Please point out where in the post you cited there was any suggestion that the outward actions, causes and statements supported by the SPLC were in any way incorrect. Near as I can tell the main criticism was that the internal mismanagement of the organization prevented them from doing even more good work.
My ignorance of the SPLC hasn’t been properly fought. I didn’t know what that acronym stood for.
And I have to confess I haven’t been paying much attention to who WillFarnaby is or what he says.
But after reading this thread it seems like I was going about this matter correctly.
When I see it I always think it must be a variant of HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography).
if I were to sock as a shit-faced hate-filled caricature of a human being, I would use you as a prime example to emulate.
Wait, what? I want to hear more. Where do I get my free government turkey?
Meanwhile, what’s the argument here? Does the OP believe he’s found some sort of airtight argument against charitable donations, or what?
The output largely cited were political targets of SPLC. They were simple smear jobs. The claims of racism were hyperbolic, as claimed by the whistleblower. There are serious problems with someone who cites from a source that is referred to by its own members as a con.
Lay off poor Will, he clearly needs all the victim support he can get.
God only knows what was done to him in childhood.
If you would like to qualify your citations of SPLC, go ahead. I would suggest something like the following: “The SPLC, internally described as a scam by its content providers, believes ________ is a white supremacist organization because _____. “
Where does your cite say that?
WillFarnaby: screaming libertarian silliness into the wind since 2011.
Considering that to him this is a grand putdown, I imagine what he went through was either extremely mild or extremely severe.
“Outside of work, we spent a lot of time drinking and dishing in Montgomery bars and restaurants about the oppressive security regime, the hyperbolic fund-raising appeals, and the fact that, though the center claimed to be effective in fighting extremism, “hate” always continued to be on the rise, more dangerous than ever, with each year’s report on hate groups. “The S.P.L.C.—making hate pay,” we’d say.“
This coming from a true believer, mind you.
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. I was asking for a cite that, “The output largely cited were political targets of SPLC. They were simple smear jobs. The claims of racism were hyperbolic, as claimed by the whistleblower.”
Do you have that?
Now, now; it isn’t very polite to rub Will’s face in what I’m sure is a painful memory…
Somebody got sloppy with their terms and meant size-exclusion chromatography. Which would probably be a “problematic” term if you found the right part of Tumblr to post it on.
I don’t think this says what you think it says. Hate is on the rise and more resources are needed to fight that.
Americans overall are probably getting smarter, but the ones that are getting dumber are becoming proud of their dumbness.