In what way is that not terrorism?
Okay, let’s pull that thread and see how far down the rabbit hole it takes us.
You claim that hate crimes "are intended to cause fear in certain groups." Okay, I could potentially see how that could be true. Instilling fear is not the primary motivation for a hate crime, which is defined as "A crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds," but I can see where you’re coming from on that.
Then what is terrorism? Well, terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Hmm, something doesn’t sound right. Yes, there is the word "violence" in both definitions, but now terrorism must have a political component. Okay, what is political?
Well, political means "Relating to the government or public affairs of a country" or "Relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics." Well, that was somewhat helpful, but now we need to go further down the rabbit hole.
Politics are "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power" or "The activities of governments concerning the political relations between states." Huh. That doesn’t sound a lot like hate crimes to me.
So let me make sure that I understand your argument. People are afraid during hate crimes. People are afraid during acts of terrorism. Therefore, hate crimes and terrorism are the same thing. Sorry, that is not logical.
What you’ve instead illustrated is the new modern penchant for redefining words, ideas, and concepts to fit into a new ideological narrative. To be sure, this is something O’Brien would be proud of, as changing definitions is a great way to keep people you don’t like on their toes. But to sum up, no, hate crimes are not terrorism and should not be equated as such. Words have meaning, they have accepted definitions. Changing those definitions to meet an ideological goal (as the article author has done) is intellectually disingenuous.