6 ms·

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a sadly similar story. They're downright extreme nowadays.

by eplanit 5y ago

jaywalk 5y ago
Hey everybody, SPLC just added eplanit to their extremists lists. We shouldn't listen to him.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  Is eplanit a disaster-capitalist or racist? That's usually what triggers it...
  - Veen 5y ago
    Which of those are Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz?
    - revolvingocelot 5y ago
      According to the SPLC, their addition was a mistake, and the retraction seems honest and reasonable. [0] Now, me, I like my organizations to never admit-- uh, I mean make mistakes. [0] https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video
      - Veen 5y ago
        They settled a defamation lawsuit. The settlement terms included an apology and payment of $3 million.
        damagednoob 5y ago
        If it was an honest mistake, how did it get to the point of having to settle for $3 million?
        revolvingocelot 5y ago
        Why not try reading about it? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-...
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - strangeattractr 5y ago
        They made a list of 'Anti-Muslim extremists' and included both a victim of extremism and a former islamic extremist on it. Because their views which are informed by first hand experience are different from those held by the SPLC. Their entry on Nawaz also seemed to imply he was not a true muslim because he went to a strip club as well.
- eagsalazar2 5y ago
  Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, because the bathwater (after careful searching) was found to have some impurity, is itself a tactic for pushing an agenda, not a fair and rational response. You can't just say "added eplanit => all bad, no trust", you have to show a pattern and intent, neither of which you have even attempted to do.
namdnay 5y ago
people were saying the same thing about the SPLC when they were founded
- jollybean 5y ago
  This unfortunately doesn't work as an argument, because times change.
1over137 5y ago
An example being SPLC labeling ex-muslims as hateful "islamophobes".
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > An example being SPLC labeling ex-muslims as hateful "islamophobes". Why is that an example? Plenty of ex-whatever-religion (or even ex-particular-denomination) people turn right into the most extreme and hateful bigots against the group they departed. It’s a frequently commented on phenomenon among religious people, often not focussing on betrayal by departing members (where the bias of attachment to their own identity group might make them prone to overperceive) but on the trend among converts to their own religion. It would be weird if a group tracking hateful religious bigots systematically excluded former members of the targeted religious group from the label.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Perhaps the phobia suffix in this case is being used as a political tool? Do you really think that ex-Muslims are irrationally fearful of Muslims? Or, perhaps is handwaving away as "phobia" a cop out to any criticism at all? EDIT: Seems like it still works, just call someone a phobe or an ist and instantly shut down any criticism. There are no ex-Muslims with valid issues against Islam because they're just bigoted, obviously. Use whatever word games you need in order to shut down conversation. Pretty interesting coming from the same people that say they care about women, gay, and minority rights.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Perhaps the phobia suffix in this case is being used as a political tool? The use of “-phobe” as a suffix with the meaning “bigot against” (rooted originally in the belief that bigotry is tied to fear, but now operating largely independent of any assumption of the basis of the particular bigotry) is pretty well-established in English; the main case where its not used are for gender-based bigotry where the “mis—ist” circumfix is used around an existing Greek root.
  - 5y ago
eagsalazar2 5y ago
How so?

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a sadly similar story. They're downright extreme nowadays.

jaywalk 5y ago

Hey everybody, SPLC just added eplanit to their extremists lists. We shouldn't listen to him.

revolvingocelot 5y ago
Is eplanit a disaster-capitalist or racist? That's usually what triggers it...
- Veen 5y ago
  Which of those are Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz?
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    According to the SPLC, their addition was a mistake, and the retraction seems honest and reasonable. [0] Now, me, I like my organizations to never admit-- uh, I mean make mistakes. [0] https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video
    - Veen 5y ago
      They settled a defamation lawsuit. The settlement terms included an apology and payment of $3 million.
      - damagednoob 5y ago
        If it was an honest mistake, how did it get to the point of having to settle for $3 million?
        revolvingocelot 5y ago
        Why not try reading about it? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - strangeattractr 5y ago
      They made a list of 'Anti-Muslim extremists' and included both a victim of extremism and a former islamic extremist on it. Because their views which are informed by first hand experience are different from those held by the SPLC. Their entry on Nawaz also seemed to imply he was not a true muslim because he went to a strip club as well.
eagsalazar2 5y ago
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, because the bathwater (after careful searching) was found to have some impurity, is itself a tactic for pushing an agenda, not a fair and rational response. You can't just say "added eplanit => all bad, no trust", you have to show a pattern and intent, neither of which you have even attempted to do.

namdnay 5y ago

people were saying the same thing about the SPLC when they were founded

jollybean 5y ago
This unfortunately doesn't work as an argument, because times change.

1over137 5y ago

An example being SPLC labeling ex-muslims as hateful "islamophobes".

dragonwriter 5y ago
> An example being SPLC labeling ex-muslims as hateful "islamophobes". Why is that an example? Plenty of ex-whatever-religion (or even ex-particular-denomination) people turn right into the most extreme and hateful bigots against the group they departed. It’s a frequently commented on phenomenon among religious people, often not focussing on betrayal by departing members (where the bias of attachment to their own identity group might make them prone to overperceive) but on the trend among converts to their own religion. It would be weird if a group tracking hateful religious bigots systematically excluded former members of the targeted religious group from the label.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Perhaps the phobia suffix in this case is being used as a political tool? Do you really think that ex-Muslims are irrationally fearful of Muslims? Or, perhaps is handwaving away as "phobia" a cop out to any criticism at all? EDIT: Seems like it still works, just call someone a phobe or an ist and instantly shut down any criticism. There are no ex-Muslims with valid issues against Islam because they're just bigoted, obviously. Use whatever word games you need in order to shut down conversation. Pretty interesting coming from the same people that say they care about women, gay, and minority rights.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Perhaps the phobia suffix in this case is being used as a political tool? The use of “-phobe” as a suffix with the meaning “bigot against” (rooted originally in the belief that bigotry is tied to fear, but now operating largely independent of any assumption of the basis of the particular bigotry) is pretty well-established in English; the main case where its not used are for gender-based bigotry where the “mis—ist” circumfix is used around an existing Greek root.
- 5y ago

eagsalazar2 5y ago

How so?