Post-election hate incidents - True and False

Elizabeth Nolan Brown discredits some of the reports of hateful actions against minorities, people of color and LGBT.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/election-night-hijab-attack-false
"There Is No Violent Hate-Crimewave in 'Trump's America'"

I'd like to collect them here and then post "the rest of the story."

Here is the Snopes report of the blackface students celebrating in front of a Confederate flag:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/10/students-use-blackface-to-celebrate-trump-victo...

So, 1 false.

The Facebook exchange between two Clay County, WV officials concerning Michelle Obama:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/15/official-calls-michelle-obama-ape-in-heels/

True.

Chris Ball attacked on Election night:

http://www.snopes.com/trump-supporters-beat-gay-man-in-california/

Can't tell either way. Do hospitals release names of people treated?

"None of the reports we found about Chris Ball's altercation with purported Trump supporters mentioned a location, cited a police report, or any provided information substantiating his attackers' motives. The account could have been completely accurate, but the event it described also could have been a garden-variety bar fight that took place after what turned out to be an exceptionally tense night in the United States."

San Franciscan's Nazi flag waving was actually a protest of Trump's election.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-Francisco-homeowner-s-Nazi-flag-protest-o...

“I am hoping people get that this is a political statement, and that I’m not a Nazi supporter.”

Kathy Mirah Tu's Facebook post about being confronted by a man who wouldn't leave her alone and started with "Go back to Asia!" truly sounded real. I've seen that kind of behavior from drunks and a**h***s.

But the local paper reports that the U of MN Police have posted they know nothing about it and would like to talk to the complainant.

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2016/11/umpd-not-involved-in-handcuffed-universit...

Politifact.com has created a special category to debunk fake news:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/16/lets-fight-back-agai...

Here's one that is false:

KKK March in Mebane, NC

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/nov/09/viral-image/vira...

Yesterday a woman in Ann Arbor was attacked with what might have been a safety pin. She was wearing one herself.

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/11/woman_cut_on_face_by_stran...

Snopes says:
"A tweet by Zoé Samudzi began circulating this weekend with screenshots, one from a 4chan board, calling for white supremacists to wear safety pins as a way to trick people looking for a safe space, or as a symbol of their racist beliefs, thus confusing the safety pin’s meaning.

On Reddit, Trump supporters have started multiple threads about wearing safety pins on their “Make America Great Again” hats or on their guns."

The general Snopes article:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/14/safety-pin-solidarity/

Anti-Trump protesters were not bused to the protests: http://www.snopes.com/anti-trump-protesters-bused-into-austin/

Protesters in Charlotte were not 70% from out of state: http://www.snopes.com/charlotte-protesters-out-of-state-criminals/

The KKK is planning a victory rally:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/09/kkk-of-north-carolina-announces-donald-trump-vi...

People Magazine collected post-election graffiti and racial slurs mostly at high schools and colleges:

http://people.com/politics/swastika-graffiti-and-build-the-wall-taunts-inside-th...

Women wearing hijabs attacked:

1- University of Louisiana at Lafayette - later admitted her story was fabricated.

2- San Diego State University - her car was stolen and she was robbed by two men who made comments about President-elect Donald Trump and the Muslim community.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/10/women-in-hijabs-on...

3- San Jose State University - woman attacked in a parking garage. University police told Altun they could not treat it as a hate crime, but she believes it was racially motivated.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/09/woman-wearing-hijab-attacked-at-san-jose-s...

4- “Your time’s up, girlie,” a man on a subway platform reportedly told journalist Mehreen Kasana while she was wearing a headscarf on Wednesday morning.

5- University of New Mexico - one of her Trump-supporting classmates attempted to rip her hijab off her head.

6- University of Illinois - a Muslim woman was reportedly confronted on a bus with a knife.

7- University of Michigan - a student wearing a hijab was confronted by a stranger who brandished a lighter at her and threatened to set her on fire if she did not remove the scarf.

8- a Georgia high school - a teacher reported that someone left a threatening note on her desk on Friday. “Your head scarf isn’t allowed anymore. Why don’t you tie it around your neck and hang yourself,” reads the handwritten card, which is signed “America!”

and other school located hate actions:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/13/the-hate-after-trump-s-election...

"Hate incidents". That's Orwellian.

I saw post-election violence on TV. Hate, on the other hand, has always existed and always will. There's hate and then there's crime. You should know the two are different. But I agree that there is a lot of a hatred out there, post election, in liberal la-la-land. Liberals are the best haters I know.

The mushyheadedness of our times...

Wait for it:

"Far-right extremists in Germany are joining forces with like-minded groups across Europe and even the United States as they prepare to carry out more attacks, the country's intelligence chief has warned.

Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of the Verfassungsschutz, said the agency had been forced to step up its efforts to foil plots by neo-Nazi and fascist groups following a surge in extremist violence in 2015.

"This is not just purely a German phenomenon," he told Reuters, "the Right-extremist scene is networking on a European level, and in some cases, with connections in the United States." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/16/german-far-right-extremists-teaming-u...

The Southern Poverty Law Center is collecting and crunching the numbers of these reports, but is not listing them or attempting to check for veracity.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch

Here's a lovely TRUE incident that should warm the cockles of Trumpanistas' hearts.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/parents-blast-school-after-trump-loving-students...

In fact, "Raw Story" has been doing an excellent job of collecting reported news articles and videos of hate crimes, threats, and incidents.

http://www.rawstory.com/

>15 Limelite:

Not a single word relating even a single aspect of the events from the either of the two boys, their parents, guardians or legal advocates--not one word or even a "calls for comments from the boys' parents were not returned."

I guess that's why this shit, this "garage-sale" version of "journalism" goes by the name of "Raw Story."

How'd you find this? --- rod & reel and fishing-line baited with a dirty diaper?

" Excellent job," huh? Tells me about _you._

Remember when nasty crackpots were burying razor blades in the apples they handed out to kids on Halloween many years ago? That act was roundly condemned by ALL Americans back when we had the common decency to think that hate crimes were deplorable. Those incidents led to sea changes in how trick-or-treating took place. Instead of a kids' free for all fun night for the under 13 year-old set, it became a parent supervised, escorted, and safe-zone regulated child protective exercise.

Well, now the same act (hidden razor blades) is raising it ugly head again.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/white-supremacists-set-traps-by-hiding-razor-bla...

But now, Trumpanistas are chortling with white privileged glee as they seek revenge against tolerant people who can and do behave with common decency. The basket containing Trump supporting deplorables is overflowing with indecent nasty neo-Nazi crackpots.

Oh, look! Trump and his supporters are busy making AmeriKKKa great again!

>17 Limelite: & >15 Limelite:

I read that President Obama has expressly rejected any responsibility for Trump's election.

Yet it seems that Trump is to be blamed for these alleged acts of incivility.

& Re this: " But now, Trumpanistas are chortling with white privileged glee as they seek revenge against tolerant people who can and do behave with common decency.

I take it you'd be one of these "tolerant people who can and do behave with common decency," right?--dragging this shit "journalism" in and dumping it here?

A little close to home? It isn't Obama or Clinton supporters doing this "shit. It isn't journalists doing this "shit." It's self-described Trump supporters and self-identified white-supremacists who align themselves with the Donald. You have trouble with the ugly truth about Trump supporters and voters? Tsk tsk.

Of course I blame Trump. He said it was OK to be hateful. He said he would like to punch people in the face. He broad-brushed racist remarks, misogynistic, remarks, and religiously bigoted remarks, lending his stamp of approval to saying such things.

Short memory? Go back and search engine all the pro-Trumpanistas who are quoted in the news pre-election saying, "Trump is saying out loud what no one else dares to say but a lot of people think." Drag that "shit" back into your memory bank.

As for your offended right wing sensibilities. . .Well, goody goody. Now you can hear what I have to say about all those Trumpanistas and their man. Oh, sorry. My error. Putin's puppet.

You built it. You bought it. Now own it.

>19 Limelite: favorite-ing your post.

"It's self-described Trump supporters and self-identified white-supremacists who align themselves with the Donald. You have trouble with the ugly truth about Trump supporters and voters? Tsk tsk."

Really ? So in the gutter-J "Raw" story about the two boys on the school bus telling Black students to "sit in the back," where is their self-description as Trump-"supporters"?

