The Liberal (Southern Poverty Law Center) Used By The Libaral Community To Dox and Mark Conservative Groups Falsely

[DaisyDay]

Not to mention other problems with the SPLC:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered

After internal challenges with discrimination, the Southern Poverty Law Center can't call itself an arbiter of justice.

www.usatoday.com

https://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2019/08/anti-lgbtq-hate-group-employee.html

 

[Merrill]

If there is no hard confirmation of this, you were not justified in claiming he was ANTIFA.

I think he was from what I read

why are you defending ANTIFA?

 

[essentialsaltes]

why are you defending ANTIFA?

If you claim Bob is a convicted murderer, and I point out that he is not, in fact, a convicted murderer, I am not defending murderers. Reading my .sig may help you out.

 

[Merrill]

If you claim Bob is a convicted murderer, and I point out that he is not, in fact, a convicted murderer, I am not defending murderers. Reading my .sig may help you out.

Not sure who Bob is --were you talking about the ANTIFA guy in Seattle? He was killed by police after shooting the Patriot Prayer member

I just find that when certain people leap to defend ANTIFA, issue talking-points about how they are only fighting "fascists" (which means anyone they disagree with, including Christians, police, Republicans, etc.), aren't a real organization or group (never mind the fact Rose City ANTIFA is absolutely a real group, and is even in the FBI database), and that they haven't committed any crimes, it is a bad look

people defend ANTIFA because they believe political and ideological violence are justified

it would be like someone making excuses for the KKK or the Aryan Nations, claiming "well those guys aren't a real group ... there isn't any such thing as the Aryan Nations--its just a conspiracy ... you can't prove that black kid was really killed by the KKK, it was just some lone white dude with no affiliation!"

ANTIFA are criminal thugs at best, and terrorists at worst.

 

[essentialsaltes]

it would be like someone making excuses for the KKK or the Aryan Nations, claiming "well those guys aren't a real group

A better analogy would be White Supremacy. "White Supremacy" is not a group. But Aryan Nations is a group that spouts white supremacist ideology, like Rose City Antifa is a group that spouts anti-fascist (i.e. antifa) ideology.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not sure who Bob is --were you talking about the ANTIFA guy in Seattle? He was killed by police after shooting the Patriot Prayer member

Not so good with analogies, eh?

I just find that when certain people leap to defend ANTIFA, issue talking-points about how they are only fighting "fascists" (which means anyone they disagree with, including Christians, police, Republicans, etc.), aren't a real organization or group (never mind the fact Rose City ANTIFA is absolutely a real group, and is even in the FBI database), and that they haven't committed any crimes, it is a bad look

Who is defending them? Trump did say, "There are very fine people on both sides".

people defend ANTIFA because they believe political and ideological violence are justified

Some people do believe that.

it would be like someone making excuses for the KKK or the Aryan Nations, claiming "well those guys aren't a real group ... there isn't any such thing as the Aryan Nations--its just a conspiracy ... you can't prove that black kid was really killed by the KKK, it was just some lone white dude with no affiliation!"

No, people used to take selfies (before they were known as that) with the strung up mutilated corpses. They paid literal dues to those organizations.

ANTIFA are criminal thugs at best, and terrorists at worst.

That may be, but organized they are NOT.

 

[Lukaris]

https://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2019/08/anti-lgbtq-hate-group-employee.html

So SPLC slander of the Family Research Council (FRC) influencing some maniac who wanted to shoot up FRC HQ is not slander? The Family Research Council is the slanderer because they are upset that a maniac influenced by slanderers who wanted to shoot up their HQ?

 

[Merrill]

The SPLC documents their reasons with citations; they don't just make a list arbitrarily.

the SPLC arbitrarily and unfairly labels organizations and individuals racists, haters, and radicals

and such designations have gotten people targeted for violence. Some critics of radical Islam literally had to go into hiding as a result

 

[essentialsaltes]

So SPLC slander of the Family Research Council (FRC) influencing some maniac who wanted to shoot up FRC HQ is not slander? The Family Research Council is the slanderer because they are upset that a maniac influenced by slanderers who wanted to shoot up their HQ?

Is there any reason to believe that Floyd Corkins was influenced by the SPLC? Or is it something else that 'people are saying' that has no hard confirmation?

Corkins – who had chosen the research council as his target after finding it listed as an anti-gay group on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center
According to the documents, Corkins had thought about such an attack for years but “just never went through with it.”

 

[Hans Blaster]

So SPLC slander of the Family Research Council (FRC) influencing some maniac who wanted to shoot up FRC HQ is not slander? The Family Research Council is the slanderer because they are upset that a maniac influenced by slanderers who wanted to shoot up their HQ?

Whether or not someone was influenced to commit violence is not part of the determination of slander or not slander. What you are talking about is incitement or inducement of a crime, not slander.

