you are a shining beacon of intellect.

I hope you are just futzing around.

Bryant

Broad definition when they classify hate groups, i understand erring on the side of caution but for me it was to political in some ways rather than actual hatred or extremism.

I love their teaching tolerance program, but that map is ridiculously broad. It's clear that when it came to my state, they couldn't find a real hate group so they just threw up some guy with a blog that's not even a tenth as hateful as worldnut daily. One guy blogging (and now he's stopped) does not a hate group make.

just like McCarthy did - he 'erred on the side of caution', in labeling people communists. he didnt want to miss any

of course, a few individuals might be inconvinienced....

There are groups like the Republican Party that do peddle a fair bit of hate, but I wouldn't define them as a hate group because their platform is a wide-ranging one and they're not solely focused on peddling hatred and intolerance towards members of a minority group. I'd just describe them as greedy, selfish, prehistoric wankers. OTOH, groups whose sole purpose is to hate (eg Atlas Shrugs and Stormwatch) fall into my definition of hate groups...

group. But, if they are not advocating or implying violence - are they a hate group? I think we get dangerously close to the questions of freedom of speech - when we suggest groups are hate groups who are not violent or advocating or implying the use of violence even if they hold ideas repugnant to us.

No doubt some would consider pro-Palestinian groups hate-groups. On the other end someone might argue that pro-Israeli groups are hate groups - because from either perspective one is taking sides in an ethno-religious conflict. Is a Serbian community group a hate group - while a Bosnian community group is not? How about groups that are hostile to Evangelical Christians? Are they a hate groups? Or are Evangelical Christians one big hate group?

I suppose beyond simply the question of advocating or implying the use of violence - if a group promotes say racial theories but they do not suggest violence - are they still a hate group? I would have to say yes, probably.

When all is done and said it is a little bit like trying to define pornography or terrorism - the definitions are a bit slippery and there is no absolute definition - except when there is.

I had actually been looking at the SPLC's "hate map" just a couple of days ago but haven't had the time to research all of the groups indicated on the map. Hadn't even heard of some of them.

you'll find those are very similar questions

a lot of people are affected negatively by guest workers. The uber rich tech titans, use the H-1b program as a baseball bat on American workers, often requireing American workers to train their lower paid H-1b indentured servents as a condition of severence. The ambushed American worker usually has no choice to this humiliating practice.

(although one person shot himself in his car, afterward)

"Kevin Flanagan was a computer programmer who worked for The Bank of America in Concord, California, USA and committed suicide by gunshot in the parking lot of the business.

Flanagan shot himself to death in the parking lot of Bank of America's Concord Technology Center after he and colleagues were laid off in April 2003.The lay-offs were due to the company's plan to replace many IT employees with foreign Indian H1B workers at lower pay. The company had informed the laid-off employees they would be required to train their replacements for the remainder of their tenure"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kevin_Flanagan

to SPLC, ANYONE who questions expansion of guest workers is at least a 'fellow traveler' of hate groups

look on this page, although SPLC has not officially declared NumbersUSA a 'hate group' they sure imply that they are

despicable McCarthyism type practices. Being called 'Racist' has exactly the same intimidation power that being called 'Communist' had in the early 1950s. And in the 1950s, anyone who questioned a labor practice like the H-1b program described above would be called a 'Communist' by Senator McCarthy. Today, they are called a 'Racist' by SPLC.

'But SPLC has done good things in the past"/ So what- McCarthy has originally been a Democrat. Yet another paralell.

SPLC strongly believes in 'tollerance' of anything but a point of view that differs from them. They know they are the Truth, and ayone who questions it must be labeled

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance

Dees has faced criticism that he uses too much of the Southern Poverty Law Center's fundraising intake as personal income - and even accusations that the SPLC exists mostly as a fundraising vehicle. A 2000 article by Ken Silverstein in Harper's Magazine, titled "The Church of Morris Dees", alleged that Dees kept the SPLC focused on fighting anti-minority groups like the KKK, instead of on issues like homelessness, mostly because of the greater fundraising potential of the former. The article also claimed that the SPLC "spends twice as much on fund-raising--$5.76 million last year--as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Dees

Booker T Washington warned about things like SPLC over 100 years ago

My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911)

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.

Ch. V: The Intellectuals and the Boston Mob (pg. 118)

I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Booker_T._Washington

It's not perfect. Don't know if any could be.

"Group" allows a lot of wiggle room. If my brother and his son had a blog that promoted hate and animosity, but not violence, would they be a "group"?

"Designated group" sounds like it's against those groups as defined as "protected" by law. If I set up a group of 1000 that advocated animosity against budgie fanciers and proposed that they should be made criminals and perhaps "targetted," then set out to identify them and keep a public list ... Would that be a "hate group"? Certain a group, certainly hate, but are budgie fanciers really a protected or "designated" group?

I'd consider a group of 2 to be not so much a group as an irritation, regardless of their vitriole. I'd consider the "death to budgie fanciers" party to be a hate group.

Then there's the entire "illegal immigrant go home" contingent, and groups like that and the issue of animosity. A campaign like that in the US would be deemed racist because, well, for some it would be racist--most illegal immigrants in the US are Latinos, and while not a race, we call those who hate Latinos "racists" anyway. But not all those against illegal immigration are racist. This kind of campaign in Britain targets a wide variety of people--many, if not most these days not "other skin-toned", but consisting of Greeks and Poles, Spanish and Romanians. By most standards today those are "Euro-white". Some will be Asians (er ... South Asians.) But what we are expected to infer from the way the British campaign was portrayed is that it's racist in parallel with the way an American campaign would be assumed to be.

But asking for uniform application of the laws ... Does that make a hate group, even if the target of those laws mostly because of geography are Latinos? I'd say as long as they're asking for enforcement it's one thing; animosity tends to be part and parcel with "illegal activity", so I'd weaken that portion. Heck, calling for a Florida boycott because the state's legal system is deemed racist is "animosity".

Don't have an answer for that one. Don't like animosity--but I could give it a pass under some circumstances as inevitable when pursuing some valid or reasonable end.

"Am I the only one sick of members of that mongrel “race” of Mestizos who call themselves “Mexicans” and various other names showing up on our Twitter and facebook pages telling us, the white people of America, to go back to Europe because we don’t belong here? And am I the only one sick of seeing them on television and in youtube videos standing on our city streets with signs that say “White Racists Go Home” and other antagonist crap of that sort?"...

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/07/know-your-heritage-2448446.html

quoting from it a bit so you don't have to go there. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies it, correctly it seems, as a White Nationalist organization. Which it defines here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/white-nationalist .

The crocker site on first glance is a hodgepodge of every conspiracy theory you can think of, many of them you can also find on DU, but it is run, very apparently, by white supremacists.