[macspoofing]

For one thing, this definition eschews a common standard. Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society. Anyway, in practice (and probably in your mind), this definition would entail grouping people by their skin color and labeling one group as extra susceptible for violating YOUR hate speech code and another group being completely exempt.

[snackbugs]

>Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society.

I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society.

You just haven't ever needed to interface with this idea and therefore believe it's not a defined concept.

[macspoofing]

>I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society.

I didn't say anything of the sort. What I meant to communicate to you was that I don't see any evidence that the SPECIFIC (and arbitrary) power structures you choose to use, have any actual explanatory power. Typically, ideologues of your persuasion will attempt to explain any disparity in society like this. Those claims are almost always unfalsifiable and can be twisted and contoured to fit any data point.

Do you understand my point? There are many power structures and many hierarchies in our society. If you were to explain the particular status of a specific individual here are some characteristics:

- race

- ethnicity

- gender

- sexual orientation

- height

- IQ

- Extrovertness vs introvertness

- Disability Physical

- Disability Mental

- two-parent vs single-parent household

- household income

- geographic location of upbringing

- geographic location of present residency

- education level

- sense of humour

- religion

- political alignment

- marital status

- number of dependents

- hair color

- attractiveness level

- language

- athleticism

- etc. etc.

Ideologues of your persusain tend to argue, with ZERO evidence, that immutable genetic characteristics dominate all others, even though most evidence suggests the opposite. So it isn't about denying the idea that power structures and hierarchies exists, but rather denying the idea that the SPECIFIC power structures and SPECIFIC hierarchies you choose have any value for explanation.

[snackbugs]

Every reply of yours so far has hinged on my definition of terms being arbitrary.

I'm strictly talking about well-defined terms.

Maybe you have never examined them because you never needed to interface with them in practice, or maybe you do understand them and are just arguing in bad faith to defend a more abstract belief. I won't make any assumptions about that.

[Sir_Cmpwn]

If anyone's arguing in bad faith here, it's you. Power dynamics may lead to hate speech but they are not an intrinsic part of hate speech.

[snackbugs]

Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power. Stop making up your own terms.

[macspoofing]

>Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power.

That's not a universally accepted definition. You're simply asserting it to be true. It's very similar to the way the definition of 'racism' was contorted from a conceptually simple "somebody who hates someone based on their race" to "somebody who discriminates (usually in some abstract ill-defined, overbroad way) and who is part of some power dominance hierarchy (also arbitrarily defined) against a marginalized sub-group" or paraphrased: "If you're non-white, you cannot be racist". Sorry, you don't get a pass on that and you don't get to just assert this to be true. I also believe that this is a deeply immoral way of looking at the world.

[Chazprime]

This here is a perfect example of a bad faith argument; asserting that your definition of hate speech is the only acceptable definition is disingenuous.

[macspoofing]

>Every reply of yours so far has hinged on my definition of terms being arbitrary.

Not quite. I am fully aware that ideas like "privilege" or "dominance/power hierarchies" have well defined meanings. But thought they are well-defined, their applicability in explaining our society is controversial. Proponents of these concepts tend to be ideologically driven. I criticized these concepts because you used them to create a definition of 'hate speech'.

>Maybe you have never examined them because you never needed to interface with them in practice

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

>maybe you do understand them and are just arguing in bad faith to defend a more abstract belief

I disagree. I attempted to be very clear in why I disagree with your point of view and I tried to capture your position fairly. Where is this 'bad faith'?