• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hate crimes are on the rise

That's because you don't understand what "hate crime" means. These are not crimes because you hate a specific person that you commit the crime against. Rather, these are crimes because the person is relatively random but you don't like the "group" they belong to... e.g. because of their race or religion or sexual orientation, etc.

But all the identity politics, the politics of division, as practiced by the democrats had absolutely nothing to do with any of that, right? :roll:
 
Whether such persons had any ties to a particular political organization is completely moot. People do not have to be part of an organized political group to perpetrate a hate crime. The point is that hate crimes are up since Trump took office, which many people fault his acrimonious rhetoric. The man has a documented history of bigotry and racism, including opening his campaign with bigoted remarks. His campaign and his presidency have provided safe-haven to the racists and bigots amongst us.


https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138358/charlottesville-protests-david-duke-kkk
https://www.hrc.org/timelines/trump
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...lle-unite-right-rally-trump-column/935708002/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/13/donald-trump-immigration-racism-uk-visit
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/white-supremacists-cheer-midterms-trump/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...noticed/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf1f91cc91dd

Not everything good or bad that happens in America has a political party or political organization behind it. In the case of Donald Trump, his views are his own and generally not an indictment of conservatives as a whole, except to the extent that they refuse to call him out on it.

I appreciate the link dump, but that doesn't explain why most hate crimes in NYC are perpetrated by people other than the Alt-Right. These cases I'm including are all from 2018.

Mr. Polite was arrested on Friday and charged with criminal mischief as a hate crime for writing “Die Jew Rats,” “Hitler,” “End It Now” and “Jew Better Be Ready” in marker on walls of the Union Temple of Brooklyn. Mr. Polite was charged with arson, reckless endangerment and criminal mischief — all as hate crimes — for setting fires at four other locations affiliated with the Jewish community, including another school. The police recognized Mr. Polite from the surveillance video at Union Temple.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/nyregion/anti-semitic-hate-crime-vandalism.html

The Rabbinical Alliance of America mentioned in its statement an incident in which Madraque Tyquan Bailey, 22, a FedEx employee, repeatedly stabbed 28-year-old Jack Gindi, a Jewish man, in the Midtown section of Manhattan on Monday, on West 33rd Street and Fifth Avenue. The suspect was apprehended while the victim was seriously wounded and taken for treatment.

04232018_mcknight_madraquetyquanbailey_1.jpg


https://www.timesofisrael.com/950-us-rabbis-condemn-alarming-rise-in-nyc-anti-semitic-violence/

A 40-year-old man has been indicted on charges of strangulation and assault as hate crimes for an unprovoked attack on a Jewish man, whom he allegedly cursed and choked as the victim walked home from synagogue last month.

s_nf_9712_143173.jpg


https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...-Brooklyn-Attack-James-Vincent-483473051.html
 
That's because you don't understand what "hate crime" means. These are not crimes because you hate a specific person that you commit the crime against. Rather, these are crimes because the person is relatively random but you don't like the "group" they belong to... e.g. because of their race or religion or sexual orientation, etc.

Thank you, Slavister. Now i understand. I appreciate you pointing that out.
Now I get their point.
The violence is against a random target within a hated group, not someone you hate individually.

Yet Eric Holder never prosecuted young blacks for playing the "Knockout Game" against white people as a hate crime.
One racial group specifically targeting another specific group for violence for their race.
I guess a hate crime is only defined by who is in charge at the current time.
 
Trump is as responsible for the rise in race based hate the exact same way as Keith Ellison and his sympathetic views towards antisemitic behaviour is responsible for the rise in religious based hate crimes.

or Obama was for people gunning down police officers
 
Guess it takes time for data to get classified and published, but no surprises here ...

Hate crimes increased by 17% in 2017, FBI report finds

View attachment 67244211

I am sure Trump is just an innocent bystander ...

View attachment 67244212

No President Trump is not a "bystander" he and most of his followers are the victims of most of the hatful violence in America today.

Yes, the American Right has a few isolated crazies who do bad things. For the American Left Hate and politically motivated violence is SOP.

One important point you left off: Most if the so called Hate Crimes in your own source are reports not necessarily incidents. The majority of the time when a Leftist reports a hate crime if it's solved it ends up being a false flag fake.
 
No President Trump is not a "bystander" he and most of his followers are the victims of most of the hatful violence in America today.

Really? So exactly which of the 7,175 criminal incidents / 8,437 related offenses in the FBI Hate Crime database was Trump a victim of?

Most if the so called Hate Crimes in your own source are reports not necessarily incidents. The majority of the time when a Leftist reports a hate crime if it's solved it ends up being a false flag fake.

