Why believe the SPLC?

From here:

Former SPLC employee Bob Moser described “the annual hate-group list” as “a valuable resource for journalists and a masterstroke of Dees’s marketing talents; every year, when the center publishes it, mainstream outlets write about the ‘rising tide of hate’ discovered by the S.P.L.C.’s researchers, and reporters frequently refer to the list when they write about the groups.” According to The Progressive‘s John Egerton, SPLC co-founder Morris Dees “viewed civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals.”

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in activism, Social Justice, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Why believe the SPLC?

  1. Kevin says:

    We have no need for an organization such as SPLC, even if they did what they claimed to do. If you disagree with a Democrat, you are a hateful bigot. We don’t need organizations for that.

  2. UpstateIslandersFan says:

    There is no better evidence of the credulity of the national news industry than this awful organization, which has become the arbiter of who is or isn’t a bigot. Basically, if you hold to the millenias old view on marriage, you’re a bigot. If you believe as scripture and tradition teach on matters of sexual morality, you’re a bigot. If you hold that there are universal truths about the sexes, you are a bigot. Over the years I have seen this organization sourced as if they were actually objective. Nobody questioned them. I was berated online when I mentioned it is a money raising scheme made to make you feel good. Click donate and the slam is slaughtered, your sins are washed away. I hope they go back to representing poor people, which was their roots. Much more noble, but far less profitable.

  3. stcordova says:

    Someone in my church was nearly killed because of SLPC!!!!!! BASTARDS! An elder in my church works for the Family Research Council. He was nearly killed because the SLPC fanned the flames of gay rights SJW’s willing to kill Christians. He has a wife and 4 kids. He survived the attack.

    From the FRC website:

    “In November 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing fundraising powerhouse, announced that it considers Family Research Council (FRC) to be an “anti-gay hate group”–lumping us together with neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Ever since, the charge that FRC is a “certified hate group” has been used by the SPLC and other groups–such as the Human Rights Campaign and Campus Pride–in an attempt to discredit FRC’s work and cut us out of public policy debates and media coverage over homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” Ironically, the unfounded “hate group” label has deepened hatred toward FRC, which has now resulted in violence–a shooting in the lobby of our headquarters building on August 15, 2012, in which one of our employees was wounded while courageously defending his colleagues.

    Instead of being chastened by these events, the SPLC has merely repeated its defamatory accusations against FRC. Here are brief answers to some of the distortions of our positions by the SPLC and those who have embraced the “hate group” charge.”

    The assassin was going to shoot everyone, but he was stopped. He was going to stuff chick-a-filet in the victims mouths after the shooting. Liberal media hardly covered the story.

  4. Bilbo says:

    Since Cordova brought it up:

    “The SPLC’s decision to categorize the Family Research Council as a hate group, while subjective, nevertheless relies on FRC’s record of purveying stereotypes, prejudice, and junk science as a justification for public policy that would deny gays and lesbians equal rights and criminalize their conduct. Accusing someone of purveying “hate” does not contain a justification for violence, explicit or implicit. It’s a free country, and hating is one of the rights Americans have under the First Amendment. But if an organization were putting forth papers arguing that blacks, Latinos, or Jews were inherently prone to committing certain crimes and recommended laws specifically tailored to restricting their behavior, would we call them a hate group? At the very least, the SPLC has evidence for its decision beyond simply disliking FRC’s politics.”

    https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2012/08/perkins-family-research-council-shooting-southern-poverty-law/

  5. Bilbo says:

    Perhaps we should be doubtful about the list’s accuracy, given the pecuniary nature of Morris Dees. But Moser’s article offers no other evidence that it was. In fact, Moser seems to think the list is accurate. He is more troubled by the discrimination that operated within SPLC, and that the money raised was not being put to good use.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center

  6. Kevin says:

    The SPLC’s decision to categorize the Family Research Council as a hate group, while subjective

    while subjective

    Not really any reason to consider past that point. They are more of a hate group than some of their targets they smear.

  7. Dhay says:

    Hmmm:

    But the center continues to take in far more than it spends. And it still tends to emphasize splashy cases that are sure to draw national attention. The most notable, when I was there, was a lawsuit to remove a Ten Commandments monument that was brazenly placed in the main lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building, just across the street from S.P.L.C. headquarters, by Roy Moore, who was then the state’s chief justice. Like the S.P.L.C.’s well-publicized 2017 lawsuit against Andrew Anglin, the neo-Nazi publisher of the Daily Stormer, it was a vintage example of the center’s central strategy: taking on cases guaranteed to make headlines and inflame the far right while demonstrating to potential donors that the center has not only all the right enemies but also the grit and know-how to take them down.
    [My emphasis.]

