Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

Thats a pretty weak attempt to deflect on your part

Err, dude, your initial post was a deflection from the point of the thread. The SPLC's job is to label hate organizations as hate organizations. That's what they do. It may well be the case that there's a discussion to be had about what culpability they have for vigilantes inspired by them (my own instinct would be that you could do an analysis of this by trying to figure out if the SPLC calls for vigilante violence against hate groups), but this has nothing to do with whether or not the labels they place are accurate to begin with. What connection do you see between your claim and the subject of conversation here?

The Family Research Council is openly hateful, and if someone labels them as a hate group, it's because they are. The crux of the op-ed is that hating gays and trans- folk isn't hate it's traditional values. This is like when Turkey says Amnesty International is against human rights because liberal democracy is actually bad, or when Republicans say the ACLU isn't about civil liberties because they think passing laws that you have to pray to Reagan and take a science class where you learn about how dudes can ride on whale spouts is a civil liberty and burning the flag is not one. There is no serious reason to trust partisan actors criticizing NGOs for doing their stated mission because the partisans disagree ideologically with that mission. The National Review article linked basically has the thesis that the SPLC called someone a white nationalist, and the author disagrees with that designation, so he must know better than the SPLC and they must not be doing their job.

I brought up your post history not to say that all the media you consume is conservative, but to point out that you've fallen for abusive right-wing hucksters trying to rope-a-dope you into being Very Worried about moderate progressive organizations. Do you still stand by either your post here or the post I brought up? The fact that you've maybe also criticized other right-wing people or groups is totally irrelevant to my point, I wasn't claiming you're a robot, I was claiming you have bad takes and you fall for snake oil salesmen.

 

[IrishNinja]

It's hard to feel the same way about The Aryan Brotherhood and the Family Research Council. They're both bigoted organizations, but I don't consider them comparable.

the distinctions are made in their respective pieces on those groups - but the family research council absolutely fit the bill for being anti LGBT

"“[H]omosexual activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that homosexual men … are … relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions [childhood sexual abuse] than are heterosexual men.”
– Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at FRC"

we can split hairs about tone if you like, but that's a poor choice to make your point about unfair choices. do you think only groups directly harming minorities need apply?

Most of that sentiment is probably the question of overreach in putting Majid Nawaz and Ayan Hirsi Ali on anti-Muslim extremist lists. And yeah, that's a Sam Harris topic of discussion, so naturally there's a connection there.

those were the 2 names I was thinking of, yeah - and upon research, none of SPLCs claims were off for me. there's no shortage of critics of islam today, and I don't think those 2 in particular were singled out without reason.

 

[Slayven]

I mean if you go to their site they break down the receipts.

It's not that hard

 

[AnotherNils]

So you want them to have a graph or ranking system?

They need to make distinctions, somehow.

Here, I'll explain how I got to this place. Anytime I hear someone has been labeled as a hate group I hear SPLC cited. Every time (Usually on NPR). Does SPLC have credibility outside the liberal community?

So I suppose I could live without distinctions if we had more websites making these calls like we have numerous fact checking websites. Leaning on the judgment of just one source is bad.

 

[IrishNinja]

This follows a National Review piece from last week:
Media Beware: The Southern Poverty Law Center Has Become a Dangerous Joke

lolol national review

I could say the same about the National Review

exactly this

Back in the 80s.

damn, I know I was a kid but still, first time seeing this

 

[Slayven]

They need to make distinctions, somehow.

Here, I'll explain how I got to this place. Anytime I hear someone has been labeled as a hate group I hear SPLC cited. Every time (Usually on NPR). Does SPLC have credibility outside the liberal community?

So I suppose I could live without distinctions if we had more websites making these calls like we have numerous fact checking websites. Leaning on the judgment of just one source is bad.

SPLC has a long history, read up on them.

How would you label the differences?

Here is how they do it

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology

What would you do different?

 

[Famassu]

If pretty much all right-wing organizations qualify as hate groups, then it loses all meaning. You're telling me that a better short-hand to communicate a hate group is merely to call them "right-wing". Distinctions need to be made or communication becomes ambigous.

