[snackbugs]

It does indeed imply just that. You're abstracting the impulse to eliminate other groups away from that fact that it comes from a perspective of supremacy: the idea that your type of human is more deserving of existing than a foreign human.

[umanwizard]

Yes, but thinking you deserve to exist more than someone else has nothing to do with whether you think they're human.

My girlfriend's dog is very sweet and loyal. I think it deserves to exist more than a (human) child molester does. This doesn't mean I think dogs are human.

[snackbugs]

You're defining dehumanization biologically, when in usage the term is overloaded with another definition that refers to depriving others of dignity, individuality, and other positive human qualities.

To say that another doesn't deserve to be recognized with those positive human qualities is at the root of saying that they don't deserve to exist.

[umanwizard]

If you're defining it like that then it's just as vague and subjective as "hate speech" is, so we haven't made any progress with this definition.

[snackbugs]

You're being confronted with a truth about the clear definition of hate speech, and you're resisting moving forward because you intuitively sense the contradiction that your own belief might pose to that. This is where you need to be brave and get past that.

[umanwizard]

Huh? That's totally out of left field and not even related to the discussion we were having. How can you possibly have any idea what my motives are for this discussion or what my own beliefs are about anything else?

[snackbugs]

We're discussing the clear and defined understanding of what hate speech is.

You lost the thread of the conversation the moment someone confronted your belief that it doesn't have a clear definition.

The reason you lost the thread is because you're struggling with the internal contradiction of your belief.