[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'?