You just call millions of decent and peaceful people, including patriotic Americans, savages, because of their religion (in addition to calling millions of decent people “repulsive” and “disgusting” because you hate trans people). Your bigotry is cowardly and un-American.
Not surprising that an unrepentant bigot thinks it’s okay to disenfranchise millions of people if some portion of them are assholes. Did you know that there are differing opinions among Palestinians? Did you know that some of them want to be Israeli citizens? I doubt facts change your opinion, since bigotry like yours is never based on facts.
That’s an entirely different debate, of course, but let me at least summarize it like this: one could give the Palestinian people full rights either by (1) letting the West Bank become an independent Palestinian state, or (2) by giving them full rights within Israel as full citizens. Saying they want #1 doesn’t make it right for Israel to deny them both #1 and #2.
Whether it’s done by race, or some combination of race and geography, hardly matters. The fact remains that Palestinians residing in the West Bank occupied territory don’t get to vote for representatives in the Knesset, and even within the West Bank, their rights are restricted in any number of ways. One can distinguish this from apartheid, I’m sure, but only in a hairsplitting fashion. It’s certainly close enough with respect to the broad strokes.
QFT.
Given that the SPLC is human-based, they will fuck up. This is a given. What is to be done?
Well, what I do is listen, examine their sources and check their information. If they are right, then I include their information within my universal plenum of facts. Next, see if there is a way to do something about it, maybe somebody to elect.
If they have fucked up, I set it aside.
Problem?
Kimstu, you seem to be trying to have it both ways. It just doesn’t seem credible to defend the SPLC’s putting Nawaz on this list after you previously laid down the marker “the SPLC’s activities are and always have been specific to hate groups and extremism within the US.”
That is incredibly weak. I guess you also believe it would be okay to deny the vote to Native Americans? :rolleyes: As if, should a majority of Palestinians declare they do want a voice in Israeli Knesset, there would be a snowball’s chance in hell of their being granted that. They know this. After all, the population of Arabs in Israel and the occupied territories will soon eclipse the number of Jews there, meaning Arabs would be in charge of the country–and that will never be allowed. So why should they bother asking for something they will never get?
I imagine I could parse that if I gave it a few more reads, but I know from experience it’s not worth bothering with. The only thing I’m wondering is if you purposely tried to make this more “ESL” than usual to cover for your lack of depth, or if you just didn’t put as much effort as usual into proofreading? Because your posts, while shallow and obstinate, usually feature a little more in the way of clarity than this. You’re in word salad territory here.
Well said, cosigned.
…Aaand now the SPLC has apologized and given Nawaz’s organization a $3.4M settlement. I suppose Kimstu and others who adamantly defended them are now deeply disappointed in them for caving? :dubious:
No.
I see that a lot of the sources they used were tainted in this case and a correction was needed. What I would be disappointed is for a group that keeps track of injustice to never acknowledge that they got it wrong. What it is important to me is that even Nawaz do not see the SPLC as an enemy, only that they got it wrong and should had corrected their lists sooner and that he and them still have a mission.
I’m not Kimstu, and this is my first post in this thread. Here’s my take.
The SPLC 's characterization of Nawaz was offensive and stupid, and they did the right thing by taking his name of their list, and by apologizing to him.
But I think that paying him the money after he filed the defamation lawsuit was stupid. Winning an actual legal defamation case against the SPLC would have been a very steep hill for Nawaz to climb, given that the central remarks they made about him constituted opinions, such as the opinion that he was an “anti-Muslim extremist.” As this article notes:
Your Daily Beast citation says that the SPLC’s initial unwillingness to back down “started to look like the kind of malice that could be proved in a court battle,” but that is, quite frankly, rank speculation, and is an opinion that blithely disregards the fairly rigorous requirements to make a defamation case in the United States.
As a legal matter, you may well be right. Ethically, however, they were way off base. Yet as I noted, Kimstu and others staunchly defended their actions. So my question to them is even more relevant if there’s good reason to believe they didn’t have to pay this settlement. Are the erstwhile defenders of the SPLC (when they were digging in their heels) disgruntled now that they have said they were way off base to do what they did? Or is it just, whatever the SPLC’s current position is, they reflexively support unquestioningly?
The Atlantic has a take close to mhendo’s. "The Southern Poverty Law Center misstepped by including Maajid Nawaz on a 2016 list. But in trying to correct that mistake, it just made a new one. … By overreaching in its description of Nawaz, SPLC undercut its own reputation and the noble goal of fighting against anti-Muslim sentiment, and by settling, it risks undercutting free-speech protections at a time when they are already under threat."
SPLC just needs to do better. On the good side, they do actually go after hate groups conservatives don’t like: They define Nation of Islam as a hate group, for example. But they do often jump to call groups hate groups that just aren’t. Political disagreement is not hate. Telling the truth about a poltiical ideology, which some strains of Islam are, is not hate. Just as you can attack Zionism without being anti-semetic, which the SPLC shows a great deal of deference towards. They should show that same deference to critics of political Islam.
Agreed. And as much as I love The Atlantic (until I recently subscribed to The New Yorker, for several years it was the only magazine I still subscribed to), I wonder if they are as concerned about free speech when it comes to figures from the “intellectual dark Web”.
If only there were someone, somewhere, calling out “political Islam.”
.
There are plenty of people doing so. And the SPLC has a pretty low tolerance for them. And a high tolerance for “anti-Zionist” groups. Have a consistent standard, that’s all.
So a 3 million dollar settlement for a free speech case in the US (not the UK) didn’t raise your eyebrows? Really? Because libel suits are really difficult to win in the US.
The vic was in the UK though, which explains a lot. Also, I speculate that SPLC may figure it’s just outsourcing some of his anti-hate work to another group. That’s part of the terms of the settlement after all, which is suppose to, "… to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism. It was the right thing to do in light of our mistake and the right thing to do in light of the growing prejudice against the Muslim community on both sides of the Atlantic. "
I just don’t understand why it took them so long to recognize and admit they were wrong. Or to put it another way, from the opposite perspective: given how stubbornly they refused to admit the obvious, why did they finally cave? It’s strange either way you look at it.
Wow, I hadn’t heard of that. Ignorance fought. Strike that plank of mine.
Yeah, it’s one of the really good things that’s happened on that front (fighting the UK’s insanely plaintiff-friendly defamation laws) and it has been used in court, albeit not entirely successfully because at one point the defendant tried to use it to defend against a copyright claim, which is completely insane.
Fighting insane copyright laws is going to be another battle, especially if the EU passes the overtly delusional copyright laws that it’s currently contemplating.