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.

SemperMortis wrote:
Fun Fact for the day, Gender Dysphoria is a disease and parents are making it significantly worse by allowing their kids to believe this is normal.

"Moreover, barring pre-pubertal affirmation and hormone intervention for GD, 80 percent to 95 percent of children with GD will accept the reality of their biological sex by late adolescence." (ACoP)

So maybe this kid is one of the 5-20% of kids who don't grow out of gender dysphoria, who knows, but its a fair bet that his/her parents jumped on board because they are open minded people (Sarcasm) instead of getting their child help.

Now, on the off chance that this child is in fact a part of that small population of Gender Dysphoric people who don't transition back to normal, it makes no sense for him to be competing against Girls while taking HUGE doses of steroids. Texas goofed here clearly.

Here you are pretending that sex is binary, or indeed that there's a "real" biological sex that isn't intimately tied to social constructs one way or another. Focault, Beauvoir and Butler would all like a word with you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually I don't I cited two examples, the first two on Google. Thats two more than the article, yet we are agreed the whole issue is rare, and frankly not one anyone should give a about except people pushing an agenda.

You cited nothing. You claimed that a transgender woman would, in your own words, "obliterate the competition". You cited examples that do not involve any such obliteration. It's incredibly dishonest to pretend that you have provided any evidence to support your claims when the factual content of your articles is about as relevant as linking the top two google search results for "cute cat gifs".

And it's so nice of you to dismiss the problem as one nobody should care about. Too bad for the real people involved, I guess they don't matter?

I cited two examples. Not sure what is dishonest about it (I love it when people say things they never would to your face) especially was we were having a polite discussion.

Judging by your over the top response I seem to have hit a nerve I didn't know you had.
But whatevs. Its simple physics. In any sport involving speed or strength males will have an a statistical advantage. Its the counter to your argument. Any male that wishes to change to a female will have an advantage in most sports. Sorry if you don't like it but thats why the sports are separated in the first place. Its not like they are trying to cheat, as I stated its an unfixable situation for parties with no ill will. Life is full of things that can't be solved. But thats ok, in the end we're all dead.

Here's another.
http://usatodayhss.com/2016/transgender-track-athlete-makes-history-as-controversy-stirs-around-her

 Frazzled wrote:
I cited two examples. Not sure what is dishonest about it (I love it when people say things they never would to your face) especially was we were having a polite discussion.

It's dishonest because they aren't examples. You're trying to pull a bait and switch where you claim that a transgender woman will "obliterate the competition", but provide links to articles which involve no such obliteration. The obvious conclusion here is that you're hoping that nobody actually reads your links and they just assume that you provided evidence because hey, there are links in your post.

And yes, I'd say it to your face.

But whatevs. Its simple physics. In any sport involving speed or strength males will have an a statistical advantage. Its the counter to your argument. Any male that wishes to change to a female will have an advantage in most sports. Sorry if you don't like it but thats why the sports are separated in the first place. Its not like they are trying to cheat, as I stated its an unfixable situation for parties with no ill will. Life is full of things that can't be solved. But thats ok, in the end we're all dead.

You can call it simple physics all you like, but that just means you're ignorant of the effects that hormone changes have on a person's body. This is not just hypothetical, it's a statement based on the policies of high-level athletic competition. If transgender women have an advantage then where is their dominance in high-level competition? Where are the piles of olympic medals won by their supposed advantages in speed and strength?

http://usatodayhss.com/2016/transgender-track-athlete-makes-history-as-controversy-stirs-around-her

Third place and fifth place. That's hardly "obliterating the competition".

. The obvious conclusion here is that you're hoping that nobody actually reads your links and they just assume that you provided evidence because hey, there are links in your post.

And yes, I'd say it to your face.

And then I would have to challenge you to whippy sticks at dawn. You sure are hostile when we're having a discussion, not even a debate.

I'd chat more but your hostility is too negative, so you win or whatever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox

During Fox's fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round. After her loss, Brents took to social media to convey her thoughts on the experience of fighting Fox: “I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right,” she stated. “Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch…”

You can cut off a bunch of bits when you decide to become a woman, you can't shave down your bone density nor reverse the effects of going through puberty as a man. Take a look at this trans-woman fighting cis women. Looks more like domestic violence than an organised sport.

