The worst terrorist threat in the U.S. today is the Southern Poverty Law Center
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
Oh NoEs!! i HaVe BeEn CrItIcIzEd I aM "dEsTrOyEd"!! aaaaaaahhhhh!
Buttsoiler, you are a trip and a half of Snowflake City. "Proving" the SPLC is a "terrorist threat" has been YOUR assigned task since you crapped out this turd of a thread, and you STILL can't do it.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Not on any planet, fake patriot. They exist as a reputable organization only in the minds of the bigoted and homophobic. Oh, I guess that's you...
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Oh my goodness, the fake patriot is selectively editing my post to provide only the least innocuous of the hatefulness FRC spews. How deceitful and dishonest. Oh yeah, that's you...
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #105
***-o believes that if you ignore an answer, you can convince people that the answer was never given.
I answered the question in post #1 (“The SPLC makes outrageously false accusations with the express intent of destroying...”) - before you even posed it. I answered it again in post #2 (“viewed civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals”). I answered it for a third time in post #37 (“they falsely accuse racism”) - and you still hadn’t posed your question yet. See, unlike you’re very ignorant ass, I make informed, accurate, and thorough posts which covers the “what”.
But...I’m not going to stop there. I so enjoy exposing your idiocy, that I’m going to answer yet again. Ready?
A gunman came into the Family Research Council and emptied his gun because the SPLC had told him that the Family Research Council was a “hate group”. If the SPLC doesn’t have that outstanding organization falsely listed as a “hate group”, that doesn’t happen. The shooter admitted why he tried to kill everybody.
The State of Hate
It’s ok ‘lil buddy. Everyone here already knew you were my personal *****
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #110
After already completely destroying you in posts #105 and #109, I have decided to have even more fun at your expense.
All of those are very evil actions. But ***-o will pretend like he didn’t see this response to his “question”. A pitiful tactic.
The Truth about SPLC - C-Fam
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #111
Ok snowflake, one more. After already completely obliterating you in posts #105, #109, and #110, I have decided to hammer the nail in your coffin.
All of those are very evil actions. But ***-o will of course pretend like he didn’t see this response to his “question” because that’s all he can do.
In any case ***-o, you’re trolling has grown stale and tiresome. Not sure why you find trolling so amusing (pretending like someone hasn’t answered the question is pure trolling) so back on ignore you go. It was a pleasure owning you once again!
The State of Hate
The propagandists accuse others of being racists. The SPLU and the ACLU are frauds. Give a crumb back in the movement to Prog tyranny.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
***-o believes that if you ignore an answer, you can convince people that the answer was never given.
I answered the question in post #1 (“The SPLC makes outrageously false accusations with the express intent of destroying...”) - before you even posed it. I answered it again in post #2 (“viewed civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals”). I answered it for a third time in post #37 (“they falsely accuse racism”) - and you still hadn’t posed your question yet. See, unlike you’re very ignorant ass, I make informed, accurate, and thorough posts which covers the “what”.
But...I’m not going to stop there. I so enjoy exposing your idiocy, that I’m going to answer yet again. Ready?
A gunman came into the Family Research Council and emptied his gun because the SPLC had told him that the Family Research Council was a “hate group”. If the SPLC doesn’t have that outstanding organization falsely listed as a “hate group”, that doesn’t happen. The shooter admitted why he tried to kill everybody.
The State of Hate
It’s ok ‘lil buddy. Everyone here already knew you were my personal *****
A guy was going to blow up the Tides foundation for Glenn Beck. Is your hero Glen Beck responsible for the actions of Byron Williams?
Last edited:
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
No, puppy, it is you who thinks a quack organization like the American College of Pediatrics is more legitimate than real ones like the American Academy of Pediatrics. Their membership numbers alone tell the story...AAP - 60,000, ACP - 200.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
What lies, puppy? I listed a number of things that FRC does and has done. You pulled the least innocuous out of that already shortened list but ignored the others.
The SPLC’s definition of hate speech does not require an explicit incitement to violence. According to the group’s website, a hate group must have “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” Being named as a hate group “does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.”
Disagreement with the SPLC’s definition of “hate” permeates the conservative criticism of the group, such as Gallagher’s distaste that the SPLC does not distinguish between groups like the FRC and white supremacists. Concern about that definition does not come exclusively from right-wing blogs; there is disagreement among experts who study extremist activity over what exactly makes a hate group.
Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, said there was a “fine line” where a political group’s promotion of bigotry becomes hateful. He said that violent events often lead to “hate” terminology being used as “political battering rams" against mainstream groups, when the reality is much more complicated. Levin, who formerly worked for the SPLC, said he believed their definition of hate was defensible, but that his center does not consider FRC a hate group.
“[FRC’s] use of pseudoscience and wild allegations about gays certainly brings them up to the line, and a reasonable person could make that argument,” he said. “I do believe they promote bigotry; however for me, it has to be something more—not just falsehoods, but conspiratorial falsehoods, some kind of violence, and some kind of goal of destroying institutions of liberal democracy.” FRC, he added, works through the political system rather than encouraging its members to subvert it. “They’re in D.C., they’re a lobbying group.”
racist pseudoscience and skewed studies designed to confirm to their beliefs. A majority of those populating Internet forums like Stormfront are not personally violent, but their online postings leave no doubt that they are hateful.