Not all, but a lot of them.

And, again, it's more indicative of the right wing groups' ideologies in power at the moment than the classifications that so many of them can be labeled as hateful. It's not the labels that need to be changed, but the people who are so openly, honestly, unashamedly hateful that they've organized in such numbers & with such aggressivity & visibility that so many of them can be labeled hate groups.

Hate is hate. It does no one good to consider "peaceful" hate groups not hate groups and only some extreme KKKs as hate groups, when they all are trying to drive forward hateful ideologies.

 

[BocoDragon]

those were the 2 names I was thinking of, yeah - and upon research, none of SPLCs claims were off for me. there's no shortage of critics of islam today, and I don't think those 2 in particular were singled out without reason.

Hmm. I kinda think they were singled out without reason. Though I'd be curious to see otherwise.

In particular Majid Nawaz. He's a Muslim himself whose organization exists to constructively reform Islamic extremists. I'd be curious to know what the red flag was for the SPLC here.

TBH, it seems that if they are on that list, you might as well throw Bill Maher and Sam Harris on there too. Though I'm sure there are some people on this forum who wouldn't mind that. I rather think putting "critics of Islam" (or critics of religion in general) on the list as meaning "hate groups" kind of undermines a list about hate groups. But I'm trying to keep an open mind.

 

[Syriel]

Is there some reason you just assumed everyone know what SPLC meant?

Because they're a landmark civil rights org that has been around for nearly 50 years, and they've been fighting the good fight against discrimination and hate all that time.

So much so that that've gotten attacked for it, both figuratively and physically, multiple times over the years.

I'd expect someone raised in the US (or familiar with US culture) to know the SPLC the same as I would expect them to know the NRA.

Back in the 80s.

The SPLC does not discriminate nor mince words when labeling groups that encourage hate as hate groups. Wanna hate? Well, prepare to be labeled as such. Their reports are incredibly nuanced, well researched, and well respected.

QFT

 

[AnotherNils]

the distinctions are made in their respective pieces on those groups - but the family research council absolutely fit the bill for being anti LGBT.

Can you understand the difference I see between the Aryan Brotherhood and the Family Research Council? One is more prone to violence. The other is a legislative nightmare. Arguably the second has a better chance of impacting the lives of their target bigotry but I just don't see it as apples vs apples.

I mean if you go to their site they break down the receipts.

It's not that hard

They do categorize by bigotry, I give you that.

I don't like the road my mind is going down because the solution I'm think is terrible: Like a rating system on criteria like violence, membership size, funding, etc.

 

[Dan]

How dare an organization be driven by the agenda of opposition hate!

 

[AnotherNils]

Not all, but a lot of them.

I mean, at this point it sounds like it'd be easier to identify which right-wing groups aren't also hate groups.

 

[Slayven]

Can you understand the difference I see between the Aryan Brotherhood and the Family Research Council? One is more prone to violence. The other is a legislative nightmare. Arguably the second has a better chance of impacting the lives of their target bigotry but I just don't see it as apples vs apples.


They do categorize by bigotry, I give you that.

I don't like the road my mind is going down because the solution I'm think is terrible: Like a rating system on criteria like violence, membership size, funding, etc.

But they do all that in each groups breakdown?

Have you been to their site? at all

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups

 

[IrishNinja]

They need to make distinctions, somehow.

I mean if you go to their site they break down the receipts.

It's not that hard

^^

Here, I'll explain how I got to this place. Anytime I hear someone has been labeled as a hate group I hear SPLC cited. Every time (Usually on NPR). Does SPLC have credibility outside the liberal community?

