MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam

A "hate group" list loved by the media is bogus.

There are dangerous hate groups in America. So a group called the Southern Poverty Law Center promises to warn us about them. They release an annual list of hate groups in America.

The media cover it, but John Stossel says they shouldn't. It's a scam.

It lists Ayaan Hirsi Ali—who grew up Muslim in Somalia and suffered female genital mutilation—as an "anti-Muslim extremist." Just because she now speaks out against radical Islam.

They also list the conservative Family Research Council as a "hate group."

That listing led a man to go to the Council's office to try to gun down their workers. The shooter later told law enforcement that he picked the group because he saw they were on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate map and he wanted to fight bigots.

Stossel disagrees with the Family Research Council on many issues. But he says they don't deserve to be called haters. The group's Executive Vice President, Jerry Boykin, tells him: "I don't hate gay people, and I know gay people, and I have worked with gay people."

Another group that the Southern Poverty Law Center smears is the Ruth Institute. The group argues that gays shouldn't have the same rights to adopt. But does that make them haters? No, says founder Jennifer Morse: "I have no problem with gay people. That's not the issue."

Other reporters, such as Megyn McArdle at Bloomberg, have also pointed out that the group is an odd fit for a "hate" list.

There are many non-hateful groups on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate list. But Antifa, which clearly is a hate group, is not on the list.

The Southern Poverty Law Center wouldn't talk to Stossel about their list. Stossel says screaming "hate!" brings in money.

Morris Dees, the Center's founder, pays himself nearly half a million dollars a year. Although Dees once promised that when the Center's endowment reached $50 million, he'd stop fundraising, he didn't stop. Now the Center has $320 million dollars stashed away -- much of it in the Cayman Islands. It's all in their tax returns.

Stossel notes that they still con people into giving them even more money. Apple gave them $1 million last year.

He says the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a hate group itself. It is now a left-wing, money grabbing, slander machine.

Produced by Maxim Lott. Edited by Joshua Swain.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tony||

    A group is not an antigay hate group because "I have a gay friend."

    Typical in-depth reporting from John Stossel.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    What's 'hate', Tony?

  • Tony||

    Not a fan of the word in this context, but if you think all gay people are inferior to or deserving of fewer rights than straight people, then it is what it is.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • Spinach Chin||

    There's no "right" to adopt children.

    You can be turned down for any number of reasons.

  • Rhywun||

    Yes, and there's no right not to be "hated" either.

  • JesseAz||

    Rhywun, this is what we call a circular argument.

  • Microaggressor||

    No, it's a distinction between positive and negative rights.

    The right to not be hated imposes a duty on others, which makes it a positive right. It conflicts with freedom of conscience, because now you aren't allowed to think a certain way.

    The more positive rights you create, the more you infringe on negative rights, which is why libertarians generally reject the idea.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Why not?

    While there is no "right" to be given a child in adoption, there is or ought to be a right of consideration, isn't there? Especially if the government is the one who gets to decide who may transfer guardianship of children, their monopoly ought to be counterbalanced with a right of equal consideration.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    "there is or ought to be a right of consideration, isn't there?"

    No.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Okay.

    Why not?

  • Steve Rezenda||

    You first. Your argument is "ought to be". You had a chance to clarify it. Please do so now.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    And, I do believe there was considersation. I'm not sure what type of other "consideration" you'rd looking for.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If government legal bars the transaction then no meaningful consideration is allowed. I believe this is what MJ is getting at.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    Well, meaningful has all kinds of definitions, that isn't particularly useful.

    More importantly, I shut up and got in line on the equal protection argument for marriage. I wanted to stand up and insist that, no, giving the government more power isn't the answer, getting them out of marriage entirely is.

    I never thought it would result in people going to jail, or being fined. That was my naivety.

    And that is on my conscience. I'm sorry, but if you want government out of adoption,I'm on board 100%. If you want to empower government to make the process more fair, I have seen how that goes and I have to say, no thank you.

  • Zeb||

    Wait, who went to jail? I guess there was that lady in KY who refused to do her job.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    "Wait, who went to jail? "

    What happens if the people being fined refuse to pay?

    Also, are you unfamiliar with Jack Phillips?

  • Zeb||

    Who is getting fined? Is this about cakes? That's a separate issue that would have existed with or without nation wide recognition of gay marriage (and in case there is any doubt, I don't believe anyone should be punished for refusing to do business with anyone for any reason).

  • Steve Rezenda||

    The arguments are the same.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    Zeb I don't know you, but it seems you're being wilfully obtuse or are vastly ignorant. Either way I don't see this going anywhere.

    Have a nice day.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    You're the one conflating national marriage recognition and anti-discrimination laws.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    No, actually, I'm saying empowering the government to decide fair is a bad outcome.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    "Decide fair"? What? Huh?

    What is it you think any of us are talking about? What is it you think the government does right now regarding adoption? And, whatever horrors you envision being unleashed by allowing homosexuals to be given equal consideration for adoption, realize that this is all an abstract philosophical discussion - because gay adoption is already legal in all 50 states.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    Ah, so you definitely haven't been reading or comprehending anything I've said.

    Good luck.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    When no one appears to comprehend you, the problem may be with you.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    Seems like it's just you bud.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    "What is it you think any of us are talking about?"

    YOU are specifically talking about empowering the government. That's not something I'm ok with. You are.

    I already told you, repeatedly, I will be an ally if you want them out of the process.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    My I should have asked, do you identify as a libertarian?

    It's possible I assigned positions related to libertarianism to you, when that is not your affiliation. If so, I apologize.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    "Decide fair"? What? Huh?

    their monopoly ought to be counterbalanced with a right of equal consideration

    What is that, if it isn't empowering the government to decide what is fair? Who will enforce that "right"? How will it be enforced?

    Am I being trolled?

    Dammit, I fall for that every time.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Yes, the government (specifically the courts) will decide what the parameters are, as it already does and will do so long as it exists, and I'm saying the parameters should be wider in the interests of liberty rather than narrowed in the interests of social engineering.

    In this case, it's enforced by not barring applications by homosexuals. Very simple, see? As I asked, what horrors do you imagine springing from this "empowerment"?

  • Steve Rezenda||

    "Yes, the government (specifically the courts) will decide what the parameters are, as it already does and will do so long as it exists, and I'm saying the parameters should be wider in the interests of liberty rather than narrowed in the interests of social engineering."

    Which brings me back to my original point. The same thing was said about gay marriage, and the resulting abuses have not, in my opinion, been worth the leveling of the marriage playing field.

    You clearly disagree, because you are ok with empowering the state in the name of fairness. I am not. My position is the libertarian one, as far as I can tell.

    And with that, I have dinner to make. Have a nice day.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    And, reading my post, I would like to emphasize, the status quo is not my preferred position. Removing government from the process entirely is.

  • Zeb||

    Um, you are the one who made some vague comment about people getting fines or going to jail after. I just asked for some clarification on what you were referring to.

    I'm not trying to be clever or be a dick. I'm asking what you meant. And your knowledge and intentions is something I am bound to be vastly ignorant of since I don't know you either.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    I think I've clarified that and I don't find my comments vague at all.

  • Zeb||

    What arguments are the same? Sorry, but you are being very vague here. That's why people are (perhaps) misunderstanding you.

    Are the arguments for gay marriage recognition the same as those for forcing people to make cakes? I don't think so.
    Are they the same as those for not forcing people to make cakes? I don't think they are that either.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    The argument is that empowering the government in order to enforce equal protection is a less Liberty enhancingcenario then removing government from the process entirely it perfectly parallels gay marriage and I have not been vague here I don't understand what you're having trouble with and frankly I think that you and MJ green are the same poster and you're trolling me have a nice day.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It seems like it would be straightforward for a libertarian: people have the liberty to transfer guardianship of children. Any regulation of this process and restriction of that liberty needs to have a rational basis. Equal consideration is the obvious corollary of that limitation on regulation, as assurance that individuals' liberties are not being violated without a good reason applicable to them. Perhaps that equal consideration proviso could be further chipped away, though that would require an even stronger basis for doing so. (e.g. children and the presently incarcerated are right out of consideration)

  • Steve Rezenda||

    I already addressed this above

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Addressed what?

