Citing Charlie Kirk murder, Tennessee pastor demands removal of 'Hate Has No Home' signs

[ThatRobGuy]

Aren't you awfully close to committing a strawman fallacy now? You are ascribing the most extreme interpretation to these signs just because it is easier to argue against them. Couldn't it be just to make a public statement that persons that feel that they are represented by the symbols on these signs can feel safe at this location? That would be my interpretation. It would also be in line with "hate has no home" here slogan.

Is is possible that folks are actually doing the inverse of that? Ascribing the most tame "sensible sounding" interpretations as to make a position seem like the more reasonable one?


Yard signs conveying "you'll be safe here" would be kind of a pointless signaling wouldn't it? Typically, if you're going to someone's house it's the result of being a friend living there or being the recipient of an invite.

"Hey, I'm just letting you know I won't hate you or assault you for being XYZ at this dinner party I personally invited you to"

Associating some sort of practical utility to those signs is a bit of a stretch, is it not?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And I’m saying that the ‘like what?’ you describe is going beyond the remit of this discussion.

As in it’s not really relevant.

Well then what answer would you like me to give?

I said "the symbolism and slogans incorporate more than just the simple semantic definition"

You asked "Like what?"

I provided examples of the "what", and then you say it's off topic.

My assertion was that those slogans are leveraging semantic overload.
In linguistics, semantic overload occurs when a word or phrase has more than one meaning, and is used in ways that convey meaning based on its divergent concepts, specifically where this divergence in meanings is novel

Being that the nature of my critique is based on "A slogan that means a bunch of other stuff in addition to the basic definition", if citing the other stuff is off limits, then we're at a bit of an impasse.

I guess you guys can just keep on assuming that everyone who has any objections to those signs hates women, gay people, and black people.

...but unless some people on the left start becoming more willing to have honest political discourse instead of trying to box people into a corner with word games, I wouldn't bank on 2028 being any more successful for the Democrats than 2024 was.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you still believe in "(the?) meritocracy and capitalism" you would definitely be in the wrong meeting and it would be a kindness on their part to point it out to you.

But why... "anti-racism" is "just about opposing racism and nothing more -- no hidden meaning or ulterior agendas"...so my opinions about supply side and Keynesian economics would be irrelevant to the nature of the meeting right???

Or are you acknowledging that "anti-racism" in current US discourse does incorporate a bunch of other (only loosely related, at best) concepts that are expected as part of the "buy-in" to activism?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Is is possible that folks are actually doing the inverse of that? Ascribing the most tame "sensible sounding" interpretations as to make a position seem like the more reasonable one?

Possible yes, but why would they. These are signs in peoples yard I guess, there's no wider political gain to get from that. It seems more likely to be a friendly sign.

Yard signs conveying "you'll be safe here" would be kind of a pointless signaling wouldn't it? Typically, if you're going to someone's house it's the result of being a friend living there or being the recipient of an invite.

"Hey, I'm just letting you know I won't hate you or assault you for being XYZ at this dinner party I personally invited you to"

Associating some sort of practical utility to those signs is a bit of a stretch, is it not?

Have you been harassed for you skin color or non-conforming gender expression? I know for a fact that some that have is glad to see some friendly symbols, wherever they go. That in and of itself is a good a practical utility. So no, I don't think it is a bit of a stretch to think that it is to show it is to show that there is a safe harbour. Your interpretation seems unlikely to me though.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

And if "the Left" doesn't sign on to that, it's them who are guilty of hate, right?

No, it just means "the left" has not made a good argument to society for not supporting the issue. Nobody is hating or hated.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Possible yes, but why would they. These are signs in peoples yard I guess, there's no wider political gain to get from that. It seems more likely to be a friendly sign.

Have you been harassed for you skin color or non-conforming gender expression? I know for a fact that some that have is glad to see some friendly symbols, wherever they go. That in and of itself is a good a practical utility. So no, I don't think it is a bit of a stretch to think that it is to show it is to show that there is a safe harbour. Your interpretation seems unlikely to me though.

Wouldn't getting invited to someone's house be the evidence that the home is a "safe harbor"?

"Chuck, do you and your husband Dan want to come over for our labor day cookout?" seems like it would be evidence that it's a home that doesn't hate gay people. Sticking a sign in the yard that includes symbols for every left-leaning activism movement under the sun (and then trying to equivocate support for those activism causes with "opposing hate") seems more like showing off for strangers.

 

[BCP1928]

No, it just means "the left" has not made a good argument to society for not supporting the issue. Nobody is hating or hated.

