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.

 Manchu wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Off topic is now a hate group.

I prefer "cesspool" but I suppose "hate group" also works.

Do we fit the Kanluwen scale presented earlier in the thread?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Off topic is now a hate group.

I prefer "cesspool" but I suppose "hate group" also works.

Do we fit the Kanluwen scale presented earlier in the thread?

I've been trying to figure that out too.

I missed the scale.

It's the scale that the government uses.

They just call it the Kanluwen Scale to sound hip.

And because it makes it less true I guess...

 Manchu wrote:
I missed the scale.

Here's Kan's list sourced from the FBI:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

We fail on (3) at least.

Funny, (7) is basically 40k.

 d-usa wrote:
It's the scale that the government uses.

They just call it the Kanluwen Scale to sound hip.

And because it makes it less true I guess...

To be fair, I've been popping in and out of this thread because it devolved into pointless gak really quickly and I never caught the name of the actual scale I only saw it referenced as the "Kanluwen Scale" I do not wish to be or sound hip, for such an attack on my character, I bite my thumb, sir!

Fear not, Alf. None of us are hip.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's the scale that the government uses.

They just call it the Kanluwen Scale to sound hip.

And because it makes it less true I guess...

To be fair, I've been popping in and out of this thread because it devolved into pointless gak really quickly and I never caught the name of the actual scale I only saw it referenced as the "Kanluwen Scale" I do not wish to be or sound hip, for such an attack on my character, I bite my thumb, sir!

How did it taste?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Fear not, Alf. None of us are hip.

I am disappoint.

 Manchu wrote:
Fear not, Alf. None of us are hip.

yea well, some of us need new hips. Does that count?

Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.

cadbren wrote:
Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.

Hey, it can't be racist, sexist and ageist if it is being said by the white, middle aged guys at the FBI

Oh that's right, you can be discriminated against if the people doing it are considered the same group as you.

Other than number 7, the Scouts would fit that definition of a hate group too.

cadbren wrote:
Other than number 7, the Scouts would fit that definition of a hate group too.

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
Technically it's not highly structured internationally. The Scouts in America are structured differently than the scouts in New Zealand, England, etc...

2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
It is a youth organization...

3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
What is the mainstream image that the scouts are projecting? The BSA as an organization might be projecting the no gays in scouting image, but they've gotten pushback from leaders, scouts, charter organizations, etc... Unless you're talking about the Scout Law, Oath, Motto, and Mission Statement, which most organizations have.

4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
I've never seen the boy scouts on cable television, and with the exception of the computer merit badge, most scouting activities are done via good old fashioned newsletter.

5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
Maybe they fit this description, but I'm not entirely sure what they mean by this.

6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
This one I'm fairly certain they don't do either...

7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.
There will be a global war... It's the giant game of capture the flag held at the World Jamborees

cadbren wrote:
Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.

Clearly you do not understand logic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.

Clearly you do not understand logic.

No, he's right. If this is what the FBI uses to help figure out if an action was caused by a "hate group" then it is. There are plenty of examples of groups that fit the profile of a hate group, and aren't white. The New Black Panthers probably being the most obvious.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I believe that the list that Kanluwen brought up is an FBI thing. If my 12 years in the FedGov has taught me anything, labeling anything a specific color is a fast way to make bad things happen.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Crazy ideology is not defined by its position relative to someone's individual beliefs, it is defined in relation to the general beliefs of society.

If you take US society as a whole, the majority view is that black people should not be made slaves. Anyone who thinks they should, due to some kind of unproved justification (the Bible, innate superiority of whites, or other) has espoused a crazy ideology.

Obviously they themselves will not see it as crazy, and they will see everyone who opposes them as crazy.

Still not a hate group, nor necessarily a group to watch. All sorts of people believe all sorts of crazy gak. A massive economic collapse leading to the movie Mad Max IRL is way more likely then say.... angels showing up, and what was the number? 50% of Americans or more believe in those. I also find your slavery comparison in poor taste, poorly made and over all inaccurate. Just because a minority espouses a view point does not make that view point insane. A minority of this country originally thought Blacks were actual human beings. A minority of this country originally thought homosexuals should have the same access to basic civil rights like legal marriage.

Back on topic, per the FBI the following is the definition for a hate group.

"primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."

(Sauce, wiki, which go it from here: "Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines", Uniform Crime Reporting: Summary Reporting System: National Incident-Based Reporting System, U.S. Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Revised October 1999.)

So not sure what Kan's posting, maybe the definition or identifying guidelines for a white supremacist group?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.

Clearly you do not understand logic.

The list specifies a physical type - white. That automatically excludes any group that isn't substantially white. What is substantial anyway? Is it a percentage of the group like 30% white or is it a number, ie more than 10 young white males and you go from being a radical group to a hate group?

It specifies male and while gangs and other potentially dangerous groups are typically male dominated, not always.

It specifies an age range. I was under the impression that a lot of the groups in question were made up of older people.

As for the others:
Number 6 is suggestive as it is ascribing a motive to what otherwise might be genuine community building.

Number 7 follows up on number 2 by narrowing the issue to one of race. This suggests that the whole list was drawn up to specifically target groups of white racists rather than all "hate" groups. The list is racist in presentation and scope.

 sebster wrote:

Oh come on. Informing a government agency about someone doesn't mean you're accusing them of being criminals. "Hey, there's this group that you should be aware of" is not accusing them of being criminals.

