Let's not forget: The Family Research Council is a hate group.

[trotsky]

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians.

The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people as the organization battles against same-sex marriage, hate crime laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

...

The FRC also strongly promotes the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat LGBT civil rights measures, though professional organizations have repeatedly called so-called “reparative therapy” (which seeks to turn gays and lesbians into heterosexuals) into question and issued statements that don’t support it. For instance, the American Psychological Association issued a report in 2009 reviewing studies of “ex-gay” therapy. The report found that, “contrary to the claims of … practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions,” according to Dr. Judith Glassgold, the lead author.

Can we all agree that even if the FRC provides some free legal services to the poor, that they are still a HATE GROUP and have no place in the Democratic Party or the progressive movement? And that NO ONE on DU should be promoting them?

[Gothmog]

1. The Family Research Council deserves to be classified as a hate group

[chia]

2. I agree

[hrmjustin]

3. Definitely a hate group.

[guillaumeb]

4. Can we also agree that even people with whom we do not agree on many points of policy,

or nearly all points of policy, can still do work that we feel is important?

And if we refuse to talk to anyone with whom we do not agree, exactly how do we ever hope to reach these people?

Some criticized President Obama for reaching out to the GOP.

[trotsky]

5. This isn't about fucking POLICY.

This is about a HATE GROUP.

YOU can ally yourself with the hate group if you want.

I won't.

[Heddi]

6. I love how bigotry towards women and gays

isn't any big deal. I mean, I guess when you're not the one getting your rights abridged at the hands of this group, it's just a difference of opinion, no big deal, who cares, what's the big deal, they're offering free legal services so that makes them progressive.

I wonder if this FRC-based free legal service would offer free services to a homeless trans youth? Or a gay couple who was refused service because of their sexual orientation? Or a woman who was denied access to birth control because of the religious beliefs of the pharmacist?

I will never believe that on Democratic fucking Underground we have someone arguing -- repeatedly -- that the Family fucking Research Council should be considered "progressive" because they have some nebulous free legal services for the poor. Because supporting hundreds of laws against LGBTIQA, women, minorities, abortion, access to birth control, marriage equality, and all manner of other things that liberals, democrats, and REAL progressives hold (or should hold) as invaluable and inalienable rights is just "policy difference" and shouldn't detract from the Family fucking Research Councils "progressive" values.

I wonder if this poster realizes that if Tony Perkins and the other FRC Nazi's had their way, I would be in a fucking CAMP -- I'm a bisexual woman with more than 1 sexual partner, currently on birth control, atheist, pro-abortion who has had an abortion and who has helped other women have an abortion. I would be fucking DEAD if they had their way, but I"m supposed to give them a hearty handshake for free legal services?

Jesus wept.

[NeoGreen]

8. So, is the lesson here...

...that bigotry toward women and gays is merely a "policy point" for disagreement?

Bigotry is about "Policy" not the experiences of actual...real...live..."People".

Is that what we are to take away from these discussions?

[Heddi]

9. I have no idea what the take-away is

I'm not able to understand the mindset of someone who tries to normalize the hate of groups like the Family Research Council and paint them as "progressive" because of ONE thing that could possibly maybe sometimes be construed as "not bad" vs the MOUNDS of things that they have done (virtually every other thing) that are totally horrible.

I'm sure that Pat Robertson has given some charity money to some group. That action does not take away or lessen the bigoted, hateful attacks he has launched (and continued to launch) against non-christians, women, gays, abortionists, birth control seekers, etc. etc.

To me, it's the big picture. If I give a hungry man a sandwich, does that make me good? If I then punch him in the face, does the sandwich make up for the punch? What about if I give him free housing, but every day I burn a cross in a black neighbor's yard. Does the free rent "make up" for burning crosses?

What about if I offer free legal services to "poor people," but also support a group that is, by all accounts, a hate group like the Family Research Council. Does the nebulous "free legal services for the poor" undo the absolutely devastating stances that FRC has taken against LGBT'ers? Women seeking abortion and birth control? Families seeking family planning services? People seeking same-sex marriage? People who advocate for the separation of church and state?

This mindset what was allowed my mother to stay with abusive men all her life-- well, he beats the shit out of me but it's okay because he pays half the rent. Well, he broke my jaw but he paid for the car to get fixed. It was the same mindset she tried to get me to use to justify molestation by her live-in boyfriend. Yes, he did an awful thing but he helps out with the bills.

