Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/21 17:43:23
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Kanluwen wrote: whembly wrote: sebster wrote:
Meanwhile, no-one has yet managed to mention one specific group that the SPLC has called a hate group that isn't. Not one. There's been lots of claims that they're biased, and lots of vague silliness about how they might be unfair, but not one case of a group that isn't a hate gruop being listed as such the SPLC.
On first google page...
Confirmed – SPLC Exaggerated About Klan In Rhode Island
That's one... and there's plenty of others...
Please, please, PLEASE! Broaden your research onto the operations of SPLC. They are NOT an organization to blindly support... ALWAYS be critical of their report because there's an obvious agenda.
Do you even look at the sources you cite?
"legalinsurrection.com"?
If exaggeration is the same thing as lying, then there's a lot of liars on the internet. "Exaggerating" in a report is pretty commonplace, no matter the agenda.
Part of it is that witnesses tend to inflate events to reflect how they think events should have worked. Look into any kind of reports detailing the credibility of witness statements and you would see that is the truth.
I thought you can be rational and all to piece this together...
If you are going to fething publish a "hate map" and push it out there... you better have credible source. Otherwise, it's just hackery. Automatically Appended Next Post: reds8n wrote: well even if we accept that they messed up there, Mr. Sebster would still only be wrong if one was to claim that the KK aren't a hate group/organisation/whatever. yes ..?
Well... good point. It was the first one that came up on Google.
Point being, SPLC isn't a group to hold in high esteem. But, we're getting distracted from the OP here...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/21 17:45:09
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/21 17:45:14
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
I want a love map. Thats way more mellow baby.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/21 22:44:16
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I was hoping a foreign object in the way of guns were going to be introduced into the past page of professional posting.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/21 23:05:28
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
Orlanth wrote:
If you want to accuse the AFA of hate mongering, and thus expose its members to discrimination or its activities to public censure then at the very least do so through legitimate means. The US government in its many forms opposes hate groups at home and abroad. If the FBI or another accountable organisation denounces the AFA you can go ahead, until then your no better than an ignorant frightened angry peasant with a pitchfork and a firebrand.
If the AFA wants to accuse homosexuals of ruining the state, corrupting the youth and being generally icky then they at the very least ought to do so through legitimate means. The US government in its many forms opposes corruption and treason at home and abroad. If the FBI or another accountable organisation denounces homosexuals you can go ahead, until then you're no better than an ignorant frightened angry peasant with a pitchfork and a firebrand.
Seriously though, why is the AFA allowed to express their opinion but the SPLC not allowed to express theirs on the opinions of the AFA?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/21 23:05:48
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 03:50:19
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Squatting with the squigs
|
A love map? I take it Grindr is not the kind of love mapping app you want frazz?
|
My new blog: http://kardoorkapers.blogspot.com.au/
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 05:07:02
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Orlanth wrote:The Pentagon made the right call. And by your own comment then the SPLC's decision to categorise the AFA as a hate group is proven to be dangerous because people take action based on it.
Yes the Pentagon made the right call, because they shouldn't use any list that government doesn't have complete control over. But you're now trying to sidestep the fact that your original claim "Yet they (the SPLC) demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions" is completely wrong. Nonsense. A thing you made up.
And your assertion that an organisation should be called dangerous because things it says might be acted upon by others is a very interesting standard... considering you're trying to form an argument for why a private organisation can't call out groups that tell lies about minorities.
[quoteWho get to make those decisions, on what evidence and under what purview. For independent unaccountable organisations to do so is dangerous and discriminatory, especially when hotheads feel open to accuse members of all those organisations of being 'extreme hate mongers'.
The SPLC makes that decision, and they do it on behalf of no-one but themselves. Their evidence and method is stated on their website, and is open to debate and disagreement, as people are attempting in this thread.
Extreme hate mongers? Thats a big call to make.
Are you honestly going to sit there pretending that a mission statement is how we ought to judge an organisation, as opposed to their actual statements and actions? Statements and actions that have already been listed on this thread...
This is what you are directly doing, if someone is AFA affiliated they are open to abuse from being categorised as an extreme hate monger, no questions asked, simply because they are part of that group, because that is the minimum standard you have set yourself by accepting the SPLC's list.
That only works if you assume that people simply read the SPLC and apply no judgement or assessment. Instead if you realise that people have actual functioning brains that they often use, then you realise that each and every group is able to explain why it shouldn't be on that list.
