Be it online or in person. I get that these assholes don't represent all the Republicans, but there's good decisions and bad decisions here.
When people online are asking to censor some of the more problematic elements (ie: Oath Keepers or Proud Boys, and some of the stuff they proclaim), it applies just as strongly to the Black Bloc or other violent leftists (or historically, Black Mafia, Nation of Islam, etc. etc. in the Civil Rights era).
People going "I'm against censorship so I wanna support even these problematic members" always strikes me as naiive. You absolutely cannot let these groups take over the persona of your organization. These groups are too dangerous to gain power.
So advocacy is a constant fight. Not only against your political enemies, but even with your political allies (Ex: BLM having to explicitly fight back against left-aligned Black Bloc to minimize the violent acts in their name).
--------------
In any case, "Hate Group" isn't the issue you seem to have. It seems to be with "censorship", as that's what we keep coming back to. I've listed three problematic groups (Black Bloc, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers), which are by large, not considered "hate groups". But I think they're closer to the issues you're trying to talk about.
>I want not to have censorship, and I find a good way of doing this is to insist that censorship decisions be made on principled basis.
That's a non-answer. You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with???
also, are you actually trying to argue that planned parenthood is a hate group because they abort babies and therefore that is ageist? First off, it's old age that is a protected class. And second, how could anyone take this argument in good faith?
> You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with???
The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored.
If you want some other principles then I'm going to insist that you're very clear about what they are, so I can make sure they're applied consistently to you as you would have them applied to anyone else.
> First off, it's old age that is a protected class.
There are many different laws that specify what a protected class is and it's not uncommon for the text to say no more than "on the basis of age". For example, people under 40 aren't protected for the purposes of federal employment discrimination but it's illegal in New York City to discriminate against younger people for housing:
> how could anyone take this argument in good faith?
There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.
>The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored.
You immediately within the same sentence just said "when principles are being applied".
>There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.
This isn't a good faith debate as to whether or not that is discrimination. You are one of the most unreasonable and bad faith posters I've engaged with here.
Affirming the Consequent fallacy.
I'm saying "If A then B", at no point have I claimed "If B therefore A".
Hate Groups spread themselves across the internet and real life. (IE: If Hategroup, then spread). At no point I (or the article) claimed "If spreading therefore Hategroup".
----------------
If some group of KKK members meet up in some basement secretly and don't plan on spreading themselves, then I'm basically cool with them. I don't like their views but whatever, I know I can't convince them or otherwise change their viewpoints.
But if they're an advocacy group and try to grow, then yes I'm much more concerned about it.