Should Hate Crime Hoaxes be a Hate Crime in and of itself? (Reagan, nativist)

[chucksnee]

It depends....if you are against trump, then it's all good...just look at the current jussie case.....they have been saying, well, it could happen....all because of trump....


Now, if you're for trump....well, then hell yea, hate crime all the way, throw him in jail.....no need for a trial....

[travis t]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Hoaxes, based upon thousands of real crimes a year are probably 1% of the total.

(That's not counting the more minor stuff going on like two dudes yelling racial slurs at each other over a parking spot in Philly....or the girl caught cheating on the SAT exam claiming racism for her scores getting flagged.)

Clearly it is not a huge amount but it's not just something to casually dismiss either for obvious reasons.

A more sobering number is that the racial breakdown for hate crimes is about 2.5-3.0 times more white offenders than black, but the population differential is 6x. Something to point out when people claim that hate crimes are some invention just to target white people with.

Now, consider that people here use the 3300 white hate crimes to try to somehow represent the 40million or whatever number that voted for Trump probably should consider how they're not being any fairer than using 1% hoaxes to try to claim it's more widespread than it is.

where do you come up with the 1% estimate?

In fact it's impossible to know what the percentage of hoax vs. real hate crimes might be, because a)inherent in the hoax is the effort to conceal the true nature of an event, so we don't know how many hoaxes occur; b) most minor hate crimes (e.g. racial slur over parking space) go unreported, so we don't know that number either.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by travis t

I don't really like the term Alt-right. Do you have a good working definition for it? If not, why are you even using it? Those who use words they can't define literally don't know what they're talking about.

I asked for a definition--that's not even close to a definition. Given this, there's no way to determine whether someone is or is not 'alt-right.'

If you asked me to define 'socialism,' for example, I'd say "government ownership of the means of production." That makes it easy to determine whether someone is a socialist. Using your standard of 'socialist,' the answer might be something like:

'Sociaiism' is perfectly expressed by FDR in 'social security.' But it's mostly about lies.' It's the people financed by Soros.

Now does that distinguish who is a socialist and who isn't? No way.

Care to try again for a working definition of 'alt-right?'

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by travis t

where do you come up with the 1% estimate?

In fact it's impossible to know what the percentage of hoax vs. real hate crimes might be, because a)inherent in the hoax is the effort to conceal the true nature of an event, so we don't know how many hoaxes occur; b) most minor hate crimes (e.g. racial slur over parking space) go unreported, so we don't know that number either.

For starters, calling someone a racial slur is not a minor hate crime, we can call it something but probably shouldn't be attaching hate crime to it unless they're also hitting them in the head with an axe at the same time. I 100% agree with you that if we open up the discussion to "rude racist offenses" then who the heck knows.

Well, we have had people post up a list of "402 fake hate crimes" and that is over several years. (Not all of those are hate crimes but meh, close enough)

We have 3000+ or so hate crimes annually where the race of the offender is white plus a number unknown.

Now there are going to be some hate crimes that never get solved and of course some of those and other claims are "inconclusive" like some of the ones that claim someone left a racist note on a tip but then after getting the publicity don't reveal the offenders name because that's been done before and the offender has proven they were lying.

So, calling it about 1% with regards to hate crimes might be a little generous but we're in the ballpark.
If someone wants to refute it as being higher then they're going to need to dig up *a lot* more hoaxes.

Side note: I'm a little annoyed at the people claiming that fake hate crime hoaxes are super rare etc. just because minorities are on the hot seat over it now. Anyone that is older and has paid attention knows of a LITANNY of fake crap that people have tried to pin on "some black guy"...essentially the same dang crap just pulled the other direction.

Famous Milwaukee doctor case for example "Black home invader killed my wife". When he got caught in the lie there were major riots. This was back around 1980-90 timeframe.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by travis t

I asked for a definition--that's not even close to a definition. Given this, there's no way to determine whether someone is or is not 'alt-right.'