Society?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I made an example before

If someone stuck a sign that looked like this in their yard, if you opposed this sign, would that make you "pro-Authoritarianism"?

Or would your opposition to this sign simply be a rejection of the idea that "to oppose Authoritarianism, one must reject the green movement in favor of oil, oppose income taxes, and be in favor of expansive gun rights"

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Wouldn't getting invited to someone's house be the evidence that the home is a "safe harbor"?

"Chuck, do you and your husband Dan want to come over for our labor day cookout?" seems like it would be evidence that it's a home that doesn't hate gay people. Sticking a sign in the yard that includes symbols for every left-leaning activism movement under the sun (and then trying to equivocate support for those activism causes with "opposing hate") seems more like showing off for strangers.

The signs can be read by all passers-by. And it is a nice message to read, at least to me if you ever been on the receiving end of harassment. This "(and then trying to equivocate support for those activism causes with "opposing hate")" is your interpretation, not what I would think the residents meant.

 

[rjs330]

It does. You are trying to muddy the waters by attaching irrelevant additions to a thing you disagree with.

No it doesn't. See post 174

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I made an example before

View attachment 370770

If someone stuck a sign that looked like this in their yard, if you opposed this sign, would that make you "pro-Authoritarianism"?

Or would your opposition to this sign simply be a rejection of the idea that "to oppose Authoritarianism, one must reject the green movement in favor of oil, oppose income taxes, and be in favor of expansive gun rights"

I would think the people who put it down are not ok with authoritarianism and want tax reform or tax abolition. Was this meant for me?

 

[rjs330]

The signs can be read by all passers-by. And it is a nice message to read, at least to me if you ever been on the receiving end of harassment. This "(and then trying to equivocate support for those activism causes with "opposing hate")" is your interpretation, not what I would think the residents meant.

Let's take another look. This sign is clearly sending a message that if one doesn't support these groups or idiologies then you hate them. You either love or hate. Thats rhe message and taken into consideration that this message is rampant among progressives its no surprise. We hear it all the time. Hater, hater hater, hate hate hate hate. Denier denier, racist racist. This sign says we love you, others hate you. Everyone is an activist cause of some sort. We love those causes and if you don't your a hater. Why not just say "We l Iove you". But thats not what they say.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Let's take another look. This sign is clearly sending a message that if one doesn't support these groups or idiologies then you hate them.

No, that's not how I read it. If you identify with any of these symbols you will find not find hate here seems more likely, it is a statement about those that put up the sign not anyone else.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's not "whatabout", the "anti-racism" moniker has gone hand in hand with Marxist thought for quite some time.

Are you saying I can't be anti-racist without being pro-Marxist?

Anti-capitalist rhetoric has been a staple in "anti-racism" going back to the Black Panthers. The US Communist party of the 20s and 30's depicted racism as a feature of "class warfare" (that's probably where the connection started)

And you mentioned the Antifaschistische Aktion group...ironically enough much like the modern Antifa groups, they also labelled everyone who wasn't far left as "fascists". Fun fact, the original Antifa and the KPD labelled the Social Democrats (the center-left entity in Germany at the time) as "fascists" specifically because they weren't full blown communists.

The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) was included by the KPD in the category of "fascists"[13] based on the theory of "social fascism" proclaimed by Stalin and supported by the Comintern in the early 1930s, according to which social democracy was a variant of fascism and even more dangerous and insidious than open fascism.[8] The KPD doctrine held that the communist party was "the only anti-fascist party" while all other parties were "fascist".[14]

The KPD did not view fascism as a specific political movement, but primarily as the final stage of capitalism and the KPD's anti-fascism was therefore synonymous with anti-capitalism. Throughout this period, the KPD regarded the centre-left SPD as its main adversary.[8]

Fast forward to modern times, there are parallels... Like Mayor Jacob Fray (social democratic mayor of Minneapolis) getting booed by BLM rally attendees, and Antifa/BLM protestors showing up at Mayor Jenny Durkan's house (liberal mayor of Seattle) for not being sufficiently "down with the cause"

I don't care.

 

[BCP1928]

Let's take another look. This sign is clearly sending a message that if one doesn't support these groups or idiologies then you hate them. You either love or hate.

That seems to be the way of it with conservatives; even Trump has said so. Any opposition at all, any ridicule, disparagement or contempt is "hate" to you.

