Is this the White Power sign?

[Dutch Uncle]

And, here we get ad hominem.

Attacking the source without any factual evidence doesn't fly.

You're an oath-breaking RWNJ, Terry. I have no problem seeing you face justice for your crimes.

You're a hypocrite too. You've been whining about SPLC all fucking day by "attacking the source". I have no doubt you have ties to WSEs one way or another.

BTW, anyone who habitually uses "we" to pump themselves up is weak, lame and stupid.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I think you are referring to one or two cases were the SPLC was proven wrong in court in one of its denunciations. Not bad ratio for an organization that's been around for 52 years.

FBI: SPLC not a reliable source
https://afajournal.org/past-issues/2017/december/fbi-splc-not-a-reliable-source/

20 State AGs: ‘SPLC Has Been Utterly Discredited as a Reliable Source’
https://www.amren.com/news/2023/02/...een-utterly-discredited-as-a-reliable-source/

The Southern Poverty Law Center isn't authoritative, it's garbage
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rty-law-center-isnt-authoritative-its-garbage

Law enforcement says the SPLC is unreliable. 20 state attorney generals say it's unreliable, a plethora of journalistic sources, not on the radical Left, say its unreliable. It isn't "one or two cases," it's pervasive across a wide spectrum of sources.

How many times do I have to school you on this one little fact: Opinion, supposition and conjecture are NOT concluded facts!

And once again, you run the usual gambit of right wing wonk sites. Case in point: American Family Association: a conservative Christian organization that advocates for traditional family values and opposes homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and secularism.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-family-association/
The article is written by some clown who believes in faith healing. Nuff said.

Your other sources don't do any better. Again, provide the actual number of CONVICTIONS.... CASES THAT THE SPLC LOST. We'll wait.

 

[Taichiliberal]

And, here we get ad hominem. Attacking the source without any factual evidence doesn't fly.

No genius, FACTS that don't tell you what you want to hear.

Bottom line: the OP is correct in that the cop flashed a white power sign. All excuses and "explanations" to the contrary fail the logic & historical fact check. That you don't like it is of no consequence. But when your sheet slips out from under your belt, you become one insipidly stubborn little cuss. Much to my entertainment. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Figures you'd run to a site like this, especially when it states: Our goal is to highlight the very latest archaeological findings, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.


Then there's this:

Overall, we rate Ancient Origins a moderate conspiracy and pseudoscience source based on the promotion of ancient aliens. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting as they also publish credible pro-science information.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ancient-origins/

Oh and here's something for you to chew on: British slavery of Africans began in 1555 and officially ended in 1835. Between 1662 and 1807 British and British colonial ships purchased an estimated 3,415,500 Africans. Of this number, 2,964,800 survived the 'middle passage' and were sold into slavery in the Americas.

American slavery of Africans began in 1619. 10.7 million was the official number of slaves in America. It officially ended in 1865, but it's cousin Jim Crow kept a de facto slavery until about 1964 or 1965.

So did "white slavery" exists. Yep, but without free lancing pirates, it wouldn't have made the numbers your site alludes to.

So once again, T.A., your slavering bigotry clouds your research skills and critical analysis. I believe you were looking in the mirror when you typed your last sentence.

Yeah, the cop flashed the white power sign....a lot of those assholes permeate police forces nationwide. Just Google "racist cops expose convicted" and get educated. Or fuss and fume, lie and deny as is your forte. Carry on.

So, you admit my sites are factually correct, but cannot accept that so you try to denigrate them using an irrelevant Appeal to authority.

Now you've gotten really stupid....either that or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I previously said. That makes you either willfully ignorant or a bad liar. You're done. Blather on, the clown you see inthe mirror along with the other sheet wearing stupes on this site applaud you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And how many in your list are actual convictions? See, not liking someone/thinking or making a LOT of accusations isn't the same thing. In 52 years, you need to list lawsuits filed against and have won in a court of law, NOT public opinion. Get back when you have that, otherwise don't waste time and space blowing smoke.

They weren't criminal lawsuits you retard. They were civil suits suing for libel, defamation, and the like. Those suing have pretty much uniformly won against the SPLC. And, no, I don't have to satisfy your demand for more proof as that's just a logical fallacy, particularly when you offer ZERO proof of your own in rebuttal.

I stand corrected on the type of suit. Now, all you have to do is just supply all the "wins" AGAINST the SPLC in it's 52 years. If you can't, then all you are doing is trying to pass supposition and conjecture as fact .... just like I expected.

