Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Nationwide (U.S.) Listing of "Hate" Groups

By cp in MLP
Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 04:51:16 PM EST
Tags: You Know... (all tags)
You Know...

The Southern Poverty Law Center, through its web-project Tolerance.org, has published its map of active "hate" groups for the year 2000. Groups are categorized according to their affiliations as Klan, Neo-Nazi, Racist Skinhead, Christian Identity, Neo-Confederate, Black Separatist, or Other. Vermont and Rhode Island rank at the bottom with none, whereas Alabama and Florida round out the top with 39 each. Discounting the rash of Klan and Neo-Confederate groups in the deep south, the map largely reads like a map of population density, with higher-density regions naturally having more such groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded in 1971 and is most famous for its successful legal battles against racial segregation and white supremacist groups.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Southern Poverty Law Center
o Tolerance. org
o map
o Klan
o Neo-Nazi
o Racist Skinhead
o Christian Identity
o Neo-Confed erate
o Black Separatist
o Other
o Also by cp


Display: Sort:
Nationwide (U.S.) Listing of "Hate" Groups | 47 comments (47 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Makes sense (3.00 / 1) (#1)
by Blue Aardvark House on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 12:40:29 PM EST

More people = more hate groups.

I live in Florida. Sad to see so much of this nonsense here. Especially surprising is that in the southern portion of the state (where I live) there's a lot of Northern influence (New Yorkers and a fair contingent from Pittsburgh), so I'd think there's less of such an influence down here.

Apparently, northern Florida adds enough fuel to the fire.

What's up with South Florida? (none / 0) (#5)
by wiredog on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 01:34:25 PM EST

Elian. Election fiasco. Anthrax. Dave Barry. OJ.

Is there something in the water?

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]

Not to mention: (none / 0) (#11)
by Blue Aardvark House on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 02:37:33 PM EST

A safe harbor to train terrorists!! ;+)

We certainly are a mess.

[ Parent ]

An Important Submission (2.11 / 9) (#2)
by tyronefine on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 12:46:01 PM EST

Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center are a great organization. I'd almost be willing to say Dees has done as much for the Civil Rights movement as Jesse Jackson. Now more than ever, we need to be aware of these hate groups. Sure, all they do right now is mind their own business and talk about unpopular ideas. But who knows what they could do in the future? I definitely agree that we need to track and harrass people who choose to exercise their right to hold unsound opinions. I'm also glad SPLC didn't fall into the trap of including any of the many muslim groups in the US that advocate the killing of Americans.



I love sarcasm. (none / 0) (#3)
by Bartab on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 01:02:22 PM EST

Pravda recently described the SPLC as "a rather shady group of lawyers who make profit by suing organizations they label as 'hateful'"

http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/10/18/18529.html

The irony of a 'Red' calling out another is amusing.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Surely thats the opposite (none / 0) (#4)
by squigly on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 01:25:05 PM EST

A red - idealistically speaking - wants to do a lot of work for the good of the community, and expects no personal reward. A shady lawyer wants to make as much money as posible for himself with very little work, and offering no benefit to the community.

[ Parent ]
Of course (none / 0) (#23)
by Bartab on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 04:47:40 PM EST

Pravda is no more red than the SPLC, however the latter pretends to be and it wouldn't take more than a few minutes to call Pravda writers a 'Red'

Thus, red outing a red.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

-1, revise and resubmit (none / 0) (#7)
by cp on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 02:09:47 PM EST

Though Tyrone Fine might not care for Morris Dees's criticisms of black separatism, you're stepping completely out of character when you link to deeswatch.com, what with its ties with white supremacism and all. (Tyrone Fine is far too proud to ally himself with those who would call him a "mud person" or worse.) Though your early work was commendable, now is not the time to get lazy.

[ Parent ]
Hypocrisy (2.27 / 11) (#6)
by BehTong on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 01:46:16 PM EST

People who label others as a "hate group" are probably themselves a hate group.

Yes, it's good to be aware of "hate groups" out there, but that doesn't justify going around pointing fingers. After all, by whose standards is someone labelled a "hate group"? People who hate those they label as haters?

Sorry, I much rather people do something constructive than mudrake.

Beh Tong Kah Beh Si!

Misinformation. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Electric Angst on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 02:48:28 PM EST

There you go, claiming that they're blindly yelling "Hate Group!" Well, if you'd check the site, you'd see that not only do they catagorize the groups they list, but they also provide definitions of those catagories. The definition of each of those catagories is used as the watermark against which these groups receive the label.

