Analysis: Trump Really Does Inspire More Hate Crimes
A new study, however, shows that Trump’s speeches and tweets actually do result in violent behavior among his followers.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Over the past week Donald Trump has been lambasted for emboldening white nationalism after a white nationalist killed 50 Muslims at two New Zealand mosques.
When a reporter asked the president whether he sees “today that white nationalism is a rising threat around the world?” Trump responded , “I don’t really.”
There have been other incidents of racist violence inspired by Trump, including:
-
The August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA,
- The October 2018, shooting when a gunman killed 11 people worshiping at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA.
There is also new evidence that hate groups are on the rise during Trump’s presidency, even though they were in decline under Barack Obama.
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
Whether it's diet or politics, it is important to remember that - no matter how tempting - correlation does not equal causation.
So, I dutifully followed the link to the link of the study and found correlation, but buried in the text is an admission that they did not establish causation.
Even if there is a causal connection, it may not be 100%. So few things are. There can be many factors. For example, instead of focusing on supporters, we might focus on the opposition. Unfortunately, that was not done here.
Yes, I agree with you. A focus on the opposition might well produce evidence that the massive criticism and incitement brought about by those opposing Trump could be as serious a cause of violence and hate crimes as what the seed implies.
Try using Google to read other studies of the same vogue. Very educational
Seems to me that we are talking about trump and not the opposition. Stay on topic.
I am on topic. The topic is a study that claims X causes Y. That's what I talked about. I can't help it if you don't like what I had to say, but it's most definitely on topic. Sorry, but not everyone is going to offer an analysis you like.
You might notice I sort of equated politics and diet. To expand on that, so that you might understand, consider if someone made the claim that eating sugar increases the amount of fat stored in your body. It might be true, but it might not be the only thing making a person fat. Consider further that if the report could show no specific causal relationship between sugar and body fat and only showed a correlation, it ultimately wouldn't be very useful, would it. After all, not everybody who eats sugar is fat.
And yet you pointed out that it did not do any such thing when you copied and pasted that disclaimer about correlation not necessarily being causation which is true. However, it should be noted that correlation is still there and correlation may lead to causation in time.
When we have domestic terrorists who send bombs and death threats to Dem politicians and find them wearing MAGA hats and living out of vans plastered with pro-Scumbag stickers and extreme rightwing hate messages or we see the comments praising* Scumbag by the mass murderer of Muslims in Christchurch it really does suggest that at the very least these unhinged animals certainly find encouragement in Scumbag's rhetoric. That's a bit more than just correlation. We haven't yet had any event to "correlate" with Scumbag's latest thinly veiled threat that it could get "very bad" if anything threatens to endanger his presidency by holding him accountable for any crimes he's committed but we wait and watch.
* 'Trump is a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose'
And yet it's rightwing fanatics doing all the mass killings. You're deliberately confusing disgust with hatred. The Scumbag you worship and are always trying to cover for is a despicable piece of minimally human trash to be sure but no one on the left is out there advocating, much less, killing people who worship him.
Bringing up the opposition to Scumbag is not just going off topic. It's a blatant deflection attempt. There is nothing like the violence threatened or actually committed by Scumbag's admirers to be found in the opposition. Nowhere. No way. Nohow.
Not at all. My analysis of the study referenced in the article is that it's incomplete and doesn't support the conclusion offered in the headline. That's on -topic.
A study has been offered for us to examine. Apparently you fear analysis that reaches a conclusion that doesn't affirm your severe political bias. I'm guessing that's why you try to attack me by accusing me of something inappropriate (deflection) rather than address the actual content of my comment.
Much violence has been committed against Trump supporters.
Protesters 'attack Trump supporters' in California
Student Trump supporter attacked at Woodside High School
Dispatches From The 'Tolerant' Left's War On Trump Supporters
Rap Sheet: ***639*** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters
639 - and counting. Read them for yourself.
Oh, puhleeze
. Using Breitbart and calling it "your analysis" is beyond ridiculous. You complained that the article this seed is based upon is misleading and then come back with a list of random events, many of which probably didn't have anything to do with politics in general or Scumbag in particular and none of them at the magnitude of rightwing extremist acts. It's like telling someone with a broken leg how you stubbed your toe once. The desperation of this kind of false equivalency does reveal two things though: it indicates that you really do have to go to absurd lengths to try to deflect away from this seeds subject and that you actually probably realize somewhere inside that the evidence for Scumbag's role in this is substantial and you have to go to shameful lengths to do that deflection.
Gee, it's nice to know you (and others of your sort in this thread) have left the unsupported smear business that you've relied on so heavily any time a Dem gets falsely accused of something. That must mean you're ready to fully retract all the proven baseless smears against Hillary (and Obama) whether it had to do with BENGHAZI!!! or Hillary alone --EMAILS!!!!.
I'd also like to point out how we never seen any disclaimers like the one you quoted from the linked article in the garbage that rightwingers use (if they even bother) to propagate their lies and false innuendoes.
I await the links to the unsupported smears I have made. I have a feeling, I will grow old and die before I see any.
I don't know about what other people do, nor am I responsible for them. I came here and commented on the seed. You, apparently, came to talk about other members. And Don thinks I'm off-topic. That's kinda funny.
I'm talking to you. And no matter how hard you try to squirm or deflect away from the truth I'm not going to let you get away with it.
In your mind does it have to be "100%?" What does that mean, anyway? You wouldn't accept evidence unless a causal link to Scumbag was shown in every single case of a rightwing mass murder? Or it has to be 100% causal in each case? That's beyond absurd as a matter of law as well as a matter of basic rationality. It looks like you're own certitude about Scumbag's innocence is starting to waver and you need to come up with an escape route.
What stuff looks like to you clearly has little grounding in reality.
All that says is you know it's true and must do everything you can, no matter how humiliating, to pretend it isn't.
No surprise that we've moved into projection land now. It was bound to happen as the rest of your pitiful dodges failed.
And yet you pointed out that it did not do any such thing when you copied and pasted that disclaimer about correlation not necessarily being causation which is true. However, it should be noted that correlation is still there and correlation may lead to causation in time.
When we have domestic terrorists who send bombs and death threats to Dem politicians and find them wearing MAGA hats and living out of vans plastered with pro-Scumbag stickers and extreme rightwing hate messages or we see the comments praising* Scumbag by the mass murderer of Muslims in Christchurch it really does suggest that at the very least these unhinged animals certainly find encouragement in Scumbag's rhetoric. That's a bit more than just correlation. We haven't yet had any event to "correlate" with Scumbag's latest thinly veiled threat that it could get "very bad" if anything threatens to endanger his presidency by holding him accountable for any crimes he's committed but we wait and watch.
* 'Trump is a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose'
Not sure how this got repeated here as a new comment but I noticed it too late to delete it.