So I suppose I could live without distinctions if we had more websites making these calls like we have numerous fact checking websites. Leaning on the judgment of just one source is bad.

so lemme get this straight
you're aware that the SPLC is one of the only institutions doing this work (certainly on this level) and you're bothered by that? I mean, on its face I can appreciate that, but that leads me to support them...not, you know, complain when they're cited for their work or ignore the plentiful context readily available from their site

and if they lack "credibility" on the right - which several links on this very page illustrate - that too should tell you a bit about how the right coddles bigotry & is not in any way interested in coming to the table for this discussion

 

[Kill Your Masters]

^^



so lemme get this straight
you're aware that the SPLC is one of the only institutions doing this work (certainly on this level) and you're bothered by that? I mean, on its face I can appreciate that, but that leads me to support them...not, you know, complain when they're cited for their work or ignore the plentiful context readily available from their site

and if they lack "credibility" on the right - which several links on this very page illustrate - that too should tell you a bit about how the right coddles bigotry & is not in any way interested in coming to the table for this discussion

Yeah but boths sides tho.

 

[AnotherNils]

But they do all that in each groups breakdown?

Have you been to their site? at all

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups

Yes, for the entirety of this conversation I've referenced it multiple times.

This is all the extra info I see

EXTREMIST GROUP INFO:
Date Founded 1994
Location Scottsdale, Ariz.
Ideology Anti-LGBT

Perhaps you can quote me where I'm missing that extra info like membership size and funding?

 

[IrishNinja]

Hmm. I kinda think they were singled out without reason. Though I'd be curious to see otherwise.

In particular Majid Nawaz. He's a Muslim himself whose organization exists to constructively reform Islamic extremists. I'd be curious to know what the red flag was for the SPLC here.

if you're still curious, their site keeps pages for each entry, with receipts/quotes/etc, they're great for that

Can you understand the difference I see between the Aryan Brotherhood and the Family Research Council? One is more prone to violence. The other is a legislative nightmare. Arguably the second has a better chance of impacting the lives of their target bigotry but I just don't see it as apples vs apples.

omw group directly kills folks in & out of prison and more fits the villainous image you seem to have, the other stands to proportionately harm far more people with legal means. the distinction you're looking for is not only already on their page, it's largely useless when talking about hate & scale

for example: Jeff sessions stands to harm tremendously more black folks than that sad klan rally recently, but they cover both extensively. your definition of "violence" is pretty limiting

 

[AnotherNils]

and if they lack "credibility" on the right - which several links on this very page illustrate - that too should tell you a bit about how the right coddles bigotry & is not in any way interested in coming to the table for this discussion

It's much easier for the right to discredit or dismiss one source, as opposed to multiple sources.

 

[AnotherNils]

if you're still curious, their site keeps pages for each entry, with receipts/quotes/etc, they're great for that



omw group directly kills folks in & out of prison and more fits the villainous image you seem to have, the other stands to proportionately harm far more people with legal means. the distinction you're looking for is not only already on their page, it's largely useless when talking about hate & scale

for example: Jeff sessions stands to harm tremendously more black folks than that sad klan rally recently, but they cover both extensively. your definition of "violence" is pretty limiting

I found the word I was looking for. FRC is an activist hate group. AB is a terroristic hate group. I feel that sums them up pretty well.

 

[Slayven]

Yes, for the entirety of this conversation I've referenced it multiple times.

This is all the extra info I see



Perhaps you can quote me where I'm missing that extra info like membership size and funding?

Which group is that? You know the names are links you can click on for more info

It's much easier for the right to discredit or dismiss one source, as opposed to multiple sources.

So respectability politics

 

[IrishNinja]

It's much easier for the right to discredit or dismiss one source, as opposed to multiple sources.

they're gonna do that anyway - again, you're asking both why theres no such efforts on the right, and why so many right leaning organizations are on their list...I'm asking you to think.on why these questions are connected

Yeah but boths sides tho.

no doubt
you know what the real problem is though? civility & tone in discussion

 

[AnotherNils]

Which group is that? You know the names are links you can click on for more info

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM. That was from the link I clicked. Have you clicked on their links? at all /s

I clicked on a few others at random to make sure I wasn't just stumbling on a barebones exception.

So respectability politics

I'll take some education on that, as I'm unfamiliar with the term.

