Kanluwen wrote:
It's cute how no link is provided.

 LordofHats wrote:

Honestly. That's more of an argument that the criteria is shoddy than that the NRA is a hate group.

501st Legion;

1) Check
2) Oh hell yes. Check.
3) No. But we can just ignore that one.
4) Well they seem savvy enough from their website.
5) Maybe.
6) They seem pretty Middle America but lets face it, Middle America is the generic America.
7) They want to purge the Jedi.

501st Legion is a hate group. The guys who march for tolerance, help the Salvation Army during Christmas, run local charities all year long, and attend conventions like the nerds they are.

 Seaward wrote:
Of course, the anti-gun Brady Campaign meets a lot of those same criteria, too.

 Kanluwen wrote:
the FBI compiled this list of characteristics of organized hate groups:

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.

 Frazzled wrote:
(feel free to substitute WalMart, McDonalds, or the Red Cross)

 Seaward wrote:
I think we can all agree it was remarkably, if not impressively, misguided to try and assert the NRA is a hate group.

 Seaward wrote:
It does perhaps inadvertently bring up an interesting point, though, in that shouldn't we have some sort of solid definition for such a thing that we can all use? I'm not saying we should, necessarily - I generally don't agree with the whole "hate crime" thing, and I tend to fall into the camp that says as long as you're not committing crimes, you can freely associate with like-minded people and spout whatever vile stuff you want.

However, if the bulk of society's going to buy into this stuff, shouldn't it at least know what it's talking about? Right now we seem to be using the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it!" approach.

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

Why only single out one religion?

Because it's the biggest, as well as the one related to the topic at hand?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If someone's saying that there's one religion that's been singled out, and the person he's quoting is talking about the Catholic Church, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which religion he feels is being singled out. I thus commented that it's relevant to the organisation being discussed. You then incorrectly assumed that I'd said that the AFA is Catholic, which isn't the case.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It could reasonably be assumed that he meant "the biggest religion in the place we are talking about", in which case the Catholic church is the largest single grouping (about 5 times larger than the next largest single religious group).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you're wrong about the biggest, and how does one Christian denomination make the Catholic comparison a related topic? Especially when Senden brought out events from centuries ago?
. . .
It doesn't take a rocket scientist either to figure out that the comparison with the Catholic Church was a mighty stretch, especially when the examples given are from centuries ago when the Catholic Church wielded political power that it no longer possesses.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I was not commenting about anything in the post as I had nothing to say about it, nor do I really care one way or the other. I was simply pointing out that it is reasonable to assume that he was talking about the religious make up of the USA.

Kind of like when people complain "why do you always pick on the Christians?!?!", handily ignoring that most people here (or on any English speaking board) will come from countries with a Christian background and it will be the religion they have the most daily contact with and the most knowledge about.

Again - the rest of your post I was not addressing, so yes, I would say it is entirely reasonable for me to ignore it.

 LordofHats wrote:
There are more Catholics than all Protestants combined world wide. The Catholic Church and Islam as a whole account for 40% of the world's population.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you mean the Catholic denomination it might be a good idea to say that, as opposed to "religion", since that would imply you're talking about Christianity as a whole.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And I assumed he was talking about religion in general, as he mentioned it. Ambiguous post is ambiguous.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Your point then, as minimal as it was, is still wrong. Protestant denominations are more prevalent than Catholicism in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religion

Order by followers - the Catholic church is the largest single group, as I have now said for the 3rd time.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Protestant denominations are more prevalent than Catholicism in the US

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Protestantism in all its flavours is more numerous

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If you still feel the need to invest far more into this than is required I am sure I can come up with a suitable reply...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

Why only single out one religion?

Good thing you specified you were talking about Catholics there when you said "religion"...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
"Church membership in 2011 was 1.214 billion (17.5% of the world population)"
. . .So you're wrong about the biggest, and how does one Christian denomination make the Catholic comparison a related topic? Especially when Senden brought out events from centuries ago?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist either to figure out that the comparison with the Catholic Church was a mighty stretch, especially when the examples given are from centuries ago when the Catholic Church wielded political power that it no longer possesses.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Protestant denominations are more prevalent than Catholicism in the US.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Not disputing that. But the arguments so far as to why Catholics were mentioned was;
1) They are the most numerous (no qualification as to whether it is global or not) - Islam has more followers
2) It is the most numerous religion in the US - Protestantism in all its flavours is more numerous

 SilverMK2 wrote:
No, I understand exactly what you said - you seem to misunderstand what I have been saying. There is a difference between the Catholic Church and Catholicism, just as there is a difference between, say, Southern Baptist Convention and Protestantism. One is a group contained within the other. There are, as you seem to continue to insist in telling me despite me having agreed with you that it is the case, more Protestants than Catholics in the USA, however (and now I shall switch to capitals, bolded and italic'd just for emphasis and underlining for especially important words in case you continue to not understand the distinction), THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE LARGEST SINGLE GROUP IN THE USA.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think you'll find that I posted this:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Are you telling me the the Catholic Church isn't a hate group?

