I know. You asked if they were up and if left at that and not adding on the normal right wing talking point of fake hate crimes you might of got an answer form me more like Aaron W's.

Though even the question pisses me off so ymmv because i might just think you are feigning ignorance.

What? You acknowledged that there were fake hate crimes in the wake of the election? But thats just "right wing propaganda"? You think that they are irrelevant or dont matter?

ugg were done.

Seriously goggle, fake hate crimes, and see if you find yourself at mostly right wing sites who use them as a tool to diminish real hate crimes.


Not a talking point of the right. Ffs.

Are you saying that I said it wasnt a talking point of the right? If so, can you please point out where I said that, as I am pretty sure I have never said or implied it.

The fact that you find yourself at mostly right wing sites is irrelevant, IF its true that fake hate crimes happened. And you have already acknowledged that they did happen.

You claimed that hate crimes rose in the wake of the election.
I challenged that claim and asked about fake hate crimes
You then just keep bringing up "right wing" and "propaganda" as if that proves something

Ive said what what i wanted to on the subject.

FBI reports say anti-government groups are decreasing, hate groups are increasing. Sure, we can hide under a rock and wait for the material to reach analyzable levels, but I think the reason is pretty simple; their guy got elected and many of similar ilk subsequently appointed.

Neither is it surprising nor new. Power given to authoritative figures with a strong following and a history of pointing the finger at out-groups almost universally make hate crimes more common.

It would be far more surprising if it didn't happen. Psychology teaches us that authority works, and it works very, very well.

Of course we can discuss who is to blame into the next century, while the world burns. Which is, incidentally, the way it usually goes.

This doesnt make sense to me. anti government groups decreasing? But groups like antifa, womens march, etc are on the rise, or at least becoming more visible? Would you count a comedienne cutting off donald trumps head as "anti government"?

Hate groups increasing? Like what? Who? where?

Their guy got elected? What does that mean? Is trump liable for all his supporters beliefs. Or are you suggesting that trump is actually a racist fascist misogynist, and has encouraged similar racist fascists to come out of the woodwork, and attack people?

I suppose its possible that this is the case, that trump being elected encouraged people who hate to become emboldened. Im not sure how you would show that though.

The womens march which was the largest peaceful march in the history of the US...

Stop masking arguments as questions, it's a disingenuous tactic.

As for the FBI reports, they likely pertain to groups assessed as risks. If the women's marches suddenly arm themselves, discusses revolution online and start debating who to kill, I'm sure they'll make the cut.

Liable? Legally in a criminal courtroom, probably not. Ethically? Of course, he is in a position of authority and authority works. It's not without reason certain groups raise their arms in fascist salutes while shouting "heil Trump".

How to show it? It has happened countless times in history and is nothing new. If you want to wait and sit for analyses, do that. Your underlying claim in your posts in this thread, that it is unreasonable to make the link, is pretty much DOA however.

I've seen a mass murderer in my country shoot and kill 69 kids and every hatemonger that inspired him was in the media afterwards telling us how unfair it was to blame them. But go figure, sometimes... when you stand on some proverbial or real soapbox and tell everyone how some arbitrary outgroup is the biggest threat to their lives, sometimes... just sometimes someone will listen and take it to heart.

Just this week someone listened and went to a baseball game and tried to kill a politician. That's what you get when everything has to be black and white. When you portray someone as the enemy instead of someone who disagrees. What people in positions to influence say matters.

I wasnt asking if it was peaceful, but if it was anti government. Its possible to be both peaceful and anti government.

like antifa then?
When richard spencer got sucker punched in the face, was that a hate crime?


I dont agree that hes liable for their beliefs, ethically or otherwise.
You could argue that he would be liable for their actions, depending on what he says or does.
the question is, does he agree with the groups that raise their arms in fascist salutes? Is he using them, motivating them and directing them? I would say no, but I guess you disagree.
The comedienne who cut of trumps head on live TV, if someone then goes ahead and tries to assassinate trump, is she liable for that?


arbitrary outgroup? really? Who?
Its clear that you think trump is close to, or literally, hitler. I dont see it.


Wait, are you claiming that trump is responsible for this attack too?

The right to peaceably assemble and address grievances in American is not anti goverment. Its kind of one of the main points of our government.

Some right wing hate groups who want a violent overthrow of the government would be.


