Patrick tends to describe systems in a vaguely disapproving tone of voice. It may be because he disagrees with the participants in the system (the SPLC in this case), it may be because he disagrees with the system itself and how it's used, or it may even be that he agrees with the system and how participants use the system and is using a somewhat negative tone in order to not appear biased. Regardless, the result is that it's easy to feel defensive if you do support the subject of one of his articles (again, the SPLC in this case), while people who don't like the subjects can point to his generally well reasoned and comprehensive article as evidence the subject isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've seen it happen before here on HN where people will get nitpicky about details of the article and miss the overall point, and I think it's because the negative tone makes people defensive.
Regardless, I'd encourage you to think about the actual moral actions presented in this article. Is the system that the SPLC used and extended an inherently bad system (in this case, acting as a source of disallowed organizations for banks)? Furthermore, given the existence of that system, was the SPLC's use of it bad? Are the SPLC's goals good or bad? Were their methods in the timeline taking up the latter half of the article good? Despite the generally negative tone of the article, I think they were a morally acceptable method of achieving their goals. Essentially, the article is describing the SPLC's efforts to use large-scale community organizing and pressuring organizations to accomplish their moral goals. The article's disapproving tone makes this sound like a conspiracy and... it kinda is. But then, can't you describe almost any charity as a conspiracy to accomplish a moral goal? As the article notes, the SPLC has used similar tactics in the past to combat, eg, the KKK, and I doubt many people would imagine that as a conspiracy to target and censure particular law-abiding citizens.
In short, despite the article's somewhat negative tone overall, I don't think anything described is actually a negative thing (well, the factual bank fraud is, but not the conspiracy to implement moral goals). The description of the methods they used are essentially a negatively-worded description of just about any sort of charitable organization. You could describe the DNC as a conspiracy to install into power authoritarians who want to curb speech they don't want ("hate speech"), for example, or you could describe it as a grassroots organization to ensure people are fairly represented in government and their wishes (curbing racism) are achieved.
It seems to me that an organization dedicated to stopping hate groups also funding those same hate groups (which, I might add, it relies upon for its continued existence/relevance) is fairly problematic.
People who think their opponents are Evil with a capital E generally think that way, yes. See the prevalence of “Punch a Nazi. Lots of Republicans don’t see Democrats as legitimate political opponents and the opposite is very very much true.
Violence against those who are advocating for violence against innocent people seems completely justified. Calling them political opponents sounds like an attempt to white wash what's actually going on.
Patrick tends to describe systems in a vaguely disapproving tone of voice. It may be because he disagrees with the participants in the system (the SPLC in this case), it may be because he disagrees with the system itself and how it's used, or it may even be that he agrees with the system and how participants use the system and is using a somewhat negative tone in order to not appear biased. Regardless, the result is that it's easy to feel defensive if you do support the subject of one of his articles (again, the SPLC in this case), while people who don't like the subjects can point to his generally well reasoned and comprehensive article as evidence the subject isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've seen it happen before here on HN where people will get nitpicky about details of the article and miss the overall point, and I think it's because the negative tone makes people defensive.
Regardless, I'd encourage you to think about the actual moral actions presented in this article. Is the system that the SPLC used and extended an inherently bad system (in this case, acting as a source of disallowed organizations for banks)? Furthermore, given the existence of that system, was the SPLC's use of it bad? Are the SPLC's goals good or bad? Were their methods in the timeline taking up the latter half of the article good? Despite the generally negative tone of the article, I think they were a morally acceptable method of achieving their goals. Essentially, the article is describing the SPLC's efforts to use large-scale community organizing and pressuring organizations to accomplish their moral goals. The article's disapproving tone makes this sound like a conspiracy and... it kinda is. But then, can't you describe almost any charity as a conspiracy to accomplish a moral goal? As the article notes, the SPLC has used similar tactics in the past to combat, eg, the KKK, and I doubt many people would imagine that as a conspiracy to target and censure particular law-abiding citizens.
In short, despite the article's somewhat negative tone overall, I don't think anything described is actually a negative thing (well, the factual bank fraud is, but not the conspiracy to implement moral goals). The description of the methods they used are essentially a negatively-worded description of just about any sort of charitable organization. You could describe the DNC as a conspiracy to install into power authoritarians who want to curb speech they don't want ("hate speech"), for example, or you could describe it as a grassroots organization to ensure people are fairly represented in government and their wishes (curbing racism) are achieved.
It seems to me that an organization dedicated to stopping hate groups also funding those same hate groups (which, I might add, it relies upon for its continued existence/relevance) is fairly problematic.
You think campaigning to de-platform and debank legitimate political opponents is a moral goal?
People who think their opponents are Evil with a capital E generally think that way, yes. See the prevalence of “Punch a Nazi. Lots of Republicans don’t see Democrats as legitimate political opponents and the opposite is very very much true.
Violence against those who are advocating for violence against innocent people seems completely justified. Calling them political opponents sounds like an attempt to white wash what's actually going on.
You don’t think FEC rules violations are wrong ? Curious.