Southern Poverty Law Center in a Credibility Crisis

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

I did not cite myself as a source in support of an argument. I quoted a previous argument instead of restating it.

I did not cite sources in that argument, but the facts of that argument are not in dispute, and that does not appear to be the issue of contention anyway.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

By all means, what information presented is incorrect?

I noted recent attempts by conservative groups to discredit the SPLC in my previous post. Unfortunately for them, the SPLC makes the reasons for its extremist group designations publicly available. Anyone can see why a group received a particular designation, and the process by which to challenge that designation if they disagree.

Moreover, the FBI currently lists its partnership with the SPLC on its website, i.e. right now, not "decades ago."

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

Indeed, but shhh...let the leftists continue to cite it. It is a good way to measure credibility. The more a person tries to argue the SPLC are credible the more we know not to pay attention.

People could avoid the credibility issue quite easily by, instead of citing the SPLC, cite the specific evidence they claim shows a hate group is a hate group. That way the evidence speaks for itself as opposed to just citing a shady organization, because it's entirely meaningless to cite that place outside of liberal echo chambers.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.

No thats not what you did, you used yourself as a source. I simply find it amazing you are incapable of making a single post that isn't either an outright lie, misrepresentation of the truth or facts of any given situation, story or scenario.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

#fckingownedadam

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not cite myself as a source in support of an argument.

Yes, yes you did. Try harder

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, what information presented is incorrect?

99% of the things you post are incorrect or flat out lies.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Moreover, the FBI currently lists its partnership with the SPLC on its website, i.e. right now, not "decades ago."

Wrong the FBI removed them as a partner, keep lying.

Originally posted by Sable
Yes, yes you did. Try harder

Someone is trying hard, but it is not me.

Originally posted by Sable
99% of the things you post are incorrect or flat out lies.

Originally posted by Sable
Wrong the FBI removed them as a partner, keep lying.

Despite the February 3, 2017 date of the Daily Caller (LOL) article, it is actually reposted from 2014.

It notes a site organization change, moving the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center from a section for internal government resources to a section for external government partnerships.

It was widely-publicized by The Blaze, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and WorldNetDaily as evidence that the FBI was ending its relationship with the SPLC in response to criticism from right-wing groups.

And it was celebrated by a number of extreme anti-LGBT organizations, including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council that have long resented the SPLC for labeling them anti-LGBT hate groups.

However, the claim that the FBI is ending its relationship with the SPLC is false.

Not only does the FBI continue to list the SPLC as a partner on its website, but an FBI spokesperson released an official statement in response to the article, stating that the FBI removed the ADL and the SPLC from that section of the site, because they wanted it to be for government-only resources, and they did not want the any partners not listed on that page to feel left out.

But congratulations on falling for fake news.

Sure if you say so, tell me why they are sending money off shore then. I would like to hear your long and detailed explanation and deflecting this one on how its ok and why you agree with it.

Public Outreach: The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of University Women, Anti-Defamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others.

I will congratulate you on being right for once, but let me ask you this, why are there so many civil rights organizations and this is the tip of the ice berg, it really seems they have partnered with every single CRO possible, reading over this list, it looks like a conglomeration of people who feel they are victims of living in America.

And does the FBI partnering with all of these CRO's someone validate them as 100% legit? After all I bet most of this happen under Obama, the king of community organizing.

The FBI's reputation is not only been shot to shit, but it was politicized under the BO admin more then anyone else since Hoover was in command. I take their "partnerships" with a grain of salt.

If the FBI actually take the SPLC seriously that is just yet another reason for the general public not to take the FBI seriously.

I stopped taking the FBI serious after Clinton was exonerated before the investigation even began.

Originally posted by Sable
I stopped taking the FBI serious after Clinton was exonerated before the investigation even began.

If he does nothing else one great thing President Trump has accomplished more than any president in a long time is getting people to show their true colors lol. It is utterly delightful to see the man be able to bring that out in people. As a result of their reaction to him the narrative of Democrats being morally superior to Republicans has forever been shattered lol.

Likewise the massive surge in SJW's and identity politics because of Trump has caused them to become overexposed to the point their idiocy can no longer be ignored.

He also emboldened Antifa, forcing them to show their true colors even more than they had in the past.

He showed some of the people we have in our intelligence agencies are nothing more than children in adult bodies.

Thanks Trump, your presidency may only last 4 years, but the internet(and thus documentation of the utter breakdown of the left that has occurred during this time) will be around a lot longer 👆

See, the SPLC would be a more credible source regarding it's list of extremist hate organisations if it'd actually note down organisations from both sides of the political divide rather than focusing solely on one side - that side being the right.

Even if they did do this, they are still flawed as, as people have already highlighted on this thread, they tend to list people whom have not performed any actions or launched any particular campaigns that can be considered "extremist", "hateful" or "violent".

