Op/Ed New Study Finds 2 In 3 “Hate Crimes” Are Hoaxes…

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  3 months ago  •  211 comments

Op/Ed New Study Finds 2 In 3 “Hate Crimes” Are Hoaxes…
A political scientist found that fewer than 1 in 3 of 346 such allegations was genuine.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Shocker.

Via   WSJ :


…Mr. Reilly eventually compiled a database of 346 hate-crime allegations and determined that less than a third were genuine. Turning his attention to the hoaxes, he put together a data set of more than 400 confirmed cases of fake allegations that were reported to authorities between 2010 and 2017. He allows that the exact number of false reports is probably unknowable, but what can be said “with absolute confidence is that the actual number of hate crime hoaxes is indisputably large,” he writes. “We are not speaking here of just a few bad apples.”

The author’s bigger concern, and rightly so, is the growing politicization of hate crimes, especially when they are directed at underrepresented groups and regardless of whether they in fact happened. The sad reality is that there is no shortage of individuals and entities with a vested interest in exaggerating racial tensions in the U.S.—from civil-rights organizations to corporate diversity officers to professors of race and gender studies.

These alleged incidents are invariably seized upon by politicians and activists looking to feed a sacrosanct belief among liberals that discrimination and oppression are the main drivers of inequality. “In the mainstream media we hear almost constant talk about scary new forms of racism: ‘white privilege,’ ‘cultural appropriation,’ and ‘subtle bigotry,’ ” Mr. Reilly writes, yet “a huge percentage of the horrific hate crimes cited as evidence of contemporary bigotry are fakes.”

If “Hate Crime Hoax” merely offered examples to illustrate the extent of this phenomenon—and the book offers nearly 100—it would be providing a much-needed public service. But Mr. Reilly has a larger point to make. The Smollett case isn’t an outlier. Increasingly, it’s the norm. And the media’s relative lack of interest in exposing hoaxes that don’t involve famous figures is a big part of the problem.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 months ago

Who saw this coming?  Segregation Joe could have cited this study during the debates.

jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    3 months ago
Who saw this coming?

11737676.jpg

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.1  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    3 months ago

Me too!  Even though 2/3 are found to be hoaxes, too many on the left initially blame 3/3 on conservatives and or Trump supporters and still bitterly cling to them long after they have been exposed as hoaxes.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.1    3 months ago

It's good to finally have some stats, but basically most people know from their own personal experience what's going on.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    3 months ago

You don't have "stats" [Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    3 months ago

[deleted]

The book in question here does not claim to know a hell of a lot about hate crime statistics, in fact the author explicitly says he does not know what percentage (even roughly) of hate crime reports are fake. 

I take no position on what exact percentage of all hate crimes are hoaxes. Such a conclusion would be nearly impossible to calculate. It would be necessary, just for starters, to determine the percentage of all cases of alleged interracial fist fights that were classified as hate crimes across every county-level police precinct in the United States, the conviction versus dismissal rate for those crimes, and the percentage of prosecutorial dismissals or nolle prosequi decisions that were motivated by a belief that the allegation in question was a false one.

But not only does the author not give an exact percentage, he doesnt give any percentage at all.  All he says is that there are a lot of fake hate crimes. 

There have been 20,000 hate crime reports in the past three years. What is "a lot "   under those circumstances? 

Other than as a means of stirring up some shit, this seed is virtually useless. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    3 months ago

Oh , by the way. The author of the book quoted in the seed (from far right site Weasel Zippers) specifically says he doesnt know what percentage of hate crime reports are "hoaxes". 

The seeded article makes the false claim that figure is 2 out of 3. 

Fake news, anyone? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.1    3 months ago
Even though 2/3 are found to be hoaxes,

This is utter nonsense. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.7  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    3 months ago

No it’s not. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    3 months ago
Scribd, which allows you access to thousands of books

Ah, Trip Adler! It figures it would be a Harvard guy, probably tired of running to the Winthrop Library. Thanks for the tip, John.

According to the seed, the book does offer 100 examples of hoaxes and the point being made is that Smollett wasn't an "outlier". As I stated in my post, when you add that to what we know in our personal experiences, we will all draw our own conclusions. Some can argue that "hate crimes" are a major problem throughout the nation. Based on what Iv'e seen over a lifetime, "racism" in America has been eradicated with attitudes being dramatically changed. What concerns me the most are those like Smollett and Al Sharpton and Eric Holder who are perpetuating a myth as politicians shamefully use the issue to get out the black vote. All of which has divided this nation along racial lines.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    3 months ago
It's good to finally have some stats,

Bogus stats are better than none, vic? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    3 months ago
Based on what Iv'e seen over a lifetime, "racism" in America has been eradicated with attitudes being dramatically changed.

Then you must have been living in a bubble for a long time. Racism is alive and well and growing in the US. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.11  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @1.1.10    3 months ago

It is not growing in the USA except among many of the people of the political left.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.10    3 months ago

So says you and Jussie.  I prefer my own eyes.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.13  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.9    3 months ago

384

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.11    3 months ago
It is not growing in the USA except among many of the people of the political left.

Prove it Xx. How about you support at least this one proclamation. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.12    3 months ago
So says you and Jussie.

NO, so says the FBI. 

Who the fuck is Jussie Vic? 

I prefer my own eyes.

Yes, and your own fake facts...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    3 months ago
NO, so says the FBI. 

What did they say and not say?

"On Tuesday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  released hate crime data for last year . The main finding, which  appears  in the  headlines  of  several  news  stories  about it, was that hate crimes rose 17 percent from 2016 to 2017.

But as Lopez correctly notes elsewhere in his post, any talk of hate crime increases must be considered in light of a very critical detail: The overall number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data also increased greatly—approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributed figures in 2017 than in 2016. This means it's not obviously the case that hate crimes are more prevalent in 2017. Maybe the government just did a better job of counting them.

This seems even more plausible when the raw totals are considered. The FBI counted 7,175 hate crimes in 2017, compared with 6,121 in 2016. That's a difference of about 1,000. If every agency reporting data for the first time in 2017 reported just one hate crime, this would account for the entire 17 percent increase.

This is the problem with counting hate crimes: The numbers just aren't that useful, given that not all police agencies participate or give accurate totals.  As I noted in a previous post , Baltimore County—which represents 830,000 people—reported just one hate crime in 2016. This year, Baltimore County  reported 10 hate crimes . Did incidents of hate increase tenfold in a single year? Probably not; it's likelier that the police simply submitted more reliable data this year.

https://reason.com/2018/11/13/fbi-hate-crime-statistics-increase-trump


I think we covered this topic before....Isn't that when you tried to disqualify the additional facts?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.17  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.7    3 months ago
No it’s not.

That is perhaps the most brilliant retort you've ever made, XX/HA/C4P, etc, etc, etc. 

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2  cjcold  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    3 months ago

A hoax? You mean like what you call the reality of AGW/climate change?

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.1  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @1.2    3 months ago

AGW/climate change? All we have is a global warming hoax and climate change fraud perpetrated upon the world by the unscrupulous pro science consensus gang.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.1    3 months ago

Flat Earthers accuse NASA, et. al. of perpetrating a global hoax/fraud.

YECs accuse worldwide science of perpetrating a global hoax/fraud on biochemical and cosmological evolution for over 150 years now.

One is among Flat Earthers and YECs when one proclaims AGW a global hoax/fraud.

It is a level of willful ignorance that with great surprise and disappointment still exists in 2019.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    3 months ago
Segregation Joe could have cited this study during the debates.

Are you giving us a hint about the topic of the next load of BFBS you're planning to dump on us, BF? 