So, each of these groups holds policies or promotes/partakes in activities that fit the definition of a hate group. How is it wrong for the SPLC (an organization that doesn't fit any of those definitions) to label them as such? Your statement makes about as much sense as someone saying "People who label others as a 'political party' are probably themselves a political party."

Bah! This sudden burst of dipshit-ness has made my head hurt. Damn.


--
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Nietzsche
[ Parent ]
Interestingly enough, BehTong may be right (none / 0) (#15)
by tmoertel on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 03:52:19 PM EST

On the "U.S. Map of Hate Groups", the Tolerance.org folks define hate groups as follows:
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or denigrate an entire class of people, typically for their beliefs or immutable characteristics.
Strictly interpreted, the definition would appear to include any group that labels other people as hateful because of their beliefs. (The definition provides no exception for the use of denigrating labels like "hate group," even if such labels may generally be considered truthful.)

Go figure.

--
My blog | LectroTest

[ Disagree? Reply. ]


[ Parent ]
Check the verbs. (none / 0) (#30)
by physicsgod on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 12:39:58 AM EST

SPLC doesn't attack or denigrate these groups, they just keep track of them. At least I didn't find anything on their website saying "here's the address and phone number of the group, 2am calls are best."

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Check the dictionary (none / 0) (#38)
by tmoertel on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 12:48:02 AM EST

SPLC doesn't attack or denigrate these groups . . .
That depends on whether you think that labeling a class of people as a "hate group" is denigrating. That kind of labeling certainly seems "to cast aspersions on" the affected people, which is essentially the definition of denigrate.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm making no claims about the SPLC, either good or bad, and I am certainly not defending the kinds of behvior that the SPLC decries. Rather, I'm pointing out that when an organization puts up a web site telling the world what constitues a "hate group", they had best be careful with their definitions.

--
My blog | LectroTest

[ Disagree? Reply. ]


[ Parent ]
Check it some more... (none / 0) (#42)
by physicsgod on Sun Nov 04, 2001 at 01:43:31 PM EST

If you look up aspersions you're lead to calumny which is defined as "a misrepresentation intended to blacken another's reputation". Since it's true these people hate calling them a hate group isn't a misrepresentation, thus it isn't calumny, thus it isn't casting aspersions, thus isn't denigration.

Boy reading the dictionary is fun. Until now I never knew what casting aspersions meant.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]

Actually, what I meant was . . . (none / 0) (#43)
by tmoertel on Mon Nov 05, 2001 at 05:54:29 PM EST

I wrote:
That depends on whether you think that labeling a class of people as a "hate group" is denigrating. That kind of labeling certainly seems "to cast aspersions on" the affected people . . .
to which you responded:
Since it's true these people hate[,] calling them a hate group isn't a misrepresentation, thus it isn't calumny, thus it isn't casting aspersions, thus isn't denigration.
What I called denigrating was how the so-called hate groups were labeled: Entire classes of people were summarized by one particular, politicized phrase without due representation of the whole of who they are.

Labeling classes of people as "hate groups" is denigrating for the same reason that labeling a person as a "communist" was denigrating in the 1950's or labeling a religous person as a "fundamentalist" is denigrating today. These labels, too, are based upon a truth, but they nevertheless seek to deny the complex reality of who people are by defining who they are in a convenient, subtly dishonest phrase.

It's a misrepresentation of the whole truth, an attempt to summarize an entire class of people by its most unpalatable characteristic. And that, my friend, is calumny, and it is denigrating.

Now do you see what I mean?

--
My blog | LectroTest

[ Disagree? Reply. ]


[ Parent ]
No, I don't. (none / 0) (#45)
by physicsgod on Tue Nov 06, 2001 at 04:39:20 PM EST

Since "hate group" is well-defined(by the site) as those who denigrate others based on belief, labelling something that denigrates others a hate group isn't denigration because it's true. Thus it wouldn't be denigration to label Judaism a "Non-Christian religion" but it would be denigration to label them "Money-grubbing weasels".

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
OT: your sig (none / 0) (#46)
by cp on Tue Nov 06, 2001 at 10:17:42 PM EST

--- People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --Unknown--
I take it you're not with the school of thought that attributes that quote to George Orwell?

