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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is how the US Congress and FBI define a hate crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

To quote from earlier in the thread...

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

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

The only person having difficulty reading is your good self. And it started when I asked why Catholicism was being singled out and you misread it as Christianity. That was your fault. You made an incorrect assumption, I later provided clarification, and at that point in spite of my best efforts to be more than abundantly clear you continued to persist in your incorrect assumption rather than actually look at what was being said. A fact that has been pointed out several times that you do not seem to want to acknowledge, much less understand.

But if you want to keep trying to make a big deal out of the original post that caused your confusion let me make it clear for you;
- I asked about Catholics
- You misread it as Christians
- You made the error, not I.

I'm done replying to you in relation to this.

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), hate groups' "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."[1] The Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) definition of a "hate group" includes those having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.[2]

Honestly it took me 5 seconds on google to find that information, if you need more search for yourself. I'm not going to spoon feed you guys like the news networks.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is how the US Congress and FBI define a hate crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

To quote from earlier in the thread...

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

Fairly obviously, a hate group is an organisation that promotes views liable to incite hate crimes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Fairly obviously, a hate group is an organisation that promotes views liable to incite hate crimes.

So a group can coalesce around hate, but as long as it's not hatred towards a protected class, it's not a hate group?

I hardly think a group that hates blancmange, or being sent to bed early with a cold, would pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the country.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

The only person having difficulty reading is your good self. And it started when I asked why Catholicism was being singled out and you misread it as Christianity. That was your fault. You made an incorrect assumption, I later provided clarification, and at that point in spite of my best efforts to be more than abundantly clear you continued to persist in your incorrect assumption rather than actually look at what was being said. A fact that has been pointed out several times that you do not seem to want to acknowledge, much less understand.

But if you want to keep trying to make a big deal out of the original post that caused your confusion let me make it clear for you;
- I asked about Catholics
- You misread it as Christians
- You made the error, not I.

I'm done replying to you in relation to this.

You still aren't reading what I'm saying. Yes, I misunderstood your intention and thought you meant Christianity when you said religion (which I admitted in my previous post, bolded above). What I'm arguing is that using the word "religion" when referring to a denomination of a religion is a mistake, as it easily leads to misunderstandings such as the one I made. You're arguing against something that I've already admitted to having screwed up. I just don't feel it's reasonable to put the entire blame at my hands when you're using one word where there ought to have been another word.

You asked about religion when you in fact meant denomination, I called you out on it and you proceeded to pretend that's what you'd said all along and that I had made an unreasonable error. At least we can agree that we're done here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think a group that hates blancmange, or being sent to bed early with a cold, would pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the country.

What about a group that hates anti-gun activists?

If such a group existed, and made threats of violence, I suppose it would end up on the domestic terrorism investigation schedule.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think a group that hates blancmange, or being sent to bed early with a cold, would pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the country.

What about a group that hates anti-gun activists?

I would call that fair play.

I think the idea beind the hate label is that the group with the label hates(discriminate, whatever) a group of people not for their actions but for something that is a part of who they are, like homosexuality, skin color, and to a lesser extent someone's religion.

Does that work as a definition for hate group? Is everyone pleased with that? If not, please correct it. And saying you shouldn't define hate isn't correcting it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If such a group existed, and made threats of violence, I suppose it would end up on the domestic terrorism investigation schedule.

But it wouldn't be a hate group?

The AFA, as far as I know, hasn't made any threats of violence, so I'm assuming that's not necessary to the classification.

They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."

Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.

 LordofHats wrote:
They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."

Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.

Okay, so violence is hardly a requirement of hate.

I'm obliged to go back to my earlier example: a group that organizes around hatred against anti-gun activists. No violence. Hate group?

Does it matter?

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

 LordofHats wrote:
They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."

Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.

You're thinking of the Family Research Center. The AFA had nothing to do with that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Does it matter?

Does the definition of a hate group matter? I think so, unless you simply intend to apply the moniker to whatever you like (see: The NRA is a hate group).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Does it matter?

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

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

 djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
They went to a foreign country and lobbied to pass a law that makes being gay an offense punishable by the death penalty and then encouragingly said "we did it there we can do it here too."

Ignoring that violence is hardly a requirement of hate, even using a vague "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" standard of hate group the AFA have gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the criteria.

You're thinking of the Family Research Center. The AFA had nothing to do with that.

oh. Okay then XD

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Does it matter?

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

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

He's importing a very European view to the FBI's mandate. Fortunately, it's not particularly true.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Does it matter?

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

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

You mean describing political opponents as "terrorists" may not be acceptable?

I know, right? The day the WH press secretary can't call the other party a bunch of terrorists is the day the terrorists have won! oh wait...

 Frazzled wrote:
Christer is a derogatory term for Christian, usually said by coffeehouse idiots who never worked a day in their lives but believe the world owes them.

In my experience old men who like to argue on the internet display an equivalent degree of entitlement.

 dogma wrote:
In my experience old men who like to argue on the internet display an equivalent degree of entitlement.

Uh oh, someone's aaaaaangwy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is how the US Congress and FBI define a hate crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

Interesting, the Southern Poverty Law Centre accuse the AFA of crossing the criminal definitions of hate crime....

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-anti-gay-lobby-the-family-research-council-the-american-family-association-the-demonization-of-l

....without providing any evidence of such. Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.

If the AFA disapproves of homosexuality strongly, even with spurious arguments but does not promote discrimination or hate crimes against them then it isn't really a hate group. It's a group with strong opinions the SPLC doesnt like.

 Orlanth wrote:
....without providing any evidence of such. Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.

I don't think our politicians are really in that business, though. We have hate crime laws, but as said, they're mostly just sentencing enhancements - extra years tacked on, that kind of thing. We don't have any specific laws that I'm aware of - and I could be wrong - outlawing white supremacist or black separatist or whatever groups unless they're explicitly formed around illegal activity (organized crime, basically), and simply expressing hatred isn't a crime here.

 Orlanth wrote:

One of the biggest problems a society finds over haste 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.

While schadenfreude certainly comes into play, the entire purpose of singling out an organization as worthy of derogation is to sanction that derogation. In some cases that sanction will be legitimate, and in others it will not be, but the purpose of the action is, very explicitly, to argue that what group X is doing happens to be intolerable.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
In my experience old men who like to argue on the internet display an equivalent degree of entitlement.

Uh oh, someone's aaaaaangwy.

That was weak. If you're going to troll, do it right.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Christer is a derogatory term for Christian, usually said by coffeehouse idiots who never worked a day in their lives but believe the world owes them.

In my experience old men who like to argue on the internet display an equivalent degree of entitlement.

Reducing yourself to snarky insults is beneath you Dogma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If the AFA disapproves of homosexuality strongly, even with spurious arguments but does not promote discrimination or hate crimes against them then it isn't really a hate group. It's a group with strong opinions the SPLC doesnt like.

Exactly, and thats whats changed.

 Frazzled wrote:

Reducing yourself to snarky insults is beneath you Dogma.

Isn't that pretty much the whole of my persona on this forum?

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Reducing yourself to snarky insults is beneath you Dogma.

Isn't that pretty much the whole of my persona on this forum?

Wait you're not the happy go lucky platypus of destiny we all know and love?

 Orlanth wrote:
Self-appointed activist organisations are not the best source of a definitive statement as to whether one group or another is a hate group. It should be best left to accountable legislators.

In that scenario one runs the risk of introducing legal consequences to the act of hate speech. As it stands, groups like the SPLC have no real power to cause harm to groups like the AFA. In essence, both are merely acting within the "marketplace of ideas".