 
 
 
cjcold
1.4  cjcold  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    2 months ago

Curious as to how many actual hate crimes go unreported.

 
 
 
epistte
2  epistte    3 months ago

The author of this story should learn what statistics mean because how can it be one-third of all hate crimes when he doesn't know what the exact numbers are. 

…Mr. Reilly eventually compiled a database of 346 hate-crime allegations and determined that less than a third were genuine. Turning his attention to the hoaxes, he put together a data set of more than 400 confirmed cases of fake allegations that were reported to authorities between 2010 and 2017. He allows that the exact number of false reports is probably unknowable, but what can be said “with absolute confidence is that the actual number of hate crime hoaxes is indisputably large,” he writes. “We are not speaking here of just a few bad apples.”

These claims read like something from the site "Moonbattery"

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  epistte @2    3 months ago

I double checked his numbers with a recently calibrated abacus. I regret to inform you that you are wrong.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1    3 months ago
I double checked his numbers with a recently calibrated abacus. I regret to inform you that you are wrong.

I appreciate the effort that you invested but I ran the numbers on my slide rule and I disagree. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    3 months ago

I measured with the slide ruler one time and had an accident. I got some flesh caught in the slide and I had to count to three and pull it quickly. I still hyperventilate when i think about it.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.3  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.2    3 months ago
I measured with the slide ruler one time and had an accident. I got some flesh caught in the slide and I had to count to three and pull it quickly. I still hyperventilate when i think about it.

Thanks, but TMI.

 Thoughts and prayers.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    3 months ago

Best exchange of the day. I am still laughing. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.5  epistte  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.4    3 months ago
Best exchange of the day. I am still laughing. 

I'm glad that I could help. It's almost 90°F and about as humid as the rain forest outside, so I'm stuck inside.  I hate summer days like this.

My cat is sitting on the mouse because he has learned that when he does he gets a tummy fluff every time I move the mouse.

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.6  JBB  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.4    3 months ago

Because harmful lies and misinformation presented as news are hilarious?

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.7  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    3 months ago

You pray??

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.8  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.7    3 months ago
You pray??

Conservatives don't get satire...............

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.9  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    3 months ago

You have yet to dispute anything from this story at all. 

Are you going to try or should we move on?

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.10  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.9    3 months ago
You have yet to dispute anything from this story at all.  Are you going to try or should we move on?

1.)You posted an opinion column and not facts. This isn't a story with statistics that can be disputed because those are not included. 

2.) He is trying to sell a new book of the same name.

https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Crime-Hoax-Lefts-Campaign/dp/1621577783

It doesn't seem to be selling very well by the Amazon statistics. Many of the reviews look to be questionable by the constant 5 stars.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.11  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @2.1.8    3 months ago

Or was using some myself.....some secular progressives it seems miss it or don’t like it when it’s directed in their direction.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @2.1.5    3 months ago
My cat is sitting on the mouse

It took me a couple of seconds to realize you meant the mouse on your computer.

I was thinking "her cat sits on mice?  That seems a bit peculiar".

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    3 months ago
Because harmful lies and misinformation presented as news are hilarious?

When they're this far fetched....yeah...pretty much.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.9    3 months ago
You have yet to dispute anything from this story at all. 

It's from something called "weasel zippers".

I think that's all we need.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.15  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.14    3 months ago

It's a WSJ story, weaselzippers does not write articles, they like drudge link stories.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.16  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.12    3 months ago
It took me a couple of seconds to realize you meant the mouse on your computer. I was thinking "her cat sits on mice?  That seems a bit peculiar".

It's a very generic wired mouse. I cannot use a wireless mouse around him because he knocks them off and then hides them behind or under furniture.

https://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/corded-mouse-m500?crid=7

He has never seen an actual squeaking mouse in his pampered life. I doubt that he would know what to do with it if he did.  The lazy furball wounds insects and leaves them for me to kill and clean up. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1.17  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.2    3 months ago
I measured with the slide ruler one time and had an accident. I got some flesh caught in the slide and I had to count to three and pull it quickly. I still hyperventilate when i think about it.

Pics or it didn't happen.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.18  cjcold  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.2    3 months ago

I seriously doubt that you know how to work an abacus.

Mom (the math major) taught me how to use one in my teens.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.19  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    3 months ago

No, because epistte made a joke. 

The article I highly doubt. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.20  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.11    3 months ago
Or was using some myself.....some secular progressives it seems miss it or don’t like it when it’s directed in their direction.  

Where was your attempt at satire?

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.21  epistte  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.19    3 months ago
No, because epistte made a joke.  The article I highly doubt. 

My humor tends to be very suddle.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.22  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.15    3 months ago
It's a WSJ story, weaselzippers does not write articles, they like drudge link stories.

If you're citing it as a WSJ story, then it should be seeded in Op/Ed since it's an excerpt of a WSJ opinion piece. 

BTW, does drudge truncate articles too? 

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.23  JBB  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.19    3 months ago

Correct. Synagogue bombings are not funny. Mosque shootings are not funny. Burning churches are not funny. Gay bashings are not funny. Hate crimes are more than the sum of their parts as they are intended to terrorize entire communities. Any false reporting is a crime as it diminishes the reality of entire groups of people living in fear. It is easy for some to dismiss the horrors some suffer due to the alarming current surge in hate crimes across America. White english speaking middle class and above people obviously can feel safe laughing about it. Nobody knows exactly sure but the best evidence is that less than 1% of all reported rapes are so called "Hoaxes". So, the number reported here of 66% is a GREAT BIG LIE. FAKE NEWS. BULLSHIT! Who finds it "Funny" to negate the seriousness,  growing frequency and increasing carnage created by hate crimes in America? Really, I want to know...

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.24  cjcold  replied to  epistte @2.1.8    3 months ago
Conservatives don't get satire...............

Or humor. When was the last time you heard a conservative tell a funny joke?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.25  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @2.1.22    3 months ago

I checked the article and it did come from the WSJ. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hate-crime-hoaxes-are-more-common-than-you-think-11561503352

I have adjusted this to be an op/ed. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @2.1.23    3 months ago

Right wing media, particularly right wing social media such as on You Tube and Facebook , is obsessed with attacking "social justice warriors". For some bizarre reason they think opposing "social justice" is the most important issue in the United States. The You Tube personalities like Steven Crowder and Stephan Molyneux, and also Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin and many others. The website Moonbattery is based almost entirely on mocking social justice warriors. And there are many others of the same ilk as well. 

I think that libertarian/conservatives realize that their policies will never gain wide approval in a positive sense. No libertarian candidate has ever won a significant amounts of votes except in some isolated local circumstances, and they have been trying for many years now. So they resort to mocking and vilifying "liberals" as basically their sole function. Some of them are making good money at it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.25    3 months ago
I have adjusted this to be an op/ed. 

Thanks Perrie.

I think everyone here knew it was an opinion piece. An excellent one!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JBB @2.1.23    3 months ago

Jbb,

I belong to two minority groups, both of which have had a big increase in hate crime, so I don't need to be lectured on what is going on. I know first hand. I don't believe this outcome of this study, but it was reported in a respectable paper. If you have an issue with it being fake news, take it up with the WSJ. 

Who finds it "Funny" to negate the seriousness,  growing frequency and increasing carnage created by hate crimes in America? Really, I want to know...

I was having a funny moment with one member. It had nothing to do with the article and I think that is pretty obvious. I agree there is a serious problem going on in America, and it is sad that there are op/eds that are posting studies trying to say that there isn't a problem. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.28    3 months ago

I think it’s sad people ignore studies because they don’t fit their prejudices,

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.30  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  epistte @2.1.8    3 months ago
Conservatives don't get satire...............