Similarly, evangelical “pro-family” groups like the FRC and the AFA promote both skewed and long-discredited studies on sexual orientation to support a narrative that homosexuality is a threat to society. One only needs to take a brief glance at the Twitter feed of Bryan Fischer, the issues analysis director for the AFA, to confirm that he is overcome with hate for a wide variety of groups he perceives as threats to his religious and political views. While statements from the FRC’s leaders are significantly less vitriolic than Fischer’s rantings, they contain many of the same debunked facts and discredited narratives. Their factual failings and hostile rhetoric is so extreme that even Albert Mohler, the president of the deeply conservative Southern Baptist Convention, characterizedevangelicals’ reaction to homosexuality as “rooted in ignorance and fear” and “consigning homosexuals to a theological and moral category all their own.”
Ignorance and bigotry, as well as sincere religious belief, can lead to bad science. But do bad facts equal hate? Reasonable people can disagree about that, but what’s clear is that the definition of “hate” remains a deeply political question. Most groups engaged in political activity on contentious issues regularly face sharp criticism—conservative groups consistently demonize the SPLC, and gay-rights groups dole out the same to groups like the FRC—without becoming targets of actual violence. As Brian Levin put it, “Criticism can be a validator for what a violent person is going to do anyway, but that’s not grounds for curbing free speech.”
Whether or not one disagrees with the SPLC’s definition of hate, the FRC cannot wage an all-out rhetorical war against the “gay agenda” and then accuse its critics of being too harsh. On the culture-war battlefield, calling someone a “hate group” is a political move—and so is whining about it.
Disagreement with the SPLC’s definition of “hate” permeates the conservative criticism of the group, such as Gallagher’s distaste that the SPLC does not distinguish between groups like the FRC and white supremacists. Concern about that definition does not come exclusively from right-wing blogs; there is disagreement among experts who study extremist activity over what exactly makes a hate group.
Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, said there was a “fine line” where a political group’s promotion of bigotry becomes hateful. He said that violent events often lead to “hate” terminology being used as “political battering rams" against mainstream groups, when the reality is much more complicated. Levin, who formerly worked for the SPLC, said he believed their definition of hate was defensible, but that his center does not consider FRC a hate group.
“[FRC’s] use of pseudoscience and wild allegations about gays certainly brings them up to the line, and a reasonable person could make that argument,” he said. “I do believe they promote bigotry; however for me, it has to be something more—not just falsehoods, but conspiratorial falsehoods, some kind of violence, and some kind of goal of destroying institutions of liberal democracy.” FRC, he added, works through the political system rather than encouraging its members to subvert it. “They’re in D.C., they’re a lobbying group.”
racist pseudoscience and skewed studies designed to confirm to their beliefs. A majority of those populating Internet forums like Stormfront are not personally violent, but their online postings leave no doubt that they are hateful.
Similarly, evangelical “pro-family” groups like the FRC and the AFA promote both skewed and long-discredited studies on sexual orientation to support a narrative that homosexuality is a threat to society. One only needs to take a brief glance at the Twitter feed of Bryan Fischer, the issues analysis director for the AFA, to confirm that he is overcome with hate for a wide variety of groups he perceives as threats to his religious and political views. While statements from the FRC’s leaders are significantly less vitriolic than Fischer’s rantings, they contain many of the same debunked facts and discredited narratives. Their factual failings and hostile rhetoric is so extreme that even Albert Mohler, the president of the deeply conservative Southern Baptist Convention, characterizedevangelicals’ reaction to homosexuality as “rooted in ignorance and fear” and “consigning homosexuals to a theological and moral category all their own.”
Ignorance and bigotry, as well as sincere religious belief, can lead to bad science. But do bad facts equal hate? Reasonable people can disagree about that, but what’s clear is that the definition of “hate” remains a deeply political question. Most groups engaged in political activity on contentious issues regularly face sharp criticism—conservative groups consistently demonize the SPLC, and gay-rights groups dole out the same to groups like the FRC—without becoming targets of actual violence. As Brian Levin put it, “Criticism can be a validator for what a violent person is going to do anyway, but that’s not grounds for curbing free speech.”
Whether or not one disagrees with the SPLC’s definition of hate, the FRC cannot wage an all-out rhetorical war against the “gay agenda” and then accuse its critics of being too harsh. On the culture-war battlefield, calling someone a “hate group” is a political move—and so is whining about it.
Is the Family Research Council Really a Hate Group?
Plugger "U"! 
Buttsoiler has reached such a level of desperation he's going to Plugger "U"! 
Which of course is a "U" in the same sense that Rump's Fraud University was, except it doesn't even pretend to have classes.
Your recurring theme remains "OH NOES!! SPLC is making lists!! And maps!! We can't plot in secrecy with these lists going on, they have no right to make lists!! This is terraism!! Call da FBI!!
I keep asking you why you want terrorists kept in the dark. And you can't answer that either. There's a reason they call it the "Invisible Empire", and every time somebody makes it visible you wet your pants.
Why is that, Buttsoiler?
Hm?
Timmy
Gold Member
- Oct 2, 2015
- 22,432
- 2,843
- 290
ACLU does more to protect our rights than anyone. If you are against the aclu, you are against freedom .
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #120
Bwahahaha! By the Southern Poverty Law Center’s own criteria, they are a hate group.
Holy shit is that priceless. The SPLC holds the “belief” that any and all people or groups should be targeted, attacked, and maligned simply for holding the “immutable characteristics” of being conservative.
Priceless. ******* priceless. Dadgum that is great. Like all liberals (who are low IQ) you didn’t even understand what you were reading. No wonder you’re left-wing. So easy to dupe.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
the owner of the Berliner Zeitung, Holger Friedrich, was a Stasi (KGB) informant- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
-
NO. 1 LOBBY: Islamic Qatar Poured Over $400 Billion Into the US, New Study, Raising Alarm- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 2
-
Antares Mark-0 Becomes First Advanced Nuclear Reactor to Achieve Criticality Under DOE Pilot Program
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