Suppose I held _you_ up to Clinton's supporters as typical of them?

Suppose I said that Robert DeNiro--who published his own youtube editorial video in which he called Trump a "punk, "a dog", also notified his audience that he'd like to punch Trump in the face -- was representative of Hillary Clinton and her supporters generally?

You-- especially -- have the president you deserve for at least the next four years.

>19 Limelite: Bravo.

The trick with all Raw Story articles is to check the original source. The awful thing is that the original source is often credible and often backed up by other sources. Unlike fake news, which is easily debunked, Raw Story is usually just amped up coverage of a real event.

>22 southernbooklady:

Really ? So in the gutter-J "Raw" story about the two boys on the school bus telling Black students to "sit in the back," where is their self-description as Trump-"supporters"?

>23 proximity1: You'll note that I used the words "often" and "usually." In point of fact, this thread itself contains debunked hate crime news. Including that one from the original post.

Nevertheless, the track record for the alt right on sharing fake news is not good. They are either extremely gullible, or they simply don't care that the news is fake. I'm not sure which is worse.

But this is not a prevalent trend on the liberal end of the spectrum, as evidenced by the Buzzfeed investigation into fake news sites and their forthright admission that liberal-leaning fake news just didn't get the traction that alt right stuff did. In other words, the liberals were more likely to check snopes.com.

But mistakes happen, and Raw Story is on my list of lefty news sites that needs corroboration before sharing or posting. Precisely because they have a clear and obvious bias and are prone to inflammatory language. This doesn't change the fact that the razor blade trap story does have such corroboration, at least in terms of a local news source and official post from a student organization. So, pretty ugly.

Many of these hate crimes are backed up by video or photos. Many of them were reported to police or school administration and are officially documented. Many schools are on record as responding.

>25 sturlington: Yeah, you can't argue with reality.

Well, you can, but there's a clinical term for that.

On the school bus story, from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: ...the white students were chanting "Trump, Trump, Trump" according to the school district.

Nevertheless, the track record for the alt right on sharing fake news is not good.

In fact, a lot of the news shared among the Alt-Right turns out to have been intentionally fabricated.

>23 proximity1: Copy your user name. Read all the other articles in proximity.

Of course you want want to "believe" the quasi-exception overrules the rule.

Next, I expect you to start spouting conspiracy theories that all these acts are performed by Soros funded Clinton supporters, or other Breitbartian fake "news." After all, isn't Stevie Wonder-Boy Bannon now Trump's appointed "Minister of Propaganda," aka chief political advisor? Trumpanistas are surely tingling all over.

Common decency forces me to acknowledge that it must be tough being so mean spirited, twisted, and hate-ridden that it provokes so much acting out by Trump supporters/voters. Wish I could sympathize.

On the subject of liberal vs conservative news:

Blue Feed | Red Feed"

http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/

>25 sturlington: Towns don't hold emergency meetings to address made-up incidents. http://wunc.org/post/amid-racist-harassment-many-rural-north-carolina-town-vow-f...

>17 Limelite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_candy_myths

>32 cpg: Oh, dear.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp

razor blades, i.e., category of sharp objects, not poison, is the subject.

I hope your miscomprehension is not a result of listening to all those Trump mouthpieces that monopolized TV the past several months consistently pivot away from the uncomfortable question to respond with anything other than a relevant or truthful reply.

Brainwashing can happen, unless we remain eternally vigilant against Trumpy truthiness.

>24 southernbooklady:

I specifically challenged you to account for the Raw Story which relates the incident of the schoolbus--where Black students were allegedly told to go "sit in the back" of the bus by fellow students who were white and, here, in this blog, presumed, upon zero evidence so far shown, to be "Trump supporters."

And you take a hike off to the razor-blade story.

Typical of you. Thanks so much.

>34 proximity1: This has been posted above, but here you go:

Students walk out of Ladue high school following racist incidents

And in particular:

In the past week, two white students have been disciplined for saying that black students should go to the back of a school bus. The white students were chanting “Trump, Trump, Trump,” according to the school district.

The details of that event are here

Now, you asked in >23 proximity1: "where is their self description as Trump supporters" which I suppose means that you deem the report in the St. Louis Dispatch from witnesses saying that the boys were chanting Trump Trump Trump is unreliable evidence.

But it begs the question -- where is the evidence that they were not? This is the internet age, after all, if either of the boys in question were to tell a conservative news source that they had been misrepresented, surely the right-leaning media would pick it up and run with it?

No, all we have as evidence to go on is that the school in question felt there was enough of an infraction to discipline the boys and amp up their strategies and staff training programs for dealing with such incidents. So Raw Story's account, along with its several source citations, is accurate.

>35 southernbooklady: "Now, you asked in >23 proximity1: proximity1: "where is their self description as Trump supporters" which I suppose means that you deem the report in the St. Louis Dispatch from witnesses saying that the boys were chanting Trump Trump Trump is unreliable evidence."

Exactly. Unreliable as support for the view ( >19 Limelite:)

→ "It's self-described Trump supporters and self-identified white-supremacists who align themselves with the Donald. (emphasized in the original)

Whatever chants of "Trump! " are, they don't constitute here any valid unambiguous self-avowal of "I'm (genuinely) a Trump supporter" -- as opposed to, say, a couple of shit-stirring adolescent wise-guys out to shock the old fogies and see these PC Black students freak out when we tell them "Trump's rules: go sit in the back of the bus!, kids."

"No sale."

>16 proximity1: RawStory is usually just that. A condensed reworking of an article from another news source. The posted articles always have a link back to the original news story. They can only go by whats in those articles.

>21 proximity1: where is their self-description as Trump-"supporters"?

Did you even read the whole article? Or did you just ignore this paragraph?

"The protest stemmed from an incident Thursday when a group of students on a school bus chanted “Trump” while two white students told their black peers to sit in the back of the bus. Those two students were disciplined."

Sounds like they support, or at the very least their parents do and they're following in their parents footsteps.

>37 rastaphrog:

( I'm so touched by the terrible constraints under which they labor. )

All the more reason not to read or cite this "news" aggregator.

>36 proximity1: Whatever chants of "Trump! " are, they don't constitute here any valid unambiguous self-avowal of "I'm (genuinely) a Trump supporter"

The "genuineness" of any person can only be measured in their actions, including what they say. No school child is a 'genuine' supporter of either Trump or Clinton if support is measured in whether we answer "yes" to the question "Did you vote for Trump."

But schoolchildren are not living in isolated bubbles. They have opinions about the world they are in. Perhaps not very mature opinions, but then look at their role models. "Maturity" is not a notable attribute of the American political system. As for "self avowals" -- they have been silent. We do not know what is in their heads, so we must come to conclusions base on what they did.

Chanting "Trump Trump Trump" is good evidence those two boys had an affinity for Trump's general campaign message, which was anti Muslim, anti immigrant, and fairly tolerant of white supremecism.

So all you are really saying is that you don't believe the St. Louis Times Dispatch story. Which is fine, but you have no evidence for not believing it, except that you don't want to believe it. In this you are like many Americans, who reject facts when they contradict their beliefs.

" No school child is a 'genuine' supporter of either Trump or Clinton if support is measured in whether we answer "yes" to the question 'Did you vote for Trump.'"

Quite so. Moving on---

" As for "self avowals" -- they have been silent. We do not know what is in their heads, so we must come to conclusions base on what they did."

Unless we asked to interview the parents or, better, the two boys--keeping their names confidential, though by now everyone in town knows who they are. Or, we could forego any conclusion about their opinions--if any--about Trump.

"Chanting "Trump Trump Trump" is good evidence those two boys had an affinity for Trump's general campaign message, which was anti Muslim, anti immigrant, and fairly tolerant of white supremecism."

Though _you_ think so, it's really not; no court would give such weight and I don't either.

"So all you are really saying is that you don't believe the St. Louis Times Dispatch story. Which is fine, but you have no evidence for not believing it, except that you don't want to believe it. In this you are like many Americans, who reject facts when they contradict their beliefs."

No. I'm saying that based on this news report, we don't have sound grounds to call this incident the work of self-described Trump supporters and self-identified white-supremacists.

>41 proximity1: We live in a post truth world.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/15/post-truth-named-word-of-the-year-...