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center

    Do I detect that the The Satanic Temple has adopted a rather similar central strategy? The TST central strategy appears to be aimed at attracting atheist activists — by dog-whistle, anti-Republican activists — rather than donations; apart from that, the publicity-attracting methods look quite similar.

  8. stcordova says:

    This is what Jesus said in Matt 19.

    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. That claim is not hate speech. It regards the sacredness of male and female in holy union, it is a picture that the Lord himself uses to describe his relation to his people where the church is the “bride of Christ.”

    Calling gay unions as the same thing as a heterosexual marriage is a violation of what some people deem sacred. If one says conservative Christians are haters, one could just as well say gays desecrating by calling their unions “marriage” what conservative Christians believe is also hateful. Call it a homosexual union, and call a male-female marriage a male-female marriage. A homosexual union is not the same as a male-female marriage. If gays want legal rights for their unions, ok, pass laws to that effect, just don’t call it marriage in the traditional sense.

  9. pennywit says:

    However odious you consider the SPLC’s designation of FRC as a hate group, I think you will find that SPLC’s speech does not rise to the level of incitement of imminent lawless action. As for your second comment, I suggest that you unwind a little. The gay people are not coming to undermine your marriage. The they just want to be married filing jointly and enjoy the other multifarious benefits of civil marriage.
    And no, conservative Christians such as yourself do not maintain a monopoly on the word “marriage,” nor do you have the right to insist that another person not use a particular word because it offends you.

  10. stcordova says:

    “nor do you have the right to insist that another person not use a particular word because it offends you.”

    You don’t see the irony there regarding transexuals and homosexuals. If I called a transwoman a fake woman, would you agree they have no right to insist I use the phrase “REAL woman” instead of “fake woman” both in social and business and educational contexts? “Fake woman” is the more honest characterization, not “REAL woman.” If they get offended, they’re hating on me for telling the truth.

  11. pennywit says:

    You don’t see the irony there regarding transexuals and homosexuals. If I called a transwoman a fake woman, would you agree they have no right to insist I use the phrase “REAL woman” instead of “fake woman” both in social and business and educational contexts

    Both three contexts?

    “Fake woman” is the more honest characterization, not “REAL woman.” If they get offended, they’re hating on me for telling the truth.

    Let me take a few things apart here.
    First, I am quite serious when I tell you that as a conservative Christian, you do not have a monopoly on the word marriage. It’s been used by multiple religions, and by people without religion, for quite a long time. You don’t own the word.
    In a civil/legal context, the word “marriage” refers to a very specific arrangement, that through both statutory and common law comes with a bundle of rights. Deny the word “marriage” to same-sex couples, and you deny to them the automatic accretion of those rights.
    And in some states, right-wingers made it quite impossible to achieve same-sex marriage — or civil unions — without a Supreme Court case. (See Virginia, for example)
    In a social context, I would say that you can try to assert your property right over the word “marriage.” It’s a free marketplace of ideas. If think you’re bigoted or hateful for doing so, then that’s the free marketplace telling you your ideas suck.
    As for the rest — I think you do have the right to call a trans woman a “fake woman,” I suppose. They have a right to insist you use the term “woman,” and you have the right to tell them to go to hell. Again, it’s a free country. Or, at least, I live in a free country. I would not support you being charged with any crime. I would not support somebody assaulting you for it. But if somebody yells at you and calls you a bigot, I’m not going to lift a finger to defend you.
    In an educational context … it gets complicated. If you are an instructor, and you refer to a trans woman in your class as a “fake woman,” or if you spend quite a bit of time bashing transgender folks in general, then that could become probative of your attitude if a trans student sues you for discrimination over, say, a bad grade. And if you are negotiating with a client’s transgender rep, and you cost your company the account because the transgender rep didn’t like your attitude … then I’d say your employer has every right to terminate you. Consequences, y’know.

  12. stcordova says:

    “You don’t own the word.” Neither do gays.

  13. stcordova says:

    SLPC should put itself on it’s own list, it has caused hatred of Christians and attempted murder of them.

  14. stcordova says:

    “SPLC co-founder Morris Dees “viewed civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals.”

    Ouch. I guess Northern Liberals need to feel holy, that’s their equivalent of a church indulgence.

  15. pennywit says:

    “You don’t own the word.” Neither do gays.

    However, they have a reasonable claim to the civil institution, based on a reading of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  16. FZM says:

    First, I am quite serious when I tell you that as a conservative Christian, you do not have a monopoly on the word marriage. It’s been used by multiple religions, and by people without religion, for quite a long time. You don’t own the word.