I am eagerly awaiting a reputable source and statistics that I am sure you just forgot to include showing percentage of the 7,175 criminal incidents / 8,437 related offenses which is a false fake flag...
 
Really? So exactly which of the 7,175 criminal incidents / 8,437 related offenses in the FBI Hate Crime database was Trump a victim of?



I am eagerly awaiting a reputable source and statistics that I am sure you just forgot to include showing percentage of the 7,175 criminal incidents / 8,437 related offenses which is a false fake flag...

Antifa violence is a daily event, they operate on nothing but Hate.

FBI link in your own source states many are Reports here are the fake hate crime stats. fakehatecrimes.org
 
Yet Eric Holder never prosecuted young blacks for playing the "Knockout Game" against white people as a hate crime.
One racial group specifically targeting another specific group for violence for their race.
I guess a hate crime is only defined by who is in charge at the current time.

No, "hate crime" definition has not changed over time. Whether someone is prosecuted one or not is a different matter and is not reflected in the OP stats. Further, it DOES include hate crimes against white people: specifically, 17% of all the race-biased crimes were anti-white.
 
Antifa violence is a daily event, they operate on nothing but Hate.

"Operating on nothing by hate" is not a hate crime. Reread the definition of the hate crime.

FBI link in your own source states many are Reports here are the fake hate crime stats. fakehatecrimes.org

Really? Please quote specific place under the fbi link in my source that states that many of the reports are fake.

Further, your link covers 342 incidents, which as best I can tell go from alleged crimes in 1980 all the way to 2018. So, how many of these apply to 2017 specifically? And of those that apply, how many are part of the "hate crimes" as included in the FBI report? Basically your link has at most 1% of 2017 FBI cases and more likely 0.1%. This is before we even try to see whether all the relevant cases there actually are fake or not.. I did not bother to check... but nice try anyway.
 
Last edited:
"Operating on nothing by hate" is not a hate crime. Reread the definition of the hate crime.



Really? Please quote specific place under the fbi link in my source that states that many of the reports are fake.

Crime motivated by hate is a Hate Crime. The Antifa thugs who targeted Tucker Carlson are being investigated and charged for it.

Read the description is your own source.
 
Wrong. Not all crimes motivated by hate are a hate crime. Try again.

"Wrong" why because you say so?

Before we get sidetracked with semantics a fact must be stated. The Overwhelming majority of hate and political violence in America today is from Leftists.
 
source for the 10.7%?

It's in the article itself:

"While the number has increased, the number of agencies reporting also increased by about 1,000."

On the FBI site, the actual number is in the high 800's, amounting to 6.3% more agencies reporting. Assuming those additional agencies are reporting hate crimes that would have shown up had they reported them the year before, adjusting for that you've got a 10.7% increase, .

Essentially, we could say that people liking spaghetti increased by 17%, and they mentioned offhand that about 1,000 more people were asked this year over last if they liked spaghetti.
 
Assuming those additional agencies are reporting hate crimes that would have shown up had they reported them the year before, adjusting for that you've got a 10.7% increase

You are making assumptions about numbers that those other agencies would have reported. I don't see the quoted articles making such assumptions. Your assumptions could very well be wrong - you are just guessing it seems. We don't know those agencies numbers for prior years and I don't see even how much they contributed this year.

If you have a quote in the article arriving at your number, please correct me... otherwise, your number is meaningless.
 
You are making assumptions about numbers that those other agencies would have reported. I don't see the quoted articles making such assumptions. Your assumptions could very well be wrong - you are just guessing it seems. We don't know those agencies numbers for prior years and I don't see even how much they contributed this year.

If you have a quote in the article arriving at your number, please correct me... otherwise, your number is meaningless.

Here are my two sources:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/topic-pages/incidentsandoffenses

For 2016, 15254 participating agencies, 1776 reporting agencies, 6121 incidents.

For 2017, 16149 participating, 2040 reporting, 7175 incidents.

CNN correctly points out that incidents reported increased by 17%, more accurately 17.22%. They report that the number of participating agencies has increased by about 1000, so it's up to the reader to discern what that means. Actual increase in participating agencies was 895, for a 5.87% increase.

At this point, it is guesswork. One interpretation could be that had they been participating in 2016, those 895 would have reported 200 times the normal hate crime rate in 2016, then fell to a rate of hate crimes reported by the other 15254 agencies 2017. We would then conclude that hate crimes have decreased.

The other extreme would be to assume that the 895 new agencies for 2017, had they been participating in 2016, would have reported 0 hate crimes. This is the assumption that CNN wants us to make, and is where the 17% increase figure comes from.