>41 proximity1: No. I'm saying that based on this news report, we don't have sound grounds to call this incident the work of self-described Trump supporters and self-identified white-supremacists.

That's mighty fancy footwork. You should have been a lawyer. (Pity you don't give the same benefit of the doubt to Clinton).

>43 jjwilson61:

I do and have given the Clintons every due benefit of the doubt. But your comparing the Clintons--both now known serial liars--to these boys-- from whom I've yet to see the first quote as to their own accounts of their acts and motivations--exhibits the othrrworldliness of your reasoning.

SBL is ready to classify them as either Trump admirers or white supremacist racists or both --on the basis of hearsay reports.

For all we know for sure, this incident might be two clever Clinton fans in a ploy to discredit "Trump supporters."

The flimsy reasoning habits on display here from you, SBL and others is just what is responsible in juries which convict the innocent at trial. And really, for my money, you are this site's very poorest at reasoning.

>44 proximity1: to these boys-- from whom I've yet to see the first quote as to their own accounts of their acts and motivations

Presumably the school that conducted the investigation spoke to the boys in question. And they were disciplined, without any subsequent attempt by the school to clarify the event or angry parents know that the boys were "really Clinton supporters trying to discredit Trump." Instead, the school acted to confront and defuse a potentially racist situation, although not quickly or strongly enough, according to the angry parents of the kids told to go to the back of the bus.

It is what it is. You can say that they were Clinton rabble rousers -- hell, you could say they were paid by ISIS to chant Trump names. But there's no evidence that the incident is anything else than what it looks like.

>45 southernbooklady:

"You can say that they were Clinton rabble rousers -- hell, you could say they were paid by ISIS to chant Trump names."

I could have but in fact I didn't.

" But there's no evidence that the incident is anything else than what it looks like."

The whole point is that we lack sufficient information to come to a reasonable and fair idea of just what "it" really was. And so your comments miss my point: without the slightest creditable account from the two principals themselves or their appointed spokesman, you've found them fit to be judged guilty as charged.

Is such your common practice?

>44 proximity1: I do and have given the Clintons every due benefit of the doubt. But your comparing the Clintons--both now known serial liars--to these boys-- from whom I've yet to see the first quote as to their own accounts of their acts and motivations--exhibits the othrrworldliness of your reasoning.

The only thing I was comparing was the quality of your reasoning when thinking about one side of the issue vs. the other side.

>46 proximity1: without the slightest creditable account from the two principals themselves or their appointed spokesman,

The school investigation itself I am sure contained both of these. So what you mean is that the results of the school's investigation is not itself credible. Nor is the newspaper that reported on the investigation. Or the witnesses to the incident. Any one of these might fall under more scrutiny. Taken together they are what's known as corroborating evidence.

After all, by your standards, the student who beat up the boy wearing a "Make America Great Again" cap can't be proved to be anti - Trump -- they haven't "self-avowed" it:

http://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2016/11/trump-supporter-15-beaten-during-rockv...

>33 Limelite: "Oh, dear.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp

razor blades, i.e., category of sharp objects, not poison, is the subject.

Did you even bother to look at the page I linked to? Here's its opening sentence:

"Poisoned candy myths are urban legends about malevolent strangers hiding poisons or sharp objects such as razor blades, needles, or broken glass in candy and distributing the candy in order to harm random children, especially during Halloween trick-or-treating."

Both my link and your link cite the Best/Horiuchi study entitled "The Razor Blade in the Apple: The Social Construction of Urban Legends" which concluded that "virtually all the reports were hoaxes concocted by the children or parents."

>49 cpg: I'll stick with Snopes. Your citation dismisses what is true. Sharp objects were concealed in Halloween loot. Snopes also does a worthy analysis and comparison between poisoning and "booby trapping."

I respect the consistent reliability of Snopes as an arbiter of fair or foul across a broad spectrum of questionable assertions and outright hoaxes.

Did you even read it?

>50 Limelite:

Wow. You call me "brainwashed" for not knowing the difference between poisons and sharp objects, and I point out that the article I posted did talk about sharp objects, and this is the response I get? You stay classy, Limelite.

>51 cpg:

>51 cpg: Wow -- You can dish it but can't take it? And since I never called you "brainwashed" but you charged me with doing so, let's get this straight -- that's totally classless.

A Muslim New York City police officer was threatened and harassed on Saturday for wearing her hijab.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/i-will-cut-your-throat-muslim-hero-cop-harassed-...

Incidents at libraries on the rise:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/libraries-hate-crimes.html?_r=0

Hate crime authenticated. Man gets 3 months in jail for a you're "going into the oven" if Trump elected threat he made against Sharlaine LaClair, a Democrat, when she was running for WA state legislature.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/man-gets-3-months-in-jail-after-threatening-demo...

Gotta conclude he's a First Amendment nut. A departure from the usual right winger who's a 2nd A. nut.

>56 Limelite:
The man who made the threatening statements said he intended to vote for Hillary Clinton. From your link:

Skip Edward Saunders was sentenced to three months in jail for sending Sharlaine LaClair racist and threatening text messages...

The 33-year-old Saunders told LaClair, who is a Lummi tribal leader, that he would be voting for Hillary Clinton...

Donal Trump's anti-Muslim ban constitutes a hate crime. WH claims JD declared executive order legal. Seems to be a difference of opinion since 16 states' AsG and several Constitutional scholars think it's not Constitutional, as well as decidedly illegal.

https://mediamatters.org/video/2017/01/29/watch-aclu-s-anthony-romero-explain-wh...

The "hate crime" comes in because the ban only applies to Islamic countries Trump doesn't do business with. /snark

It seems that the Acting Attorney General does not believe that the ban is legal: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/attorney-general-civil-rights-ref...

Dear Leader's response to her doing what she told Sen. Sessions she could do when he questioned her during her confirmation hearing in 2015 was, "You're fired."

Nothing like having a TV "reality" show host in the Oval Office.

What do suppose the chances are that Sessions, Trump's nominee for USAG, will stand up to Trump the way she did? What do you suppose Sessions will do to support the ex-AAG for doing exactly what he wished to be assured 2 years ago she would do while Obama was president?

Right. . .exactly, nothing.

Hate hoax: Troubled Lesbian Sent Herself Death Threats That She Mysteriously Found in Her Own Desk:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6269483/Ohio-student-21-charged-sending...

The best part is that she's facing charges. About goddamned time.

>61 Carnophile:

I'm just waiting for Barney to jump in and mock you for citing a British newspaper for a US story.

Jussie Smollett charged with felony for his hoax:

"Empire" actor Jussie Smollett has now been charged with disorderly conduct for filing a false police report, the Cook County States Attorney says. Disorderly conduct is a Class 4 Felony.

This is hardly the first such hoax, but I’m still shocked at the sheer evil. It’s a carefully thought-out attempt to imply that an entire group of people (white Trump voters) are somehow complicit in attacking someone because he’s a gay minority. What’s shocking is the calm, cool premeditation in deliberately whipping up more racial strife.

Bonus: Check out the ABC interview in which he pretends to be overcome and wipe away tears. It’s around the 4:44 mark and at 12:34 he uses a tissue to wipe away those tears. (Narrator: “He’s still processing the raw emotion.”)

Per Wikipedia, Smollett’s father is Jewish and his mother is black. And he is gay. A gay black jew can’t get beaten up ("in Trump’s America!") and has to fake it.

Note for the future:

In recent years, several hoaxers have been caught because video surveillance proved that what they said happened did not happen. Instead of thinking, “Well, we shouldn’t be doing hoaxes anyway, so let’s quit,” Smollett’s reaction was to put more effort into the hoax so that the video would seem to verify his story.

Smollett admitted he planned to have the fake attack caught by a surveillance camera in the area. However, the camera was not pointed the way he thought it was, so the BS wasn’t caught on camera.

It worked out well this time, but remember this in the future, when there’s an alleged “hate attack” caught on camera.

My first reaction to the news that it was a hoax was, "How sad!" Sad that he had to go to such extremes to get a little attention, as if having a role on a (huge) hit TV program wasn't enough! There are so many other better ways to get attention - community service, run for office or support someone who is, mentoring, etc.

Does this fit the Munchhausen syndrome?

Was there any penalty for the two guys who were in on the so-called beating?

