- The group has a "ten-point platform." It's main theme is a push to eliminate the effects of institutionalized racism on African Americans and includes demands for the end of police brutality, exemption from taxation, the right to decent housing, and "education that exposes the truly devilish and decadent nature of American society." While probably not administrable, it's not explicitly violent or hateful.
But the platform doesn't capture the sort of rhetoric that has earned the NBPP the "hate group" label. The Anti-Defamation League puts it like this: "The group's demonstrations, conferences, and other events often blend inflammatory bigotry with calls for violence, tarnishing its efforts to promote black pride and consciousness."
edit: what have i done v
been to some npp events. met the folks in the gun club. they invited me to combat training. they're not a hate group. nobody is hurt by the word "cracker". it's like a feminist saying "kill all men" or a trans person saying "die cis scum". I'm white, I didn't feel hated. there's continuity, at least in some chapters. they also network a lot with the ipp and other radical orgs around here, contrary to the article's claims of a lack of intersectionality. yeah they have fewer social programs, but things are harder now than they were back then, even just from an economic standpoint. these kinds of organizations are grassroots funded by poor people, and these days wages are lower than ever. yeah they're short on theory, but so is everyone on the ground these days. I'm skeptical of the leadership, they act really theatrical and are of the compromise-with-yourself sort found in every aboveground organization, but the local kids are smart and more conscious than most radicals I've met. I'd take a few more of them over all the liberal signholders that make up most of this scene.
Felt hatred is not the metric by which to judge the worth or reasoning behind the making of a statement. What matters behind any words, behind any meanings, is what the person saying them means. A feminist saying "die cis scum" as a parody and attack on idiots that do the opposite for trans people is harming nobody and is perfectly find to say what they do. A feminist saying the same because they are sick of the oppression of trans people, and are legitimately feeling hatred has zero. Absolutely zero ground to stand on. Someone using the word "cracker" to just refer to white people isn't insulting or hateful at all. Someone using the word cracker in terms of "I am above you and looking down at you" has absolutely zero ground to stand on. I don't care if what someone says makes another feel hatred or not. The point is not to protect feelings, it's to create and establish a working and functional society. A society where one group despises and attacks another for ANY reason, is not a functional one. It has nothing to do with power.they're not a hate group. nobody is hurt by the word "cracker". it's like a feminist saying "kill all men" or a trans person saying "die cis scum". I'm white, I didn't feel hated.
You always run the risk of others misunderstanding you and thinking you are the sort of person who says those sorts of things seriously. However, so long as you truly mean zero harm, there is nothing directly wrong in making a joke (and so long as those jokes aren't so common or "undercurrents" to society or actual beliefs. Making one offhand joke in a situation where the joke is relevant is a fine thing, but if you find yourself making inappropriate jokes every day, or stretching situations to make certain jokes, something may be off. Like all things, you just have to be reasonable about it.
What if you were having a discussion with a person who was wrong like, 100%, you-know-for-a-fact wrong. You try to correct them. They refuse to listen to you/misconstrue what you are saying, so you tell them they are wrong again, but more forcefully this time. They become petulant and angry because they're not used to blunt talk or being told they're wrong. You stand by your point, albeit with some colorful, somewhat polarizing language, and tell them to feel free to continue the discussion when they actually have valuable viewpoints and facts to back them up. Or maybe you tell them the conversation's over until they're able to actually engage in a back-and-forth, reasoned argument with you, because right now they're just dodging your points and refusing to, essentially, acknowledge where they've been proven wrong and engage in a point-for-point, non-derailing, even-keel discussion. They get really pissed. But all you wanted to do was correct them because they were wrong - there was no hate in it. In fact, you were so emotionally detached from the conversation it kind of amuses you to see how upset they are. Is anyone the asshole here? You just wanted to educate the dumb fucker. The dumb fucker, he took it personally, got his panties in a twist and started making ad hominem attacks. He didn't call you a goat-sucking cum-dumpster because he hates you, but because he doesn't know how to communicate, isn't used to being challenged, and is desperately trying to shore up his confidence in the face of someone who is quite determinedly and roundly kicking his ass to the curb on an intellectual/debate level. In fact, you might even sincerely feel you are doing the other person a favor by trying to educate them. Not only are you not trying to do harm but you are trying to HELP. And you're even willing to cut off the discussion after a while because you can tell it's going nowhere. Both people walk away and at least one is seething and full of angry and hate (the dumb fucker, of course). But the smart guy was just trying to do him a favor! His intentions were good! Sometimes he wonders why he even tries with these people, but you know what, something in him just drives him to keep at it. One day, he hopes, one day someone will see the light. Or at least admit when they are wrong and losing. Or at least be able to hold an actual debate instead of taking it personally. Practically, this smart guy is a hero, laboring for the betterment of all.
....uh....I know where I went here, but I don't know how to wrap it up beyond, like, so you're totally cool with all that right? Or possibly, I feel like there are a lot of unstated caveats to your originally stated opinion and maybe it's just a little too generalized and broad. It kind of smells like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." As long as you didn't intend to upset anyone, it's not your fault if you did. I mean, like, when I slept with that married guy, I didn't mean to hurt his wife, but I did. People's actions and words incite emotions in others. You say that a society where one group despises another isn't functional. Considering those two premises, how is it possible that one can say, well, whatever, as long as one's intentions are okay?