    You're all over the place.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    No, I am not. I made exactly one argument.

    Have a nice day.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Your argument being "No," and then some unexplained reference to there being consideration by someone about something at sometime.

  • Steve Rezenda||

    Ah, you didn't read my post. Ok, well, good luck.

  • damikesc||

    It seems like it would be straightforward for a libertarian: people have the liberty to transfer guardianship of children.

    Parents can put in their wills who they wish to take care of the children should they pass and courts are quite deferential to their wishes.

    But when there is NO input from the parents, then the state has to decide.

  • JFree||

    But when there is NO input from the parents, then the state has to decide.

    That sort of parent-dies-intestate decision is not really a legislated decision. Common law has a very very long history - and judges will do almost anything to keep that child within their extended family - aunts/uncles/brothers/sisters/grandparents. Gay or not is irrelevant - the preexisting family relationship is everything. There are a ton of people whose parents died and were raised by their quietly lesbian aunt.

    Legislating some hierarchy in that instance is nothing but eliminating all common law precedent. Because it imposes a 'stranger' relationship as having rights of consideration over family.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    I can't speak for all states but in California at least there is no legal bar to gay couples adopting one or more children. They get the same consideration and go through the same vetting as do straight couples and single applicants. Some get through successfully, some don't.

    The Family Research Council thinks that gay couples should not get such consideration as they object on principle to gay couples adopting. I understand their position but living in an area where there are far too many children in foster care and far too few willing to provide a real home, I find it hard to argue that it's best to leave them in foster care rather than allow gay couples to adopt.

  • Spinach Chin||

    All other things being equal, should a transgender couple be given equal consideration as a "traditional" male/female couple?

  • JFree||

    I agree if the issue is - is GOVERNMENT the one that is deciding guardianship. And the reality is that government is now the entity deciding guardianship most often because most adoptions arise now out of foster care system not birth adoptions - 59% now out of foster, 26% foreign, 15% parental/maternal relinquishment.

  • fdog50||

    The law determines adoption. If it allows for gay persons to adopt a child, that is its decision. I personally think that is the correct thing to do. What would be wrong is for the state to prohibit an individual adoption agency from not handling adoptions to gay persons. This would be the same as if an agency established by a Catholic or Jewish religious groups would only handle adoptions to Catholic or Jewish families. Adoption agencies should be allowed to limit the people to whom they will place children.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Who even decides this stuff?

  • EscherEnigma||

    States, generally.

    Broadly speaking, it's like marriage itself. There's no constitutional requirement that a state or government body must grant or recognize marriage itself.

    But if it chooses to do so, then it cannot do so in a discriminatory fashion. The bounds of what counts as "discriminatory" is left up to the courts.

  • Zeb||

    There's no constitutional requirement that a state or government body must grant or recognize marriage itself.

    I think there is now. As I understand it, the court said that states must recognize and provide same sex marriage. They should have gone the equal protection route, but didn't.

  • Tony||

    There should be a right not to be discriminated against, all else being equal, because of your sexual orientation.

  • Spinach Chin||

    So an adoption should have social justice as the main consideration above the welfare of the child?

    Should a transgender couple be given equal consideration to a traditional male/female couple?

  • Tony||

    Obviously the idea is that gay parents are no less fit than straight parents.

    They're probably more fit on average.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No Tony, they are most certainly LESS fit on balance. I know you SJW homos have been fed that line of shit, but it's not true. You see, children need a MOMMY and a DADDY. Both fulfill important functions in child rearing. When you change this formula, the situation is less than ideal. This is why a functional straight couple should always have priority in adoption relative to gay couples or single parents.

    As usual, your ramblings are both progtarded and moronic (redundant, I know).

  • operagost||

    Polygamists should be PREFERRED for adoption, because what could be better than having a whole bunch of mommies and daddies!

    Oh, but government won't allow plural marriages. Huh. Wonder why "marriage rights" people won't help fix that.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So an adoption should have social justice as the main consideration above the welfare of the child?


    Nope.

    "Welfare of the child" should be #1, not "are the to-be parents heterosexual". All the bans on gay parents that have been overturned? Put "heterosexual parents" above "welfare of the child".

    And this is quite obvious if you look at any of the court cases on this issue. In case after case, almost everyone involved agreed the gay parent(s) was the best choice to adopt the kid. But either a single judge (as in the 2015 Utah case) or the state law (as in the 2010 Florida case) prevented the adoption that was in the best interest of the child.

    Which shouldn't be surprising: when you add irrelevant bans to your criteria, sometimes you'll rule-out the best choice.

  • Mark22||

    There should be a right not to be discriminated against, all else being equal, because of your sexual orientation.

    Government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on irrelevant criteria.

    Private individuals, companies, and organizations should have the right to discriminate on whatever grounds they like.

  • Mark22||

    There's no "right" to adopt children.

    For a libertarian, there is a right to adopt without government interference. That is, if the current guardians and the adoptive parents agree, then the state shouldn't interfere.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    What if two addicts are selling their young son to a couple of pedophiles? Children aren't private property.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, who is most certainly a NAMBLA enthusiast, believes he has a right to all the young boyflesh he can handle.

  • Brian||

    You have been certified an official "Enemy of Freedom" by the Official Law Counsel Office of Freedom Center.

    Please report to the disintegration chamber.

  • JesseAz||

    A) Who described them as inferior?
    B) Adoption isn't a right, it never has been. Do drug users have a right to adopt as well? Convicted felons? The group in question can point to multiple studies showing a bigender parent household does have improved outcomes generally. It isn't a case by case study, but statistical nonetheless. The correct venue if you disagree with the group is to attack their studies with counter studies.

  • Dan S.||

    It took a while to parse that adjective as "bi-gender" rather than "big-ender".

  • plusafdotcom||

    yeah, that hyphen really would have helped...

    But Jesse seems to be trying to say that Being Allowed To Adopt a child is a 'right' rather than "Being Allowed to APPLY to adopt a child is a right."

    Anyone (or two) should and must have the "right to Apply" to be an adoptive parent or couple, irrespective of anything and everything. Limits excluding current drug users or convicted felons are probably reasonable, as the 'owner' of those labels could probably be shown to be not the most capable of making great decisions as a parent.

    But to exclude any one or two people (or more?) based on sexual preference (gender inclination) alone has no rational basis. I think pretty much anyone who makes that kind of generalization would consider ANY evidence to the contrary to be "anecdotal," which is why they're probably immune to data that conflicts with their beliefs.

    Which, in itself, makes their 'argument' a matter of Belief and not of Facts.

  • BYODB||

    Honestly, this is one of the times that the Tony stopped clock is correct. There are tons of children needing adoption, and frankly a gay couple literally can't be any worse than a foster home or orphanage.

    It's akin to saying that just because a couple is into BDSM they can't adopt. It just doesn't make logical sense unless you think that because of one kink it automatically means that they're into pedophilia.

    That is not a logical conclusion.

  • EscherEnigma||

    It's akin to saying that just because a couple is into BDSM they can't adopt. It just doesn't make logical sense unless you think that because of one kink it automatically means that they're into pedophilia.
    It's good that you bring up pedophilia, because FRC explicitly argues that gay people are trying to adopt because we're all pedophiles. In fact, if you actually look at the SPLC's page on the FRC, it's that pedophilia accusation that really cements their seat as they've been flogging that dead horse for decades.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Seems like the most logical argument from that would be that only lesbians can adopt boys, and only gay men can adopt girls. Because I've met enough kids molested by their heterosexual parents to question whether if gay people are really meaningfully more molesty. Or, more importantly, is it any statistically more significant to the point that it outweighs the very real impact of being raised in foster care rather than adopted.

  • BYODB||


    Or, more importantly, is it any statistically more significant to the point that it outweighs the very real impact of being raised in foster care rather than adopted.


    That's the money shot.

    Foster care is demonstrably awful, so I'm not terribly inclined to give fucks about gay people that want to adopt. Even if they do molest children, we've already established that the heterosexual couples in the foster system already do that and those are the couples who were approved by the state.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Gay men are more 'molesty', but as they are only about 1% of the population, there are far more heterosexual pedos (interns of raw numbers).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Honestly, this is one of the times that the Tony stopped clock is correct.