[ Parent ]
Well I was... (none / 0) (#47)
by physicsgod on Wed Nov 07, 2001 at 01:26:53 AM EST

Since that's who I saw it attributed to on the 'net, but then someone else pointed me to the controversy, so I just changed it to "Unknown". I don't care who said it, I just like what it says and didn't come up with it myself.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
I don't think so... (4.50 / 2) (#13)
by pattern on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 02:49:28 PM EST

I think almost anyone who is critical of fundamentalism and hate groups would agree that:

  • We don't want to shut down their places of worship, outlaw their religions
  • We don't want to discriminate against them in hiring, in housing, or in the military
  • We don't want to take over the government and force every citizen to live according to our own opinions
  • We don't want to organize paramilitary groups to overthrow the government, or to plant bombs, or to fly jumbo jets into office buildings, all for the greater glory of our ideologies and/or deities
  • We don't want to kill people for being gay or lesbian, or for having sex with someone they aren't married to, or for sassing their parents, or for belonging to a "false religion," or for having a different skin pigmentation.

Remember, when we can't take a stand that something is wrong or right, all that's left is feeble accusations of hypocracy.



[ Parent ]
Think again... (none / 0) (#21)
by ti dave on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 04:33:17 PM EST

"We don't want to shut down their places of worship,..."

"We don't want to discriminate against them in hiring, in housing..."

As you can see here, you're not exactly correct. Of course, you may want to split hairs over what constitutes a "proper" religion.

Note: I'm not a supporter of Butler's cause, it just popped in to my head as an example as I read uyour post.

Cheers,

ti dave


"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Proper religion (4.00 / 1) (#24)
by pattern on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 05:26:34 PM EST

Of course, you may want to split hairs over what constitutes a "proper" religion.

That would, of course, be a futile pursuit in these days of moral relativism. May I suggest the term "maladaptive worldview" instead?



[ Parent ]
hehehehe!!! [n/t] (none / 0) (#34)
by ti dave on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 04:03:52 AM EST


"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Who are "we"? (none / 0) (#22)
by epepke on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 04:40:36 PM EST

The governmental agencies who publish pictures of secret signs that meant Your Kid might be in a hate group, which signs included the Star of David until enough people complained?

The school boards who target and expel kids because they wear black T-shirts and like Ramstein?

The ones who want certain kinds of people to be targeted as suspects whenever someone who is another kind of person is attacked?

People who don't hate people for being gay or lesbian but do talk a lot about "hetties" and "breeders," or who claim that "man-hating is a noble act"?

I'm not saying that this group is necessarily bad, but there are a lot of people who hide behind the label of being "critial" of hate groups that hold agenda of their own, and some of these agenda come across as hateful to many.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
I don't understand that - sarcasm ? (none / 0) (#26)
by mami on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 08:18:36 PM EST

So, I am critical against fundamentalist hate groups, these are groups, who hate so much, that they are willing to kill people and abuse other people's human rights and civil liberties, take away other human rights at gun point, incite and promote hate in an harrassing manner like hate speech towards other people with the aim to make them hate too, either in retaliation or as their followers.

Now you are saying, I wouldn't want to discriminate against them in the military and outlaw their religion (better word may be cults as there are no true religions which preaches hate) ? Sorry, I would do that in a minute. The military is there, under check and balance of a democratically and freely elected, proportionally representative government, to protect my civil liberties and human rights. I don't accept hate groups to be able to take over the military, contrary I expect the military to disallow ANY hate group to engage in any hate based propaganda within the military. May be I didn't get your comment.

I also would also outlaw their places of worship, if they used those places to indoctrinate children under severe emotional penalties to obey their hate-based ideologies, in order to grow the next generation of hate-based followers. And I would do everything to de-program hate-based brainwashed kids and free them from the influence of those, who abused their innocence and trust for their own freedom and human right abusive purposes.

What did I misunderstand in your comment ?





[ Parent ]
hi (none / 0) (#29)
by cp on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 11:56:40 PM EST

there are no true religions which preaches hate
No.

[ Parent ]
Well, then (none / 0) (#37)
by mami on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 09:34:54 AM EST

show me the ones, who do ?

[ Parent ]
all the major ones (none / 0) (#39)
by cp on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 03:22:05 AM EST

Most religions teach some form of righteous hatred. (If you honestly can't think of any particular examples, then you haven't read enough scripture.) And the difference between "cults" and certain mainstream religions seems to boil down to their being "mainstream" and little more. Your point is therefore silly.

