Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Leaving the title alone since that's the title on the article.

My professional opinion is the Instructor screwed the pooch on the training session. So any Christian groups pretty much a Hate group for being vocal about their teaching from the Bible. Its getting quite easy now to start labeling any groups as a Hate group. They consider Tea Party as a Hate group.

Well

To see what hate groups are in your state

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map#s=MD

 whembly wrote:

Meh... still wouldn't label them as a "hate group".

*shrug*

And you'd be wrong. They are a hate group. They preach intolerance of gays.

feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Meh... still wouldn't label them as a "hate group".

*shrug*

And you'd be wrong. They are a hate group. They preach intolerance of gays.

So... they're donkey-caves.

I get that.

I just find when folks start throwing out the word "Hate Group"... all to often, (pun not intended) it's used too liberally.

Why can't we say that they're donkey-caves? o.O

 whembly wrote:

So... no... they are not "non-partisan".

In fact, I'd put them right up there with the Westboro crew.

Westboro is a non-partisan organization.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... no... they are not "non-partisan".

In fact, I'd put them right up there with the Westboro crew.

Westboro is a non-partisan organization.

wait...wut?

...

...

Because we can't (thankfully) officially censure a group for being donkey-caves. But we can for Hate. And in this case, the group in question is a hate group. It's fairly cut and dried, and I suspect if you actually try and write down why you think they are not a hate group, you would see it too.

 whembly wrote:

wait...wut?

...

...

It is a nonpartisan organization.

The word "nonpartisan", in this context, specifically denotes a group that is not affiliated with a particular political party. Simply sharing common positions is not the same thing as affiliation.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

wait...wut?

...

...

It is a nonpartisan organization.

The word "nonpartisan", in this context, specifically denotes a group that is not affiliated with a particular political party. Simply sharing common positions is not the same thing as affiliation.

I got that... that's why I'm laughing... you're right.

EDIT: Kevin Smith has the right idea how to handle these folks...

whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Keep bringing up the SPLC, but the article is about the US Army categorizing this asinine group as a hate group, and the US Military isn't some liberal think tank, and is, as far as I know, a legitimate organization.

I just challenged Kan on this:

By the way, the AFA has been listed as a "hate group" since 2010 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Moving on...

Meh... still wouldn't label them as a "hate group".

*shrug*

I've got a great idea: why don't you list your own personal criteria for what does or does not constitute a hate group, and then we'll see who fits the bill. It'll be a fun exercise.

 azazel the cat wrote:

I've got a great idea: why don't you list your own personal criteria for what does or does not constitute a hate group, and then we'll see who fits the bill. It'll be a fun exercise.

You know me man... I don't like labeling things...

It's like when you had an apoplexy when I refused to buy into "hearing-privilege" society (from that weird privilege tangent post a while back).

Can we keep it simple? They're donkey-caves. Pure and simple.

Legally recognize the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a hate group.

The NRA's policies and actions pose a threat to U.S. citizens. They promote and contribute to the violation of the fundamental human rights of "freedom from fear" and "right to life" (the right to life is the essential right that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being). They pose a "clear and present danger*" with regard to the 1st Amendment.

*a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged; "no one has a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety."

Petition attempt to label NRA well a past attempt

Yeah, they seem like a hate group I think the military would be correct in labeling them as such good on them.

 whembly wrote:

You know me man... I don't like labeling things...

It's like when you had an apoplexy when I refused to buy into "hearing-privilege" society (from that weird privilege tangent post a while back).

Can we keep it simple? They're donkey-caves. Pure and simple.

While you might not like labeling things you're doing a fair job of putting forward "donkey-cave" as an acceptable label.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You know me man... I don't like labeling things...

It's like when you had an apoplexy when I refused to buy into "hearing-privilege" society (from that weird privilege tangent post a while back).

Can we keep it simple? They're donkey-caves. Pure and simple.

While you might not like labeling things you're doing a fair job of putting forward "donkey-cave" as an acceptable label.

Heh... yep. Keep it simple.

 Jihadin wrote:

*a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged; "no one has a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety."

Petition attempt to label NRA well a past attempt

I have an aneurysm every time somebody tries to use the crowded theater analogy as an example of why gun control (specifically the banning of certain firearms) doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. It's a very popular and insanely idiotic anti-gun argument. Banning a type of firearm is like banning the word fire from ever being spoken, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment. All the crowded theater argument means is that you can't go around firing your gun in a crowded theater without a good reason just as you can't go around yelling "fire!" without a good reason.

But I digress...

 sebster wrote:
They do good work. The only reason the right wing likes to make out that they're at all contraversial is that SPLC will often speak out about the hate speach that goes on in groups like AFA.

They've got definite bias and run with it on occasion.

 whembly wrote:
Um... they tried to push Jared Loughner as right winger in shooting Rep. Gifford.

And depite the efforts of the right wing to push him on to the left, an actual view of his politics shows a lot of fringe right wing theory in his beliefs - rejection of paper money, grammar as US govt mind control, reading list including We the Living and Mein Kampf, and a connection to American Renaissance.

Just because they don't follow your right wing sources, doesn't actually make them shills for the left.

Floyd Corkins admitted he was radicalized by SPLC's hate map when attempting mass murder at a FRC.

And? Does Catcher in the Rye make you a serial killer?

They smeared Swain as an “apologist for white supremacists” because Swain did a review of a film which contained controversial racial comments by the filmmaker's film. I remember her because of her epic retort:

One of the most troubling facets of life today is the powerful movement by left-leaning organizations and governmental officials to engage in character assassination, by labeling anyone who disagrees with their liberal utopian vision for society as unworthy of participating in the conversation about our nation’s future. A quick look at global history reveals the dangers of following such a short-sighted approach.