    It hurts.

  • Barbara Yarhead||

    Yep. Gonna have to agree with Tony on this one. I oppose gay marriage because I oppose all state-sanctioned marriage, but I remain unconcerned about the real or imagined horrors of gay adoption.

    I will probably always be homophobic, because it appears to mean not being neutral or enthusiastic about gay sex. This is why I just avoid interactions with the gays. I'd rather avoid hanging around people who think I hate them. If you are that intolerant of my "intolerance", it's best we not interact.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If it makes you feel better. Most gay people I've met are not any more particularly uppity than others. Sassier though.

  • BYODB||

    I prefer lesbians over gay men for the simple reason that hanging out with lesbians is basically like hanging out with a bunch of guys. With gay men it's like hanging out with a lot of women, which is something I already don't particularly enjoy. There's something about ceaseless gossip that makes me want to choke a person.

  • Barbara Yarhead||

    I do like an occasional dose of Milo. I like my gays metaphorically flaming.

  • operagost||

    Actually, most state child services reps (if not all) inspect the houses of the prospective parents, and if they saw a BDSM chamber I'd say many would unilaterally reject. I mean, many of these departments flat out deny you if you're overtly religious or own firearms.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Yeah, that begs the question: would a conservative "nuclear family is required" advocate rather see a kid go to a single parent, or to a gay married couple?

  • Paper Wasp||

    Groups of people who think "gay people are inferior to or deserving of fewer rights than straight people" have a right to exist. I'm not among them, but TBH, I've never been clear on what SPLC's point is, besides to collect fat stacks of proggie white-guilt money.

    Even if the groups tarred with SPLC's brush were, in fact, hate groups...so what? They still have a right to exist and believe what they want and promote what they want. What even is a "hate group"?

    SPLC pulls this term "hate group" out of their ass, slaps it on groups of people who don't agree with targeted prog principles and assumptions, and then what?

    SPLC defined Pepe the Frog as a "symbol of hate" last year because some white boys used it on conservative-leaning forums. Never mind that the cartoonist who drew Pepe protested that the character had nothing to do with white supremacy or politics at all. The SPLC is a bunch of intolerant axe-grinders who need to stop huffing their own farts.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Right to exist? Sure.

    Right to exist without having their quotes gathering in one place with a big pointing sign saying "these guys are assholes and bigots"? Not so much.

    And as much as some folks whine about the SPLC, that's all they're really doing. Compiling quotes, documenting history, and pointing a big neon sign saying "bad dudes" at it.

  • silver.||

    This is compelling to me. They've no more or less right to exist than the groups they admonish. I don't like how much power they wield, and that's really the only issue that I have. I don't know how to fix it. Words are potent. "Hate groups" can have real power, too. I think that this is one of those infinite grey areas where I just have to apply Peter McWilliams' generalization, "people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their person or property so long as they do not harm the person or property of a non-consenting other."

    Whether I think the hate groups' messages are wrong, whether I think the SPLC is wrong for criticizing them, and whether I think think Reason is wrong for criticizing them isn't relevant. They all have a right to be heard.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Did I say the SPLC didn't have a right to exist? Nah, I just said they're full of shit. I was responding to Tony's vague and weak definition of "hate".

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    The SPLC is doing the same thing you and Stossel are doing: voicing their displeasure with the work of certain organizations.

  • Microaggressor||

    And they have every right to do that.

    However, the next time some media entity cites them as an authority on anything, you can safely discard the notion that they are an impartial reporter of truth, but more like a partisan activist organization.

  • James Smith||

    more the problem is that an organization on the SPLC list faces consequences by being on the list.
    The FBI used it for classifying groups. Guidestar used to flag these organizations on their website. I think I remember seeing that some local governments wouldn't allow these groups to rent or utilize state owned facilities like conference centers, or something along those lines. I'm sure there's more.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, FRC has been less of a cause of violence than SPLC.

    In fact, virtually all of the "hate" groups have caused less violence than SPLC.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And that is the whole point of SPLC. To direct the violent works of their fellow travelers. Much in the same way that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are connected to terror organizations , it do not engage in such activities themselves.

  • Slocum||

    I see...so then you'd agree that Obama and Hillary Clinton (before their views finally 'evolved' to support gay marriage at very late dates) were deserving of being on the SLPC 'extremist' list? Anybody who holds the same position as Obama until 2012 and Clinton until 2013 should be lumped in with the KKK and have their bank accounts closed and website taken down by their service provider?

  • shawn_dude||

    Excellent question!

    The SPLC defines "hate" for their use. Interesting that Stossel omitted that from his article, isn't it?

    I link to the SPLC page below, but in summary, if an organization spreads knowingly false information in order to whip up public anger against another group, like LGBT, to meet a political goal (like supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell or California Prop 8), then they're a "hate group" for this purpose.

  • Finrod||

    So the Democratic Party is a hate group, then?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "if an organization spreads knowingly false information in order to whip up public anger against another group, like LGBT, to meet a political goal (like supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell or California Prop 8), then they're a "hate group" for this purpose."

    By 'knowingly false information', you mean anything with which you disagree, right?

  • shawn_dude||

    Of course not. That would be silly. Facts are facts regardless of whether I like the outcome.

    "Knowingly false information" would be things like claiming LGBT people are likely pedophiles or their children do worse than those of straight parents. Plenty of science around this. Groups like the FRC use fake and discredited science and scientists to continue to sell these stereotypes as facts in order to keep people voting the way they want them to.

    You see this with rhetoric about Jews, blacks, and gays all the time. Some of it on our president's twitter feed, even.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    'Fake and discredited science'........

    Discredited by whom? LGBT activists and their allies? The SPLC? Reading your posts, you sound like a propagandist. Which is typical of of a progressive. You believe in 'diversity', as long as it's a diversity of your ideas. Anything else is 'discredited', or 'hate soeech'.

    Sorry, you're selling, but we're not buying.

  • Spinach Chin||

    Of course, that's not what was said.

  • Priscilla King||

    Hate is a positive term. Its presence should be provable. Hate is not the same thing as withholding support from someone else's agenda.

    So, although Boykin's personally claiming a "gay" friend would not disprove the claim that other members of his organization are attacking homosexual people, the salient point is that nobody's *making* that claim. What FRC are doing is withholding their support from some homosexual activist tactics...which in fact some active homosexuals also do.

    The burden of proof should be on SPLC to prove that FRC have engaged in displays of hate, and if SPLC can't prove that, then show how SPLC's tactics (might in theory) be anything less than displays of hate for those who withhold support.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The burden of proof should be on SPLC to prove that FRC have engaged in displays of hate [...]
    Um yep, they did that. That you won't go read their thoroughly documented, cited and sourced explanation for why they call the FRC a hate-group is your own issue. But they did the research and posted it for you to see.

  • JWatts||

    Sure. And they could have used the same standards and listed Libertarians as a hate group for their violent language against the Federal Government and/or officials working for the Government.

    A 'standard' implies you use it consistently. It's not a standard if you use it to cherry pick certain groups that you don't like.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "I have no problem with gay people. That's not the issue."

    "In fact, one of my friends is gay."

    /Seinfeld

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am always surprised that people find this fallacy so hard to grasp, even on this site. Let me put it a little differently, that may make it easier:

    "I am not a violent person. I have never hit my mother."

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    "I don't hate gay people, and I know gay people, and I have worked with gay people."

    I mean, let's take it there: a slaveowner could have said the same thing with regard to black folk.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I don't hate gay people, I own gay people, they work in my field, they can't leave.

  • Zeb||

    And most slave owners probably didn't hate their slaves. Which just further illustrates how ridiculous the use of the word "hate" in this context becomes. Bigotry and racism are not always based on hatred. And I don't think it's possible to do much towards getting rid of bigotry and racism as they exist today if people just assume that it is.

  • shawn_dude||

    How do you distinguish between "Hatred" and "bigotry?" Note that for the SPLC's purpose, the "hatred" must be political and it must be based on something like an immutable characteristic (race, orientation, etc.)

    So, how can you be bigoted against a group based on an immutable characteristic, spread knowably false information about them in order to further a political goal, and not "hate" them?

