"It's true if we say it, it's hate if you say it." What is your perspective on the SPLC's listing White Lives Matter as a "hate group?"?

There are those who think that only certain types of people can discriminate or be discriminated against, and wish it to remain that way.

This group may actually be a hate group but aside from that in general polictcal correctness is going to far with trigger warnings, safe spaces general hashtagyness and other bullshit. If we want to keep people stirred up, angry and ideological keep this up, put it on the news and make a spectacle out of it. The way the PC terrorists use language as a tactic makes me blue in the face. Most people really are sheep when it comes to this stuff.

People who use the phrase “Politically Correct” or “PC” have at their core a disrespect for people. There is nothing that is “politically correct”; there is a matter of treating people with respect.

At essence, it is a matter of the Golden Rule, treat people as you expect to be treated.

Everyone knows that White Lives Matter. No one questions that. The powers that be go to great lengths to assure that.

The SPLC is well within its rights and role to identify racist hate speech and groups that encourage it. One look at that picture will tell you they are racists, and proud to be racist.

This isn’t ”...a matter of speech.” The SPLC is not a government organization. This is a matter of identifying racism.

Using the phrase“Political Correctness” most certainly is not a signal for a disrespetfull nature. That’s the kind of thing the people who want to proliferate political corretness want you to think. They can’t imagine a world where the other side of an argument has a voice.

Sure it’s a hate group, but no one disputes their right to say what they choose. The SPLC by the same token can label the “protesters” as racists, scooters, or horseshoes, for that matter. No one would care were it not for the fact that the SPLC has a hard earned rock solid credibility when it comes to confronting bigotry. If you manage to make their racist list, I’m going to assume you belong there.

Using the phrase“Political Correctness” most certainly is not a signal for a disrespetfull nature

Using the phrase, “I am not politically correct” is pretty much declaring “get ready, I’m about to show what a loudmouth bigot I am”.

And regarding the question, if you read the linked Houston Chronicle story, White Lives Matter is a white supremacist group. They don’t hide it.

The Trump campaign has really emboldened the racists. They are loving the attention.

No, I’m not going to be the kind of person who has to tiptoe around what others think they get offended by if it’s the right thing to say. Bigots often preach that they are not politically correct but that is still no excuse to be a bigot. Political correctness often is used to shut down an opposing view. Nobody should allow that. You can be politically incorrect and be the furthest thing from a bigot. It’s a cheap, predictable cop out.

The basis of the model of social justice is that certain groups need extra rights since they are the victims of extra wrongs. Social justice is not utopian; it’s rather an attempt to address certain systemic injustices inherent in the social order. Ideally we need to smash the system which permits these injustices, but in the mean time social justice is an attempt to give immediate aid to people suffering immediate harm.

The problem with “white lives matter” or “all lives matter” and “men’s rights” and “heterosexual pride day” and so on is that they already benefit from hegemonic supremacy. It is therefore totally in keeping with the principle of social justice that something which would be wrong if targeted at an oppressed group is perfectly okay when targeted at a dominant group – and vice versa.

@SmashTheState You are expounding attitudes that justify supremacist patriarchal resentment. Certain groups are not fighting for extra rights; they are fighting for equal rights.

Black Lives Matter does not want extra courtesy from police; they want the same courtesy and assumptions that police extend to white people.

So suppose the system is smashed. What do you propose it is replaced with and how?

@zenvelo I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the theory of social justice, I’m just explaining how it works and the premise behind it. According to social justice theory, it’s impossible to be “racist” to white people (in Western culture) because white people are the dominant hegemonic force, so something which would be regarded as racist if it was directed at a black person would not be racist if it was directed at someone who was white since it represents only a partial balancing of power.

Myself, I find social justice to be unpleasantly menshevik, attempting to make an inherently oppressive system designed to give power to rich, white landowners slightly less oppressive. My feeling is that time and energy is better spent on overthrowing the system than sticking bandages and splints all over it.

@ARE_you_kidding_me Me? Personally? I’m a mutualist anarchist, so my preference would be a community organized around a central community-run bank which tracks labour credits and accumulates resources for interest-free loans to allow for the creation of large capital projects such as roads and factories. But I could probably tolerate anything from an agrarian Bakuninist anarcho-communist village to a devil-take-the-hindmost egoist system of direct democracy. There have been many millions of pages of political science written on non-oppressive systems of community organization and in fact there are stable, peaceful anarchic systems which still exist today on this planet and which can be used as templates for us, such as the highland Yanomani and the Hopi.