 MarsNZ wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox

During Fox's fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round. After her loss, Brents took to social media to convey her thoughts on the experience of fighting Fox: “I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right,” she stated. “Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch…”

You can cut off a bunch of bits when you decide to become a woman, you can't shave down your bone density nor reverse the effects of going through puberty as a man. Take a look at this trans-woman fighting cis women. Looks more like domestic violence than an organised sport.

Puberty timing, levels and other medical details.should be checked by a doctor, gone over and they can make a decision on the strength etc.
If a doctor signs it off as a fair fight then its fair.

 MarsNZ wrote:
Take a look at this trans-woman fighting cis women. Looks more like domestic violence than an organised sport.

Take a look at this cis woman fighting a cis woman, looks more like domestic violence than an organized sport:

 Frazzled wrote:

. The obvious conclusion here is that you're hoping that nobody actually reads your links and they just assume that you provided evidence because hey, there are links in your post.

And yes, I'd say it to your face.

And then I would have to challenge you to whippy sticks at dawn. You sure are hostile when we're having a discussion, not even a debate.

I'd chat more but your hostility is too negative, so you win or whatever.

Just put him on ignore, Fraz. You'll feel much better.
And have some awesome BBQ. It's safer than arguing with some.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

. The obvious conclusion here is that you're hoping that nobody actually reads your links and they just assume that you provided evidence because hey, there are links in your post.

And yes, I'd say it to your face.

And then I would have to challenge you to whippy sticks at dawn. You sure are hostile when we're having a discussion, not even a debate.

I'd chat more but your hostility is too negative, so you win or whatever.

Just put him on ignore, Fraz. You'll feel much better.
And have some awesome BBQ. It's safer than arguing with some.

Done and Done! I've put a lot of people on ignore lately. Unlike wiener dogs who will just bite your beard to get your attention...

To the topic-its actually a sad situation in some ways. The competitors aren't trying to cheat, but naturally either they or their opponents will be disadvantaged in most sports, and theirs no way around it.

 Frazzled wrote:
The competitors aren't trying to cheat, but naturally either they or their opponents will be disadvantaged in most sports, and theirs no way around it.

Except there was a way around it here. He wanted to compete against boys. His physical development was clearly more appropriate for wrestling with boys. But hey, that's crazy talk.

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

. The obvious conclusion here is that you're hoping that nobody actually reads your links and they just assume that you provided evidence because hey, there are links in your post.

And yes, I'd say it to your face.

And then I would have to challenge you to whippy sticks at dawn. You sure are hostile when we're having a discussion, not even a debate.

I'd chat more but your hostility is too negative, so you win or whatever.

Just put him on ignore, Fraz. You'll feel much better.
And have some awesome BBQ. It's safer than arguing with some.

Done and Done! I've put a lot of people on ignore lately. Unlike wiener dogs who will just bite your beard to get your attention...

To the topic-its actually a sad situation in some ways. The competitors aren't trying to cheat, but naturally either they or their opponents will be disadvantaged in most sports, and theirs no way around it.

Yup. It is also a bit naïve to believe that competitors will not push every advantage that they can squeeze in. Since we already know doping is a thing, and females have previously used androsterones for advantage, I really don't see why this is hard to get that some will abuse the situation. Competition is not about being nice; it is about offering every competitor a fair opportunity. It is a perfect example of a legitimate use of discrimination by categories- no persons above a certain weight, for example, in a given weight class.

Ironically, there is some backlash in feminism against transgenders and their inability to accept the advantages that the male body (and life, especially when wealthy) can bring that "born" women do not share.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The competitors aren't trying to cheat, but naturally either they or their opponents will be disadvantaged in most sports, and theirs no way around it.

Except there was a way around it here. He wanted to compete against boys. His physical development was clearly more appropriate for wrestling with boys. But hey, that's crazy talk.

It would not be. He would be disadvantaged against males in his same weight class all other things being equal.
Because even if he's roid raging, they'r eroid raging too and they started out raging earlier.

Roid rage means never having to think coherently.*


*don't hurt me, my wife still thinks I'm slightly useful and she will kick your ass!