Which makes sense from being the well-deserved recipient of so much of it. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.31  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.15    3 months ago
It's a WSJ story

It's an editorial from the notoriously rightwing WSJ.  And it refers to a seriously small case "study." There have been much larger academic studies (cited elsewhere on this seed)  that do not reach the same conclusion.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.32  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.29    3 months ago
I think it’s sad people ignore studies because they don’t fit their prejudices,

Not as sad as studies designed to feed prejudices as in this case. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.33  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.2    3 months ago
I measured with the slide ruler one time and had an accident.

Not sure what a slide ruler is,  but if you mean slide rule then you just revealed you had no idea what a slide rule is used for and no wonder you injured yourself and you got what you deserved. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.25    3 months ago
I checked the article and it did come from the WSJ. 

Which is why I stated that it is an excerpt from WSJ Op/Ed. 

Since it's so truncated, it's hard to evaluate the actual Op/Ed as it's behind a pay wall. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.29    3 months ago
I think it’s sad people ignore studies because they don’t fit their prejudices,

I think it's sad that people take opinions about 'studies' that contain NO empirical evidence seriously, just because it fits their prejudices. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.36  epistte  replied to  cjcold @2.1.24    3 months ago
Or humor. When was the last time you heard a conservative tell a funny joke?

I cannot think of a single conservative comic or satirist who is truly funny. Calling people partisan names is not funny. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.37  epistte  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.26    3 months ago
Right wing media, particularly right wing social media such as on You Tube and Facebook , is obsessed with attacking "social justice warriors". For some bizarre reason they think opposing "social justice" is the most important issue in the United States. The You Tube personalities like Steven Crowder and Stephan Molyneux, and also Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin and many others. The website Moonbattery is based almost entirely on mocking social justice warriors. And there are many others of the same ilk as well. 

The conservative media and conservative writers feel threatened when they are exposed, so they predictably respond by attacking people who they view are threats to them and what they believe. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.38  epistte  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1.17    3 months ago
Pics or it didn't happen.

I've wanted to say this many times but was afraid of the ticket if I did.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.39  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @2.1.36    3 months ago
I cannot think of a single conservative comic or satirist who is truly funny.

Tim Allen

George Carlin

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.40  epistte  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.39    3 months ago
Tim Allen

Tim Allen isn't funny.  I wasn't aware that he was a conservative. His jokes are a parody of an intelligent man.

George Carlin

George Carlin was not conservative. He hated the GOP and religion.

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

"Have you ever wondered why Republicans are so interested in encouraging people to volunteer in their communities? It’s because volunteers work for no pay. Republicans have been trying to get people to work for no pay for a long time."

"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you.

They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no daycare, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f**ked."

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

"The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and 'Thou shalt not lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment."

"If churches want to play the game of politics , let them pay admission like everyone else."

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.41  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @2.1.40    3 months ago
Tim Allen
Tim Allen isn't funny.  I wasn't aware that he was a conservative. His jokes are a parody of an intelligent man.

That's your opinion.   Many others would disagree.

George Carlin George Carlin was not conservative. He hated the GOP and religion.

Maybe you need to know Carlin and his comedy better before you use his comedy lines as his belief structure.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.42  epistte  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.41    3 months ago
Maybe you need to know Carlin and his comedy better before you use his comedy lines as his belief structure.

I saw Carlin live, twice.  I could recite many of his famous lines from memory.  He was not a conservative.

I have almost all of his recordings, many still in vinyl.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.41    3 months ago
Maybe you need to know Carlin and his comedy better before you use his comedy lines as his belief structure.

You could not possibly be more wrong about Carlin.   Carlin was absolutely against organized religion, conservatives and the GOP.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.44  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.43    3 months ago
You could not possibly be more wrong about Carlin.   Carlin was absolutely against organized religion, conservatives and the GOP.

George Carlin was not a supporter of the partisan DNC but he was absolutely opposed to the GOP and conservativism of any sort. 

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.45  JBB  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.28    3 months ago

I do not know what all the WSJ had to say about this serious topical subject because there was a paywall. I did make it far enough through TWO spurious links (Weaselzippers?) to see that at least on the WSJ, unlike here and on Weaselzippers , it was clearly marked as opinion and not as news. Considering you own this place and it is your righthand man spreading this crap as news, a supposedly explosive revelation no less, your off hand defense of this content hardly holds up. You know and I know and everyone else who gives a crap about the current explosion of hate crimes should know that the true incidence of hoax hate crimes is very rare and yet the incidence of hate crimes is growing exponentially in th US...

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.46  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.29    3 months ago

Bingo! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.47  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @2.1.40    3 months ago
He hated the GOP

he may have hated the gop but he sounds conservative to me.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.48  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JBB @2.1.45    3 months ago
and yet the incidence of hate crimes is growing exponentially in th US

fake news.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.47    3 months ago
… he may have hated the gop but he sounds conservative to me

One can disagree with some (or all) conservative ideology and not be a liberal / progressive.

One can disagree with some (or all) liberal / progressive ideology and not be a conservative.

Carlin was quite anti-conservative.   Why deny facts?   It does not really matter, right?   Plenty of people are anti-conservative and plenty are anti-liberal/progressive.   

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.50  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.47    3 months ago

George Carlin was not a conservative. 

In this clip by the way, in which Carlin is reading from one of his books, he sounds bored. Big difference from his stand up. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.51  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  epistte @2.1.40    3 months ago

Love it when 'wingers try to appropriate "our" comedians.  Must be  funny-envy.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.52  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.49    3 months ago
Why deny facts? 

Because they buurrrrnnnnnnn, precioussssssssssss!!!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.53  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.47    3 months ago

Note whose picture came up when Carlin mentioned "stupid."  And, taking Carlin's advice to heart, I'd be happy to start referring to rightwingers as mental cripples if that makes them feel more "accepted." 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
2.1.54  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.41    3 months ago

I think I loved Carlin so much because  nothing and no one was safe from lampooning or being satirized, nothing was sacred and he did so in a really non offensive way, and a lot of times I found his routines make me think about different things in different ways .

I think what I got most out his routines was not to buy into the group think of the times that were happening at any particular moment and to think for ones self no matter what the political flavor of the moment is . and to always try to be the best person that you could be for yourself .

I miss  him and his type of satirical lampooning , can you imagine if he were still alive what he could have done with the last decade or so  of material ?

Conservative? Liberal ? somewhere in between? who actually really gives a crap? The man had a way of making all of us look at ourselves and see the obsurdity  that was going on around us , AND make us think for ourselves and made us laugh about it. the man was a genius.

I still cant think of the word tits without thinking of a snack and chuckling.....

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.55  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.47    3 months ago

Does this sound like a conservative to you? 

George Carlin said it best: "Catholics are against abortion and they are against homosexuals. Here is an entire class of people guaranteeing to never have an abortion and the Catholics and Christians are just tossing them aside. You would think they would make natural allies!"

renderTimingPixel.png
 
 
 
epistte
2.1.56  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.48    3 months ago
fake news.

The FBI says that you are very wrong.

Hate crimes in the US rose by 17% in 2017, the third straight year that incidents of bias-motivated attacks have grown, according to the FBI.

Law enforcement agencies reported 7,175 hate crimes last year compared with 6,121 in 2016.

The rise in hate crimes is attributed to an increase of about 1,000 police departments that are now choosing to report these incidents, the FBI says.

The report found the surge especially affected black and Jewish Americans.