When is the bad SO bad that no amount of good can undo the bad?

[trotsky]

11. That does indeed appear to be the point.

Disturbing as it seems.

[trotsky]

10. Right.

Well, you've got to realize that there is a bigger battle going on.

A battle against horrible, evil atheists posting links to bad news about religion.

You must understand that in such a battle, the enemy of one's enemy is a dear, welcome friend.

Rights, decency, honesty, integrity, ALL can and will be sacrificed, if necessary, to vanquish the evil atheists and their negative opinions about religion that they keep posting on the Internet.

I hope this helps put things in perspective.

, for anyone who wasn't painfully aware.

[Heddi]

12. It's instances like this

that make me sad. Sad for many reasons that I can't elucidate upon because it would be alerted on.


I remember when a poster who repeatedly praised Family Research Council, and called the progressive, and said that their stance towards LGBT's and women were just "policy differences" would not be a poster at DU.

Now I guess Tony Perkins should be someone to emulate? What's next? Trump isn't that bad of a guy? We really should go back to Civil Unions because we don't want to offend the sensibilities of religious folks who hate gay people?

what the everloving fuck?

[guillaumeb]

13. Again with the mischaracterization, or misunderstanding.

You posted:

I will never believe that on Democratic fucking Underground we have someone arguing -- repeatedly -- that the Family fucking Research Council should be considered "progressive" because they have some nebulous free legal services for the poor. Because supporting hundreds of laws against LGBTIQA, women, minorities, abortion, access to birth control, marriage equality, and all manner of other things that liberals, democrats, and REAL progressives hold (or should hold) as invaluable and inalienable rights is just "policy difference" and shouldn't detract from the Family fucking Research Councils "progressive" values.

I bolded the mischaracterization. To refute me and support your claim, simply point out where I said any of that.

"Jesus wept" is another example of your unintended irony.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. No thanks. I don't work with hate groups. It's kind of a rule with me.

I can only IMAGINE these people trying to run the case for the plaintiffs in Lawrence vs. Texas.

Right.

[beam me up scottie]

16. Why should women and lgbt people be expected to acknowledge the 'good works' of hate groups?

Are you fucking kidding?

How do you think it makes women and lgbt posters feel when hate groups are praised here? Their members think at best we're second class citizens and at worst jezebels and sexual deviants - and they regularly use HATE SPEECH against US.

But when we object to said praise we're accused of doing so because we hate religion. When we express our outrage you claim it's because we just want an excuse to criticize those nice religious people.

Seriously?

It couldn't possibly be because those groups make it their mission to vilify us and take away our human rights, could it? That we're angry because they want to legalize discrimination and continue to oppress us like they did in the good ole days. That is their MISSION. It's not helping poor people or providing free legal services.

News flash:

There is NO REACHING OUT TO HATE GROUPS.

Their members will NEVER vote for a Democrat.

So let's stop pretending that praising religious hate groups like the FRC is about political outreach, m'kay?

And while we're at it how about you stop lecturing us about how we're supposed to be tolerant of their hate because they do volunteer work.

If you want to continue to highlight their 'good works' knock yourself out, but don't you dare accuse us of being the bigots when we call them what they are.

[guillaumeb]

17. You start out in the body of your response with a mischaracterization.

With this:

How do you think it makes women and lgbt posters feel when hate groups are praised here?

And you are not the only one to do this. I have previously called out another for making this ridiculous claim, and that other has provided zero evidence to back up the claim. Is this what you call dialogue?

I would say nice try but it is getting silly to see a claim made in one post and then quickly adopted by others when there is no evidence to support the claim.

[beam me up scottie]

18. "zero evidence to back up the claim"? Your own posts betray you:

The claim:

How do you think it makes women and lgbt posters feel when hate groups are praised here?

Definition of praise:

the expression of approval or admiration for someone or something.

The proof:

It is apparent from the responses that some here feel that anything progressive that is done is completely outweighed by the totality of positions taken by the organization. Providing free legal service is a progressive idea, as is feeding the poor and dealing with other social justice issues. If we are to reject all with whom we do not agree on every issue, it is the same type of infighting that we saw in the 2016 campaign wherein the "more progressive than thou" tactic divided people.

And if they cease operating, who provides the legal services?

And is providing free legal service a bad thing?

