Why do you think SPLC is not good at picking hate groups?

The SPLC, in most cases, sticks to their mission fairly well. However, in several cases, they’ve designated as a hate group groups (or people) that have never “hated” anyone. To wit:

Now, to be fair, the SPLC has walked back a lot of their earlier rhetoric regarding Hoff Sommers; but their original allegations were cited by the protesters at the recent event at Lewis and Clark College:

…which, I’m happy to say, seems to be resulting in a properly assertive statement by the college and faculty to the contrary:

There are other examples of where the SPLC has made “hate” designations controversially or irresponsibly, then walked back those allegations after the damage has been done. Ben Carson, Charles Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc.

And always against conservatives and conservative groups; but nary a word against organizations like Antifa (which openly advocates violence on its various websites) and groups like CAIR, whose leaders openly espouse a hatred of Christianity and western culture, and who work to establish an Islamic fundamentalist presence in the US (which is *clearly* a hate group, when it comes to Christians, Jews, and LGBT people), and people like Linda Sarsour, who has made very clear statements that she aligns herself with the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam first and foremost.

And all this, while FBI statistics show that hate CRIMES in the US have fallen dramatically over the last two decades. Yet, the SPLC has listed more hate GROUPS today than at any other time in its existence. There’s a rather major disconnect, there, that’s worth exploring.

With all that in mind, it’s hard to come to any other reasonable conclusion other that the SPLC, in addition to its traditional mission which is used to give all its statements credibility, has an activist wing which engages in left-wing agitprop.

You’re American, right? Unless I’m mistaken. Let me know. Why do American politics engross you so much.

Because I’m American.

Is it you or Svetlana or both who don’t like “feminism”? If so, how do you define “feminism” in a way that it is offensive to you?

Lana is the scholar on the subject, I’m just an observer. What Lana insists on is that people live by the labels they put on themselves. So, a person who self-describes as “feminist” MUST adhere to all aspects of feminist theology, which requires socialism/marxism, atheism, and a breakdown of the nuclear family.

Most people who self-describe as feminists are not really feminists, by that definition. They are, like you and I, people who simply believe that business and society should treat men and women equally and equitably.

So, when somebody first self-describes as “feminist”, I ask them either “what do you mean by that” or “do you really understand what that label means”. Nine times out of ten they just repeat what I said above about equality, and are shocked to learn that there is a well-developed “feminist philosophy” that requires the destruction of traditional society.

When that happens, I give the person the benefit of the doubt and suggest mildly that they might reconsider the use of their terminology.

Svetlana, on the other hand, burns them at the stake for not knowing what they’re talking about. :-) Keep in mind, though, that real feminist professors on her own campus have been trying to get her fired for years. It’s not overly surprising that she can get agitated when the subject comes up. :-)

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.