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.

 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.

It depends on the inflammatory rhetoric.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 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).

If your group issues statements likely to incite hate crime, you are a hate group and get on to the domestic terrorism watch list.

If your group threatens violence, you get on to the domestic terrorism watch list.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Is that the US Army's list of hate groups? If so then what does that have to do with Frazz said about the SPLC being less than accommodating towards right leaning groups? I'm trying to see the connection you're making.

That's the SPLC's list, as of 2012.

Fraz claimed that anyone who leans conservative in his eyes is put on SPLC's list. That would mean there are 113 black seperatist groups who lean conservative, and apparently of all the thousands of Christian groups in the US, only 39 of them lean conservative.

Or perhaps more likely Fraz has no idea what he's talking about.

 Jihadin wrote:
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.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I thought you meant "I can't use them as an example" to be a statement about your beliefs about that group, not about what you in your position in the military are allowed to present in an official capacity.

Presumably the FBI has its own list, based on the criteria laid down by law, and it may or may not include groups on the SPLC's list.

I would have thought that the Army takes the FBI list, but perhaps it makes its own list based on intelligence sources.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably the FBI has its own list, based on the criteria laid down by law, and it may or may not include groups on the SPLC's list.

There aren't any criteria for hate groups laid down by law.

I would have thought that the Army takes the FBI list, but perhaps it makes its own list based on intelligence sources.

Nope.

 Orlanth wrote:
First the list is incomplete. any rational list would also include rabid Zionist organisations, including the ADL but your list doesnt include a single one. No Islamic groups either although the US does have an Islamic fringe, and its as vocal as ones in Europe.

Take that up with the SPLC. I don't know why some of those groups aren't included. All I did with was re-state the summary of their list, and note that it did not take the form fraz claimed at all.

Secondly the list doesn't appear to give weighting, from the evidence your present as to level of culpability, and there is a temptation to label them all as no better than Nazis, which probably isnt fair, especially when other categories of hate group are clearly absent.

That's right, the list doesn't give weighting. However, to conclude from that that all groups are therefore equal would be a real stretch.

"Joe's Fish Shack and Apple Computers are both companies... therefore they must be equal"... totally bonkers. No-one thinks like that.

I will take that challenge.

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.
At least in the US there is protection, protection in theory also exists inthe UK, but it is quickly diminishing, people are accused of being exteremeists and extremism is sanctioned against them.

You yourself have fallen into this trap here.

So... you're not attempting a defence of either the AFA or the FRC. Instead you're just going to give a speach about how free speach is good. Well on that issue I happen to agree with you, but I recognise one of the most important parts of that is the ability for private organisations to call other private organisation on their bs. Stating that another organisation spreads hate through lies is not censorship, but instead it's an essential part of free speach.

And still nobody is going trying and defend AFA or the FRC. Still people are just talking around it, making noise about how bad it is that groups are accused of spreading hate through lies... but no-one is actually trying to mount a defence that the AFA and FRC don't in fact spread hate through lies.

America likes to grow people like him, and a natural counterpoint of others who hate God so much they will do anything to take a shot. Shouldnt they be considered hate mongers too, shouldn't you? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

If they form an organisation and use it to spread lies that encourage on the hating of minority Christians, then yeah, they should be.

Most, nearly all of the above are political comments with no actual or implied connection to religion. I don't know how close Fischer is to the AFA and don't really need to know, it would be interesting if the above comments were made on church time through church media and if that media was AFA controlled.

He's director of issues. That's basically the second person in the org chart, and arguably the one with the highest profile. And everyone one of those statements was made not just as part of his role in the organisation, but through official AFA channels.

However lets look at the one relevant portion, which I highlighted in bold. I don't know the context of what was said, but from the context you give and the weighting of the words its quite a reasonable comment which has been twisted unfairly.

Here's the video of him saying it, in full. The context makes it worse.




He is saying straight up that God lets it happen because there's no more prayer in school. This really, really isn't defensible, and you're tilting at windmills.