> 66

I think the brothers he hired to fake attack him have received some sort of immunity deal, based on the necessity of their coughing up the truth in order to prove the guilt of the celebrity in the case.

I am not surprised by the number of people who just took Smollett's word at the beginning. I am skeptical by nature and it struck me as strange and unbelievable when first reported. I mean, a gay black guy, a celebrity, attacked by two men screaming "This is MAGA country" and placing a noose around his neck? And this happened in Chicago? And the alleged victim was not injured in any serious way - not strangled, beaten up, etc.? At how high a genius level did I have to be to suspect a hoax from the very beginning? I'm no Einstein but apparently I must be smarter than the average bear because a lot of dumbass bears fell for the hoax.

This whole "jumping to conclusions" thing reminds me of a incident a few short years ago wherein a young gay black guy, who was running for mayor of a small town in Mississippi, was found dead on a river bank, with cigarette burns all over his body.

Many, many people outside the south, both black and white, immediately started screaming about how "they were not surprised" that such had happened in homophobic racist Mississippi, blah, blah, blah.

It then became known within hours that the guy was murdered by another black guy in either a lovers' quarrel or something similar - so I had to go on line and tell those who had jumped to conclusions that they were dipshits who should go fuck themselves. I really enjoyed that.

BTW, the cops who investigated and solved the crime were all black, as was the sitting mayor of the town, facts that dipshits outside the south never imagined.

JUSSIE SMOLLETT INDICTED ON 16 FELONY COUNTS BY GRAND JURY

I believe the term of art is "sending a message."

A few years back in Jackson, MS a bunch of redneck teenagers in a truck ran down a black man who was walking on a sidewalk - just for fun. They reportedly were calling him n****r during the commission of the crime.

A few years back three redneck teenagers in Texas tied a black man - a living human being - to their truck's back bumper and dragged him for several miles - pieces of his body were found along the highway.

Let's remember there are plenty of racially-based atrocities in the U.S. each year that were definitely not faked.

Just to keep some perspective, you know.

"Perspective" could be problematic for you on this issue, since "perspective" would mean looking at all crimes - black on white, white on black, etc.

And if your Texas example referred to the murder of James Bryd, 21 years ago is more than "a few" years back.

> 70

Yes, and based on all evidence the perspective is that white hate crimes against all non-whites is the main problem in the U.S. Certainly there are many examples of non-white on white hate crimes every year in the U.S., just as there are examples of female on male crime - no one is denying that or downplaying that - but I focus on the majority of the hate crime, which involves white on non-white. It is like Dillinger, when asked why he robbed banks, saying because that is where the money is - so I focus where the hate is - white on non-white.

This is not rocket science or brain surgery. Just think about it a little longer and a little deeper and maybe the logic will become clear to you. Good luck.

> 71

So, you use the ploy of diversion from the important to the trivial? That never works, Inspector Clouseau. lol.

I.e., the time frame is inconsequential as long as we are talking modern times and I am not referring to times when knights were bold - which I wasn't. The fact remains that the U.S. is a place where rednecks drag black men to death chained to a truck's bumper.

I can't remember the last time I read of the reverse - wherein three black guys dragged a white guy to death behind a vehicle. The history of the U.S. is mainly about slavery, segregation, lynching - i.e., mostly white on black crime, not to mention (mainly white) cops shooting unarmed black guys in the back, sometimes while they are being held down. That kind of thing seems to be the main problem. Lesser numbers of black on white hate crimes occur and that does not distract from my main point. The fact is that most crime committed by black perps are committed against victims who are black.

In a nutshell the race hatred problem has been, is and continues to be MAINLY a white on black/non-white problem in the U.S.

If you do not agree then you are WRONG - based on the FACTS. So, don't argue with me - argue with the facts.

I came in here to see if this was a place to report first- and secondhand experiences for a LT-based perspective of true events. Instead, I repeatedly see Daily Mail and RawStory as news sources. In the future, especially as there 2020 elections are getting up, will people here please at least post the (generally more accurate) sources or references in those posts?

For trending stories, y'all could be linking to Twitter, reddit, and memes sites. That would at least show how easily reports are accepted (without one particular spin on it) and links to a variety of news articles.

The most widespread hate acts might be legislative acts targeting political minorities, anyway. I'm surprised no one is comparing Obama era bills, resolutions, statements, and lawsuits to what politicians are doing under the Trump Admin.

>72 JGL53: Blacks kill many more whites than vice-versa. If you want to say, "Yeah, but most of those murders don't count!" well, I don't know how to respond to that. The mind boggles.

>74 Carnophile: Blacks kill many more whites than vice-versa

Can you share a source for this statistic?

> 75

His assertion may perhaps be true regarding armed robbery and similar violent crimes per se. E.g., a black guy who burgled my home was eventually arrested and charged with burgling a total of about 40 houses. Yes, 35 were homes of white people but I don't think he was racially motivated at all, he was just going for convenience and targeting homes that looked deserted to him. He just needed some money for his drug habit.

What I was specifically talking about were racially-motivated violent crimes. Both historically and recently this is mainly a white on black crime - a fact neither Carnophile or anyone else can disprove with official crime statistics gathered and supplied by agencies like the FBI.

Blacks (mainly black men) may commit many more violent crimes per capita in the U.S. than whites or Asians or whatever but there are cultural reasons for that. To claim it is genetic - that is where the racism comes in - counter-examples would be communists and nazis - both groups mainly white people - not to mention the slaughter of aboriginal tribes in the Americas by whites, who were mainly Spanish, English, French, Dutch, and Portuguese, also not to mention the slaughter of blacks in South Africa by whites (the point being whites can be as murderous if not more murderous than blacks, given the right circumstances/environment).

> 74 "....The mind boggles."

Yeah. I'm sure it does. A lot.

>75 John5918:

I know this statistic does not in itself refute >74 Carnophile:, but I found it interesting:

over the last decade, 73.3% of all extremist-related fatalities in the US could be linked to domestic right-wing extremists, while 23.4% were attributable to Islamist extremists

Source: What does Christchurch attack tell us about rightwing extremism? (Guardian)

>78 John5918: 73.3% of all extremist-related fatalities in the US could be linked to domestic right-wing extremists, while 23.4% were attributable to Islamist extremists

While leftists' assertions on this sort of thing are often pure bullshit, it's amusing to take it at face value and infer the implications:

Muslims are around 1% of the U.S. population.

So muslims are 23.4 times as likely to kill someone in a terrorist attack, as non-muslims.

>75 John5918: Can you share a source for this statistic?

FBI stats on murder by race, the most recent year I could find, 2016:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded...

Numbers of murders in which the race of both the victim and the murderer are known:

White victim, black murderer: 533.
Black victim, white murderer: 243.

Additionally, keep in mind that blacks are a smaller fraction of the U.S. population than whites.

Overall in 2016, blacks killed whites at 11.3 times the rate at which whites killed blacks.

Yes, I know 533/243 is not 11.3. You have to adjust for population size. Here's the math:

Blacks are about 12.6% of the US population, and whites are about 65%.

So the number of whites is 0.65p where p is the US population, and the number of blacks is 0.126p.

Let (b_w) be the rate at which blacks kill whites per year (i.e. the population probability that a black person kills a white person in a year). Let (w_b) be the rate at which whites kill blacks.

We know from the FBI that

(A) 0.126p(b_w) = 533 and so

(B) (b_w) = 533/0.126p.

Also, per the FBI,

(C) 0.65p(w_b) = 243.

Now suppose that whites killed blacks at the same rate at which blacks kill whites. Then we’d sub (b_w) in for (w_b) in (C), obtaining

(D) 0.65p(533/0.126p) and the p’s cancel out, yielding

0.65(533/0.126) = 2,750.

If whites murdered blacks at the same rate at which blacks actually do murder whites, then whites would have killed 2,750 blacks in 2016. That’s 11.3 times higher than the actual number, 243.

Or to put it another way, blacks kill whites at 11.3 times the rate of vice-versa.

>81 Carnophile:

But....but...but...

(LOL!)

That math can't be right! Those figures can't be right! No! No! No! that doesn't square at all with my liberal love-fest, we're-all-the-same, loving-brotherhood-of-man convictions of what reality just must be.

As we know, only White peoples is racists. Black peoples is the victims of that racism. So, let's just get --and keep--that _fact_ straight.

