please explain to me

[Ritterskoop]

Today's story about the Portland rallies (that have so far turned into a lot of nothing) included a paragraph about the Oath Keepers, who stayed away because they said organizers of the rally had not done enough to keep white supremacist groups away.

I was intrigued, and went to read about them. My source https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... th-keepers says that they are protecting themselves against a government that will/could declare martial law and do all sorts of intrusive things not based on the principles of liberty.

To which I wonder, then why stay here? If you truly think the US government would go that way, why would you stay? Why no go somewhere else where you don't fear such a government?

I have so many students who come from places where they cannot speak out against the government, or they will disappear forever. They don't have the option of escaping to another country.

The Oath Keepers do. Why not take advantage of their freedom of movement? Why live in fear?

(I don't think I got the link to work, sorry.)

[Ritterskoop]

Ooh, maybe it did work. It didn't look right in the preview.

[jarnon]

Hard to tell because these folks are wackos, but it sounds like they want to stay here to prevent the scenario they fear, and escape only if they're about to be arrested or killed.

Besides, not many countries would want a band of Americans hostile to the U.S. government. Certainly their activities would be severely constrained wherever they go.

[Ritterskoop]

They are former military and cops, is what caught my interest. I'm sure they believe in what they are fighting for, and not just trying to get attention, so I can respect that. It is the deep-down motivation I don't quite get.

[flockofseagulls104]

Today's story about the Portland rallies (that have so far turned into a lot of nothing) included a paragraph about the Oath Keepers, who stayed away because they said organizers of the rally had not done enough to keep white supremacist groups away.

I was intrigued, and went to read about them. My source https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... th-keepers says that they are protecting themselves against a government that will/could declare martial law and do all sorts of intrusive things not based on the principles of liberty.

To which I wonder, then why stay here? If you truly think the US government would go that way, why would you stay? Why no go somewhere else where you don't fear such a government?

I have so many students who come from places where they cannot speak out against the government, or they will disappear forever. They don't have the option of escaping to another country.

The Oath Keepers do. Why not take advantage of their freedom of movement? Why live in fear?

(I don't think I got the link to work, sorry.)

You want to know about the Oath Keepers, so you go to SPLC???
I am not defending or supporting Oath Keepers. I never heard of them until you mentioned them. But they do have a website. Why not go there instead of SPLC, which many consider a hate group itself? Maybe judge for yourself instead of getting the judgement of a group who makes their money marshalling fear of anything remotely conservative.

[Bob Juch]

Today's story about the Portland rallies (that have so far turned into a lot of nothing) included a paragraph about the Oath Keepers, who stayed away because they said organizers of the rally had not done enough to keep white supremacist groups away.

I was intrigued, and went to read about them. My source https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... th-keepers says that they are protecting themselves against a government that will/could declare martial law and do all sorts of intrusive things not based on the principles of liberty.

To which I wonder, then why stay here? If you truly think the US government would go that way, why would you stay? Why no go somewhere else where you don't fear such a government?

I have so many students who come from places where they cannot speak out against the government, or they will disappear forever. They don't have the option of escaping to another country.

The Oath Keepers do. Why not take advantage of their freedom of movement? Why live in fear?

(I don't think I got the link to work, sorry.)

You want to know about the Oath Keepers, so you go to SPLC???
I am not defending or supporting Oath Keepers. I never heard of them until you mentioned them. But they do have a website. Why not go there instead of SPLC, which many consider a hate group itself? Maybe judge for yourself instead of getting the judgement of a group who makes their money marshalling fear of anything remotely conservative.

They're openly white supremacist and sovereign citizen. Nuf said.

[kroxquo]

Today's story about the Portland rallies (that have so far turned into a lot of nothing) included a paragraph about the Oath Keepers, who stayed away because they said organizers of the rally had not done enough to keep white supremacist groups away.

I was intrigued, and went to read about them. My source https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... th-keepers says that they are protecting themselves against a government that will/could declare martial law and do all sorts of intrusive things not based on the principles of liberty.

To which I wonder, then why stay here? If you truly think the US government would go that way, why would you stay? Why no go somewhere else where you don't fear such a government?

I have so many students who come from places where they cannot speak out against the government, or they will disappear forever. They don't have the option of escaping to another country.

The Oath Keepers do. Why not take advantage of their freedom of movement? Why live in fear?

(I don't think I got the link to work, sorry.)

You want to know about the Oath Keepers, so you go to SPLC???
I am not defending or supporting Oath Keepers. I never heard of them until you mentioned them. But they do have a website. Why not go there instead of SPLC, which many consider a hate group itself? Maybe judge for yourself instead of getting the judgement of a group who makes their money marshalling fear of anything remotely conservative.