That no group has been able to say 'actually we aren't a bunch of hatemongering donkey-caves' is not, as you prefer to assume, because the SPLC is actually pretty thorough and considered in deciding who gets added to its list.
Not only is that dangerous, its bordering on a hysterical witchhunt.
Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Getting put on a list is not actually a hysterical witchhunt.. it's getting put on a list. 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.
[This is why collective labels are bad, and any categorisation of groups should come from accredited accountable parties.
Unaccountable... the SPLC stops having power the second it starts listing organisations that shouldn't be on there.
Which is something you and others have tried to claim has already happened, except of course you haven't actually been able to point to a single organisation on that list that shouldn't be there.
No, the system is not working as it should until an accountable organisation, the Pentagon, shut down the accusations against the AFA utilised by some military personnel to discriminate against the AFA.
When you think one guy acting outside of his authority (and getting quickly corrected) represents the system, I think it's fair to say you don't have any idea what a system is.
This is proof positive as to why it is dangerous for such labels to be allowed to be proliferated from partisan unaccountable groups like the SPLC.
You keep saying 'dangerous'... you do understand you're talking about a private organisation doing nothing more than stating their own opinion about other private organisations.
And you're calling that dangerous... seriously dude, you are off the reservation. You're in a place that can't be seen from the real world.
If you want to accuse the AFA of hate mongering, and thus expose its members to discrimination or its activities to public censure then at the very least do so through legitimate means.
Forming a private list is legitimate means. Which is obvious, and it's really weird that I would have to tell you that.
Intercessory prayer was explained earlier, if you are going to argue against a theological comment do so from within the understanding of the theology.
And also completely irrelevant to Fischer's statement and to the massacre. Which would be obvious to you if you weren't grabbing on to any piece of nonsense in order to try and defend the statement. Automatically Appended Next Post:
What? I ask for people to provide one group that is listed as a hate group that shouldn't be, and you give a link to a conservative blogger claiming that the SPLC's . Even if true, no-one is denying the Klan is a hate group, just that they don't exist in Rhode Island.
So come on, anyone... anyone going to go through the SPLC list and provide all the groups that have been wrongfully called hate groups? There must be some reason to doubt the SPLC's list, there must be some organisation on there that isn't really a hate group.
Or are you all just going to continue to claim the SPLC list can't be trusted, without listing a single organisation that shouldn't be on it? Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Point being, SPLC isn't a group to hold in high esteem. But, we're getting distracted from the OP here...
The point is that you keep saying that, but are yet to actually identify a single group listed by the SPLC as a hate group that shouldn't be. At some point you actually have to come up with some substance for your claim.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/22 05:25:05
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 11:17:01
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
The SPLC lists several veterans groups as hate groups of one kind or another, including the recently more radical Oathkeepers. While the Oathkeepers might be looking a little nuts now, I have not actively seen them discriminate against any one, and their functions I have attended have had plenty of minorities around.
|
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:01:01
Subject: Re:US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
Yeah.
The SPLC's blog is called "Hate Watch," and its tagline is, "Keeping an eye on the radical right." It sure has been fun watching people trying to claim they operate without bias, though.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:02:13
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Aren't they tracked as anti-government militia?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:12:04
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
They are by the SPLC. That doesn't make it so, however. Not that I'm a strong defender of the Oath Keepers. I've always gotten a weird vibe.
Nevertheless, we'd have to be using Kanluwen's rules to declare them a hate group.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:16:12
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
You can apply the Kanluwen standard to St. Jude's Children's Hospital actually.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:17:26
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
I may have missed it in the beheamoth of this thread. The Kanluwen Standard?
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:29:23
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
djones520 wrote:I may have missed it in the beheamoth of this thread. The Kanluwen Standard?
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.
That's what Seaward and Frazzled are referring to.
That set of standards was established by the FBI and Department of Justice following the Oklahoma City bombing. The criteria do not all have to be met to justify a group being classed as a "hate group", but the criteria are used as part of an ongoing investigation of a group.
Also it's worth noting that those are the standards that the government uses to classify an organization as a hate group. I don't know if the Southern Poverty Law Center uses the same standards or their own standards.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/22 12:31:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:31:28
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
I like the "white male" part...
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:33:33
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
Bear in mind that you don't even need to hate anyone to satisfy the Kanluwen Test.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:41:37
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Seaward wrote:
Bear in mind that you don't even need to hate anyone to satisfy the Kanluwen Test.
Not really. The standard is that you do not need to regularly engage in "hate crimes".
