Southern Poverty Law Center in a Credibility Crisis

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit, you just cited yourself as a counter-argument as if your counter-argument addresses the point being made.

Were you drunk when you made this post?

Do you really believe your own bullshit? I think you do, actually...fear

Lol yeah I noticed that as well. I notice he is also defending a group that lists "Jihad Watch" as a hate group.

They called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an anti-muslim extremist lol. It is *hilarious* to see anyone try to say this group should be taken seriously.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I trust their assessments of hate groups... for the most part.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, look her up. They labeled her an extremist. Jihad Watch, look it up, labeled as a hate group.

Come back and tell me if you still trust this group. I realize you said you trust them "for the most part". Thing is, if they will spew nonsense about Jihad Watch and Ayaan Hirsi Ali being an anti-muslim extremist? Yeah, they are not to be taken seriously at all.

The way the left uses this place and cites them...they can't afford to be wrong, even once. Because of them paypal took action against Jihad Watch, the backlash made them change their minds, but it shows you the power this shitty group has. They need to go the way of the Dodo.

They will not go the way of the Dodo though, because lefties won't let it happen. It's the next best thing to shouting "racism!" to end a convo, you just shout about what the SPLC says about them.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I trust their assessments of hate groups... for the most part.

How is Jihad watch a hate group?

Originally posted by Sable
How is Jihad watch a hate group?

If you want something funny, this is from the SPLC page about Robert Spencer, the leader of JW. These are the quotes from him, I guess meant to show he is hateful:

"Osama [bin Laden]'s use of these and other [Koranic] passages in his messages is consistent … with traditional understanding of the Quran. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don't interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretative traditions that have moved them away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition."

Okay, nothing bad there. Perhaps the next thing they quote?

"Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers."

Well shit, okay...maybe third time is a charm? Surely the next one will be so hateful I view Hitler as the lesser of these two evils.

“Islam is not a religion of peace. It has an inherently political character that is being brought to the West by immigrants, and will cause more trouble in the future. The jihadists have not hijacked it. Peaceful Muslims should be encouraged but do not have a sufficiently influential voice in the Islamic world to allow them to be counted on. The jihadists will not be bought off by negotiations or concessions. This is the revival of a 1,400-year-old war, and we need to be prepared for the fact that it will not end anytime soon – and prepared to defend ourselves militarily and ideologically.”

Oh...I see. 3rd time is not a charm, then. Perhaps the next quote will argue their case bet--Oh. No more quotes than those 3. I see.

Also there is something else weird about the SPLC: I can't find Antifa listed anywhere.

Originally posted by Surtur
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, look her up. They labeled her an extremist. Jihad Watch, look it up, labeled as a hate group.

Come back and tell me if you still trust this group. I realize you said you trust them "for the most part". Thing is, if they will spew nonsense about Jihad Watch and Ayaan Hirsi Ali being an anti-muslim extremist? Yeah, they are not to be taken seriously at all.

The way the left uses this place and cites them...they can't afford to be wrong, even once. Because of them paypal took action against Jihad Watch, the backlash made them change their minds, but it shows you the power this shitty group has. They need to go the way of the Dodo.

They will not go the way of the Dodo though, because lefties won't let it happen. It's the next best thing to shouting "racism!" to end a convo, you just shout about what the SPLC says about them.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, for the most part indeed. True, the SPLC took a blow to its credibility by labeling Jihad Watch and especially Ayaan Hirsi Ali as hatemongers, but that doesn't mean that the whole organization is now irrelevant.

Or as I point out in my other post...Antifa is nowhere to be found there lol. That right there is reason enough for me. Especially after this:

Originally posted by Surtur
I have a theory as to why. I have noticed a pattern in the last week or so where out of nowhere people on the left are coming out against Antifa. At first you might think it was just the recent stuff at Berkeley, but nothing happened there that Antifa had not been captured on video tape in the past doing.

I wondered why, and now I wonder if maybe they had a heads up about this:

FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks

They do try to blame Trump for some of it of course, but this is pretty much the nail in the coffin when it comes to any defense of Antifa. Their actions were classified as "domestic terrorist violence" by the DHS. Done and done.

I wonder if Antifa will now be added?

The problem with adding Antifa groups in there is how decentralized and lacking in actual leadership they are. The SPLC catalogues groups that have at least some sort of cohesion and stated ideology.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The problem with adding Antifa groups in there is how decentralized and lacking in actual leadership they are. The SPLC catalogues groups that have at least some sort of cohesion and stated ideology.

They want to tear down the US, they are communists.

They could add, at the very least, Boston Antifa. Who admitted to being communists. Flat out lol.

They won't do so, of course.

Originally posted by Surtur
They want to tear down the US, they are communists.

They could add, at the very least, Boston Antifa. Who admitted to being communists. Flat out lol.