This type of argument reminds me of the purity arguments that some theists like to make. That one must be 100% in accord with a certain faith outlook to be called good.

If conservatives are doing progressive work, even if on one issue, we should recognize that work for what it is. We can either try to grow the big tent or not.

This post is NOT part of my PPOF series.

I said that what they were doing, providing free legal services, is a progressive thing. I did not indicate that the group is progressive, or that I agree with any of their other positions.

There you go - three separate examples of you praising the "good works" of the head of a hate group.

Let's have a look at them again, from the SPLC:

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians.

In Its Own Words

“Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.”

– Family Research Council website, 2016

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

A recap:

1) The FRC is a hate group.

2) You praised the "progessive" "good works" of its lawyer David Nammo here.

3) Your own posts are proof.

You're welcome.

[guillaumeb]

19. You ignored my questions so you could insist on your view. I understand.

I am praising the providing of free legal services. I never called the group progressive, but the action is, in this one case, progressive. So if singling out one position out of many is "praising the group" we differ on definitions.

[beam me up scottie]

20. I never said you called the group progressive, did I?

I said you praised the good works of its lawyer and called his actions progressive. Here's what I asked:

Why should women and lgbt people be expected to acknowledge the 'good works' of hate groups?

How do you think it makes women and lgbt posters feel when hate groups are praised here?

You most certainly did praise the work of a hate group and called that work 'progressive'. In fact you just did it again:

I am praising the providing of free legal services. I never called the group progressive, but the action is,

You also criticized us for not recognizing the "PROGRESSIVE" ACTIONS OF A MEMBER OF A KNOWN HATE GROUP.

Your exact words again:

we should recognize that work

So why not answer my questions instead of constructing a straw man?

Why should women and lgbt people be expected to acknowledge the 'good works' of hate groups?

How do you think it makes women and lgbt posters feel when hate groups are praised here?

[guillaumeb]

21. Again, I am not praising the group, simply the one action.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Again I didn't say you praised the group, I said you PRAISED A MEMBER OF THAT HATE GROUP.

And you tried to make us look like we were intolerant for refusing to acknowledge his "good works".

That's like expecting a black person to acknowledge the "good works" of the Aryan Brotherhood because they have a mentoring program for disadvantaged youth and then calling them intolerant when they get pissed.

Women and lgbt people are under no obligation to recognize the "progressive" actions of a member of a hate group. And we have every right to resent being asked to do so.

[dchill]

26. +1000

[uriel1972]

25. First show me that "They" can be reached....

That reaching out isn't a waste of time and resources...

I think that we should concentrate on reaching the undecided and children of the haters, over and above any attempt to reach out to those who will not be swayed.

I criticised President Obama, for a lot of things including the reach-outs to people who took all he offered and still refused to cooperate.

I felt this a grave tactical and strategic blunder. Bipartisanship can only work if both sides display goodwill and enter into compromises that benefit both sides.

How can that be achieved with a hate-group?

[guillaumeb]

27. If we do not reach out, how can they be reached?

Yes, some are apparently beyond our reach, but until we do reach out and have dialogue we will never really know. Many current Trump supporters claimed to have previously voted for Obama, so, assuming that they are not all lying, they are presumably not racists and misogynists.

If we do not reach out, will the future be one where only one party will rule and the others will be in perpetual outrage?

If we simply dismiss the GOP as beyond hope we have given up.

[beam me up scottie]

34. What other extremist hate groups do you think we should 'reach out' to?

Should we reach out to members of Aryan Nations?

The anti-Semites at Stormfront?

Islamophobes at Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative?

Neo-Confederates at the League of the South?

Please explain why we should be reaching out to hate groups whose members would happily round up minorities and put them in camps if they were allowed to do so.


We're not talking about the GOP here - we're talking about praising the actions of a member of the Family Research Council - a KNOWN EXTREMIST HATE GROUP.

[uriel1972]

58. /sigh.. Obviously I was being too subtle...

and the point I made about concentrating on the undecided and children was easily missed when replying to something you thought I was saying.

HATE-GROUP... that word again HATE.. what part of hate-group is giving you trouble?

How do you plan to reach out to an organisation dedicated to the eradication of myself and people like me from society by one means or another?

I am not going to abase myself before them and say "Please like me", and hope for the best, thank you very much.