I too had never heard of the Oath Keepers before this, and while I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the SPLC, I do agree that rather than judging the group solely from a third party, I should look at what they have to say themselves on their website. Having done so, I think that the SPLC is dead on in their assessment of what the group is all about. This is a group of right wing conspiracy theorists who can't stand and don't tolerate anything that challenges their world view.

[silverscreenselect]

But they do have a website. Why not go there instead of SPLC, which many consider a hate group itself? Maybe judge for yourself instead of getting the judgement of a group who makes their money marshalling fear of anything remotely conservative.

Another diatribe against the SPLC and instead a suggestion that a look at an extremist organization's own website is a better indication of what they actually do and believe in. Here's what the ADL has to say about the Oath Keepers:

https://www.adl.org/resources/profiles/the-oath-keepers

[Ritterskoop]

I have always thought of the SPLC as a reliable source for this kind of topic.

I will know better next time.

[Bob78164]

I have always thought of the SPLC as a reliable source for this kind of topic.

I will know better next time.

You have been correct. A classic tactic of hate groups called out as such by SPLC is to claim that they themselves are a hate group. Kind of like claiming that press coverage you don’t like is fake news. —Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I have always thought of the SPLC as a reliable source for this kind of topic.

I will know better next time.

You have been correct. A classic tactic of hate groups called out as such by SPLC is to claim that they themselves are a hate group. Kind of like claiming that press coverage you don’t like is fake news. —Bob

Here's an opinion piece that references many facts about the SPLC that you won't see many MSM 'journalists' report with the fervor they do every single word president utters. I doubt you will do the research either, bobby. Maybe Skoop will.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 022301001/

[Bob78164]

I have always thought of the SPLC as a reliable source for this kind of topic.

I will know better next time.

You have been correct. A classic tactic of hate groups called out as such by SPLC is to claim that they themselves are a hate group. Kind of like claiming that press coverage you don’t like is fake news. —Bob

Here's an opinion piece that references many facts about the SPLC that you won't see many MSM 'journalists' report with the fervor they do every single word president utters. I doubt you will do the research either, bobby. Maybe Skoop will.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 022301001/

What you won’t find in this opinion piece is the criteria the SPLC uses to identify hate groups or the application of those criteria to the author’s present or former employer. What you will find is the corporate equivalent of an ad hominem attack. —Bob

[Ritterskoop]

I should have said earlier that I did check out the Oath Keeper's own site, but found the writing was not very good. I thought the SPLC summarized it well, directly quoting the better-written parts from the original. I think their assessment of the Oath Keepers is accurate, and I did not find them to be particularly hate-filled, compared to most of the other groups who were gathering in Portland.

That was the point; they did not attend, because they are interested in defending themselves against a potentially bad government, and they are not interested in white supremacy. Their fears are about what would happen if the government goes bad, rather than what if a different group was in the majority.

I found that interesting, and hoped for some discussion about it.

I appreciate when someone can construct a good argument so that I can see their point, not so much that it changes my position, but so that I can see why they chose theirs. We owe each other that much respect, to be civil and reasoned, rather than only labeling and name-calling.

Thus far, the fact that no one has been able to articulate an answer to my original question, I think says that that position doesn't hold water, once we get to its root. If a person thinks the US government will turn on them, and they have the time and money to create websites and rally and march, it stands to reason they should move somewhere where the government is better (I'm granting that for some people at lower income levels, they may not have the option to move; but they are probably not attending far-right rallies,either). That they haven't done so, suggests that even with its flaws, this system is still a good one.

One of our obligations under the first amendment is to petition the government for a redress of grievances, so until someone starts a fire or does harm, I want to hear what they have to say. The Oath Keepers are people who have served as police or military; I am interested in what they have to say (that doesn't mean I think they are right, but when they choose not to align themselves with some of the groups who attended Portland yesterday, that catches my ear).

[flockofseagulls104]

Thanks, skoop, for having an open mind. Bobby, of course you didn't take one second to consider an alternate perspective before you reacted in your knee- jerk fashion. I wonder what criteria they used to put Dr. Ben Carson on a hate watch list before they pulled it due to public outrage. There are many more episodes like this where they slander peaceful, innocent people and groups who they politically disagree with, because it helps them with their fund raising among the uninformed.
Another yes or no question for you, bobby:
Have you heard of any group related to Me Too calling for a boycott of SPLC?

[Bob Juch]

I should have said earlier that I did check out the Oath Keeper's own site, but found the writing was not very good. I thought the SPLC summarized it well, directly quoting the better-written parts from the original. I think their assessment of the Oath Keepers is accurate, and I did not find them to be particularly hate-filled, compared to most of the other groups who were gathering in Portland.