If you asked me to define 'socialism,' for example, I'd say "government ownership of the means of production." That makes it easy to determine whether someone is a socialist. Using your standard of 'socialist,' the answer might be something like:
Now does that distinguish who is a socialist and who isn't? No way.

Care to try again for a working definition of 'alt-right?'

Except - Socialism as used today BY the Alt-Right is differently defined, therefore my "alternative facts" apply to even your example. You are not alt-right unless you:

1. Say that Europe is socialist.
2. Say that having universal health care is socialist.
3. Say that the Left in this country is socialist.

If you define it as we leaned in school...which is really closer to the Russian older example (Tractor Factory #33) and Chinese example(s), then it's somewhat accurate.

Do me a flavor. Look through these forums and tell me what percentage (approx) of those using the word socialism have it right? My take is almost zero....which means those spouting it are "alt-right".

The term is not something decades ago from Political Science. It was made up by a neo-nazi (National Socialist, I guess?) who used it as a rallying cry for Charlottesville and the like. Bannon and his billionaire friends took it up and ran with it.

Now it basically means "anything goes".....any conspiracy of anything their paid-for echo chambers tell them to repeat.

I wish I could provide a better definition but since it's purely propaganda and a "mongrel" of a term, there isn't one.

Maybe in 20 years it will worm it's way into Political science.

I don't see any "new" movements of any type. Alt-Right is the same stuff that has been going on for at least 150+ years....The "know-nothings" to the KKK to the Nativists. It's a scapegoating type of a viewpoint.

The big difference today is the enhanced communication and the vast billions in funding being put behind this propaganda (see Citizens United).

[craigiri]

Putting "hate crimes" in perspective...since we have started this thread:

16,000 people in the USA have died from Opiates.
15,000 people in the USA have died from Suicide.

It sorta makes you wonder why the fascination with this...by percentage....tiny end of the misbehaving spectrum.

How many kids lied to their parents today? How many husbands to their wives?

I'd say this topic is closer to that last sentence than to the other REAL problems we have.

I may be far left by I am not (in my soul) politically correct. I am civic, polite and a gentleman. I am non-violent...and I try to tell the truth, although not if it isn't kind, helpful or needed (not going to tell someone "hey, that pimple got MUCH bigger since yesterday)....

There are many issues where everyone (or at least most everyone) is correct. Most of us are programmed.....to be racist. Most of us, at least those of more years, have said, done or thought many racist and bigoted things. These may be against other ethic groups, fat people, skinny people, hairy people or any number of other things.

Hate crimes and uncivil dialog is really just a indicator. It's what is behind it all that matters, not the counting of how many reports there are.

[Eumaois]

Hard to say on it a hate crime unto itself, but it should carry the same sentence if not more because person made it up.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by hooligan

Should it be a crime? Yes. I would assume it already is in most places - whether it is prosecuted or not is another question.


Should it be a hate crime? No.

This.

When assessing whether an act constitutes a hate crime, one always must look at the intent behind the act. If it was motivated by prejudice toward a certain immutable characteristic like race, then it could be classified as a hate crime.

Here, the dude wanted more money, so he faked a crime. So it’s not a hate crime. If he did it purely because hated white people, it MIGHT be a different story, but the second problem is there was no victim. If he tried to frame innocent people based on their race, then we might have something. But this is just garden variety fraud to me, with the interesting twist of using political and racial divisions as a tool to try to manipulate a situation.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by Eumaois

Hard to say on it a hate crime unto itself, but it should carry the same sentence if not more because person made it up.

I'd agree that if the hoax involved extensive LE resources and especially if it involves violence or well faked violence - then it should surely be prosecuted. My guess is there are already laws on the books to do so...BUT, if this catches on (everyone wants attention today - since we have a Reality TV Actor as POTUS, it sets the bar low).....then some examples need to be made.

As with most crimes it's a question of the harm done. No need to overreact - throw the book at a few of 'em and others are likely to choose a different path for their 15 minutes of fame.

[branDcalf]

I say "yes." Though I find the designation "hate crime" to be unnecessary.

But if we're going to have that, then hoaxes most often "hate crimes," too.