please explain to me

[flockofseagulls104]

For those who may be wondering, here is SPLC's definition of a hate group. The Family Research Council appears to fit readily within that definition. --Bob

In perusing the FRC's website, I found that their core values are Life, Family and Marriage and Religious Freedom. Hateful values, to be sure. They apparently are against abortion and believe it is tantamount to the taking of a life, which can be construed as murder. ( they didn't say that, I'm just translating for myself). For that alone they should be considered a hate group, right? But added to that they don't consider a marriage valid unless it is between a man and a woman. They are a bit behind the times here. Obama, Clinton and most of the greatest minds of our time have been quoted in the past saying the same thing. But , regardless, holding a different perspective on any issue the left endorses is the very definition of hate. Then they are all-in for religious freedom, another hateful concept. Like all right thinking people, they should denounce religious freedom
I searched and searched on their site, but I could not find the expected references to killing, assaulting or otherwise threatening anyone who opposes their values. But it must be there somewhere. Probably dog whistles. I've lost the upper end of my hearing, so I probably didn't catch them.
Yup. Another despicable hate group! Antifa, that wonderful love group, will deal with them at some point if they haven't already. Meanwhile, let's all boycott Chik- fil-A.

[flockofseagulls104]

For those who may be wondering, here is SPLC's definition of a hate group. The Family Research Council appears to fit readily within that definition. --Bob

And based on that, the SPLC should be on that list as well. Ironic.

Yep. As predicted fewer than a dozen posts above. Counterattack by claiming (without evidence) that the group naming names is itself a hate group. --Bob

Bobby is actually right in this case. A First! The SPLC's definition of a hate group does NOT include vilifying or harassing people based on their political affiliation. So they are free to go on doing what they have been doing for years since they abandonded their original mandate, which was valid and useful at the time.

[BackInTex]

For those who may be wondering, here is SPLC's definition of a hate group. The Family Research Council appears to fit readily within that definition. --Bob

And based on that, the SPLC should be on that list as well. Ironic.

Yep. As predicted fewer than a dozen posts above. Counterattack by claiming (without evidence) that the group naming names is itself a hate group. --Bob

You predicted someone would say something truthful and correct? You should open up your own fortune telling business. Such talent.

You posted the evidence. But I realize you sometimes can't see the forest or the trees, so here:

The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. ...

The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity

1) This is an official statement of the SPLC
2) The SPLC maligns many organizations based on their religious (and scientific) beliefs.

[Bob78164]

And based on that, the SPLC should be on that list as well. Ironic.

Yep. As predicted fewer than a dozen posts above. Counterattack by claiming (without evidence) that the group naming names is itself a hate group. --Bob

You predicted someone would say something truthful and correct? You should open up your own fortune telling business. Such talent.

You posted the evidence. But I realize you sometimes can't see the forest or the trees, so here:

The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. ...

The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity

1) This is an official statement of the SPLC
2) The SPLC maligns many organizations based on their religious (and scientific) beliefs.

Cute. Because they call out intolerance even if religion is used as the excuse for the intolerance, you claim they are intolerant of religion. Not so. It's not the religious beliefs per se they are calling out. It's the intolerance.

And there's nothing scientific about the beliefs of groups like the Family Research Council. Any more than there was anything scientific about the now-debunked efforts to inject "scientific creationism" into the classroom. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Yep. As predicted fewer than a dozen posts above. Counterattack by claiming (without evidence) that the group naming names is itself a hate group. --Bob

You predicted someone would say something truthful and correct? You should open up your own fortune telling business. Such talent.

You posted the evidence. But I realize you sometimes can't see the forest or the trees, so here:

The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. ...

The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity

1) This is an official statement of the SPLC
2) The SPLC maligns many organizations based on their religious (and scientific) beliefs.

Cute. Because they call out intolerance even if religion is used as the excuse for the intolerance, you claim they are intolerant of religion. Not so. It's not the religious beliefs per se they are calling out. It's the intolerance.

