What is the Status of Hate in the US?

If they weren't included solely because the don't support the gay agenda, then every church in the US would have to be on there. I'm not here to argue for the SPLC, but it seems to me that they reject discrimination of all kinds. As citizens of the US, gays should have the same rights as you and I. Name-calling is not against the law. Niether is racism. Neither is wearing a swastika. But they are forms of hate.

 

Everyone just needs to smoke a joint of dank and chill the Frick out,,man...

 

It's the worst kind of lie. It's the kind of lie that makes people angry, and HATE. When FOX likened Obama to Hitler, the intent was to anger. When FOX claimed an allegiance between Castro and Obama/Clinton, the intent was to anger. And the character lies - intent - to instill HATE,

FOX Lies about Obama - Repeatedly reported.
1. "His Father was ,a wife-beating alcoholic and a polygamist." (Obama met his father once)
2. Fidel Castro endorses an Obama/Clinton ticket.
3.Regular guest Ted Nugent - "Obama is a piece of ****, and Hillary Clinton is a worthless bitch".
4. Obama's a Muslim.
5. "He's a dime store Mein-Kampf".
6. He's not an American. He has a fake birth certificate.

You don't hear any of the other MSM put this kind of trash on the air. Show me any character attack against GW Bush. Show me one against Trump - not counting **** Grabber, because that's true. BTW, the **** Grabber episode was here and gone. The other MSM didn't harp on this for years and years. Had the tables been turned, FOX would have aired this hundreds of times. Like the above character lies - over and over and over. Sickos at FOX News - the kind who molest women at work.

 

So when people call others a "homophobe!", isn't that name calling? And therefore a form of hate, and justification to be included in the SPLC list of haters?

The SPLC certainly does not reject discrimination of all kinds, it is wildly partial and political.

 

So far the majority believe that the hate is increasing in the United States but I don't believe that's the actual case. It's become more visible since Trump campaign based upon pandering to right-wing prejudice, there's no doubt about that, but I'm not noticing an increase. I'm just seeing it being expressed more.

The vast majority of hate groups are extremist right-wing hate groups and while their numbers increased with Obama was elected, then stabilized for awhile they've seen another increase with Trump's election. While the number of these hate groups increased and the number of members increased the "hate" was always with the individual but it just wasn't being exposed to the public.

The vast majority of the hate in America has always originated from those on the more radical right. This is arguably because a "conservative" ideology is inherently less tolerant of those that deviate from their conservative world view when compared to the "Political Left" were hatred is far less because of the inherent tolerance of leftist ideology. .

A problem is evident because the right, that accepts their own hatred, often mistakenly condemns the left claiming the "left hates" just because they hate. It doesn't work that way. For example we just had the violence and white supremacist terrorist attack in Charlottesville VA and some have claimed that there was violence originating from both the "right" and the "left" but that wasn't accurate.

There was a third party to the event that's not tied do either the left of the right but the group is violently opposed to Neo-Nazism and White Supremacy. This same group showed up in Portland last November bringing violence to the Pro-Trump rallies. The groups is the Antifa (anti-fascists) comprised predominately of anarchists that belong to neither the Left of Right but that do represent the historical opposition to Fascism and the Political left and Political Right both generally oppose fascism. The Antifa has been misidentify as the "Alt-Left" but they have virtually nothing in common with the "leftist" ideology of tolerance and non-violence and they certainly opposed the Left's advocacy for large government. Antifa is often further to the right than the Political Right on many, many issues.

 

I would forward the name of the group that you are citing, to the SPLC. They have a mechanism for reporting a hate group. I assume there is a group that you are referring to...

 

The SPLC tracks hate groups but not typically individuals that express hate with a few exceptions. Leaders of hate groups or public figures that routinely express hate can fall into a group of individuals where tracking what they say publically could be followed.

I actually stumbled for a moment on "homophobe" that is a reference to someone that has an irrational fear of homosexuality. If used properly it's not name calling but instead it's merely a word to identify a condition. It might not be applied to a person at all but applied in a general context to a group. For example the fears I read related to "gender identity" restroom use were irrational fears. Fears of gays in the military were irrational and none of the prophecies by those about what they believed would happen have ever materialized.

