4 ms·

Would you accept a definition that includes the KKK and ISIS? If the majority of an organizations public rhetoric is hate for other groups would you agree that

Would you accept a definition that includes the KKK and ISIS? If the majority of an organizations public rhetoric is hate for other groups would you agree that makes them a hate organization? What is the purpose of this line of argumentation? Would you take the position that there are no such things as hate-organizations or hate-speech? The world is plainly better off with fewer organizations like the KKK and ISIS. Do you agree? That seems like as milquetoast as one can get. Are there organizations that you feel are labeled as hate-groups but are not? What hairs are we trying to split?

megaman821 3y ago
I kinda want to know the lines we are drawing here. Is a group advocating straight marriage a hate group? Is a group espousing all white people are racist a hate group? Also, I don't this paper is talking about the KKK or ISIS since I don't think they have a had presence on a social platform for quite a while.
smsm42 3y ago
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.
- icandoit 3y ago
  > 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?
  - ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
    >If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property Are Martin Luther King or Malcolm X terrorists?
  - smsm42 3y ago
    > 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?
reuben_scratton 3y ago
Here's an example: The LGB Alliance in U.K. are routinely smeared as a 'hate' group for taking a dim view of male rapists in female prisons, males competing in female sports, and so on. Resisting that trend and arguing for sex-based rights is considered 'hate' by some. It's a lazy, imprecise term that is only ever used in political spats, never to address actual intergroup violence. Personally I suspect the demand for hate groups to exist - thereby justifying the many orgs and careers built on countering it - far exceeds the genuine supply.

megaman821 3y ago

I kinda want to know the lines we are drawing here. Is a group advocating straight marriage a hate group? Is a group espousing all white people are racist a hate group? Also, I don't this paper is talking about the KKK or ISIS since I don't think they have a had presence on a social platform for quite a while.

smsm42 3y ago

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.

icandoit 3y ago
> 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?
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
  >If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property Are Martin Luther King or Malcolm X terrorists?
- smsm42 3y ago
  > 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?

reuben_scratton 3y ago

Here's an example: The LGB Alliance in U.K. are routinely smeared as a 'hate' group for taking a dim view of male rapists in female prisons, males competing in female sports, and so on. Resisting that trend and arguing for sex-based rights is considered 'hate' by some. It's a lazy, imprecise term that is only ever used in political spats, never to address actual intergroup violence. Personally I suspect the demand for hate groups to exist - thereby justifying the many orgs and careers built on countering it - far exceeds the genuine supply.