Sebster, it should be obvious that to inform law enforcement agencies of the activities of groups the SPLC is monitoring is to suggest that criminal activities are taking place.
Law enforcement is not interested if they are being made aware that a group member likes pistachio ice cream, or drives a blue car, or has two kids; they are only interested in potential crime threats or evidence of crimes.

 sebster wrote:

You came in to this having no idea how the SPLC actually worked, and went off on some weird idea about how the SPLC's list of hate groups meant there was government action. You were wrong, and are now just contriving whatever you can to get away from that basic fact.

Just stop it.

I studied the SPLC website before posting anything about them.
There was government action, right up until superiors in the US military overturned such action. It is delusional to now claim otherwise.

 sebster wrote:

By getting people in authority to 'recognise and deal with hate crimes' means to get them to define hate according to the standards of the SPLC, not the US government.

They're not hypnotists, "you are getting sleepy, when you open your eyes you will believe entirely in the definition of hate groups as defined by the SPLC and that their classification of all hate groups is true and unquestionable..."

The SPLC tells people about their definition and the groups they believe meet that definition... and people are free to agree or disagree. What happens is discussion and awareness. That's how conversation works.

The SPLC is a dogmatised lobby group run by lawyers, not a volunteer tutorial group, such groups can be very persuasive for reasons other than merit of argument.

 sebster wrote:

What you're trying to do is invent some ridiculous idea that simply the act of saying a thing is so pervasive that it is, in your own words 'dangerous', and that's a thing that's so fething stupid that it's been quite remarkable to witness how you've ended up there.

You call it ridiculous as a tool to avoid actually dealing with the evidence provided. I looked at the evidence on the SPLC website , found the SPLC's case against the AFA to be unfair, based on the logical evidence as to what quantifies Hate Crime according to accountable accredited law enforcement organisations like the FBI. Thus coming to the conclusion that the AFA cannot be fairly classified as a Hate Group. This position I might add that has been vindicated by the Pentagon for reasons of their own.
Nevertheless you have still been clutching at straws to hold onto the discredited ideology that you can justifiably call out the AFA as a hate group, thus another reason exampled from this very thread as to why the SPLC's self appointed role as divisor of organisations into Hate Groups or not is dangerous.

My comments are not 'fething stupid', they are logical; and I would be grateful if you didn't lower yourself by resorting to foul language, if you cant logically provide a counter argument say nothing rather than swear at me.

 sebster wrote:

Once again... there are lots of groups opposed to homosexuality or any movement towards more rights for homosexuals that the SPLC doesn't list. What sets the AFA apart is their constant stream of lies about homosexuals, and the extremely minimal amount of time they spend on anything other than homosexuality (other than abortion).

A quick look at the AFA webpage reveals that they are involved in legal lobbying for other issues also, there is a major focus on anti-pornography, family values and the rights of persecuted Christians worldwide. Now it is possible, in fact likely that the media in the US focuses on reporting their opinions on homosexuality, however this is far from the only thing they advocate about.
Also its unfair for you to call AFa comments a 'constant stream of lies', if the AFA people you quote believe what they say they aren't lying and you have provided no evidence that they do not.

 sebster wrote:

Not a single beating, theft or call for a beating or a theft is mentioned, not one. Just people practicing free speech.

Yes, because the SPLC is not concerned simply with crime. fething duh.

Well they ought to be focused on hate crime related speech or publication, if they want to define the groups concerned as Hate Groups.

 sebster wrote:

The SPLC is concerned with the speach used by groups like AFA, and they use their own free speech to raise awareness about that.

Had the SPLC remained content to debate or critique comments by the AFA they would be countering free speech with free speech. However instead they try to set a standard definition of the AFA based on spurious values that unfairly labels them and leaves them open to discrimination from any organisation or individual hoodwinked into following the SPLC's definition.
This directly resulted at least one case of discrimination against the AFA, briefly by official US Army personnel until the damage was countered by a policy clarification by more senior staff.

 sebster wrote:

I highlighted the mission statement, but linked the entire webpage. Stop clutching at straws.

The KKK could have a website that's nothing but fun learning games for kids aged 7-10... and linking to it in the face of the public statements by their members and leadership would be the most inane drivel.

The KKK are known to be a de facto hate group because of the race crimes they commit, as a result their website could contain anything, we have historical proof elsewhere.
There is no excuse to say anything remotely comperable about the AFA, at least from evidence the SPLC has provided.
It is unreasonable and unfair to suggest that the AFA's own website should be dismissed as evidence about their activities on the expedient that the SPLC has labeled them.

 sebster wrote:

And, well, we've got a thread full of horrible statements made by the leadership of the AFA, and you still think it's okay to link to their webpage and say 'but none of the contraversial stuff is on here, so they must be fine'.

 sebster wrote:

You must be pretending to be naive, because you cannot possibly to so stupid as to believe that people don't jump on a frenzy when a group is categorised as an actionable ostracisable group.

Of course that can happen, if people attempt to use demogoguery and other methods. It hasn't happened in cases involving the SPLC because that isn't their method, but that reality doesn't seem to phase you one bit.

Except it has happened, the Pentagon had to sort it out, and that is the reality.

 sebster wrote:

This is the main difference between the AFA and SPLC in this, the AFA doesnt like what they consider a rise of homosexuality, and it is their right to do so under free speech, but have not called on homosexuals as actionable for discrimination or hatred. The SPLC doesn't like the rhetoric of the AFA, which is acceptable equally under free speech, but then have called for them to be discriminated against because of what they believe in.

They haven't called for them to be discriminated against. That is lunacy you made up in your head. "Hey, people should look at what these people are saying" isn't a call for discrimination.

