That's actually not an uncommon situation for a term, such is human language. Most terms have fairly established meanings with a bit of fuzziness around the edges. That doesn't mean they're meaningless, arbitrary, or not useful.
> The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.
It was certainly unpopular with some, but I wouldn't say it was unsophisticated.
> Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.
I made it clear that was an example, not a general characterization of any group. You'll also notice I didn't specify any particular race, so you're basically putting words in my mouth.
The other commenter was insisting others take certain accusations or forms of disapproval at face value, yet was hypocritically quite defensive when challenged and down-voted.
The idea that "hate speech" accusations form some sort of special category where they should be taken at face value is absurd.
It was a rhetorical attempt to bully someone into submission that failed because most people here recognized it for what it was. And then he whined about people not approving.
No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.
> Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism.
The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.
> If you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.
Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.