That's your problem, TA. Like all the other brain dead right wing wonks on this site, you make a declarative statement that you can't back up with concrete facts. Saying something and proving something are two different things. All you're doing is the usual BS taken out of the MAGA mook handbook. Yeah, that's working out real well for your orange god. Carry on.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How many times do I have to school you on this one little fact: Opinion, supposition and conjecture are NOT concluded facts!

And once again, you run the usual gambit of right wing wonk sites. Case in point: American Family Association: a conservative Christian organization that advocates for traditional family values and opposes homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and secularism.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-family-association/
The article is written by some clown who believes in faith healing. Nuff said.

You other sources don't do any better. Again, provide the actual number of CONVICTIONS.... CASES THAT THE SPLC LOST. We'll wait.

How many times do you need to be taught, these "fact changers" of the radical left haven't impressed anyone since 2005 or so.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

How many times do you need to be taught, these "fact changers" of the radical left haven't impressed anyone since 2005 or so.

As a wife-beating, Down Under dingo-fucking dumbass, I can see why you not only want to be an American, but a neo-Nazi American.

I hope your wife comes to her senses one night as you lay passed out, cuts you a little "short" and then flees for her life.

 

[christiefan915]

The SPLC? You are using a thoroughly discredited source, you know. It's not just that they're radical Leftists, it's that they've repeatedly been smacked down, even in court, for lying, obfuscating, and just plain making shit up, not to mention being selective in who they call a "hate group" (you are not going on their list if you're a radical Leftist hate group).

Social justice has never been important to RWNJs.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – Bias and Credibility

• Overall, we rate the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Left Biased based on story selection that favors the Left and strong political advocacy for social justice. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to a clean fact-check record. Although they have mischaracterized some groups and individuals, they ultimately apologized, acknowledged their error, and made appropriate corrections.​

Bias

The Southern Poverty Law Center uses emotionally loaded headlines such as these: “President Trump is stoking white nationalism, exploiting racist fear” and “In wake of Trump’s ‘shithole’ comment, celebration among the far right.” Further, the SPLC sources their information with quotes, video/audio evidence but often does not hyperlink to other sources. In general, the majority of articles published by SPLC favor the left and portray the right negatively.

Hate groups and the far-right often criticize the SPLC as being extremely left-biased. This is not accurate. The SPLC applies a methodology to their designations that are consistent no matter what side (left or right) the groups are on. SPLC explains on their FAQ page that there are more hate groups affiliated with the right, based on their definition of a hate group, which states “has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” This definition is similar to the FBI’s definition of what constitutes a hate crime.

Failed Fact Checks

• None in the Last 5 years

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-poverty-law-center/

 

[christiefan915]

No, it's accurate.

Southern Poverty Law Center Settles Lawsuit After Falsely Labeling 'Extremist' Organization
https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-981879

Hint: The SPLC settled rather than lose.

CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES MEDIA, INC. v. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21-802

Hint: The SPLC lost this one too

Southern Poverty Law Center Slapped with Racketeering Suit Over ‘False Hate Group Designation’
https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/sou...ering-suit-over-false-hate-group-designation/

Yet another one they're in the process of losing.

The Supreme Court says it won’t consider rewriting defamation law... yet
https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/27/...-splc-petition-denied-libel-law-actual-malice

And... Smacked down by the Supreme Court...

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...aw-center-hate-groups-scam-column/2022301001/

Lying hurts people and in the SPLC's case gets you massively sued...

SPLC conspicuously silent on pro-Hamas groups in US
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023...ro-hamas-groups-in-us-n584342#google_vignette

An example of how the SPLC is just a radical Leftist smear group that targets only Conservative, Rightwing groups often undeservedly...

The Bad Hate The Good: The Southern Poverty Law Center Tries To Smear PragerU
https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/splc-prager-university-hate-groups-left-wing/

And yet another example of the SPLC smearing someone or some group they disagree politically with.

The Southern Poverty Law Center Makes Millions Trafficking Hate
The Center has gotten rich in part thanks to its "hate map," which smears many good people.
https://reason.com/2023/07/19/the-southern-poverty-law-center-makes-millions-trafficking-hate/

The SPLC, today, is nothing but a radical Leftist hate group.

Nothing inaccurate about this.