[ Parent ]
you're right of course (none / 0) (#32)
by kataklyst on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 02:03:08 AM EST

pattern obviously made the mistake of assuming that those that think it's wrong to discriminate based on things like race or gender would also think it's wrong to discriminate based on things like religion or ideology.

However, as you demonstrate, there are people that dislike hate groups but are more than willing to "abuse other people's human rights and civil liberties" if those others say bad things.

[ Parent ]

So, what you are saying is (none / 0) (#36)
by mami on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 09:32:10 AM EST

if I "discriminate" against "ideologies" and "religions", which demonstrate that their goal is to kill and take away my own human and civil rights, then I am the bad guy, because I am the one, who demonstrates that I abuse those people's human rights and civil rights ?

So, if for example the women of RAWA "discriminate" against the ideology of the Taliban regime, because the "discriminate" against those, who abuse their civil and human rights, the RAWA women are the ones, who are the bad girls, because the have the audacity to point out that there "abusive ideologies and religions" and like to "discriminate" against those, because they are designed to destroy the civil and human rights of a whole segment of a country's population ? You know hate groups do normally more than just "saying bad things". That's a nice euphemism for cowardness to decide, where the lines between using your freedom of speech to the fullest and abusing your freedom of speech to harm other people's freedom of speech really is ?

What kind of nice hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is that ?



[ Parent ]
thought crimes and real crimes (none / 0) (#40)
by kataklyst on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 07:15:32 PM EST

If I "discriminate" against "ideologies" and "religions", which demonstrate that their goal is to kill and take away my own human and civil rights, then I am the bad guy, because I am the one, who demonstrates that I abuse those people's human rights and civil rights ?

The people in question are those that say they hate you, but haven't taken any action against you. You seem inclined to violate their human rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. As long as you don't do anything about this inclination, it would be inconsistent for me to label you the bad guy. If you come into political power and pass laws enforcing those inclinations, then that would make you the bad guy in my book.

You know hate groups do normally more than just "saying bad things".

Indeed, this is true. I have no problem with taking action against individuals that do more than say bad things. Where we seem to disagree is on what should be done with those who do nothing more than express their opinions.

For example the women of RAWA "discriminate" against the ideology of the Taliban regime,

I'm not terribly familiar with the RAWA, but am I correct to assume that their goal is more to protect women from harm than to silence Islamic fundamentalists?

That's a nice euphemism for cowardness to decide, where the lines between using your freedom of speech to the fullest and abusing your freedom of speech to harm other people's freedom of speech really is ?

I'm not afraid to take a position on that issue. I believe that everyone should be free to express their opinions, regardless of what those opinions may be. That includes people like yourself that use their freedom of speech to advocate taking away other people's freedom of speech.

[ Parent ]

I hate you (none / 0) (#44)
by dbc001 on Tue Nov 06, 2001 at 12:36:06 PM EST

I hate people who dont hate hate groups

[ Parent ]
Couple of missing ones... (4.50 / 4) (#8)
by Elkor on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 02:10:31 PM EST

I didn't see the studios for the "700 Club" or Pat Robertson's church in Va Beach, Virginia listed.

Likewise, there should be a "Sexuality" category covering things like radical feminist and misogynist organizations. And, young republicans should at least get an honorable mention. (Btw, that's a joke)

So, I wouldn't really call it a complete list.

Regards,

Elkor

"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
SPL representative spoke this morning at CNN (3.00 / 1) (#9)
by mami on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 02:19:20 PM EST

and gave some convincing reasons why, in his opinion, the Anthrax attack is not an act of a homegrown terrorist from one of the hate groups he surveys. His reasons sounded credible to me and I have said before, that my guts feelings and suspicion made me believe it could have been done at least with help of some homegrown terrorists from that political segments.

He said he thinks that the majority of the members of those hate groups are not intelligent enough to pull of such an attack and the fact that those groups are verbally not hiding their actions and convictions.

I am just thinkiing that it would have been easy for any lab assistant or lab stock room clerk to steal Anthrax material. I don't think you need to have a major education or intelligence for that. That was my main concern.

But what the heck is all this speculation worth. Nada.

sorry (none / 0) (#10)
by mami on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 02:23:24 PM EST

for all the spelling and grammar errors. Must be the subject area which causes me to make so many mistakes.

