> This is such a non-statement
Its not a statement, its a set of statements that compose a characterization, which is something commonly done by scientists, engineers, and rational people to communicate specific descriptions so they can be recognized again by others, this is primarily done when common words are not available to match specific common meanings in communications.
> can fill in with the ideology that they choose to categorize in this way
You'll have to further clarify what you mean, there are two potential meanings embedded with that single statement, and you've failed to communicate which one that is, it looks to me like you've misunderstood this as some ideology akin to philosophy such as consequentialism when its a description of behavior.
A characterization is just a description of the distinctive nature, elements, features, or composition of someone or something specific, in this case behavior. Behavior that leaves at least one party with a negative outcome while also negatively impacting all or most future outcomes related to that party.
Its important to understand and convey the correct and rational meaning of words, as you said many groups seek to corrupt language to prevent communication, to distract, disorient, and create disunity using a whole host of sordid and malign influence tactics to cause distorted reflected appraisal.
> Both people... and those that disagree with them.
We will not be going off into the weeds, talking about potentially irrational beliefs of others, or getting bogged down in unrelated controversial narratives as those only serve disunity and chaos.
You may also want to review the actual definition and elements of fascism. Regardless, what you mention here has no relevance to the current discussion.
Its not a statement, its a set of statements that compose a characterization, which is something commonly done by scientists, engineers, and rational people to communicate specific descriptions so they can be recognized again by others, this is primarily done when common words are not available to match specific common meanings in communications.
> can fill in with the ideology that they choose to categorize in this way
You'll have to further clarify what you mean, there are two potential meanings embedded with that single statement, and you've failed to communicate which one that is, it looks to me like you've misunderstood this as some ideology akin to philosophy such as consequentialism when its a description of behavior.
A characterization is just a description of the distinctive nature, elements, features, or composition of someone or something specific, in this case behavior. Behavior that leaves at least one party with a negative outcome while also negatively impacting all or most future outcomes related to that party.
Its important to understand and convey the correct and rational meaning of words, as you said many groups seek to corrupt language to prevent communication, to distract, disorient, and create disunity using a whole host of sordid and malign influence tactics to cause distorted reflected appraisal.
> Both people... and those that disagree with them.
We will not be going off into the weeds, talking about potentially irrational beliefs of others, or getting bogged down in unrelated controversial narratives as those only serve disunity and chaos.
You may also want to review the actual definition and elements of fascism. Regardless, what you mention here has no relevance to the current discussion.