 

[AnotherNils]

they're gonna do that anyway

Then why do we give a shit about this opinion piece? I mean these are the same people who think every protest with a liberal bent is being funded by George Soros.

 

[Slayven]

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM. That was from the link I clicked. Have you clicked on their links? at all /s

I clicked on a few others at random to make sure I wasn't just stumbling on a barebones exception.



I'll take some education on that, as I'm unfamiliar with the term.

Check your broswer this is all they have on ADF

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that specializes in supporting the recriminalization of homosexuality abroad, ending same-sex marriage, and generally making life as difficult as possible for LGBT communities in the U.S. and internationally. Despite its regular defamation of LGBT people, the group has managed to win special advisory status at the United Nations, in the European Union, and with the Organization of American States.

In Its Own Words

“The only surprise is the rapidity with which this degradation of our human dignity has occurred. It has occurred, with raging effect, and within twelve months, on the heels of government mandated recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ – an oxymoronic institution if ever there was one. And, for its radical adherents, this has led to a deification of deviant sexual practices. It has further resulted in the inevitable and aggressive persecution of devout Christians who refuse to bow to the false god of sexual license.”

—ADF-affiliated attorney Charles LiMandri, “The Tyranny of Made-Up Sexual Identities, 2015

“The endgame of the homosexual legal agenda is unfettered sexual liberty and the silencing of all dissent.”

—ADF Senior Counsel Erik Stanley at the Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage conference, 2014

“Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. This is catholic, universal orthodoxy and it is desperately crucial for cultural renewal. Christians must strive to build glorious cultural cathedrals, rather than shanty tin sheds.”

—Blackstone Legal Fellowship website, 2014

"When given the same choice the Supreme Court of the United States had in Lawrence vs. Texas, the Indian Court did the right thing. India chose to protect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates. … America needs to take note that a country of 1.2 billion people has rejected the road towards same-sex marriage, and understood that these kinds of bad decisions in the long run will harm society."

—Benjamin Bull, executive director of ADF Global, on the recriminalization of homosexuality in India, 2013

“[C]ontrol of the educational system is central to those who want to advance the homosexual agenda. By its very nature, homosexual acts are incapable of bearing fruit – indeed, strictly speaking, they are not sexual, as they are incapable of being generative or procreative. Thus there is the need to desensitize and corrupt young minds, both to undermine resistance to the agenda and for recruitment among those that are at an emotionally vulnerable stage of development.”

— Then-senior ADF Legal Counsel (Global) Piero Tozzi, speaking at the World Congress of Families gathering in Madrid, Spain, 2012

“And in the course of the now hundreds of cases the Alliance Defense Fund has now fought involving this homosexual agenda, one thing is certain: there is no room for compromise with those who would call evil ‘good.’”

—Alan Sears, speaking at the World Congress of Families gathering in Madrid, Spain, 2012

“The government should promote and encourage strong families. When school officials have to choose between protecting children in those families or furthering the homosexual agenda, the choice is obvious: protecting our children comes first.”

—Austin Nimocks, then-ADF senior counsel opposing a “Welcoming Schools” curriculum, 2008

“In the end, those who profess to be ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian,’ or who have otherwise slipped in and out of homosexual behavior, including ‘cruising’ for anonymous partners, are people who succumb to a dangerous temptation.”

—Austin Nimocks, then-ADF senior counsel, writing at TownHall.com, 2007

“As the homosexual agenda continues to sexualize our culture, other once-forbidden behaviors are exalted as just more alternative lifestyles. The result is that the well-being of millions of children is at risk, along with the right of parents to protect their children from sexual exploitation.”

—Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, 2003

“We mention the new promotion of pedophilia in the context of talking about the influence of homosexual behavior on college campuses, because, despite all objections to the contrary, the two are often intrinsically linked.”

—Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, 2003

“The issue under rational-basis review is not whether Texas should be concerned about opposite-sex sodomy, but whether it is reasonable to believe that same-sex sodomy is a distinct public health problem. It clearly is.”

