This is the first I have heard of people who choose to not have abortions because they believe it is murder described as a hate group, anywhere.

If you could show me where this position is stated on the SPLC website, it would help to support your speculation on the matter.

While the SPLC lists as hate groups some organizations that believe that abortion is murder, those groups seem to be on the list primarily due to being anti-gay.

Here is the list of ideologies that the SPLC sorts groups into. Attitudes about abortion don't seem to be a factor.

Well, since this thread has turned out to be about the SPLC, here is an interview with one of their experts on the topic of how the internet influences WS radicalization.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...on_martin.html

Excerpt.



Food for thought towards not ever giving free publicity to hate sites, even as a joke.

These hate sites are the most ignored aspect of racism in our society today and represents a huge conflict in regards to free speech. They do not get discussed because people obviously do not want to advertise this sort of stuff but at the same time ignoring it is not necessarily working. There is no easy way to combat them with out significant free speech issues arising.


There are normally three kinds of opinions when it comes to the white cop/black citizen media coverage.

1. The people who clamor about racism in our country and automatically assume the cop is doing what he is doing because of racial motivations

2. The racist who view the cop is doing the right thing by putting a black person in their place.

3. (the most critical) the people who do not see racism in these instances.

As evidence by my personal experience on this forum if you associate with three, you automatically get conflated with two. The problem is three can lead to racism. What generally occurs is some one, normally a young person, starts to rationalize why someone would say "its racist". A person who is not well-read or does not have a deep understanding of racial dynamics in the US will start to point to arbitrary reasons to try and explain the "its racist" crowd instead identifying the clear logical problems the "its racist" crowd has. This can lead to the white supremacist websites and an embracing of racist ideology.

Of course, there is a reason why people say these situations are racist and that is because of the historical implications but as I have argued that does not necessarily make these things racist. This is yet another issue with arbitrarily calling things racist.

Let me ask you about a hypothetical non-cop situation.

After years of working his way up from a bank's mail room, Joe is finally given a big raise and promoted to be on the bank's loan committee. At his first meeting, he's informed that the bank has an active 'wink, wink, nod, nod' policy of red-lining. That night he explains this to his wife Jane, and says he wants to quit working for that bank. Jane says "hell no, we need that raise to put our kids through college".

How would you feel if someone called Jane a racist?

I do not think we can determine if Jane is a racist or not. I can certainly understand why some would say she is racist but the reality is her motivations is one of practicality rather than some belief in her families racial superiority.

EDIT: What would you feel like if Jane were black?

OK VG. I do have a point, and I promise to get to it. If you don't mind, however, I'd like to ask you another hypothetical...

Let's imagine there's good reason to believe this bank's red-lining policy is profitable. How would you feel if someone called this bank racist?

ETA: As far as I'm concerned, Jane's race isn't relevant.

Same problem. Their discriminatory practices is for profit, not some racial superiority. The entire problem is discrimination, not racism. Racism is an equivocation that does not address the cause and is effectively a red herring. Need to make it not profitable or illegal to profit off of racial discrimination

Edit: because it unfairly disadvantages an already disadvantaged group.

I said assume the red-lining was profitable. I didn't say assume that's why the bank was doing it. What if some red-lining bank's CEO was out-of-the-closet regarding his personal feelings of racial superiority.

How would you feel if that bank was called racist?

Racist.

I assume you mean you'd also call that bank racist?

My point is this:

You aren't using your words the same way as others do. When others say "Jane's racist" they aren't trying to convey information like: "In Jane's secret inner heart she hates the victims of this red-lining. That's why she spoke as she did".

That's not the kinda information they're trying to convey at all. And you are correct, any of these kinda assertions about what may or may not be in someone else's secret inner heart are ultimately gibberish. People lie... even to themselves. How can anyone really know?

Reasonable, you should assume that when people are speaking in the context of civil rights, for example see the writings of M.King Jr, they aren't speculating about what may or may not be in this or that person's secret inner heart. They aren't spewing gibberish.

My advice in a parable:

My dog & me often sit at the bar watching sports. One of the sports we watch is the one with the oblong ball, which has a Super Bowl every year. Another is the one with the round ball, which has a Worlds Cup every four years. Now pretty much everyone calls the oblong ball game 'football', and the round ball game 'soccer'.