There is a significant difference between a hate group such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Phineas Priesthood, yet both are considered hate groups.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:50:58
Subject: Re:US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
St. Jude’s Children's research hospital system 1)Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally. Yep. Highly structured international organization – aka the Catholic Church 2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30. Doctors, nurses, and administrators 3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image. yep 4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric. Latest in anti cancer treatments for children free of charge. Actively use social media to support their cause. 5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads). They have thousands of members. I are one. I'm a hata! 6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate. They hate cancer with a passion 7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races. They will not stop until cancer is gone.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/22 12:51:37
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:52:10
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Unfortunately "cancer" is not really a protected group that can be discriminated against.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/22 12:53:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:53:13
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
Kanluwen wrote:Unfortunately "cancer" is not really something that can be hated.
Because cancer is not really people.
Wait... what?
You cannot hate something that isn't "people"? Who set this rule, cause they're full of gak.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 12:57:58
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Imperial Admiral
|
djones520 wrote:Wait... what?
You cannot hate something that isn't "people"? Who set this rule, cause they're full of gak.
It stems from Kan's attempt to classify the NRA as a hate group earlier in the thread. He was unable to determine who, exactly, the NRA hates, but is dead certain that all sorts of other hate groups recruit freely within the NRA.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 13:14:44
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
sebster wrote: Orlanth wrote:The Pentagon made the right call. And by your own comment then the SPLC's decision to categorise the AFA as a hate group is proven to be dangerous because people take action based on it.
Yes the Pentagon made the right call, because they shouldn't use any list that government doesn't have complete control over. But you're now trying to sidestep the fact that your original claim "Yet they (the SPLC) demand that the state via the US army follow their definitions" is completely wrong. Nonsense. A thing you made up.
Here is part of SPLC's own mission statement on 'hate groups'
The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We publish our investigative findings online, on our Hatewatch blog, and in the Intelligence Report, our award-winning quarterly journal. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.
By their own definition they
1. Classify 'hate groups' . Which is according to their own criteria.
2. 'Expose' them to law enforcement and the media. This involves accusing them of being criminals.
Training Law Enforcement
SPLC representatives communicate regularly with law enforcement agencies about extremist activity and conduct in-person training for officers at the local, state and federal level. Thousands of officers have received training that helps them recognize and deal with hate crimes as well as threats posed by extremists. This training is available free to law enforcement agencies.
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. So for example the FBI defines a hate group and hate crime differently to what the SPLC does, and limits hate crime to actual violence and calls for violence against a persecuted party. This is a fair definition of hate crime.
The SPLC lists the AFA as anti-gay, fair enough, but they are not obl;iged to be pro-gay, nor are they obliged to like gays, and if they believe that gays cause evils in the worlds then thats an ok opinion so long as they don't call people to commit hateful actsd against them. So far noone has given any indication that the AFA is calling for gays to be persecuted.
However fro this the SPLC labels therm a hate group and 'educates' those in authority to discriminate against them by 'teaching' them how to be intolerant of a group that is exercising its free speech rights by vocally not liking gays.
Here is a summary of the SPLC's opinions on the AFA.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-family-association
Not a single beating, theft or call for a beating or a theft is mentioned, not one. Just people practicing free speech.
sebster wrote:
The SPLC makes that decision, and they do it on behalf of no-one but themselves. Their evidence and method is stated on their website, and is open to debate and disagreement, as people are attempting in this thread.
You made that up, they try to reeducate law enforcement into seeing and categorising hate according to their standards.
sebster wrote:
Extreme hate mongers? Thats a big call to make.
Are you honestly going to sit there pretending that a mission statement is how we ought to judge an organisation, as opposed to their actual statements and actions? Statements and actions that have already been listed on this thread...
I highlighted the mission statement, but linked the entire webpage. Stop clutching at straws.
sebster wrote:
This is what you are directly doing, if someone is AFA affiliated they are open to abuse from being categorised as an extreme hate monger, no questions asked, simply because they are part of that group, because that is the minimum standard you have set yourself by accepting the SPLC's list.
That only works if you assume that people simply read the SPLC and apply no judgement or assessment. Instead if you realise that people have actual functioning brains that they often use, then you realise that each and every group is able to explain why it shouldn't be on that list.
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.
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.
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. All that should remain are justifiable threat warnings against dangerous groups by law enforcement, medical and defence authorities and those alone.
