5 ms·

> Did you not read the article at all? Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shorte

> Did you not read the article at all? Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > ... organizations attempt to use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members Essentially all organizations do that, don't they? Did the article define what "hate" is?

dragontamer 3y ago
> Essentially all organizations do that, don't they? Hebrews don't. Plenty of groups don't plan to expand at all actually. Groups explicitly trying to spread hate and grow is key IMO. It separates you out from many other groups.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Hebrews don't. Hence "essentially all" and not "all". Jehovah's Witnesses do, are they a hate group? Environmentalists? Libertarians? Socialist organizations? There are environmentalists who seriously hate people who drive cars. Like call them murderers and want them to suffer. But also, what is a group? Are feminists a group? If there exist self-described feminists who expressly advocate the killing of men, do we then take some action against anyone else who calls themselves a feminist or argues in favor of other feminist positions?
  - stirfish 3y ago
    What is anything? Before we can have a conversation, I need a formal definition of every word you intend to use
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The issue is that "hate group" is a motte and bailey. If you ask people what it is, they say it's the KKK. But the KKK has like four living members who were all born before the discovery of penicillin. And then no one can give you any definition they're actually willing to see consistently applied. You can come up with things like "the group advocates violence" but you can find a member of any sufficiently large group who does that, so a consistent application would have you classifying environmentalists and feminists and so on as hate groups. What people really want is to ban any group where they can find any member advocating violence and that group has a disfavored ideology. But it's the latter which is doing all the work, and nobody is willing to admit that because "we want an excuse to ban anyone who disagrees with our ideology" is saying the quiet part out loud.
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        "Hate Group" is a group that has a significant portion designed to explicitly hate a protected class. Where "protected class" is the ambiguous part in my experience. But "protected class" includes the disabled, black people, asians, women, etc. etc. Democrats hating Republicans and Republicans hating Democrats doesn't count, because neither group is a protected class. Nazis count, because Nazis hated Jews, and Jews are a religion and religion is a protected class. --------------- The point of debate is "protected class" in my experience. IE: White people asking to have the same protections as Black people. Or Mens right activists asking for men to be a protected class like Women are.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        I don't think "protected class" really gets you out of it. Suppose you have a group dedicated to enforcing immigration laws. There are plenty of non-racist reasons to want to do this, but there are also racist reasons to want to do it, so racists may join that organization and support their goals. And then they'll turn around and be racists and say racist things and cause opponents to point at them as representatives of the organization. But that kind of organization isn't a religion or a military with a chain of command that can excommunicate anyone or threaten them with a court martial if they don't stop being a racist. It's just a bunch of people who share the same goal for what may be very different reasons. So what is someone supposed to do to prevent their group from being labeled a "hate group" if all they want is to e.g. keep cheap labor from suppressing local wages? Because it's the same problem the other way. If you're #MeToo and some of the "members" of your really not very centralized "organization" are man-hating extremists, you have no great way to expel them. So are you still in favor of collective punishment?
        dragontamer 3y ago
        BLM had to actively fight against Black Bloc and prevent them from joining up with BLM protesters. Welcome to group dynamics. Yeah, it sucks. Hateful people try to join righteous causes. You have to absolutely censor them and cut them out of the group. -------- Why do you think Martin Luther King Jr. is so revered? Because there were Black Panthers marching with AK rifles using bombs to blow up their political rivals. They had to march in a way that proved that they were pro-peace and anti-violence, even if it meant forming an political rivalry (possibly political enemy) with the Black Panthers.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    > 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.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Your response to this: > What is a hate organization? Was this: > 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.
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        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?
dragontamer 3y ago
EDIT: Can't delete my post for some reason. Just editing it out...
freejazz 3y ago
Seems like the post you responded to mentioned that: "Organizations that proclaim a violent mission, engage in violence, and represent ideologies that promote hate"
- adamrezich 3y ago
  a casual observer might note that the definition of "violence" has been expanded somewhat in recent years, possibly to the point of creating a circular dependency on the also-expanding definition of "hate".
  - freejazz 3y ago
    Sure, feel free to read anything you want into anything at all. It doesn't seem like a good faith effort in taking them at face value, when you are willing to impart other's thoughts into their statement, without any regard for the author's perspective. No less here when there is a perfectly workable definition provided by the dictionary. In fact, it seems like you are making an effort to insist that this is vague, when really it isn't.
    - youreincorrect 3y ago
      It seems fair to discuss because we all know that research like this will be used to justify censoring "hate" groups that are not actually hate groups.
    - adamrezich 3y ago
      in the past few weeks alone I have seen multiple people—including people I used to be close friends with—express the idea that burning one's country's flag, or any kind of religious text or symbolism, is Free Speech and should be Protected, yet burning or otherwise desecrating a Pride Flag or any other associated symbolism is simultaneously Violence and Hate, toward all groups portrayed in/"represented by" said flag/symbolism (which is to say, everyone but straight white males), and therefore is not Free Speech, should not be Protected, and in fact should be Prosecuted. I have done my best to try and see things from this perspective—yet, try as I might, my own logical faculties remain steadfastly incompatible with this openly asymmetric worldview.