  • Kevin47||

    I think progressives are stupid. I think they should have no political clout. I think their ideas are stupid and I wish they would shut the hell up. I don't hate progressives.

  • Priscilla King||

    You can *dislike* people and not hate them. You can believe things about people that are subject to dispute and not hate them.

    Example: Most people have at least one in-law who they believe is unworthy to be their relative's doormat. This belief is subject to dispute and is based on their dislike of that in-law. The belief and the dislike do not motivate these people to do anything worse than avoid spending time with the in-laws they dislike.

    For a more precise parallel...say you don't even dislike your brother-in-law enough to avoid talking to him at Thanksgiving dinner, and you believe he's competent to do his job, but you don't believe he's qualified to drive your car. That would be a parallel to the belief that homosexual couples, even if likable or competent to do other things, are not qualified to bring up children.

  • shawn_dude||

    All you've done is show that "hate" is subjective. If the SPLC wants to call groups "hate groups" and it defines what it means by that in their own context, I see no issue with it.

    If you think progressives are stupid, should have no say in things, and should be silent, I'd say that's hateful enough to be considered "hate" in the context the SPLC uses.

    If you think homosexual couples are not competent to raise children despite overwhelming empirical and scientific evidence to the contrary, and you are immune to the evidence, that's hateful enough to be considered "hate" in the context the SPLC uses.

    If being called a bigot or a hateful person annoys you and that's your motivation to resist the SPLC's definition, there's no real help for you.

  • JWatts||

    "All you've done is show that "hate" is subjective. If the SPLC wants to call groups "hate groups" and it defines what it means by that in their own context, I see no issue with it."

    Me neither. I do have a problem with the SPLC being treated as an authoritative source by Federal agencies.

  • shawn_dude||

    "I do have a problem with the SPLC being treated as an authoritative source by Federal agencies."

    Why is that?

    If the Federal agencies find the research and information credible and useful, what's the problem?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    There is nothing credible about a far left fringe organization like the SPLC.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If you think progressives are stupid, should have no say in things, and should be silent, I'd say that's hateful enough to be considered "hate" in the context the SPLC uses.

    But 'progressive' is not an immutable characteristic. Thinking someone is stupid is subjective and is thus not 'knowingly false. Wanting someone to be silent is a wish and is also not knowingly false nor does it whip up public anger.

    Yet you cite this as something that is worthy of being called 'hate' under a definition that specifically states that it is not.

    Do you see the problem?

  • JFree||

    Bigotry and racism are not always based on hatred.

    I think they probably are. But hatred can have different sources. James Baldwin described it. Blacks hate whites out of rage. Whites hate blacks out of fear. And the source of the hatred has very different consequences because some of those hatreds are based on what 'the other' does, some are based on what 'the other' is, and some are entirely internal brainfarts.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    "I am not a violent person. That bitch had it coming."

  • Leader Desslok||

    "I am not a violent person. That bitch had it coming."

    OJ Simpson approves this message.

  • ||

    I am always surprised that people find this fallacy so hard to grasp, even on this site. Let me put it a little differently, that may make it easier:

    Yup, because here at Reason *drink* we deliberately fail to distinguish between gay individuals, the collective gay people, and the agenda(s) nominally advanced on behalf of or in defense of gay people.

    "My gay friend doesn't want to force anyone to bake a wedding cake."

  • Zeb||

    Who's "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?

  • ||

    Me, my gay friend, and the 'people, even on this site' that Chipper Morning Baculum invoked into being... 'we'.

    Or are you saying my gay straw man friend is less of a person than Chipper's straw men?

  • Steve Rezenda||

    Thank you for being more eloquent than I could have been.

    There is a profound lack of accuracy and clarity in some of these arguments.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I don't find the word "we" in my comment. I was just saying that having a gay friend does not guarantee you are not a bigot when it comes to gay people.

  • ||

    I only used the word "we" because you said, "people find this fallacy so hard to grasp, even on this site" and my point wasn't your straw men or mine as much as it was that the fallacy is one you at best perpetuated and at worst introduced. Nothing guarantees that you are not (perceived as) a bigot or ever could be and, as Stossel is rather directly pointing out, being a bigot isn't synonymous with an act of aggression.

    Got any bigoted friends? Ever seen anyone claim to have them in defense of their tolerance toward others? Weird how that would actually be tolerating someone and yet no one proclaims to have bigoted friends that they tolerate for diversity of opinion purposes.

  • BYODB||

    It's more like "I don't hate bicyclists, I hate bicycling."

    There's a subset of Christianity that would say they hate the sin, not the sinner, but admittedly like all humans most Christians fall far short of their own ideology.

    How many straight men on these forms love butt sex might be the more illustrative example.

  • blondrealist||

    Don't be so freaked out about the investments in the Cayman Islands - they're hedge funds and other private investment funds utilized by many institutional investors, like pension funds, other very large endowments, and ultra-wealthy families.

  • DajjaI||

    True but my criticism would be a bit different. First, they are allied with law enforcement and say, "If you see a Nazi, report him to the police (who we trained) and go home and do good deeds." Well this is exactly what lead to the Holocaust.

    Secondly, they are hyperventilating about bitcoin, claiming it is 'rocket fuel' for the alt-right, and that government must regulate it. What a mistake - would lead to another drug war!

  • NoVaNick||

    SPLC is a business, as are almost all ideology-based orgs, so look for them to expand the concept of hate to include anyone who questions climate change, transgendered bathrooms, or any part of the prog lefty agenda because it is good for business.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Luckily, as libertarians, our ideology being a business is entirely consistent with the ideology.

  • shawn_dude||

    This is unnecessarily hyperbolic.

    "Lefty prog" = bad. SPLC = "Lefty Prog". SPLC = bad. SPLC will therefore do bad and irrational things?

    They define "hate" for their purpose. They apply it in an apparently even fashion and provide evidence. Even if you think their definition is silly, they are at least self-consistent.

    They counter bigoted speech with their own speech, which is entirely consistent with the First Amendment.

  • Kevin47||

    "They define "hate" for their purpose. "

    That's the problem. They take a loaded term and redefine it to their own political ends.

    Nobody is arguing they don't have the 1A right to do that. They still suck.

  • shawn_dude||

    Webster:

    Definition of hate
    1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
    b : extreme dislike or disgust : antipathy, loathing had a great hate of hard work

    Based on the SPLC's definition of what a group has to do in order to make their list, they easily fit this definition.

    How does the SPLC redefine "hate" in your view? In order to be on the list you have to show "hostility and aversion" to an entire class of people such that you spread false information about them and try to increase public "dislike or disgust" enough to harm that group.

    Seems to me they have it spot on.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The SPLC belongs on their own list. sounds like you're quite bigot too.

  • shawn_dude||

    Webster:

    Definition of hate
    1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
    b : extreme dislike or disgust : antipathy, loathing had a great hate of hard work

    Based on the SPLC's definition of what a group has to do in order to make their list, they easily fit this definition.

    How does the SPLC redefine "hate" in your view? In order to be on the list you have to show "hostility and aversion" to an entire class of people such that you spread false information about them and try to increase public "dislike or disgust" enough to harm that group.

    Seems to me they have it spot on.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    'They counter bigoted speech with their own speech, which is entirely consistent with the First Amendment'

    The SPLC attempts to shut down any speech with which they disagree. An effort with which you agree. Typical progressive.

  • MisterZizzy||

    First, let me say, that I grew up in the kind of religious circles that agreed with everything the FRC endorses.
    Second, I am happy to say I've escaped the fundy cult I grew up in, and now live as an out gay man, who volunteers for a non-profit that helps support other LGBTQ folks who leave (or get kicked out) who also share the same background (evangelical fundamentalism, specifically of the Bob Jones University variety).

    It is telling that Stossel quoted FRC's VP, but not it's head honcho - the infamous Tony Perkins. Why wouldn't you get a quote from the same go-to guy the TV news always uses when they want to provide "balance" for any segment that touches on LGBTQ people and/or rights. There's a reason for that.

