Pages

Jump to bottom

16 comments

1 FemNaziBitch  Fri, Jan 17, 2014 3:14:15pm

How do you write *warning, this article will piss-you off, make you cry and pound the walls*

concisely so it can be tweeted along with article’s URL?

2 reverundbacon  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 4:03:45pm

How do you write “let’s withhold judgment, shall we? Every last one of these things that got any press has turned out to be a hoax. See Agoura Hills High, or Lunenburg High, or Vassar, or Franklin
Parrish, LA, or Oberlin, just to name 5.

3 wrenchwench  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 4:37:22pm

re: #2 reverundbacon

Greetings, hatchling.

How do you write “let’s withhold judgment, shall we? Every last one of these things that got any press has turned out to be a hoax. See Agoura Hills High, or Lunenburg High, or Vassar, or Franklin
Parrish, LA, or Oberlin, just to name 5.

Do you have links to any of those?

4 reverundbacon  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 4:39:39pm

re: #3 wrenchwench

I do- not sure I can post links here, so I gave you enough info to find them yourself. Will try in next post to link, otherwise google “hate crime hoax” and iteratively append each of the 5.

5 wrenchwench  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 4:43:41pm

re: #4 reverundbacon

I do- not sure I can post links here, so I gave you enough info to find them yourself. Will try in next post to link, otherwise google “hate crime hoax” and iteratively append each of the 5.

Just paste a link in the box, it will work.

6 reverundbacon  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 4:48:38pm
7 reverundbacon  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 4:54:13pm

re: #5 wrenchwench

In the process of finding your links, I discovered this interesting site:

fakehatecrimes.org. It appears to list things in reverse chronological order. Last one on this list is #187, from Christmas Eve of 2013. I can’t vouch for its accuracy nor completeness nor lack of editorial bias. Still, worth a look. Check it out.

8 wrenchwench  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 5:12:44pm

re: #7 reverundbacon

In the process of finding your links, I discovered this interesting site:

fakehatecrimes.org. It appears to list things in reverse chronological order. Last one on this list is #187, from Christmas Eve of 2013. I can’t vouch for its accuracy nor completeness nor lack of editorial bias. Still, worth a look. Check it out.

It looks like there were maybe a dozen fake hate crimes last year, and about 5 or 6 thousand real ones (assuming 2013 is similar to previous years). Why do people collect the fake ones in a list? Well, I know why Michelle Malkin does.

9 Blue Fielder  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 7:05:28pm

re: #6 reverundbacon

You.
Have GOT.
To be shitting me.

Those are your sources? You’re yanking our chain - nobody could make it that obvious they were a RWNJ and not realize it.

10 reverundbacon  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:10:03pm

re: #9 Blue Fielder

This is what’s known as an “ad hominem” argument. It’s essentially a “shoot the messenger” strategy. You don’t like the source that proves some point, so you attack the source. Don’t bother to dispute the facts, because you can’t. It might make you feel better because others of your ilk also don’t like that source, and you can change the subject from the facts to the source. But you can’t change the facts.

What should disturb you is that so many sources that you and your ilk would love jumped on all those stories until they turned out to be hoaxes. Then, just silence. No “oops, we were wrong.” Just a group prayer that the whole thing would fall down the memory hole. And, in the MSM’s world, it usually does.

11 reverundbacon  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:35:18pm

re: #8 wrenchwench

It would seem you are comparing anecdotes compiled by some blogger with no good window on aggregate statistics, with aggregate reports from an official agency.

To compare apples to apples, you’d need to choose your milieu, and investigate. One could choose the entire universe of reported hate crimes, for which the DoJ link you cite might be a good proxy. But then, one would have to actually examine which of those turned out to be hoaxes and which did not. Further, one would have to look at all the crimes that didn’t make the DoJ’s list for one reason or another. Which points up the ridiculous nature of hate crime laws: they are essentially a thought-crime enhancement to an actual crime, and they are enforced quite unevenly.

An easier task would be to focus on the anecdotes: look at all the ones that got significant news coverage, and see how many of them were hoaxes. This of course has its own problems, because there is bias in what makes them newsworthy. For example, I would argue that Mona Nelson’s crime (theconservativetreehouse.com) should have been newsworthy, but it got far less coverage than the Lunenberg High hoax, which wasn’t a capital crime but simple vandalism.

Perhaps the most objective metric is one I can’t find: how many times did the FBI send its elite “hate crimes unit” to investigate? and of those times, how many were found to be either “not a hate crime,” (like Matthew Shepard’s gruesome murder, which turned out to have been a drug-related event and the perp may have been bisexual) or an out-and-out lie, like Sharmeka Moffitt. That would be a meaningful metric, but it probably won’t be revealed to the public. The reasons for that, we are left to speculate.