Insulting people is never productive in any conversation or debate. I would consider someone saying "those ignorant fuckers" to be the sort of person who is, at least tentatively, hating or looking down upon that group of people. I will admit this sounds like the sort of stuff I do on occasion, but any person who goes into any debate or conversation with this attitude is being an idiot and an asshole. Assuming you are right and the other person is wrong, and assuming you are only there to only change the other person's opinion, never leads to a good conversation. That doesn't mean you can't assume you are right, it just means you have to be able to look at the other person, look at why they are assuming they are right, and try to attack and wear down at those points of view. A conversation with a conservative about global warming isn't going to go well if you just say "look! science shows that temps are going up!". People typically have a distrust of such information, and feel they are being fooled by a system set up to control them. You instead have to start a conversation as to why they have those feelings, and address them. Not just sit on a high horse and shout about how right you are. You should expect nothing but to be ignored in such a case. Anyone who cuts off a conversation because it is going nowhere typically just isn't good enough at talking to bring the conversation into a decent direction. Even the most fanatic people can be persuaded in the tiniest ways by a decent conversation, but it isn't something that comes out across a single debate. when you sleep with the wife of a married guy you indirectly increase that person's risk for diseases, increase the chances for issues between those two people, and indirectly state that you are fine with the actions of people when they sleep with other's wives. Including your own.What if you were having a discussion with a person who was wrong like, 100%, you-know-for-a-fact wrong. You try to correct them. They refuse to listen to you/misconstrue what you are saying, so you tell them they are wrong again, but more forcefully this time. They become petulant and angry because they're not used to blunt talk or being told they're wrong. You stand by your point, albeit with some colorful, somewhat polarizing language, and tell them to feel free to continue the discussion when they actually have valuable viewpoints and facts to back them up.
I mean, like, when I slept with that married guy, I didn't mean to hurt his wife, but I did.
So, what you are saying is that when you sleep with someone you shouldn't, even if you don't consciously intend damage to others, damage can occur across multiple vectors. In other words, the impact of one's actions matters even if the intent is not necessarily to cause harm. I doubt someone would sleep with a married man just to hurt his wife (although people are crazy, and it's probably happened at some point once or twice) and in fact the sleep-ee (as we'll call the woman in this situation) may not desire or consciously consider the impact to the wife at all. Depending on the person I'm sure there is also the potential for various degrees of guilt. Which is actually kind of an interesting reaction, to be honest, because the one breaking vows in this situation is the husband. We seem to agree that a single person acting in perhaps a selfish or heedless way (especially - although I'm sure those aren't the only limits) can cause "indirect" negative impact to others, even widespread or dangerous negative impact. If someone's actions can be understood to have a negative impact without a negative intent, then does it not also stand that someone's words can have a negative impact without a necessarily negative intent? To speak is to act. I posit that it is impossible to be fully aware of the ramifications of our speech or actions at any given time and that we all act in ways, from time to time, that cause negative impact without us having a negative intent behind them. The lack of a conscious intention to do wrong does not provide for a clean slate in which humans can move heedlessly and, when harm inevitably occurs, say "Well I didn't intend for that to happen, so you can't blame me." On a side note, I highly doubt someone helping a married person to cheat on their spouse would care very much about the sanctity of marriage as an institution in general. I would go further and say that being a party to cheating in the context of a marriage does not indirectly condone the actions of people who sleep with married people, but rather directly condones it. When a person does something it stands to reason that they are okay with doing that action, whatever it is - outside of course of situations such as blackmail (though one could argue that in the case of blackmail the person has decided that whatever they're being coerced to is worth their secret, whatever, not coming to light, and still has made the choice to condone their course of action). I think it's very possible a person might not have fully thought-through their actions and may later regret them, but in the moment of action they have decided what they are doing is viable. My coworker got hit by a car a few years ago. The lady driving sure as hell didn't intent to hit her with a car. That lack of intention did not impact the very real injuries and damages my co-worker sustained. I also feel that that lack of intention is in no way justification for the driver of the car not to pay those damages, etc. P.S. Trust me, married or not: if someone in a relationship is cheating, issues were there a long time before anyone's dick/pussy/sexual organs/[emotional cheating organ] got wet where it shouldn't've. P.P.S. The point about the whole theoretical-asshole-argument that got missed is that people can have the best intentions and still be total dickwads. Which is also lacking the intent to do harm does not obviate harm done. People have skewed viewpoints and often perceive things, actions, words, scenes, differently. A guy may consider himself a hero, saving the masses, when really he is wreaking havoc. You cannot absolve yourself of consequences by not intending to cause them. If, however, you really didn't mean for those consequences to occur, you'd act to correct them when you perceived them. You certainly wouldn't deny that they exist simply because you didn't foresee that they would come about when you made your initial action - be it to speak, or to move, or to act. If you call a person a derogatory name as a joke and they burst into tears, it being a joke doesn't mean their feelings aren't hurt. It being a joke doesn't mean you aren't responsible for that pain.when you sleep with the wife of a married guy you indirectly increase that person's risk for diseases, increase the chances for issues between those two people, and indirectly state that you are fine with the actions of people when they sleep with other's wives. Including your own