Of the reported attacks in 2017, 2,013 were aimed at African Americans and 938 were against Jewish Americans.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker called the report a "call to action" and condemned the offences as "despicable violations of our core values as Americans".

What did the report find?

According to the report , 59.6% of incidents were motivated by bias against race, ethnicity or ancestry.

Crimes motivated by a victim's religion constituted 20.6% of attacks, and crimes against a person's sexual orientation made up 15.8%.

The FBI definition of a hate crime is a "criminal offence 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".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46189391

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.57  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @2.1.56    3 months ago
the third straight year that incidents of bias-motivated attacks have grown, according to the FBI.

this is not some long term overwhelming trend, but fair enough...

I did not mean to imply the likes of obama, the left, antifa, and blm did not increase tensions which produced a lot of violence.   so yeah,,, I agree things turned to shit under obama. who would expect less from a "leftwing nut community organizer...

but luckily, those days are over.   hell, its been yrs now since I took a left shoe off antifa feet.  I kind of miss that... LOL

all in all. things have calmed down a lot. 

  a few yrs from now when we look back 3 or 4 yrs you are going to see those numbers drop.

but then again.....

the left becoming violent and divisive over trumps re-election would not surprise me one bit. 

if they do? im getting more shoes :)

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.58  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.29    3 months ago
I think it’s sad people ignore studies because they don’t fit their prejudices,

He said into the mirror. 

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    3 months ago

Considering the source is Weaselzippers I've gotta call bullshit on this crap.

The real tragedy of any rare misreportings of hate crimes is that they allow the far farfar right wing fascist types and foreign propagandists to impotently try and cast doubt upon the multitudes of legitimate hate crime that are still being committed in America and across the world. Who would wish to do something so despicable? Those racists, sexists, homophobes, the religiously intolerant and xenophobes out there who wish to continue terrorizing minorities with impunity...

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @3    3 months ago

Double check yourself JBB, it's from the WSJ.

Wall Street Journal!

Not to mention the story is certified official. Ya gotta bring it way stronger if you want to blog in the big leagues!

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.2  JBB  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1    3 months ago

It is a lying opinion piece falsely misrepresented as news by Weaselzippers.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.3  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1    3 months ago
Double check yourself JBB, it's from the WSJ.

Wall Street Journal!

Not to mention the story is certified official. Ya gotta bring it way stronger if you want to blog in the big leagues!

He is trying to sell his latest book. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=GcJkDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Wilfred+Reilly%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTyKrBto_jAhXZLs0KHVfrDKMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.4  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @3.1.2    3 months ago

Care to elaborate? 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.5  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  epistte @3.1.3    3 months ago

I'm trying to sell my book too.

It's called "Virtue Signaling is not a political platform".

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.6  JBB  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.4    3 months ago

Check your own source...

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.7  JBB  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.5    3 months ago

Only If you consider hate crimes and their perpetrators to be virtuous...

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.8  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.5    3 months ago
I'm trying to sell my book too. It's called "Virtue Signaling is not a political platform".

I've never understood what virtue signaling is. It seems that conservatives believe that Democrats, liberals, and progressives only fight for equal rights as a way to pander to minorities and to signal that they care about others. That would an example of projection on the part of conservatives own views of how minorities are to be treated. Do you believe that we as a society should not care about the inequalities of others and it is only their fight to earn equal rights?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.9  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @3.1.7    3 months ago

The SPLC is a terrorist inspiring racist and misogynist hate crime in the form of an organization that has been exposed to its core as having sexist and racist issues.  Calling groups or people hate because that group so labels means less than nothing to us. How’s Mr. Dees doing now?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.10  Heartland American  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.4    3 months ago

I can’t wait for this...jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.11  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @3.1.7    3 months ago

There is nothing virtuous about the SPLC...

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.12  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.9    3 months ago
The SPLC is a terrorist inspiring racist and misogynist hate crime in the form of an organization that has been exposed to its core as having sexist and racist issues.  Calling groups or people hate because that group so labels means less than nothing to us. How’s Mr. Dees doing now?  

The SPLC is most famous for attacking the KKK, so how can they possibly be racist?   Should I now assume that you support the KKK and their use of the Christian cross as a symbol of racial terrorism?

When did the SPLC support misogyny or terrorism? Please post links to support this claim.

You dont like the SPLC because they have been successful in opposing your far right Christian agenda and your attempts to trample the rights of others because of your conservative religious beliefs. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.13  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @3.1.12    3 months ago

The fraudulent organization is still living today off of the fumes of the good work they last did decades ago.  I don’t support any white supremacy group as we all know here.  Never have, never will. In fact I openly welcome people of all races, religions, both genders, and all orientations to the GOP and as Trump supporters.  God only knows I’ve seeded enough articles here from all people regardless of race, religion, gender, or orientation who have at least some beliefs or ideas in common with mine.  As to misogyny, take it up with their employees who have exposed it there.  As to terrorist inspiring, people have carried out terrorist acts against individuals and groups wrongly labeled as hate by the real haters here.  Remember the attack on the HQ of the Family Research Council?  I don’t like the SPLC because they are hate filled bigots who defame, slander, and libel others as haters for disagreeing with them on major religious and political issues of the day.  According to the SPLC and their stupid labeling system for stupid people, I am a hater and due to my like for, contributions to, membership in and or affinity toward wear it as a badge of honor.   XXJefferson#51——the best and greatest hater ever even though I hate no one and most everyone around me thinks nicely of me in my real life.  

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.14  MUVA  replied to  epistte @3.1.12    3 months ago

Lately the SPLC have been known for offshoring money and lying about any groups they disagree with politically. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.15  MUVA  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.13    3 months ago

 More than 50 years ago to be exact.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.16  MUVA  replied to  epistte @3.1.8    3 months ago

It is when you believe you are always right and all your beliefs are superior to all other to the point you will not hear any side but yours. Sounds like some you know?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.17  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @3.1.12    3 months ago

As to your last point, the effects of their labeling couldn’t have been better for us.  Look at all the conservative and conservative Christian groups they have defamed.  Almost all of which now have more power in government and influence on government than they ever had before. You know it’s true too as I’ve openly bragged about elsewhere.  We openly mock, and hold up for ridicule those organizations who would use the SPLC designations as a way to limit our role in the media or in government. Guide star got the message and stopped using them and since the scandal broke others are now disassociating themselves from SPLC and their lying hate labels.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.18  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @3.1.3    3 months ago

That is absolutely not true.  The fact is that an African American writer for the Wall St Journal wrote an article and included info to back it up from a book written by a totally different and separate author.  Their only connection is a same sounding but differently spelled last name.  Did you really expect to slip that one by us?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1    3 months ago
it's from the WSJ.

I think you mean "Weasel Zippers" is misrepresenting a WSJ article...starting with the headline.

They seem to have doubled WSJ's number.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.20  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.17    3 months ago
As to your last point, the effects of their labeling couldn’t have been better for us.  Look at all the conservative and conservative Christian groups they have defamed.

Who has the SPLC ever defamed? 

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.21  epistte  replied to  MUVA @3.1.16    3 months ago
It is when you believe you are always right and all your beliefs are superior to all other to the point you will not hear any side but yours. Sounds like some you know?

Are equal rights for all not a morally superior idea or should some people inherently have more constitutional rights and social authority than others? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.22  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @3.1.20    3 months ago
"Who has the SPLC ever defamed?"

LOL. Keep up, epistte:

'About 60 Organizations' Are Considering a Lawsuit Against the SPLC Following $3M Nawaz Settlement

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.23  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.13    3 months ago
"Remember the attack on the HQ of the Family Research Council?"

