4 ms·

So the purpose of the blog is to inform about a political protest. I still think it's misleading to refer to it as hateblog, even if the organisers are militan

So the purpose of the blog is to inform about a political protest. I still think it's misleading to refer to it as hateblog, even if the organisers are militant or radical.

yorwba 8y ago
The blog doesn't just "inform about political protest", it explicitly advocates for violence. Their primary motivation seems to be hate of the political right. As a leftist myself, I think that "leftist hateblog" is a pretty accurate description.
- woah 8y ago
  We can get into word definition games here, but “hate” generally refers to a desire for the extermination or oppression of a group of people based on personal characteristics like race or ancestry. Conflating “hate” with any call for political violence is disingenuous and a sloppy attempt at bad faith rhetoric. Do you consider the New York Times a “hateblog” for their endorsement of political violence against the former government of Iraq?
  - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
    >Do you consider the New York Times a “hateblog” for their endorsement of political violence against the former government of Iraq? No, that's war mongering/yellow journalism by a mass media company, far worse and more destructive than a "hate blog"
  - ygaf 8y ago
    That definition of hate is a very recent construct, and trying to sweep the regular meaning under the rug makes you the disingenuous one.
clacke2 8y ago
A quick look at https://augsburgfuerkrawalltouristen.noblogs.org/anleitungen/ https://augsburgfuerkrawalltouristen.noblogs.org/anleitungen... shows me a paragraph that says throwing rocks is an old classic, please bring gloves, because rocks also carry fingerprints. I don't know if somebody is going to say that this is edgy triple-layer sarcasm, but its pretty clear to me that at least some readers of the site will take this as an endorsement of potentially lethal violence against political opponents. If you throw rocks at political opponents, you don't think they're just misguided and their policies unfortunate, you hate their guts. EDIT: The paragraph is explicitly about breaking windows, and say to be careful not to risk hitting people. So it's not about violence against individual people, but it's still violence, and illegal. And you don't break people's windows if you merely disagree with them.

So the purpose of the blog is to inform about a political protest. I still think it's misleading to refer to it as hateblog, even if the organisers are militant or radical.

yorwba 8y ago

The blog doesn't just "inform about political protest", it explicitly advocates for violence. Their primary motivation seems to be hate of the political right. As a leftist myself, I think that "leftist hateblog" is a pretty accurate description.

woah 8y ago
We can get into word definition games here, but “hate” generally refers to a desire for the extermination or oppression of a group of people based on personal characteristics like race or ancestry. Conflating “hate” with any call for political violence is disingenuous and a sloppy attempt at bad faith rhetoric. Do you consider the New York Times a “hateblog” for their endorsement of political violence against the former government of Iraq?
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  >Do you consider the New York Times a “hateblog” for their endorsement of political violence against the former government of Iraq? No, that's war mongering/yellow journalism by a mass media company, far worse and more destructive than a "hate blog"
- ygaf 8y ago
  That definition of hate is a very recent construct, and trying to sweep the regular meaning under the rug makes you the disingenuous one.

clacke2 8y ago

A quick look at https://augsburgfuerkrawalltouristen.noblogs.org/anleitungen/ https://augsburgfuerkrawalltouristen.noblogs.org/anleitungen... shows me a paragraph that says throwing rocks is an old classic, please bring gloves, because rocks also carry fingerprints. I don't know if somebody is going to say that this is edgy triple-layer sarcasm, but its pretty clear to me that at least some readers of the site will take this as an endorsement of potentially lethal violence against political opponents. If you throw rocks at political opponents, you don't think they're just misguided and their policies unfortunate, you hate their guts. EDIT: The paragraph is explicitly about breaking windows, and say to be careful not to risk hitting people. So it's not about violence against individual people, but it's still violence, and illegal. And you don't break people's windows if you merely disagree with them.