Originally posted by RHaggis
See, the SPLC would be a more credible source regarding it's list of extremist hate organisations if it'd actually note down organisations from both sides of the political divide rather than focusing solely on one side - that side being the right.

Even if they did do this, they are still flawed as, as people have already highlighted on this thread, they tend to list people whom have not performed any actions or launched any particular campaigns that can be considered "extremist", "hateful" or "violent".

Well, I have not scoured every single thing on the list. I would surely hope that it's not 100% right wing groups. Even the staunchest liberal couldn't cite the SPLC with a straight face if that were true...could they?

The problem more comes with ignoring majorly violent and hateful groups while at the same time finding time to list people like liberal atheist feminists as extremists because they talk about the horrors of Islam and say it is not a religion of peace(this is a fact, it is not).

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not cite myself as a source in support of an argument. I quoted a previous argument instead of restating it.

"I did not cite myself. I only quoted myself with a link back to my original post that had no third party or original research as a citation." You should have been on Hillary Clinton's campaign team with this kind of bullshittery and double speak.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not cite sources in that argument,

I know you didn't...I just...we just...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
...but the facts of that argument are not in dispute, and that does not appear to be the issue of contention anyway.

It is, actually. I mean, you're not THAT obstinate, are you? More on this, later.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, what information presented is incorrect?

I noted recent attempts by conservative groups to discredit the SPLC in my previous post. Unfortunately for them, the SPLC makes the reasons for its extremist group designations publicly available. Anyone can see why a group received a particular designation, and the process by which to challenge that designation if they disagree.

Moreover, the FBI currently lists its partnership with the SPLC on its website, i.e. right now, not "decades ago."

Do you feel your position is dishonest as hell or do you believe your own bullshit?

2014, SPLC removed from the FBI as a resource (and the FOIA indicates it is definitely not about "feeling left out", at all. I don't think you read the article, at all):

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/exclusive-fbi-removed-splc-and-adl-from-civil-rights-resources-pages-because-of-a-number-of-concerns/

And this relationship has been in a passive-aggressive simmer. It's not as simple as stating "they are chums!" Because they are not. The relationship has been rocky and there are clearly documented credibility issues going on right now with them. Severe, factual, credibility issues. Denying that just makes you look like an idiot.

But, go ahead and pretend they are the best of intimate chums. Go ahead and pretend the relationship is intimate and close like it was decades ago.

And, Sable, don't be quick to throw in the towel just because the FBI still has them listed on one place on their site. The FOIA release clearly indicates there is more going on there than just simple "policies" about internal sources. Obviously, they won't be clear about it. Why would they? The quiet and truthful back room discussions won't show up in a FOIA release.

Oh I didn't throw in the towel, I was giving him a smug victory for stating that they have a "partnership" with the SPLC listed as their LAST ONE on their extremely long list. Without them offering any sort of explanation or details of what it actually means.

He understood that which is why he ran off.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, Sable, don't be quick to throw in the towel just because the FBI still has them listed on one place on their site. The FOIA release clearly indicates there is more going on there than just simple "policies" about internal sources. Obviously, they won't be clear about it. Why would they? The quiet and truthful back room discussions won't show up in a FOIA release.

Speaking of stuff like this, observe another reason not to trust the FBI:

FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents

Lack of public interest? Really? After the narrative for so long has been conservatives are obsessed with stuff about Hilary?

Originally posted by Surtur
Speaking of stuff like this, observe another reason not to trust the FBI:

FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents

Lack of public interest? Really? After the narrative for so long has been conservatives are obsessed with stuff about Hilary?

Let's be fair, the Democrats are interested, too. Specifically, the Berniecrats who were furious over Hillary's DNC nomination. Let's not forget that Democrats as we as Republicans dislike Hillary. Hillary lost the election because of the disenfranchised Democratic voters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's be fair, the Democrats are interested, too. Specifically, the Berniecrats who were furious over Hillary's DNC nomination. Let's not forget that Democrats as we as Republicans dislike Hillary. Hillary lost the election because of the disenfranchised Democratic voters.

Someone needs to set up a white house petition for this. If 100,000 signatures are gotten very quickly how can they still say nobody is interested?

(((SPLC)))

Originally posted by Surtur
Someone needs to set up a white house petition for this. If 100,000 signatures are gotten very quickly how can they still say nobody is interested?

At this point, I really don't give a shit about Hillary's e-mails. She's not the president. It doesn't matter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
At this point, I really don't give a shit about Hillary's e-mails. She's not the president. It doesn't matter.

My interest now more comes from...obviously there is interest lol. More than enough, so what are they so desperate to hide to the point of lying about the obvious interest? As far as excuses go it ranks up there with "it was just a weather balloon".