If used to attack someone that clearly doesn't express irrational fears about homosexuality then it's certainly name-calling but not all name-calling equates to hatred. It can be insulting but not all insults are considered harmful enough to be classified as hate speech. The degree of harm to the person that the speech causes is a significant consideration.

The SPLC does track all forms of hatred without regard to politics. It's right-wing propaganda that the SPLC is politically biased.

 

Yes, the group is called the Democrat Party. Do you think if I sent a complaint to the SPLC they will list the Democrat Party on their "hate watch"?

 

"homophobe" is a made-up word intended and used to smear anyone who opposes the gay agenda. The concept of such a word was discussed in the book "After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's".

The word "homophobe" (and "racism") was not used in the objective sense you claim, but as a weapon to attack and silence people. For example, in this forum, "homophobic slurs" are against the rules (rule 7) - I was warned and I believe temporarily banned for stating that in a heterosexual species that homosexuality was abnormal (a clear and obvious scientific fact).

 

I wonder if FOX News is on there. Now there's a novel idea.

 

And, I can go back through the years and point out as many rants by Left-wing "pundits" and savants which were presented on the equally-Left-leaning "news" networks. These people -- all of them -- express opinions! Often these opinions are passed off as "news" -- both LEFT and RIGHT, and that is how propaganda is created -- out of a desire not to inform, but a desire to PERSUADE.

Best current example I can think of -- the hyperliberal, PC crowd's insane reactions to old, crusted-over Civil War statues of Southerners, sitting ignored in 'plain sight' for many decades... Today, the self-righteous rat-herd goes around screaming, "IT WAS ALL ABOUT SLAVERY!", when, in fact, slightly less than 5% of all Southerners owned slaves at all. Lincoln himself didn't "get around" to emancipating the slaves until the Civil War had been going on in full fury for nearly two years! "All about slavery!" (?). Hogwash! BUT, Southerners of all kinds were highly motivated to fight for the rights of sovereign states -- exactly as clearly indicated in the U. S. Constitution itself! Were the propaganda artists who create the narrative that "IT WAS ALL ABOUT SLAVERY!" guilty of lies and hate-mongering...?

Now consider... how would the run-up to the Civil War have been 'reported' in the 'news' if there had been a Fox News in 1860? How would it have been reported by CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, et al...? Who would have crafted "the narrative', for whom, and WHY?

The thread topic is about "hate". Can listening to someone's opinion make someone want to hate? Yes. Can listening to a recitation of even documented, verifiable facts on a genuine, accurate newscast make someone want to hate? Yes. Do individuals and organizations toil away night and day to shape "the narrative" in order to control what someone else thinks? Yes. This applies to Left and Right. It is up to each "someone" to be able to make up his/her own mind -- based on facts, evidence, education, and one's own personal intelligence. I can't make it any clearer or fairer than that. If you demand 'perfection' in everything, you must die and go to Heaven!

Now, you and your little liberal Democrat friends go tear down a few statues of Lincoln, too, while you're at it. You wouldn't BELIEVE some of the stuff Lincoln said about Negroes! Google them up! See what I mean? But when you dig down deep enough for the truth (TRUTH), you will find it, but, you might not like what you find. In fact, it may just make you 'hateful'....

 

The fact of the matter is that many of your category "hyperliberals", could care less about a statue. I don't care. It seems to me, somebody in Virginia thought it was important, and the Neo-Nazis seemed to take offense. Everything that you disagree with, is not necessarily Leftist.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, that it's up to the person to discern truth from fallacy. No problem with that. However, when an entire, well-coordinated, highly financed operation has taken over public discourse, there is a problem. The warning was put forth by many of the forefathers of this country. The unprecedented scenario is this:

1. Judicial Watch ($35 million annual budget, 50 full-time lawyers and investigators on staff, billionaire-funded) starts a defamation lawsuit (over 300 lawsuits filed against Obama, many against Clinton).
2. Billionaire-funded FOX News picks up the story. "Obama did XYZ".
3. Judicial Watch dismisses lawsuit. If you do the math, that's about one lawsuit every 8 days.
4. FOX watchers accept the lie as fact. Their hate for Obama grows and grows.

You stated that you can find lies, similar to the FOX character lies about Obama. Pease do. I have challenged others with this, and nobody has come up with anything. The women-molesting FOX hieracrchy created a divisive organization, and since 1997, they have served only to divide this country.

 

I do not have a problem with hate groups because people have the right to hate whomever and whatever they please. My contention is about the literal hate that is directed at President Donald J. Trump. To me, it is disgusting and is indicative of what I call “the smiling faces hate” which is in fact on the rise promulgated and promoted by the multiple media sources and outlets that are pervasive in these United States of [North] America. It seems as though every day; there is something negative inn one of the newspapers about Mr. Trump and his supporters. There is even a move, which I expected to take place, to show “Trump Supporters” as hateful people who are buffoons. I have never witnessed this level of hatred for a POTUS, not even during the Clinton Era, but here it is now during the Trump Presidency. I am serious about what sentiments about the Progressives/Leftists and their plotting and planning of Critical Mass in this country. In one of the newspapers, they had to admit that sixty percent (60%) of those who voted for Mr. Trump are satisfied with his term thus far. The Left/Progressives did not utter a peep when President Obama was in office, although he expanded the WOT, murdered the Leader of a foreign nation, stirred up problems all throughout Alkebulan, Brazil, Russia, Syria, Iraq and some even say Iran. The resignations to me are of no accord due to the fact that many of those who willing and willfully joined his administration, must have thought it was some type of easy ride, when it is not. When dealing with a president whom neither side like, you have to expect resistance from every corner, I guess this was asking too much of people who more than likely never had to actually fight for something. So is there hate in this country? I say yes there is, there always has been hatred and there always will be hatred, it is just this new type of hate coming from the Left and their media counterparts is a new type of hate that is bound to end horribly for all involved. GO MR. TRUMP GO. The best thing to do in my opinion is for Mr. Trump to keep aiming for what he is aiming for, all the while refining his methods and tactics. I sincerely want the best for the man.

 

You got one thing right - "the object of your hatred usually ends up hating you back". "progressives" are reaping what they have sown. You progs have been dishing it out for decades, now its coming back to you.

 

Thank you for your post!
If there is such a concern about slaver holders and what not, George Washington owner slaves, as did Thomas Jefferson, not to mention the scurrilous remarks by Benjamin Franklin about Indians, slaves and his offering silver for the scalps of Indians. As a matter of fact, the darling of the Left, President Obama has slave holders in his lineage through the Dunham line, but that is not what the OP is about. If the statue of Robert e. Lee upsets you to the point of you wanting to remove it from the public eye, as I stated earlier, do not forget George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the slave holding other founders, otherwise, you are not fooling me. This is nothing more than a move to rewrite history through elimination the reminders of the earlier founding years of this nation. This is like being in some twisted Orwellian screenplay.

 

BEEN THERE AND DOING THAT NOW!

 

What wink and nod? Your post is exactly the type of madness that I was referring to. I have as of yet heard Mr. Trump say anything that can even remotely be equated to a wink and nod of approval of violent actions from anyone. I would really like to see proof of Mr. Trump's wink and nod in respect to the ubiquitous White Nationalism.

 

How is the statement from President Trump equated with hatred? From what I read, he was only asking about Obama's BC. Like I stated in another post, if you people on the Left side of the marginal page, would have only questioned and used your perception during the Obama Administration, you would not appear so hypocritical now.

 

This was not cited in reference to hatred. It was cited as a FOX lie. It was one example, of many FOX lies. This was after it was proven that Obama was an American. Despite this, FOX, along with Trump and others, continued to embellish the lie.

 

Oh, you're breaking my heart. Poor Donald. Media giving him a hard time? They don't like his tweats? His lies? Shame on them. Donnie boy is the POTUS. He should be able tweat and lie whenever he wants.

