Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> Hate-based, terrorist, and criminal organizations attempt to use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members

That can't possibly be a definition since many, if not all types of organizations "use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members". For example political parties. So that doesn't really answer the question "What is a hate organization?".

> So that doesn't really answer the question "What is a hate organization?".

It's the organization that censor hate. That's why it's called "hate organization".

> 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

> ... 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?

> 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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

> 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?

>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.

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?

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.

it would be very useful to know whether or not you believe "hate" and "violence" have been recently redefined/had their definitions expanded, because this is the lynchpin of my entire argument, and you kind of keep dodging it, which allows you to now frame my assertion that these definitions have changed as being something that only a small subset of the population buys into. continuing to dodge this is either naïve or disingenuous—because it means that you're either claiming or feigning (respectively) ignorance about this topic, which is central to the claims made by the study, in the context in which it is being made.

I just said twice that the words have not been redefined and here you are asking again, pretending like you are a reasonable person engaged in good faith discussion.

I have repeatedly rejected your assertion that the words are redefined and I have repeatedly pushed back against your evidence ("some people disagree with me!") that leads you to think the words have been redefined. I have specifically said that we can easily refer to the dictionary instead of the strawman you are insisting on, because you found some people with unreasonable beliefs. It's as if you have not engaged with my posts at all.

it seems we're talking past each other, so there's not much point in continuing this discussion

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.

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

But they refuse to name the groups. I hope you can see the moral hazard in saying we you are going to deplatform dangerous groups, but we can't tell you what the groups are, because they are dangerous. It is a license to do whatever you want and get rid of groups you disagree with.

We have distinct words to define those distinct groups. There are certainly communities that are "only" offensive, not terrorist nor criminal, but should be lumped in with those groups nevertheless?

Perhaps the author of the post you responded to was referring to this sort of absurdity.

These distinct groups are united in advancing hatred, so in this context it seemed to make sense to lump them together, no?

Many groups advance hatred. From the right, there are groups that hate transgender-advocacy groups that do youth outreach. From the left, the feeling is reciprocated.

Depending whom you ask, these groups are either hate groups or "saving our youth".

"Hate Groups" are defined as groups that hate a protected class.

IE: Its fine to hate Nazis, because Nazis are not a protected class. Its not fine to hate Transgender people, because Transgender people are a protected class.

Its fine to hate "hate groups", because "hate groups" are not a protected class.

-------------

The problem is not with "hating on hate groups". I'm pretty sure there are people who want men to be a protected class (IE: Mens' rights groups). Which... I dunno if that's a good idea and the groups that advocate that are kinda icky. But sure, we can debate whether or not that's needed.

But if the debate is "hate groups are ambiguous and illogical", I'm going to have to disagree with you. Its just that we don't consider white people or men to be protected classes, and that's what pisses some people off.

At the extreme end: at no point should Nazis or Ku Klux Klan ever be considered a protected class. Trying to minimize these group's influence on our society is the entire damn point of this hate-group definition.

What about hating on a orthodox Jews, or Muslims, on account of their beliefs about transgenderism? Aren't they protected classes?

> Muslims

Muslims isn't a specific enough group.

I'm 100% perfectly cool with calling Al Qaeda or ISIS a hate group.

---------

I'm 100% cool with calling the Westboro Baptist Church a Hate Group.

Just making them religious doesn't change them from being a hate group, or immune from criticism.

You missed the point. I was asking if a group that hated orthodox religious groups would be considered a hate group. You are addressing whether religious groups can be hate groups.

I'm trying my best to name real-life organizations that match my real-life experience here, and you're seemingly trying to come up with hypothetical examples that may or may not have any relevance to the real world.

Could you give me an example of these organizations that are giving you such trouble in classifying hate group vs not-hate group?

---------

Like, who exactly are you trying to describe? Are you calling Militant Atheists a hate group (or a candidate for hate groups?) The Satanic Temple?

I'm certainly aware of militant atheist groups if that's where you're trying to go. All of them are "anti-religion", but I wouldn't call any of them a hate group. As a Catholic myself, I've had to deal with their anti-religion and anti-Christian bias. But I've never felt personally threatened, or physically threatened by them.

You aren't aware that LGBTQ+ advocacy groups are opposed to some religious groups? And that their their opposition is because of the religious beliefs? This is not a secret.

I literally listed The Satanic Temple (anti-religion, pro LGBTQ+ group) in my last post man.

Where are you going with this? I'm well aware of these groups and can even list them off by name. What problematic behavior do you want to discuss about The Satanic Temple, or other anti-religious groups?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

Hate Groups are well defined and well understood, and the usage of the term has spanned over a generation of people without much ambiguity.

The SPLC has muddied the waters on this question. Even when hate group numbers decrease, they show the opposite. [1]

1: https://reason.com/2023/06/09/southern-poverty-law-center-mo...

So, organizations that violate Facebook policies?

The question arose from the fact that hate organization was mentioned along with terrorist and criminal organizations, which implies that these are somewhat equal terms. To me, these are widely different things.

>So, organizations that violate Facebook policies?

Please rephrase this as a sincere question.

so a "hate organization" is a "Hate-based ... organizations"?

That clears everything up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com