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.

Dakka Dakka Rule 12: On a long enough timeline, every thread becomes about gun control and/or George Zimmerman, no matter how unrelated the OP was. No exceptions.

 Frazzled wrote:

We are.

I would argue that you are describing them wishfully.

You and djones520 seem to be wishing that NBC loses the relevant suit.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

We are.

I would argue that you are describing them wishfully.

You and djones520 seem to be wishing that NBC loses the relevant suit.

And?

 Frazzled wrote:

And?

Being "wishful" and being "fair" are not the same thing.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And?

Being "wishful" and being "fair" are not the same thing.

And?

 Frazzled wrote:

And?

Trying to bait me serves no purpose, as I'm not going to give in.

What if there were fresh baked cookies thrown in...chocolete chips....and ICE CREAM thrown in....

 Ouze wrote:
Dakka Dakka Rule 12: On a long enough timeline, every thread becomes about gun control and/or George Zimmerman, no matter how unrelated the OP was. No exceptions.

I would agree except that this would imply there were only 11 dakka rules before Big Z

Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups.
It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.
Looking at a lot of their interpretations of who is a hate group I'd have to say that the SPLC are a hate group themselves.
They use the internet, publications, speeches etc to fearmonger about various groups who in themselves actually pose no threat to others.
A large part of those they consider hate groups are groups that have spoken out against homosexual marriage and adoption - ie expressing an opinion, something you're supposed to be able to do in a free society.

What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group? That question has not been answered adequately yet. They oppose various pro-homosexual laws and are similarly opposed to granting more, but that is hardly reason to consider them a threat to wider society.

cadbren wrote:

What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group? That question has not been answered adequately yet.

Dude it took me exactly 23 seconds to find the answer to that question.

The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 1,007 active hate groups in the United States in 2012. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2012 are included.

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

This list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.

Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

cadbren wrote:
Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups.
It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.

Do you understand what a neo-confederate group is? It goes way beyond just "having a different historical interpretation".

A large part of those they consider hate groups are groups that have spoken out against homosexual marriage and adoption - ie expressing an opinion, something you're supposed to be able to do in a free society.

Do you understand the difference between expressing an opinion and saying "you suck" to an entire class of people?

What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group?

You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.

Neo Confederacy. That's a new one on me. I've been EoA for a long time to. Still I cannot label them as a Hate group for class discussions or an example.

 Jihadin wrote:
Neo Confederacy. That's a new one on me. I've been EoA for a long time to. Still I cannot label them as a Hate group for class discussions or an example.

I don't see why not. The whole idea is little more than white supremacist ideology with a little confederacy worship thrown in to give it some "respectability".

cadbren wrote:
Neo-Confederates are hate groups too? I've just looked at the wiki on SPLC hate groups.
It seems they're a hate group for having a different historical interpretation of the Civil War.
Looking at a lot of their interpretations of who is a hate group I'd have to say that the SPLC are a hate group themselves.
They use the internet, publications, speeches etc to fearmonger about various groups who in themselves actually pose no threat to others.
A large part of those they consider hate groups are groups that have spoken out against homosexual marriage and adoption - ie expressing an opinion, something you're supposed to be able to do in a free society.

What has the AFA done, or desired to be done, that has them classified as a hate group? That question has not been answered adequately yet. They oppose various pro-homosexual laws and are similarly opposed to granting more, but that is hardly reason to consider them a threat to wider society.

cadbren wins the thread.........

This case is an example of PC gone awry, where opinions in a free society, have become classified as hate. I don't know if this type of thing will remain a fad. I pray that people wake up and come to the realization that this type of stuff is a modern day "nazi" style brainwash.

And by the way.it's well known that high ranking Nazis were homosexuals. They persecuted a certain classification of homosexual, basically the efeminant homosexuals were not well liked by the "manly" homosexuals who were running certain aspects of the nazi system.

GG

I was wondering when you were going to show up...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
This case is an example of PC gone awry, where opinions in a free society, have become classified as hate.

Do you really not understand the difference between "expressing an opinion" and "declaring that gay people should be executed"?

And by the way.it's well known that high ranking Nazis were homosexuals. They persecuted a certain classification of homosexual, basically the efeminant homosexuals were not well liked by the "manly" homosexuals who were running certain aspects of the nazi system.

And by the way, it's well known that high ranking Nazis ate food. They persecuted a certain classification of people who eat food, but THEY ATE FOOD. IF YOU EAT FOOD YOU ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAZIS AND PERSECUTING GOOD CHRISTIAN AMERICANS LIKE ME.

Goddessdammnit I'm on the same side as Peregrine again. See what some of you are doing to me?

 Peregrine wrote:
You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.

Thought we established that was a different group.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.

Thought we established that was a different group.

Wasn't that comment made by Bryan Fischer? Back through the pages we go, doo doo doo... Yep, maddermax posted a picture of his tweet on page 2 supporting that law. So no, still AFA.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.