I guess they'd rather forget that.  Wasn't the attack on a Republican lawmaker when he was taking part in a sports event also blamed on the influence of the SPLC on the attacker?

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.24  MUVA  replied to  epistte @3.1.21    3 months ago

It isn't just those thoughts it is the moral superiority in everything YOU believe is good and everything people you disagree with are bad from religion to climate change to what you eat then toss in your usual hubris.That being said I actually like  the fact you are a gear head and put good arguments.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @3.1.20    3 months ago
Who has the SPLC ever defamed?

On Monday, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) settled a defamation suit filed by Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz, whom the SPLC maligned as an "anti-Muslim extremist."
The SPLC Is In Serious Legal Jeopardy For Defamation ...
pjmedia.com/trending/the-splc-is-in-serious-legal-jeopardy-for-defamation-regarding-its-hate-group

Unless you think it was in the SPLC's best interest to pay someone for something you are asking if they ever did?

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.26  epistte  replied to  MUVA @3.1.24    3 months ago
t isn't just those thoughts it is the moral superiority in everything YOU believe is good and everything people you disagree with are bad from religion to climate change to what you eat then toss in your usual hubris.

That didn't answer my previous question of virtual signaling? I don't care what people eat.

That being said I actually like  the fact you are a gear head and put good arguments.

This is the very definition of damning with faint praise. Thank you.  I like you too,

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.27  MUVA  replied to  epistte @3.1.26    3 months ago

I'm the master of tongue in cheek I mean about 1/3 of what I post but which 1/3?

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.28  cjcold  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1    3 months ago

WSJ is a far right wing publication.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.29  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.25    3 months ago

does that mean they will be calling for donations again? damn I gotta get a new air horn , used the other up on people calling for such crap..

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.30  epistte  replied to  MUVA @3.1.27    3 months ago
I'm the master of tongue in cheek I mean about 1/3 of what I post but which 1/3?

Can I suggest that you are careful of what cheek that you put said tongue in?

FYI.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @3.1.28    3 months ago
WSJ is a far right wing publication.

Not according to the "bible" used on this site.

try again.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.29    3 months ago
does that mean they will be calling for donations again? damn I gotta get a new air horn , used the other up on people calling for such crap..

WHO CAN TELL WITH THOSE NUTJOBS?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.33  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @3.1.20    3 months ago

Each and every socially conservative and evangelical Christian site that they falsely and with full intent toward malice labeled as hate. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.34  Heartland American  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.23    3 months ago

Yes...you are correct.  

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.35  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.33    3 months ago
Each and every socially conservative and evangelical Christian site that they falsely and with full intent toward malice labeled as hate. 

Being criticized isn't libel or hate. You should start to treat others as Jesus taught you to instead of cherry-picking the bible for passages that support your sects intolerant beliefs. Jesus wasn't a bigot. If you wouldn't do it to Jesus then don't do it to someone else either.

Luke 6:31,

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Matthew 7:12

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.36  cjcold  replied to  epistte @3.1.12    3 months ago

Couldn't have said it better. Like vampires, far right wing fascists hate being exposed to the light.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.13    3 months ago
I am a hater and due to my like for, contributions to, membership in and or affinity toward wear it as a badge of honor.

Then WHY do you whine about it ad nauseam? 

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.38  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.33    3 months ago

So how many SPLC designated hate groups are you owned by?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @3.1.12    3 months ago

The SPLC is most famous for attacking the KKK, so how can they possibly be rac

The SPLC was founded by a guy who worked for the KLan, before he realized there was more money to be made preying on the fear of gullible liberals than hoping the Klan paid their bills.  

its like saying “jim baker is a minster, how could he be a crook?”

The SPLC is an amazingly successful con.   exposes  of the SPLC have been printed by numerous left wing journals, but  it doesn’t matter. certain types of liberals need to believe in a ever growing number of “hate groups” , even if the hate group is an antique shop that includes confederate era memorabilia among its wares.

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.40  cjcold  replied to  MUVA @3.1.27    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.41  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @3.1.28    3 months ago

Actually it’s not. It’s editorial position on science issues is perfect.

rightcenter011.png?resize=600%2C67&ssl=1https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/rightcenter011.png?resize=300%2C34&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" style="margin:0px auto;padding:0px;border:0px;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;height:auto;display:block;" > RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

  • Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strongly right biased editorial stance. We also rate them factually Mixed due to anti-climate, anti-science stances and misleading editorials.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

History

Launched in 1889, The Wall Street Journal is an International business newspaper concentrating on finance, investment and corporate news. It is headquartered in New York City. The newspaper was founded   by journalists, Charles Dow, Edward Jones and Charles Bergstresser, together they established the Dow Jones & Company, which led to the founding of the The Wall Street Journal. They also began the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which was invented by Charles Dow and Dow’s editorials led to what became known as “Dow theory” of market analysis. According to The New Yorker  columnist Ken Auletta’s  article on November 3, 2003 and titled “Family Business”, after the death of Charles Dow on December 4, 1902, the company was bought by its Boston correspondent, Clarence Barron. After Barron died in 1928, the new owners were his stepdaughters, Jane and Martha. Jane Barron’s husband, Hugh Bancroft, then took over the Wall Street Journal. He later committed suicide and the company was left to the Journal’s editor, and since that time the Bancroft family has not had an active management role.

Currently, Robert Thomson is the chief executive of News Corp and the WSJ editor-in-chief‎ is ‎ Matt Murray , who  replaced Gerard Baker. According to Politico , Baker faced criticism internally over the paper’s Pro-Trump coverage.    ‎Paul A. Gigot i s the the editorial page editor and Vice President of The Wall Street Journal. He is also a conservative political commentator for Fox News Channel .

Funded by / Ownership

In 2007, The Bancroft family and relatives sold the Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch for $5 billion dollars. Rupert Murdoch also purchased its parent company, Dow Jones & Co. through his company, News Corporation. The WSJ is funded through paid subscriptions and advertising.

Analysis / Bias

The Walls Street Journal hasn’t  endorsed   US political candidates since 1928, however they have been criticized for endorsing far right populist politicians abroad. For example in South America they  all but endorsed far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s presidential election.  They have also written favorably about Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet.  The  WSJ has been strongly criticized for their pro-Trump coverage and according to The Atlantic , there was an alleged conflict about how to cover Trump, resulting in an opinion editor’s departure. 

In review, the WSJ utilizes emotionally loaded language in their editorial headlines that favor the right, such as this: “ Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller  Democratic dilemma: Impeach Trump for lying about sex?”  They also frequently promote anti-climate change messages such as this: “ The Phony War Against CO2.”  Here is another example from an editorial on Trump’s position on climate change “Not the Climate Apocalypse: The EPA’s power rule won’t save coal and won’t poison the planet.”  Further, IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback has cited numerous editorials in which the Wall Street Journal uses very low scientific credibility . The pro-science Climate Science & Policy Watch also has criticized the WSJ for rejection of the 97% consensus of climate scientists . Lastly, The Guardian has an article describing how the WSJ “peddles big oil propaganda,” while “disguising climate misinformation as opinion.”

When reporting regular news the WSJ uses minimally loaded words such as this:  China Agrees to Reduce Tariffs on U.S. Autos.  News articles are also properly sourced to credible media outlets such as the  Financial Times  and  Washington Post.

A factual search reveals that the Wall Street Journal has never failed a fact check regarding news reporting, however, IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback has found numerous inaccuracies in the WSJ editorial department.

Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strongly right biased editorial stance. We also rate them factually Mixed due to anti-climate, anti-science stances and misleading editorials. (7/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/6/2019)

Source: https://www.wsj.com/

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.42  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.31    3 months ago

The Satanic verses...,jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.43  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @3.1.38    3 months ago

I’m not owned by any of them.  Several of the groups I’ve supported before the SPLC engaged in its defamation campaign.  Others I followed because of the SPLC designation because I disagreed with said designation.  There are groups that are universally regarded as hate groups and should be so listed.  When it comes to the social conservative and conservative religious groups that are tagged as so called hate over religious or political disagreement, I wear their label as a badge of honor and pride.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.44  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.4    3 months ago

How 'bout I spell it out yet again for you:  This "study"  is  rightwing tilted B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.45  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  JBB @3.1.2    3 months ago
It is a lying opinion piece falsely misrepresented as news by Weaselzippers.

BF chose to run this through not one but two rightwing pukefunnels to bring this propaganda piece to us. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.46  bugsy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.44    3 months ago
This "study"  is  rightwing tilted B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

Your opinion. Nobody cares...

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.47  cjcold  replied to  bugsy @3.1.46    3 months ago

I do.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.48  Heartland American  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.44    3 months ago

Nice way to have both a sweeping generalization and to get your awful bad language past the language filter. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.48    3 months ago

Labeling a study is not a sweeping generalization.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.50  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.43    3 months ago
I wear their label as a badge of honor and pride.

Whining = honor and pride now. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.51  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @3.1.14    3 months ago
Lately the SPLC have been known for offshoring money and lying about any groups they disagree with politically. 

They got nuthin' on the NRA right now. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.52  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  bugsy @3.1.46    3 months ago
Your opinion. Nobody cares...

Yet you're bothered enough to respond... GOAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.53  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.11    3 months ago

Which suggests you think racism is virtuous.  

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.54  bugsy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.52    3 months ago
GOAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!

Well, that was stupid, but....meh...

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.55  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  bugsy @3.1.54    3 months ago
Well, that was stupid, but....meh...

Another GOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.56  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @3.1.12    3 months ago
The SPLC is most famous for attacking the KKK, so how can they possibly be racist?

because that was then... this is now.   simple.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.57  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @3.1.14    3 months ago
Lately the SPLC have been known for offshoring money and lying about any groups they disagree with politically.

I love the sources* you supplied for that baseless accusation. 

*i.e., NONE AT ALL

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @3    3 months ago

The original source is The Wall St Journal.  It is behind a pay wall.  The fact that another source carried it and linked to it does nothing to impact on its credibility.  

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.1  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @3.2    3 months ago

Only rational thinkers know about credibility. Far right wingers obviously don't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @3.2.1    3 months ago
Only rational thinkers know about credibility. Far right wingers obviously don't.

Aren't you the one who attempted to claim that the WSJ was a far right publication?

LMFAO!!

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.3  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    3 months ago
Aren't you the one who attempted to claim that the WSJ was a far right publication? LMFAO!!

The Wall Street Journal has an obvious conservative bias,

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/

Business types admit that the Wall Street Journal has a conservative bias.

The Wall Street Journal is controlled by Rupert Murdoch via Dow Jones Publications, which in turn is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. Murdoch owns a controlling 39.4% voting stake in both News Corp and 21st Century Fox. News Corp purchased the newspaper for $6 billion in 2007 from the Bancroft family. It is a conservative, business-oriented publication, but it is less overtly political than Murdoch's other major media outlet, Fox News.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112615/wall-street-journal-considered-be-conservative-publisher.asp

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @3.2.3    3 months ago
The Wall Street Journal has an obvious conservative bias,

Well now, that certainly is a far cry from what was claimed--that it is a far right publication. Even MBFC doesn't say that!

Thanks for the link PROVING it, BTW!

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.5  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    3 months ago

The WSJ is actually a far right wing rag.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  cjcold @3.2.5    3 months ago
The WSJ is actually a far right wing rag

Yes, for the OP-ED page. But the news side is pretty good.  It's been doing a good share of calling out Shitbag Trump's lying, criminality and incompetence. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.2.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    3 months ago
LMFAO!!

Texan....if you keep LYFAO you will soon suffer from the incurable affliction known as Noassatall. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

(joking)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  cjcold @3.2.5    3 months ago
The WSJ is actually a far right wing rag.

Riiiight.  Because AMD's earnings are the subject of heated political controversy....  *eyeroll*

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.9  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.8    3 months ago
Riiiight.  Because AMD's earnings are the subject of heated political controversy....  *eyeroll*

Intel is a better investment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @3.2.5    3 months ago
The WSJ is actually a far right wing rag.

Once AGAIN, not according to the "bible" used here.

Keep trying though, I am almost positive someone will believe you!

it just ain't going to be me.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.11  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @3.2.1    3 months ago

Two sentences, two sweeping generalizations. jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Raven Wing @3.2.7    3 months ago

As well as whatever brain condition results from her constant "SHMFH"

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.13  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @3.2    3 months ago
The fact that another source carried it and linked to it does nothing to impact on its credibility.  

It does, however, raise the question that rightwing shithole WZ violated the copyright laws by disseminating the entire piece.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.4    3 months ago

Your ability to either change what was claimed or deliberately confuse who claimed it  in order to ignore or pretend you did get proof or facts is as remarkable as it is consistent.  Episette wasn't the one who claimed it was "far right" but that the WSJ had "obvious" conservative bias and you knew that.  Yet you still tried to brazen   From the site episette used to corroborate her claim:

384

You've pretty much emptied your  trick bag for evading, confabulating, misrepresenting, deflecting, diverting  and  just being generally deceitful.  You've branded yourself and are easy pickins' now, Tex.  It's gonna be a rough ride so hang on tight. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    3 months ago

Let me try and inject some reasoned common sense into this article. 

I read the full Wall St Journal article from which the right wing site Weasel Zippers excerpted a few paragraphs.

This paragraph from the seeded article contains ALL of the statistical information given in the Wall St. Journal article. 

Mr. Reilly eventually compiled a database of 346 hate-crimeallegations and determined that less than a third were genuine. Turning his attention to the hoaxes, he put together a data set of more than 400 confirmed cases of fake allegations that were reported to authorities between 2010 and 2017. He allows that the exact number of false reports is probably unknowable, but what can be said "with absolute confidence is that the actual number of hate crime hoaxes is indisputably large," he writes. "We are not speaking here of just a few bad apples."

Ok.  What do we see? 

Mr. Reilly eventually compiled a database of 346 hate-crime allegations and determined that less than a third were genuine. 

Where do these 346 cases come from ? What were the circumstances? The demographics involved?  No word in the seed. 

According to the FBI there were 7,100 hate crimes reported in 2018 . https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/us/hate-crimes-fbi-2017.html

The author in the seed is cherry picking something, but what?  The article doesn't tell us. 

He then says there are a lot of hate crime hoaxes, but then doesnt tell us what the percentage is , and again what were the circumstances or the demographics. 

What the seed represents is an allegation without any particular evidence or even explanation. 

We are supposed to believe the article is accurate , and meaningful, because...........because? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 months ago

I was going to reply to number 4 but it was deleted and more added to it’s reposting above.  The seed author is an African American Wall St Journal writer, Jason Riley who along with DeRoy Murdock are among their best writers.  The book the Riley article quotes from is by a Mr. Reilly.  Are you referring to the African American article writer or the author of the book that the author of the article quotes from.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Heartland American @5.1    3 months ago

I am referring to the statistics that are quoted in the seed.  Who cares by the way, if the Wall St. Journal writer is black? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Heartland American @5.1    3 months ago

XX, there were over 7000 hate crimes reported in one year, 2018,  yet the article tells us that the author examined a "data base" of 346 cases and determined that only 1/3 of them were legitimate.  What happened to the other thousands of cases?  What was the criteria for looking only at these 346?   The seeded article provides no explanation whatsoever. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.3  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    3 months ago

I see Jussies. Jussies everywhere...