Thats rhe message and taken into consideration that this message is rampant among progressives its no surprise. We hear it all the time. Hater, hater hater, hate hate hate hate. Denier denier, racist racist. This sign says we love you, others hate you. Everyone is an activist cause of some sort. We love those causes and if you don't your a hater. Why not just say "We l Iove you". But thats not what they say.

View attachment 370771

Which of the messages in those little hearts do you reserve the right to hate?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would think the people who put it down are not ok with authoritarianism and want tax reform or tax abolition. Was this meant for me?

It was meant for anyone who wants to take a crack at it.


If someone sticks a sign in their yard, claiming to oppose a concept that's near universally interpreted to be "bad" (that can be "hate", "authoritarianism", etc...) and then clutter up the sign with a bunch of symbols and slogans that are associated with hard left/right movements or hyper polarizing positions, then it's a word game that's being played.


Perhaps a better more real-world polarizing current issue that would be a good example.


Two people (Dan and Steve) both have signs in their yards that have the prominently featured text of "End Religious Violence" in bold right in the middle of the sign.


Dan's "End Religious Violence" sign features the following symbols and emblems

Steve's "End Religious Violence" sign has these symbols and emblems

The symbols/logos/advocacy associations imply polar opposite opinions.

Dan's implying that for one to want to "End religious violence", they have to stand with Palestinians and oppose Israel, Steve's implying the inverse. -- despite the phrase on the center of the sign being semantically identical.

And it would be safe to assume that while they both have same text in the middle of their sign, there's not going to be much room for nuance and overlap with regards to their positions on the Gaza issue... as they both have very different opinions on what the "source" of the religious violence is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That bad, huh? I tend to lose my train of thought at times when I write too much.

We all do. Editing is a skill.

I feel bad for ThatRobGuy. My rambling response is forever attached to his good and meaningful comment. Sorry .

Some posters (and Rob is certainly not the only one) have a severe tendency to over write. When combined with a thin understanding of the topic and a need to be right it is a dangerous combination. Cheers.

 

[BCP1928]

It was meant for anyone who wants to take a crack at it.


If someone sticks a sign in their yard, claiming to oppose a concept that's near universally interpreted to be "bad" (that can be "hate", "authoritarianism", etc...) and then clutter up the sign with a bunch of symbols and slogans that are associated with hard left/right movements or hyper polarizing positions, then it's a word game that's being played.


Perhaps a better more real-world polarizing current issue that would be a good example.


Two people (Dan and Steve) both have signs in their yards that have the prominently featured text of "End Religious Violence" in bold right in the middle of the sign.


Dan's "End Religious Violence" sign features the following symbols and emblems

View attachment 370775
View attachment 370776View attachment 370777



Steve's "End Religious Violence" sign has these symbols and emblems

View attachment 370772
View attachment 370773 View attachment 370774



The symbols/logos/advocacy associations imply polar opposite opinions.

Dan's implying that for one to want to "End religious violence", they have to stand with Palestinians and oppose Israel, Steve's implying the inverse. -- despite the phrase on the center of the sign being semantically identical.

They both want to end religious violence. They just have different opinions about who is responsible for that violence.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It was meant for anyone who wants to take a crack at it.


If someone sticks a sign in their yard, claiming to oppose a concept that's near universally interpreted to be "bad" (that can be "hate", "authoritarianism", etc...) and then clutter up the sign with a bunch of symbols and slogans that are associated with hard left/right movements or hyper polarizing positions, then it's a word game that's being played.


Perhaps a better more real-world polarizing current issue that would be a good example.


Two people (Dan and Steve) both have signs in their yards that have the prominently featured text of "End Religious Violence" in bold right in the middle of the sign.


Dan's "End Religious Violence" sign features the following symbols and emblems

View attachment 370775
View attachment 370776View attachment 370777



Steve's "End Religious Violence" sign has these symbols and emblems

View attachment 370772
View attachment 370773 View attachment 370774



The symbols/logos/advocacy associations imply polar opposite opinions.

Dan's implying that for one to want to "End religious violence", they have to stand with Palestinians and oppose Israel, Steve's implying the inverse. -- despite the phrase on the center of the sign being semantically identical.

How are the logos connected with wanting to end religious violence? I've seen that you said the text is there now! I would read it that they want to end religous violence in different ways.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Society?

Sorry, that was a long-winded multidirectional point that I made before. I wasn't quite sure what part of it you were pertaining to so I just guessed. I must have guessed wrong because you seem perplexed with my use of the word society. So, if you don't mind could you tell me what you were referring to in my comment. Thanks .