The SPLC, a liberal advocacy group, has faced defamation lawsuits from organizations it has designated as hate groups, including the Proud Boys. The nonprofit defines hate and antigovernment groups as:

"Hate groups vilify others based on such immutable characteristics as race, religion and gender identity, while groups in the antigovernment movement believe that the federal government is tyrannical, and traffic in conspiracy theories that often malign the same marginalized communities that hate groups target."

The report outlines how right-wing figures like Fox News personality Tucker Carlson and elected officials like U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., have promoted white supremacist conspiracy theories like the "great replacement" myth, while others – including former President Donald Trump and Republican U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar of Arizona and Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina – have normalized threats and the use of violence as a political tool.


​

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...clines-fringe-ideology-mainstream/9422517002/​

 

[christiefan915]

FBI: SPLC not a reliable source
https://afajournal.org/past-issues/2017/december/fbi-splc-not-a-reliable-source/

20 State AGs: ‘SPLC Has Been Utterly Discredited as a Reliable Source’
https://www.amren.com/news/2023/02/...een-utterly-discredited-as-a-reliable-source/

The Southern Poverty Law Center isn't authoritative, it's garbage
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rty-law-center-isnt-authoritative-its-garbage

Law enforcement says the SPLC is unreliable. 20 state attorney generals say it's unreliable, a plethora of journalistic sources, not on the radical Left, say its unreliable. It isn't "one or two cases," it's pervasive across a wide spectrum of sources.

You've listed three sources with their own credibility problems.

Overall, we rate the American Family Association Questionable based on extreme right positions, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies toward LGBTQ, poor sourcing, a lack of funding transparency, multiple failed fact checks, and several third-party sites labeling them as a hate group.

Overall, we rate American Renaissance Questionable based on Extreme Right-Wing Bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, and being labeled a hate group by numerous sources.

Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You've listed three sources with their own credibility problems.

I didn't single source anything for just that reason. Unlike media bias fact check, which itself is nothing but an opinion site--they use no quantitative data in their rating--I used several sources citing actual examples of the SPLC and what they do.

Overall, we rate the American Family Association Questionable based on extreme right positions, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies toward LGBTQ, poor sourcing, a lack of funding transparency, multiple failed fact checks, and several third-party sites labeling them as a hate group.

Overall, we rate American Renaissance Questionable based on Extreme Right-Wing Bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, and being labeled a hate group by numerous sources.

Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.

Again, you single source your ratings to a questionable site. I'd rate media bias fact check as on the Left with a bias toward the left where as a starting point I'd move ANY site rated by them one or two places to the left of where they rated it. That is, I would, by their rating bar, rate the SPLC as on the radical / extreme Left.

 

[christiefan915]

I didn't single source anything for just that reason. Unlike media bias fact check, which itself is nothing but an opinion site--they use no quantitative data in their rating--I used several sources citing actual examples of the SPLC and what they do.

Again, you single source your ratings to a questionable site. I'd rate media bias fact check as on the Left with a bias toward the left where as a starting point I'd move ANY site rated by them one or two places to the left of where they rated it. That is, I would, by their rating bar, rate the SPLC as on the radical / extreme Left.

Who do you consider to be a reliable source in rating media?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Who do you consider to be a reliable source in rating media?

Nobody. I read articles and cite them on content. I try to use multiple sources whenever possible. The idea is to take facts within each article and find where they are repeated--you also have to watch for a single article being repeated by multiple sources. That builds credibility in the facts presented.

That is, I think all "fact checkers" are nothing more than op ed writers foisting their worthless opinion on us. Fuck 'em all!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
Who do you consider to be a reliable source in rating media?

Nobody. I read articles and cite them on content. I try to use multiple sources whenever possible. The idea is to take facts within each article and find where they are repeated--you also have to watch for a single article being repeated by multiple sources. That builds credibility in the facts presented.

That is, I think all "fact checkers" are nothing more than op ed writers foisting their worthless opinion on us. Fuck 'em all!

You're full of it, T.A.! You're quick to throw every right wing fringe site and such against the wall in YOUR ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE SPLC. Yet when taken to task, your "sources" are either all opinion, supposition and conjecture or have serious credibility issues of their own.

So when nailed, you then stupidly claim you don't consider anyone to be a reliable source.