    It's one thing to believe that being gay is a sin, or that marriage equality is a stepping stone to the Apocalypse, but it's an entirely different thing when you consistently make those statements in conjunction with falsehoods and innuendo that cause real harm to others. Let me tell you about kids who've been kicked to the curb and shunned, students who've been expelled, and folks that have done self-harm and attempted suicide, all because of family and friends emboldened by the rhetoric of the FRC and other organizations make them think it's OK to bully those who often have no way of defending themselves, and rarely have any peers to whom they can turn for support (never mind actually knowing what rights they might have in pursuing legal or other actions).

  • Rhywun||

    Bullies are gonna bully. That's not the fault of the FRC or any other "hate group".

  • shawn_dude||

    Tying the FRC to a specific case of bullying is difficult, sure. But the FRC intentionally spreads knowably false rhetoric in order to affect political change. IOW, they feed bully's the justification they need to wreak havoc on innocent people, whether it's a schoolyard bully or a GOP Senator.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    In my experience bullies don't need justification, only targets

  • shawn_dude||

    Not all bullies are the equal opportunity a-holes that schoolyard bullies are. Some of them are more selective in their targets.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Like you?

  • Kevin47||

    Fundie cult? That's some pretty hateful innuendo right there. I am exploring my rights to pursue legal "or other" actions in response to your hatefulness.

  • Zeb||

    Are you saying that there are no such things in the world as fundy cults?

    You are abusing the word "hate" as badly as the SPLC.

  • Kevin47||

    That was the entire point of my comment. How was that not obvious?

  • JesseAz||

    You sound has hateful as the "fundy cult" you escaped from.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Not to me. Sounds like he is justified.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, calling out people who were shitty to you for being shitty to you seems justified and not necessarily hateful.

  • ||

    Without specifically naming the fundy cult or any specific actions the fundy cult took against him, I find it kinda hard to 'convict' the alleged fundy cult of anything even remotely socially egregious. Jewish mothers and parents have been disappointed and disowning their children for not choosing the right profession for generations.

  • Kevin47||

    Nobody is actually accusing him of being a member of a hate group, you fucking dimwit!

  • Kevin47||

    Sorry for the exclamation point. That was uncalled for.

  • ||

    LGBTQ folks

    You sound authoritative on the matter so let me ask you, what happened to the "I" and "A" people who used to be in the LGBTQIA collective?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The acronym is fluid as well.

  • Finrod||

    It's also in civil war, L vs T. For some reason, militant lesbians aren't keen on the idea that they have to accept women with cocks.

  • Elias Fakaname||

  • silver.||

    I'm an A. Please go back to making acronyms longer than most words.

  • ||

    I'm an A.

    "A" actually made the most sense to me. I wasn't sure if they got kicked out of the club or just ignored or what. I kinda wish the As (A-team?) had led and/or won the marriage debate. I think it would've been more equitable for those of us who spend 99.9% of our waking hours not having sex as well as those of us who spend 100%. And I don't see As as being motivated (or ideologically stupid) enough to bound off on some manner of anti-sex wedding cake crusade.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The alphabet objected to some of its letters being excluded and in the face of a possible civil rights lawsuit the gay community entered into a settlement to use just so many letters.

  • silver.||

    I hate it when my language rebels against my hand of oppression, bearing down on it with a ballpoint.

  • damikesc||

    Let me tell you about kids who've been kicked to the curb and shunned, students who've been expelled, and folks that have done self-harm and attempted suicide, all because of family and friends emboldened by the rhetoric of the FRC and other organizations make them think it's OK to bully those who often have no way of defending themselves, and rarely have any peers to whom they can turn for support (never mind actually knowing what rights they might have in pursuing legal or other actions).

    Were they shot by whackjobs inspired by FRC?

    No?

    Then FRC is better than SPLC.

  • BYODB||

    ...students who've been expelled, and folks that have done self-harm and attempted suicide, all because of family and friends emboldened by the rhetoric of the FRC and other organizations make them think it's OK to bully those who often have no way of defending themselves...

    It sounds to me like MisterZizzy is pointing out that gay people don't have any autonomy, which is an awful shame. I was bullied my entire young life while growing up in a Mexican town as a pale-white ginger and I didn't kill myself even once. I suppose it's a good thing I was straight, or I might have been too sensitive to live.

    /sarc

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And some people have died at least a dozen times and still aren't ginger.......

    https://tinyurl.com/y768nb3d

  • Priscilla King||

    Interestingly, MisterZizzy, introverts have also been shunned and emotionally abused by people who misunderstood our personalities and behavior. (We're not talking about violent attacks, although there may have been some; we're talking about the kind of social rejection and "personality makeover" efforts homosexuals get from parents and teachers.) Have introverts, in fact, self-harmed and attempted suicide? (Well, again, maybe some have.) If so, was that because society failed to balance every portrayal of a party scene in a movie with an image of someone happily spending time alone in the computer lab...or was it because those individual introverts had mental problems?

    Unlike homosexuality, introversion is associated with one or more of a set of hereditary physical traits and, thereby, also associated with good health and long life.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm anti-gay marriage because I think America's gays are too precious to be subjected to marriage. Does that make me a hater?

  • Alcibiades||

    Hell yeah, that makes you a master hater!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Just don't bait anybody because you know what that will make you...

  • Alcibiades||

    There's always braille...

  • JesseAz||

    I'm anti-marriage over all. I don't believe in a system where the terms of the contract are decided on the resolution of the partnership. Let's end the marriage business and use actual contracts. Get rid of family courts completely.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's why I dislike the gay marriage movement. It moved away from pointing out the inherent problems with having government define marriage.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That sounds harsh. I should rephrase that. It's a thing I disagreed with the gay rights movement. Pushing for a further consecration from the government, in the form of another specialized right, rather than pushing for generalizing the system all together.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It's a constitutional thing, not necessarily a libertarian thing.

    Equality under the law.

    The libertarian position is that government has no business in marriage for anyone.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I agree. And I wish that is what had been the outcome of this. But it was not. I sort of suspect we'll just have fights for legal identification of every possible coupling before the government cedes authority in this realm.

  • silver.||

    The government will not cede its authority, examining history. Irrespective of libertarians' different opinions about social issues, this is the concept we usually share. We can bicker all day and night, but it shouldn't be legislated one way or another. A government that has the power to ban abortions has exactly enough power to mandate it. I don't want to be in a relationship resulting in an abortion, but I just don't want the feds (or even the state and local governments) regulating it. Hands off, hombre.

  • BYODB||

    It's already happening RE: court cases involving polygamy. It's literally a bottomless barrel of kinks looking for that government stamp of approval or, in the case of things like polygamy, avoiding jail time for something that is actually illegal to even practice.

    Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

  • Zeb||

    It really sucks that the supreme court decided that there was a positive right to marriage, rather than saying that if states are going to be in the marriage game, they must treat same sex couples the same as hetero ones.

  • EscherEnigma||

    That is what the SCOTUS ruled. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping any state from abolishing legal marriage in their state. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping the Fed from dropping all marriage references from every aspect of the Federal government.

    The states and Fed won't do that because over half of the population is married and wants to stay married. But the SCOTUS has never ruled that a state or Fed must recognize marriage.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I would be very curious what the result would be of a state abolishing all legal references to marriage. I feel like the feds would probably get involved, but I also can't imagine that happening at all.

  • Zeb||

    If that is so, then I misunderstood the decision. I hope I have been wrong about that.

  • BYODB||


    That is what the SCOTUS ruled. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping any state from abolishing legal marriage in their state.

    The issue is that Zeb narrowly described the carve out, and in that particular circumstance Escher is correct but the wider view shows it for the bullshit that it is. It's a positive right precisely because of who the decision applies to and who it doesn't. If it was a negative right it wouldn't be a question if you could marry your own sister.

  • Priscilla King||

    Or treat any disabled person and caretaker the same as any married or formerly married couple?

    SCOTUS may have created a theoretical right to marriage...but just try claiming that right if you've been married for fifty years and are now widowed. Whom are you going to marry?

    I wouldn't really give a flip about same-sex weddings, but the idea of a "right to marriage" being used to deny the rights of widows (not to mention bachelors and divorcees) does bother me.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I wouldn't really give a flip about same-sex weddings, but the idea of a "right to marriage" being used to deny the rights of widows (not to mention bachelors and divorcees) does bother me.