GA, in my book nearly anything that throws out the oligarchy, puts science and individual autonomy first, provides yet does not reward complacency and has hard limits on individual power is a workable system. I’m a proponent of a more agrarian lifestyle.

That’s not communism but more of a utilitarian galt’s gultch. Give the movers and shakers quite a bit of rope but never let them fucking take over. Embrace technology, utilize it but keep balance with nature. We’ll be there eventually because I believe it is a natural outcome of our existance, provided we stand up for ourselves. Does not require violence, just a free exchange of information. Political correctness is an engineered barrier to this.

@ARE_you_kidding_me “Political correctness is an engineered barrier to this.

In other words, you and @SmashTheState want a utopian communist society, where white people like yourselves get to proclaim them selves as not oppressing, so traditionally oppressed people be damned.

It is a hate group and hate speech. Should we try to stop them from saying what they want? Is it a hate crime to speak about a group with hateful words? Generally I’m on the side of free speech, even when it’s awful. Although, I believe free speech was primarily the right to speak out against the government.

I’m not very fond of the black lives matter movement, only to say that I do think all lives matter, and separating people doesn’t help unite them I don’t think. I don’t think all lives matter is synonomous with white lives matter. Saying white lives matter is obnoxious, ridiculous, and yes racist. There is no question about it, nothing that can be said to make it ok.

I do kind of wish organizing these types of hate groups were illegal, but I’d never wish for the word police to start arresting people for saying something not PC, unless it truly did cause a violent act or crime.

I’m not very fond of the black lives matter movement, only to say that I do think all lives matter

That’s like reading a story protesting a wrongful conviction, where an innocent person is imprisoned for twenty years, and saying “Why is he special? Nobody should be locked up for twenty years!”

In hindsight, maybe the slogan should have been, “Black Lives Matter, Too”.

@zenvelo haha no, I’m also still a capitalist and a right leaning libertarian and I’m not racist or bigoted in any way. It’s amazing how it always devolves to that. Why is it so hard to see that when things get too PC it always favors one group: the authoritarian left. ...and Smash likely has very different ideas about how the world should be.

@Call_Me_Jay I understand why we are using Black Lives Matter, but for instance take the United Negro Fund, why not just have had a fund to help lower income? It would have still helped a lot of black people, because especially at the time, and still now, they were disproportionately poor. I think better to not continue to separate us by race or ethnicity. Ideally we are all seen as equal, as the same, as human beings.

If particular police officers are being especially violent or unfair towards black people of course that should be dealt with, but we have a problem in this country of constantly looking at race, people staying in their own groups, and I’m just trying to think what is the way to break free of it?

We go from one swing of the pendulum to another. Sometimes it’s necessary, but it has side effects. Affirmative Action and quotas were necessary in my mind, but then also maybe it did cause some in the majority to also, unfairly, get passed over in education and jobs. Like I said, I was in favor of it, but now the pendulum is slowly coming back regarding that. It would be better to address underlying reasons why so many minorities did so poorly in some of the better universities that they struggled or failed out, I doubt that is being addressed enough, but some states have pulled quotas out of their admissions process because of the lack of success and unfairness.

If the police were unfairly coming after my group I also would be on a rant about it like black people, I have total empathy, but I’m not sure I would want the slogan “Jewish Lives Matter” as the rally cry. That’s just me. I am not saying anything against the slogan, except to say I’m not fond of it.

Maybe it is a great way to get the message out? I don’t know. I don’t know a specific better way that I can suggest. All I know is a lot of white people are showing examples of where police unfairly treated white people too. And, with all the media buzz, black people might be more fearful of the police than they need to be, or should be. I’m all for demonstrating, but in some cities black Lives Matter demonstrators blocked traffic without giving the city advanced notice. In Memphis they blocked the main bridge coming over I40! Children trying to get to a St. Jude’s appointment couldn’t get across. That is unacceptable in my opinion. Some of my liberal friends said they are ok if some innocent people get physically harmed in demonstrations. It’s the way to get heard. Really? That it was a necessary evil. WTH? I’m sure most demonstrations have been peaceful and unobtrusive, but those don’t get much attention.

There has to be a better way. It’s very complicated.

@JLeslie …but for instance take the United Negro Fund, why not just have had a fund to help lower income?

You do know that the UNCF was started to fund students at the historically black colleges and universities? That when it was created, black students could not attend state colleges and universities like the University of Mississippi, or Alabama, or Indiana, or Virginia, or most of the state supported and free schools that white people could go to?

And, it offers scholarships to any ethnicity, and to students at any school.