There are plenty of weak men competing with men already, so what's one more?

 Peregrine wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
Take a look at this trans-woman fighting cis women. Looks more like domestic violence than an organised sport.

Take a look at this cis woman fighting a cis woman, looks more like domestic violence than an organized sport:

Since you brought up MMA, notice that Fallon Fox is 5-1, and not exactly dominant despite being born a man. Her only "real" opponent TKO'd her in the 3rd round. Against Cisgendered Christiane Santos, she would be annihilated in the first few seconds. I am not seeing a " physical advantage" here at all.

 Verviedi wrote:
The ACoP is a hate-group tier group of conservative activists known for manipulating data. It is tagged as a hate group by the SPLC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians

Try again.

I don't put much stock in the SPLC either. Especially since the 1990's, when every government opposition group that identified as a "patriot" group was lumped in skinheads and neo-Nazis, and proclaimed as "hate" groups.


the SPLC. They are just another group of grievance industry hucksters.

SLPC makes a pretty clear distinction between antigovernment militias, and those that are also hate groups. I mean, I know you don't care - you know what you know and feth the facts - but if any other casual readers are wondering if that's true.

The only questionable entry on the hate group list is maybe the Oath Keepers, who are clearly crazy people, but not as clearly a hate group.

 Ouze wrote:
SLPC makes a pretty clear distinction between antigovernment militias, and those that are also hate groups. I mean, I know you don't care - you know what you know and feth the facts - but if any other casual readers are wondering if that's true.

The only questionable entry on the hate group list is maybe the Oath Keepers, who are clearly crazy people, but not as clearly a hate group.

They are pretty well known for putting any group they disagree with as a hate group, SPLC is a special interest and not a sanctioned govt org.

 Ouze wrote:
SLPC makes a pretty clear distinction between antigovernment militias, and those that are also hate groups. I mean, I know you don't care - you know what you know and feth the facts - but if any other casual readers are wondering if that's true.

The only questionable entry on the hate group list is maybe the Oath Keepers, who are clearly crazy people, but not as clearly a hate group.

Yeah... SLPC totes awesome.

They felt the need to put Ben fething Carson on that list.

Great organization yo.

Well, Ben Carson hates being awake. So it all makes sense.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
SLPC makes a pretty clear distinction between antigovernment militias, and those that are also hate groups. I mean, I know you don't care - you know what you know and feth the facts - but if any other casual readers are wondering if that's true.

The only questionable entry on the hate group list is maybe the Oath Keepers, who are clearly crazy people, but not as clearly a hate group.

They are pretty well known for putting any group they disagree with as a hate group, SPLC is a special interest and not a sanctioned govt org.

Considering that their only opinion consists of "are they a hate group", I would imagine that most groups on the list don't agree with them.

 Ouze wrote:
SLPC makes a pretty clear distinction between antigovernment militias, and those that are also hate groups. I mean, I know you don't care - you know what you know and feth the facts - but if any other casual readers are wondering if that's true.

The only questionable entry on the hate group list is maybe the Oath Keepers, who are clearly crazy people, but not as clearly a hate group.

I think thekingofkings and whembly have pretty much hit it on the head.


And no, I don't say " the facts". It's pretty much A FACT that the SPLC are a bunch of hucksters.


Morris Dees has made his feelings known on the matter in interviews back in the 90's. He saw no distinction between the patriot movement/so-called "militias", separatist, and hate groups, because of the issue of cross membership in some of those groups (in addition to the SPLC's feelings toward those that don't sit on the same side of the political spectrum as they do). The SPLC also played up the fact that some hate groups labeled themselves as "militias" or "patriot groups" during that same period, using it to further reinforce this lumping together of very distinct movements of the day.


If anybody doesn't have their facts straight, it's the SPLC. But they know that.

Oh, yes. I'm sure that the group who works with the fething FBI to track hate groups is a bunch of "greivance industry hucksters".
"Pretty well known"? Get over yourself. Show me some reputable sources that state that they're "hucksters".

I am confused on how "pretty much" works in front of the word "fact". Are you saying it is kind of a fact or almost a fact?