The SPLC listed the AFA as a Hate Group alongside such groups as the KKK and neo-Nazis. That is one huge big label, especially as no weighting was given to the groupings, so it is strongly implied that there is a moral similarity between the AFA and Nazis.. Categorising the AFA as a Hate Group, especially as clumsily as this is extremely damaging, distressing to members and encourages discrimination.

Its not lunacy made up in my head, its a logical conclusion based on observation of the facts.

 sebster wrote:

This goes back to the irrefutable point that if you are going to have public groups ostracized or discriminated against the criteria for doing so must be done by accredited accountable public figures.

It's not irrefutable. It's fething insane. I mean, you are saying that private groups are not to be allowed to use their own free speach to criticise other groups for their own speach.

Totally fething bonkers.

Again try not to swear, it hurts what little argument you attempt to provide.
I am not saying the private groups cannot critique each other. A fair use of free speech would be for the SPLC to counter comments by the AFA, and 'expose' them.

However this is not their goal they are instead trying to foster an artificial re-categorization of the AFA that will formally label them as undesirable and encourage discrimination against them. The SPLC can make such comments under the first amendment, but by encouraging discrimination they are doing so as Hate Speech. What irony.

 sebster wrote:

Getting put on a list that has resulted directly in:

- US military officials discriminating against the AFA.

Once, and immediately after the Pentagon immediately said 'don't do that'. And this is a great big problem that you think means a private organisation should no longer be able to speak freely about other private organisations.

At least you admit the discrimination occurred, and that it was as a result of the SPLC information, that's a start.
Once is enough. The AFA and soldiers linked to the AFA were lucky thast the Pentagon acted quickly to stop the discrimination from being proliferated further, and we don't know for how long the errant teaching was used before it was challenged.

The SPLC has the First Amendment right to continue to call the AFA a Hate Group, but if they do logical and fair minded people can and should consider the SPLC's judgement to be tainted. In fact they prove themselves no better than other organisations that encourage discrimination against third parties, and thus worse than the AFA, who haven't.

 sebster wrote:

- Media calling them hate groups without further explanation.

So because a private organisation called another private organisation a hate group, then a third private organisation also called them a hate group. Holy gak, scandal!

Yes it is serious, because it involves the media and people can be influenced heavily by the media. For a media article to denounce the AFA as a Hate Group is a dangerous development because of the discrimination against AFA members that might result and because of the distress it might cause to AFA members or their families that are exposed to the article.
The media has a civic responsibility to be careful about what it releases.

 sebster wrote:

For most including myself it was my first media exposure to the AFA.

I mean, here you are trying to defend an organisation that prior to this thread you knew nothing about. You don't know how they operate, or the kind of statements they regularly issue. You just wanted to defend them and attack the SPLC because 'christian'.

I did some research on the AFA and SPLC before posting about them on this thread, and wanted to defend the AFA because 'justice'.

My first post on this thread was directed at you:

One of the biggest problems a society finds over hate speech is that once someone or some group is accused of hate speech, rightly or wrongly its becomes acceptable to use hate speech against them. All too often the rights of the accused are trampled over in the expedience of a little schadenfreude. Frankly its more damaging than the original movement being targeted, in fact most hate agendas stem from an assumption of hate and the consequent belief that one doesn't have to keep to any moral standards in opposing it.
At least in the US there is protection, protection in theory also exists in the UK, but it is quickly diminishing, people are accused of being extremeists and extremism is sanctioned against them.
You yourself have fallen into this trap here.

I posted because of the reasons above. It was not because of Christianity per se, but because I can see how societal labeling is divisive, distressing and dangerous and do not like for peoples to be labeled without good cause.

 sebster wrote:

I follow a Christian blogger (and the greater network of Christian bloggers he is part of) who regularly dismantle and attack statements made by the AFA. I wasn't aware they were listed as a hate group by the SPLC before this thread, but I knew they were an extremely hateful organisation.

And that, I think, is a massive part of the problem. Lots of people, and you especially, came in to this with little knowledge, but a strong opinion.

Laughable ignorant hypocrisy from you there sebster. You started this thread with a rant about Fischers theology that was very skewed because it pleased you more to assume Fischer believed in an evil petulant God.

 sebster wrote:

Are you are seriously dumb enough to believe that just because there is a published 'List' of undesirable organisations then the list must therefore be valid and developed with 'care and accuracy'? If so you would have made an excellent NKVD officer, or a henchman for one of Sulla' pogroms.

That's nothing to do with what I stated, and is just hopelessly lazy nonsense on your part. I have not, at any point, said that the list must include only hate groups simply because it was claimed to be completed with care and accuracy.

No sebster, its as far comment on what you wrote, and I quoted your properly, you overlooked that somehow. So here it is again:

 sebster wrote:

It's an action that only has meaning as long as that list has meaning.... which requires that that list holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled.

You were still accepting the SPLC's definitions flatly, even when refuted as unsound by Pentagon sources. And was shown to be not accompanied by any evidence that would be considered a hate crime by accountable, accredited law enforcement organisations in the US.

 sebster wrote:

I have said that, in my experience, the organisations listed on the SPLC list have been shown to all be deserving of their place, and if that wasn't true then I'm sure someone should be able to pick out an organisation that shouldn't be on there.

I was able to pick out one organisation that shouldn't be on the list, the AFA. More importantly the Pentagon officials came to a similar conclusion according to their own criteria.

 sebster wrote:

In response, you've said you aren't aware of any organisation that shouldn't be on there and aren't going to attempt to find any, but you're just sure there must be some that shouldn't be.

