3 ms·

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

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
        No, my original point stands. Rather than taking the article at its word, or those organizations, you repeatedly read into it a third party's beliefs (the people you mention about burning the flag) and now you are saying that I'm saying everyone agrees with them (the people that you made up?) I'm not sure how you got that from my post. Where did I say anything like that? My point is I don't care that you found some randos that disagree about what violence or hate is, that doesn't actually amount to a crisis in the definitions of these words. If anyone, it's you insisting that there is such widespread disagreement on the meaning of hate and violence, and that such a disagreement is untenable. But I don't see that to be the case at all, and if you had responded in good faith, and didn't impart a third party's beliefs into the article, then we'd have never gotten to this point in conversation. There are people that think the world is flat, there might be even more of them than the flag burners you talk about, nevertheless we recognize that the world isn't flat.

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
      No, my original point stands. Rather than taking the article at its word, or those organizations, you repeatedly read into it a third party's beliefs (the people you mention about burning the flag) and now you are saying that I'm saying everyone agrees with them (the people that you made up?) I'm not sure how you got that from my post. Where did I say anything like that? My point is I don't care that you found some randos that disagree about what violence or hate is, that doesn't actually amount to a crisis in the definitions of these words. If anyone, it's you insisting that there is such widespread disagreement on the meaning of hate and violence, and that such a disagreement is untenable. But I don't see that to be the case at all, and if you had responded in good faith, and didn't impart a third party's beliefs into the article, then we'd have never gotten to this point in conversation. There are people that think the world is flat, there might be even more of them than the flag burners you talk about, nevertheless we recognize that the world isn't flat.