    ... yeah, this is going to need explanation.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You do know that gay folks did "[push] for generalizing the system all together" too, right? Every single marriage benefit that we needed? We tried to find a way to get it without marriage.

    And we were opposed at every step. Our wills were contested, our medical power of attorney was contested, our custody and parental arrangements were contested, our adoptions were contested, our divorces were contested.

    We tried to generalize the system so that we didn't need marriage rights, tried to make it so that we could piece-meal together the rights and protections for our families. And it didn't work.

    And it's not like y'all were actually trying to abolish legal marriage either. It's a nice talking point, but y'all have never been serious about it. And hey, it's not like anything is stopping you now from starting that crusade. Maybe you'll get some conservatives that will sign on just to stick it to gay people.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Fine, then I'm disappointed in the ends reached. I certainly don't blame anyone for taking what they can get.

    And it's not like y'all were actually trying to abolish legal marriage either.

    Don't know who y'all refers to there. But you are right, I am not particularly serious about anything. I just shitpost online and vote sometimes. I am not politically active in any particular way. I guess I used to be, but it's just too awful for me to do it. So I take the cowards path.

    Would I vote for abolishing marriage? Yes, in a second. Would I start working to organize a movement towards that right now. No.

    Now, that said. I'm curious. You wrote "Every single marriage benefit that we needed? We tried to find a way to get it without marriage." I'm not as familiar with the gay rights movement as you seem to be. Was there a strong movement within it against removing these benefits entirely from government control? Or was it more that they sought extra-marital ways to be given the blessing by government?

  • EscherEnigma||

    First-up, I'd contest there was much of a "strong movement" for anything. Implies a degree of coordination that the gay rights movement has largely lacked. Heck, even the "big cases" were mostly started by individuals or small groups, not any organized big group (for example, Olson took a lot of flak for starting the Prop 8 case. All the big organized groups thought it was the wrong time to do so). The closest you really get is the DADT fiasco and lets be honest, the reason that finally moved was because of LRC's lawsuit, not any "strong movement".

    That said, mostly the latter. Marriage rights are generally positive, they alter the default rights between two people. If you take the government recognizing marriage out of it, then you end up with what gay people were already dealing with. So generally speaking, what folks did was identify a given marriage right and try to legislate an alternative path to that right, but never require straight folk to use the alternate path.

  • Zeb||

    I've always been serious about it. But I'm not an activist and have no interest in being one.

  • Priscilla King||

    Oh *did* you? When, where, and how did you support anything I ever wrote about the need to support caretakers' rights?

    When I started, not just posting, but publishing, content on this topic, I specifically said that it could *include* the tiny minority of same-sex couples to whom it become relevant, not to mention the huge majority of people (half of all traditional couples, plus every non-traditionally-coupled person) who don't happen to be married to someone competent to take care of them when they become disabled.

    Support from the homosexual community? Hah. "No no no, we want this to be about what we do with our wee-wees!" Or: since when have rich White males supported anything that was not primarily about them?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Oh *did* you? When, where, and how did you support anything I ever wrote about the need to support caretakers' rights?
    Lack of exposure.

    I mean, I just did a search on your blogspot for anything regarding "caretaker" and only got three hits. Two were compilations of one-liner book reviews, and the other had a short rhetorical question before delving into a subject.

    Doing a more general google search of your name and "caretaker" and I can't find anything you ever wrote about "the need to support caretakers' rights".

    So to put it simply, you're yelling at me for not supporting something that you could not have reasonably expected me to be aware of.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    As long as 'gay marriage' is not endorsed by the government (another reason not to license marriage in the first place) I don't care if the gays want to play pretend.

  • shawn_dude||

    I've gone back and forth on this. (Full disclosure: I'm gay and I'm now married.)

    Family courts spend most of their time dealing with matters related to kids, even if the parents aren't married. So I'm not sure what eliminating marriage is going to do to "get rid of family courts completely."

    Using actual contracts would still result in divorces, they'd just look a bit different. After a while, those sorts of contracts would get pretty boilerplate, too. I'm not sure how much different a boilerplate substitute marriage contract would be from the current boilerplate "one size fits all" contract. You may be seeing a difference without a distinction here.

    People can already form trusts and create a "marriage" of a sorts without actually getting married. Very few do. Possibly because the existing system works better.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    As a former contract lawyer I can't imagine trying to draw up a marriage contract to cover all contingencies, to have a procedure in place to amend the contract when existing agreements fail, much less to provide for children. As a former family law attorney I can assure everyone that the litigation involved with dissolutions based on "breach of contract" would be far more expensive to the parties and courts and far more bitter than what we have now. Inadequate as our current system of laws is or may be I don't see substituting contract law as any kind of substantial improvement.

  • shawn_dude||

    Thanks for your personal experience here. It jives with my own reading and thinking on the matter.

    In the end, for those that care, I chose to marry because it provides a bit more security as we travel across state borders and go from a state where gay couples are protected in public accommodation to places where we are not, or worse, where the police aren't interested in even ensuring basic civil rights.

    Cases where couples were denied visiting privileges at hospitals because the ambulance took them to a religious hospital weighed heavily on our decision. While jerks may still be jerks, the added legal coverage (which is admittedly exercised after the fact) gives us a bit more security.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Since the consequence of not being married is keeping less of my own earnings: yes.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wait'll you get divorced!

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah. The hubby is a smart guy, and he knows that he'd get more from my "accidental death" then a divorce.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It won't matter soon. There will be a cure for homosexuality within twenty years.

  • Rebel Scum||

    A "hate group" list loved by the media is bogus

    Because it is a proggie org that is, itself, a hategroup.

  • shawn_dude||

    The SPLC is a hate group? Please expand on this. Can you cite evidence?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Don't be an obsequious twink.

    Did you even bother to watch Stossel's video?

  • Kevin47||

    I define a hate group as a group that hates people. Per the SPLC, we are allowed to define "hate group" as we so choose. SPLC is a hate group because I say so.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They're also a progressive propaganda group.

  • Priscilla King||

    They actively attack people who--nonviolently--promote agendas other than theirs. (Their agenda, btw, being increasingly about *rich* *urban* *Northern* *White* guys, and having no noticeable connection to Southern poverty.)

  • shawn_dude||

    They track people who are both violent and "nonviolent." The nonviolent people try to pass laws and use the power of government to limit civil rights, remove freedoms, or otherwise disadvantage the disfavored class of people.

    If you can nonviolently harm an entire class of innocent people just because they're gay or black or have ancestors from Japan doesn't make it any better or any less hateful.

  • JWatts||

    "If you can nonviolently harm an entire class of innocent people just because they're gay or black or have ancestors from Japan doesn't make it any better or any less hateful."

    Um, yes it does make it better. That's the whole point in having a legal system and a representative government. Because killing each other to resolve disputes is far worse than winning a court case or an election.

  • shawn_dude||

    So declaring blacks slaves and placing Japanese Americans in concentration camps after confiscating their personal property using legal means is better? I'm not seeing that, at least from the perspective of a black slave or an American-born person of Japanese decent.

    "Hey, we're better because we didn't shoot you outright! Instead, we passed a law that lets us take your wealth and imprison you and your entire family for as long as we want without legal recourse. And if you try to escape, then we can shoot you!"

    The law is sometimes just another way to kill people without having to pull the trigger yourself.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Lots of progtarded twisted reasons to infringe on our rights.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "If you can nonviolently harm an entire class of innocent people just because they're gay or black or have ancestors from Japan doesn't make it any better or any less hateful."

    Is that what the SPLC and the voices in your head tell you to think? You progs have a lot of excuses to attack anything that doesn't fit into your marxist groupthink.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Sure!

    Based on this definition--

    " if an organization spreads knowingly false information in order to whip up public anger against another group, like LGBT, to meet a political goal (like supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell or California Prop 8), then they're a "hate group" for this purpose."

    They're a hate group. They knowingly spread false information to whip up public anger all the time by calling people 'hate groups' to meet a political goal (the progressive agenda).

    Pretty clear cut.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Bet I know who's gonna be next on the SPLC list.