[ Parent ]
Interesting... but confusing... (3.00 / 2) (#14)
by SvnLyrBrto on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 03:47:28 PM EST

(first off, bravo!!! A story that's not 9/11 related, and an intresting one at that. +1 FP from me)

I used to live in Florida. And I'm not suprised at all. In fact, see that cluster of four near the center of the state? They're from those redneck towns just northeast of Orlando. They used to leak into the city occasionally. Gay pride day at Disney World would bring bigots out of the woodwork from ALL over the state. It was quite a show. I went a few times just to watch and heckle the protestors.

A few people mentioned suprise at the number of hate groups in Florida. Well, what you have to remember is that the civilizing influences are mostly part-time. Tourists come and spend money, New Englanders move down for the winter.

Absent those influences, it's still very much a southern state that elected a bush as its governor.

What suprised the HELL out of me, are all the groups here in California!!!

I've hardly seen them. The only instances I've seen in a year and a half were an incident of anti-semitism in Berkeley last october, and a small rash of post-9/11 vandalism against muslim-owned businesses. Other than that, hate groups seem to be DEEP underground.

For instance, I worked the DanceSafe table at the Castro Street fair just a few weeks ago. I was there ALL DAY, and saw NO evidence of any hate groups. No pickets... no hooded klukkers, no skinheads, no one handing out hatemongering propaganda, no nothing.

Back in Florida, the bigots will protest in great numbers at anything remotely RESEMBLING a gay pride event. (Trust me, I was NOT kidding about the freak show the klukkers, skinheads, southern baptists, and other hatemongers would put on at Disney World).

Here in California, I've seen none of that. The Mission is mostly hispanic, North Beach mostly italian, Tenderloin mostly black, Castro mostly gay, Chinatown and Japantown... well it's obvious. There's are also large indian contingents, and asians of all other descent . Most everyone seems to get along pretty well.

Accenting the point that people get along better here is the fact that, despite the predominant ethnic background of a community, most neighborhoods have peacefully coexisting contingents of people who are NOT of the predominant race. In Florida??? A black family in a white neighborhood, and vice versa is a RARE thing.

But aside from that disgraceful anti-semitism in Berkeley last year, and the equally deplorable post 9/11 vandalism rash, we seem to be remarkably free from hatemongers here.

I dunno... Jusy what to these hate groups *DO* here? I won't dispute tolerance.org's findings, but I just don't SEE more than the slightest hatemongering around here.

Or maybe it's relative? Maybe I'm just so used to the concentration of hate in the south that the lower level in California just SEEMS to be only slightly above nil?

In any event, it's good to be HERE, and OUT of the bible belt.

cya,
john


Imagine all the people...

Not so surprising (none / 0) (#17)
by cp on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 04:20:25 PM EST

California's a huge state with an enormous and diverse population. Something that's underground in San Francisco can openly flourish other parts of the state.

And surely you remember the Williams brothers, who torched three synagogues and slayed a gay couple in the summer of 1999, and who were affiliated with the Christian Identity supremacist movement. They finally pled guilty in September; albeit September 10 was overshadowed by subsequent events elsewhere.

[ Parent ]

Before my time... (none / 0) (#25)
by SvnLyrBrto on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 06:29:17 PM EST

No I hadn't heard. Summer '99 was before I moved here. And, as you say, the only thing you could get on the news from 9/11 on is WTC / War on Terror crap. I've mostly quit watching the news out of sheer boredom.

Odd though... anti-semitism *IS* one of the two kinds of hate crime I HAVE heard of since moving here. Still, there's quite a difference between threatening and silencing a public speech, and actually going out and burning synagogues, and murdering gays.

Quite a shocker, based on MY California experience so far.


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

So what don't you understand ? (none / 0) (#27)
by mami on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 08:50:57 PM EST

that an ethnically diverse neighborhood is a sign that no underground hate groups can be at work ? I wouldn't say so.

First of all hate groups can exist in any ethnic group. Just because you have several races living together, doesn't mean you couldn't have hate groups in each of the co-existing ethnic groups.

Usually they are more prevalent, where more different ethnic groups live close together, I would say. It's just more difficult for them to be openly forthcoming in their hate crimes, because it would end up in murder immediately and so far, murder is not legal yet in America. Luckily we don't live under a certain T ** regime yet.