Some of the earlier press reports on this thread called the AFA a hate group directly on tha backs of the sPLC's report.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/10/15/christian-hate-group-is-outraged-because-the-us-army-has-identified-it-as-a-hate-group/
This online rag accredits the decision to limit the AFA to the 'US Army' (not an individual) and also straight up calls the AFA a de factor 'hate group' (as opposed to saying the SPLC calls then a hate group).
While on this lets look at some media reaction for a second:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/14/us-army-defines-christian-ministry-as-domestic-hate-group/
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/10/15/afa-classified-as-a-hate-group-by-us-army-n1724500
To cover the other point. They also confirm that the press (and the OP) considered the decision to categoriased the AFA as a hate group came from the 'US army'. Even the mainstream press made that comment in that way. Indeed this was to a large extent true as the comments came from US army personnel training, at least until countermanded by as higher authority. So this is not all made up by me, stop pretending otherwise.
.
sebster wrote:
Not only is that dangerous, its bordering on a hysterical witchhunt.
Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Getting put on a list is not actually a hysterical witchhunt.. it's getting put on a list. 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.
Getting put on a list that has resulted directly in:
- US military officials discriminating against the AFA.
- Media calling them hate groups without further explanation.
Mud sticks, even if unjustified, the indirect consequences to the AFA can be drastic.
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.
The list has meaning because some in the media give it meaning, because it had so much meaning it ended up in major pres articles about USD army training and a thread on Dakka. It has meaning because the only thread on Dakka on the AFA on this site has been about 'hate crimes' when the organisation is decades old and its focus is on family values, not attacking gays. For most including myself it was my first media exposure to the AFA.
If I didn't have the moxie to actually check up about this and to not take every vigilante call to expose 'hate groups' at face value then my own opinions might well have been soiled, as perhaps many have here.
None of that in any ways means that the accusation was backed up by any evidence with to which "holds some kind of meaning due to the care and accuracy with which it is assembled".
You were born in the wrong time at the wrong place Sebster. 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.
sebster wrote:
[This is why collective labels are bad, and any categorisation of groups should come from accredited accountable parties.
Unaccountable... the SPLC stops having power the second it starts listing organisations that shouldn't be on there.
Please at least try not be be so painfully naive.
Lets spell this out.
- The SPLC are group of lawyers, with a partisan socio-political agenda.
- They want to highlight what they see as hate groups.
- The only way to shut them up would be to either publically debate them or take them to the courts.
- Either action could be tied up for years because they are professional lawyers, and that is what lawyers often do..
- Either action would certainly expose far more publicity than list trying to ignore the SPLC.
- Finally if extra media attention is highlighted the SPLC's track record of handling genuine cases of discrimination will work against you. aka because the SPLC successfully prosecuted someone from an organisation who who committed a race attack, then people will assume those are the sorts of peo- le SPLC deal with than thus the group you are with is similar to the groups that carry out such attacks.
This is known as guilt by association.
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.
sebster wrote:
Which is something you and others have tried to claim has already happened, except of course you haven't actually been able to point to a single organisation on that list that shouldn't be there.
The AFA shouldn't be there. I don't know of any others, perhaps there are other groups which are listed because they exercise their right to express vocal opinions that the SPLC doesnt like them having, but I need not bother.
Its enough to know that at least one group of 'First Amendment exercisers' is being labeled alongside dangerous violent extremists who have been convicted of murders thanks to the SPLC and that they are all lumped in the same. Perhaps they have done good work in the past, but it is the SPLC and its 'hate list' that is tainted not the AFA.
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. Which is kind of sad because of what a little research turns up.
sebster wrote:
No, the system is not working as it should until an accountable organisation, the Pentagon, shut down the accusations against the AFA utilised by some military personnel to discriminate against the AFA.
When you think one guy acting outside of his authority (and getting quickly corrected) represents the system, I think it's fair to say you don't have any idea what a system is.
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.
Now had the story been about a random officer who denounced the AFA then you would be right, it would not be the US armies doing. however as they allocated this man as an instructor in this field what he spoke he spoke with the authority of his uniform.
In a nutshell the single instructor spoke for the US army officially, right up until the Pentagon stated otherwise. Press reports that the discrimination against the AFA came from the 'US Army' are not incorrect, even though it did not represent the formal official stance of that organisation.
sebster wrote:
This is proof positive as to why it is dangerous for such labels to be allowed to be proliferated from partisan unaccountable groups like the SPLC.
You keep saying 'dangerous'... you do understand you're talking about a private organisation doing nothing more than stating their own opinion about other private organisations.
By I keep proving dangerous.