You make the word meaningless. There is no one that is pro govement doing it your way and everyone is anti govement since everyone has grievances.

ok

At this point I'm not really sure what you are arguing. Pointing out a trend doesn't state that exceptions do not apply. I'm sure elements of antifa are on the FBI watchlists, but that is irrelevant to the points made.

The recent assassination attempt at a US politician points out the dangers of loaded rhetoric, when politicians are aggressive and divisive, people listen and when you do it completely uncritically, people will die. Some loons will go off anyway, but many need a push which is unnecessary to give.

And no, I don't think Trump compares to Hitler. He is far less politically savvy, a poor rhetorician and he has little talent for broadening his appeal as a leader. He also seems bad at maintaining support of close allies.

Its a fair question. I think I am arguing that the statistics about increased hate crimes are misleading or false, and that it doesnt make sense to blame trump. That the narrative that trump is a racist xenophobic misogynist hater is false.

It seems like you are blaming trump for both sides. That is, if right wing people protest, or do "hate crimes" its trumps fault. If left wing people protest, or do "hate crimes" its trumps fault.

I suppose its possible that right wingers will become emboldened by what they see as a more racist environment, and left wingers will become incensed by the same thing.

Interesting NYT Opinion Piece:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/o...-god-dead.html

Are you an American?

Trump is probably a racist xenophobic misogynist in the same way that if you picked a generic 70+ year old white guy (basically, someone who came of age in the 50s), that this generic person is a probably a racist xenophobic misogynist. (The hater part... well... I think he's taken that identity for himself.)

I think it's more complicated than the shock value of the label indicates because it is a reflection of deeper cultural things that exist in the US that a lot of people in the US have yet to come to terms with.

On what basis are you forming this argument? I reject out of hand the claim that the statistics are "false" (the people who track this sort of thing all indicate a rise). But you can potentially argue for "misleading" depending on how you've framed things.

What I would say is that it's not as if these things weren't there already, but it's more overt and becoming a little bit more normalized.

ye, Im not sure I believe in institutional/systemic racism/sexism, although I am open to being shown otherwise.


I admit that it is on a sort of personal anecdote level, rather than digging into the statistics. Pretty much every example of "hate crime" that I saw, and thought "wow, that sounds pretty horrible" during or after the election, turned out to be a hoax, or false, or misrepresented. I can only remember 3 or 4, so its not a huge sample I grant you.

I wonder what you ( or whoever) are classing as "hate crimes"? like I mentioned before, is richard spencer getting sucker punched a hate crime. Is that girl getting pepper sprayed at berkely or wherever, a hate crime?

Trump didnt rent to AA holding back upward mobility. Says a judge cant judge him because he is a Mexican American. Only wants Jewish people counting his money. Brags about sexually assaulting women. Said he wants an entire religion banned. And thats not even touching the a tip of the iceberg on the things he has said to have said and done.

Jury is still out though....

Right, of course. He rented to no african americans? ever? I am pretty sure he did. He refused some , sure. And he is within his rights to, and that doesnt make him a racist. A racist would refuse to rent to african americans. But someone who refuses to rent to african americans isnt ( necessarily) racist.

What?

Lol, ok. An "associate" "alleged" that he said that. Isnt he supposed to be an anti-semite actual hitler? Why would he want jews counting his money?

Nope. I agree it was crass, though.

No he didnt. I suppose it depends on your definition of "whole religion" and "banned". You realise other countries, and other american presidents, have put temporary travel bans on middle eastern and asian countries?

No he is not within his right. It broke fair housing discrimination laws.


He called for all Muslims to be banned in his first attack on them and the first amdment.

I dont know anything about housing discrimination laws. Are you telling me that a landlord HAS to rent to anyone that asks him? How did this particular situation with trump break housing discrimination laws?



I cant comment as I dont know which speech you are referring to. I doubt that he was just saying "ban all muslims. For ever. For no reason" though

What would it take to show you? What do you understand this to mean?

It depends on your level of exposure and level of connection. It's true there were some hoaxes. But they're the minority. (Think availability heuristic.)

Worrying about the classification is not as relevant as consistency of the use of the label. If you're looking for trends, that's the thing that should matter the most. This is one area where I think the more liberal side of the spectrum is making huge errors. The more you label things as hate crimes, the less meaningful it becomes. It should be classified very specifically and held to that standard consistently. Otherwise it's a meaningless metric.

But instead of worrying about the labels, I would encourage you to actually look into the behaviors.