Trump confirmed as keynote speaker for anti-LGBT conference - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;52774964]The FBI specifically stopped working with, and listing them on their website, because of their bias. For example, they vastly overstate the number of hate groups in the US by listing different instances of the same group, like the KKK, as totally separate. So if I run a KKK group in Georgia and you run one in Kansas, then the SPLC would list us as two separate hate groups. ([URL]http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/12/the-hate-list/[/URL] , this article goes into a few issues with the SPLC) This helps them drum up fear and get donations.[/QUOTE] The KKK isn't one organization though? It's very de-centralized, there isn't a single KKK.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52775113]The KKK isn't one organization though? It's very de-centralized, there isn't a single KKK.[/QUOTE] Yes, I get it. That was one quick example. Read the article I linked (It's rated as least biased with high factual reporting). It goes into more depth.

Like should we criticize splc for listing neo-nazis and the kkk separately when they're both ultimately white supremacists?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52775118]Like should we criticize splc for listing neo-nazis and the kkk separately when they're both ultimately white supremacists?[/QUOTE] Yes, they should be criticized for creating stories and fear based on trumped up numbers.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52775109]The articles were quoting an FBI spokesperson. My intent in posting a far left and far right article was to show that the quote wasn't being fabricated in the name of bias. I believer that the SPLC used to be linked as an external resource by the FBI (on the bottom of this website: [url]https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes#External-Resources[/url]), but were actively taken off because of their methodologies.[/QUOTE] Being published as a far left article as well as a far right article doesn't make it unbiased or not fabricated. If a article is published on a far-left biased website it is biased towards the far-left. It is is published on a far-right biased website it is biased towards the far-right. Being biased both ways doesn't make it unbiased, it just means the fake news can be bent in either direction. An unbiased piece of information is one that has no bias, period. I.e. it is published by a center-left or center-right news source with a high level of factual accuracy. If a conspiracy theory was posted on /pol/ and /leftypol/ does that suddenly make it completely trustworthy? Have you ever heard of the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52775120]Yes, they should be criticized for creating stories and fear based on trumped up numbers.[/QUOTE] Unless there's another alternative I'm going trust the slpc, because a flawed and imperfect system is still better than no system at all. [editline]12th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;52775125]Being published as a far left article as well as a far right article doesn't make it unbiased. If a article is published on a far-left biased website it is biased towards the far-left. It is is published on a far-right biased website it is biased towards the far-right. Being biased both ways doesn't make it unbiased, it just means the fake news can be bent in either direction. An unbiased piece of information is one that has no bias, period. I.e. it is published by a center-left or center-right news source with a high level of factual accuracy. Have you ever heard of the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?[/QUOTE] There is no such thing as no bias.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52775127] There is no such thing as no bias.[/QUOTE] Of course, I was speaking more in the context of this forum and what it considers to be 'unbiased', which is not necessarily completely without any bias whatsoever but instead the bare minimum of not being total politically-motivated propaganda.

[QUOTE=Zyler;52775125]Being published as a far left article as well as a far right article doesn't make it unbiased or not fabricated. If a article is published on a far-left biased website it is biased towards the far-left. It is is published on a far-right biased website it is biased towards the far-right. Being biased both ways doesn't make it unbiased, it just means the fake news can be bent in either direction. An unbiased piece of information is one that has no bias, period. I.e. it is published by a center-left or center-right news source with a high level of factual accuracy. If a conspiracy theory was posted on /pol/ and /leftypol/ does that suddenly make it completely trustworthy? Have you ever heard of the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?[/QUOTE] If two people, who inherently disagree, both agree on a fact, then that fact is more likely to be true, yes. I mean, if you want to go on some nihilistic bent where we can't know truth, then sure, but as far as I can tell, that quote is genuine. [editline]12th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52775127]Unless there's another alternative I'm going trust the slpc, because a flawed and imperfect system is still better than no system at all.[/QUOTE] Is it really? Is having a lot of information, some true and some false, really better than having less information, but having it all be true? I don't know about that. The SPLC is an activist organization, not a journalistic or scientific organization, and that is straight from their own lips. Their goal is to push an ideology, not present data.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52775142]Is it really? Is having a lot of information, some true and some false, really better than having less information, but having it all be true? I don't know about that. The SPLC is an activist organization, not a journalistic or scientific organization, and that is straight from their own lips. Their goal is to push an ideology, not present data.[/QUOTE] I don't agree that SPLC generally gives out false information and if they do, they self correct. Like I'm not saying they're perfect but I don't see any other alternative edit: I also don't know where you're getting that they're an activist organization, they call themselves a legal advocacy organization.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52775142]If two people, who inherently disagree, both agree on a fact, then that fact is more likely to be true, yes. I mean, if you want to go on some nihilistic bent where we can't know truth, then sure, but as far as I can tell, that quote is genuine.[/QUOTE] So essentially, you would agree that if a left-wing conspiracy website and a right-wing conspiracy website both believe that the world is secretly run by an illuminati cult of lizard people that it must be true because 'both sides' of an arbitrary political spectrum believe it? [QUOTE]Is it really? Is having a lot of information, some true and some false, really better than having less information, but having it all be true? I don't know about that. The SPLC is an activist organization, not a journalistic or scientific organization, and that is straight from their own lips. Their goal is to push an ideology, not present data.[/QUOTE] They are a non-profit organization that tracks hate-groups. You haven't demonstrated that they wish to push a political agenda. The only thing you've demonstrated is how are willing you are to twist words around in order to justify your biased belief system. Which is ironically what you are accusing the SPLC of doing. Literally the only argument you've made of their supposed bias is that they track different versions of the KKK in different states, which, as others have stated, is an entirely reasonable thing to do for an organization that attempts to track hate groups in a country. You've obviously come to the conclusion that the SPLC is biased long before coming up with any justification for it. Just stop pretending and state your actual reasons for believing the SPLC is pushing a leftist agenda so we can actually have a proper conversation.