#81--looking through your wikipedia link--so do you have any explanation for why the median household income for a white family is $49K and for a black family it's $30K? That's somewhere around a 67% difference.

> carno and prox

The issue was originally not the race ratio in murderers vs. murdered people, it was the number of racially motivated violent attacks and murders, or the ideological motives in addition to race hatred.

But nice dodge. When your assertions are clearly wrong just change the subject and all becomes well again.

In my limited experience at monitoring on-line "racialists" you two are absolutely the worst at white supremacy propaganda. In fact, I would say you two are the best examples available of the non-supremacy of white people.

lol.

#84--I think Poximity is still evolving what it is he believes since he left the Sanders fold. It's hard you know when this Trump guy you've thrown your lot in just wings it all the time.

Anyway it is more than obvious that the wealth gap hits minorities a lot harder than your average white person. If crime is disproportionately caused by minorities part of the solution would be to find solutions for the disproportionate lack of wealth that they suffer from.

>84 JGL53: The issue was originally not the race ratio in murderers vs. murdered people, it was the number of racially motivated violent attacks and murders, or the ideological motives in addition to race hatred.

No, the original issue was Jussie Smollet's hate hoax.

BTW, I am not conceding anything about who commits more "hate crimes." I've seen discussion of how the classification of such is politically biased.

>83 lriley: median household income
>85 lriley: wealth gap

But I'm the guy who's changing the subject!?

Secretly, of course, Black people don't necessarily universally-love or even very much "like" all other Black people, without qualification, and, this, because and only because these others are, as they themselves are, Black.

I know: Stunner! Who knew?

It's not, after all, and very fortunately not, their (i.e. Black's) job to embrace their fellow Black people without distinction. No. That would be White people's job.

But wait! There's more:

People of all races, colors, creeds, are very commonly agents of irrational prejudice--bigotry, racism, etc.--towards many sorts, 'all sorts' of others unlike themselves.

Wow! Now, WTF are we gonna do about that?!-- that is, I mean, beside and after blaming much of it on Donald Trump, whose fault it obviously is, what are we gonna do about that?

A whole lotta politically-correct liberals are going to expend huge amounts of time and energy in the effort to (practically exclusively) remind White people that their race has historically just terrible when it comes to this naturally-occurring racist tendency. And the apparent idea behind this is that White people today should never go very long without reminding themselves of what terrible people they are and how they've so long victimized others. Meanwhile, around the table in the board-room there are women, blacks, and, gasp! even Black women! Good lord!

But there aren't enough of them, you see. That's just got to be lingering racism--no other explanation for it.

May God, who, of course, is Black (and Muslim), help us!

#86--it's your link. I just looked at it. Live by your link or don't use. That said--if you don't think crime and wealth or the lack thereof aren't linked I don't know what to tell you but there is a rather famous line by the American bank robber Willie Sutton (a white guy by the way) who when asked why he robbed banks replied--'that's where the money is'. Obvious. I suspect though that the reason you don't like my going down this trail is a racist reason more than anything else because you're trying to make a racist point and the reason you are trying to make a racist point is because you are a racist.

Anyhow you don't decide how a thread goes down--what you decide on is what you're going to say and how people respond (or not) to you is all up to them and however inappropriate or off topic you think--that's for you to deal with or not.

>88 lriley:

Sorry, I only read comments from Black people. LOL!

Oh, the poor white people - who think they are getting a raw deal at the expense of black people and other minorities. It is such a, I don't know, violation of god's will (?) when the majority is screwed by the minority and forced to take the back seat in the bus. Oh, the humanity, the pain that must come now with being white and the focus of unfair discrimination. When, oh, when, will there be a Civil Rights Movement for WHITES? That is the question, carn and prox, is it not?

No passive or peaceful resistance for whites, a la MLK - no, rather a "By any means necessary" attitude is needed, a la Malcolm X. Mass shooting by white heroes of the enemy minority people - trump is down with that. So are the vast majority of his trumpets, apparently. Will carn and prox sign up - or pussy out? (Careful - trump may grab you.)

What could be a less violent solution to the "race" problem, not to mention the Islamic problem?

Should we bring back legal segregation, carn/prox? Or should we white folk put the hammer down and re-institute slavery, expanding it to include Mexican-Americans, Arab-Americans and all immigrants, legal or illegal?

You make the call, geniuses. And please feel free to ignore the Constitution - we liberals will do nothing but complain.

White Supremacy Uber Alles! Make it happen, tards - if you feel up to it.

>86 Carnophile: >83 lriley: "lriley: median household income
>85 lriley: lriley: wealth gap

But I'm the guy who's changing the subject!?"

No, you're the guy who doesn't get cause and effect.

This thread is embarrassing. On the topic of hate incidents...

I noticed Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was linked in 2016 but seemingly forgotten. That's strange for a thread that's supposed to be about reports of hate crimes under the Trump Admin. Let's get an overview of hate crime tracking.

SPLC states in its Fighting Hate section, "We publish investigative reports, train law enforcement officers and share key intelligence, and offer expert analysis to the media and public."

Regarding the SPLC tracked 599 hate groups in 2000. In 2018, the Center tracked 1,020 groups. That was out of 1,600 extremist groups watched.

Which extremist groups are "hate groups"?

The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity – prejudices that strike at the heart of our democratic values and fracture society along its most fragile fault lines.

The FBI uses similar criteria in its definition of a hate crime:

"A criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity."

Source: FAQ About Hate Groups

The link to the FBI "Hate Crimes" page is provided by SPLC there. The FBI has not yet published hate crime statistics for 2018 but has reported from 1992 through 2017. Data is compiled and published by the Bureau's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Hate Crime Statistics Program. UCR's statistics are based on reports of hate crimes from participating law enforcement agencies. Most but not all states and territories have participating agencies. Participating agencies can be viewed by state (for example, for 2016). There's also regular concern about the reliability of the statistics because agencies may selectively report. (RawStory, which was mentioned in the thread before, recently published "Many Crimes Never Make FBI's Database".)

PolitiFact summarizes "hate crime" results.

FactCheck.org references the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Center for Strategic and International Studies in "The Facts on White Nationalism". Those organizations might have sites worth watching for reports.

edited to fix a link

>88 lriley: it's your link... Live by your link or don't use.

I didn't say it was false. I said it was changing the subject.

Anyhow you don't decide how a thread goes down

I can't stop you from trying to change the subject. You can't stop me from calling you out on it.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I try not to usually think about these little exchanges in terms of winning and losing, but...

...racist...

You were forced to resort to the r word, the last resort of a leftist on the ropes. I automatically win.

>90 JGL53: White Supremacy Uber Alles!

See #93.

>91 RickHarsch: you're the guy who doesn't get cause and effect.

Apparantly I'm the only guy, between the two of us, who believes that black folks have free will.

>92 aspirit: The classification of "hate crimes" is often politicized. The SPLC is an example.

>93 Carnophile: through >96 Carnophile:

Here, as I see it, is what's going on:

For what is apparently just a Hell of a lot of them, "liberals" seem strangely incapable of grasping, recognizing and accepting the simple fact that one need not practice a blind and undifferentiated favor for (insert any historically-disadvantaged or unfairly-victimized group's name here) people just because and only because they are members of (insert any historically-disadvantaged or unfairly-victimized group's name here).

That, of course, amounts to an example of the unfounded favoring of others often based on their race, religion, other creed, sex, gender-identity, nationality, place of birth, etc.

I encounter people everyday who outwardly behave like a person I'd typically describe as an "asshole."

People who are rude; refuse to wait their turn; take more than their due; ignore others around them who have a prior claim to service, etc.; behave as though they are entitled to special, exceptional deference from others around them.

Some of these people are women, some are men, some are young, some old, some have skin-colors which qualify them as what some refer to as "people of color", some have skin color that others refer to as "white," some speak English, many speak speak a language, any language you can think of which isn't English; etc.

In each and every category-case named above, I do not necessarily and categorically automatically dis-like all such people.

I dislike the ones who exhibit the sort of behaviors I've described above as objectionable because they exhibit those behaviors.

This is simply too complicated for far too many "liberals" to understand. And these people are going to do all they can to enforce their own blinkered views on the rest of society.

That's a PROBLEM. Ignoring it won't help anything.