  • Alcibiades||

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Well she has apparently already made the list, deservedly so for having the temerity to criticize an honorable organization that exists merely to better the lot of the downtrodden.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think some of the argumentation used here is a little weak. I dislike the SPLC and I do think they are driving down the meaning of a hate group, but those questions were not hard hitting questions.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I haven't watched it yet, but I have to imagine there are better ways to demonstrate how SPLC oversteps than defending the intentions of the Family Research Council.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes. And the way he attempts to disprove them as haters is by lobbing a softball question to them. It was not effective. I'm sympathetic to the message and it didn't convince me. I can't imagine the reaction of someone either neutral or worse.

  • damikesc||

    I haven't watched it yet, but I have to imagine there are better ways to demonstrate how SPLC oversteps than defending the intentions of the Family Research Council.

    SPLC got innocents at FRC shot and wounded.

    FRC, more than anybody else, has moral standing to call SPLC a shit show.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So Giffords has moral standing to call Palin a shit show too, right?

  • shawn_dude||

    Then there's that whole Pizza-gate fiasco. Info Wars, Fox News...

  • BYODB||


    SPLC got innocents at FRC shot and wounded.


    Since when do we blame speech without explicit calls for violence for shootings, again? What is this, Vox or Slate?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I hate lots of people.

    Communists
    Socialists
    Fascists
    Most government
    Snowflakes
    Progressives
    Fundamentalists
    Republicans
    Pretty much anyone who aggresses against others and attempts to undermine liberty.

    Hater? Guilty.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    But have I mentioned I like Stossel?

  • Alcibiades||

    For sure, he's a very good salesman for the brand.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Well, there's that mustache thing

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Snowflakes

    Well, as always, I welcome you to move to Southern Arizona.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    He said snowflakes, not snowbirds.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    STOSSEL 2018!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Stossel/Winfrey 2020!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    My head is up my ass today!

    2020

    (today?)

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You're just hoping we'll get a new king sooner rather than later. It's a mistake anyone could make.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Stossel was already on 20/20

  • Microaggressor||

    And you get a tax cut! And you get a tax cut! And YOU get a tax cut!

    /my fantasy

  • EscherEnigma||

    Stossel disagrees with the Family Research Council on many issues. But he says they don't deserve to be called haters. The group's Executive Vice President, Jerry Boykin, tells him: "I don't hate gay people, and I know gay people, and I have worked with gay people."


    Seriously? These folks have been trying to convince folks that gays are all pedohpiles form their inception, argue in favor of sodomy laws, constantly spread lies about us, and so-on.

    But sure. Jerry Boykin says "I don't hate gay people". Let's just ignore the organizations history and present, eh?

  • Brian||

    But I thought the Family Research Council was officially certified as "family friendly."

    These certifications, I just don't know...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think out of all the groups he could have chosen to highlight, he chose poorly with those two. Particularly from a libertarian standpoint one should be a bit suspect of any group that exists largely for the advocacy of further restriction on people's interactions. I can tell why he went for two of the big dogs. And I am suspect of "hate group" as a label in general, but he could have chosen better for the sake of argumentation.

    There are more egregious examples that highlight the strange industrial hate machine SPLC has taken better than those two. Talking about their incredibly wealth is a good one.

  • Rhywun||

    Yes, the FRC are "haters" - on that I disagree with Stossel. But that is their right. And the SPLC is perfectly free to point that out. What the SPLC should be ashamed of is their use as a quasi-offical source of "hate" by government officials and the like looking to score points and exercise their power. The SPLC's many distortions and lies of omission really just serve to highlight their political biases.

  • shawn_dude||

    I fail to see the issue with law enforcement relying on a private non-profit for this information if it has proven valuable to them in the past. Are the police saying the information they use and the way they use it are causing them problems?

  • Kevin47||

    "I fail to see the issue with law enforcement relying on a private non-profit for this information if it has proven valuable to them in the past. "

    Really? If the KKK proved useful in the past, you'd be chill with the police tapping into that resource?

  • shawn_dude||

    I fail to see your comparison here. Are you claiming the SPLC is a criminal organization marching with torches and lynching people? Burning crosses? That's just a wacky view of the whole thing.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No. Their villainy and oppression is a bit more subtle than that. But like all progressives, they are ultimately soulless collectivists that need to be stopped to preserve our individual freedoms.

  • shawn_dude||

    I can't tell if you're 15 years old, a troll, or both.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're definitely a totalitarian leftist at heart.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Speaking truth to power!

    Wow, Mr. Stossel.

    I wonder if you'll get on their list now. They're probably going through decades of your reporting . . .

    There must be something they can misconstrue about you somewhere.

    How dare you speak out!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    No doubt they will either put him [or his employer] on the list, or as with Carol McSwain [Vanderbilt Law School] find a way to libel him as publicly as possible.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Carol Swain

  • shawn_dude||

    "They also list the conservative Family Research Council as a "hate group.""

    Yes, they do, and deservedly so. This hit piece article on the SPLC doesn't bother to mention the fact that they clearly list the factors they measure to define "hate group" and then, under each organization's entry, list examples of them meeting the threshold.

    SPLC defines Hate Group for their purposes here.

    No you may disagree with their criteria, but they're pretty clear about what it is and then apply it pretty evenly as far as I can tell.

    The Family Research Council is largely an anti-LGBT organization that uses debunked junk science and "research" to make provably false claims against LGBT Americans and advocate for restrictions on their civil rights. Read their information on the FRC and judge for yourself.

    SPLC page on the FRC

    "Jerry Boykin, tells him: "I don't hate gay people, and I know gay people, and I have worked with gay people."" The FRC thinks they're pederasts and mentally ill and unfit for military duty and shouldn't be allowed to marry. So he knows them, worked with them (??!), doesn't hate them, but runs an organization that thinks they are child predators?

  • XM||

    It's a meaningless criteria, and it could cover any number of churches and religious organization.

    I can speak out against polygamy and argue that it's not an ideal situation for children. That might be an incorrect position, but it's not a "hate" activity as the term is commonly used.

    Even if you think the FRC is a hate group, it makes no sense to list victims of religious extremism as "hate" individuals because..... what exactly? Obama's pastor argued that white children and black children have brains that are wired differently. Was he ever on the list? Why is antifa not on the list? BLM sympathizers executed a doze police officers, so is BLM on any hate list?

  • shawn_dude||

    I'm going to guess that you didn't read the links I provided because they do answer some of your questions.

    Polygamy is a bad example here since it's not an immutable characteristic. Again, the SPLC doesn't target people but organizations and it doesn't target churches that aren't active in politics. So the FRC and the Westboro Baptists are there but anti-gay churches that keep that stuff inside the church walls aren't covered. Again, this can be found in the links provided, had you read them.

    Okay, Antifa -- what is their political agenda? They're against fascists like neo-nazis. Why would they be on the list?
    BLM? Read it in their own words. BLM did not execute police. BLM explicitly advocates for non-violent protest. You may choose not to believe them for your own reasons, but just because a black guy kills 5 officers in Dallas doesn't mean every black person or black group is to blame. Let's at least be honest and give BLM the blame for what they've actually done and recognize that they aren't responsible for crazy people doing crazy things.

    Can you come up with an example that isn't pro-white supremacy? (Your two examples are people against nazis and people in favor of black civil rights? You must have one less politically charges, yeah?)

  • XM||

    It's still a meangingless criteria, which is arbitrary to begin with. The KKK is effectively inactive and has no legislative influence, but they should be labeled as hate groups.

    Some people hate gays. Others simply believe that lifestyle is harmful or violates their faith. We make the distinction because otherwise the SPLC might as well label any number of Haitian, African or even Latino immigrants / refugees as "haters" as many of them holds conservative views on marriage, abortion, sexual orientation, etc. If they donate to an organization that actively tries to keep bathrooms gender specific, are they a part of some hate movement?

    Any hate list that lumps together Ali with neo nazis is devoid of any credibility. A victim of physical extremism branded as extremist because her rhetoric might cross a line - nonsense.

    The SPLC often lumps in their political opposition with hate groups. They rushed a "Trump leads to hate crime" narrative that failed to show any connection to Trump. You're not a "hate group" for criticizing Islam or open borders, regardless of organization structure or outreach. The FRC might be wrong on many issues, but it's a stretch to compare them to the neo nazis.

