What a garbage article. When you begin to defend the FRC you need to reevaluate your priorities. they are not and never have been a mainstream policy organization, and giving them a platform to...
What a garbage article. When you begin to defend the FRC you need to reevaluate your priorities. they are not and never have been a mainstream policy organization, and giving them a platform to give their insane arguements is an extremely irresponsible thing to do as a journalist. Even if they haven't directly campaigned against gay marriage directly, their bullshit rhetoric was used as justification against. This is also a group who advocates for conversion therapy, which had long been disavowed by psychologists and even outlawed for children in some states because of how damaging it is.
The worst part of this is that the writer had some legitimate arguements that they brushed up against, but they chose to go the insane way and say 'these groups are not actually that bad'.
This represents and incredible battle going on. I had no idea of the intensity with which these different organizations are fighting each other for a position on the moral high ground. For the...
This represents and incredible battle going on. I had no idea of the intensity with which these different organizations are fighting each other for a position on the moral high ground. For the non-initiated reader such as myself, it's just sad. So much money is spent these days on fighting battles such as this.
I suppose we can't hope it will get less complex, but the waste is equivalent to my mind of an arms race by competing countries. What happens when the entire country consists of lawyers? /s
When the definition of hate is subjective and is different to nearly every person, then the SPLC should have never been used as an authorative final say of what is and what is not hate groups.
In this climate, seeking widespread credibility for a hate list — with its inherently blunt methodology — seems at once quaint, noble and, possibly, futile.
When the definition of hate is subjective and is different to nearly every person, then the SPLC should have never been used as an authorative final say of what is and what is not hate groups.
What a garbage article. When you begin to defend the FRC you need to reevaluate your priorities. they are not and never have been a mainstream policy organization, and giving them a platform to give their insane arguements is an extremely irresponsible thing to do as a journalist. Even if they haven't directly campaigned against gay marriage directly, their bullshit rhetoric was used as justification against. This is also a group who advocates for conversion therapy, which had long been disavowed by psychologists and even outlawed for children in some states because of how damaging it is.
The worst part of this is that the writer had some legitimate arguements that they brushed up against, but they chose to go the insane way and say 'these groups are not actually that bad'.
This represents and incredible battle going on. I had no idea of the intensity with which these different organizations are fighting each other for a position on the moral high ground. For the non-initiated reader such as myself, it's just sad. So much money is spent these days on fighting battles such as this.
I suppose we can't hope it will get less complex, but the waste is equivalent to my mind of an arms race by competing countries. What happens when the entire country consists of lawyers? /s
When the definition of hate is subjective and is different to nearly every person, then the SPLC should have never been used as an authorative final say of what is and what is not hate groups.