And there's nothing scientific about the beliefs of groups like the Family Research Council. Any more than there was anything scientific about the now-debunked efforts to inject "scientific creationism" into the classroom. --Bob

Your intolerance and hate for religion is duly noted.

[Bob78164]

You predicted someone would say something truthful and correct? You should open up your own fortune telling business. Such talent.

You posted the evidence. But I realize you sometimes can't see the forest or the trees, so here:



1) This is an official statement of the SPLC
2) The SPLC maligns many organizations based on their religious (and scientific) beliefs.

Cute. Because they call out intolerance even if religion is used as the excuse for the intolerance, you claim they are intolerant of religion. Not so. It's not the religious beliefs per se they are calling out. It's the intolerance.

And there's nothing scientific about the beliefs of groups like the Family Research Council. Any more than there was anything scientific about the now-debunked efforts to inject "scientific creationism" into the classroom. --Bob

Your intolerance and hate for religion is duly noted.

You have confused a hatred of religion with a refusal to allow others to impose their religious intolerance on the rest of us. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Cute. Because they call out intolerance even if religion is used as the excuse for the intolerance, you claim they are intolerant of religion. Not so. It's not the religious beliefs per se they are calling out. It's the intolerance.

And there's nothing scientific about the beliefs of groups like the Family Research Council. Any more than there was anything scientific about the now-debunked efforts to inject "scientific creationism" into the classroom. --Bob

Your intolerance and hate for religion is duly noted.

You have confused a hatred of religion with a refusal to allow others to impose their religious intolerance on the rest of us. --Bob

You mean imposed intolerance such as forcing a business to close? Where has that happened Bob, other than by those non-religious bigots you seem to side with?

[Bob78164]

Your intolerance and hate for religion is duly noted.

You have confused a hatred of religion with a refusal to allow others to impose their religious intolerance on the rest of us. --Bob

You mean imposed intolerance such as forcing a business to close? Where has that happened Bob, other than by those non-religious bigots you seem to side with?

Businesses don't get to use religion as an excuse only to serve whites, or to hire whites. At least, they haven't been allowed to do that since the Civil Rights Act passed in the 1960s. Before then, it was common, as illustrated recently in the movie Green Book.

Many states (but not yet the federal government) apply those same rules to businesses that want to discriminate against people on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. Those states are right and sooner or later the federal government will follow suit. You don't get to use your religion as an excuse to shut people out of the stream of commerce based on their gender identity or their sexual orientation. You don't get to hire and fire people (in those states) based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. And if you don't like that, don't go into business. --Bob

[BackInTex]

You have confused a hatred of religion with a refusal to allow others to impose their religious intolerance on the rest of us. --Bob

You mean imposed intolerance such as forcing a business to close? Where has that happened Bob, other than by those non-religious bigots you seem to side with?

Businesses don't get to use religion as an excuse only to serve whites, or to hire whites. At least, they haven't been allowed to do that since the Civil Rights Act passed in the 1960s. Before then, it was common, as illustrated recently in the movie Green Book.

Many states (but not yet the federal government) apply those same rules to businesses that want to discriminate against people on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. Those states are right and sooner or later the federal government will follow suit. You don't get to use your religion as an excuse to shut people out of the stream of commerce based on their gender identity or their sexual orientation. You don't get to hire and fire people (in those states) based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. And if you don't like that, don't go into business. --Bob

Like I said, your intolerance and hate, proud hate at that, is duly noted. But your intolerance goes beyond your hate for religion. It goes beyond common sense. Thus your denial that trans females should not be allowed to compete as and against girls.

I'm curious about your position on the Canadian trans female who is demanding females wax his testicles. Pervert or victim?

[Bob78164]

Thus your denial that trans females should not be allowed to compete as and against girls.

I haven't said that. I haven't even implied it.

So if religion should allow businesses to discriminate against employees or customers on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, why shouldn't religion also allow businesses to discriminate against employees or customers on the basis of race? Or on the basis of religion? Why shouldn't the owner of Chick-Fil-A get to say that he's only willing to hire Christians? --Bob

[BackInTex]

Thus your denial that trans females should not be allowed to compete as and against girls.