[QUOTE=Zyler;52775166]So essentially, you would agree that if a left-wing conspiracy website and a right-wing conspiracy website both believe that the world is secretly run by an illuminati cult of lizard people that it must be true because 'both sides' of an arbitrary political spectrum believe it?[/QUOTE] Dude, you're taking it way further than it was intended. I wasn't saying that it's some undeniably super secure fact that no one can ever question because two site, from opposite sides of the spectrum, wrote about it. It's a quote from a real person, from a real agency, that was said in public. The fact that both sides used the same quote means that it probably isn't being taken out of context for bias purposes. What even is your contention? Do you think the quote is fake? [editline]12th October 2017[/editline] Did you read the article from ForeignPolicy? [editline]12th October 2017[/editline] How about this one in Politico? ([url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312[/url])

If the SPLC is biased against conservative groups it might be because it's getting harder to tell the difference between gop rhetoric and white supremacist ideology.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52775175]If the SPLC is biased against conservative groups it might be because it's getting harder to tell the difference between gop rhetoric and white supremacist ideology.[/QUOTE] Or it might be because they get much of their funding from riling up fear on the left, as the Politico article talks about.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52775169]Dude, you're taking it way further than it was intended. I wasn't saying that it's some undeniably super secure fact that no one can ever question because two site, from opposite sides of the spectrum, wrote about it.[/QUOTE] I'm taking your logic to its logical end conclusion to show how silly it is. Pointing out the same factual inaccuracy made by two biased sources does not make it unbiased, it's just silly. If you had read my posts, I pointed out that the articles were published in 2014 and that the FBI has since added the SPLC link back to their website. One article even states that the FBI had not broken ties with the SPLC and is still using their list of hate groups as a source of information. So even at the time the articles were published, your assertion that the FBI broke ties with the SPLC because they were concerned about their left-wing bias is completely incorrect according to your own sources. Even more so now that the link is no longer missing, which makes your sources outdated.