>97 proximity1: Are you saying you equate "hate crime" to someone being rude? When people beat up a Muslim woman who was passing on the street while yelling bigoted slurs are merely assholes? When a White politician threatens to have a Black peer murdered by his relatives for criticizing 1860s Confederates, that's "rude" behavior? I can't imagine by that definition what housing and employment discrimination based on biases against federally protected classes of people would be considered, so I'm thinking I did misunderstood what you wrote.

>96 Carnophile: Yes, every phrase used by government agencies and large social organizations is politicised. What's embarassing is to see a thread about hate crimes on a site like LT devolving into a debate about if one race is generally more violent than another, especially when the same statements used to justify hate crimes are being presented as facts. This thread could be doing more than, say, a typical comment section on a news article.

The SPLC is one of the most recognizable groups compiling data on these incidents. Of course it provides examples.

I'm still interested in talking about hateful legislation that change the definition of "crime" or in reports that don't make the news.

>98 aspirit:

I'm saying something fairly simple:

we're are very far along the way to the point--or are already there at the point-- where any expression of disfavor of any kind toward any person who belongs to any one of the various historically-discriminated-against minorities suffices as clear, conclusive proof of one or another kind of bigoted prejudice--for no other reason than that members of these historically-discriminated-against minorities are apparently, in a de facto manner, simply to be exempt from criticism. Full stop.

>99 proximity1:

And I would suggest we are nowhere near that imaginary point. One can express disagreement and disfavour. One cannot harass, abuse, threaten, stalk, and expose people to danger. That seems fairly simple to me. I'd add doxxing only I'm not sure what it means.

The SPLC has its problems. Referencing it like it were god is really off the mark.

Check especially about the first ten links on this page to understand that to which I refer:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=UNiTXIucFMHZ9AOcxpSABA&q=sout...

See especially this:

- - - In October 2016, the U.S. Southern Poverty Law Center accused Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist", a label disputed by various media outlets, and Nawaz himself. The Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice wrote a public letter to the SPLC urging it to retract the listing. Nawaz announced his intention to file a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC on the 23 June 2017 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. The SPLC deleted the HTML version of its list in April 2018. In June 2018, the SPLC apologised and paid $3.375 million to Nawaz and Quilliam "to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism".

As part of the settlement, SPLC president Richard Cohen made a video apology, and released the following statement about Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation:

"The Southern Poverty Law Center was wrong to include Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation in our Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Since we published the Field Guide, we have taken the time to do more research and have consulted with human rights advocates we respect. We've found that Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism. Although we may have our differences with some of the positions that Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have taken, they are most certainly not anti-Muslim extremists. We would like to extend our sincerest apologies to Mr. Nawaz, Quilliam, and our readers for the error, and we wish Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam all the best."

The agreement stipulated that the SPLC's apology was to be prominently displayed on various pages on their website, as well as distributed to every email address and mailing address on the SPLC mailing list. - - -

>95 Carnophile: Where does that come from?

QUESTION:

Who doesn't ever, to any extent, indulge in what they or anyone else would, if honest, refer to as "hate" toward others, groups and individuals, for many and varied reasons?

I can hardly keep from bursting out laughing when I read from people who are virtually dripping with hatred for Donald Trump hold forth piously about the general problem of others'--always others', never their own-- "hate".

" Post-election hate incidents " ?

"Liberals", maybe get a fucking mirror and put it up and have a good look into it.

LOL!

Adolph Hitler deserved the hate he always received and still receives.

Substitute Stalin, Pol Pot, Attila the Hun, donald trump and any other sociopath, psychopath and/or irredeemably malignant narcissist that come to mind and the same is true. Some people are obviously proven to be amoral scum and are thus deserving objects of hate, scorn, and disgust from normal humans.

But to hate or distrust or abuse or reject or disparate whole groups of people identified under some rubric of race, religion, ethnicity, ideology, etc. (exceptions being proven scum like nazis, communists, Randroids, Scientologists, etc.) - that is engaging in the paralogism of generalization or stereotyping.

How is this not immediately clear as crystal to any person with at least a modicum of common human decency, at least a minimum of education and a triple-digit I.Q.?

How stupid, ignorant, unfeeling, illiberal and pathological must a person be
to not grok the obvious?

I ax you, the general reading public on this forum. Is this all the equivalent of brain-surgery or rocket-science or quantum field theory?

Huh?

Counties that hosted a 2016 Trump rally saw a 226 percent rise in hate crimes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/trumps-rhetoric-does-inspire-...

^

Let me beat carn and prox to the punch.

Correlation alone does not prove causation.

There. Done and done.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes soar in UK after Christchurch shootings (Guardian)

How do UK Muslims feel after series of Islamophobic attacks? (Al Jazeera)

People need to understand that what they say has an impact on what happens on the streets - and the media has a huge responsibility to play in that regard.

>106 JGL53: As long as we're on that subject you also need to remind them that causation does not guarantee correlation either.

>108 alco261:

... "you also need to remind them that causation does not guarantee correlation either"

???

If there is a "causal" relationship--granted for the sake of this point--between phenomena "A" & "B," then it follows that there is also a "correlation" between these same--given, again, that the causal relationship is true rather than mistakenly perceived, as yours is in this case.

You people are very confused.

Help is coming:

"Statistically, extreme examples happen more frequently in smaller populations than in larger ones and the small sample-size does not cause anything, it just allows extreme things like this to happen more frequently." ... "We don't intuitively understand statistics that well."

Are you listening!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoMb4nKTZwg

https://www.academia.edu/8285370/Belief_in_the_law_of_small_numbers

http://stats.org.uk/statistical-inference/TverskyKahneman1971.pdf

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Kahneman.html

https://greenbookblog.org/2012/05/11/how-myths-are-formed-the-law-of-small-numbe...

https://www.academia.edu/8285370/Belief_in_the_law_of_small_numbers

>109 proximity1: You people

"You people". I seem to be seeing that phrase quite a lot on LT these days. I wonder who "you people" actually are? Is it a way of trying to label a whole group of diverse human beings and thus write them off from the conversation?

#93--sorry but the only way you get to win is by changing minds. I don't see you doing much of that.

....and yeah I think you are a racist.....and a bigot for that matter. I suspect you already know that but just don't want to fly it in public.

>109 proximity1: Sorry prox - no confusion here.

It is very easy to have a situation where you have causation without correlation and it happens all the time. For instance, say you have a process and say that you know that temperature is very important to your process - too low and you will get a solid charge, too high and you will get a very fast chemical reaction - commonly known as an explosion. So what you do is you have very tight control limits on your temperature and you make sure your temperature stays within those limits while running your process. The end result is that if you try to correlate product performance with changes in temperature using happenstance data (production data) you will have no correlation between temperature changes and product property changes because the excursions in the controlled temperature will be masked by ordinary product variation - which is exactly what you want to see.

The above is not some kind of theoretical exercise - it is the real world and as a statistician working in industry it is something I've seen many times.

*edited to correct a typo

>97 proximity1: This is simply too complicated for far too many "liberals" to understand. And these people are going to do all they can to enforce their own blinkered views on the rest of society.

Oh, it’s worse than that, proximity. They know it doesn’t make any sense. That’s part of the fun for them. Yeah, they’re that messed up.

>98 aspirit: What's embarassing is to see a thread about hate crimes on a site like LT devolving into a debate about if one race is generally more violent than another...

Take it up with post 69; that’s the post that brought it up.

>101 JGL53: The SPLC has its problems. Referencing it like it were god is really off the mark... See especially this: ...In October 2016, the U.S. Southern Poverty Law Center accused Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist"

Agreed. The Nawaz example was in fact one of the ones I had in mind in #96.

>102 RickHarsch: Where does that come from?

Yeah, why might I have said that? It's a real mystery, huh.

>111 lriley: Oh, stop being so butthurt over the fact that I refuted some cherished left-wing notion. It happens.

>105 2wonderY: This is obvious bullshit. And studies like this from the left always turn out to be bullshit when they're investigated.

The WaPo authors link to their data source, the ADL’s "H.E.A.T. map." ("Hate, Extremism, Anti-Semitism, Terrorism.")

The ADL's “hate incidents” include things like distributing flyers that say “Merry Christmas.”

Yes, really. You can see it right on their map home page.

