shopify analytics tool

NeoNotes — SPLC

The intention of the SPLC may be noble, but for too long they have been treated as THE Authority. Not so much by the FedGov anymore, but certainly by the press. In the last couple of decades or so, some of the groups identified as "hate groups" haven't been about "hate" as much as they have been about attention and "politics we don't agree with." Sometimes that has included "religion we don't like."

No one person and no one group has all the answers. No one group should be vested with THE moral authority to decide who is and is not a hate group.

The SPLC needs competition.



I know of some libertarian and conservative groups who were labeled "hate groups." I won't list them here, but I will say they weren't hate groups. It has happened enough that I question the SPLC's judgment. There are people who aren't misogynist, racist, or homophobic AND who do not advocate violence, yet have been labeled. Under today's political rules, the accusation is more than enough to ruin lives.



Well, to start with, violence should be a major factor in determining who is a "hate group" or not. Criminal activity (mala in se and not mala prohibita) should be another factor. So that is at least two distinctions that the SPLC should use to break out groups but does not. I'd argue that violence is worse than property damage, but I'd settle for breaking the law.

The SPLC says that the number of hate groups expanded 65% between 2000 and 2010. What they don't tell you is that the SPLC changed the definition. What they also don't tell you is that the number of "hate crimes" as defined by the FBI fell 25% between 1996 and 2009.

Gods, I really REALLY dislike that phrase "hate crime."

There really are differences between pro-life Christian ministries and the KKK, between privately organized militias and the Nation of Islam.

Do I support these groups? No. But as long as they haven't broken any mala in se laws, why should I care? I don't support the morass of consumerism that happens every December either, but I am not going to tell people they are not allowed to mention Christmas in polite company.

ETA: What's the difference between me alleging someone isn't a hate group and the SPLC saying they are? Until people from that group break the law, shouldn't they be allowed to say and believe as they choose?



Banning and censoring was never my concern.

By the standard you just outlined, the SPLC should be called a hate group too. Indeed, some conservatives have started doing exactly that.

As I said before, no one group should be vested with THE moral authority to decide who is and is not a hate group. That is precisely what has happened with the SPLC. Mark Potok even said that there was hypocrisy in attacking conservative groups while ignoring the behavior of liberal groups that use the same tactics.
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

blog comments powered by Disqus
2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005