Or its not really a fact, just an opinion but you wanted to express it as if it is a fact.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Morris Dees has made his feelings known on the matter in interviews back in the 90's. He saw no distinction between the patriot movement/so-called "militias", separatist, and hate groups, because of the issue of cross membership in some of those groups (in addition to the SPLC's feelings toward those that don't sit on the same side of the political spectrum as they do). The SPLC also played up the fact that some hate groups labeled themselves as "militias" or "patriot groups" during that same period, using it to further reinforce this lumping together of very distinct movements of the day.

Seems like that has sweet feth-all to do with the fact that as of today, they SLPC seems to be quite capable of distinguishing between patriot groups and hate groups, as I've linked above. Again, I am quite sure none of this matters to you, but if anyone wants to read think links above for how things are today - instead of a secondhand opinion of some guy who heard an interview on the radio 30 years ago - they are there.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
SLPC makes a pretty clear distinction between antigovernment militias, and those that are also hate groups. I mean, I know you don't care - you know what you know and feth the facts - but if any other casual readers are wondering if that's true.

The only questionable entry on the hate group list is maybe the Oath Keepers, who are clearly crazy people, but not as clearly a hate group.

Yeah... SLPC totes awesome.

They felt the need to put Ben fething Carson on that list.

Great organization yo.

Every organization makes mistakes. Any list that has hundreds of groups over 30 years is bound to make one. As we've discussed previously, you have to look at the organization and how they deal with those mistakes as whole. The SLPC added Ben Carson when they shouldn't have, then removed him and apologized. The NY Times published Jayson Blair's plagiarism, they fired him, printed retractions, and changed their processes. Brian Williams lied on the air, and he lost his job. Bill O'Reilly lied on the air repeatedly and... well, that's a bad example, but I'm sure you get the point. Or not, more likely, but that's a different problem, water and horses and all that. Context actually matters.

 Ouze wrote:
SLPC makes a pretty clear distinction between antigovernment militias, and those that are also hate groups. I mean, I know you don't care - you know what you know and feth the facts - but if any other casual readers are wondering if that's true.

The only questionable entry on the hate group list is maybe the Oath Keepers, who are clearly crazy people, but not as clearly a hate group.

From what I can tell the Oath Keepers are not themselves particularly hateful but they by osmosis end up attracting that strata of person more than they like or care to admit.

what does this have to do with wrestling?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Fun Fact for the day, Gender Dysphoria is a disease and parents are making it significantly worse by allowing their kids to believe this is normal.

"Moreover, barring pre-pubertal affirmation and hormone intervention for GD, 80 percent to 95 percent of children with GD will accept the reality of their biological sex by late adolescence." (ACoP)

So maybe this kid is one of the 5-20% of kids who don't grow out of gender dysphoria, who knows, but its a fair bet that his/her parents jumped on board because they are open minded people (Sarcasm) instead of getting their child help.

Now, on the off chance that this child is in fact a part of that small population of Gender Dysphoric people who don't transition back to normal, it makes no sense for him to be competing against Girls while taking HUGE doses of steroids. Texas goofed here clearly.

Here you are pretending that sex is binary, or indeed that there's a "real" biological sex that isn't intimately tied to social constructs one way or another. Focault, Beauvoir and Butler would all like a word with you.

Aside from some rare genetic defects, sex is binary.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually I don't I cited two examples, the first two on Google. Thats two more than the article, yet we are agreed the whole issue is rare, and frankly not one anyone should give a about except people pushing an agenda.

You cited nothing. You claimed that a transgender woman would, in your own words, "obliterate the competition". You cited examples that do not involve any such obliteration. It's incredibly dishonest to pretend that you have provided any evidence to support your claims when the factual content of your articles is about as relevant as linking the top two google search results for "cute cat gifs".

And it's so nice of you to dismiss the problem as one nobody should care about. Too bad for the real people involved, I guess they don't matter?

I cited two examples. Not sure what is dishonest about it (I love it when people say things they never would to your face) especially was we were having a polite discussion.

Judging by your over the top response I seem to have hit a nerve I didn't know you had.
But whatevs. Its simple physics. In any sport involving speed or strength males will have an a statistical advantage. Its the counter to your argument. Any male that wishes to change to a female will have an advantage in most sports. Sorry if you don't like it but thats why the sports are separated in the first place. Its not like they are trying to cheat, as I stated its an unfixable situation for parties with no ill will. Life is full of things that can't be solved. But thats ok, in the end we're all dead.

