I noticed that SPLC provides essentially the same type of information about these hate groups as the hate groups gather about the folks they're suspicious of. They report alarming quotes from people they assure us are representative of the group, and tell us about meetings that were held. A lot is said by implication, with unflattering photos,
Look at the lead photos here. I'm not saying they aren't accurate, that they
aren't actual pictures of people from some group or another they call a hate group, but can't we imagine that the KKK could find alarming, angry photos of
black leaders, or National Socialists find some crafty-looking, hook-nosed Jew? Wouldn't such incitement offend us, causing us to not bother to read further?
-references to the terrible things some member or leader has done in his personal life, and in some cases, in pretty isolated context. There's a lot of expectation that quotes speak for themselves, because the worst possible interpretation is the true one. Details are left out and logical connections not made. For example, the SPCL reported that National Socialists had a demonstration in a black neighborhood in Toledo. The residents and countrprotesters rioted, causing $300K damage. I can see a line of reasoning where you blame this on the inciters, on the provocation. But once you go there, you have to say that Dr. King and the others should never have marched, because they knew the likely result it would provoke. It's hard to decide which is more unamerican, saying something hateful, or rioting because someone said something hateful.
This is getting roundabout. What I am trying to ask is what is the measurable difference?
One difference is that when the SPLC issues a press release, it's reported on the news - which is what sparked these two posts.