[Lordquinton]

28. Those "points of policy"

Are being put into action in Chechnya, where gay men are being put in camps.

You should really quit while you can.

[guillaumeb]

29. At least you did not mention NAZIs.

The rhetoric is getting a bit heavy here.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Wait - you think it's unfair to compare hate groups like the FRC to Nazis?

Are you kidding?

Anti-lgbt hate groups like the Family Research Council persecute lgbt people to the extent they're allowed to by law and actively lobby to be allowed to go even further.

How about we start with a simple history lesson?

The destruction of the Institute was a first step toward eradicating an openly gay or lesbian culture from Germany. Police closed bars and clubs such as the "Eldorado" and banned publications such as Die Freundschaft (Friendship). In this early stage the Nazis drove homosexuals underground, destroying their networks of support. In 1934, the Gestapo (secret state police) instructed local police forces to keep lists of all men engaged in homosexual activities. Police in many parts of Germany had in fact been doing this for years. The Nazis used these "pink lists" to hunt down individual homosexuals during police actions.

On June 28, 1935, the Ministry of Justice revised Paragraph 175. The revisions provided a legal basis for extending Nazi persecution of homosexuals. Ministry officials expanded the category of "criminally indecent activities between men" to include any act that could be construed as homosexual. The courts later decided that even intent or thought sufficed. On October 26, 1936, Himmler formed within the Security Police the Reich Central Office for Combating Abortion and Homosexuality. Josef Meisinger, executed in 1947 for his brutality in occupied Poland, led the new office. The police had powers to hold in protective custody or preventive arrest those deemed dangerous to Germany's moral fiber, jailing indefinitely—without trial—anyone they chose. In addition, homosexual prisoners just released from jail were immediately re-arrested and sent to concentration camps if the police thought it likely that they would continue to engage in homosexual acts.

From 1937 to 1939, the peak years of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the police increasingly raided homosexual meeting places, seized address books, and created networks of informers and undercover agents to identify and arrest suspected homosexuals. On April 4, 1938, the Gestapo issued a directive indicating that men convicted of homosexuality could be incarcerated in concentration camps. Between 1933 and 1945 the police arrested an estimated 100,000 men as homosexuals. Most of the 50,000 men sentenced by the courts spent time in regular prisons, and between 5,000 and 15,000 were interned in concentration camps.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261

So we've established that the Nazis' persecution of gays began with vilifying them. Now let's compare their disinformation campaign to the Family Research Council, here are some selected quotes from SPLC's website:

“The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”

“(H)omosexual activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that homosexual men … are … relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions (childhood sexual abuse) than are heterosexual men.”

“The videos are titled 'It Gets Better.' They are aimed at persuading kids that although they'll face struggles and perhaps bullying for 'coming out' as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. …It's disgusting. And it's part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."

"Those who understand the homosexual community—the activists—they're very aggressive, they're—everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They're intolerant, they're hateful, vile, they're spiteful. .... To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation."

"We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”

"A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”

"One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

I don't see much of a difference, do you?

Next we'll move on to how the Nazis tried to 'cure' gays, from the source I cited earlier:

Because some Nazis believed homosexuality was a sickness that could be cured, they designed policies to "cure" homosexuals of their "disease" through humiliation and hard work. Guards ridiculed and beat homosexual prisoners upon arrival, often separating them from other inmates. Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, wrote in his memoirs that homosexuals were segregated in order to prevent homosexuality from spreading to other inmates and guards. Personnel in charge of work details in the Dora-Mittelbau underground rocket factory or in the stone quarries at Flossenbürg and Buchenwald often gave deadly assignments to homosexuals.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261

Let's compare their tactics to those of the Family Research Council which also advocates so called gay 'conversion' therapy. You're familiar with conversion therapy, right?

Conservative Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, a longtime proponent of conversion therapy, fought hard for the inclusion of the right of parents to "determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their children" in this year's platform. In addition, Trump's running mate, Indiana governor Mike Pence, has advocated for "institutions which provide support for those seeking to change their sexual behavior."