 

[Hammster]

ADVISOR HAT ON


Let’s keep the flaming and db to a minimum. Better yet, let’s eliminate turn altogether.

ADVISOR HAT OFF

 

[DaisyDay]

the SPLC arbitrarily and unfairly labels organizations and individuals racists, haters, and radicals

No, it is not arbitrary. They document their reasoning with evidence.

and such designations have gotten people targeted for violence. Some critics of radical Islam literally had to go into hiding as a result

SPLC does not condone violence.

 

[DaisyDay]

So SPLC slander of the Family Research Council (FRC) influencing some maniac who wanted to shoot up FRC HQ is not slander? The Family Research Council is the slanderer because they are upset that a maniac influenced by slanderers who wanted to shoot up their HQ?

Was it slander? What was written that was untrue?

 

[Merrill]

No, it is not arbitrary. They document their reasoning with evidence.


SPLC does not condone violence.

The SPLC labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali an "Anti-Muslim Extremist", which is completely false. It put her life in danger.

I also labeled Maajid Nawaz an extremist

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/

those are just two of dozens examples where the SPLC has arbitrarily and ideologically slandered people.

Now I disagree with Ali on a number of issues related to Islam, but she is not some hate-fueled extremist.

 

[Pommer]

The SPLC labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali an "Anti-Muslim Extremist", which is completely false. It put her life in danger.

I also labeled Maajid Nawaz an extremist

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/

those are just two of dozens examples where the SPLC has arbitrarily and ideologically slandered people.

Now I disagree with Ali on a number of issues related to Islam, but she is not some hate-fueled extremist.

I get it.
SPLC has a soapbox and screams from the top of it about things and people whom they don’t like.
You “like” some of those people and think it’s unfair of the SPLC to use their soapbox in the manner that they do.

Welcome to Freedom-of-Speech City

 

[Merrill]

I get it.
SPLC has a soapbox and screams from the top of it about things and people whom they don’t like.
You “like” some of those people and think it’s unfair of the SPLC to use their soapbox in the manner that they do.

Welcome to Freedom-of-Speech City

Yes and no

with this stuff we get into the murky areas of slander & libel. I cannot go fire up a website and proclaim to the world that someone I don't like is a Neo-Nazi or a child-molester.

But it gets trickier with public figures, or if the speech is considered parody, etc.

In the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she is a semi-public figure, but not a politician or political leader, and the SPLC's designation of her as an "Anti-Muslim Extremist" was both wrong, and based on vague and capricious criteria (there is no science behind any of it--it is just a hit piece). The piece was not a parody. She could have sued.

Nawaz DID sue the SPLC and won 3.3 million

Southern Poverty Law Center Must Pay $3.3 Million After Falsely Naming Anti-Muslim Extremists | Law & Crime

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has been hit with a big payout after losing in a defamation lawsuit to Quilliam International and Maajid Nawaz, the founder of the organization. Nawaz objected to being mentioned in SPLC's "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists" and sued for defamation.

lawandcrime.com

And just like the Devil mixes lies with the truth, the SPLC's critique of the FRC is partly accurate, and partly false. They claim that the statement from the FRC that “The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes," is an attack on all LGBT people, when it is simply a factual claim: the scouts have had legal problems in the past due to child molesters.

The SPLC lives in that cesspool level of the Internet, and operates a grift by scaring Americans into giving them money in order to root out "extremists" --it is a hyper-partisan propaganda outlet.

 

[Pommer]

Yes and no

with this stuff we get into the murky areas of slander & libel. I cannot go fire up a website and proclaim to the world that someone I don't like is a Neo-Nazi or a child-molester.

But it gets trickier with public figures, or if the speech is considered parody, etc.

In the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she is a semi-public figure, but not a politician or political leader, and the SPLC's designation of her as an "Anti-Muslim Extremist" was both wrong, and based on vague and capricious criteria (there is no science behind any of it--it is just a hit piece). The piece was not a parody. She could have sued.

Nawaz DID sue the SPLC and won 3.3 million

Southern Poverty Law Center Must Pay $3.3 Million After Falsely Naming Anti-Muslim Extremists | Law & Crime

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has been hit with a big payout after losing in a defamation lawsuit to Quilliam International and Maajid Nawaz, the founder of the organization. Nawaz objected to being mentioned in SPLC's "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists" and sued for defamation.

lawandcrime.com

And just like the Devil mixes lies with the truth, the SPLC's critique of the FRC is partly accurate, and partly false. They claim that the statement from the FRC that “The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes," is an attack on all LGBT people, when it is simply a factual claim: the scouts have had legal problems in the past due to child molesters.

The SPLC lives in that cesspool level of the Internet, and operates a grift by scaring Americans into giving them money in order to root out "extremists" --it is a hyper-partisan propaganda outlet.

By all means, fight against those who use their soapbox wrongly…but should the SPLC be taken down and made to cease operations altogether?