Thought we established that was a different group.

The statements were quoted from the twitter account of Bryan Fischer, an AFA leader. Even if the specific comments are his personal opinion and were not made in his role with the AFA I don't think you're going to be able to make a credible argument that the AFA has any strong disagreement with him.

 motyak wrote:
Wasn't that comment made by Bryan Fischer? Back through the pages we go, doo doo doo... Yep, maddermax posted a picture of his tweet on page 2 supporting that law. So no, still AFA.

I read it as him supporting the current version of the law, which I believe removed the death penalty.

That doesn't make it a particularly tolerable statement, of course, but I think we can do a good enough job decrying the beliefs without resorting to factual inaccuracy.

I'd have no issue with church and would go if they just... weren't so hateful.
I'd enjoy it more if it was happy like those Precious Moments figurines

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
I'd have no issue with church and would go if they just... weren't so hateful.
I'd enjoy it more if it was happy like those Precious Moments figurines

I'm an atheist and find the whole church thing a largely worthless enterprise personally, but I'm pretty convinced they should be able to say whatever the hell they want as long as they're not breaking the law. And, as we're not Europe yet, saying despicable stuff ain't breaking the law.

 Seaward wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Wasn't that comment made by Bryan Fischer? Back through the pages we go, doo doo doo... Yep, maddermax posted a picture of his tweet on page 2 supporting that law. So no, still AFA.

I read it as him supporting the current version of the law, which I believe removed the death penalty.

That doesn't make it a particularly tolerable statement, of course, but I think we can do a good enough job decrying the beliefs without resorting to factual inaccuracy.

I wasn't saying he supported the death penalty. I don't see where I lied. But a law saying that you can't be homosexual is still a horrific law. I mean I'm sure Uganda has some other horrible laws, but that doesn't exempt this from being an awful, awful law.

 motyak wrote:
I wasn't saying he supported the death penalty. I don't see where I lied. But a law saying that you can't be homosexual is still a horrific law. I mean I'm sure Uganda has some other horrible laws, but that doesn't exempt this from being an awful, awful law.

Nah, I know. I was referencing Peregrine.

 Peregrine wrote:
You can start with the in charge of it publicly stating his support for laws that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, as has already been quoted in this thread.

 Seaward wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
I'd have no issue with church and would go if they just... weren't so hateful.
I'd enjoy it more if it was happy like those Precious Moments figurines

I'm an atheist and find the whole church thing a largely worthless enterprise personally, but I'm pretty convinced they should be able to say whatever the hell they want as long as they're not breaking the law. And, as we're not Europe yet, saying despicable stuff ain't breaking the law.

I invented my own for the heck of it, most I tell it to think its better then any of the existing ones.

Too easy Seaward

 motyak wrote:
Too easy Seaward

I don't know what this means.

 Seaward wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Too easy Seaward

I don't know what this means.

Sorry, I was meaning 'oh, never mind then' after the misunderstanding. It wasn't meant to read like 'that was too easy, I got you!' or 'you are too easy to fool' or anything negative like that, just 'no worries', hand wave, done.

 Seaward wrote:
I read it as him supporting the current version of the law, which I believe removed the death penalty.

That doesn't make it a particularly tolerable statement, of course, but I think we can do a good enough job decrying the beliefs without resorting to factual inaccuracy.

Context is very important. The death penalty part was only removed after massive international outrage, and Fischer didn't exactly make any effort to clarify that he didn't like that part. Instead he just held them up as an example for the US to follow.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm an atheist and find the whole church thing a largely worthless enterprise personally, but I'm pretty convinced they should be able to say whatever the hell they want as long as they're not breaking the law.

They're allowed to, just like the KKK (a hate group I don't think anyone is going to defend) is allowed to keep talking. The only "punishment" the AFA faces is being labeled a hate group by a non-government organization (hey, free speech!) and potentially having the military treat it as a hate group. But it's already well established that if you join the military you give up some of your normal rights, so I fail to see the problem here.

Peregrine

I can't use neo confederacy as an example as a Hate Group. Yes I can view them and say "IMO I feel they are a possible Hate Group". Its not my place to decide US Military policy on making a "Official decision" on any particular group. I can only give the frame work of what makes a group either a Hate or Extremist group.

KKK, Neo Nazi, Black Panther, or any particular group with a proven Hate theme I can get away with and use them as an example as extreme. The EOA/EO guy that threw AFA or whatever Christian Group that this dilemma snowballed into was lazy and just created power point slides with a list copied from SPLC and stood by it and got challenge by a Chaplain of all things. The instructor is suppose to conduct a class and facilitate it with the typical standard that stays within a given guide line. He/she is not suppose to lose control of his/her class by any means possible. He/she lost credibility in front of his/her peers and seniors by not going off a approve training program.