Of course, the most logical course is to assume that the new 895 agencies would have reported at more or less the same rate as the older 2016 bunch. There is no reason to think that these 895 new agencies were hand-picked by the FBI because they were in hate crime prone areas, nor should we assume that the 895 would be especially devoid of hate crimes, as CNN does. Given this, we can conclude:

2016 had .401 incidents per participating agency, 3.45 incidents per reporting agency, and 11.64% of participating agencies reporting hate crimes.

2017 had .444 incidents per participating agency, 3.517 incidents per reporting agency, and 12.63% of participating agencies reporting hate crimes.

Hate crime increase adjusted for the number of participating agencies is 10.72%, and there has been an increase of 8.5% in the portion of participating agencies that actually report hate crime.

CNN is overstating the hate crime increase by 58.6%.
 
Here are my two sources:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/topic-pages/incidentsandoffenses

For 2016, 15254 participating agencies, 1776 reporting agencies, 6121 incidents.

For 2017, 16149 participating, 2040 reporting, 7175 incidents.

...

the most logical course is to assume that the new 895 agencies would have reported at more or less the same rate as the older 2016 bunch.

Yeah, you are making the wrong assumptions like I said.

If you drill into data, you will see that many agencies report just a few incidents. It's quite likely that "new" agencies that reported, only reported because they have 0 incidents in 2016 and now they have a few in 2017.

Note that even though there are 895 participating agencies, only 264 actually had something to report.

It's further quite logical to assume that any "important" agencies that would have a lot of incidents recorded would have already participated in earlier years. The "new" participating agencies are likely ones that don't have much if interesting data... again this is confirmed by much smaller number of agencies reporting.

Finally, number of agencies could have changed NOT because there are MORE places that now participate (or report) but because agencies could have gotten simply divided up and changed structurally.
 
The actual quote should be that "Correlation does not mean or necessarily lead to causation".... but correlation is correlation; not coincidence. The does appear to be a relationship between Trump and the increase in hate crimes. The relationship (causation) seems pretty obvious to most of us....

The whole point of the statement is that emotions and jumping to conclusions are much easier for humans to do than look at actual statistics. There is clearly an increase, and while Trump might be fanning the flames, many other groups are doing the same thing as well. The truth is that, the people that commit these crimes are responsible for what they do. Its very easy for anyone to "see" a relationship when there is none. That's the point of the statement. Its dishonest to attempt to muddy the waters with it.
 
What ambivalence? He condemned all the violence that happened at Charlottesville. Funny how you and others like you (IE: Trump haters) always seem to forget that and only focus on half of what was actually said.

Kal,

1. he only did that after days of pressure.

2. It was a rally organized by White Supremacists, and one of the rally's stated goals was to unite White Supremacists. "Very fine people" do not show up at White Supremacist rallies, particularly ones that are trying to unite White Supremacists across the country. If they show up by accident, they leave when they see:

488px-Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg


and

a2668b92-7c26-4736-b568-feb08d471e03-ax098_4a00_9.jpg


3. White Supremacists know exactly the message Trump sent: Neo-Nazis Praise Trump's Response to Charlottesville: 'He Said He Loves Us All!'



And since then Trump has continued with his racist message, particularly when he wants to energize his base:

Trump's Midterm Closing Argument: Pure Racial Fear


Even FOX News, Trump's propaganda wing, refused to carry an ad it was so racist:

Fox News, NBC, and Facebook pulled Trump's racist campaign ad



So please, let's quit pretending Trump isn't courting the White Supremacist/Neo Nazi vote.
 
Kal,

1. he only did that after days of pressure.

Actually no. What you're thinking of is the pressure he had to condemn the white supremacists directly. He in fact originally condemned all of the violence from both sides. He didn't single out the white supremacists which is what got Trump haters so riled up.

Trump condemns 'hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides' in Charlottesville

Bridgewater, New Jersey (CNN)President Donald Trump condemned hate "on many sides" in response to violent white nationalist protests and a terror attack Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides," Trump said during a short statement from his private golf club in New Jersey. "It has been going on for a long time in our country -- not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. It has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America."

The President did not mention white nationalists and the alt-right movement in his remarks, and later called for a "study" of the "situation."

Like I said: "Funny how you and others like you (IE: Trump haters) always seem to forget that and only focus on half of what was actually said."

2. It was a rally organized by White Supremacists, and one of the rally's stated goals was to unite White Supremacists. "Very fine people" do not show up at White Supremacist rallies, particularly ones that are trying to unite White Supremacists across the country. If they show up by accident, they leave when they see:

So you see no situation where others might join someone else for a common goal? In the case of Charlottesville to keep a statue in place. Even if they don't like X people? I know I can. For instance I would stand with anyone if the government decided to try and repeal the 1st Amendment. But only for that reason. Not because I supported anything else that they did.



Yes, heard all about that. Just because they think something doesn't make it true. Anymore than you thinking that he never condemned BOTH sides.