Sebster, I do not believe you to be an intentional bigot and want to break the cycle here. Your an atheist, I have no choice but to be OK with that, but please be more dispassionate about these sorts of arguments, if you hate God, keep it to yourself don't add it as an ingredient in arguments about religious groups because you cant look at them fairly when you do, and thus subject your victims to discrimination.

I may be an atheist but I have no opposition to faith, and have a lot of respect for the good works inspired by and directly undertaken by various churches around the world. I was married in a Catholic church, and in a few weeks my child is being baptised, not only because my wife is religious and I respect that, but because I believe our child should have exposure to faith so that she can one day make up her own mind on the issue.

I simply have a problem with close minded bigots who spread lies, whether they are inside or outside the church. An atheist who uses lies and false science to justify homophobia should be challenged and confronted just the same as a Christian who uses lies and false science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Because I don't really think you can, and wanted to see.

I gave you a definition... the one from the very group that classified the AFA as they did and sparked this whole storm in a teacup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So, is the SPLC pretty much, to use a popular Bush era term, the "decider" on who is and is not a hate group? The AFA I think qualifies as one, but I squirm somewhat at the thought of a single agency having such power. Being labeled a hate group has pretty severe repercussions in this day and age.

Yeah, the SPLC gets to decide who they think is a hate group. But there's no relevance to that, unless other people put trust in the SPLC and their judgements. Basically the SPLC has no power beyond whatever standing they've managed to establish for themselves.

Their power only lasts as long as their list is solid. Which is exactly why certain groups have attempted to sully their reputation after they listed the AFA and FRC...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
It seems it did have repercussions for some soldiers though.

Only because a soldier used it incorrectly, and the Pentagon acted quickly to state it was wrong.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

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.

If the SPLC simply listed every group in America with 'a different historical interpretation of the Civil War' then you'd have a point. But they don't, instead they list simply the 93 groups they identified that hold extreme neo-conservative views, including a positive view of slavery.

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.

Yeah, that's just silly. Stating a group preaches hate and then going in to detail about exactly what they claim is not a hate group. This should be fething obvious.

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

I and other posters have listed dozens of quotes. If you somehow missed those posts, there's a whole internet out there. Go and read. Learn.


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. 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.

You, like others before you, have confused the SPLC releasing a report with censorship. It's a ridiculous leap to make, and made simply because you dislike criticism of 'your team', and so want to shut down such criticism, while knowing full well you can't actually defend organisations like the AFA and FRC.

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.

There was one. Killed in the Night of Long Knives, and so attempting to use that to describe the Nazi leadership as a whole is extremely silly. Meanwhile large numbers of homosexuals were rounded up and sent to camps, and for simply being, or believed to be homosexual, with no test undertaken for how effeminate they might have been.

Your statement above is the most ridiculous nonsense. [deleted by moderator]

 Peregrine wrote:

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".

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably the FBI has its own list, based on the criteria laid down by law, and it may or may not include groups on the SPLC's list.

There aren't any criteria for hate groups laid down by law.

I would have thought that the Army takes the FBI list, but perhaps it makes its own list based on intelligence sources.

Nope.

I would suggest you take it up with the FBI, as they monitor hate groups and presumably have some criteria for identifying them other than gut feeling.

 sebster wrote:

If the SPLC simply listed every group in America with 'a different historical interpretation of the Civil War' then you'd have a point. But they don't, instead they list simply the 93 groups they identified that hold extreme neo-conservative views, including a positive view of slavery.

They really don't and they admit as much when they say things like 'including support of slavery' meaning that that is not a criteria and that not all groups believe that. They include groups that glorify the Confederacy and it's military which given that the groups involved are descended from the same is hardly atypical. Most people focus on the good aspects of their family/ancestors and friends and tend to forgive the negative, that's hardly cause for being labelled a dangerous hate group with plans of overthrowing the government.

This should be fething obvious.

Does the language filter not apply to OT?

I and other posters have listed dozens of quotes.