—ADF attorney Glen Lavy, counsel of record, amicus brief, Lawrence v. Texas, 2003
Background

According to its website, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) was launched on the morning of Jan. 31, 1994, during a meeting of more than 30 Christian leaders, in order to “defend religious freedom before it was too late.”

The founding board and original funders included James Dobson of Focus on the Family; Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ; D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries (now D. James Kennedy Ministries); and Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association. Its original purpose was to oppose the ACLU and other “radical groups” as well as to fight for “religious liberty.” Since its founding, the ADF has expanded its operations abroad as it battles abortion, LGBT equality, and what it considers the “myth” of the separation of church and state.

Originally called the Alliance Defense Fund (the name changed in 2012), the ADF has been funding cases and training attorneys since its inception, claiming that it is “advocating for freedom in court,” though it also is working to “change the culture,” because, it says, legal victories aren’t enough. In other words, the ADF is attempting to do away with the separation of church and state and graft its version of conservative Christianity onto the legal profession and the culture at large through its legal strategies and the training of thousands of attorneys and by advocating for policy changes on state and federal levels.

The ADF has several initiatives that help train conservative Christians. These include a variety of programs designed for young lawyers, including the Young Lawyers Academy, which schools new U.S. attorneys and provides opportunities to “engage the culture and join a network of Christian attorneys around the globe,” and the Areté Academy, which “launches highly accomplished university students and recent graduates on a path to future leadership in law, government, business, and public policy.”

The ADF Academy is a training program that purports to equip participants to “effectively advocate for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.” The ADF claims more than 1,800 lawyers have participated. The organization also offers the secretive Blackstone Legal Fellowship, through which Christian law students study under prominent scholars, participate in internships, and prepare for life and leadership in the legal profession. Since 2000 (the year of Blackstone’s inception), the ADF claims it has trained over 1,600 law students from 225 law schools in 21 different countries.

In 2014, the Blackstone website noted that part of its core curriculum included a reading list that not everyone would agree with. “No offense and certainly, no proselytizing, is intended,” the ADF stated. “Rather, Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries,” which, the statement continued, “is catholic, universal orthodoxy and is desperately crucial for cultural renewal.”

The ADF also has a legal academy that, according to a 2013 media kit, is a “state-of-the-art lawyer training project” that launched in 1997. Attorneys who attend the academy do so free of charge, but they are required to do 450 hours of pro bono work over a three-year period “on behalf of the Body of Christ” and the mission of the ADF. Past sessions of the academy included topics such as effectively equipping attorneys “to battle the radical homosexual legal agenda,” upholding the sanctity of life and parental rights, and defending religious liberty.

Alan Sears was the longtime president, CEO and general counsel of the ADF until January 2017. Sears served in various positions during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and also worked for the Department of Justice and was appointed director of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography.

Under Sears’ leadership, the ADF expanded its training, funding, and outreach not only domestically, but internationally. Using its international platforms, the ADF works with policymakers and other organizations to outlaw abortion, deny equality and marriage to LGBT people worldwide, and continue to push for a hard-right Christian theocratic worldview that is reflected in legislation and policies.

In January 2017, the ADF named longtime theocratic right-wing activist, attorney, and Baptist minister Michael Farris as its second president, CEO, and general counsel. Farris left the right-wing Convention of States, which he co-founded in 2013, to take the position at the ADF. The Convention of States advocates for holding just what its name implies—a convention of states—to add amendments to the Constitution in order to stop “the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power.”

I couldn't fit it all because GAF has a 24,000 letter limit

 

[AnotherNils]

Check your broswer this is all they have on ADF

You do understand the difference between statistics and text, right? Or accessibility?

 

[IrishNinja]

Then why do we give a shit about this opinion piece? I mean these are the same people who think every protest with a liberal bent is being funded by George Soros.

I clearly don't; its a fox op ed that got people talking about the SPLC, which most of us have been on about.