Rubbish. The AFA shouldn't be on there, for the reasons state several times above. I did say I wasn't interested in looking for any more, because there was not point doing so because one example was enough to question the judgement of the SPLC. Also I did not in any way imply I was sure there would be others, only that as the SPLC Hate Group list was demonsteably unsound and thus it should be reviewed comprehensively in case there are other groups unfairly labeled, a significant difference.

 sebster wrote:

As the SPLC doesnt distinguish on its lists between groups that hang people in trees because they are black and those who don't like that homosexuality is now far more outwardly profiled than it used to be.

Actually, they distinguish between different types of hate groups, and for each group they state the behaviour that caused them to put the group on their list. Stop making up nonsense.

I am not making up nonsense, you are. The AFA is not a different type of hate group, its not a hate group as it doesn't promote or encourage hate crime.
The SPLC should have distinguished between groups that encourage haste crime and groups that the SPLC doesnt like what they say. Had they dont so they would have retained their credibility

 sebster wrote:

By they way have you pointed out which groups should or should not be there, because you have been quite content to call them all unequivocably as "extremist hate mongers" just for being on the list.

Umm, my position is that all of the groups listed meet the SPLC criteria. And did you note how I went and got multiple hateful things stated by Bryan Fischer, to establish why that group is on the list?

I did indeed note. One quote was a religous comment that could be explained as something other than hate speech. The rest of the comments were non relgious and did not match up with known AFA policy. Fischers anti-Hispanic racist comments are regrettable, but they are not AFA comments, they are Fischers comments. There is no evidence to suggest the AFA has a racist anti-Hispanic policy. Also there is no evidence of a AFA policy on AIDS denial, they are purely Fischers comments.
The only AFA related message you quoted was on the Connecticut school massacre and the regret that corporate prayer was removed, Fischers comments on the subject were innocent and can be folowed theologically.

 sebster wrote:

Which is kind of sad because of what a little research turns up.

Except, of course, that its been very little research, and that effort took multiple requests from me before anyone bothered at all. And even then consisted of someone mentioning an organisation that they kind of like, without any effort to contradict why the SPLC listed them, and your effort of linking to the AFA main page...

Enough research was done. FBI definitions of hate crime were provided on the thread. The SPLC 'evidence' on their own website was compared to it, and found wanting.
Links to the Pentagon rebuttal was provided earlier, and I linked to the AFA website and provided opportunity for people reading the thrdad to quote nad link any evidence of hate speech that could find. None was found.

 sebster wrote:

...and a really weird effort to rationalise one of the multiple bits of hate speach by Fischer.
So if you want to call that enough evidence... well it's probably a good indication of why your position on this issue has been so ridiculous.

And there you go. You started with a rant about 'Fischer worshipping an evil petulant God', which says far more about your extremist views than Fischers.
A clear and fair attempt was made to walk through the relevant theology with you, which is as old as the Old Testament and understood by Jews and Christians like for millenia.
Fischer's comments on this occassion were shown to not be hate speech when looked at in the theological milieu he professes to believe in, thus making his comments internally fair and consistent. However your dismissive rejection of this without explanation, both then and when I made a second attempt to explain the theology highlights you own lack of objectivity.
Frankly there is no point in trying to debate that issue any further with you, if an internally consistent plain theological approach is written off as a 'really wierd effort to rationalise' then it is only because your mind is closed to anything that challenges your desire to hate religion.
You are in no position to talk about Hate Speech in anyone else.

 sebster wrote:

Sebster, if an official in the US army acts on this own authority while in uniform doing the job he was asked to do he is still representing the US Army in an official capacity. The fact that he was quickly corrected which is the higher ups establishing their position, that was the system of seniority and control working.
You are choosing to forget that the officer concerned was a supervisory instructor, authorised to teach in the fields concerned and those he taught were in effect under his orders, because funnily enough enough, soldiers are expected to do what they are taught to do in training, not just take it as someone elses opinion.

I'm not choosing to forget it, I simply understand that a system exists even when a person acts outside that system, but is quickly corrected by higher ups. If a teacher gives a lesson on history and uses some alternate textboook she found that tells a story that differs from the official curriculum... and this is identified and corrected... the education system still works. We wouldn't have a big freak out and insist that it is 'dangerous' for alternate textbooks to exist.

This should be fething obvious.

The system worked properly when the SPLC's input into it was formally discredited and removed from the equation.
The trainer did not act outside the system, he was an appointed trainer working in the system acting on his appointed task, he however imported spurious SPLC teaching material from outside the system, and it appears that an Army Chaplain performed his duties by helping challenge and oppose the incorrect teaching, followed up by input from more senior staff.

 sebster wrote:
So you're not going to defend them, but you are going to criticise another group for attacking them.

Yes. I'm not going to defend them as an organization that I'd want to belong to, but I will defend them from attacks of being a hate group, which they clearly are not.

 d-usa wrote:
It's the scale that the government uses.

Allegedly.

They just call it the Kanluwen Scale to sound hip.

No. Because not all of the criteria need be met - including the part about "hate" - for Kanluwen to declare an organization a hate group.

As long as you can tick one of those seven boxes, you can be declared a hate group using the Kanluwen Scale. It's really quite progressive.

TL,DR:

Declaring that gay people should be thrown in prison (or possibly just executed) = legitimate free speech.
Calling an organization saying that gay people should be thrown in prison a hate group = dangerous abuse.