    In a civil/legal context, the word “marriage” refers to a very specific arrangement, that through both statutory and common law comes with a bundle of rights. Deny the word “marriage” to same-sex couples, and you deny to them the automatic accretion of those rights.

    Interestingly, in France where there was probably one of the biggest anti-same sex marriage movements in Europe, it was a secular and multi-faith religious combination. I think the campaign was led by a gay philosopher and activist. One of their main concerns was with family life and the link between marriage and children. It seems possible to me that across all the different religions (and more recently, some of the secular views as well) marriage was seen as a heterosexual thing, a heterosexual creation, because of the importance attached to the children/family aspect of things.

    This now seems to have been excluded from having any direct relevance to marriage, strangely in the British debate the point was barely even raised.

    Or, at least, I live in a free country. I would not support you being charged with any crime. I would not support somebody assaulting you for it. But if somebody yells at you and calls you a bigot, I’m not going to lift a finger to defend you.

    This is one of the positive things about the US, I know problems have been growing in the UK around criminalisation and persecution of people questioning transgender claims (including mothers who are long time feminists/women’s rights activists, bizarrely).

  17. TFBW says:

    @pennywit: “However, they have a reasonable claim to the civil institution, based on a reading of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    I’ve been looking for a foundational principle in your claims, and this is as close as I’ve come to finding one. Let’s be clear, then: when you refer to the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, do you mean the following text?

    … nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    You’ll have to explain to me how the exclusion of same-sex couples from married status deprives them of life, liberty, or property. If you successfully explain that part, then you’ll need to explain how “due process of law” has not been followed in so doing.

    Also, if gay couples were being deprived of life, liberty, or property when they couldn’t be legally recognised as married, then aren’t single people being deprived of life, liberty, or property by merit of the fact that they aren’t married? If it comes to that, doesn’t the entire concept of marriage create a legal inequality between those who are married and those who aren’t? It seems to me that this is a necessary premise in order to carry the idea that the Equal Protection clause is relevant. But if it’s true that homosexual couples are denied equal protection through refusal to grant them married status, isn’t it also true that single people are denied equal protection if they want to claim married status as individuals?

  18. pennywit says:

    I suggest reading Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell for answers to these questions. It is a little flowery for my taste, but he does lay out the arguments.

  19. TFBW says:

    Could you summarise the key points? All I can find is a Wikipedia page which talks about it, and I’m not exactly convinced that my questions are answered in the bits it cites. I’m sure the four dissenting justices have similar objections. In particular, I see a paragraph opening with the following sentences.

    No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.

    This seems to have nothing to do with the constitution, but is rather an expression of what Kennedy perceives marriage to be: a union between two people, where the key elements are “two people” and “union”. This is arbitrary. Why two and not three? Why two and not “a man and a woman?” It’s a tendentious definition.

    There has been a passive sort of debate going on here as to who gets to define what marriage is. I say “passive”, because it’s mostly been about who doesn’t get to define it. Apparently who does get to define it is a 5-4 majority of Supreme Court justices. Is that your view?

    I’m not American, and I haven’t looked into this much. Here in Australia, it’s been addressed by the legislature, but was first put to the people in a plebiscite. Who’s doing it right: us or you? Would your answer be the same for all permutations of outcomes, e.g. if the 5-4 majority went the other way?

  20. stcordova says:

    “they have a reasonable claim to the civil institution, based on a reading of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Abusing the laws of man doesn’t make things ethical in the ultimate sense. Changing meaning of words in order to deceive isn’t exactly ethical. This is on full display with the transgender fake women movement trying to deceive in mis-represent and enforce delusions on others — like Canadian Bill C16. Truth shouldn’t take a back seat just because someone doesn’t like the truth. We don’t have rub ugly truths in someone’s face, but on the other hand, we should not be compelled by governments to lie based on some court ruling on interpretation of the US constitution.

    Gay “marriage” is not quite so blatant as trangenderism but it’s the same thing, trying to equate gay unions with hetero relationships in the mind of all people. This is not necessarily a judgement on whether one is better than another, but there is a distinction just as there is a distinction between apples and oranges.

    If you think it’s ok to let fake women call themselves real women, then it should be ok for conservative Christians to view some unions as sacred and others as offensive abominations without fear of government retribution.

  21. pennywit says:

    Wow. The Canadian government wants people not to discriminate against others based on gender identity, and it classifies a bias motive as an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing. That’s some pretty high-level evil.

    I figure everybody has the legal right to an opinion, even if I disagree with that opinion. But there’s also nothing wrong with laws, esp. in regulation of commerce, that require people to treat each other as human beings.