In other words, in the GOP's conception of "religious freedom," parents and healthcare professionals should have the right to subject children to brainwashing tactics. In the ideal future of our country under GOP leadership, children should, if parents deem it necessary, be forced to detail all of their sexual fantasies to conversion therapy counselors who wish to lead them into deep feelings of shame and regret. If deemed necessary, those children should be told that memories of their parents are false, and that some form of early abuse must have "turned them gay." A child should be made to believe that their gender identity is a sham, as was the case with trans teen Leah Alcorn, who tragically committed suicide while undergoing such "therapy."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/i-survived-gay-conversion-therapy-2016-gop-republican-platform

So to recap - the FRC consistently spreads disinformation that portrays lgbt people as dangerous criminals who are a threat to society and wants to subject lgbt youth to cruel practices that force them to believe they're mentally in order to 'cure' them.

Sounds like Nazis to me.

[guillaumeb]

35. Fine, let us compare:

NAZIs killed approximately 15 million people in total.

The FRC is definitely not gay friendly, or gay sympathetic.

The NAZIs took power and tried to run the world.

The FRC is losing the tolerance war.

Yes, definitely the exact same thing.

Shall we now discuss the millions who were imprisoned or killed in a Russia that was run by self-identified atheists and widen the comparison?

[beam me up scottie]

36. Omg. You're STILL defending a known hate group from its critics here?

I am shocked and disgusted that I even have to explain why praising the actions of anti-lgbt hate groups is unacceptable - let alone that I have to defend comparing them to Nazis.

You really don't see how their anti-lgbt ideology resembles Nazi anti-lgbt ideology? Seriously?

Why are you so offended by the comparison? This is a liberal website, I would think the one thing we all can agree on is that hate groups don't get ENOUGH criticism.

And here you are accusing us of unfairly maligning them because we compared them to Nazis.

These people think homosexuality is a mental illness and they want to USE SHOCK TREATMENTS TO CURE GAYS.

Do you have any idea how MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE that is?

[guillaumeb]

37. I have linked to actions that most here would call progressive,

if they were done by a progressive group. I sent a link to one of many CLS affiliated legal firms that does work representing the homeless. I never defended any of the policy positions of the FRC, as anyone who has read my posts will see.

So do progressive actions become bad when they are done by a non-progressive group? If so, show me that section in the How to be a Progressive handbook.

So no, in spite of your headline, I am not defending the FRC. But you can keep saying that if you feel like doing so. But your claim would be more convincing if you could actually link to me defending the FRC. So feel free.

[beam me up scottie]

39. You repeatedly praised a member of a KNOWN HATE GROUP.

And you've done nothing but double down and defend them ever since we expressed our outrage.

You even expressed displeasure that they were compared to Nazis instead of agreeing that yes - their virulent anti-lgbt ideology IS indeed similar to that of Nazis.

Who does that?

Would you be offended if we compared white supremacist organizations to Nazis or is it just anti-lgbt groups that are off limits to Nazi comparisons?



I'm not going to continue to rehash this, it's all there for everyone to see, all they have to do is read this thread and your other op.

I think I'll allow others to make up their own minds although it is telling that no one else is praising the so called 'progressive' actions and 'good works' of a KNOWN HATE GROUP and they certainly don't seem to be offended by our comparing them to Nazis.

[guillaumeb]

40. Wrong again.

But if this tactic is your preferred method of framing an argument and trying to put an opponent on the defensive I an fairly certain that you will continue.

Again, you cannot link to one post of mine defending the FLC. And THAT is telling.

[beam me up scottie]

41. One more time, I said you praised one of their members - and here's the proof:

The claim:

You repeatedly praised a member of a KNOWN HATE GROUP.

The Family Research Council is listed as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

Definition of praise:

the expression of approval or admiration for someone or something.

The proof:

It is apparent from the responses that some here feel that anything progressive that is done is completely outweighed by the totality of positions taken by the organization. Providing free legal service is a progressive idea, as is feeding the poor and dealing with other social justice issues. If we are to reject all with whom we do not agree on every issue, it is the same type of infighting that we saw in the 2016 campaign wherein the "more progressive than thou" tactic divided people.

And if they cease operating, who provides the legal services?

And is providing free legal service a bad thing?

This type of argument reminds me of the purity arguments that some theists like to make. That one must be 100% in accord with a certain faith outlook to be called good.

If conservatives are doing progressive work, even if on one issue, we should recognize that work for what it is. We can either try to grow the big tent or not.

This post is NOT part of my PPOF series.

I said that what they were doing, providing free legal services, is a progressive thing. I did not indicate that the group is progressive, or that I agree with any of their other positions.

There you go - three separate examples of you praising the "good works" of a member of a hate group.