Claiming that your spiteful bully of a "god" lets children be massacred as punishment for banning mandatory prayer in schools = sensible traditional theology.
Pointing out the sheer absurdity and evil of this belief = dangerous extremism.

Makes a lot of sense to me...

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.

Clearly you do not understand logic.

No, he's right. If this is what the FBI uses to help figure out if an action was caused by a "hate group" then it is. There are plenty of examples of groups that fit the profile of a hate group, and aren't white. The New Black Panthers probably being the most obvious.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I believe that the list that Kanluwen brought up is an FBI thing. If my 12 years in the FedGov has taught me anything, labeling anything a specific color is a fast way to make bad things happen.

No, he's wrong, and so are you.

Anti-government militia members are mostly white men =/= white men are mostly anti-government militia members.

Anti-government militias are identified by their being militias that are anti-government, not by their racial make-up. It happens that their racial make-up is predominantly white, and a number of them are also racist (Aryan Nation, etc.)

cadbren wrote:
Who decides that latter part though? You can believe in crazy radical stuff and not be dangerous except to another ideology. The crazy radical stuff is also subjective, it depends on where you stand with your own ideologies.

You as an individual get to decide that for yourself. Possibly if you're really interested you could create a not-for-profit organisation of your own, and can issue press releases about what groups you think are hate groups. In turn other private individuals can look in to your work and decide how much, if at all, your research and findings should sway their own opinion.

Those two descriptions are only splitting hairs because the audience is only allowed to choose between believing a group is nuts and believing a group is evil. How about the group in question has a different set of beliefs that do not affect people outside the group and don't pose a threat to those outside the group.

Wait, what? How are you concluding that?

The logic I'm seeing here is that anti-abortion activists threaten to kill doctors etc so they're classified as haters. A moderate group like the AFA also oppose abortion so they must be haters too.
Mary hates apples. John hates apples. John is Mary. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

But none of that is true because there are lots of groups that argue against abortion and gay rights who aren't classified hate groups. The difference is in how you do it. If you just want to say 'we oppose the acceptance of homosexuality and believe Christian faith requires the rejection of gay marriage' and stuff like that then you're not a hate group. But if you tell lies and peddle false science, it's a different matter. That's why the AFA has been called a hate group.

 Orlanth wrote:
Sebster, it should be obvious that to inform law enforcement agencies of the activities of groups the SPLC is monitoring is to suggest that criminal activities are taking place.
Law enforcement is not interested if they are being made aware that a group member likes pistachio ice cream, or drives a blue car, or has two kids; they are only interested in potential crime threats or evidence of crimes.

That's right. Potential. "You should look in to these guys, they might be up to something" is quite different from "arrest those people, they are criminals".

I studied the SPLC website before posting anything about them.
There was government action, right up until superiors in the US military overturned such action. It is delusional to now claim otherwise.

As long as we squint hard enough to pretend some guy using an unauthorised source for a powerpoint slide is "government action".

The SPLC is a dogmatised lobby group run by lawyers, not a volunteer tutorial group, such groups can be very persuasive for reasons other than merit of argument.

We cannot let these people speak, for they will use their magic lawyer words.

You call it ridiculous as a tool to avoid actually dealing with the evidence provided. I looked at the evidence on the SPLC website , found the SPLC's case against the AFA to be unfair, based on the logical evidence as to what quantifies Hate Crime according to accountable accredited law enforcement organisations like the FBI.

You were claiming that the SPLC were somehow dangerous, despite having no power other than the ability to release press statements available to any citizen. I laughed at this. In defence, you then claim that they are dangerous, because you don't believe the AFA is really a hate group.

That's a fail, because what you actually had to do was explain why the SPLC was dangerous. So far two possible answers have been given, hypnotism and magic lawyer words, and while both were given by me, they remain the only attempt at substantiating exactly what is dangerous about a private organisation issuing a statement of groups they believe to be hate groups.

My comments are not 'fething stupid', they are logical;

Nah, what you're attempted to argue here has been completely ridiculous, and the words I've used to describe it are appropriate. If you don't like those descriptions, post more sensible arguments.

A quick look at the AFA webpage reveals that they are involved in legal lobbying for other issues also, there is a major focus on anti-pornography, family values and the rights of persecuted Christians worldwide. Now it is possible, in fact likely that the media in the US focuses on reporting their opinions on homosexuality, however this is far from the only thing they advocate about.

Once again you're relying on the webpage rather than the actual activities of the organisation.

And I have no idea how the organisation is reported in the major media outlets, but I suspect the answer is 'not at all'. My experience with them has been entirely through Christian bloggers.

Also its unfair for you to call AFa comments a 'constant stream of lies', if the AFA people you quote believe what they say they aren't lying and you have provided no evidence that they do not.

McDonalds believes it when they issue press releases about how they're helping combat obesity, but we don't actually let the ability of one marketing person to delude themselves define what is and isn't a lie.

They claim stuff that is plainly and clearly factually wrong (homosexuals are paedophiles). They interpret scientific findings so wrongly that it's almost comical, and pass on the findings of other studies that are so contrived its incredible. You can go off on a weird rant and insist that has to be called something other than lies if you want, but it is what it is.

Well they ought to be focused on hate crime related speech or publication, if they want to define the groups concerned as Hate Groups.

No, because there's nothing anywhere in the world but inside your head that says hate groups must partake in hate crime.

Had the SPLC remained content to debate or critique comments by the AFA they would be countering free speech with free speech. However instead they try to set a standard definition of the AFA based on spurious values that unfairly labels them and leaves them open to discrimination from any organisation or individual hoodwinked into following the SPLC's definition.
This directly resulted at least one case of discrimination against the AFA, briefly by official US Army personnel until the damage was countered by a policy clarification by more senior staff.