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.3    3 months ago
I see Jussies. Jussies everywhere...

You have yet to dispute anything that John said at all.
Are you going to try or should we move on?

 
 
 
cjcold
5.1.5  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    3 months ago
What was the criteria

It's called cherry picking. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.6  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    3 months ago

Since the article is about hate crime hoaxes the info is important so that no one associated with the article or defending it can have the race card played on them by some virtue signaling social justice warrior.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.7  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.3    3 months ago
I see Jussies. Jussies everywhere...

Confession noted.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    3 months ago
Who cares by the way, if the Wall St. Journal writer is black? 

That's much less important than it comes from an editorial writer on the notorious rightwing WSJ opinion page.  You don't get that job from being liberal.  

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.6    3 months ago
Since the article is about hate crime hoaxes the info is important so that no one associated with the article or defending it can have the race card played on them by some virtue signaling social justice warrior.

Well gee Xx, unlike you, most social justice warriors know that hate crimes are not limited to RACE. 

Secondly, since you state the 'info is important' why not post the WHOLE article from the WSJ instead of just the part in the seed? 

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 months ago

Just more far right wing lying propaganda.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @5.2    3 months ago

Just more far left wing hysteria.

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.1    3 months ago

When fighting far right wing fascism/Trumpism, logic rules. Science rules. Ignorance sucks.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.3  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @5.2.2    3 months ago

science as described by those who self label as pro science truly sucks.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2.4  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.3    3 months ago

So science over ignorance is a bad thing? Best you shoot your computer and [Deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.2.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.3    3 months ago
science as described by those who self label as pro science truly sucks.

It's far too late for you to claim you now trust science, XX.  Cherry-picking what you consider science just reveals the lengths you will go [Deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.1    3 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.3    3 months ago
science as described by those who self label as pro science truly sucks.  

What on Earth are you trying to state now?     Science is a single thing — a method for advancing our understanding of the reality we occupy.    Do you dislike the fact that science is based on critical thinking?   That it demonstrates the Earth is 4.54 billion years old as part of a 13.77 billion year old universe and that human beings are the product of biochemical evolution (as are all other life forms) and that all the spectacular bodies and dynamics in the cosmos is the result of cosmological evolution?   That we know how stars form by accretion and how they produce heavier elements (like Carbon) that are distributed upon the death of the star and are later part of a biochemical evolutionary process that produces life forms?

What would prompt someone to declare that science sucks?      jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Is it because science contradicts the nonsense of the Bible such as a worldwide flood, a 6,000 year old Earth or the creation story(ies)?

800

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.8  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @5.2.4    3 months ago

I stand by my statement in full.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.9  Heartland American  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5.2.5    3 months ago

I trust science.  I despise the whole concept of the term pro science consensus as described by its creators. Science that excludes other ideas outside it’s so called consensus is not true scientific inquiry but a clique made up of hate filled bigots.  

 
 
 
epistte
5.2.10  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.9    3 months ago
I trust science.  I despise the whole concept of the term pro science consensus as described by its creators.

You have never supported science when it disagrees with your very conservative religious beliefs.  Nobody created science. Science is a method for determining fact.

Science that excludes other ideas outside it’s so called consensus is not true scientific inquiry but a clique made up of hate filled bigots.  

What are the ideas that are outside the consensus of true scientific inquiry? 

Who are these hate-filled bigots?

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2.11  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.9    3 months ago
I trust science.

Obviously you don't. You are a anthropogenic global warming denier.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.9    3 months ago
I trust science.  

You do not have to trust science, you can be persuaded that science works by using facts and reason.    

I despise the whole concept of the term pro science consensus as described by its creators.

What are you talking about?   People can abuse science by twisting its findings or faking results, but science itself is a method (along with the findings of said method).

Science that excludes other ideas outside it’s so called consensus is not true scientific inquiry but a clique made up of hate filled bigots.  

'So called' consensus?   Are you serious?   Sounds like sour grapes from one who wishes the pseudo-science nonsense of organizations such as AiG, Creation Institute, etc. was simply accepted without normal scientific scrutiny.   No matter how much you wish your pro-religious pseudo-science will be recognized as true science, the scientific method is not going to change from critical thinking and solid evidence to accommodate your religious desires.   Put forth real science rather than wishful thinking and beliefs based on incredulity.

… a clique made up of hate filled bigots.

Yeah, the flat-Earthers are conspiracy theorists too.   Welcome to their nonsense club.


Patience ends with stubborn, endless willful ignorance.    Patience ends with aggressive confirmation bias.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @5.2.2    3 months ago
When fighting far right wing fascism/Trumpism, logic rules. Science rules. Ignorance sucks.

Gotta hand it to you--you are kind of entertaining.

Haven't seen you fight a thing, though.

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2.14  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.13    3 months ago

Earned my first black belt at 16. Spent 10 years as a bouncer in some rough clubs. You really don't want to see me fight.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @5.2.14    3 months ago
Earned my first black belt at 16. Spent 10 years as a bouncer in some rough clubs. You really don't want to see me fight.

Tough internet keyboard warriors always scare the bejabbers out of me.

/s

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @5.2.14    3 months ago

Which martial art and style?

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.17  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @5.2.10    3 months ago

Anyone who uses that term to silence or label people or sites who view science differently and question the consensus mob mentality.  I am and proudly stand by all that is labeled by the intolerant them pseudoscience.  Creation, the flood, angels, man caused climate change denial.  I openly mock the pro science consensus to the faces of those who advocate for it as it’s used and defined.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.18  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @5.2.11    3 months ago

And proudly so.  I am pro literal six day creation, believe that the global flood actually happened, believe that angels are real messengers of God, created by Him.  Global warming is a hoax and man caused climate change is a fraud perpetrated upon the world by the closed minded bigots who call themselves the pro science consensus.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.19  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.15    3 months ago

Nothing like bragging about ones fighting skills to a guy pushing near to 60 years old.  

 
 
 
epistte
5.2.20  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.17    3 months ago
Anyone who uses that term to silence or label people or sites who view science differently and question the consensus mob mentality.  I am and proudly stand by all that is labeled by the intolerant them pseudoscience.  Creation, the flood, angels, man caused climate change denial.  I openly mock the pro science consensus to the faces of those who advocate for it as it’s used and defined.  

Is this your idea of  trusting science? You still have no learned that you cannot redefine words to fit your unsupported opinions.

I trust science.
 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.18    3 months ago
And proudly so.  

Why?   You hold beliefs simply because other human beings told you they were true.   No evidence whatsoever, just claims by human beings.   In what can one take pride?

I am pro literal six day creation, …

Because of the Bible?   An errant, self-contradicting book conceived, written (and modified) by ancient men over thousands of years?   

… believe that the global flood actually happened,  …

In direct contradiction of geological evidence to the contrary.   In direct contradiction to basic logic (administration of all those animals).    In direct contradiction to modern engineering (an ark, as constructed, could not possibly be seaworthy).    And, finally, support for a god that would kill all living creatures (not just human beings, but all life except ... oddly ... for water dwelling life) because of the failings of the human beings alone.   Human beings, by the way, that He ostensibly created and over whom has absolute control.

… believe that angels are real messengers of God, created by Him.  

