[Politico] Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?

Link? If you make stuff up you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at the mess you made of @mick fry - he's not happy!

From Wikipedia.

So if you borrow a white nationalist conspiracy theory in your debates what does that say about you rojo?

 

You're overestimating the group's ability to accurately and neutrally point out what is racism and underestimating how much influence they have. The SPLC's hate group list is not merely a tool to identify racists but also a means of censoring groups with opposing political ideologies. For example, take the Family Research Council. While it's reasonable to concede that the FRC's boycotts and email lists are useless (and Tony Perkins is a hack), it is not a hate group by any objective definition of the term. I'm not trying to be condescending towards you or @FranchiseBlade, but I think you are both mischaracterizing the intentions of the SPLC and are viewing the group from a position of ignorance.

 

Considering all this, it's still not in their power to ban anyone or censor anyone. All they do is point out where they feel it exists, you disagree with them, that's fine, but it is in their free speech right to speak out against what they perceive as hate.

I agree with their take on the FRC, it was labeled as a hate group by them because they, at the time, were pushing that gays had a hidden agenda to push for gay rights so that they can have sex with boys...and also that they were against gay marriage, which is to DENY a group of people their legal rights. Yeah, to me, that's a hate group. I don't care that they wrap it up in Christian morals.

Maybe you define hate groups differently than the SLPC but FRC's stance on gay people is not something that I can agree with or something that should be accepted as just a policy disagreement, yes, the SLPC disagreed with the policy of denying LGBT people their rights. I really don't think the rights of people based on their sexuality should be up for discussion or debate or passed off as just some opposing viewpoint to be agreed or disagreed with, not in a country whose constitution promises the rights of all people no matter their race or religion or gender.

 

Their assessment was valid. The FRC was indeed spreading hate based on untrue and unfounded claims. The fact that you, society in general, or others are willing to excuse their hatred and falsehoods spread about homosexuals doesn't change the fact that it was indeed hate being spread by the FRC.

This only confirms the SPLC's accuracy.

 

Rather than outright denouncing and condemning them, Repubs have given White Nationalists a home to roost.

That's enough to make anyone confused.

 

"Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” - Trump

 

This does call into question his moderate Democrat credentials.

 

Trump is admitting that he is evil due to his many past racist acts?

 

The liberals quoted in the story sort of remind me of the folks who supported that nice man MLK when he limited himself to getting voting rights, but got upset when branched into taking on the economic problems of all Americans and the Vietnam War.

 

This only confirms the point that reasonable people can disagree on what is being defined as "hate" and further supports the notion that a single group shouldn't be allowed to chill free speech with its proclamations.

 

I agree that it shouldn't fall on a single group to designate everything. And I also am fine if people disagree. I just think that SLPC has a long track record of being correct, and they obviously care enough about the issues to make internal changes when there are problems. I don't think disagreement on one issue should disqualify them as a credible group.

 

Honestly though, if you were gay, and someone said "one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order." and were steadfast against giving you rights that others have and someone in the middle said "Well, I don't see how that's hate, just a differing of opinion."

How would that make you feel?

I'm asking because I continue to run into people who defend clear hate speech as just some differing of opinion but why isn't the SPLCs designation of them as a hate group not just a differing of opinion as well? Isn't it also in their free speech right to call groups hate groups? It's not like they are a government organization that is literally censoring others. They simply point out the group and tell you why they feel it's a hate group.

 

Their statement: "The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the SPLC works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality."

That's pretty broad with a far-reaching and almost impossible goal. Maybe it wasn't so broad before, but that's their current statement. Perhaps it seems they are the "left" and fighting “mainstream, generally conservative” groups because "mainstream and generally conservative" groups have intolerance views toward certain vulnerable member of society, and has members that are bigots. e.g. Trump is a pretty vivid example and he's the leader of the "conservative" party.

With that said, generally, any organization that grows will become less effective and more corrupt, so transparency, reform and self-correction are important. Any large organization will eventually make mistake, but are they willing to correct their mistake, reform, and provide transparency. Those are more important than just calling out mistakes.

 

SPLC is a hate group.

 

Sounds like Fox news.

 

Fox news is a hate group against actual journalism.

 

We agree.

 

Ok. What??

 

I think was agreeing that Fox News is a hate group against journalism.

I will go further and add that any broadcast news outlet is.