 

Fox News 'character lies' about Obama? You want equivalents, right? Against which equivalent person on the Right? Should I focus on "W" Bush, or Ronald Reagan, or Richard Nixon, or just go back all the way to, say, Herbert Hoover? That's quite a task you would ask of anyone, occupying several days in the effort.

But again (and this important), you want equivalents....

When had we ever had a president before who had to produce two different 'birth certificates' over a course of more than two years in order to mollify a significantly large sector of the public that Obama was, according to the narrative, born somewhere in the United States? To this day, somewhere between 25% - 30% of American voters polled believe that Obama was not born in this country, as required by the Constitution.

When had we ever had a president before who claimed to have been born in one state, but who sported a Social Security number issued to persons born in a different state, in an entirely different part of the United States? (Hawaii versus Connecticut...? )

When had we ever had a president before who applied for college student aid as a foreigner? (Occidental College, 'Barry Soetoro').

I'll stop there and return to the thread topic concerning 'hate'. Can you see (or imagine) how growing suspicions regarding anyone with such a secretive, muddled background could inspire hatred and distrust among people who didn't even like his political agenda in the first place?! Obama came out with two birth certificates, but he flatly refused to release the college transcripts that would have answered many of the hanging questions surrounding his legitimacy for the presidency. Does 'hatred' tend to fill information vacuums?

Then, if on top of that, Obama broke the law (LAW) no less than three times during his presidency, can you see how that, too, might inspire hatred as the entire population saw the "justice" system let Obama get completely away with all of it?!

Hatred is rarely a spontaneous reaction to anyone. Hatred is usually EARNED based on what a person DOES, or REFUSES TO DO....
Now, you go research all the many, many times that the Left-wing dumped reams of hatred on Republicans and others connected to the Right, going as far back as you like. Some were actually truth, some were bald-faced lies. How many were 'hatred'...?

 

It should be a given that ALL mainstream media sources propagandize, distort, and out lie at any given time, for any given reason.

 

here is a video :

and another:
Now I will address the "white nationalist" madness, I know that no matter what I post here, it will not stop the hate-filled barrage directed towards Mr. Trump.

I will begin with the love and cornerstone of the Liberal/Progressive agenda, Charles Darwin and his bogus and racist theory of evolution. Mr. Alif Qadr, why do you refer to “Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” or “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” as racist? I refer to such filth as racist because the Archleader and Imperial Wizard of the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan referred to Black people as Anthropological Apes, which is a reference that comes from Charles Darwin. The Theory of Evolution has been taught more recent than 19 and 36, so this means that J. B. Stoner referring to evolution without stating it openly had to have come from his reading of Darwin’s theory back in 19 and 36, but I deviated a little from the main point of this writing. Having and using the aforementioned as background, is it fair to equate Liberal/Progressive ideology with White Nationalism and racist beliefs? I say that it is because Liberal/Progressives are always espousing evolution as fact, even though it is nothing more than a theory. The word evolution has as its root word, evolve, when something evolves, it generally becomes better. Knowing this, are Liberals/Progressives saying that they are better than Black people? Due to the fact of their espousing evolution, it is fair to say, “YES”! Here is the first definition of evolve: develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form. By definition, being that Black people are in fact the first people in existence, espousing the theory of evolution, Liberals/Progressives, by and large, are essentially stating in a clandestine manner, the White People are better than Black people, Brown People, and Yellow People, so it is fair to say that Liberals/Progressives themselves are White Nationalists and Racists. As an aside commentary; to me, reference to Mr. Trump as a White Nationalists, Klansmen, and Neo-Nazis, is disgusting and a severe distortion of him. There is no conclusive evidence of Mr. Trump even being remotely associated with Racism is preposterous, his daughter is married to Jared Kushner, a Jew, so if he is a racist, he surely can hide it well. This entire escapade comes from the Leftists in media, government and regular lay-persons, angry over Mr. Trump’s delayed response to the Charlottesville incident. Should such a reaction have taken place? Let us examine this, Mr. Trumps’ response: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-press-conference-charlottesville.html

It does not sound like he is a White Nationalist to me.