Here is just a selection of some of the things that the ADL categorizes as “hate incidents”:

1. White Supremacist Propaganda
12/26/2018
Queens, NY
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Identity Evropa, an alt right group, distributed fliers that read: "Merry Christmas."

Saying “Merry Christmas” is “white supremacist propaganda”?! WHAT THE UNHOLY FUCK!?

2. White Supremacist Propaganda
12/26/2018
Windsor, CA
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Identity Evropa, an alt right group, distributed fliers that read: "Merry Christmas."

This goes on. Altogether I counted 16 “hate incidents” that consisted of people writing Merry Christmas. That’s when I stopped counting because it was retarded; there were many more.

3. White Supremacist Propaganda
12/28/2018
Irving, TX
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Patriot Front, an alt right group, posted fliers and stickers that read: "Money does not rule you" and "Will your speech be hate speech?"

4. White Supremacist Propaganda
12/27/2018
Evansville, IN
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Identity Evropa, an alt right group, posted stickers featuring the group's logo.

5. White Supremacist Propaganda
12/21/2018
Sterling Heights, FL
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Patriot Front, an alt right group, posted fliers and stickers that read: "Money does not rule you," "Better dead than red" and "Life liberty and the pursuit of victory."

6. White Supremacist Propaganda
12/18/2018
Tampa, FL
Right Wing (White Supremacist)
Patriot Front, an alt right group, hung a banner from an overpass that read: "Life, Liberty, Victory!"

And on, and on, and on... The ADL alleged dozens of “hate incidents” that amounted to people saying things like “Merry Christmas” or “Money Does Not Rule You,” etc.

This is the source data about "hate" "incidents."

#114--but you haven't refuted anything--I can't remember you ever refuting anyone on anything. And my butt is fine but thanks for asking.

>118 lriley: He seems to be responding to your restraint in not, for whatever reason, saying outright that he's racist. I suppose one reason you might not is because he wouldn't mind, would likely consider it an honor that you noticed.

He's got his own thread about one person's sexual identity, which at least suggests a bizarre obsession with private sexual behavior ('butthurt' attains its context), and over the last year or so I would imagine one could dig up over a hundred racist posts. But why bother. The guy doesn't like people who are different from him in what he considers significant ways, differences most of us find negligible. My dark-skinned wife and I produced a dark-skinned son: it's rare I give it any thought. The gay friend I talk with most discusses literature, music and rabbits with me. The transman I last spent a lot of time talking with spoke of his linguistic preferences: he also laughed like a woodpecker. I wonder what Carnophile thinks or feels about woodpeckers...

#119--if he were a little less sillier than he is Carnophile would have realized by now like most adults that the people that can really hurt you are people who are closest to you--that could be like a family member or personal friend or it could be someone you've come to know or share beliefs/values with. And sorry Carny but we're not friends and not likely ever to be. So his assumption that somehow I'm 'butthurt' by his per usual asinine stupidities is really far reaching. I wouldn't expect him to ever overly concern himself with the things I think either if only because of those asinine idiocies of his that he can't seem to overcome. But anyway it seems like he'll continue to wing it much like the current imbecile of a POTUS wings everything he does.

But yes he does seem to have some fetishy kind of thing going on. I can sense his resistance to let go.

>112 alco261:

"The above is not some kind of theoretical exercise "

Granted; but you really "fudge" the point here, straining it to make what is only apparently a valid distinction.

You inform us that, "you have a process and say that you know that temperature is very important to your process - too low and you will get a solid charge, too high and you will get a very fast chemical reaction - commonly known as an explosion. So what you do is you have very tight control limits on your temperature and you make sure your temperature stays within those limits"

what this means, if it means anything, is that, within this temperature range,as you yourself tell us, by assuring "very tight control limits on your temperature," effectively assures that your process produces neither (too low) "a solid charge" nor (too high) "a very fast chemical reaction - commonly known as an explosion." These are either assured to be avoided outside the temperatures defined as "too high" (quantifiable) or "too low" (quantifiable). Otherwise, your temperatures are not, as your account has it, reliably assured to avoid the solid charge and the fast reaction.

..." say that you know that temperature is very important to your process " ...

The whole issue here is, how "important"?

You are not willing to admit that it's so important that it's "causally-related" but I suspect that this is not because it isn't "just as causally-related" as any other two phenomena about which you would admit this. Rather than that, I suppose that you may say, "It might be causally-related but we don't know this." That's generally the case since virtually all causal relationships are, as far as we're able to ascertain with complete confidence only assumed rather than proven. (Hume).

But this condition set demonstrates what is, for all practical intents and purposes, a "causal relationship" (Hume's arguments aside--why? Because you're already admitting some causal relationships as valid) no less than a "correlation."

In other and briefer words, your distinction is merely "word-play."

"No sale."

>121 proximity1: No straining or fudging or word play at all - indeed, as I said, this sort of thing happens all the time and when it does people will draw the wrong conclusions and go wrong with great assurance.

In the example given we know from the basic chemistry of the process that temperature is very important. Because of this we also know what can happen to the process if we don't pay attention to the range of temperature we allow to exist as part of the production process. Even within that range, if you could somehow remove the effects of ALL other variation sources, known and unknown, and only observe the effect of temperature you would get a correlation. However, you can't do this so, should you take production data and run an analysis looking for a correlation with temperature you would not find one - which means you have causation and no correlation.

Along with other things, it is issues like this that make me leery of big data analysis and claims. With regard to the example I used - about 15 years ago a company I was working for hired one of the big name consulting firms to come in and look over our processes. The hope was they would identify ways in which we could reduce cost and increase output. As part of their effort they took years of production data and ran it through their "secret sauce" program - it was some sort of company proprietary program which we were not allowed to question in any way.

In due course they produced an analysis and made a presentation to senior management. Several members of the management team requested a few of the chemical engineers involved in the processes under examination be present and they, in turn, asked that I be included. The consultants reached a point in their presentation where they specifically stated we were wasting a lot of money on temperature control machinery because, "our analysis indicates there is no connection between process temperature and product output." They went on to say they had consulted with other people in their organization and these people had recommended we actually run at a higher temperature because this would result in faster reaction times and thus an increase in product output. They argued we could do this because it was obvious we weren't running the process to the point where the positive effects of temperature could be observed. Once we got there, they said, then we might need to have some sort of metering of the temperature but nothing as elaborate as our current control system.

When they concluded the engineers and I looked at one another in dumbfounded astonishment. The lead engineer was first to speak. Her first question concerned the consultants level of knowledge with respect to chemistry and thermodynamics and a rather heated discussion ensued. What it all boiled down to was the consultants insistence that their findings were based on our data, not some theory, and this is what an analysis of our data told them. It was at this point I stepped in and made the point presented above.

Fortunately, about a year before we had built a 16 point experimental design for one of the major processes with a focus on product improvement/increased throughput and one of the variables had been temperature. The temperature effect in the form of an interaction term with one of the other design variables had been a major find and one that had identified a way to drastically improve yield. As a result one of the changes made in the process had been a change in temperature location and range.

Using ONLY the results of the design it was easy to see, and confirm, the correlation/causation relationship between the temperature (over any range within the temperature settings of the design space) and process properties (we could do this because the randomization of the experiments in the design across time guaranteed the effects of any other known or unknown process variables would drop into the error term for the model). I happened to remember the extremes we had used for the design temperatures and I knew how we had used the design information to set the current temperature specs. I gave this information to the group and asked the consultants if they happened to know the min and max values for temperature in the data they had used. They did and, as expected, all of the measurements were within the operating range we identified from the experimental work.

In short, the consultant group made the mistake noted in the first paragraph above. The end result the consultant firm got a very nice paycheck for deliberately wasting our time and money and the company got a report loaded with recommended changes of no value.

*edited to correct typo

>119 RickHarsch: My dark-skinned wife and I produced a dark-skinned son: it's rare I give it any thought. The gay friend I talk with most discusses literature, music and rabbits with me. The transman I last spent a lot of time talking with...

Harsch says: "Some of my best friends are..."

>123 Carnophile: Half a century ago that might have meant something. Today, what it means is a sociopath is posting here about Iriley's ass.

“Wah, I called Carnophile a racist and then he called me a racist right back! That’s so unfair!”

Stop whining, Harsch. If you can’t handle it, don’t start.