    And on the subject of marriage, again, your opinion. And I really don’t care what religions think about religious marriage. But civil marriage — a specialized contract that accords privileges and rights — I think that ought to be open to same-sex couples.

  22. pennywit says:

    TFBW, I suggested that you read the opinion, not the Wikipedia about it. I don’t have the time or the inclination to explain the entire US judicial system to you, or to review the history of equal protection and due process jurisprudence. But if you can take a little time to educate yourself about it — i.e., read the opinions, learn a little bit about equal protection and substantive and procedural due process — I’d be more than happy to talk about it with you.

  23. Kevin says:

    The Canadian government wants people not to discriminate against others based on gender identity

    The flip side is that the Canadian government wants to punish people who refuse to go along with the delusion that a man who “identifies” as a woman, is in fact a woman. That’s objectively and demonstrably false, yet people in Canada could be punished for not speaking lies.

    Note that refusing to agree with objectively false ideas is not the same as treating someone like they are sub-human, so the Canadian government does not have that as a justification.

  24. TFBW says:

    @pennywit, consider your attempt to fob me off successful. I don’t value your opinion enough to pay the price you’re asking for it.

  25. pennywit says:

    The flip side is that the Canadian government wants to punish people who refuse to go along with the delusion that a man who “identifies” as a woman, is in fact a woman. That’s objectively and demonstrably false, yet people in Canada could be punished for not speaking lies.

    So … you want an employer to be able discriminate against someone based on gender identity?

  26. Kevin says:

    So … you want an employer to be able discriminate against someone based on gender identity?

    Depends on what you mean by “discriminate”. Much of what progressives would call discrimination, I would not agree.

  27. FZM says:

    Wow. The Canadian government wants people not to discriminate against others based on gender identity, and it classifies a bias motive as an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing. That’s some pretty high-level evil.

    If it is perceived discrimination in an age of belief in micro-aggressions, unconscious bias and identitarian worldviews, or involves legal compulsion to accept certain social-constructivist accounts of gender and sex, this could be pretty bad.

  28. pennywit says:

    I can’t quite get to the idea that “micro-aggressions” by themselves can constitute discrimination, unless in the aggregate they create a hostile work environment. If mciro-aggressions (sans the hostile work environment) are being considered discrimination, that is a problem.

    On the other hand, I see nothing virtuous about letting businesses put a “no homos” or “no transgenders” sign on the front door.

  29. Kevin says:

    On the other hand, I see nothing virtuous about letting businesses put a “no homos” or “no transgenders” sign on the front door.

    Fully agreed.

  30. TFBW says:

    The idea that one might “let” a business put certain kinds of signs on their doors is in and of itself quite unsettling because it presumes a certain authority to dictate unto others over matters which are, frankly, none of your affair. “Letting” a business put a “no homos” or “no transgenders” sign on the front door is virtuous in that it recognises in others a right to freedom of association, even when one finds the choices reprehensible. In fact, that is the only condition under which such recognition can be virtuous: you get no points for “letting” people do things that you approve of.

  31. pennywit says:

    Consider Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).

  32. TFBW says:

    Why? Does it have something to say about virtue?

  33. pennywit says:

    You raised the right of association. Heart of Atlanta highlights where that right bumps up against the regulation of commerce.

  34. TFBW says:

    Yeah, I know that the Supreme Court decided that the government could override your right to free association in the name of regulating interstate commerce. It’s a terrible opinion with terrible consequences if you ask me—not that you did. You’ll have to explain to me if this has any impact on my claims regarding virtue, though, because I don’t see the relevance. I wasn’t making a claim regarding constitutionality; I was taking a devil’s advocate position against your statement (and Kevin’s assent) that there’s “nothing virtuous about letting businesses put a ‘no homos’ or ‘no transgenders’ sign on the front door.” The virtue lies in the fact that the act respects someone else’s right to free association, despite not approving of how that right is being used. It’s virtuous in the same way that defending freedom of speech is virtuous when you disapprove of the message itself.

  35. pennywit says:

    The virtue lies in the fact that the act respects someone else’s right to free association, despite not approving of how that right is being used. It’s virtuous in the same way that defending freedom of speech is virtuous when you disapprove of the message itself.

    I can’t say I agree there. Speech, absent incitement or systematic, sustained harassment, typically inflicts less harm on others than does discriminating in employment, or in the provision of commercial services.

  36. TFBW says:

    So you think it is more virtuous to compel A to associate with B (i.e. offer them services or employment) against A’s will, than to let A associate freely, so long as B’s lot is improved by some measure?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.