dragontamer 3y ago

> Essentially all organizations do that, don't they? Hebrews don't. Plenty of groups don't plan to expand at all actually. Groups explicitly trying to spread hate and grow is key IMO. It separates you out from many other groups.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Hebrews don't. Hence "essentially all" and not "all". Jehovah's Witnesses do, are they a hate group? Environmentalists? Libertarians? Socialist organizations? There are environmentalists who seriously hate people who drive cars. Like call them murderers and want them to suffer. But also, what is a group? Are feminists a group? If there exist self-described feminists who expressly advocate the killing of men, do we then take some action against anyone else who calls themselves a feminist or argues in favor of other feminist positions?
- stirfish 3y ago
  What is anything? Before we can have a conversation, I need a formal definition of every word you intend to use
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The issue is that "hate group" is a motte and bailey. If you ask people what it is, they say it's the KKK. But the KKK has like four living members who were all born before the discovery of penicillin. And then no one can give you any definition they're actually willing to see consistently applied. You can come up with things like "the group advocates violence" but you can find a member of any sufficiently large group who does that, so a consistent application would have you classifying environmentalists and feminists and so on as hate groups. What people really want is to ban any group where they can find any member advocating violence and that group has a disfavored ideology. But it's the latter which is doing all the work, and nobody is willing to admit that because "we want an excuse to ban anyone who disagrees with our ideology" is saying the quiet part out loud.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      "Hate Group" is a group that has a significant portion designed to explicitly hate a protected class. Where "protected class" is the ambiguous part in my experience. But "protected class" includes the disabled, black people, asians, women, etc. etc. Democrats hating Republicans and Republicans hating Democrats doesn't count, because neither group is a protected class. Nazis count, because Nazis hated Jews, and Jews are a religion and religion is a protected class. --------------- The point of debate is "protected class" in my experience. IE: White people asking to have the same protections as Black people. Or Mens right activists asking for men to be a protected class like Women are.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        I don't think "protected class" really gets you out of it. Suppose you have a group dedicated to enforcing immigration laws. There are plenty of non-racist reasons to want to do this, but there are also racist reasons to want to do it, so racists may join that organization and support their goals. And then they'll turn around and be racists and say racist things and cause opponents to point at them as representatives of the organization. But that kind of organization isn't a religion or a military with a chain of command that can excommunicate anyone or threaten them with a court martial if they don't stop being a racist. It's just a bunch of people who share the same goal for what may be very different reasons. So what is someone supposed to do to prevent their group from being labeled a "hate group" if all they want is to e.g. keep cheap labor from suppressing local wages? Because it's the same problem the other way. If you're #MeToo and some of the "members" of your really not very centralized "organization" are man-hating extremists, you have no great way to expel them. So are you still in favor of collective punishment?
        dragontamer 3y ago
        BLM had to actively fight against Black Bloc and prevent them from joining up with BLM protesters. Welcome to group dynamics. Yeah, it sucks. Hateful people try to join righteous causes. You have to absolutely censor them and cut them out of the group. -------- Why do you think Martin Luther King Jr. is so revered? Because there were Black Panthers marching with AK rifles using bombs to blow up their political rivals. They had to march in a way that proved that they were pro-peace and anti-violence, even if it meant forming an political rivalry (possibly political enemy) with the Black Panthers.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > 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.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Your response to this: > What is a hate organization? Was this: > 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.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      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?

dragontamer 3y ago

EDIT: Can't delete my post for some reason. Just editing it out...

freejazz 3y ago

Seems like the post you responded to mentioned that: "Organizations that proclaim a violent mission, engage in violence, and represent ideologies that promote hate"

adamrezich 3y ago
a casual observer might note that the definition of "violence" has been expanded somewhat in recent years, possibly to the point of creating a circular dependency on the also-expanding definition of "hate".
- freejazz 3y ago
  Sure, feel free to read anything you want into anything at all. It doesn't seem like a good faith effort in taking them at face value, when you are willing to impart other's thoughts into their statement, without any regard for the author's perspective. No less here when there is a perfectly workable definition provided by the dictionary. In fact, it seems like you are making an effort to insist that this is vague, when really it isn't.
  - youreincorrect 3y ago
    It seems fair to discuss because we all know that research like this will be used to justify censoring "hate" groups that are not actually hate groups.
  - adamrezich 3y ago
    in the past few weeks alone I have seen multiple people—including people I used to be close friends with—express the idea that burning one's country's flag, or any kind of religious text or symbolism, is Free Speech and should be Protected, yet burning or otherwise desecrating a Pride Flag or any other associated symbolism is simultaneously Violence and Hate, toward all groups portrayed in/"represented by" said flag/symbolism (which is to say, everyone but straight white males), and therefore is not Free Speech, should not be Protected, and in fact should be Prosecuted. I have done my best to try and see things from this perspective—yet, try as I might, my own logical faculties remain steadfastly incompatible with this openly asymmetric worldview.