They won't do so, of course.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Which ones, though? Maybe a group like Redneck Revolt, but these Antifa groups are so multifarious and decentralized that trying to catalogue them would be a quixotic task. On top of that, most of them don't even espouse violence.

Boston Antifa lol. It's what they call themselves, it is their twitter handle and what they are called on their facebook page. Can't see what would be too difficult about putting them on the list, other than just leftist bias.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I trust their assessments of hate groups... for the most part.

Originally posted by Surtur
Boston Antifa lol. It's what they call themselves, it is their twitter handle and what they are called on their facebook page. Can't see what would be too difficult about putting them on the list, other than just leftist bias.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yes, they could. I guess it's partly due to SPLC's left-wing bias and them not wanting to open up a massive can of worms when it comes to all the various Antifa groups.

So they are willing to point out Groups that Do Wrong...unless it will cause to many problems???

Yeah. That sounds like a Typcial Leftist Thought Process.

😱

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit, you just cited yourself as a counter-argument as if your counter-argument addresses the point being made.

Were you drunk when you made this post?

Do you really believe your own bullshit? I think you do, actually...fear

Hey, idiot. This subject was raised in another thread, and I addressed it there. The participants did not respond to my retort, and then this thread was created. So instead of allowing them to conveniently ignore my post, I quoted it again for them here. There is no sense in composing a new post, when the previous one composed in response to the same subject is still perfectly good, and went ignored.

Well I mean the thing is, of course they get them for the most part, it's not hard to categorize obvious hate groups that openly self-identify around said ideology as hate groups.

"Well at least they can correctly label openly white supremacist groups, the KKK, the WBC, stormfront, etc. as hate groups" doesn't really strike me as a valid defense for them egregiously accusing people of being extremists or hatemongerers without anything to back up that assertion.

Obviously if you cast your net so wide as to categorize a jihadi watch group and a muslim critical of mainstream Islam as anti-islam extremists, you're going to catch the actual hate groups in that net as well.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well I mean the thing is, of course they get them for the most part, it's not hard to categorize obvious hate groups that openly self-identify around said ideology as hate groups.

"Well at least they can correctly label openly white supremacist groups, the KKK, the WBC, stormfront, etc. as hate groups" doesn't really strike me as a valid defense for them egregiously accusing people of being extremists or hatemongerers without anything to back up that assertion.

Obviously if you cast your net so wide as to categorize a jihadi watch group and a muslim critical of mainstream Islam as anti-islam extremists, you're going to catch the actual hate groups in that net as well.

Exactly, which is why I think if someone is going to cite the SPLC for something the first step is: slap yourself. Then, if you still want to cite it, look at what the SPLC says warrants the group being seen as a hate group. If it's BS? Do not cite them.

Remember: these people had Ben Carson on there at one time lol. They still, as of now, have a liberal atheist feminist on there, which is like a leftist wet dream, but she dares to talk about Islam so she is cast out of Eden so to speak.

You also want to see something funny? This is from wiki, I admit it, but I have heard this talked about in other places too(Steven Crowder), I am still not saying it is true, but:

"In 1986, the entire legal staff of the SPLC, excluding Dees, resigned as the organization shifted from traditional civil rights work toward fighting right-wing extremism."

True it was a long time ago, but it really isn't a good sign if true, and they have gotten worse.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Hey, idiot. This subject was raised in another thread, and I addressed it there.

So that magically changes the fact that you cited yourself to support your argument? It does not matter that you did it in the old thread or the new: you still tried to cite yourself in this thread...which is simply asinine. At least your "opponents" cite something...even if it is rubbish right-winger bullshit at times.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no sense in composing a new post, when the previous one composed in response to the same subject is still perfectly good, and went ignored.

Or you could...like...post anything at all that was credible to support your point then or even when you requotted yourself. They were smart: they didn't respond to a non-credible comment. There is a certain right-winger who posts frequent bullshit: why don't you respond to every one of his posts? Exactly. Usually, bullshit gets ignored.

I just thought your bullshitty post was a bit more bullshitty than normal since it is very easy to prove that they are going through some credibility issues recently. Even your point, which is not something I will entertain beyond this, is silly: your point relies on the FBI's opinion of them from multiple decades ago.

Edit - And why of all the things I've called you out on, lately, this is the one thing that got a response? This is definitely one of the shittiest arguments you've made, of the ones I've responded to, and you want to defend this one for some reason.

Edit 2 - I think the problem is, you've been arguing with some shitheads for so long that you've gotten lazy and do not put effort in. And I'm still expecting you to maintain a higher quality argumentation and posting style.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]So they are willing to point out Groups that Do Wrong...unless it will cause to many problems???

Yeah. That sounds like a Typcial Leftist Thought Process.

😱 [/B]

Now, you shouldn't take my post as some sort of a wholesale defense of SPLC. They've really shown where their biases lie when they declared Hirsi Ali to be an extremist, and I'm not denying that.

The fact that SPLC doesn't track BAMN is also a blow to its credibility.