Here's another.
http://usatodayhss.com/2016/transgender-track-athlete-makes-history-as-controversy-stirs-around-her

You should have used Lana Lawless

http://www.outsports.com/2011/8/24/4051722/moment-42-lana-lawless-wins-right-to-play-on-lpga-tour
When trans golfer Lana Lawless won the 2009 Long Drivers of America title, it was too much for the organization to handle.

and Renee Richards
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/sports/golf/13lawsuit.html
Renee Richards, the transgender tennis player who won the right to play in women’s events in the 1970s
Richards said, “they’re going to get in trouble someday because somebody’s going to come along who’s strong in sprints or weight throwing or whatever and streak the field.”

who apparently did quite well crushing the competition in tennis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

After moving to California, Richards played in regional competitions for her local club, the John Wayne Tennis Club, under the name Renée Clark.[3][6] In the summer of 1976 she entered the La Jolla Tennis Tournament Championships, where she crushed the competition and her unique and lethal left hand serve was recognized.[3] Her long-time friend Gene Scott then invited her to play in his professional tennis tournament, the Tennis Week Open in South Orange, New Jersey. The USTA and the WTA then withdrew their sanction for the Tennis Week Open, and organized another tournament; 25 of the 32 participants withdrew from the Tennis Week Open.[3][4][6] This was just the beginning of the issues Richards would encounter in trying to play professional women's tennis, which eventually led to her suing the USTA and winning. Richards played professionally from 1977 to 1981 when she retired at age 47.[3][4][15] She was ranked as high as 20th overall (in February 1979), and her highest ranking at the end of a year was 22nd (in 1977). Her first professional event as a female was the 1977 US Open. Her greatest successes on court were reaching the doubles final at her first U.S. Open in 1977, with Betty Ann Grubb Stuart—the pair lost a close match to Martina Navratilova and Betty Stöve—and winning the 35-and-over women's singles. Richards was twice a semifinalist in mixed doubles (with Ilie Năstase) at the U.S. Open. In 1979, she defeated Nancy Richey for the 35 and over singles title at the U.S. Open. Richards posted wins over Hana Mandlíková, Sylvia Hanika, Virginia Ruzici, and Pam Shriver. She later coached Navratilova to two Wimbledon wins and was inducted into the USTA Eastern Tennis Hall of Fame in 2000.[18] On August 2, 2013, Richards was among the first class of inductees into the National Gay and Lesbian Sports Hall of Fame.[19]

Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.”

Looks like Fraz has the right idea on this one.

 Verviedi wrote:
Oh, yes. I'm sure that the group who works with the fething FBI to track hate groups is a bunch of "greivance industry hucksters".
"Pretty well known"? Get over yourself. Show me some reputable sources that state that they're "hucksters".

1.The FBI hasn't used the SPLC as a resource since 2014, after the fallout over the FRC shooting back in 2012. And as far as I know, that hasn't changed.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/03/26/fbi-dumps-southern-poverty-law-center/



Of course, Brietbart (ironically considered an entity of "hate" due to the hysteria over the supposed "alt-right" meme) isn't the best of sources. But this write-up in the Washington Times confirms Breitbart's info:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/28/editorial-the-fbi-dumps-a-hate-group/



Washington Post, 2012:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html?utm_term=.8151e8566f94



Write-up in The Weekly Standard's online news site from 2013, mentioning the shooting and discusses the SPLC/Morris Dees in general


http://www.weeklystandard.com/king-fearmongers/article/714573?page=2



CNN's online article on the shooting, the aftermath, and criticisms of the SPLC:


http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/us/us-southern-poverty-law-center-profile/index.html



An article from the National Review in 2013 on the SPLC's tendency to over-inflate the numbers of "hate groups" in the United States:


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343115/splc-and-slant-patrick-brennan



A 1998 article from The Nation on a news research archive site regarding the "conscience industry". While somewhat biased, there is some good information in that write-up.


Note: This is a site that requires an account.


https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-21280065.html





In the early 1990's, a newspaper in Dee's hometown called the Montgomery Advertiser did a series of articles on the SPLC:


Morse and Jaffe, “Charity or Riches,” The Montgomery Advertiser, February 13, 1994.