Why only single out one religion?

Because it's the biggest, as well as the one related to the topic at hand?

before any of the posts you just linked, but I suppose I should've just been prescient, right?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't recall telling you that. You, from my understanding, seemed to keep on insisting that I was telling you that catholics made up the majority of christians in the USA - I have been attempting to explain that is not in fact what I have been saying.

I'm not sure where the confusion has come from, but apparently it is there!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You said religion, not the Catholic denomination. You can claim that Catholicism is a separate religion all you want, but you'd be wrong. I'm starting to think that you could do with reading your own posts.

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology

the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think that, given our recent clarifications, more or less sums things up. Yes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, normally you'd be right, but there's a specific word for a sub-religion of Christianity, which is why referring to Christianity as a religion proper is ambiguous and confusing.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes indeedy. Like PETA, they started off good but expanded into just being their own little fringe group. Anyone who's conservative is pretty much a domestic terrorist in their eyes.

This is just total and complete bs.

The latest list of hate groups breaks down as follows;
186 separate Ku Klux Klan groups
196 neo-Nazi groups
111 White nationalist groups
98 White power skinhead groups
39 Christian Identity groups
93 neo-Confederate groups
113 black separatist groups

Out of 1,007 hate groups, 855 are groups that no-one would think are contraversial (skinheads, KKK, neo-confederates etc). Of the remaining 152 groups, 113 of them could, if assigned to any political wing, be assigned to the left. That leaves us with 39 Christian groups... and apparently that's evidence of an anti-conservative bias.

And of those Christian groups, no-one.... not one fething person in this thread has attempted any kind of defence. No effort at all to explain why the AFA isn't a straight up hate group. Instead they've just vaguely asserted that the SPLC is all left wing and stuff, so people should just ignore their classification... and whatever you do don't ever actually read up on the groups or find out what they actually argue for. That would involve learning, and perhaps finding out that these groups really do preach hate.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There was no evidence when I made my post. You had made one post that didn't even mention Catholicism (although the post that you responded to did), so when you said religion I assumed that you meant religion and not a denomination, the same way that I'd assume you meant fruit in general as opposed to an orange if you used the word "fruit". It's not that you're incorrect, it's that saying religion when you mean a denomination is confusing, the same way that saying Third World when referring to Sweden is confusing but not incorrect.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Right, you're not even reading my posts now. I've said that it's clear enough once you started posting additional posts, but that the original one (you know, the one I responded to without the gift of prescience) referred to singling out a religion, as opposed to a denomination. When the post you're accusing of singling out a religion mentions Catholicism I went ahead and assumed that the religion you were referring to in that post was Christianity because that's the religion mentioned, seeing as Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Your clarifying posts have nothing to do with my argument, what I'm arguing is that using the word "religion" when you were in fact referring to a denomination is sloppy and causes misunderstandings such as this.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Does it matter?

It is a part of the FBI's duty to investigate groups that may threaten the social fabric, well-being of the people and nation as a whole. That includes groups making threats of violence, and groups producing inflammatory rhetoric.

So the FBI has to investigate both political parties and members of the White House for using inflammatry rhetoric? Thats quite a standard you have there.

 sebster wrote:
That's the SPLC's list, as of 2012.

 djones520 wrote:
Pretty much. Damage to property down there is astounding, not to mention the danger it often presents to their families.

But hey, it's easier to just call someone racist then look at the real issues.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist

Yeah, let's just keep pretending that when the SPLC list mentions anti-immigration groups they're talking about people who just want the laws to be obeyed and not the white supremacists who are openly racist towards immigrants.

 djones520 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes

So, who exactly was doing that here?

but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".

I wonder.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh, I know exactly what you said. I was criticizing you for complaining about a vague "some people" when nobody involved in the discussion is one of them.

 reds8n wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Not sure, and the story is a few months old so data is scattered.

