SPLC admits it was wrong about Maajid Nawaz. Donates $3.375 million to his foundation.

[realibrad]

Apart from trying to call a historic champion of minorities "scum and filth" (oh, and "scumbags"), he also said they needed to pay a "much higher amount." But of course, he didn't say what would make him happy, probably because this is purely about irrational contempt for the SPLC more than anything.

First, that's not vengeance so much as making people pay for the wrong. Technically that is the definition, but the way almost everyone uses it, vengeance is an overreaction.

Second, just because they have history does not change the harm they have done. Cosby was a great inspiration, but it does not reduce the fact that he is a rapist. Just because the SPLC has done great things in the past does not change that they smeared people and held their ground until they were sued. As I said, what the SPLC did literally made his life more dangerous. It undermined the important goal he was trying to reach, and for what?

What the SPLC did was horrible. I would bet that the majority of people at the SPLC are not bad, but there was someone that very much lied and when she was told of this, held her ground. That is on the SPLC because they were made aware, and said they agreed with the list.

 

[realibrad]

I bet you people constantly contact SPLC saying that the things they publish about them are lies. Those are often lies in and of themselves so it's not at all surprising that SPLC does not take their word for it. If you have some information on what process SPLC used (or didn't use!) in order to examine the truth or falsity of those counter claims that would be helpful. Without knowledge of that, saying they published lies could potentially be a defamatory statement by you of them, haha.

Regardless of all that the SPLC does a great deal of good but in doing so will invariably get some things wrong. The right answer is to call them out when they do and that's great, but there's no need for concern trolling about the institutions the left built in this way. If anything at the current time they aren't being used aggressively enough.

Also come the fuck on. Any rational person reading Incorruptible's post would see it was strongly motivated by vengeance and spite, it's implicitly obvious.

First, put a comma between you and people. As for the rest of your statement, no thanks.

 

[Pens1566]

You mad, bro? Which one of the SPLC-monitored groups do you belong to?

"One" ???

 

[Commodus]

First, that's not vengeance so much as making people pay for the wrong. Technically that is the definition, but the way almost everyone uses it, vengeance is an overreaction.

Second, just because they have history does not change the harm they have done. Cosby was a great inspiration, but it does not reduce the fact that he is a rapist. Just because the SPLC has done great things in the past does not change that they smeared people and held their ground until they were sued. As I said, what the SPLC did literally made his life more dangerous. It undermined the important goal he was trying to reach, and for what?

What the SPLC did was horrible. I would bet that the majority of people at the SPLC are not bad, but there was someone that very much lied and when she was told of this, held her ground. That is on the SPLC because they were made aware, and said they agreed with the list.

It was horrible, but my question is: does trash-talking the SPLC and making vague demands for more penalties really accomplish much? I'm more interested in how the SPLC learns from the incident than whether they've grovelled enough, particularly for a known bigot like incorruptible.

 

[realibrad]

It was horrible, but my question is: does trash-talking the SPLC and making vague demands for more penalties really accomplish much? I'm more interested in how the SPLC learns from the incident than whether they've grovelled enough, particularly for a known bigot like incorruptible.

Oh, are you questioning why people would give their opinion here?

If yes then I don't have much of an answer. That question gets to the motives of what drives people in terms of enjoyment.

As for "trash talking" the SPLC, you are taking a strange stance. The whole point of what the SPLC did was to call out bad people so society could learn of them and do something in some way about them. Now that someone is calling out the SPLC, your stance seems to be that you should not call out bad people so others can do something about them. If you think that the SPLC does good work by doing that, then why would it be wrong and or bad for other to do the same back to the SPLC?

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, are you questioning why people would give their opinion here?

If yes then I don't have much of an answer. That question gets to the motives of what drives people in terms of enjoyment.

As for "trash talking" the SPLC, you are taking a strange stance. The whole point of what the SPLC did was to call out bad people so society could learn of them and do something in some way about them. Now that someone is calling out the SPLC, your stance seems to be that you should not call out bad people so others can do something about them. If you think that the SPLC does good work by doing that, then why would it be wrong and or bad for other to do the same back to the SPLC?

Why? Because criticism from incorruptible, for example, is not sincere. The SPLC has opposed people wearing his headset from the beginning & now he has an opportunity to tear them down.

Your own efforts just serve as apologism for his own. You even manage to insinuate that the SPLC is just as bad as those they've fought for decades.

