I’m totally guessing here. They probably changed the definition to include groups that had been previously exclude because those groups had previously disguised themselves as politically conservative or religious groups. Once the conservatives started saying the quiet parts out loud across she country they became easier to identify as hate groups.
Organizations routinely update how they define things. Especially nuanced sociological categories that do in fact shift with time, public perception, and politics. It’s not disingenuous unless those definitions are not clearly described in the literature analyzing the data. Being better able to identify these groups based on more information is a good thing. I’ve seen no evidence that anything unethical happened here.
I’m totally guessing here. They probably changed the definition to include groups that had been previously exclude because those groups had previously disguised themselves as politically conservative or religious groups. Once the conservatives started saying the quiet parts out loud across she country they became easier to identify as hate groups.
If you’re changing the methodology, it’s beyond disingenuous to claim a change in the data.
Organizations routinely update how they define things. Especially nuanced sociological categories that do in fact shift with time, public perception, and politics. It’s not disingenuous unless those definitions are not clearly described in the literature analyzing the data. Being better able to identify these groups based on more information is a good thing. I’ve seen no evidence that anything unethical happened here.