You do understand the difference between statistics and text, right? Or accessibility?

you wanted specifics, now you want ..stats? these are quotes & ideologies (with citations), not sports figures. FOH, I don't think even you know what you're on about here

 

[airmangataosenai]

With regard to the Thunderfoot video I'll say this: I regret having posted it without having known more about him. I saw after the fact that he has genuine issues with women as a whole and a long history of angrily attacking any woman who even vaguely challenges the status quo. I cant remember everything he said in the video I posted back then, I believe it was about 2 years ago and I dont really want to look at his stuff, but at tge time the content of that one video seemed to have fair enough criticism of a thesis mixed in with the above mentioned sarcastic douchebaggery which in light of the broader body of his work was clearly also misogyny.

Whether or not his criticism of her work in any given instance had merit is beside the point as his entire perception is poisoned by his anger towards "SJWs" and women specifically which makes him an unacceptable source on any topic related to feminism or criticism of feminists.

 

[Slayven]

You do understand the difference between statistics and text, right? Or accessibility?

You were mad at SPLC because they didn't give any nuance, but once shown they go in detail, now it too hard to read?

 

[AnotherNils]

you wanted specifics, now you want ..stats? these are quotes & ideologies (with citations), not sports figures. FOH, I don't think even you know what you're on about here

Do numbers like membership size and funding that I keep referring to not count as stats? If they were included in that wall of text, surely someone can quote the relevant parts for me, right?

 

[AnotherNils]

You were mad at SPLC because they didn't give any nuance, but once shown they go in detail, now it too hard to read?

Me: The BRCA is bad
You: How many people does it uninsure?
Me: *posts text of bill* You figure it out.

I guess there's no room for a reasonable middle ground because you guys didn't like my posts in this thread, right?

 

[BocoDragon]

if you're still curious, their site keeps pages for each entry, with receipts/quotes/etc, they're great for that

I've read it before. Let's take a look:

https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists#nawaz

Maajid Nawaz


Maajid Nawaz is a British activist and part of the ”ex-radical" circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam. His story, which has been told repeatedly in the British and American press and in testimony to legislators as well, sounds compelling enough — Nawaz says he grew up being attacked by neo-Nazi skinheads in the United Kingdom, spent almost four years in an Egyptian prison after joining a supposedly nonviolent Islamist group, but had a change of heart while imprisoned and then returned to England to work against the radicalization of Muslims. But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute. He told several different versions of his story, emphasizing that he was deradicalized while in Egypt — even though he in fact continued his Islamist agitation for months after returning. After starting the Quilliam Foundation, which he describes as an anti-extremism think tank, Nawaz sent a secret list to a top British security official that accused ”peaceful Muslim groups, politicians, a television channel and a Scotland Yard unit of sharing the ideology of terrorists," according to The Guardian. The same newspaper reported that in 2009, a Quilliam official said that ”gathering intelligence on people not committing terrorist offences ... is good and it is right," discounting civil liberties concerns. His Quilliam Foundation received more than 1.25 million pounds from the British government, but the government eventually decided to stop funding it. One of Nawaz's biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. Shortly afterward, Robinson returned to anti-Muslim agitation with other groups.

IN HIS OWN WORDS

In the list sent to a top British security official in 2010, headlined ”Preventing Terrorism: Where Next for Britain?" Quilliam wrote, ”The ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists; they disagree only on tactics." An official with Scotland Yard's Muslim Contact Unit told The Guardian that ”[t]he list demonises a whole range of groups that in my experience have made valuable contributions to counter-terrorism."

Ed Husain of the Quilliam Foundation said collecting intelligence on people not accused of crimes is ”good and it is right" if the purpose is to ”prevent people getting killed and committing terrorism," according to an Oct. 16, 2009, story in The Guardian. He added that this kind of intelligence gathering outweighs civil liberties concerns. ”That's the name of the game," he said. ”It's not about doing the right thing by Islamists or liberal do-gooders, it's about creating a society where liberal do-gooders survive freely." Nawaz backed up his colleague, saying, ”Is it right to spy on Muslims? The hypocrisy of the pro-extremist, paralyzed guilt-driven reverse-racism brigade over the recent ‘spying' controversy is repugnant to say the least. ... [N]o one, least of all Quilliam, advocated a police state, or spying on Muslims en masse as a community."

