It doesn't need to be violent.
No, but it does require hate.
> It doesn't need to be violent.
No, but it does require hate.
A much more succinct answer than I wrote. >_>
I agree, basically. I'm not convinced there's hate here. You could argue the Westboro Baptist Church, maybe, but even they believe that they are "saving" people through what they do. At least that's the intention behind their actions. I just don't like the whole classification as a whole, and would rather just do away with it entirely. All it serves to accomplish is signal to anyone that agrees with the majority that you should ignore and disparage and hate individuals of groups X, Y, and Z, because they had the "bad" opinions.
A much more succinct answer than I wrote. >_>
I agree, basically. I'm not convinced there's hate here. You could argue the Westboro Baptist Church, maybe, but even they believe that they are "saving" people through what they do. At least that's the intention behind their actions. I just don't like the whole classification as a whole, and would rather just do away with it entirely. All it serves to accomplish is signal to anyone that agrees with the majority that you should ignore and disparage and hate individuals of groups X, Y, and Z, because they had the "bad" opinions.
I would argue that it is, in any country. They also can not "claim to be right". Advocating and lobbying for infringements upon the rights of others purely because it hurts your feelings and you disagree with it makes you part of a hate group. It doesn't need to be violent.