Quotes by members of AFA explicitly calling for the death of homosexuals? Haven't seen a single one so far. I've seen people from other groups who've made such comments being called members of AFA when they weren't, but none from the AFA themselves. Speaking out against homosexuality is not tantamount to wanting to kill homosexuals which is what the claim against the AFA here has been. SPLC's claim against them is based entirely on their anti-homosexual rhetoric and nothing more.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably the FBI has its own list, based on the criteria laid down by law, and it may or may not include groups on the SPLC's list.

There aren't any criteria for hate groups laid down by law.

I would have thought that the Army takes the FBI list, but perhaps it makes its own list based on intelligence sources.

Nope.

I would suggest you take it up with the FBI, as they monitor hate groups and presumably have some criteria for identifying them other than gut feeling.

The FBI would likely monitor many of those groups the SPLC lists because they advocate separation from or opposition to the federal government, not because of some "hate" motive, that's the SPLC's spin on things. Thinking about it, it might explain why their list is used in the first place. It's a (presummably) regularly updated and convenient list of reactionary groups for federal groups to keep tabs on (or not) depending on their own in-house criteria.

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

Ooo cookies just laying there. I think I'll have onSNAP! Hey where did the cage come from? Mmm cookies.

 sebster wrote:
That's the SPLC's list, as of 2012.

Thank you for the clarification

 sebster wrote:

You, like others before you, have confused the SPLC releasing a report with censorship. It's a ridiculous leap to make, and made simply because you dislike criticism of 'your team', and so want to shut down such criticism, while knowing full well you can't actually defend organisations like the AFA and FRC.

Sebster I wasn't talking about splc, I'm talking about the concerning turn of events that the US army, teaching soldiers, who have guns and tanks, that certain Christian beliefs as aspoused by the AFA are hate. Is there a unit of soldiers coming to my church in the future to round me and my family up, because I don't agree with the current fad of enablism in the USA?

 sebster wrote:

There was one. Killed in the Night of Long Knives, and so attempting to use that to describe the Nazi leadership as a whole is extremely silly. Meanwhile large numbers of homosexuals were rounded up and sent to camps, and for simply being, or believed to be homosexual, with no test undertaken for how effeminate they might have been.

Your statement above is the most ridiculous nonsense. fething absurd revisionism, and to be perfectly honest it says a lot about you that you'd ever give such nonsense the time of day.

There was a lot more than Ernst Roehm (i'm assuming that's your "one"). Some people believe Hitler was one, admittedly speculation. Remember Rohm was Hitlers #2 man for a long time. Besides Roehm, there was Reinyard Hienrich, Baldur Von Shirach...and others. The nazis were attempting to revive some of the pagan Hellenistic traditions form ancient Greece, where "manly" homosexuality was considered normal.


text deleted.

Reds8n

cadbren wrote:
It appears to be a label that the SPLC has given to various Southern Heritage type groups, actual groups self-identifying as such notwithstanding.

Would you like to provide an example of a legitimate heritage/historical group that SPLC has unfairly judged to be a hate group? Or did you just miss the difference between "here are some neo-confederate hate groups" and "anyone who is patriotic about the south is a hate group"?

Perhaps I missed it, but far left groups like the Communist party and ARA, who have a history of violence towards those considered right wing, appear absent from their list of hate groups while groups patrolling the southern border for people crossing illegally are considered hate groups.

So, what exactly has the communist party in the US done recently? And which groups does it attack based on their inherent qualities

And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".

If you're referring to Gary DeMar, as he's the only one I came across who mentioned killing homosexuals (abortion doctors and adulterers too), then he's from American Vision. He had an interview on a radio station owned by AFA in which he highlighted what he thought the bible was saying in that regard. That seems to be the AFA connection to those sentiments rather than being their own.

And, again, an AFA leader's twitter comments in support of Uganda's "death penalty for homosexuality" law (which was only reduced to severe prison sentences after massive international outrage).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
Sebster I wasn't talking about splc, I'm talking about the concerning turn of events that the US army, teaching soldiers, who have guns and tanks, that certain Christian beliefs as aspoused by the AFA are hate.