 

[realibrad]

Why? Because criticism from incorruptible, for example, is not sincere. The SPLC has opposed people wearing his headset from the beginning & now he has an opportunity to tear them down.

Your own efforts just serve as apologism for his own. You even manage to insinuate that the SPLC is just as bad as those they've fought for decades.

Its hard to talk to you, because you are an idiot.

I don't know how you got that I was saying that the SPLC is just as bad as the people they fought against. They fucked up here, and it was not small. That does not mean they are equal to the KKK or even in the same universe.

Look at how Commodus communicates and learn from it. I suspect he strongly disagrees with me, but somehow he is able to talk with me.

 

[Thebobo]

SPLC >

You're defending them. They only apologized since they were sued. Why did it take a lawsuit for them to realize how wrong and stupid they were. They thought they could attack this man and get away with it but he fought back against these cowards.

Um cowards?
Ever had your house firebombed or your work?
Ever live under constant threats of death?
Not that you care to see what the SPLC has championed and won against.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

And for fun see if you can find your house on this interactive hate map.

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

 

[Commodus]

Oh, are you questioning why people would give their opinion here?

If yes then I don't have much of an answer. That question gets to the motives of what drives people in terms of enjoyment.

As for "trash talking" the SPLC, you are taking a strange stance. The whole point of what the SPLC did was to call out bad people so society could learn of them and do something in some way about them. Now that someone is calling out the SPLC, your stance seems to be that you should not call out bad people so others can do something about them. If you think that the SPLC does good work by doing that, then why would it be wrong and or bad for other to do the same back to the SPLC?

A group regularly calling out civil rights injustices is not the same as someone hurling childish insults and vague demands for greater restitution at that group for making an error, however serious it may be. Criticize the SPLC, sure; but use a measured response and acknowledge that they did, in fact, apologize. Don't act as if the group is permanently ruined, because it isn't and shouldn't be.

 

[realibrad]

A group regularly calling out civil rights injustices is not the same as someone hurling childish insults and vague demands for greater restitution at that group for making an error, however serious it may be. Criticize the SPLC, sure; but use a measured response and acknowledge that they did, in fact, apologize. Don't act as if the group is permanently ruined, because it isn't and shouldn't be.

I don't think the apology and money paid does much damage, so I can understand why someone would call for more. I think the SPLC can do useful things, so destroying it is less useful than letting some of this slide.

As for saying the group should be permanently ruined, I'm assuming that is what you think the corruptable guy wants and not me right?

 

[dainthomas]

You're defending them. They only apologized since they were sued. Why did it take a lawsuit for them to realize how wrong and stupid they were. They thought they could attack this man and get away with it but he fought back against these cowards.

Dump has been sued hundreds of times and I'm positive he's never apologized.

I'm glad they did though, and hope they learn from their mistake and move forward.

 

[fskimospy]

First, put a comma between you and people. As for the rest of your statement, no thanks.

A 'that' would probably be more instructive than a comma but my intent was obvious. If you want me to start grammar checking your posts I can, but I can't see why that would be helpful for anyone, haha.

Anyways, keep the rest of my post in mind, there's some good stuff in there for you!

 

[Commodus]

I don't think the apology and money paid does much damage, so I can understand why someone would call for more. I think the SPLC can do useful things, so destroying it is less useful than letting some of this slide.

As for saying the group should be permanently ruined, I'm assuming that is what you think the corruptable guy wants and not me right?

That's right -- him, not you. It's fairly clear that he takes umbrage at the thought that the SPLC is still allowed to exist after this, that paying $33 million probably wouldn't put his mind at ease any more than $3.3 million would.

 

[jackstar7]

Is it me, or is Brad getting dumber as he goes?

It's like a Fern situation all over again.

 

[Jhhnn]

Its hard to talk to you, because you are an idiot.

I don't know how you got that I was saying that the SPLC is just as bad as the people they fought against. They fucked up here, and it was not small. That does not mean they are equal to the KKK or even in the same universe.

Look at how Commodus communicates and learn from it. I suspect he strongly disagrees with me, but somehow he is able to talk with me.

So, no more weasel words? No insinuations that the SPLC lies intentionally & are therefore bad people worthy of attack?

They were just badly mistaken & have said so, issued an honest & gracious apology, paid a financial penalty as well.

What more do you want?

 

[realibrad]

That's right -- him, not you. It's fairly clear that he takes umbrage at the thought that the SPLC is still allowed to exist after this, that paying $33 million probably wouldn't put his mind at ease any more than $3.3 million would.

