3 ms·

Meh. If someone would uncritically take the label "hate group" without looking up the labelling organization's definition they were always going to be bamboozle

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.