So one more time:

The FRC is a KNOWN HATE GROUP.

Your own posts show that you praised the actions of one of its members and other 'progressive' 'good works' done by that group.

You're welcome.

[guillaumeb]

42. And again, and again, the post was about the CLS. As a reading of the post will show.

And I can link to many affiliates of the CLS who do work in a variety of fields and for members of many communities. Not that this will by any means stop the constant attempts at reframing what a reading of the actual post will show.

[beam me up scottie]

43. In other words I was correct. You're welcome!

[guillaumeb]

44. The mind boggles.

Now I know what it feels like. So when I write "up" do you see "down"?

[beam me up scottie]

45. Yes it's frustrating when people don't fight straw men, isn't it?

You keep misrepresenting my posts by using logical fallacies and I refuse to lose track of my point.

Which, again is:

You praised a member of a KNOWN HATE GROUP.

That is both offensive and completely indefensible.

[guillaumeb]

46. You repeat a charge that you cannot prove.

And THAT is offensive. Your point was to misrepresent what I actually wrote so you could attack what you claimed I said.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Let's review that charge again: I said you praised a member of a KNOWN HATE GROUP.

The Family Research Council is listed as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

So yes, the FRC is a hate group.

***

Your posts:

It is apparent from the responses that some here feel that anything progressive that is done is completely outweighed by the totality of positions taken by the organization. Providing free legal service is a progressive idea, as is feeding the poor and dealing with other social justice issues. If we are to reject all with whom we do not agree on every issue, it is the same type of infighting that we saw in the 2016 campaign wherein the "more progressive than thou" tactic divided people.

And if they cease operating, who provides the legal services?

And is providing free legal service a bad thing?

This type of argument reminds me of the purity arguments that some theists like to make. That one must be 100% in accord with a certain faith outlook to be called good.

If conservatives are doing progressive work, even if on one issue, we should recognize that work for what it is. We can either try to grow the big tent or not.

This post is NOT part of my PPOF series.

I said that what they were doing, providing free legal services, is a progressive thing. I did not indicate that the group is progressive, or that I agree with any of their other positions.

Definition of praise:

the expression of approval or admiration for someone or something.

So yes, those are three separate examples of you praising the "good works" of a member of that hate group.

You repeat a charge that you cannot prove.

You were saying?

If you want to disprove my claim you'll need to break the time/space continuum and prevent those posts from being entered. Because they're a matter of record.

[guillaumeb]

48. CLS, not FLC.

Nice try at repeating your reframing.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Again I have no idea what you're talking about. The Family Research Council is a hate group.

Let's review again:

1) You posted a LTTE from a member of that hate group: David Nammo.

2) You praised the actions of that member and those of the hate group.

Repeatedly.

Those are facts, not a matter of opinion.

So my claim is indeed accurate.

[guillaumeb]

50. Your claim is consistently inaccurate.

I praised the actions of a group of legal affiliates who are providing assistance to a wide variety of clients.

All of this FRC posting is a reframing and seems to be an attempt to hijack what was originally posted.

[beam me up scottie]

52. I claimed you praised a member of a hate group and the actions. Let's review again:

Claim: the Family Research Council is a hate group.

Proof:

The Family Research Council is listed as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council


✔ That claim was accurate.


Next.

Claim: you praised a member of that hate group.

Proof - your posts:

It is apparent from the responses that some here feel that anything progressive that is done is completely outweighed by the totality of positions taken by the organization. Providing free legal service is a progressive idea, as is feeding the poor and dealing with other social justice issues. If we are to reject all with whom we do not agree on every issue, it is the same type of infighting that we saw in the 2016 campaign wherein the "more progressive than thou" tactic divided people.

And if they cease operating, who provides the legal services?

And is providing free legal service a bad thing?

This type of argument reminds me of the purity arguments that some theists like to make. That one must be 100% in accord with a certain faith outlook to be called good.

If conservatives are doing progressive work, even if on one issue, we should recognize that work for what it is. We can either try to grow the big tent or not.

This post is NOT part of my PPOF series.

I said that what they were doing, providing free legal services, is a progressive thing. I did not indicate that the group is progressive, or that I agree with any of their other positions.

Definition of praise:

the expression of approval or admiration for someone or something.

✔ - That claim was also accurate.


