That you do is what it is. I don't have something to say about your doing so. As goes the context of the OP and thread title, the "no-goodnik" nature of the groups and people who participated in the rallies this past weekend isn't within the scope of what I addressed.
I watched the video and the big colorful sign I see folks marching with says "no hate." I saw myriad other signs that echoed that message. It's thus hard to say the "anti-hate" is an inapt adjective for describing the counter-protesters. That descriptor may or may not be comprehensive, but it's not inaccurate. (click the images to read the stories that accompany them)
...
[/CENTER]
Legally, "hate speech," broadly, is "
speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." Put another way:
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. (
Source)
It's no great logical leap to infer that individuals and groups who, in promoting their own ideas, policy preferences, cultural comportment preferences, etc., utter hate speech must be hate groups and those groups' members, haters....unless one thinks such groups/persons so speaking
and misrepresenting their own mindsets and emotions when they do so speak. By way of cogent inference, opponents of the aforementioned genre of groups'/individuals' must necessarily be anti-hate groups and its members opponents of haters.
- Can one be simultaneously be a hater and a non-hater? No.
- Can one be simultaneously a hater and something other than a non-hater? Yes.
- Can one be simultaneously be a non-hater and something other than a hater? Yes.
- Can one be a qualified hater? Yes; however, the things one hates must differ from those which one hates not.
- Can one be a qualified non-hater? Yes; however, the things one hates not must differ from those, if any, which one hates.
- Does the temporality of one's hate speech expression affect whether one is or isn't a hater? No.
From combining the above, one sees that depicting self-representationally using hate speech as white supremacist groups do makes one be a hater of a particular sort, and that opponents of the notions white supremacist groups/individuals express must be opponents of hate, at least of the sort espoused by white supremacists.
Insofar as an objection the OP-er raised is that CNN is biased, something the OP-er purports to have shown by presenting a video of a CNN newscast wherein the personalities in it described this past weekend's counter-protesters as "anti-hate" groups, it becomes incumbent on the OP-er, if s/he is to have the video presented taken as credible evidence of CNN's being biased, to show that using a factually and/or contextually accurate description of an individual necessarily evinces that one is biased.
- If "Bill" weighs $300 pounds, is it biased to call him fat or obese? No, he is fat.
- Is it biased to call Ellen Degeneres gay? No, she is gay.
While what constitutes being a hater and an opponent of hate/haters is not as binary a matter, sound/cogent inferences allow one to conclude accurately that the counter-protesters in D.C. this past weekend are, for whatever other adjectives aptly describe them, anti-hate protesters is an accurate one. Moreover, it may be among the best ones for collectively and succinctly doing so in that only some counter-protesters were anarchists, only a few were Antifa, etc.
Given the above, the rhetorical purpose of post 15 was to subtly allude briefly to the fact of the OP-er's assertions, to the extent they rely on or are illustrated by the content in the OP, about CNN's biased nature holding no water. (
I get chided for "spelling things out in great detail," yet when I don't, I get responses that suggest the reader failed to suss the argument.
It's a damned if I do and damned if I don't conundrum.)