Dan Morse. "A complex man: Opportunist or crusader?", Montgomery Advertiser, Feb. 14 1994

Dan Morse and Greg Jaffe. "Critics question $52 million reserve, tactics of wealthiest civil rights group", Montgomery Advertiser, February 14 1994



The series by The Montgomery Advertiser was a finalist for the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism



http://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/1995

http://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/staff-73



I couldn't find the articles themselves online. However, the Nieman Foundation of Journalism at Harvard site "Nieman Watchdog" had a panel discussion in 1999 on the aforementioned articles. Scroll down to "Attacking a Home-Town Icon"
Jim Tharpe, Deputy Metro Editor, The Atlanta Constitution.


http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.Panel%20Discussion:%20Nonprofit%20Organizations%20May%2099




It's only been since the turn of the century that the SPLC started listing/tracking "Black Separatist Groups", thanks to public criticism. But the list only comprises the major and more well known/established groups. The SPLC is strangely silent on the recent rise in popularity of black supremacy and pseudo-historical racist dogma, probably (to be fair) because it doesn't have any sort of organization(s) to focus on. And they turn around and blame whites (in part) for the racist attitudes of many blacks in the United States (which, in my mind, is the same as blaming blacks for white racism). However, their "Hatewatch" focuses on the "radical American Right" (which is predominately white).



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

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch


Also, hispanic groups like La Raza are absent, despite having some views in common with white and black racist, nationalist, and separatist movements.


In other words, non-white racism get's token recognition, while white racist groups get the bulk of the attention from the SPLC. That's what gets scared liberals to keep the SPLC's coffers full and Morris Dees rich.



Immigration reform groups are also listed (smeared) as hate groups by the SPLC, which is huckster bull


http://harpers.org/blog/2010/03/hate-immigration-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/

http://cis.org/immigration-splc



Muslim reformers, apostates that speak out against the worst aspects of Islam, are denounced by the SPLC as "hate mongers":



https://www.yahoo.com/news/splc-receives-backlash-after-placing-activist-maajid-nawaz-on-anti-muslim-extremist-list-201918193.html


https://www.wsj.com/articles/branding-moderates-as-anti-muslim-1477866475


Note: This requires an account



https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/29/i-m-a-muslim-reformer-why-am-i-being-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist.html


http://www.blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/white-left-issued-first-fatwa/



On to Ben Carson.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/12/southern-poverty-law-center-apologizes-to-ben-carson-takes-him-off-extremist.html



The apology:





And then they turn around and say this:





Translation: "We apologize and remove him from our "hate list". But only because of public criticism, for we underestimated Carson's popularity, even among those who disagree with his stances. But he is still a hateful bigot and should be on our hate monger list".



On SPLC bias:


http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/06/splc-declined-to-include-bias-against-white-students-in-trump-hate-crime-report/


http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/30265/



Clearly articles with some slant. But still interesting to read.


After all, white racism is what brings in the big bucks from left-leaning folks (to be fair, with admittedly good intentions). It's a sure thing, especially with the current BS narrative that attempts to redefine racism as "Power + Privilege" instead of what of actually is.


The problem with the SPLC is the same as the SCLC and the modern NAACP. It's all about influence, limelight, political influence, and making the greenbacks. The leadership of these supposed civil rights organizations have long since descended into greed and cynicism, at the expense of honest folks who really and truly want to combat the nasty, lingering spectre of racism in the United States. But these racketeering scumbags (along with the individual scumbags like Jackson, Sharpton, etc) do just as much damage, if not more, as the genuine hate mongers out there in the world.


What I linked above will be dismissed, of course. Hell, most won't even click the links. The problem with people like me is that we don't go far enough for the modern left in our "tolerance" (i.e. Don't toe the line, you are still a bigot). And I have no problem criticizing or attacking "sainted" institutions, right or left, since I don't give a damn what people think of me or my opinions or how they take any information I share, and I'm not here to change anybody's minds.

Honestly, I'll just take your word for it, because I have no time to click those links and compose a proper reply.

Addendum: I'll do it later, out of respect for you composing that.