I haven't said that. I haven't even implied it.

Yes you have.

BiT, I don't care about the high-school athletics aspect of this discussion (although the obvious solution here is to let him compete as a boy, just like all the other boys get to)

So if religion should allow businesses to discriminate against employees or customers on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, why shouldn't religion also allow businesses to discriminate against employees or customers on the basis of race? Or on the basis of religion? Why shouldn't the owner of Chick-Fil-A get to say that he's only willing to hire Christians? --Bob

When religion is a key component of the job then I think religious positions and beliefs should be allowed for hiring. Religion does not factor into serving chicken sandwiches, but if it were a religious school or counseling business then consideration of religious beliefs should be allowed.

I believe businesses that serve the public should be allowed to present their preferred image to the public. Many businesses have dress and image standards. I think they should be allowed. I don't think a business should be forced to allow an employee to present in drag. It's not about the employee's freedom of expression.

And the Christian bakers, florists, artists, etc. that are being sued into financial ruin are not denying services to folks, they are only refusing to actively participate in the celebrations or use their creative talents to promote positions that go against their beliefs. The baker has and continues to sell to LGBT people. The same with the florist. But the radical haters targeted them (3 times now for the baker) knowing they would not get what they were asking.

BTW, what say you on the Canadian trans?

[Bob78164]

Thus your denial that trans females should not be allowed to compete as and against girls.

I haven't said that. I haven't even implied it.

Yes you have.

BiT, I don't care about the high-school athletics aspect of this discussion (although the obvious solution here is to let him compete as a boy, just like all the other boys get to)

Now you're changing the subject. That wasn't a discussion about a trans female. It was a discussion about a trans male. Unless I'm missing something, he should obviously be permitted to compete as a male.

Trans females are a harder problem, and I frankly don't care enough about high school athletics to give the matter much thought.

To a significant extent image standards are on their way out. It used to be that flight attendants could only be women and would have to convince someone that they were sufficiently attractive. Fortunately, that's more or less gone the way of the dodo.

And far too often, business owners use "image standards" or other similar vagaries as a pretext to indulge their prejudices. I can't see any reason, in this day and age, why owners should be able to require their employees to wear attire that the owner deems "gender appropriate." Particularly for the vast majority of positions that aren't public-facing.

But my fundamental point remains. You're calling SPLC a hate group because they are calling out the real hate groups on their bigotry and intolerance. A clear and growing majority of the American people firmly disagree with you about that. Most of those who are left have taken over the Republican Party, which is why the national Party, in the next couple of decades, will enjoy about as much influence as the California Republican Party enjoys now. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I haven't said that. I haven't even implied it.

Yes you have.

BiT, I don't care about the high-school athletics aspect of this discussion (although the obvious solution here is to let him compete as a boy, just like all the other boys get to)

Now you're changing the subject. That wasn't a discussion about a trans female. It was a discussion about a trans male. Unless I'm missing something, he should obviously be permitted to compete as a male.

Trans females are a harder problem, and I frankly don't care enough about high school athletics to give the matter much thought.

To a significant extent image standards are on their way out. It used to be that flight attendants could only be women and would have to convince someone that they were sufficiently attractive. Fortunately, that's more or less gone the way of the dodo.

And far too often, business owners use "image standards" or other similar vagaries as a pretext to indulge their prejudices. I can't see any reason, in this day and age, why owners should be able to require their employees to wear attire that the owner deems "gender appropriate." Particularly for the vast majority of positions that aren't public-facing.

But my fundamental point remains. You're calling SPLC a hate group because they are calling out the real hate groups on their bigotry and intolerance. A clear and growing majority of the American people firmly disagree with you about that. Most of those who are left have taken over the Republican Party, which is why the national Party, in the next couple of decades, will enjoy about as much influence as the California Republican Party enjoys now. --Bob

Trans females are a harder problem, and I frankly don't care enough about high school athletics to give the matter much thought.