Yes, and in time I hope we can all move past the time that an army officer used a powerpoint slide and was quickly corrected by senior officials. Until then, I only hope we can all be brave.

There is no excuse to say anything remotely comperable about the AFA, at least from evidence the SPLC has provided.
It is unreasonable and unfair to suggest that the AFA's own website should be dismissed as evidence about their activities on the expedient that the SPLC has labeled them.

A website should always be dismissed when direct evidence is available. As a large amount of evidence of comments issued by the AFA which is nothing more than hate speach has been provided...

Except it has happened, the Pentagon had to sort it out, and that is the reality.

And now a powerpoint slide is being defined as demogoguery, and this whole exercise just gets sillier with every post.

The SPLC listed the AFA as a Hate Group alongside such groups as the KKK and neo-Nazis. That is one huge big label, especially as no weighting was given to the groupings, so it is strongly implied that there is a moral similarity between the AFA and Nazis.

"Once again, Joe's Fish Shack and IBM are both companies, therefore they are the same" is totally fething bonkers. People don't think like that.

Again try not to swear, it hurts what little argument you attempt to provide.

Nah, feth that. I'll swear as long as you keep making argument that fething nuts.

At least you admit the discrimination occurred, and that it was as a result of the SPLC information, that's a start.

I admit? It was a powerpoint presentation that was quickly shut down. If that's the biggest problem you can come up with then that's incredible. The Tellytubbies left more suffering in their wake than that.

The SPLC has the First Amendment right to continue to call the AFA a Hate Group, but if they do logical and fair minded people can and should consider the SPLC's judgement to be tainted.

Sure... if logical and fair minded see the actions of the AFA and think the organisation is anything other than a hate group. Which is all I've been saying.

The problem with your grand theory is, of course, that to anyone not desperate to defend any group that calls itself Christian, the bahavious of the AFA can't be seen as anything other than hate.

Laughable ignorant hypocrisy from you there sebster.

Uh huh. I point I was aware of an organisation for a long time before this thread, and you call that ignorant. And so we take another step away from the place where words have meaning, and closer to the world inside Orlanth's head.

No sebster, its as far comment on what you wrote, and I quoted your properly, you overlooked that somehow. So here it is again:

 sebster wrote:

It's an action that only has meaning as long as that list has meaning.... which requires that that list holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled.

Read, reading comprehension fail on your part.

Do you understand what 'as long as' means? It means the first part is only true if the second part is. So, the action of putting the organisation on the list is only meaningful, as long as the list is assembled with care and accuracy. In other words, if the list is incorrect and/or lacking evidence, then it will have little impact. But if it is accurate and well sourced, then the impact it has will be a good thing.

To which you responded with some nonsense about how I would have made a good officer in the NKVD.

You were still accepting the SPLC's definitions flatly, even when refuted as unsound by Pentagon sources.

And now you're just making stuff up. The Pentagon didn't refute the SPLC as unsound. It said 'that's not an army source and doesn't reflect army doctrine'.

It amazes me that you'll spend so much time typing post after post, and have never bothered to get the basic facts of the situation right.

And was shown to be not accompanied by any evidence that would be considered a hate crime by accountable, accredited law enforcement organisations in the US.

And now you're back to just repeating the claim that an organisation can only be a hate group if it commits hate crimes. Sigh.

I was able to pick out one organisation that shouldn't be on the list, the AFA.

Yeah, that'd be an argument if your effort so far hadn't been a link to their website and a steadfast effort to not comment on any of the direct quotes linked to in this thread.

More importantly the Pentagon officials came to a similar conclusion according to their own criteria.

"You reckon Garry Sobers was the greatest cricketer of all time but Wisden said it was, therefore you are wrong and all your opinions on cricket must be rejected."

I am not making up nonsense, you are. The AFA is not a different type of hate group, its not a hate group as it doesn't promote or encourage hate crime.

You're not even following your own quote and my reply any more... You said the AFA wasn't distinguished from groups that hang black people in trees, and I said they were, because the AFA is under one group, Christian extremists, and the KKK and other groups are under white supremacists.

And to that you reply 'they're not a hate group'. That doesn't make sense, if you're going to keep doing this take the time to figure out what is being discussed in each quote block.

The SPLC should have distinguished between groups that encourage haste crime and groups that the SPLC doesnt like what they say. Had they dont so they would have retained their credibility

They state quite plainly exactly why they find the AFA to be a hate group;
"Initially founded as the National Federation for Decency, the American Family Association (AFA) originally focused on what it considered indecent television programming and pornography. The AFA says it promotes "traditional moral values" in media. A large part of that work involves "combating the homosexual agenda" through various means, including publicizing companies that have pro-gay policies and organizing boycotts against them."

I did indeed note. One quote was a religous comment that could be explained as something other than hate speech. The rest of the comments were non relgious and did not match up with known AFA policy. Fischers anti-Hispanic racist comments are regrettable, but they are not AFA comments, they are Fischers comments. There is no evidence to suggest the AFA has a racist anti-Hispanic policy. Also there is no evidence of a AFA policy on AIDS denial, they are purely Fischers comments.

Okay, so as long as statements made by a spokesman through official AFA means don't count, then.

Enough research was done. FBI definitions of hate crime were provided on the thread.

WHich only count if we accept that a group can only be a hate group by committing hate crime.

The SPLC 'evidence' on their own website was compared to it, and found wanting.