Today, conservatives and Christians (of which I am both) are targeted by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center that regularly seek to discredit us.

Epic retort? That's the boilerplate 'they're nazis trying to shout us down and if that happens nazis' that people always give when called on their nonsense. And the film she claimed to love was, you know, pretty fething out there.

So... no... they are not "non-partisan".

Of course they're not partisan... they're a group that dedicates significant resources to exposing and encouraging conversation on hate groups. Nothing about that is non-partisan. My comment is that they are only contraversial if you think that the groups they expose aren't really hate groups... which of course is a 'contraversial' thing for tribalist christians and movement conservatives, and other people that like to band together and fuss about how they're being picked on... even if it means they have to pretend that groups like AFA are anything but a bunch of hatefilled bigots.

In fact, I'd put them right up there with the Westboro crew.

I know you're kind of joking, but really...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
My professional opinion is the Instructor screwed the pooch on the training session. So any Christian groups pretty much a Hate group for being vocal about their teaching from the Bible. Its getting quite easy now to start labeling any groups as a Hate group. They consider Tea Party as a Hate group.

No. Groups that preach hate are hate groups. Did you read the quotes I gave from Bryan Fischer? Because it's pretty fething clear he's a hateful little bigot, and uses his place in the AFA to preach his bigotry? What the feth else are people supposed to do but call that exactly what it is?

All the rest, about other Christians being called hate groups, is just made up nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
They've got definite bias and run with it on occasion.

Yeah, there's scope to say they are slightly more aggressive against some groups and slightly more quiet than they ought to be with others, and that tendency runs along political lines, but that's a far cry from calling them partisan, and dismissing their classification of groups like the AFA.


I mean, we want to talk about blindspots, we can talk about all the Christian groups that have ignored the hateful nonsense spewed by the AFA for years. And we can talk about people in this thread who were either unaware of that hate, or accepting of it.

 Cadorius wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

*a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged; "no one has a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety."

Petition attempt to label NRA well a past attempt

I have an aneurysm every time somebody tries to use the crowded theater analogy as an example of why gun control (specifically the banning of certain firearms) doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. It's a very popular and insanely idiotic anti-gun argument. Banning a type of firearm is like banning the word fire from ever being spoken, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment. All the crowded theater argument means is that you can't go around firing your gun in a crowded theater without a good reason just as you can't go around yelling "fire!" without a good reason.

But I digress...

The point of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy is that it creates a situation with a fairly predictable outcome--such as a panic where people can (and do) get injured.
The whole point of the comparison is to point out that when you have someone with a gun--more often than not, they find a reason to use it. Look at Zimmerman.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The whole point of the comparison is to point out that when you have someone with a gun--more often than not, they find a reason to use it.

You're going to wind up editing it when you realize that, gosh, most gun owners don't in fact end up shooting at someone, and that while there were more ludicrous phrases to use than "more often than not," none spring readily to mind, so why not just save yourself the time and us the debate and just go ahead and do it now?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The whole point of the comparison is to point out that when you have someone with a gun--more often than not, they find a reason to use it.

You're going to wind up editing it when you realize that, gosh, most gun owners don't in fact end up shooting at someone, and that while there were more ludicrous phrases to use than "more often than not," none spring readily to mind, so why not just save yourself the time and us the debate and just go ahead and do it now?

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.

But I stand by using Zimmerman as an example of what can happen.

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:
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?

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.

I'm sure you could find some examples of the NRA saying hateful things from time to time, but I doubt you'd manage to really build a good argument to call the NRA a hate group. If fear mongering is enough to be called a hate group pretty much every group is a hate group.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure you could find some examples of the NRA saying hateful things from time to time, but I doubt you'd manage to really build a good argument to call the NRA a hate group. If fear mongering is enough to be called a hate group pretty much every group is a hate group.

Under Janet Reno(I don't have anything more current at hand.I'm utilizing a textbook titled "Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations" published in 2007.), 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.

This definition was established by the FBI for use by law enforcement in regards to "hate crimes":

A criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

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?

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.

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

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

Indeed. I'm kind of curious why Kan thinks the NRA believes in inevitable global war between the races, though.

 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.

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

Let me try to re-state that in a more reasonable form:

1) If you're buying a gun you probably have a reason for it (like buying most things). If you buy a hunting rifle you probably intend to shoot an appropriate animal in the near future. If you have a concealed handgun permit you probably expect a non-trivial chance of having to use that gun in self defense. If you don't foresee any realistic situation where you will ever use a gun then you probably aren't going to own one.

2) There's a fine line between protecting the right to self defense and exaggerating the threat of the "big scary black guy" or "UN black helicopters" to justify preparing for self defense. Pro-gun organizations arguably end up on the wrong side of that line and create a perception that the chances of needing to act in self defense are much higher than they really are.

Now, I'm not going to argue that this represents a majority of gun owners, but there's a very real problem here. When you have groups encouraging this very distorted view of self defense you get cases like Zimmerman, where someone is dangerously eager to see a situation that requires them to shoot in self defense. Or, if you give them a badge you get situations like the guy who was shot for knocking on the door to ask for help because everyone jumped to the "scary black guy = criminal = OMG SHOOT HIM BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL" interpretation.

 Kanluwen wrote:
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.

That's amazing.

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.

So what race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion are they hating on?

 Seaward 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.

So what race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion are they hating on?

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.