Ayn Rand described Hatred/Envy of the good for being the good this way,

“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.”

Hate is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Better those who feel hated should reel in their antennae a bit, crank up the squelch and relax.

Progressives define everything subjectively mostly to hide their own guilt and complicity.

Inciting violence, intimidation, harassment, threats, or defamation...is not hate. Hate Must be a physical act of animosity...ie, a punch in the face.
Moving one's lips or waving one's arms in an epileptic fit...is not PHYSICAL ANIMOSITY, it's only a warning to be heeded.

And, It has been my objective observations that the only one's that engage in the warning of physical animosity and the actual acts of physical animosity has been lefties.

This may be an oversimplification, but I think the term "hate" is pretty easily defined: If any idea or thought goes against the progressive/leftist platform of ideas and goals, if it promotes the individual rather than the collective, if it encourages personal responsibility rather than governmental control, it's defined as "hate".

Those who can frame the debate, often win it. That is why "journalists" in today's world aren't journalists, they are setup artists. One has only to see any of their "interviews" to see that. (See any of Mr. Reagan's coverage of Jordan Peterson interviews for a pretty good rundown on this.)

So do they mean that engaging in violence, intimidation, harassment, threats, or defamation based on an individual being straight or white or male, is “hateful activity?” Or being a Trump supporter? Or being Republican? Or a Conservative?

The definition itself is subject to interpretation:

"...activities that incite or engage in violence, intimidation, harassment, threats, or defamation targeting an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

What is "violence"/ What is "intimidation"? What is "harassment"? and so on.

The left is questioning every word when they are confronted with it.

Scalise who was shot for being a conservative and recently returned to his job, was attacked on Twitter as he entered into an argument with Cortez. The attackers were writing about "sniper", "aiming" and other direct expressions reflecting the incident that almost cost him his life. When they were confronted, they denied their intentions claiming they were "only verbal expressions".

It is a slippery crime syndicate that is at work here.

AR described it much more precisely what hatred is.

What defines the Democrat Party?

I don't know but that is a word my mother wouldn't let her children use, along with a word she also forbade my father to use in her home. I never figured out what the circumstances would be if I used the 'h' word but I didn't push mother!

objective epistemological reality...

Thats easy. Its what I feel for collectivists.

American dictionary,
Hate: To feel strong dislike for or hostility toward: rivals who hate each other.

Imagine trying to censor that type of speech?