hodlbod on Nostr: I'd moderate it because I'm the dictator of my server. The above example is ...

I'd moderate it because I'm the dictator of my server. The above example is inappropriate, distasteful, politically counter-productive, and off-topic, but I refuse to use the term "hate speech".

The term "inappropriate" would be a better alternative, since it is context-dependent, while the term "hate speech" is absolute. Calling something "inappropriate" is just, like, your opinion man. Calling something "hate speech" is a moral judgment.

Just because examples exist that illustrate the intent of a term doesn't make the term's intent match its definition. "Some derogatory speech is motivated by hate" does not imply that "all derogatory speech is motivated by hate", that's basic logic.

Pastors in Canada and the UK have been arrested for hate speech just for preaching a sermon, from the Bible, in their own church when their intent is clearly not to harass, terrorize, or threaten, but to speak a religious truth.

Because "hate speech" is over-broad, it lends itself to selective enforcement. It's an arbitrary term designed to discredit certain groups based on the interests of the ones making the designation. If you lose freedom of speech through the mechanism of "hate speech", you lose freedom of religion.

Maybe this is too cynical for someone who believes in the essential goodness of people. But consider that few people are convinced by violent speech; it's off-putting. Subtly deceptive terms like "hate speech" are adopted much more easily by many more people, and therefore do more damage. Let the nazis rage, I'm much more worried well-intentioned socialists are going to steamroll my way of life.
I think we're on the same page re platform vs protocol moderation based on how the discussion on NIP-69 has gone. The horseshoe dynamic here is interesting. It would be hard to find two people more politically distant than we are, and yet we align pretty well on this content labeling issue.