In addition tolerance of hate speech, protected as a matter of freedom of speech, is controversial among the international community of OSS (and other) people. I believe that not everybody in that community is such a freedom speech absolutist as many American OSS people seem to be. I don't think that we all would agree nilly-willy to tolerate hate speech online. It's a recurring issue on /. and K5 and I personally feel appalled and betrayed by the freedom speech absolutists, tolerating hate speech out of a matter of principle, thusly giving neo-Nazi and other race-based hate groups and conspirateurs all support they need.

Hate speech leads to hate crimes and human right abuses, and I don't see any reason, why I should support that. It is a big issue of disagreement among the U.S. and a couple of European countries in general and MUST BE an important issue for OSS system admins and network admins. So, I don't see, how you you are NOT able to see, that hategroup mongering online IS an issue here. And if it's not an issue, I will try to make it one. :-)

[ Parent ]
Are you talking to ME??? (none / 0) (#28)
by SvnLyrBrto on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 09:13:47 PM EST

My post said, in a nutshell, that *I* do not see the same kind of hatemongering and intolerence here in California that I used to see when I lived in the south.

I agreed with tolerance.org's findings wrt/ Florida, and I admitted to being shocked that they could find so many hate groups here.

Nowhere did I mention free speech absolutism or the open source community's general position on such. Those topics are not relevant to my post in particular, nor this discussion in general.

So just what the hell are you talking about?


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

So just what the hell are you talking about? (none / 0) (#35)
by mami on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 09:18:45 AM EST

I am trying to stear the discussion into another direction, demonstrating that there is an issue about hate groups being supported under the fig leaf of freedom of speech absolutists, which accuse me constantly for my views on this forum of being someone who abuses "human rights" for being critical of people who take the freedom of speech rights so far that they allow others to promote propagandistically to abuse human rights.

I see a hypocrisy in that. It's an issue which is constantly ridiculed and avoided to discuss with intellectual honesty.

[ Parent ]
Justifying racism? (1.80 / 5) (#16)
by jasonab on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 03:57:36 PM EST

Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism....
This is from the "black separatist" page. Are they saying that racism is ok if it's retaliation? It would seem the SPLC would recognize that any racism is equally harmful and unjustifyable.

re: Justifying racism? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by kjb on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 04:27:51 PM EST

Here's the part you left out:

"it believes racism must be exposed in all its forms. White groups espousing beliefs similar to Black Separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color."


--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

Read the whose sentence and paragraph. sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by cp on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 04:28:21 PM EST

They make it clear that the SPLC "believes racism must be exposed in all its forms" and that their categorizations "should be applied to all groups regardless of their color." They're just mentioning the blacks can't be racist misconception in order to distinguish their own position from it.

[ Parent ]
Congratulations! You can chop up a quote! (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by wji on Wed Oct 31, 2001 at 04:31:20 PM EST

See that 'although' at the beginning?


I guess if a historian says 'although Hitler's persecution of the Jews was based on a desire to place blame for the economic suffering in depression Germany...' you'll accuse him of being a neo-nazi.


Of course, if, as I'm guessing, you believe that many 'anti-racism' groups have little respect for individual rights and often act as self-appointed censorship boards, you might be right. But you chopped a sentence right down the middle, and you can use that method to accuse anyone of anything -- see the story i'll put up today or tomorrow >:)



In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]

Not taken out of context (none / 0) (#31)
by jasonab on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 01:08:57 AM EST

See that 'although' at the beginning?
But that word is my point. The "recognize" this cause of black racism, thereby justifying it. What it says to me is: "Lots of blacks hate whites because The Man is bad. Some go too far, though, and they're listed here."

[ Parent ]
re: Not taken out of context (none / 0) (#33)
by kjb on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 03:17:30 AM EST

You absolutely did take their remark out of context. You gave a misleading impression of the SLPC's position by not quoting their position on Black Separatists completely.
Look at the last sentence in particular.

Here is the whole paragraph:
Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism, it believes racism must be exposed in all its forms. White groups espousing beliefs similar to Black Separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color.

It rather destroys your agrument.
Here is a link to the actual definition of Black Separatists they use.

--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

Explaining vs. justifying (none / 0) (#41)
by strlen on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 10:35:47 PM EST

There's quite a line between explanation and justification.. Look at serial murderers, rapists, child molesters.. they've been studied all over and are being studied to this day, but just because their wrong doing can be explained, it doesn't mean they are any less guilty. While people like Farakhan (sp?) are despicable racists and must be recognized as such, it's also important to prevent future Farakhan's from being brought up.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Nationwide (U.S.) Listing of "Hate" Groups | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!