I believe the SPLC has done a lot of good over the course of its history. There have been a few recent occurrences where I think they've lost a bit of perspective and nuance. You may disagree, but if you want to see some examples, you may want to look at their listing of Ayaan Hirsi Ali[0] and Maajid Nawaz[1] as "anti-Muslim extremists"[2] for why people may view the SPLC this way. Please don't read this as a blanket condemnation of the SPLC (nor as agreement with your parent), as that's not my intent; rather, that there's more nuance there than some (not all) rather recent SPLC stances would seem to admit.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

[2]: https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-...

SPLC does an amazing job in identifying hategroups and their supporters, across the political spectrum, and should be a household resource on par with Google. Which doesn't mean they are infallible: I agree about Maajid Nawaz. As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali I for one find the quotes that SPLC attributes to her pretty extreme. Are any of them incorrect, or has she modified her stance more recently?

I'm not well-read enough to speak on her behalf, and would hope that the quotes SPLC references are accurate. In interviews I've heard with her, she definitely comes across as strident, and more so than I would prefer, but not uncritically anti-muslim in a bigoted sense, and wouldn't put her in the same category as Richard Spencer, for example. That's one of the problems with lists like these: people will look at the names and not necessarily dig into why each is included. It's to the SPLC's credit that they include supporting material.

As for her changing her stance, the Wikipedia article references a Max Rodenbeck article from the New York Review of Books in 2015 that she has "mellowed".

If this is something you're interested in, I encourage you to look into this deeper yourself, if only because I don't think I can do full justice to the issue. Stuff like this is complicated, and one needs to weigh one's own values and their rankings as a whole, rather than as a single issue, which often gets missed in a lot of discourse today.

And to reiterate, I agree with you that the SPLC has historically been a force for good for the reasons you mention.

That Reason interview SLPC links makes her look effing bonkers. ‘Extreme anti-Muslim’ is exactly how I’d characterize her views.

Actually, I think in the United States, one does have the absolute right to have bigoted opinions, and even to speak them publicly, as stated in the 1st amendment.

Furthermore, the point of the OP is that the SPLC itself has gone overboard in governing who and what is hate speech or bigotry. Some of their work is obviously legitimate, but not everyone who has a problem with Islam is a bigot anymore than those who have a problem with Christianity or Naturalism or Republicans.

It would help if you could link a resource that shows how SPLC considers everyone who has a problem with Islam a bigot. I'm sure you could find a case or two where they have gone too far, but that's not the same as 'everyone' obviously.

GP absolutely has the right to their opinions, whatever they might be. As do you. As do I. "You don't have the right to that opinion" -- you are allowed to hold that disgusting opinion, but it is disgusting.

We judge -- we must judge. Fine. But I would much prefer that we say "that's wrong/dumb/whatever" and never "you do not get to speak [that or at all]".

>You don’t have a right to have that opinion.

Which opinions does someone have a “right” to have? Is there a list? SPLC has managed to do a lot of damage to its credibility by adding otherwise nominal conservatives to its lists of bad actors.

Blindly supporting something and crying "Bigot!" if anyone questions it is legitimate? Seriously, no.

This idea that people are blindly just calling "Bigot", as if it isn't based on the actions and words of the people in question, is pretty old.

Ironically, the base definition of “Bigot” is simply intolerance of those who hold different opinions. This describes the social justice Left quite a bit more than it does the Right currently.

So, yes, people are indeed blindly calling folks “Bigot” without thinking through what doing so implies about their own tolerance toward others.

Why should one have tolerance for the intolerant? Why should a gay person have tolerance for someone saying that they basically don't deserve the same rights as other people?

Because otherwise you have to sit here and enumerate which things exactly are intolerable. Do you really think you or anyone possesses the moral authority or wisdom to do that? If a Catholic considers it wrong and immoral to condone Gay Marriage why do you get to claim authority over their conventions?

Because gay marriage quite literally has no effect on their life whatsoever. That's in addition to the whole "denial of fundamental rights" and "second class citizen" thing I mentioned above.

I’m curious to understand how you came to this conclusion, that it has “no effect” on their lives. It so obviously does. Should someone of the Catholic Faith wish to express such an opinion they risk social ostracism and, perhaps, their job. If you meant that two gay people getting married doesn’t have a material effect on someone regardless of their opinion on it, well, there’s a certain pastry chef who would disagree with you.

I don’t really have a dog in that fight one way or the other. What I’m trying to point out to you is that these things are most definitely not “settled” issues if you think about them for more than the fleeting moment it requires to let everyone know how progressive you are. They likely never will be settled - unless you get your way and the “wrong” opinions are banned.

Attacking Christina Hoff Sommers is an indication of jumping the shark

http://www.weeklystandard.com/splc-targets-feminist-scholar-...