- If it wasnt dangerous US army personnel wouldnot have taught other US army personnel to discriminate against the AFA in official training.
- Media would not be flatly labeling the AFA as a hate group without explanation.
- You wouldn't be jumping on this. By youer own words you lumped all the orgnaisations
I wonder how many narrow minded Sebsteristas are out there, and might they discriminate against someone if they have AFA member written on their resume?
This is important, customary always thought burden of proof was on the accuser, when denounced for reasons of hate dogmas the burden of proof is on the defence. I have been forced to attempt prove that the AFA are innocent by showing they do not categorise as a hate group by FBI standards and have been 'cleared' by the Pentagon. Wheras you have confirmed a solid belief that they are 'extremist hate mongers' just because they are on the list, because the list must of course be accurate. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.
sebster wrote:
And you're calling that dangerous... seriously dude, you are off the reservation. You're in a place that can't be seen from the real world.
"He who steals my purse steals trash, but he who filches of me my good name, takes not what enriches him and makes me poor indeed." - Othello, Act 3
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/22 13:33:02
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 13:18:50
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Why does the AFA not belong on a hate group list?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 13:28:34
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kanluwen wrote:Unfortunately "cancer" is not really a protected group that can be discriminated against.
Nothing in your list says the hate has to be againsta protected class. indeed that contrasts wdirectly with your NRA argument.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 14:10:41
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Sniping Reverend Moira
|
Because disagreeing without something doesn't automatically make you hateful.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 14:18:42
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Seaward wrote: djones520 wrote:Wait... what?
You cannot hate something that isn't "people"? Who set this rule, cause they're full of gak.
It stems from Kan's attempt to classify the NRA as a hate group earlier in the thread. He was unable to determine who, exactly, the NRA hates, but is dead certain that all sorts of other hate groups recruit freely within the NRA.
He was also unable to determine who, exactly, was recruiting for their militia/hate group/etc. from the NRA.
I think Kan is happy enough to point and say that the NRA ticks X number of points on the FBI hate group criteria in an attempt to discredit them, but fails to mention that all he can do is prove that the NRA is a group and that hate is absent
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 14:23:41
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Kanluwen wrote:
Also it's worth noting that those are the standards that the government uses to classify an organization as a hate group. I don't know if the Southern Poverty Law Center uses the same standards or their own standards.
The SPLC uses whatever standard that will help to continue to bring in the donations.
They used to be a reputable organization.
GG
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/22 14:24:25
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 14:38:37
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
cincydooley wrote:
Because disagreeing without something doesn't automatically make you hateful.
Being hateful and being a hate group are not the same thing, blancmange, etc.
Back on topic, as far as I know, the AFA aren't on the hate list for disagreeing, but for the form of their disagreement, which I was under the impression involved lies and slurs.
See these quotations from the AFA shown here...
http://www.splcenter.org/the-anti-gay-lobby-the-family-research-council-the-american-family-association-the-demonization-of--1
Do you say that these quotations are in fact lies made up by the SPLC?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 14:41:25
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
Treading dangerous ground here, but I'd say of those linked qoutes, only that last one is really questionable, and falls under "hateful". The others are issue of debate, that whether or not you agree with them, could be argued with evidence.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 14:48:56
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Do you grant that these quotations are things that the AFA has published, not made up by the SPLC?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/22 14:50:13
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/22 14:54:58
Subject: US Army defines Christian ministry as 'domestic hate group'
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you grant that these quotations are things that the AFA has published, not made up by the SPLC?
Of course they are, that is not the question though. Qoutations that are backed up by factual information does not constitute hate, or evidence there of. Now granted, the qoutations aren't telling the whole story, or are entirely accurate, but if your going to label someone a hate group because they skew things, then their list of groups needs to grow 10 fold.
You asked if the qoutes were lies, not if the SPLC made them up.
Lets look at the first qoute.
“[T]he homosexual lifestyle is characterized by anonymous sexual encounters and celebration of sexual obsession and perversion unparalleled in any other social group.”
Published in 1994. From that time period, how was the homosexual lifestyle not characterized like that? Widespread attention of sexual promiscuity in bath houses, theaters, night clubs, etc... their "gay pride" parades, which at best were soft-core porn rallies on the open streets. Stuff like that.
“If President Obama, Congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.”
Well guess what. They got their wish, and that is EXACTLY what is happening now.
So the SPLC is pointing at qoutes, saying it's evidence of hatred, yet what they said was true. So how is pointing out the truth hatred?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/22 14:59:47
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
|