According to a Jan. 24, 2014, report in The Guardian, Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad — despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted ”to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge."

In a March 23, 2015, opinion piece in The New York Times, Nawaz claimed that British academia was thick with Islamist radicals. ”In fact," he wrote, ”academic institutions in Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists. I should know: I was one of them."

Are these really the qualifications of a dangerous bigot? This is what it takes to get on the same list as the KKK?

I see some stuff in there we could all debate over: Support for surveillance of the populace in order to fight terrorism. Self-promotion. The view that non-radical conservative Muslims share many of the same illiberal views as radicals. Very debatable positions, no doubt, but these are all very common opinions in our society today.

Tweeting out a cartoon of the Prophet is listed as evidence for being on this list? "You best know a hate group boy, you're in one." We had a draw Mohommad thread here on GAF.

I dunno. Seems very arbitrary why this person was chosen. And the accusation implied by being on this list is heavy.

 

[Snowybreak]

Me: The BRCA is bad
You: How many people does it uninsure?
Me: *posts text of bill* You figure it out.

I guess there's no room for a reasonable middle ground because you guys didn't like my posts in this thread, right?

You want the numbers from a hate organization. Hate organizations aren't broken down into numbers, but acts and events. Their profile isn't built on the number of people who are part of it, but by what they believe and do.

Also what fucking middle ground are you even on about?

 

[Slayven]

Me: The BRCA is bad
You: How many people does it uninsure?
Me: *posts text of bill* You figure it out.

I guess there's no room for a reasonable middle ground because you guys didn't like my posts in this thread, right?

Your middleground seems to present the information in exactly the way i want or i don't believe it. Good luck with that, i am just glad there are people out there fighting the good fight instead of tap dancing

 

[IrishNinja]

bocodragon - relevant to replies in here, do bear in mind scope and that not everyone on their list is the klan

You were mad at SPLC because they didn't give any nuance, but once shown they go in detail, now it too hard to read?

yes, clearly

Do numbers like membership size and funding that I keep referring to not count as stats? If they were included in that wall of text, surely someone can quote the relevant parts for me, right?

okay, let's wrap this up, because you're pretty clearly not honestly engaging the topic at this point:

the SPLC clearly tracks covert hate groups (read: the ones you thought were the only bad guys a few posts back) to the best of their ability. they keep maps for locations, monitor trends/recruitment efforts and such, and literally all that info is on the relevant pages.

for private companies: I don't know they they keep/share employee headcount, tax information/donor lists because a) if they have it, it's publix info anyone so inclined could acquire and b) that's not relevant at all so who cares

you wanted to know why certain right leaning groups are named, and links were provided. you wanted a distinction on openly violent groups, and a cursory search showed you that.

if you've another goalpost you're after please feel free to actually hit their site more & keep it moving

Also what fucking middle ground are you even on about?

if I had to venture a guess, the same kind that decries "identify politics" while rocking a BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON shirt

 

[Arkeband]

Their opinion pieces get pushed to the Apple News app, sometimes without the Opinion tag, so you just get crazy clickbait headlines. It's either these wacky extreme-right pieces or scandalous stories about Victoria's Secret models.

 

[Snowybreak]

Their opinion pieces get pushed to the Apple News app, sometimes without the Opinion tag, so you just get crazy clickbait headlines. It's either these wacky extreme-right pieces or scandalous stories about Victoria's Secret models.

Now that's what I call bizarre juxtaposition.

(or maybe not so bizarre ;P)

 

[BocoDragon]

bocodragon - relevant to replies in here, do bear in mind scope and that not everyone on their list is the klan

If they're casting that wide of a net that they'd catch moderate reformers... I think there are serious problems.

That would mean they are poor at informing the public about actual hate threats. And it would also mean that they might randomly smear and ruin people who dare to weigh in on topics like religion and ideology in public. It creates a witch hunt atmosphere that chills all of our speech.