That was the point; they did not attend, because they are interested in defending themselves against a potentially bad government, and they are not interested in white supremacy. Their fears are about what would happen if the government goes bad, rather than what if a different group was in the majority.

I found that interesting, and hoped for some discussion about it.

I appreciate when someone can construct a good argument so that I can see their point, not so much that it changes my position, but so that I can see why they chose theirs. We owe each other that much respect, to be civil and reasoned, rather than only labeling and name-calling.

Thus far, the fact that no one has been able to articulate an answer to my original question, I think says that that position doesn't hold water, once we get to its root. If a person thinks the US government will turn on them, and they have the time and money to create websites and rally and march, it stands to reason they should move somewhere where the government is better (I'm granting that for some people at lower income levels, they may not have the option to move; but they are probably not attending far-right rallies,either). That they haven't done so, suggests that even with its flaws, this system is still a good one.

One of our obligations under the first amendment is to petition the government for a redress of grievances, so until someone starts a fire or does harm, I want to hear what they have to say. The Oath Keepers are people who have served as police or military; I am interested in what they have to say (that doesn't mean I think they are right, but when they choose not to align themselves with some of the groups who attended Portland yesterday, that catches my ear).

Have you read this? https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.c ... _standoff/

[silverscreenselect]

I have always thought of the SPLC as a reliable source for this kind of topic.

I will know better next time.

You have been correct. A classic tactic of hate groups called out as such by SPLC is to claim that they themselves are a hate group. Kind of like claiming that press coverage you don’t like is fake news. —Bob

Here's an opinion piece that references many facts about the SPLC that you won't see many MSM 'journalists' report with the fervor they do every single word president utters. I doubt you will do the research either, bobby. Maybe Skoop will.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 022301001/

Although the opinion piece Flock cites is from the USA Today, that newspaper regularly publishes opinions from people on all sides of the political spectrum. In this case, the author is a senior writer and editor for the Alliance Defending Freedom. They are identified by Media Bias Fact Check as an extremely questionable right wing source that has been identified by the SCLC as an anti-LGBT hate group. As Bob says, when these groups are called to task for bias, they react by accusing their accusers and claiming to be the real victims.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/alliance ... g-freedom/

https://www.mediamatters.org/alliance-d ... -thousands

[flockofseagulls104]

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-prof ... r-america/

https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bi ... dishonest/

Just more of the same. But thanks for the examples of the echo chamber.

[silverscreenselect]

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-prof ... r-america/

https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bi ... dishonest/

Just more of the same. But thanks for the examples of the echo chamber.

Your definition of the "echo chamber" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The only sources you ever cite are those that are easily shown to have a substantial right-wing bias, lack of accuracy, or both. Of course, you claim that all or virtually all of the mainstream news organizations and fact checkers are biased so that the only accurate source of information are those outlets that agree with your point of view to begin with.

Bob nailed this one right on the head. All you have to do is claim that anyone who disagrees with you is "fake news" in order to prove your point. Another guy used that same tactic over 80 years ago, except he referred to the "lying press" instead of "fake news."

[flockofseagulls104]

Lauging Out Loud at the previous post. Reverse the perspective and see if you can keep from laughing.

[silverscreenselect]

Lauging Out Loud at the previous post. Reverse the perspective and see if you can keep from laughing.

Simple minds are easily amused.

[Ritterskoop]

Have you read this? https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.c ... _standoff/

It is unreadable because they could not be bothered to fix the quote tags. I have lost patience with anyone who cannot take ten seconds to repair font substitutions. It is way worse than posting in allcaps, which at least we can read.

[flockofseagulls104]

Have you read this? https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.c ... _standoff/

It is unreadable because they could not be bothered to fix the quote tags. I have lost patience with anyone who cannot take ten seconds to repair font substitutions. It is way worse than posting in allcaps, which at least we can read.

I wouldn't bother anyway. It's an old batphone hit piece from 2015 from one of BJs propaganda sites.

[Bob78164]

For those who may be wondering, here is SPLC's definition of a hate group. The Family Research Council appears to fit readily within that definition. --Bob

[BackInTex]

For those who may be wondering, here is SPLC's definition of a hate group. The Family Research Council appears to fit readily within that definition. --Bob

And based on that, the SPLC should be on that list as well. Ironic.

[Bob78164]

For those who may be wondering, here is SPLC's definition of a hate group. The Family Research Council appears to fit readily within that definition. --Bob

And based on that, the SPLC should be on that list as well. Ironic.

Yep. As predicted fewer than a dozen posts above. Counterattack by claiming (without evidence) that the group naming names is itself a hate group. --Bob