I get the sense that he is pretty Right wing, but he is not someone I have talked with. That is what I think is a big part of his issue.

As for what the SPLC should have to pay, I don't know if money is the best way to repair what they did. I would have preferred that they pay the legal expenses of Maajid, and admit what they got wrong, how it happened, and what they plan to do about it, and then give an apology. As I said, the SPLC has done a lot of good in the past, but blew this big time.

 

[realibrad]

So, no more weasel words? No insinuations that the SPLC lies intentionally & are therefore bad people worthy of attack?

They were just badly mistaken & have said so, issued an honest & gracious apology, paid a financial penalty as well.

What more do you want?

See my post above. It should answer your questions.

 

[realibrad]

Is it me, or is Brad getting dumber as he goes?

It's like a Fern situation all over again.

Maybe we could use you as an stop light, as your signaling is outstanding.

 

[Jhhnn]

See my post above. It should answer your questions.

You still muddy the waters & have defended incorruptible in a back handed way all along. His criticisms are utterly insincere. He's one of the Tommy Robinsons of the world & therefore wants organizations like the SPLC destroyed so that his brand of hatred can more easily prevail.

 

[pmv]

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018...egarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation

https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video



The SPLC is trying to get their insurance to pay for that, so its not a huge hit to them, but its something.

Some background on Maajid Nawaz, he was a former Muslim extremist and after reforming now has a foundation (Quilliam) that fights Muslim extremism while trying to reform Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

I only really know him as a phone-in host on LBC. He's always struck me as politically 'moderate', to the right of me on most things, but not off-the-scale so. Lib Dem type, or a Blairite, not a Trumpian or racist. He does pick fights with Muslim callers quite often, mostly I think he's in the right, but he could be a lot more diplomatic about it. Last time I heard him he was attacking the use of Sharia courts for divorces, and the way that Islamic law doesn't give women an absolute right for a divorce.. Lot of angry Muslim men called in to denounce him as not a Muslim, but also a few Muslim women called agreeing with him.

These issues are not at all straightforward in how they fit into ideas of left and right, I would say. I don't think most of the actual left like him very much, but I don't see one could call him an 'extremist'.

So not surprised this dispute occurred.

 

[realibrad]

You still muddy the waters & have defended incorruptible in a back handed way all along. His criticisms are utterly insincere. He's one of the Tommy Robinsons of the world & therefore wants organizations like the SPLC destroyed so that his brand of hatred can more easily prevail.

What is muddy?

SPLC has done good and if it cleans itself up can continue to do good. I'm not in favor of destroying them.

As for his motives, I don't care. I have taken a position that, assuming your premise is true, puts me in opposition to him. So how am I defending him?

 

[realibrad]

I only really know him as a phone-in host on LBC. He's always struck me as politically 'moderate', to the right of me on most things, but not off-the-scale so. Lib Dem type, or a Blairite, not a Trumpian or racist. He does pick fights with Muslim callers quite often, mostly I think he's in the right, but he could be a lot more diplomatic about it. Last time I heard him he was attacking the use of Sharia courts for divorces, and the way that Islamic law doesn't give women an absolute right for a divorce.. Lot of angry Muslim men called in to denounce him as not a Muslim, but also a few Muslim women called agreeing with him.

These issues are not at all straightforward in how they fit into ideas of left and right, I would say. I don't think most of the actual left like him very much, but I don't see one could call him an 'extremist'.

So not surprised this dispute occurred.

I think he is trying to help many people in his community accept modern ideas. I'm an atheist so I disagree with him in terms of his belief in God, but I agree with the vast majority of what he appears to be doing.

This was also more than a dispute though. Maajid from your perspective is a guy that leans slightly to the right but is clearly not an extremist. Anyone that does any type of research into Maajid would quickly find that he is not anti-Muslim. Remember, the claim by the SPLC was not that he was an Islamic Extremist, but that he was anti-Muslim. So I was surprised that he was labeled anti-Muslim as a Muslim.

For the SPLC to get this so wrong, and then defend it shows they have some internal issues that need to be resolved.

 

[jackstar7]

I would have @'d you if I was talking to you, Brad, because that's what you've previously requested.

 

[realibrad]

I would have @'d you if I was talking to you, Brad, because that's what you've previously requested.

Lol okay kid. Talk to me, or about me, and I might reply.

 

[jackstar7]

Why "kid"? Does it trouble you that I'm an adult?
Do you need to infantilize people that disagree with how you conduct yourself so you can avoid any self-examination?

You seem fun.