Looks like the whole show can be seen online

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ExtremismPresentation.pdf

 Ouze wrote:
Without in any way picking a side on this, I'd just like to point out it's totally irrelevant if it does, since soldiers in the US have substantially restricted rights, including the first amendment. This is agreed to when they signed up.

"We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it." - Captain Frank Ramsey

 Kanluwen wrote:
You need to stop thinking in terms of "liberals" and start understanding "rational".

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gay bars are... interesting places. I was taken to one by a group of female friends (I was not given an option to voice my opinion, and was further bribed with the promise of having my beverages paid for by my companions.) Apparently they knew what they were about, because once word of a straight guy being in the bar got around my friends didn't have to pay for my drinks either. It was certainly an enlightening experience as far as what the "hot chick" in a "normal' bar might go through with unwanted male attention.

As far as seedy goes... it was just a bar. A bar with a more fruity "girl" drinks then I knew actually existed, and restrooms that were actually clean, but a bar all the same. It was certainly less seedy then the types of biker bar fight clubs I normally like to drink at.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I understand that it's difficult for you to actually read posts when your natural reaction is to be a knee-jerk poster. The criteria that I posted:

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.

That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.

There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Yeah, I'm not gonna just let these go. They're a little too deserving of challenge.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm fine with not editing it. "Use" is a vague enough term in and of itself. It could be used to describe someone who brandishes their gun to frighten a potential mugger off or someone who actually shoots during a home invasion or any number of situations.

So you think more often than not gun owners have round reason to use their gun in such a manner? Really?

The majority of gun owners have done something of the sort you described?

Maybe not the majority, but considering how many people continually post nonsense here on Dakka about how "anyone who breaks into my house is leaving in a bodybag" or things similar to that, I'm comfortable with my statement.

Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.

I'd love to hear the definition that you believe qualifies them.

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Baring #7 a lot of non-hate groups would fit those criteria.

Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's the definition of a hate crime, not a characteristic of a hate group.
One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
the FBI compiled this list of characteristics of organized hate groups:

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.

1) Possibly applicable to the NRA
2) NRA does not give a demographic breakdown of members by age
3) Very vague criteria, and works on the assumption that owning a firearm is a fringe belief not mainstream
4) Sounds like every group that ever existed, so again very vague
5) Not really applicable
6) What hate is the NRA cloaking and marketing?
7) If they do then they have managed to keep it remarkably well hidden

So in short only the vaguest possible criteria can fit the NRA, but then again these can also be applied to many other groups too. What should be the most telling criteria for a hate group (actual hate) falls short by a significant margin when you attempt to relate it to the NRA.

 Seaward wrote:
I've asked you this several times in this thread now, and you've refused to answer. I'll try one more time before concluding that you're trolling.

What is the target of the NRA's hate? If you cannot point to a target, are you contending that hate groups can exist without actually hating anyone?

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm contending that a "hate group" at this point in time is not what people are used to thinking of for a hate group. You have to look at things with a wider perspective than simply "Is the group hating people?", which is why in the original statement that you took umbrage with I used the term "could" rather than "is" and why I made such a point in my reply to Dreadclaw to say that "The criteria is not used in a vacuum".

 Kanluwen wrote:
One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.

 Kanluwen wrote:
With the NRA you have an organization that on the outside appears to be focused solely upon the principle of the Second Amendment and a shared love of its membership for firearms and the collecting/usage of said firearms. What happens however is that as you look a bit closer at the organization there is a very real link between members of the NRA who have membership in groups which are classified as hate groups and which do utilize the NRA as a recruiting grounds for their organizations in the same way that you can find members of environmentalist groups who use their membership as a recruiting grounds for individuals to join a more militant group.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You can argue that is changing the goal posts and that the NRA is not really responsible for how its members interact, but I'd put forward that with an organization like the NRA which is able to mobilize its membership so readily when necessary that the idea of "We didn't know, honest!" is a bit beyond belief.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not really. I'm not interested enough in this discussion to start citing sources

 Kanluwen wrote:
The turn-out in Colorado for recall begs to differ.

When the NRA comes calling, people do answer.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Wait... what?

You cannot hate something that isn't "people"? Who set this rule, cause they're full of gak.

It stems from Kan's attempt to classify the NRA as a hate group earlier in the thread. He was unable to determine who, exactly, the NRA hates, but is dead certain that all sorts of other hate groups recruit freely within the NRA.