That, I think, is one of your major problems, and a major problem for the left in general. You, and they, don't give much thought to matters they don't care about. They give all their attention to matters that they care about in the moment, and to hell with the unintended consequences.

bobby, I did a satirical post on the FRC. But seriously, in what way are they a 'hate' group? Who do they 'hate', specifically, and how have they harmed anyone in standing up for the values they believe in?

I believe SPLC is a hate group, because they overwhelmingly target conservative groups, and they are very arbitrary in what they consider 'hateful'. Dr. Ben Carson is the most famous example of their overreach. But there are many others. Like Maajid Nawaz. In many cases, it is equivalent to slander.

Read this, bobby, and tell me if the SPLC was fair to Mr. Nawaz. I don't want to hear 'right wing bias' from you or any of the trolls. And no weaseling, though I doubt you can resist it. Douglas Murray is a reporter and he is reporting on a subject that he has researched, just as any of your 'mainstream' reporters' who you mistakenly believe report without bias do. Given the fact the SLPC paid a good amount of money in the settlement, I would assume it's true, wouldn't you? And where was the coverage of this in the MSM? Not much, if any, and they, like you, still go to the SPLC for validation of your agendas. One 'mistake' by a conservative person or group invalidates them in your eyes. Why would you trust anything the SPLC reports on, based on this?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ ... jid-nawaz/

[mrkelley23]

Yes you have.

Now you're changing the subject. That wasn't a discussion about a trans female. It was a discussion about a trans male. Unless I'm missing something, he should obviously be permitted to compete as a male.

Trans females are a harder problem, and I frankly don't care enough about high school athletics to give the matter much thought.

To a significant extent image standards are on their way out. It used to be that flight attendants could only be women and would have to convince someone that they were sufficiently attractive. Fortunately, that's more or less gone the way of the dodo.

And far too often, business owners use "image standards" or other similar vagaries as a pretext to indulge their prejudices. I can't see any reason, in this day and age, why owners should be able to require their employees to wear attire that the owner deems "gender appropriate." Particularly for the vast majority of positions that aren't public-facing.

But my fundamental point remains. You're calling SPLC a hate group because they are calling out the real hate groups on their bigotry and intolerance. A clear and growing majority of the American people firmly disagree with you about that. Most of those who are left have taken over the Republican Party, which is why the national Party, in the next couple of decades, will enjoy about as much influence as the California Republican Party enjoys now. --Bob

Trans females are a harder problem, and I frankly don't care enough about high school athletics to give the matter much thought.

That, I think, is one of your major problems, and a major problem for the left in general. You, and they, don't give much thought to matters they don't care about. They give all their attention to matters that they care about in the moment, and to hell with the unintended consequences.

bobby, I did a satirical post on the FRC. But seriously, in what way are they a 'hate' group? Who do they 'hate', specifically, and how have they harmed anyone in standing up for the values they believe in?

I believe SPLC is a hate group, because they overwhelmingly target conservative groups, and they are very arbitrary in what they consider 'hateful'. Dr. Ben Carson is the most famous example of their overreach. But there are many others. Like Maajid Nawaz. In many cases, it is equivalent to slander.

Read this, bobby, and tell me if the SPLC was fair to Mr. Nawaz. I don't want to hear 'right wing bias' from you or any of the trolls. And no weaseling, though I doubt you can resist it. Douglas Murray is a reporter and he is reporting on a subject that he has researched, just as any of your 'mainstream' reporters' who you mistakenly believe report without bias do. Given the fact the SLPC paid a good amount of money in the settlement, I would assume it's true, wouldn't you? And where was the coverage of this in the MSM? Not much, if any, and they, like you, still go to the SPLC for validation of your agendas. One 'mistake' by a conservative person or group invalidates them in your eyes. Why would you trust anything the SPLC reports on, based on this?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ ... jid-nawaz/

I'm only responding to the last paragraph of your post, and only because you include the same canard that many of my Fox-addicted friends do: namely, that stories from sources like the National Review that are less than complimentary to the left are somehow ignored by the "MSM." (Again, how are they the mainstream media when so much of the country relies on Fox Opinion for their news?) I am not accusing you of relying on Fox. But I am accusing you of not doing due diligence when you make statements like the above. I did a cursory Google search in the 10 minutes I had left of my lunch period, and found similar stories in the Washington Post, Atlantic, and the Daily Beast, all published in the same time frame as the National Review column. And, if anything, some of them were even less complimentary of the SPLC than the NR reporter was.

