The SPLC paid reluctant white nationalists and Ku Klux Klan members thousands of dollars in donor money to remain in the notorious hate grou
Racism isn't nearly as prevalent as the left says it is.
Meanwhile MECHA, ACORN, and LA RAZA were getting federal money for being "community organizations".
Watching various members of congress grill the leadership of the splc over all of this is just beautiful to see.
how do you guys think undercover sources work? do you think undercover sources do it for free?
you cannot make a judgment about how important this money is without having a number to compare it to. the fact that they paid some amount of money to undercover agents does not prove they were significant funders of organized hate groups unless you can compare that amount to how much money the hate groups got from other sources. if the SPLC comprised 25% of their funding, that is a huge deal; if they comprised .05% it doesn't matter.
Brazen, why are you focusing on the amount of money, instead of what the money is being paid FOR?
It doesn't matter if they're being paid five grand or fifty grand, what matters is what, specifically, they were being paid to do. Well, that and if the SPLC broke wire transfer laws in doing it.
Because even if their actions were specifically not immoral, (which is actually the giant question you're ignoring) the wire fraud and money laundering elements are NOT things you can just go 'well, confidential informants!' to.
But 'I may have paid them five thousand dollars to kill a man, but that shouldn't matter because they gained fifty thousand in drug deals!' is not a rejoinder just because the amount of money is trivial compared to other things they did.
It is a rejoinder when the argument you are making is "Racism isn't nearly as prevalent as the left says it is." based on this.
Do you think it is immoral to have undercover agents?
Do you think undercover agents work for free?
It is unavoidable that someone who employs undercover agents in a bad organization will wind up providing a nonzero amount of money to them. That is a fact about the world. "Employ undercover agents" is isomorphic to "provide a nonzero amount of money to the organizations they are undercover in." Therefore, the relative proportion of money matters a lot. Providing enough money that they are able to do things they would not otherwise be able to do is bad. Providing not enough money to do that is an unavoidable cost of employing undercover agents.
It is the difference between "I paid five thousand dollars to a guy to kill someone" and "I paid five dollars to a guy, who ended up using that $5 bill to buy bullets for the assassination someone else paid him $50,000 for."
Yes, Brazen, but it seems you don't seem to offer the possibility that there was, at any point, any actual payment to specifically cause events to have happened.
That is not an option you are allowing yourself to consider.
That would be "providing enough money that they are able to do things they would not otherwise be able to do."
Nobody has provided any evidence to believe in that. They have just asserted that since a nonzero amount of money was paid to undercover agents, that must have been a payment to cause specific events to happen (that would not have otherwise happened).
is this a thing where you didn't read the article or any documents within?
I did! I do!
These articles keep mentioning things next to each other, but not actually linking them.
Brazen. Buddy. You are better than this. We know they paid reimbursement for cross burning as of current reporting. And we also know good well that money creates the ability to "Campaign". Charlottesville just so happened to happen after a specific donation. A donation that was given to one of the top members. Not just "a mole". Not, "Just some investigator". Because if he was a mole, he should have been working with the FBI. The SPLC isn't law enforcement.
They straight up paid people in these groups. Do you find it SO IMPOSSIBLE that this group who was co founded by someone attached to the Klan, that it would not use it's reach to stay relevant? When we know that literally every other charity out there does not care to put themselves out of work. Most charities, as it happen love to live the, "We are better than everyone and moral just keep giving us money" lifestyle. And "Rich" people can donate to a "Moral" Cause. Never you mind they don't care to solve it because if they do the money dries up.
This case however is extremely dangerous however because they put CHRISTIAN GROUPS on the "Hate Map" that the FBI and other groups used to target normal people. Don't be fucking brainwashed. It's not a matter of, "The money didn't mean they couldn't do it before~", Bruh. It's FUNDING. The KKK once upon a time was 6-10 old scraggly fucks in lawn chairs getting yelled at by everyone passing them. Then MAGICALLY "White nationalism" goes on the rise? If you are as intelligent as I'm sure you are, think critically about that for a moment.
Conspiracy isn't about something not being true. As I'm sure you know the history of why that word even came into being. But really. Do you truly find it hard to believe that a group with that amount of funding, moral grandstanding, and influence would just go quietly to the wayside? Or do you think they'd be willing to fund shit to scare people into staying relevant? And if you can't imagine that, I'm going to have to question your ability to think critically without bias. Even if the SPLC has done good in the past doesn't imply they will or have in the recent past or present. If anything their org has been a net negative. And they have actively been used to harass and debank NORMAL people. Which is disgusting. And the Gov and it's agencies gave them power to make those designations.
Use your head.
Brazen’s argument is right up there with “abortion is only 3% of what planned parenthood does so it’s a good organization, actually.”