It's really all very simple, I've gone over this several times and you've yet to show me which part of my claim was wrong.

[guillaumeb]

53. A repeat that introduces nothing new and that continues the reframing.

If you introduce actual evidence about the subject of my post, which was not the FRC, please let me know.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Repeating the facts is not reframing. You said my claim was wrong.

I posted a claim and the evidence supporting it.

The claim: You praised a member of a hate group.

The proof: your own posts prove that's accurate.

If you believe my claim is incorrect all you have to do is prove me wrong by doing one or both of the following:

1) Prove that the Family Research Council isn't a hate group.

2) Prove that you didn't praise a member of that hate group.

Good luck.

[Lordquinton]

31. Religious extremest are literally putting gay men in camps

And you retort with "rhetoric". I'm talking about things going on right now by theists like the one you praised.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Oh come on, Lordquinton, you're being very unfair to those extremists.

Those hate groups only persecute lgbt people SOME of the time. As our friend repeatedly informed us they also do 'progressive' things like provide free legal services - so it's not right to bring up all that other stuff without also acknowledging their "good works".

Next thing you know posters will be criticizing white supremacists without acknowledging the 'progressive' things that they do. Like adopting highways and mentoring kids.

We don't want to unfairly malign hate groups, now do we?

Once you compare extremists like the Family Research Council to Nazis YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!!!

So just stop it.








*shouldn't need to add this disclaimer but that's folks. I don't actually think it's unfair to compare hate groups to Nazis. In fact Godwin doesn't apply when their tactics actually do resemble those used by Nazis.

[trotsky]

33. He's gone beyond doubling down, tripling down, even quadrupling down.

He CANNOT BE WRONG, he's just right in some (as of yet) undiscovered way. I'm just impressed in a way, how much he's willing to defend anti-choice, anti-LGBT organizations and people on Democratic Underground. Depressed that it's happening though.

[guillaumeb]

38. And I am talking about the US.

And again, not that it will stop the claims, I did not praise the FRC, but I know at this point that it will not stop the unsubstantiated claims. If enough mud is thrown, perhaps some will stick?

[Lordquinton]

57. So LGBTQIA in the US should not be worried?

Because it's not happening here?

I don't care how many hairs you split, you are so in the wrong with this, and you can't even see why people are upset.

[guillaumeb]

60. I know why some here are upset. As do you.

LGTBQ rights are seen by more and more Americans as what they are, human rights. Yes some people refuse to see which way the wind is blowing, but poll after poll shows positive support. What we are seeing is similar to the Confederate heritage groups who are still fighting the civil war.

And again, in spite of the persistent attempts to reframe what I posted, my post was not about the FRC. This entire line is a red herring designed to derail my post.

[Lordquinton]

63. And now you are reframing it to deflect away from what you did

And piling more straw on top.

BMUS did a sufficient write-up of your blunder, I'll leave it at that.

[guillaumeb]

64. Nice try, but the tactics are obvious and the motives are also.

At least they are judging by the PMs I have received about the toxic atmosphere in this group.

[Phoenix61]

55. The GOP isn't classified as a hate group

Apples and oranges.

[guillaumeb]

59. But many of its positions are embraced by hate groups.

And hate groups vote for the GOP.

And hate positions find support in the GOP.

[Phoenix61]

61. Again, the GOP is not classified as a hate group

Apples and oranges.

[LostOne4Ever]

14. They are a hate group and have no place here or anywhere that calls itself liberal. Nt

[beam me up scottie]

15. Thank you for that. Why would anyone expect us to appreciate the 'good works' of a hate group?

Are we to be treated to ops extolling the good works of the Aryan Brotherhood?

Are we to be asked to praise the KKK for adopting a highway?

To recognize and admit that these other hate groups aren't all bad either?

When did it become acceptable to praise 'progressive' actions by hate groups here and shame people who object? One person was even criticized for comparing the hate group to Hitler and compared to Sean Spicer.

How did we become the bad guys?

[uriel1972]

23. How did we become the bad guys?

Obvious answer is obvious

[beam me up scottie]

24. Indeed it is.

That was rhetorical because I have to watch what I say.

[RKP5637]

51. A hateful and dangerous group corrupting the minds of many. n/t

[3catwoman3]

56. Any group with "Family" or "Values" in its...

...title should probably be regarded with suspicion.

[trotsky]

62. Got that right.

"Focus on the Family"