[flockofseagulls104]

Now you're changing the subject. That wasn't a discussion about a trans female. It was a discussion about a trans male. Unless I'm missing something, he should obviously be permitted to compete as a male.

Trans females are a harder problem, and I frankly don't care enough about high school athletics to give the matter much thought.

To a significant extent image standards are on their way out. It used to be that flight attendants could only be women and would have to convince someone that they were sufficiently attractive. Fortunately, that's more or less gone the way of the dodo.

And far too often, business owners use "image standards" or other similar vagaries as a pretext to indulge their prejudices. I can't see any reason, in this day and age, why owners should be able to require their employees to wear attire that the owner deems "gender appropriate." Particularly for the vast majority of positions that aren't public-facing.

But my fundamental point remains. You're calling SPLC a hate group because they are calling out the real hate groups on their bigotry and intolerance. A clear and growing majority of the American people firmly disagree with you about that. Most of those who are left have taken over the Republican Party, which is why the national Party, in the next couple of decades, will enjoy about as much influence as the California Republican Party enjoys now. --Bob

Trans females are a harder problem, and I frankly don't care enough about high school athletics to give the matter much thought.

That, I think, is one of your major problems, and a major problem for the left in general. You, and they, don't give much thought to matters they don't care about. They give all their attention to matters that they care about in the moment, and to hell with the unintended consequences.

bobby, I did a satirical post on the FRC. But seriously, in what way are they a 'hate' group? Who do they 'hate', specifically, and how have they harmed anyone in standing up for the values they believe in?

I believe SPLC is a hate group, because they overwhelmingly target conservative groups, and they are very arbitrary in what they consider 'hateful'. Dr. Ben Carson is the most famous example of their overreach. But there are many others. Like Maajid Nawaz. In many cases, it is equivalent to slander.

Read this, bobby, and tell me if the SPLC was fair to Mr. Nawaz. I don't want to hear 'right wing bias' from you or any of the trolls. And no weaseling, though I doubt you can resist it. Douglas Murray is a reporter and he is reporting on a subject that he has researched, just as any of your 'mainstream' reporters' who you mistakenly believe report without bias do. Given the fact the SLPC paid a good amount of money in the settlement, I would assume it's true, wouldn't you? And where was the coverage of this in the MSM? Not much, if any, and they, like you, still go to the SPLC for validation of your agendas. One 'mistake' by a conservative person or group invalidates them in your eyes. Why would you trust anything the SPLC reports on, based on this?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ ... jid-nawaz/

I'm only responding to the last paragraph of your post, and only because you include the same canard that many of my Fox-addicted friends do: namely, that stories from sources like the National Review that are less than complimentary to the left are somehow ignored by the "MSM." (Again, how are they the mainstream media when so much of the country relies on Fox Opinion for their news?) I am not accusing you of relying on Fox. But I am accusing you of not doing due diligence when you make statements like the above. I did a cursory Google search in the 10 minutes I had left of my lunch period, and found similar stories in the Washington Post, Atlantic, and the Daily Beast, all published in the same time frame as the National Review column. And, if anything, some of them were even less complimentary of the SPLC than the NR reporter was.

Maybe so. I did not mention Fox News anywhere in my post. Regardless, the many critics of Fox News believe in their heart that they report false information on purpose. And they use that premise to discount anything Fox News may report that does not fit into their perspective. SPLC has reported many false things. But the same people who would refuse to believe a Fox report they don't agree with are still more than anxious to disseminate anything the SPLC says as fact if it fits their agenda, including many of those sources you cited that were critical of the SLPC. It didn't seem to affect their opinion of the SPLC overall as a source of truth.