Sorry, but when your entire ideology seems to consist of "gay people suck" then yes, you're a hate group.

Is there a unit of soldiers coming to my church in the future to round me and my family up, because I don't agree with the current fad of enablism in the USA?

Oh good, the traditional right-wing christian persecution fantasy. Do you have even the slightest evidence that this is anything other than a paranoid slippery slope argument?

And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".

Supposition on your part. Most ranchers are just tired of coyotes running thousands of people through their prperty and occasionally killing them.

 Frazzled wrote:

And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".

Supposition on your part. Most ranchers are just tired of coyotes running thousands of people through their prperty and occasionally killing them.

Pretty much. Damage to property down there is astounding, not to mention the danger it often presents to their families.

But hey, it's easier to just call someone racist then look at the real issues.

 Frazzled wrote:

And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".

Supposition on your part. Most ranchers are just tired of coyotes running thousands of people through their prperty and occasionally killing them.

Has the SPLC actually said that everyone in favor of enforcing immigration laws is a hate group, or just the racists who are openly doing it because they're white supremacist s?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And vigilante border patrol groups get on that list because of the racist element. Talk all you want about "subverting immigration laws", but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".

Supposition on your part. Most ranchers are just tired of coyotes running thousands of people through their prperty and occasionally killing them.

Has the SPLC actually said that everyone in favor of enforcing immigration laws is a hate group, or just the racists who are openly doing it because they're white supremacist s?

You're the one calling border patrol groups racists. Its your burden boyo.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're the one calling border patrol groups racists. Its your burden boyo.

Sigh. Do you really not understand the difference between "border patrol groups get on the list because they're racists" and "ALL border patrol groups get on the list because they're racists"? Since, last time I checked, SPLC hasn't declared that anyone in favor of enforcing immigration laws is a hate group.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
First the list is incomplete. any rational list would also include rabid Zionist organisations, including the ADL but your list doesnt include a single one. No Islamic groups either although the US does have an Islamic fringe, and its as vocal as ones in Europe.

Take that up with the SPLC. I don't know why some of those groups aren't included. All I did with was re-state the summary of their list, and note that it did not take the form fraz claimed at all.

I dont need to take anything up with the SPLC, from the research seen in this thread they are a private unaccountable organisation that allocated the status of 'hate group' according to its own partisan agendas.
Yet they demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions. This is dangerous.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Secondly the list doesn't appear to give weighting, from the evidence your present as to level of culpability, and there is a temptation to label them all as no better than Nazis, which probably isnt fair, especially when other categories of hate group are clearly absent.

That's right, the list doesn't give weighting. However, to conclude from that that all groups are therefore equal would be a real stretch.

However it allows groups like the AFA to be targeted as iof they were extremists. If they merely dislike the AFA it would not be enough to call for the group to be boycotted by public officials and be placed on a list of unwelcome organisations by the military. By the SPLC's own actions they rate the AFA as severely actionable for censuring.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I will take that challenge.

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.
At least in the US there is protection, protection in theory also exists inthe 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.

So... you're not attempting a defence of either the AFA or the FRC. Instead you're just going to give a speach about how free speach is good. Well on that issue I happen to agree with you, but I recognise one of the most important parts of that is the ability for private organisations to call other private organisation on their bs. Stating that another organisation spreads hate through lies is not censorship, but instead it's an essential part of free speach.

This isnt about free speech, the SPLC is calling for censure of the AFA by government institutions.
If the SPLC simply called out the AFa and be done with it this thread wouldnt exist. case in point, it didn't until the SPLC used its influece to convince sections if the US military heirarchy to discriminate against the AFA.
SPLC is entitled to its optinions just as the AFA is.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

However lets look at the one relevant portion, which I highlighted in bold. I don't know the context of what was said, but from the context you give and the weighting of the words its quite a reasonable comment which has been twisted unfairly.

Here's the video of him saying it, in full. The context makes it worse.




He is saying straight up that God lets it happen because there's no more prayer in school. This really, really isn't defensible, and you're tilting at windmills.