I wasn't sure where to post this interesting piece from a history professor in the USA, but since it refers to the misreading of history behind a recent hate crime, maybe here is as good a place as any.

The New Zealand massacre and the weaponisation of history (Al Jazeera)

Brenton Tarrant suffers from common historical delusions

Hating someone over their religion is goofy as fuck. #126--things ratcheted up against Muslims after 9-11 but the 9-11 Al Quaeda people were mostly Saudi's with a couple Algerians. If any country should have answered for it it was Saudi Arabia. The outrage was misdirected to Iraq and now is being misdirected to Iran and other enemies of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Dumb fucks like Tarrant obsess over this kind of bullshit but there are plenty of alt-right and fundamentalist christian idiots in the United States doing the same. The Trump administration is feeding more of this crap to these nutjobs.

Any case the Muslim hate is ridiculous--most are law abiding and peaceful--just like most Christians, Jews, Hindus whatever.

>122 alco261:

"In the example given we know from the basic chemistry of the process that temperature is very important. Because of this we also know what can happen to the process if we don't pay attention to the range of temperature we allow to exist as part of the production process. Even within that range, if you could somehow remove the effects of ALL other variation sources, known and unknown, and only observe the effect of temperature you would get a correlation. However, you can't do this so, should you take production data and run an analysis looking for a correlation with temperature you would not find one - which means you have causation and no correlation."

You make this more complicated than it is.

No one disputed that "temperature is very important." So, why are you again insisting on this point?

Why "we also know"? This was already stated in your prior example. You're repeating yourself but evading the issue in doing so.

Since "the importance of temperature" is not disputed, there's no need for this Mumbo-jumbo about,

..."Even within that range, if you could somehow remove the effects of ALL other variation sources, known and unknown, and only observe the effect of temperature" ...

Temperature is important.

Got that.

Within a certain (carefully-controlled*) range, the "process" produced neither

"a solid charge" nor "a very fast chemical reaction - commonly known as an explosion."

Got that.

This shows both a "correlation" (which, by the way, your own remark admits: ..."and only observe the effect of temperature you would get a correlation."...) as well as a de facto "causal" relationship, since, outside the "safe" range of temperature, one or the other of these "a solid charge" or "a very fast chemical reaction - commonly known as an explosion" are always the case.


______________________

Quoting you (>112 alco261:) ..."you have very tight control limits on your temperature and you make sure your temperature stays within those limits"...

And why take such care? You explain that this is done in order to ensure that neither of the following results:

" too low and you will get a solid charge, too high and you will get a very fast chemical reaction"

If, by "very tight control limits on your temperature" ... (and) "mak(ing) sure your temperature stays within those limits," the probability of producing (in the given procedure) either "a solid charge" or "a very fast chemical reaction" is at or nearly at "zero," then you have created a relationship in which there is, by necessity, at least a correlation and at most a causal relationship: tightly maintained controls on the temperature (so that it remains within a prescribed range)--according to you--are positively correlated with the avoidance of either "a solid charge" and "a very fast chemical reaction."

So, your example does not, contrary to your original claim, show "a situation where you have causation without correlation"...

Again: If there is a "causal" relationship between phenomena "A" & "B," then it follows that there is also a "correlation" between them and nothing you've posted shows otherwise.

While not all "correlations" are "causal relationships," all "causal relationships" are "correlations"--either "positively" (they always occur together because they must) or "negatively" (they never occur together because they cannot).

>125 Carnophile: Carnophilic derangement symptom: inventing quotes and imagining conversations plucked by need from the subreal.

https://www.christopherspenn.com/2018/08/can-causation-exist-without-correlation...

A little more involved

From the second article:

"In everyday language, dependence, association and correlation are used interchangeably. Technically, however, association is synonymous with dependence and is different from correlation (Fig. 1a). Association is a very general relationship: one variable provides information about another. Correlation is more specific: two variables are correlated when they display an increasing or decreasing trend. For example, in an increasing trend, observing that X > μX implies that it is more likely that Y > μY. Because not all associations are correlations, and because causality, as discussed above, can be connected only to association, we cannot equate correlation with causality in either direction."

>128 proximity1: Let's recap.
1. I have a variable which I know impacts some property measurement.
2. I arrange to take measures that variable and measures of the corresponding property.
4. I gather my data.
5. I test for a correlation between the measures of my variable and the corresponding output measures.
5a. The act of testing for a correlation in data has nothing to do with physics or anything else. It is a mechanical (as in graphical) or mathematical effort.
5b. Using that data I find I do not have a correlation between the variable and the outcome measures.
6. Since I do not find a correlation in the data I have gathered and since I know a causal relationship between the two exists I have a situation which can be described as causation without correlation.

I appreciate you find the phrase "causation without correlation" to describe the situation in #6 objectionable. So be it.

>131 alco261:

Yes, "I appreciate you find the phrase "causation without correlation" to describe the situation in #6 objectionable. So be it."

it's a violation of logic. No respectable scientists take such a view. I appreciate that you aren't able to understand this. So be it.

If you had a clearly-written paper on the topic, you could point to it. What you certainly are not able to do is to explain clearly in your own words what you are talking about so that someone who doesn't already share your misconception could see and accept its validity.

Try the Oxford Handbook of Causation and Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference (2nd Edition) by Judea Pearl

All charges against Jussie Smollett dropped. Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel and police superintendent angered.

Above I said that the filing of charges was sending a message. Looks like the message is, “We’re cool with your faking a crime to exacerbate race hatred!”

The article says,

After police detained and interviewed two brothers who were "persons of interest" in the case in mid-February, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said that authorities suspected Smollett knew the men and allegedly had paid them to stage the attack.

Police said they believed that the brothers attacked Smollett at the actor's direction. The men were released without being charged.

On Tuesday, Smollett attorney Patricia Brown Holmes said it's her position that the brothers -- who she said were Smollett's fitness trainers -- were Smollett's attackers... “We don't want to try them in the press any more than” Smollett wanted to be, she said.

I’ll bet she doesn’t want any more media attention on this! Here’s a pic of the alleged attackers (second photo down). Whoops, they don’t fit the “hateful white people” narrative! So let’s talk about something else, move on, let the healing begin, etc., etc.

>108 alco261: , >112 alco261: , >122 alco261:

Here's your challenge:

Show, with convincing evidence-baded argument why this

"Counties that hosted a 2016 Trump rally saw a 226 percent rise in hate crimes."

is not itself a completely valid example of the fallacy of "small numbers", per Daniel Kahneman et al as described above.

Rather than doing that, you simply threw out this dodge:

>108 alco261: "As long as we're on that subject you also need to remind them that causation does not guarantee correlation either."

Even IF that were true, it does nothing to show us that, in the present case, we're are not dealing with the error Kahneman has described as the fallacy based on statistically-small numbers.

In the press, the figure"226 percent rise in hate crimes" seems, at first glance, more than a little impressive. It's intended to be. The story counts on the readers' failure to think past the superficial appearance. But, with Kahneman's work, we can examine and debunk the significance of this statistic's supposed import.

And you haven't made even the first move in demonstrating why that isn't a valid critique.

Over to you.

>134 proximity1: example of the fallacy of "small numbers"

It probably is, now that you mention it. But more clearly, it's an example of the fallacy of complete horseshit.

Their "hate incident" data contains things like people putting up flyers saying "Merry Christmas" and other completely innocent things.

Where's the candlelight vigil for all the victims, the people who had to see "Merry Christmas"? Where's the outrage, dammit?

BONUS: 2wonderY, the poster who posted the reference to that "study" in #105, currently has on her Profile page...

a pic of baby Jesus in the manger!!!!!!

ZOMG!!! The hate! The acidic, burning hate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>135 Carnophile: & >136 Carnophile:

"Where's the candlelight vigil for all the victims, the people who had to see "Merry Christmas"? Where's the outrage, dammit?"

Quite.

______________________________

THEN: Horrific images of the past.



"OH! The humanity!!!"

A reporter witnessing the crash of the Hindenburg

____________________________________________


NOW : Horrific images of the present---

Slate December 2016:

“It’s wrong to blame Somali Americans for the Ohio State attack.”

Slate March 2019:

“After Christchurch, we need more blame, not less. The Christchurch shootings should implicate all white Australians.”