But not the dude from Wales. The dude from Wales will derail any sports conversation where the word 'football' is used to refer to the oblong ball game, or the word 'soccer' is used at all.

Don't be the dude from Wales.

There is a difference between conversation in a sports bar and a political forum. In a political forum you are not really discussing things in passing, its more nuanced. The white cop/black citizen has deeper issues than just racism or discrimination.

The other side of the equation is it takes two sides to argue. If it was a matter of semantics people would not defend their use of racism as passionately as some do here. Its obvious to me some use the term to incite or provoke a response and get upset or annoyed when they get it. People who use the term off-hand as you suggest do not call people racist for correcting them on its proper use. I do not bring it up for semantics.

Using a partial definition of a word is something that happens in politics, as well as, bars.

Braves,

I don't see hate sites becoming a free speech issue. It is a challenge that has free speech solutions, but there really is no silver bullet.

Given. But what I'm discussing is at a deeper level. A level below issues of the venue, method, topic, or the seriousness of the conversation.

If the dude from Wales (who's a great dude, and a knowledgeable fan of both games in question) starts talking about 'football', I'm faced with a quandary. I can just continue the conversation without comment, because I know he's referring to the round ball game. Or... I can ask him to clarify which sport he's referring to... which I know will cause him to go off in the conversational weeds over the what the 'official' definition of the word 'football' is.

OTOH, if I wanna talk about the round ball game, and I simply refer to it as "Association Football", or if I wanna talk about the oblong ball game, and I simply refer to it as "Gridiron", things work out just fine. Or, I can just use the word 'soccor' or the unqualified word 'football'... which I know will cause him to go off in the conversational weeds over the what the 'official' definition of this or that word is again.

The proverbial Dude-Raised-by-Wolves won't know why the peeps who call Jane racist do so. But he would reasonably be able to assume it wasn't because of this gibberish about the secret inner heart. It would be reasonable for a Dude-Raised-by-Wolves to ask those calling Jane racist to explain what they are trying to say.

It's never reasonable to derail the conversation, arguing over what the official definition of this or that word is.

Well, this is another thing that Dude-Raised-by-Wolves wouldn't be aware of. It turns out here in reality that the peeps who profit from redlining, etc, would like to keep their profits. Also, regrettably, there's a sizable demographic of peeps who feel racially superior. Together, there's a little game they play... called 'Tone Policing'.

That's where they'll systematically try to derail any conversation of the overall and underlying problems which have symptoms like red-lining, unequal pay for equal work, eco-genicide, mass incarcerations, and systematic suppression of the rights to organize, assemble, speak, or travel... largely by starting to argue about the one true definition of this or that word, blah, blah, blah.

It's this shiz, the shiz that goes on IRL, that explains peeps passion. Don't take it personally or as a provocation.

OK, I'll bite... why do you bring it up?

Because most of the stuff that exist is because of racism/discrimination but its not the reason they persist. Think about this....over the past 10-15 years how many problems facing minorities that get raised in the mainstream media get drowned out by the race discussion?

Do not get me wrong, there is some ****ed up racist **** going down....but majority of the issues facing minorities today will not be solved by pointing to purportedly racist ****....that you will never be able to distinguish anyways.

You look at an overwhelming amount of studies about different issues very rarely will they say racism is the reason these issues persist and in fact they point to other non-racial factors as the reason these issues persist.

The "its racist" mantra obfuscates from these other issues and its annoying because saying something is racist, when you cant prove it, accomplishes nothing and minorities still face these gaps.

The only thing that the SPLC is champion of is stirring up hate and fear. But the stooges that work there are completely without credit; or so says the FBI.

They do good work ensuring due process in death penalty cases.

I do not either but they will continue unabated.

Their founder played a big role bankrupting some of the the klan back in the day.

The recent work countering debtor-style jail practices has significantly changed how my nearest town does that sort of business.

I have notice the stronger the bad opinion of the SPLC, the more likely the person with the opinion is clueless about what they really do.

This is usually what racists/conservatives say about them, minus nuthugging the FBI.