Theologically he has a point, and it is defensible, the indefensible part is the assumption that what he is saying is because Fisher worships 'an evil petulant God'.
Fischer's theological point is well made, by removing prayer you remove the ability to provide prayer based intercession. Its a religious point and he is free to make it, and it isn't hate speech.
You are not obliged to believe in intercessory prayer, but Fischer can say that by removing corporate prayer from schools those who believe in prayer can point out consequences of not doing so.

If this is incredulous to you there have been a number of case studies based on the Argentine prison system where prayer groups were encouraged and took of in what is known as a revival, reconviction rates plummeted, as did prison violence.
Here is one article: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/shows/cwn/2008/May/Prayer-Transforms-Argentinas-Most-Dangerous-/

Regarding other things like racist comments on Hispanics etcc etc he is on his own.

 djones520 wrote:
Pretty much. Damage to property down there is astounding, not to mention the danger it often presents to their families.

But hey, it's easier to just call someone racist then look at the real issues.

Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist

 Orlanth wrote:
Yet they demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions. This is dangerous.

So, proof of this supposed "demand"? Because to the rest of us it looks like one random army guy decided to use their list to give an example of a hate group, on his own initiative, and the army said "nope, don't do that".

Fischer's theological point is well made, by removing prayer you remove the ability to provide prayer based intercession. Its a religious point and he is free to make it, and it isn't hate speech.

Err, lol? It's an absolutely ridiculous argument. A god that only prevents children from being massacred if prayer is legal (and let's not pretend that "no prayer in schools" means that nobody was praying while people were being murdered) is a petty and childish tyrant.

And saying "look what you did by not making the US into a theocracy" might not be hate speech, but it certainly doesn't help his case when you look at his anti-gay remarks. He's clearly a thoroughly nasty person who deserves censure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist

Yeah, let's just keep pretending that when the SPLC list mentions anti-immigration groups they're talking about people who just want the laws to be obeyed and not the white supremacists who are openly racist towards immigrants.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Pretty much. Damage to property down there is astounding, not to mention the danger it often presents to their families.

But hey, it's easier to just call someone racist then look at the real issues.

Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist

You natives are so racist.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Remember kids, it is common sense to allow people to enter the country illegally and then reward them for doing so. And if someone objects then they are obviously just racist

Yeah, let's just keep pretending that when the SPLC list mentions anti-immigration groups they're talking about people who just want the laws to be obeyed and not the white supremacists who are openly racist towards immigrants.

Did I mention the SPLC? No
Did the post I reply to mention the SPLC? No
Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes

So, who exactly was doing that here?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes

So, who exactly was doing that here?

but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".

I wonder.

 djones520 wrote:
I wonder.

Do you understand the difference between equating immigration control and racism and pointing out that a non-trivial number of pro-immigration activists are motivated by racism?

(Hint: it has to do with the difference between "some" and "all".)

 djones520 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Was it post aimed generally at those who lazily equate immigration control with racism to stiffle opposition, and aimed at no group in particular? Yes

So, who exactly was doing that here?

but you know perfectly well that the motivation for a lot of them is "America is for white people".

I wonder.

I was trying so hard not to point out the irony myself
First he complains about people misreading his comment, then he misreads mine

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I wonder.

Do you understand the difference between equating immigration control and racism and pointing out that a non-trivial number of pro-immigration activists are motivated by racism?

(Hint: it has to do with the difference between "some" and "all".)

You're the one who made the statement that the folks out there are doing it because of racism. Firstly, you provided nothing to back up your claim. Secondly, you worded it to imply all groups, as many of us took it. Now if you wanted to clarify that you were only speaking of groups spcifically mentioned by the SPLC, then that would clear a lot of the issue up.

Edit: And quite frankly... the SPLC's rationale for calling some of those border groups hate groups is flimsy at best. Unless you want to call not wanting to give hand outs to people being in the country illegally a "hate" category, or talking to cooky people also a hate category. In that case, Obama should be careful of the SPLC given some of his past associations.