[choof]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

"promoting anomisity", "promiting hostility", "promoting malice" are all extremely open for interpretation as they are vague.

most people understand what "hostility" and "malice" is comprised of when it's in the context of race, gender, religion, etc. in the case of groups such as stormfront or horowitz, the promotion of hostility and malice should be obvious. they hate jews and muslims based on the sole premise of them being jews and muslims.

what counts as "hostility" in, say, a rough neighborhood in LA is vastly different than what counts as "hostility" at Oxford. clearly, the term is open for interpretation in a very broad way.

again, the context of race makes this pretty clear.

these terms are along the same lines of vagueness as terms like "personal attacks", "insults", "being mean", and so on. the CT threads I posted recently (one about the vagueness of terms like "being nice", one about the vaguenss of terms like "insult") show that this isn't immediately obvious to everyone, nor is it self-evident. there's widespread disagreement about what these things mean.

and based on your responses in that CT thread you seem to have an issue understanding context.

using the term again doesn't make "hate group" less meaningless. it just means you're rolling with a term that hasn't been defined well. "well, like I said, bad people shouldn't get money" where "bad people" = whatever you want.

I think people who use python to automate windows functionality are bad people (because powershell is objectively better yes I'm being hostile come at me br0o0o0oo0o). I also think that people who hate brown people because they're brown are bad people. I'm fine with one of these groups of people getting a platform. you should be able to guess which one.