3 ms·

Quoted out of context from the report. The point was that they're not likely to be out in the open about their affiliation with white supremacists, which is not

Quoted out of context from the report. The point was that they're not likely to be out in the open about their affiliation with white supremacists, which is not the same as there being no affiliation at all. Of course infiltrators don't announce that they're infiltrators. Blending in is part of the game. Supremacists even have a name for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_skin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_skin Note the particular reference to law enforcement. That plus the ad hominem at the end of your comment adds up to a whole lot of Not Convincing. BTW here's another report on the same topic, from 2006. Can't wait to see what reason you come up with for dismissing it as well. http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/402521/doc-26-white-supremacist-infiltration.pdf http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/402521/doc-26-white-su...

verylittlemeat 6y ago
Most of that document is redacted. The first key judgment even seems to be in the spirit of my quote, contradicting that there's any real infiltration. Aside from a reference to one specific person and the KKK it's just full of hypotheticals: "they could", "which can", "they can benefit." The fact that "ghost skins" exist does not suggest that they're any more numerous but it sure makes an attractive runaway conspiracy that of course can't be disproved. My quote is completely in context, he mentions nothing about openness of affiliation in the paragraph before or after. In fact he weakens his own argument by jumping from pointing out a handful of alleged white supremacist connections since 2000 to "hundreds of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials participating in racist, nativist, and sexist social media activity" - posting memes seems like a bit of a step down from being a member of a white supremacist militia. And my ad hominem is completely relevant considering that he has burned professional bridges and has no incentive to be subtle or nuanced about a politically charged topic. As I said, fear, uncertainty and doubt. Glad to come back to this thread and see that it was flagged.

verylittlemeat 6y ago

Most of that document is redacted. The first key judgment even seems to be in the spirit of my quote, contradicting that there's any real infiltration. Aside from a reference to one specific person and the KKK it's just full of hypotheticals: "they could", "which can", "they can benefit." The fact that "ghost skins" exist does not suggest that they're any more numerous but it sure makes an attractive runaway conspiracy that of course can't be disproved. My quote is completely in context, he mentions nothing about openness of affiliation in the paragraph before or after. In fact he weakens his own argument by jumping from pointing out a handful of alleged white supremacist connections since 2000 to "hundreds of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials participating in racist, nativist, and sexist social media activity" - posting memes seems like a bit of a step down from being a member of a white supremacist militia. And my ad hominem is completely relevant considering that he has burned professional bridges and has no incentive to be subtle or nuanced about a politically charged topic. As I said, fear, uncertainty and doubt. Glad to come back to this thread and see that it was flagged.