Only if we believe that the AFA's website, and not their actions are the important determinant factors.

The system worked properly when the SPLC's input into it was formally discredited and removed from the equation.

Formally discredited? You live in a fantasy world. Stating that it is not an army source and not army doctrine isn't formally discrediting the SPLC. It's saying "we don't use them as a source".

So many, many pages, typed over so long, and you just have no idea about the basics of this. It's incredible.

Sebster, there is no point trying to reason with you further.

The bottom line is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that the AFA has do anything to encourage discriminatory acts against LGBT people, if they cross that line then they cross the line, up until then they are expressing the right to profess an opinion different from you, me anyone else including the SPLC.

What the SPLC are doing is to label the AFA as the equivalent to Nazi or the KKK, without providing evidence of any violent act and proliferating this idea through 'education' of public officials so they also follow this doctrine and discriminate against the AFA through ostracism.

If you cant tell the difference between someone who doesn't like the proliferation of LGBT culture and doesn't like the lack of prayer in schools with a Nazi or KKK member then there is no hope for you. The AFA are for all the evidence gathered against them harmless, they are not the equivalent to Nazis and it is wrong to categorise them as such, especially if that soiled opinion is going to attempted to be fostered onto government agencies.

That's right. Potential. "You should look in to these guys, they might be up to something" is quite different from "arrest those people, they are criminals".

They have been around since 1977 preaching for Biblical moral values peacably. Nothing has changed in that time except that some of their views have become unacceptable to some. Still they preach no violence, no discrimination, no lawbreaking.

There is no more potential than any other peaceful group. If there was a hate agenda it would have shown through their rhetoic by now. Howewver theSPLC and you want them watched like they were a neo-Nazi group with a track record of violence.

If the FBI haven't put them on a watch list yet, let them be.

We cannot let these people speak, for they will use their magic lawyer words.

Its not like that at all, don't put words in my mouth. I said there might be ways to convince people other than weight of argument.

Politically correct training works differently than that. Often and I have witnessed this personally in the UK where this sort of 'training' is more prevalent. You accept the training offered or you fail the training assessment, also if you don't accept the teaching you must have something to hide. Perhaps you don't want to accept your teaching that group x is bad, so are you a bigot too? We don't like to employ bigots.
I don't know if this is what happened, but it is a genuine danger.
In the vase we were exposed to it got serious enough that the Army Chaplain stepped in.

What we do know is that the SPLC has as its core proficiencies 'fighting hate' and 'teaching tolerance'. Political correct 'tolerance' often is anything but, I remember being taught tolerance by government paid lunatic fringe equal opportunities trainers. Part of the doctrines that had to be agreed to lest I fail my 'equal opportunities course was that black people could not be racist because blacks were a poltical minority, likewise females cannot be sexist. You can only be sexist or racist if you are part of the political majority, i.e white or male. Admittedly these were extreme cases, but dogmatised training can get really off key, particularly when the hard left gets involved.

Now I have no evidence that the SPLC is that dogmatic, but they flatly equate the AFA to murderous groups like the KKK, which is so openly preposterous so I have reasons to consider their doctrines suspect, as have the Pentagon.

Only if we believe that the AFA's website, and not their actions are the important determinant factors.

Except that even the SPLC has no comment on their actions, as they take none, not any of any concern to civil rights groups or law enforcement officials.

The AFA makes comments the SPLC doesn't like, they should get over it. If the SPLC wants to continue to watch the AFA in case they encourage discriminatory action fair enough, if they do they can scream and ring alarm bells. Until then leave them alone.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Nice, condition number 2 manages to be racist, sexist and ageist in a single sentence.

Clearly you do not understand logic.

No, he's right. If this is what the FBI uses to help figure out if an action was caused by a "hate group" then it is. There are plenty of examples of groups that fit the profile of a hate group, and aren't white. The New Black Panthers probably being the most obvious.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I believe that the list that Kanluwen brought up is an FBI thing. If my 12 years in the FedGov has taught me anything, labeling anything a specific color is a fast way to make bad things happen.

No, he's wrong, and so are you.

Anti-government militia members are mostly white men =/= white men are mostly anti-government militia members.

Anti-government militias are identified by their being militias that are anti-government, not by their racial make-up. It happens that their racial make-up is predominantly white, and a number of them are also racist (Aryan Nation, etc.)

Then the Oathkeepers, being not a militia (even with their order to form "community support cells), and if you actually read their material, not anti-government, still don't qualify.

Aryan Nations is also not considered a militia movement and is properly identified as a terrorist organization in it's three branches (per the FBI). Most large white supremacist organizations in the United States are also not considered militias or part of the militia movement. Aryan Brotherhood and Hammerskin Nation being two of the largest, are properly identified as organized crime endeavors, as well as being actual hate groups. I'd also love to see you prove the bolded portion of your post. Based on the militia guys I talked to in Arizona, it seems to me that men of all races (and women too) like dressing up in camouflage, playing soldiers and buying fun toys like guns and being "part of the team" as a militia member. Which is really what the militias and things like the Appleseed program are about. It's a hobby. Do these people have some strong feelings about how the U.S. government is going wrong? Damn skippy. But that's hardly insane and dangerous, and if just training up military skills make you dangerous it's probably best to start locking up veterans, kids on airsoft teams and WW2 reenactors for the good of society as well.

Hell spit, remember the cop talk in that other thread? The Nuremburg defense came up in detail? Same gak here man, that's the Oathkeeper's goal. To remind and educate the military that if an unlawful order comes up you tell them where they can shove it. They also came out hard for Mr. Snowden who DID do the right thing and is getting hunted for it. As far as problems in this country go, Oathkeepers should be low on our priority list.