    BLM literally chanted for the death of police and antisemitism at OWS was well documented. They're not collectively responsible for actions of the individual supporters. But their rhetoric is aggressive and dehumanizing and have taken VIOLENT turns, at levels he FRC has neer reached.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Victims can be perpetrators, ya know.

    So quite frankly, it doesn't matter what horrible thing happened to you. You go around arguing that the western world is "at war" with a religion, that there are no peaceful members of it, that we need to clamp down on the Freedom of Speech, Religion and Association of it's practioners, and so-on? Yeah. You're a hater.

  • shawn_dude||

    You're taking the shotgun approach to your arguments here. If Haitians or other immigrants start organizations that behave like the FRC, they'll be on the list too. Are you trying to make the argument that people liberals might care about (immigrants) won't get listed by the SPLC because the SPLC looks liberal to you? Maybe their principles matter more to them than their position on the liberal/conservative spectrum.

    I'm not sure which "Ali" you're referring to. Could you be more specific?

    You seem to be trying to smear the SPLC without any specifics. I can't respond to vague claims that they "lumps in their political opposition" without understanding who that might be. What political opposition is there to identifying groups who espouse, encourage, and enact bigoted policy? ...other than from those groups so listed, obviously.

  • JuanQPublic||

    BLM literally chanted for the death of police and antisemitism at OWS was well documented. They're not collectively responsible for actions of the individual supporters. But their rhetoric is aggressive and dehumanizing and have taken VIOLENT turns, at levels he FRC has neer reached.

    Occupy Wall Street was in late 2011 and dwindled by early 2012. Black Lives Matter didn't form until mid-2013.

  • Kevin47||

    The desire for multiple women is an immutable characteristic in most men. Polygamy is an extension of that characteristic.

    What about groups that mock Mormons generally? There are plenty of those.

  • shawn_dude||

    I would imagine a group that disliked Mormons so much that they tried to interfere with their civil rights and published verifiably false information about them would get the SPLC's attention.

    The Mormon church officially disavows polygamy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Shawn, if you support the SPLC then you're probably one of the bad guys too. I'm sure you have no problem infringing on anyone's rights if it gives an advantage to the homosexual community.

  • shawn_dude||

    I"m guessing you have a "second amendment solution?"

    There's a great article on The Atlantic about how white nationalists represent 70% of deaths by extremists in the US. You've underscored for me how that might be possible.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    More of your hateful leftist lies. You're just another progressive propagandist.

  • Ned Netterville||

    And, now John, you will be in their (gun) sights, if you're not already, for producing such hateful material about peace-loving hate-group haters. And Reason is sure to follow. Go figure.

  • shawn_dude||

    Are you trying to turn John in to a victim for his use of free speech? Or the SPLC into aggressors for their use of free speech?

    John's arguments are flimsy and his rhetoric questionable (his video will certainly play well in the white nationalist and evangelical Christian crowds, though) but he's entitled to his opinion and his own agency in making his point. The SPLC will likely rebut his arguments, but that's how this whole free speech thing is supposed to work, right? John isn't a snowflake right? He's not going to melt under the SPLC's next blog post.

  • Kevin47||

    "The SPLC will likely rebut his arguments, but that's how this whole free speech thing is supposed to work, right?"

    And we can point out they are going to be out for blood for this criticism, and that this is because the organization comprises opportunistic bullies who exploit our civil rights history to raise money and promote progressives ideals, and that the organization is garbage for that reason.

  • shawn_dude||

    I get that you don't like them and that part of the reason is that they don't share your own political ideology. You do realize this comment of yours comes across pretty snowflakey, right?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Like pretty much everything you've had to say. You're clearly a totalitarian at heart. I have no doubt you would force soeech codes based on your sensibilities on this country if you could. Criminalizing even the slightest criticism of homosexuality.

  • Jim Strohm||

    Hmm, in the late 1970s, the SPLC sent me (via USPS) color photographs of a lynched black teenager.

    If the KKK had done that, the graphic content and the means of delivery at the time would have been identical.

    So what differentiates the SPLC from the KKK? I've been pondering that question since the late 1970s. The best answer I've found is that since the SPLC founder Morris Dees is Jewish, the SPLC could not possibly be a hate group, because we all know that, the Mossad and certain Israeli Nazi-hunters excluded, Jewish people are incapable of hating anybody.

    Nowadays when people send me content via USPS that I find personally objectionable, I take it to my local postmaster and file a written complaint. And -- I find pictures of dead ANYBODY to be as objectionable as child pornography or neo-Nazi rantings.

  • Tamfang||

    I had never heard of SPLC when it sicced the media on an annual conference of the International Society for Individual Liberty. Reporters showed up hoping for a juicy story about racists / fascists / antisemites, and soon went away disappointed.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    SPLC is definitely an anti first amendment hate group.

  • working poor||

    SPLC has a right to hate anyone they want. Personally, I don't need someone to make me a list of who I need to hate.

  • shawn_dude||

    This is not the purpose for the list. The list is used by law enforcement and other groups to keep tabs on the activities of these organizations. People are currently worked up over islamic radicals but you're far more likely to be harmed by a non-islamic radical organization in the USA than you are an islamic one.

    It's also helpful to have a place to go to research organizations like the Family Research Council and its problems with the facts and how it uses its religious background to push laws that hurt innocent people.

  • Jayburd||

    Ritual defamation for fun and profit. http://www.conservapedia.com/E.....Defamation

  • Heraclitus||

    If putting a group on a hate list is a "cause" of violence then shouldn't we say that labeling people deviant could also be a "cause" of violence? Correct me if I am wrong but don't gay people get jumped quite a bit in our culture? Could it be that a group that opposes their equality might contribute to that violence? Stossel ought to investigate that pronto!

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is mentioned in passing, a total of a handful of times:
    http://bit.ly/2DexIKK

    It lists Ayaan Hirsi Ali—who grew up Muslim in Somalia and suffered female genital mutilation—as an "anti-Muslim extremist." Just because she now speaks out against radical Islam.

    Not, not "just because," and "extremist" is often used on reason.com to describe, well, anyone not a Republican. Will the asshole Stossel now boycott this site

    They also list the conservative Family Research Council as a "hate group."

    Rightly so

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're calling Stossel and asshole? Only a piece of shit would do that.

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    Ironically, the SPLC is a hate group....

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    One of the great achievements of America's liberal-libertarian alliance during my lifetime is that bigots no longer wish to be called, or known as, bigots (at least, not publicly). The casual, common, open intolerance of my youth has been replaced by defensive, cagey ('traditional values,' 'color-blind'), closeted bigots.

    One of the great misfortunes of that period has been the increasing appeasement and embrace of bigotry by Republicans and conservatives. I recall a Republican Party that championed reason, education, progress, science, modernity, freedom, tolerance, and limited government. It has been replaced by a Republican-conservative electoral coalition that relies on superstition, ignorance, bigotry, dogma, backwardness, authoritarianism, prudishness, and insularity.

    I hope the Republican Party recovers its mojo. I also would be content with the alternative -- the collision of Republican trends and a demographic wave.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    If you want to see a bigot, you need only turn to your nearest mirror

  • Michael Cook||

    To offer a purely speculative non sequitur late night intellectual hand grenade, I hereby predict that the coming week will be the most spectacularly divisive week in American history since the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter in 1861.

    The cause will be the Mueller investigation, the intention of Mueller to interview the president, and the likely insistence of President Trump that the interview be identical to the interview that Hillary received in the email "matter." That is no oaths, no electronic recordings, nobody can even take notes, and it does not go one second longer than hers did.

    That will be just one flash point. Another will be a perhaps more explosive combination of ingredients involving the names James Comey, Peter Struzk, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, Christopher Steele, Samantha Powers, James Clapper, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Loretta Lynch, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, the entire DNC, and likely unindicted co-conspirators at CNN, MSN-NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, BBC, the New York Times editorial board, the WaPo ed board, various news services, and the most influential lefty blogs and newsgroups.

    The latter category are those who have systematically stonewalled, minimized, apologized for and obscured in vast clouds of fake and filtered word smog one of the most brazen attempts at sabotage of and attempted coup against the administration of an American president in the history of our nation.

    This next seven days---KABOOM!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online