I'm not walking away from this thread saying the SPLC is a negative, or worse an "agenda-driven liberal fund-raising machine" I'm just saying that if you look closely at this example, it reveals flaws in their methodology and their contribution to the good of society.

 

[IrishNinja]

If they're casting that wide of a net that they'd catch moderate reformers... I think there are serious problems.

if I recall correctly when I was researching both those names: in addition to the respective SPLC pages, a cursory google search (exerts, social media etc) quickly yielded results showing neither was a "moderate" reformer. again, if that was the case there'd be tons of such names.

I can't rightly cite anything offhand but again, it wasn't hard to find. but relative to your prior post, I'm inclined to say that, yeah, if bill maher & certainly sam harris don't strike you as islamaphobic we'll likely have to agree to disagree

 

[L Thammy]

Little confused. Does "a prominent civil rights watchdog" mean they're a bad guy or a good guy? Or is that meant to be an example of foul lies?

 

[AnotherNils]

You want the numbers from a hate organization. Hate organizations aren't broken down into numbers, but acts and events. Their profile isn't built on the number of people who are part of it, but by what they believe and do.

If the argument is that the label is more important than the context, I'll disagree.

---

Your middleground seems to present the information in exactly the way i want or i don't believe it. Good luck with that, i am just glad there are people out there fighting the good fight instead of tap dancing

Spare me the melodramatic narrative. Pretending that wanting better info accessibility is some kind of unreasonable burden to expect from a repository of information is just petty contrarianism for the sake of argument. It's clear the SPLC value that kind of quick summary because they have some of it in the relevant part I posted earlier.


My takeaway from this discussion is that I'm looking at SPLC in the wrong context. It's not for uncomplicated citation. It's for comprehensive reference. And I shouldn't worry about it's perception. Truth is more important than perception.

Am I reading you guys correctly?

 

[Apt101]

Is there some reason you just assumed everyone know what SPLC meant?

I was like "Sports Illustrated ... no .... time to google".

 

[AnotherNils]

if I had to venture a guess, the same kind that decries "identify politics" while rocking a BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON shirt

If I came of as Bernie or Buster I may need to reevaluate some life choices here.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

Media Beware: The Republican Party Has Become a Dangerous Joke

FTFY

 

[MagnaderAlpha]

Just on the title of the thread alone sent me into a chuckle. Fox News Opinion, talking about an "agenda-driven liberal fund-raising machine", considering that Fox News, itself, is an "agenda-driven conservative propaganda machine".

 

[Snowybreak]

If the argument is that the label is more important than the context, I'll disagree.

What?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

No need to humor obvious trolls guys

 

[BocoDragon]

if I recall correctly when I was researching both those names: in addition to the respective SPLC pages, a cursory google search (exerts, social media etc) quickly yielded results showing neither was a "moderate" reformer. again, if that was the case there'd be tons of such names. I can't rightly cite anything offhand but again, it wasn't hard to find.

We have to look to specifics, because I already know people like Maajid Nawaz who criticize a popular belief structure have enemies who would call him this or that.

but relative to your prior post, I'm inclined to say that, yeah, if bill maher & certainly sam harris don't strike you as islamaphobic we'll likely have to agree to disagree

Probably. It sounds like we've adopted slightly different political compasses. I am the type of liberal who likes to criticize dominating world ideologies and I support all who do so in open and peaceful debate.

 

[Dead Man]

Of course they gave an agenda. Preventing violence against vulnerable groups and minorities. The horror.

 

[IrishNinja]

No need to humor obvious trolls guys

yeah, lesson relearned

Probably. It sounds like we've adopted slightly different political compasses. I am the type of liberal who likes to criticize dominating world ideologies and I support all who do so in open and peaceful debate.

I've assumed that's the stance of many on here, but for myself, I'm seeing what looks like historic highs for deeply anti muslim rhetoric, from both sides of the aisle - speaking generally, the hard atheist left seems especially venomous, to the point where it seems to cut into their misogyny (particularly Dawkins, Harris, hitchens etc)