The angel concept is an adaptation of the lesser gods of the even more ancient mythologies.   They are angels because of the marketing desire to have a monotheistic religion so as to have the most powerful god.    ( My god can beat up your god. )    So instead of being lesser gods (like Mercury) they are angels.    

Global warming is a hoax …

Except that it is demonstrably real.  jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

… and man caused climate change is a fraud perpetrated upon the world by the closed minded bigots who call themselves the pro science consensus.  

You actually deny that our actions have no negative impact on the climate?    Based on what … the Bible?

 
 
 
JBB
5.2.22  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.21    3 months ago

When fundamentalists embrace a literal interpretation of the Bible they are proclaiming that contrary to all evidence, logic and reason they literally hold unconditional belief in the most simple minded explanations possible for the ancient writings of ancient men. As if they are complete literal incontrovertible truths in spite of or despite all cantravening evidence.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.2.23  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.21    3 months ago

When it comes to faith, non believers debating with believers and vice versa is truly a fools errand.

Some have a strong faith in the scientifically unprovable.   Some don't.

No point to debating it because generally speaking, you aren't going to change the faithfuls views and they're not going to change folks opinion with a lack thereof.

Fools errand ......

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.24  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.23    3 months ago

Stating facts is never a fools errand. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.2.25  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @5.2.24    3 months ago

Thanks for more empirical data.

It's collecting in massive proportions here on NT.

Keep it up!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.2.26  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.8    3 months ago
I stand by my statement in full.  

And we're so grateful you do.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.23    3 months ago

I never expect to change the position of the person I am debating.    Especially if the views are outrageously in conflict with well established facts.   Rather, I am opposing the nonsense for the dialectic.   To have the positions and claims out on the table along with their rebuttals.

In short, it is for the readers, not the debate opponent.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.2.28  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.27    3 months ago

As a person with a technical background i am intimately familiar with the scientific method to problem solving.   Use it every day.   However, attempting to apply that to something that is by definition "not provable" is the nonsensical approach IMO.   And yet many non believers are found wanting, looking down their intellectual noses as it were. towards people of faith.

A place and a time for everything.   Trying to define faith, using a scientific method, is not rational and yet many fall back on that to defend their specific lack of faith.   It makes no sense.   Asking for proof of the unprovable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.28    3 months ago
Trying to define faith, using a scientific method, is not rational and yet many fall back on that to defend their specific lack of faith. 

Is that what you think I am doing?   Trying to define faith using the scientific method??   Well, no, that is not it at all.

I am countering faith-based 'truth'.    When someone claims, for example, that biochemical evolution is pseudo-science I will counter that.   Doing so is not defining faith, it is rejecting faith as a source for accurate truth and arguing that the far better and demonstrable method for approximating truth about our reality is the scientific method.

Asking for proof of the unprovable.

Where do you find me ever asking people to prove their beliefs?   Never.   From me, it is always a challenge to put forth a solid supporting argument based on facts (evidence) and reason (sound logic).

So if someone claims that global warming is a hoax I will most certainly challenge that.   You would too, right?    Same with claims of a 6,000 year old Earth.   You, I presume, agree that this nonsense is bad to teach to the next generation?

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.2.30  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.29    3 months ago
I am countering faith-based 'truth'. 

You counter it based on what?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.30    3 months ago
You counter it based on what?

Read the next sentence:

TiG @5.2.29 When someone claims, for example, that biochemical evolution is pseudo-science I will counter that.   Doing so is not defining faith, it is rejecting faith as a source for accurate truth and arguing that the far better and demonstrable method for approximating truth about our reality is the scientific method.

Scientific findings for biochemical evolution are among the highest cross-verified of all science.   Biochemical evolution is as close to a fact as science can get.   (For example.)

If someone claims that global warming is a hoax I will most certainly challenge that.   You would too, right?    Same with claims of a 6,000 year old Earth.   You, I presume, agree that this nonsense is bad to teach to the next generation?    Teaching that human beings coexisted with dinosaurs, for example (like in the Flintstones)?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6  JohnRussell    3 months ago
Hoaxes are not tracked formally, but the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, said that of an estimated 21,000 hate crime cases between 2016 and 2018, fewer than 50 reports were found to be false. The center believes that less than 1 percent of all reported hate crimes are false.

But such false reports can play an outsize role in undermining the credibility of real bias victims and anti-hate efforts. In the aftermath of Mr. Smollett’s arrest, one lawmaker has even promised to draft a bill increasing the penalty for filing false hate crime reports.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/fake-hate-crimes.html

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    3 months ago

It is absolutely amazing how many off topic comments there are on this seed. 

Very very few of the 72 comments addressed the purported points made in the seeded article. Shaking my head. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 months ago

I enjoy responding to ridiculous propaganda with "off topic comments".

According to Stormy Daniels about 2/3's of her orgasms are fake.  She claims that 100% of her orgasms with The Donald were fake news.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
7.2.1  cjcold  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2    3 months ago

Damn Sandy! I wanted to read the rest of it!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    3 months ago

I'm enjoying how the seeder uses the notorious and self-admitted ("Scouring the bowels of the internet") rightwing pukefunnel outlet Weaselzippers site to bring this big load of BS to TNT.  Seems both the WSJ and the bowel scraper decided to keep  using Jussie Smollett as the case-in-point somehow forgetting that all charges of committing a hoax were dropped against him.  But the intent is clear:  Make the unsupported and racist implication that minorities, particularly blacks, make up the vast majority of  these hoaxes when there was no such evidence presented in the actual article.  

In fact, we all know that one of the biggest and continuing  hoaxes of this type come from white racists who constantly stoke fear of black-on-white crime by faking (i.e., hoaxing) the stats.  Of course we all remember one of the most famous cases of this was the white SC mother (Susan Smith) who tried to blame black men for murdering her two young children.  That has been a  standard tactic by whites for generations and it often worked.   But there's even a more interesting event of a race based hoax in the case of the beating and rape of a white jogger in Central Park.  Five young black men were arrested and soon after a leading citizen of that city was calling for them to be put to death before a trial even began.  All five were later exonerated by DNA evidence but that citizen never admitted his egregiously racist pre-judgment much less retract any of his statements.  That disgusting citizen is none other than Donald J. "Shitbag" Trump.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1  Heartland American  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @9    3 months ago

You do realize that the author of the Wall St. Journal article the seed is about is himself African American?  And that his interest in exposing the hoaxes is so that more attention can be placed upon the real instances of hate crime that do need to be addressed and fully prosecuted?  

 
 
 
Dulay
10  Dulay    3 months ago
You do realize that the author of the Wall St. Journal article the seed is about is himself African American?

Point? 

And that his interest in exposing the hoaxes is so that more attention can be placed upon the real instances of hate crime that do need to be addressed and fully prosecuted?

What is your evidence of that claim Xx? 

 
 
 
cjcold
10.1  cjcold  replied to  Dulay @10    3 months ago

Cornhusker for Palin needs no evidence or proof; [Deleted]

 
 
 
Heartland American
10.1.1  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @10.1    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 months ago

Can't wait to see how Fish and other righwingers explain this "fake hate crime"  away:

A black principal, four white teens and the ‘senior prank’ that became a hate crime

Anyone want to take bets these over-privileged white boys aren't going get a pass on this?  I expect they'll put on their sad faces and say they didn't really mean it and the judge will note what good families they come from and how unfair it would be to let this bit of mischief ruin their college dreams, etc., etc., etc.  You know, the same way black kids would be treated for doing the same thing.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

CB
igknorantzrulz
Drakkonis
Sean Treacy
cjfrommn
WallyW
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
squiggy
GaJenn78
arkpdx


38 visitors