profgerm
I suspect the "anti-Semitic" bit comes from the founder comparing abortion to the Holocaust [0], which is... a deeply stretched interpretation.
As far as anti-LGBT goes... yeah, they're a conservative Christian organization, they're not likely to have a Pride float. But it's not a common "anti-" group that goes out of their way to have a Statement of Inclusion [1] included in their FAQs, in my opinion.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry
[1]: https://exoduscry.com/downloads/Statement-of-Inclusion.pdf
It’s the narcissism of small differences, and the treatment of heretics versus pagans.
They- the NYT and SSC- do have, probably, 99% overlap politically, but that’s not too far off from the difference between humans and chimps either. It’s that last 1% that really generates a lot of friction between them.
As the article says, Scott would tolerate conversations with vile people and egregious ideas. The NYT would rather dox them.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religio...
Such as? What are those examples?
Is there a reason you feel the need to put scare quotes on celebrate and Southern heritage? Are they not allowed to have a heritage?
I don’t want to defend the flag, because the Confederacy was a monstrosity. But I also don’t like seeing people that have never met a Southerner in their lives (not necessarily you specifically, but certainly most people attacking it) thinking they know all about it and all about the people that fly it.
There are ample numbers- by no means a majority, but certainly a large number- of Black people that use the flag because, whatever its flaws and whatever evils committed under it, that flag is the most popular symbol of Southern culture- their culture.
That’s another factor; most people insulting the South don’t realize just how much of their attacks land on Black people themselves.