And since then Trump has continued with his racist message, particularly when he wants to energize his base:

Trump's Midterm Closing Argument: Pure Racial Fear


Even FOX News, Trump's propaganda wing, refused to carry an ad it was so racist:

Fox News, NBC, and Facebook pulled Trump's racist campaign ad

As for the ad, it wasn't racist. Only reason Fox pulled it was because of pressure. Pro-illegal immigrant people LOVE to conflate "race" with illegal immigration and nationality but plain fact of the matter is that illegal immigration has nothing to do with race. Illegal immigration happens across ALL the races. That the caravan being talked about happens to be full of brown people is irrelevant to everyone except Trump haters that are using it as a rallying "RACIST!" cry and pro-illegal immigrant people for the same cry. Tell me, did you watch that ad? Did you notice the part where it interviewed one of those in the caravan who outright said that he was hoping for a pardon against his attempt murder charge? Everyone likes to focus on the guy that killed the cops, yet always ignore that part. The ad was about crime, illegals, and that caravan which DOES host at least one person that has already committed crimes in the US. Possibly more, we don't know.
 
So the incident back in January 2017, when 3 black adults kidnapping, beating, torturing, and maiming an 18 year old special needs white male then they blamed Trump for it, laughing in that video that was presented to authorities, was that a hate crime? If it was, would it be considered both against someone who's mentally disabled AND the fact that he was white?
 
Yeah, you are making the wrong assumptions like I said.

If you drill into data, you will see that many agencies report just a few incidents. It's quite likely that "new" agencies that reported, only reported because they have 0 incidents in 2016 and now they have a few in 2017.

Note that even though there are 895 participating agencies, only 264 actually had something to report.

It's further quite logical to assume that any "important" agencies that would have a lot of incidents recorded would have already participated in earlier years. The "new" participating agencies are likely ones that don't have much if interesting data... again this is confirmed by much smaller number of agencies reporting.

Finally, number of agencies could have changed NOT because there are MORE places that now participate (or report) but because agencies could have gotten simply divided up and changed structurally.

Good post.
 
So the incident back in January 2017, when 3 black adults kidnapping, beating, torturing, and maiming an 18 year old special needs white male then they blamed Trump for it, laughing in that video that was presented to authorities, was that a hate crime? If it was, would it be considered both against someone who's mentally disabled AND the fact that he was white?

Correct, some hate crimes fall into multiple categories.
 
Actually no. What you're thinking of is the pressure he had to condemn the white supremacists directly. He in fact originally condemned all of the violence from both sides. He didn't single out the white supremacists which is what got Trump haters so riled up.

From your link:

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides," Trump said during a short statement from his private golf club in New Jersey. "It has been going on for a long time in our country -- not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. It has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America."

That was not a condemnation of the White Nationalists/KKK/Neo Nazis who were there. There were people chanting Nazi and KKK slogans, and Trump refused to specifically condemn them. The White Supremacists recognized it for what it was:

Neo-Nazis Praise Trump's Response to Charlottesville: 'He Said He Loves Us All'
'

Trump was asked for days to specifically distance himself from the White Supremacists. He refused for days. That says it all.


Like I said: "Funny how you and others like you (IE: Trump haters) always seem to forget that and only focus on half of what was actually said."

I focus on exactly what he said. Trump was offering public support to the White Supremacists by refusing to condemn them. They accepted, and recognized it for what it was. What I can't understand is Trump supporters denying this obvious fact. His later campaign strategy has made it very clear where he stands on using racism to court the racist vote:

Trump's Midterm Closing Argument: Pure Racial Fear


So you see no situation where others might join someone else for a common goal? In the case of Charlottesville to keep a statue in place. Even if they don't like X people? I know I can. For instance I would stand with anyone if the government decided to try and repeal the 1st Amendment. But only for that reason. Not because I supported anything else that they did.

All Trump had to do was specifically condemn the Nazis and KKK, as he was asked to do time and again. He refused. He made it plain at the time he supports White Supremacists, and he has made it clear since. See above link regarding his campaign strategy.



Yes, heard all about that. Just because they think something doesn't make it true. Anymore than you thinking that he never condemned BOTH sides.

Alone? Nope. But Trump just based an entire campaign around fear, hatred, and racism. Again, see the above link. Even FOX News refused to carry his ad, it was so racist.

Fox News, NBC, and Facebook pulled Trump's racist campaign ad

He has courted the White Supremacist vote since day one of his presidential campaign. He has continued courting the White Supremacist vote this last election cycle.


As for the ad, it wasn't racist.

Then we disagree on what is and what isn't racist.

And it wasn't just the ad, Trump's entire campaign was based on fear, hatred, and racism.
 
Back
Top Bottom