[QUOTE=Zyler;52775182]I'm taking your logic to its logical end conclusion to show how silly it is. Pointing out the same factual inaccuracy made by two biased sources does not make it unbiased, it's just silly. If you had read my posts, I pointed out that the articles were published in 2014 and that the FBI has since added the SPLC link back to their website. One article even states that the FBI had not broken ties with the SPLC and is still using their list of hate groups as a source of information. So even at the time the articles were published, your assertion that the FBI broke ties with the SPLC because they were concerned about their left-wing bias is completely incorrect according to your own sources. Even more so now that the link is no longer missing, which makes your sources outdated.[/QUOTE] No, they haven't added the link back. I just gave you the website, which doesn't have the link. You're also not taking my logic to the extreme. You're making a strawman of my point and taking it to the extreme.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52775177]Or it might be because they get much of their funding from riling up fear on the left, as the Politico article talks about.[/QUOTE] You need to start actually quoting the sources you bring up because they keep contradicting what you say they are suggesting. The article simply states that the SPLC has come under fire from right-wing politicans for "overstepping its bounds", which is true. You obviously overlooked (if you even read the article beyond scanning for whatever would work with your confirmation bias) the part where the SPLC adjusted its own reporting in order to reflect this. [QUOTE]The complaints have trailed the SPLC as the group has expanded beyond its crusade against racial discrimination in the South, increasingly taking up the left flank of the culture wars on issues like LGBT rights, church-state division, Islam and immigration. The new approach has prompted accusations of overreach: The SPLC has included Senator Rand Paul and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson among the neo-Nazis and white supremacists on its extremists lists (Paul for suggesting private businesses shouldn’t have to adhere to the Civil Rights Act and criticizing the Fair Housing Act; Carson for his views opposing same-sex marriage). The group did back down after it put Carson on the 2014 “extremist watch” list—removing his name and issuing an apology that earned a lot of coverage in the conservative media. “This week, as we’ve come under intense criticism for doing so, we’ve reviewed our profile and have concluded that it did not meet our standards,” the organization’s statement said, “so we have taken it down and apologize to Dr. Carson for having posted it.”[/QUOTE] That doesn't even get into the enormous assumptions you make with regards to how being accused of bias by politicans who are biased to the right makes the SPLC biased to the left and "riling up fear on the left". It's not as simple as that. Any organization that makes statements identifying hate-groups is going to come under fire by proponents of both the far-left and the far-right because they dare to say anything bad about them. [QUOTE]The complaints have trailed the SPLC as the group has expanded beyond its crusade against racial discrimination in the South, increasingly taking up the left flank of the culture wars on issues like LGBT rights, church-state division, Islam and immigration. The new approach has prompted accusations of overreach: The SPLC has included Senator Rand Paul and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson among the neo-Nazis and white supremacists on its extremists lists (Paul for suggesting private businesses shouldn’t have to adhere to the Civil Rights Act and criticizing the Fair Housing Act; Carson for his views opposing same-sex marriage). The group did back down after it put Carson on the 2014 “extremist watch” list—removing his name and issuing an apology that earned a lot of coverage in the conservative media. “This week, as we’ve come under intense criticism for doing so, we’ve reviewed our profile and have concluded that it did not meet our standards,” the organization’s statement said, “so we have taken it down and apologize to Dr. Carson for having posted it.”[/QUOTE] Of course people who are biased to the right would accuse an organization that is unbiased of being biased to the left. You seem to have absolutely no self-awareness. Stop pretending that you didn't immediately jump to the conclusion that the SPLC was a biased organization before you even made up any justification, every argument you've made has been weak-willed and unsubstantiated. You haven't even read the articles you keep googling for in order to back up your pre-existing conclusions. [editline]13th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52775184]No, they haven't added the link back. I just gave you the website, which doesn't have the link. You're also not taking my logic to the extreme. You're making a strawman of my point and taking it to the extreme.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Alice3173;52774983][QUOTE]Public Outreach: The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of University Women, Anti-Defamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others.[/QUOTE] Except they're still listed there?[/QUOTE] Yes, they have added the link back. You literally don't read anything that goes against your confirmation bias, do you? Finally, no it isn't a strawman to point out the logical fallacy you use as the basis of your argument. It isn't a strawman to point out how the logic of "both a far-right wing fake news website and a far-left fake news website said something, it must be true!" is really silly logic. Something being said by two extremes of equally biased media doesn't make it true, if anything it makes it even more likely to be wrong based on the fact that a single piece of information can be twisted around to mean anything the author wants it to mean.

[QUOTE=Flicky;52774900]All it takes is a Google and a read. I hadn't actually verified if the SPLC was a hate group until your post because I thought it was obvious. A quick skim of their Wikipedia article and a peek at a few sources (read the citations!), and I knew they couldn't be a hate group. Don't blame it on your "stupid brain." You can train it to get smarter. It just takes work and wanting to know more.[/QUOTE] I think the problem is there is such a volume of talking points and "stats". A friend of mine used to send me these nutty conspiracy theories but it was always really obscure. There's a video from 30 years ago with some stats and quotes from some other obscure guy, hard to verify the information itself but I looked into the guy and it turns out he released a series of racist, homophobic and anti-semetic pamphlets - my friend denied it was racist. I semi-ironically proposed a safe word - when the conversation gets too nutty, he gets too racist or I get too condescending we say "carpet" to change topic. He's stopped with this stuff now, I've got [URL="http://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-german-candidate-promises-to-get-rid-of-arabic-numerals/"]this[/URL] gem saved up for next time he sends me junk.

