Op/Ed New Study Finds 2 In 3 “Hate Crimes” Are Hoaxes…
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
Who is online
39 visitors
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.
These claims read like something from the site "Moonbattery"
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...
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.
Only rational thinkers know about credibility. Far right wingers obviously don't.
The Wall Street Journal has an obvious conservative bias,
Business types admit that the Wall Street Journal has a conservative bias.
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.
Texan....if you keep LYFAO you will soon suffer from the incurable affliction known as Noassatall.
(joking)
Riiiight. Because AMD's earnings are the subject of heated political controversy.... *eyeroll*
Intel is a better investment.
Two sentences, two sweeping generalizations.
As well as whatever brain condition results from her constant "SHMFH"
It does, however, raise the question that rightwing shithole WZ violated the copyright laws by disseminating the entire piece.
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:
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.
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.
Ok. What do we see?
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 .
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?
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.
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?
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.
You have yet to dispute anything that John said at all.
Are you going to try or should we move on?
It's called cherry picking.
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.
[Deleted]
Confession noted.
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.
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?
Just more far right wing lying propaganda.
When fighting far right wing fascism/Trumpism, logic rules. Science rules. Ignorance sucks.
science as described by those who self label as pro science truly sucks. [Deleted]
So science over ignorance is a bad thing? Best you shoot your computer and [Deleted]
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]
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?
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)?
I stand by my statement in full.
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.
You have never supported science when it disagrees with your very conservative religious beliefs. Nobody created science. Science is a method for determining fact.
What are the ideas that are outside the consensus of true scientific inquiry?
Who are these hate-filled bigots?
Obviously you don't. You are a anthropogenic global warming denier.
You do not have to trust science, you can be persuaded that science works by using facts and reason.
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).
'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.
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.
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.
Which martial art and style?
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.
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.
Nothing like bragging about ones fighting skills to a guy pushing near to 60 years old.
Is this your idea of trusting science? You still have no learned that you cannot redefine words to fit your unsupported opinions.
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?
Because of the Bible? An errant, self-contradicting book conceived, written (and modified) by ancient men over thousands of years?
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.
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.
Except that it is demonstrably real.
You actually deny that our actions have no negative impact on the climate? Based on what … the Bible?
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.
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 ......
Stating facts is never a fools errand.
Thanks for more empirical data.
It's collecting in massive proportions here on NT.
Keep it up!
And we're so grateful you do.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You counter it based on what?
Read the next sentence:
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)?
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.
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]
Damn Sandy! I wanted to read the rest of it!
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.
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?
Point?
What is your evidence of that claim Xx?
Cornhusker for Palin needs no evidence or proof; [Deleted]
[Deleted]
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.