Sorry son, but that smoke you're trying to blow up everyone's butt isn't working. You can have it both ways. So GTFU and just concede a point instead of being a right wing troll.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You're full of it, T.A.! You're quick to throw every right wing fringe site and such against the wall in YOUR ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE SPLC. Yet when taken to task, your "sources" are either all opinion, supposition and conjecture or have serious credibility issues of their own.

So when nailed, you then stupidly claim you don't consider anyone to be a reliable source.

Sorry son, but that smoke you're trying to blow up everyone's butt isn't working. You can have it both ways. So GTFU and just concede a point instead of being a right wing troll.

The SPLC is a shit site. It's that simple. They don't list a single Leftist hate group of which there are lots of. They label Rightwing groups that aren't "hate groups" such and have been repeatedly smacked down in court for it. They are not a reliable source in the least.

 

[AProudLefty]

The SPLC is a shit site. It's that simple. They don't list a single Leftist hate group of which there are lots of. They label Rightwing groups that aren't "hate groups" such and have been repeatedly smacked down in court for it. They are not a reliable source in the least.

They do list Leftist hate groups.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You're full of it, T.A.! You're quick to throw every right wing fringe site and such against the wall in YOUR ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE SPLC. Yet when taken to task, your "sources" are either all opinion, supposition and conjecture or have serious credibility issues of their own.

So when nailed, you then stupidly claim you don't consider anyone to be a reliable source.

Sorry son, but that smoke you're trying to blow up everyone's butt isn't working. You can have it both ways. So GTFU and just concede a point instead of being a right wing troll.

The SPLC is a shit site. It's that simple. They don't list a single Leftist hate group of which there are lots of. They label Rightwing groups that aren't "hate groups" such and have been repeatedly smacked down in court for it. They are not a reliable source in the least.

As I said before, saying it and proving it are two different things. YOU'RE SIMPLE IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE. You're all hyped about what, 2 cases in 52 years? As opposed to the sheer BS of all the sites you ran to? Sorry bunky, but I and Christiefan PROVED that SPLC isn't infallible, but NOT as you delcare ... AND that the crap you threw up is TOTALLY BIASED AND INACCURATE in the majority of it's work.

Now, you can do the MAGA shuffle and just stubbornly repeat your guff ad nausea, or you can GTFU and just concede the point. Your choice.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
The SPLC is a shit site. It's that simple. They don't list a single Leftist hate group of which there are lots of. They label Rightwing groups that aren't "hate groups" such and have been repeatedly smacked down in court for it. They are not a reliable source in the least.

They do list Leftist hate groups.

That distant "whumpf" you just heard was T.A.'s head exploding.

 

[serendipity]

Nothing inaccurate about this.

The SPLC, a liberal advocacy group, has faced defamation lawsuits from organizations it has designated as hate groups, including the Proud Boys. The nonprofit defines hate and antigovernment groups as:

"Hate groups vilify others based on such immutable characteristics as race, religion and gender identity, while groups in the antigovernment movement believe that the federal government is tyrannical, and traffic in conspiracy theories that often malign the same marginalized communities that hate groups target."

The report outlines how right-wing figures like Fox News personality Tucker Carlson and elected officials like U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., have promoted white supremacist conspiracy theories like the "great replacement" myth, while others – including former President Donald Trump and Republican U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar of Arizona and Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina – have normalized threats and the use of violence as a political tool.


​

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...clines-fringe-ideology-mainstream/9422517002/​

Even WaPo think they are biased.

The State of Hate
Researchers at the Southern Poverty Law Center have set themselves up as the ultimate judges of hate in America. But are they judging fairly?

https://www.washingtonpost.co m/new...thern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/

 

[serendipity]

Nothing inaccurate about this.

The SPLC, a liberal advocacy group, has faced defamation lawsuits from organizations it has designated as hate groups, including the Proud Boys. The nonprofit defines hate and antigovernment groups as:

"Hate groups vilify others based on such immutable characteristics as race, religion and gender identity, while groups in the antigovernment movement believe that the federal government is tyrannical, and traffic in conspiracy theories that often malign the same marginalized communities that hate groups target."

The report outlines how right-wing figures like Fox News personality Tucker Carlson and elected officials like U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., have promoted white supremacist conspiracy theories like the "great replacement" myth, while others – including former President Donald Trump and Republican U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar of Arizona and Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina – have normalized threats and the use of violence as a political tool.


​

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...clines-fringe-ideology-mainstream/9422517002/​

Even WaPo and Allsides think they are biased.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...thern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/southern-poverty-law-center-media-bias