My first thought was why is it acceptable to have a conference arguing about supposed white privilege, while the AR conferences which would provide information to the contrary are shut down? How can you discuss the positions held by one conference when you’re not allowed to have conferences that argue the opposite?

But I learned something here that AmRen might be well advised to take note of should it try to hold another conference. AmRen conferences unfortunately do not have a title, which allows its opponents free rein to make up whatever they want about what the conference’s purpose. “It’s a white supremacist/nationalist/racist, etc. meeting!!!”

But imagine the AmRen conferences were prominently titled something like “Ending reverse discrimination against whites”, “Ending race-based set-asides”, “Combating left-wing fascism” or “Combating the ADL and SPLC”–even though topics could still be about anything. That would have at least three benefits–(1) it would no longer allow opponents to make up what the conference is about–racism, separatism, whatever–as it clear from the title the conference’s purpose, and that is the title that newspapers would have to use (2) it would immediately put the ADL and SPLC and other Amren opponents in a laughable conflict-of-interest situation as they try to shut down the conference, (How can SPLC argue, with a straight face, that a “Combating the SPLC and ADL” conference should be shut down)?, and (3) the title can be given in a way that most whites, and a good chunk of non-whites, would agree with the title’s premise, making it that much harder to shut down the conference. Imagine how much more white anger would have been aroused had the Charlotte Observer wrote about efforts to shut down a “Ending reverse discrimination against whites” conference instead of an-opponent named “white supremacy” conference. I do fear AmRen is making a mistake with its title-less conferences.