 Peregrine wrote:

Claiming that your spiteful bully of a "god" lets children be massacred as punishment for banning mandatory prayer in schools = sensible traditional theology.
Pointing out the sheer absurdity and evil of this belief = dangerous extremism.

Makes a lot of sense to me...

Except Peregrine as explained earlier God didn't punish the school for banning collective prayer, that wasn't what I was saying, it wasn't what Fischer was saying, it is what you are saying, and demanding that comes from our mouths because its easier to discredit than what was actually said.

Pointing out that you would prefer to twist the words of others to something they are clearly not even after they are rationally explained to you is highlighting your own dangerous extremism.



As for the AFA wants to 'imprison all gays' comment. sadly Fischer did make a statement confirming this, and I do not approve, however he is referring to a change in the law not a unilateral demand to imprison, let alone kill gays. In fact even Fischer makes no comments that gays should be killed legally or extralegally , only Peregrine does, but I suppose if you want to smear someone why not go the whole hog.

Fischer can call for legislators to pass any law he pleases, and that is fair use of free speech. He could quite legally and peacably call for elected representatives to do any manner of things from say kicking out all Buddhists to banning porridge. Has he any chance of getting his way in Congress or State Legislatures, only you can decide that.

It only ever becomes a problem when he advocates for gays to be locked up by extrajudicial means.

On the flipside there are people who want western governments to impose Islamic law, ban religion and do all manner of things that many would find extremely disagreeable, we have to trust to the people to encourage thier elected representatives to say no to all these things. However a Moslem or atheist extremist who asks for this legislation from their elected representatives is in thier right to do so. Their elected representatives have every right to also tell them 'no'.

There is no problem, the AFA doesn't need policing or placing on any Hate list, they are a peaceful group operating entirely within the letter and spirit of the law. They are in no way obliged to seek approval from Peregrines, sebsters or the SPLC for their opinions; and its time you understood that..

Then the Oathkeepers, being not a militia (even with their order to form "community support cells), and if you actually read their material, not anti-government, still don't qualify.

If you read their material they think that the US Federal government wants to have foreign troops stationed in the US to impose martial law on US citizens, round up Americans and put them into detention camps, ban all firearms, and turn cities into concentration camps. They also constantly refer to the 'New World Order'. That is tinfoil hat land, and it certainly falls under anti-goverment rhetoric.

 Ahtman wrote:

Then the Oathkeepers, being not a militia (even with their order to form "community support cells), and if you actually read their material, not anti-government, still don't qualify.

If you read their material they think that the US Federal government wants to have foreign troops stationed in the US to impose martial law on US citizens, round up Americans and put them into detention camps, ban all firearms, and turn cities into concentration camps. They also constantly refer to the 'New World Order'. That is tinfoil hat land, and it certainly falls under anti-goverment rhetoric.

Careful when you say tin foil hat land. That usually means Snowden then reveals its actually real...

 Orlanth wrote:
If you cant tell the difference between someone who doesn't like the proliferation of LGBT culture and doesn't like the lack of prayer in schools with a Nazi or KKK member then there is no hope for you.

Yeah, let's just keep ignoring their leader's call for all gay people to be thrown in prison...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Except Peregrine as explained earlier God didn't punish the school for banning collective prayer, that wasn't what I was saying, it wasn't what Fischer was saying, it is what you are saying, and demanding that comes from our mouths because its easier to discredit than what was actually said.

No, that's not it at all. What I said is an accurate explanation. The fact that religious people have managed to put a flimsy pretense of legitimacy or some pretty theological terms on it doesn't change the core issues involved. And your entire argument otherwise was a dismal failure.

As for the AFA wants to 'imprison all gays' comment. sadly Fischer did make a statement confirming this, and I do not approve, however he is referring to a change in the law not a unilateral demand to imprison, let alone kill gays. In fact even Fischer makes no comments that gays should be killed legally or extralegally , only Peregrine does, but I suppose if you want to smear someone why not go the whole hog.

Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that he's approving of a law that DID say "kill them all" until massive international outrage got them to change it to merely throwing them in prison. Given the absence of any comment like "death penalty finally removed, this is how it should be done" it's a pretty safe bet that he wasn't too troubled by the history of the law when he made that statement approving of it.

Also, "but he just wants to make it legal" is a pretty pathetic defense. The Nazis passed laws making their extermination programs completely legal, but that doesn't make them any less horrifyingly evil.

Fischer can call for legislators to pass any law he pleases, and that is fair use of free speech.

Nobody is disputing that. What we have a problem with is your absurd argument that people aren't allowed to use their right to free speech to label something a "hate group" unless they've met your arbitrary rules for when you're allowed to issue labels. Fischer can make his proposals, and the rest of us can call him a hateful bigot. That's how the system works.

On the flipside there are people who want western governments to impose Islamic law, ban religion and do all manner of things that many would find extremely disagreeable, we have to trust to the people to encourage thier elected representatives to say no to all these things.

And what's your point? I'd have no problem with an organization being labeled a hate group if they were arguing for laws banning religion and throwing people in prison if they dare to believe in a god.

There is no problem, the AFA doesn't need policing or placing on any Hate list, they are a peaceful group operating entirely within the letter and spirit of the law. They are in no way obliged to seek approval from Peregrines, sebsters or the SPLC for their opinions; and its time you understood that..

So why exactly is the SPLC obliged to seek your approval before calling s like the AFA a hate group?