5 ms·

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 dependen

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.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    I think it would have sufficed to say that not everyone agrees. I don't think that's news. >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. Not sure what that has to do with this? Yes, some people disagree with you.
    - adamrezich 3y ago
      > I think it would have sufficed to say that not everyone agrees. I don't think that's news. this is my point: "hate" and "violence" used to be pretty universally agreed-upon terms, yet, as of late, their definitions have been expanded, and only a subset of people agree with said newly-expanded definitions. > Not sure what that has to do with this? Yes, some people disagree with you. the point of this was to demonstrate my honest attempt at internalizing these redefinitions, only to discover that they are incompatible with my worldview (yet the old definitions still fit just fine). if we can't agree on (new) (re)definitions of terms like "violence" and "hate", then what practical use do they have in contexts such as this?
      - freejazz 3y ago
        >this is my point: "hate" and "violence" used to be pretty universally agreed-upon terms, yet, as of late, their definitions have been expanded, and only a subset of people agree with said newly-expanded definitions. Okay? I don't think the article asserted that there was universal agreement on the term... >if we can't agree on (new) (re)definitions of terms like "violence" and "hate", then what practical use do they have in contexts such as this? I don't think the fact that some people disagree with you supports the proposition that people cannot generally agree on the term hate, and frankly, the only person here doing effort towards that is you, as you keep trying to do back flips to point out that some people don't agree about what hate means.
        adamrezich 3y ago
        if I'm understanding correctly, the general thrust of your position (between the unnecessary ad-hominem fluff such as "you keep trying to do back flips", and abject non sequiturs like "sure, feel free to read anything you want into anything at all" (thanks?)) is: - yes, "hate" (and "violence") have been recently redefined - but, most everyone agrees with the new redefinitions - therefore, my inability to logically integrate said new redefinitions into my worldview makes me an outlier - therefore, it is not unexpected that the linked paper does not elaborate on its definitions of the terms "hate" and "hate group", as, again, nearly everyone—excepting outliers like myself—is fully on board with the redefinitions of these terms, having already fully integrated them into their worldview is this an accurate summary?

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.
- freejazz 3y ago
  I think it would have sufficed to say that not everyone agrees. I don't think that's news. >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. Not sure what that has to do with this? Yes, some people disagree with you.
  - adamrezich 3y ago
    > I think it would have sufficed to say that not everyone agrees. I don't think that's news. this is my point: "hate" and "violence" used to be pretty universally agreed-upon terms, yet, as of late, their definitions have been expanded, and only a subset of people agree with said newly-expanded definitions. > Not sure what that has to do with this? Yes, some people disagree with you. the point of this was to demonstrate my honest attempt at internalizing these redefinitions, only to discover that they are incompatible with my worldview (yet the old definitions still fit just fine). if we can't agree on (new) (re)definitions of terms like "violence" and "hate", then what practical use do they have in contexts such as this?
    - freejazz 3y ago
      >this is my point: "hate" and "violence" used to be pretty universally agreed-upon terms, yet, as of late, their definitions have been expanded, and only a subset of people agree with said newly-expanded definitions. Okay? I don't think the article asserted that there was universal agreement on the term... >if we can't agree on (new) (re)definitions of terms like "violence" and "hate", then what practical use do they have in contexts such as this? I don't think the fact that some people disagree with you supports the proposition that people cannot generally agree on the term hate, and frankly, the only person here doing effort towards that is you, as you keep trying to do back flips to point out that some people don't agree about what hate means.
      - adamrezich 3y ago
        if I'm understanding correctly, the general thrust of your position (between the unnecessary ad-hominem fluff such as "you keep trying to do back flips", and abject non sequiturs like "sure, feel free to read anything you want into anything at all" (thanks?)) is: - yes, "hate" (and "violence") have been recently redefined - but, most everyone agrees with the new redefinitions - therefore, my inability to logically integrate said new redefinitions into my worldview makes me an outlier - therefore, it is not unexpected that the linked paper does not elaborate on its definitions of the terms "hate" and "hate group", as, again, nearly everyone—excepting outliers like myself—is fully on board with the redefinitions of these terms, having already fully integrated them into their worldview is this an accurate summary?