The important factor of words is that they drive action. A person speaking without hostile intent behind their words is both unlikely to act on them, and unlikely to repeat those words to the extent to create a culture or situation that encourages action. My point is that I can see why terms like "die cis scum" could be non-hostile and perfectly fine to say, but regardless of how much hatred people feel from it, if it is a message created from dislike, it is just as bad as any other. I think you would be surprised at exactly how much the sort of people who cheat would be also driven to hold the ideal that nobody else should cheat. Most people who cheat do so out of momentary lust or dislike of a current relationship, etc. Not out of dislike of monogamy. Regardless of this, by cheating, they open up the vector of "well they did it!" which slowly erodes away social laws. If enough people start cheating, it will become normal and regular to do. Hitting someone with a car is not akin to saying something online. And I am sure I wouldn't go around calling the person who hit your co-worker a murder or a monster because of the action, unless it was intentional. The only way that words that do not carry hatred behind them can be seen as such is through misinterpretation, or through certain "jokes" becoming so common that it becomes an undercurrent of how you act. And, honestly, the latter only tends to happen when there is some undercurrent of dislike or hatred. As to the former, I am not a fan of saying "you are responsible for how others interpret what you say", outside of when a person mistypes or misspeaks. I am not defending that sort of situation. The line is drawn when the literal words you say have a meaning that is directly harmful. You can't go to people saying "I fucking hate all of you" and later say you meant to say "love", and you are responsible for all the setbacks from that action. I am defending a situation where a person says something that is entirely and totally harmless in context, but is interpreted as hateful by those outside of that context. See: "die cis scum". Of course, my other point is that if you are typing "die cis scum" and you actually are doing so out of dislike or disdain for another group, than you are in the wrong.then does it not also stand that someone's words can have a negative impact without a necessarily negative intent? To speak is to act.
My coworker got hit by a car a few years ago. The lady driving sure as hell didn't intent to hit her with a car.
If you call a person a derogatory name as a joke
By this definition, a significant portion of humanity is incapable of living in a functioning society based on what we currently know. I'm wondering if you acknowledge this (because I do) and your thoughts on its implications.I don't give two fucks if you feel hatred or not. The point is not to protect feelings, it's to create and establish a working and functional society. A society where one group despises and attacks another for ANY reason, is not a functional one. It has nothing to do with power.
Functional is a scale, not a binary. You could well say that Nazi society was really functional and went amazingly. However, it was not-in-small part to their actions that their society was defeated. Afterwards, it was reformed in a way that has not only done far better, but has lead to more people being happy, productive, and living decent lives. Even a society that looks like it is functioning, can be dysfunctional. A society where any group of people is pushed down and kept from their rights to live is not a fully functional one.
I have whiplash. Could you please let me know if a society can be functional and hate people, or not? Are you now defining "functional" as in "achieved the aims of that society" - because the Nazis didn't quite manage that. They did somewhat lose that big ol' war. Are you defining "functional" on a scale as in "compared to how the Japanese treated the Chinese during the same war, Nazis look god damn friendly!"? A society where one group despises and attacks another for ANY reason, is not a functional one.
You could well say that Nazi society was really functional and went amazingly.
I am defining functional in the common sense way of "doing well". A society can do perfectly well while having issues. That doesn't mean those issues can't be worked towards being fixed. You can look at the Nazi regime and say they did X and X and X. Which is true, but it doesn't mean that the whole holocaust thing didn't hurt their society immensely.
I will never take any group seriously that advocates for anything like this. Want exemption from taxes? Be poor enough to fall in that area, or leave the country. The other points are kind of funny too. "we must be employed" "Free healthcare". The most interesting point there is "The end to drug trafficking". I hope they mean "the end to drug trafficking laws" because the US government has been trying it's best already to end drug trafficking. What I read of their goals and similar, they definitely aren't a hate group, and they definitely have every right to fight for some of the things they say, although quite a few are just downright stupid. That brings up the question of "does a group that creates or attracts extremists become a hate group"? That is a interesting question, and I am inclined to say no. However, it depends on how shallow or common those views are. Is there a sect or division between groups that say this and groups that do not? Is this sentiment considered common among groups of the NBP's? Hate group in practice while not in theory. Just like attacking crack was fine in theory but racist in practice. I am reading about leaders heavily implying and giving rewards for the capture of people, but not of the rest of the group's dismissal. This sounds like the sort of shit that young people join when they want to feel important about themselves. Honestly, I entirely agree that they can be considered a hate group, even if I do agree with many of their goals. exemption from taxation
There are plentiful examples of leaders over the past couple of decades saying things like: "Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!" and "I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker, I hate it ... You want freedom? You going to have to kill some crackers! You going to have to kill some of their babies!"