So the keynote happened, here are two articles reflecting more or less what was said: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/trump-values-voters-summit/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/557459193/trump-set-to-address-values-voter-summit-for-first-time-as-president[/url] [QUOTE]"We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values," Trump said to applause.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"You go into a department store. When was the last time you saw 'Merry Christmas?' You don't see it anymore," Trump said on the campaign trail. "They want to be politically correct. If I'm president, you will see 'Merry Christmas' in department stores, believe me, believe me."[/QUOTE] spoiler alert: nothing will be different

So LGBT people are destroying Christmas? I don't recall that being part of our agenda.

I know he gets his news from fox's constant cycle but he did this to speak on [i]the fucking war on christmas[/i]? I wasn't aware it was that time of year already

why is our president such a piece of shit, I hate him so much

[url]http://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/557459193/trump-set-to-address-values-voter-summit-for-first-time-as-president[/url] Skimmed the entire article. It's absolutely nothing but the same insincere pandering that he spewed during the primaries, the only thing he's good at.

Trump, admittedly, didn't say anything hateful about LGBT (even though he's probably going to start bullying shit about christmas soon, because he can) but he sure didn't say anything else [media]https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/918837656779358208[/media] Apparently this clickbait-tier trash was handed out at the summit, but this is the only source I can find. Edit: apparently MassResistance is a registered hate group. Why is this being tolerated?

There is not a level of [I]hell[/I] deep enough for this disgusting, bigoted man. Get rid of him America.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52777527]There is not a level of [I]hell[/I] deep enough for this disgusting, bigoted man. Get rid of him America.[/QUOTE] We're trying. Turns out it's hard.

As a self identified moderate right wing myself, i don't really know what to say about this besides its just wrong, it just seems as if the rights of every man are being threatened by the powers that be no matter what side of the supposed "American political spectrum" attacks specific parts of our rights for their own gain, and while I'm probably getting a little over dramatic for my own sake, i feel reasonably grounded in the idea that were all being played by some higher power thats only out to tear us apart at the seams and set us on the path toward a miserable world, all i can say is that i feel goddamn powerless.

[QUOTE=rb2kk;52777546]As a self identified moderate right wing myself, i don't really know what to say about this besides its just wrong, it just seems as if the rights of every man are being threatened by the powers that be no matter what side of the supposed "American political spectrum" attacks specific parts of our rights for their own gain, and while I'm probably getting a little over dramatic for my own sake, i feel reasonably grounded in the idea that were all being played by some higher power thats only out to tear us apart at the seams and set us on the path toward a miserable world, all i can say is that i feel goddamn powerless.[/QUOTE] I feel the unfortunate truth is that is that the people with money and influence in the world don't give much of a shit what you and I and other people are going through, and they never have. Even in the times when things were prosperous, there were many job opportunities and financial security, it was only because, at that time, it happened to be beneficial to people who had money and influence. Even then, there was never a time where things were good for everyone. Somebody is always being taken advantage of, the only question at any particular period of time is whether it happens to be us. I reckon that we have to just not worry about it too much, because there's nothing we can really do beyond protesting and making our voices heard. Do what you can to maximize your own happiness and try to defend other people's rights, but ultimately we cannot hold ourselves to any single outcome because the reality is that it is entirely out of our hands and to do otherwise is maddening.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52773153]What thing? It's just a visual analysis of the attractiveness of his face. Same way you'd say Gorbachev had the [URL="https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/71/179671-049-91F481F8.jpg"]remnants of a shrunken testicle[/URL] on his head. Or how the president himself has openly mocked a disabled reporter despite being severely disabled himself.[/QUOTE] he's saying don't say someone has a *insert violent adjective here* face. if you dropped $20 in the street and someone who looked kinda like trump and smiled and said "excuse me you dropped $20" are you gonna turn around and fuck him up with a hammer just because "his face was screaming it"? it's a disgusting, judgmental thing to say.

[media]https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/919221080945856512[/media] Same conference [editline]14th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=rb2kk;52777546]As a self identified moderate right wing myself, i don't really know what to say about this besides its just wrong, it just seems as if the rights of every man are being threatened by the powers that be no matter what side of the supposed "American political spectrum" attacks specific parts of our rights for their own gain, and while I'm probably getting a little over dramatic for my own sake, i feel reasonably grounded in the idea that were all being played by some higher power thats only out to tear us apart at the seams and set us on the path toward a miserable world, all i can say is that i feel goddamn powerless.[/QUOTE] If you're moderately right wing, the gop has left you.

"The left has no idea how much more damage we can do to them as private citizens." "We have the gun." What the fuck. Madman.