12 wrenchwench  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:37:04pm

re: #10 reverundbacon

This is what’s known as an “ad hominem” argument. It’s essentially a “shoot the messenger” strategy. You don’t like the source that proves some point, so you attack the source. Don’t bother to dispute the facts, because you can’t. It might make you feel better because others of your ilk also don’t like that source, and you can change the subject from the facts to the source. But you can’t change the facts.

What should disturb you is that so many sources that you and your ilk would love jumped on all those stories until they turned out to be hoaxes. Then, just silence. No “oops, we were wrong.” Just a group prayer that the whole thing would fall down the memory hole. And, in the MSM’s world, it usually does.

So why are 12 fake incidents significant compared to 5,000 real ones?

I also don’t like your sources. (Malkin is a racist, Fox News is an enabler, and when I Googled that .org you mentioned, the third link was to Stormfront.) What ilk does that make me?

13 wrenchwench  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:42:53pm

re: #11 reverundbacon

It would seem you are comparing anecdotes compiled by some blogger with no good window on aggregate statistics, with aggregate reports from an official agency.

To compare apples to apples, you’d need to choose your milieu, and investigate. One could choose the entire universe of reported hate crimes, for which the DoJ link you cite might be a good proxy. But then, one would have to actually examine which of those turned out to be hoaxes and which did not. Further, one would have to look at all the crimes that didn’t make the DoJ’s list for one reason or another. Which points up the ridiculous nature of hate crime laws: they are essentially a thought-crime enhancement to an actual crime, and they are enforced quite unevenly.

An easier task would be to focus on the anecdotes: look at all the ones that got significant news coverage, and see how many of them were hoaxes. This of course has its own problems, because there is bias in what makes them newsworthy. For example, I would argue that Mona Nelson’s crime (theconservativetreehouse.com) should have been newsworthy, but it got far less coverage than the Lunenberg High hoax, which wasn’t a capital crime but simple vandalism.

Perhaps the most objective metric is one I can’t find: how many times did the FBI send its elite “hate crimes unit” to investigate? and of those times, how many were found to be either “not a hate crime,” (like Matthew Shepard’s gruesome murder, which turned out to have been a drug-related event and the perp may have been bisexual) or an out-and-out lie, like Sharmeka Moffitt. That would be a meaningful metric, but it probably won’t be revealed to the public. The reasons for that, we are left to speculate.

You use Malkin as a source, you think hate crime laws are ridiculous, and you think anecdotes are more valuable than statistics. I’ve lost interest. Good night.

14 reverundbacon  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:49:58pm

re: #13 wrenchwench

Don’t know much about Malkin, or care— pick a different source. Many Liberals (the intelligent ones— Aaron Sorkin, for example) think hate crime laws are ridiculous. And I don’t prefer anecdotes to statistics, I said one needs to compare apples to apples. My preferred metric, which I can’t find, is a statistic. Go back and read that. You compared 12 anecdotes to 5000 statistics. That’s meaningless. If the DoJ really had our backs, they’d insist that law enforcement compiled stats on both. It would be trivial for them to release their own stats, based on the FBI’s (part of DoJ) Hate Crimes Unit’s experience over a year. But they don’t. Why?

15 palomino  Sat, Jan 18, 2014 10:11:31pm

re: #2 reverundbacon

How do you write “let’s withhold judgment, shall we? Every last one of these things that got any press has turned out to be a hoax. See Agoura Hills High, or Lunenburg High, or Vassar, or Franklin
Parrish, LA, or Oberlin, just to name 5.

Every last one is a hoax? So there are no hate crimes where gays, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc. are targeted? Bullshit. Tell that to the families of the five black people killed only due to their race in Tulsa last year by two white guys. Or tell it to the family of the black guy in TX who was dragged behind a pickup by two white guys til his head was ripped off.

Maybe we should get rid of hate crimes laws. Or maybe we should extend their applicability more to crimes where white straight Christians are the victims. I don’t know. But if you’re gonna hyperbolize and try to argue that they are all hoaxes, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

And please, tell me more about how difficult it is to be white, male and straight in America. Oh, we white Christians have suffered so much. Just look at the War on Christmas, right?

16 Ryan King  Sun, Jan 19, 2014 7:01:07am

re: #10 reverundbacon

This is what’s known as an “ad hominem” argument.

Your sources are ad hominem blogs.

As said above, there are 5-6,000 hate crimes a year, but you instead choose to focus on fake hate crimes that are >.1%.

Weird.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Snarky Puppy - Trinity (Extended Version) Snarky Puppy never lets you down, they always come out bright and enthusiastically high on the sounds. Snarky Puppy - Trinity (Extended Version)From Snarky Puppy's new album, Empire Central (September 2022, GroundUP Music)Stream/Buy: orcd.co Written by Mark LettieriArranged by ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 355 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •