4 ms·

> your only recourse is to explain to everybody why they're wrong. Or to voluntarily choose not to associate with them, which is all the SPLC is advocating peo

> your only recourse is to explain to everybody why they're wrong. Or to voluntarily choose not to associate with them, which is all the SPLC is advocating people do. Or are you for freedom of speech but against freedom of association? In general, your mistake is confusing "constitutionally can't be excessively limited by the US government" and "a good idea".

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Or to voluntarily choose not to associate with them, which is all the SPLC is advocating people do. Except that they're lying about it by classifying them as a "hate group" over ideological differences. There is a major category difference between the Klan, out there burning crosses and lynching people, and some nonviolent conservatives out there saying nonviolent conservative stuff. Pointing out the difference isn't violating freedom of association, it's just pointing out the difference.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  Meh. If someone would uncritically take the label "hate group" without looking up the labelling organization's definition they were always going to be bamboozled. I think most informed Americans would be able to guess what the SPLC would call a hate group. I agree can completely freedom of speech means you can accuse the SPLC of lying. But it also means the SPLC can call whatever they want a hate group, and the solution to that is also more speech. So far in our little marketplace of ideas you've failed to get me to buy what you're saying.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Using an expansive definition of a common term is classic motte and bailey. Hate groups are evil monsters because they lynch people, some institute is a hate group because they say things we don't like, everybody please assume that institute is all evil monsters out there lynching people. It would be easy to have two separate lists with unambiguous names if they wanted to make the distinction clear, but they wanted to not make the distinction clear. As to the argument that it doesn't confuse anybody, it sure seemed to confuse that guy who went and shot up the Family Research Council because they were on the list. And the answer to that is more speech. This is the more speech. Nobody is saying that we should shut down the SPLC because they publish a misleading list, only that everybody should be aware of how they're misleading people.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Or to voluntarily choose not to associate with them, which is all the SPLC is advocating people do. Except that they're lying about it by classifying them as a "hate group" over ideological differences. There is a major category difference between the Klan, out there burning crosses and lynching people, and some nonviolent conservatives out there saying nonviolent conservative stuff. Pointing out the difference isn't violating freedom of association, it's just pointing out the difference.

iudqnolq 7y ago
Meh. If someone would uncritically take the label "hate group" without looking up the labelling organization's definition they were always going to be bamboozled. I think most informed Americans would be able to guess what the SPLC would call a hate group. I agree can completely freedom of speech means you can accuse the SPLC of lying. But it also means the SPLC can call whatever they want a hate group, and the solution to that is also more speech. So far in our little marketplace of ideas you've failed to get me to buy what you're saying.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Using an expansive definition of a common term is classic motte and bailey. Hate groups are evil monsters because they lynch people, some institute is a hate group because they say things we don't like, everybody please assume that institute is all evil monsters out there lynching people. It would be easy to have two separate lists with unambiguous names if they wanted to make the distinction clear, but they wanted to not make the distinction clear. As to the argument that it doesn't confuse anybody, it sure seemed to confuse that guy who went and shot up the Family Research Council because they were on the list. And the answer to that is more speech. This is the more speech. Nobody is saying that we should shut down the SPLC because they publish a misleading list, only that everybody should be aware of how they're misleading people.