So local law enforcement is wrong and the FBI is wrong? This is what they've reported. Consistency is always preferred but the reason we are talking about White Nationalism is because of the presidents rhetoric and the reason I am talking about it is because the the rhetoric that Fox News and seemingly more of the right wing is taken. The issue with the statistical argument here in this thread is that violence committed by Islam right now and for the past few years is not significant...yet the rhetoric we get about it is anything but. So what we have here is a complete double standard, if it was a Muslim that did that shooting you'd have weeks of people on Fox News screaming about the Muslim threat. I think both the stats and the rhetoric are important. They both represent the same thing. When you demonize groups of people then it encourages violence against that group. When you say a group of people are invaders, out to destroy you, you're telling gullible people that this is a threat that should be met with violence. After all, invaders come in, rape and pillage, and conquer. The rhetoric creates the violence, historically we see this all the time and it always starts innocently enough. People want the racism to smack them in the face but it never starts that way. It always sneaks into the discourse.
this is a thoughtful and on-target response, and I appreciate that. I do question (partly) the one assertion that is bolded: "the rhetoric creates the violence." I think a more precise way of putting that is, at best, "the rhetoric contributes to the violence." I am not sure you can claim a 100% causal relationship here between rhetoric and violence. There is probably just as much evidence that the rise of social media in the past 20 years has as much if not more of a causal impact on these types of public violence. Hence the shooter in N.A. strapping on a Go-Pro and live-streaming the whole thing via Facebook. Rhetoric alone (Trump's or anyone else's) did not create that scenario in its entirety. But otherwise I agree with what you say.
I don't know what you mean. I'm not ashamed (nor proud) to be white. I don't feel guilty. I don't feel like people are telling me I should feel guilty or ashamed. Where is this pressure coming from? What is this ideology you speak of?
Well there's also the issue that the current method of trying to reduce it, silencing and ostracizing is having the opposite effect, which shouldn't really surprise anyone. Cults spend significant resources brain washing people in order to isolate them, because isolation breeds radicalization, so instead they're doing the work for these cult like mentalities. The actual radicals want the people around the fringes to be ostracised, welcoming them right into their arms, and then they can work on expanding the fringe further. We have so much activism going on right now, and activists are the ones who benefit from fanning the flames of hatred, the more they can convince you that hate exists, the more money you give them, it's bad for society in general, but they don't care, groups like the SPLC are rolling in money from this perverse incentivization. And It doesn't help the media figured out behaving like Iago is the most profitable business strategy.
Pride has many meaning. Some of them are conflicting in term of feelings. Here is one of it that might help explain minority group pride. Confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized, on the basis of their shared identity, culture, and experience. "the bridge was lit up in rainbow colors, symbolic of LGBT pride"
Yeah, contributes is a better word to use. The rise of social media though just makes it easier to spread this violent rhetoric, at least that seems to be the case with almost all these shooters being radicalized over the internet. This radicalization I'd argue and fear is not even the worst case scenario, the worst case scenario is more and more people believing in radical ideas to the point that politicians start running with radical ideas to pander to their base. The idea to me that there are enough radical people to pander to is frightening.
What would you do then? What solution do you offer to fight radicalization? Because it sounds like to me your solution is to ignore it, to me this would be like ignoring a malignant tumor in its early state. Your proposal is the exact opposite of what MLK Jr did and always what he preached against, that people can just 'wait' for the world to become a better place without doing nothing just doesn't work.
Blaming all white men, for example, has become a popular trend on social media in the past few years. Whenever there is a shooting, a corrupt politician, or any white criminal in a high or low position all the whites get the blame for the actions of a few. It happens to blacks and Muslims too. There is nothing wrong with embracing every aspect of who you are, including being human, and being proud of it. Out of every tribe, white pride, seems to be the only term with negative connotations attached to it. Depending on the person Trump may be good or bad, but he is not a reprentation or symbol of white people.
The FBI gets its information from local law enforcement agencies. There are 1000 agencies reporting hate crimes now that werent reporting the year before Trump waa elected. The FBI just keeps a database. They dont investigate they just keep the statistics on a national basis since they are the federal government I shouldn't have to explain this further
You should explain it further because... You never answered my question if the local authorities were wrong or not. The fact that they are looking for it and finding it doesn't invalidate anything anyone has said in this thread. It is either rising or it has always been there and since more eyes are on it they are finding more of it.... Unless you think the local authorities are wrong that is.
Read it yourself https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/us/hate-crimes-fbi-2017.amp.html Note it also says reporting them is voluntary by the agencies
@JayGoogle Iow agencies werent reporting everything so there may not be an increase. 1000 agencies is a lot
That's so insulting and horrible. To bring that idiot into this conversation as a means to pretend racism doesn't exist. Horrible. You are a disturbed individual.
I thought maybe you must have had PGA there blocked and couldn't see that I was quoting him and making a sarcastic comment...or maybe you are misquoting me and meant to direct this at @pgabriel that made the Jussie Smollett comment.
That report contradicts your claim in every way that hate crime hasn't risen. Your counter is that there are more agencies that report it and that it is voluntary...how does that counter the claim that it has risen? The article even states that Hate Crimes, even though they have risen...are being UNDERreported...so that the number of hate crimes could be higher. "Reporting hate crimes to the F.B.I. is currently voluntary. Last year, roughly a thousand more agencies submitted data than those that did the previous year." Again, this doesn't contradict the claim that hate crimes have risen.
So no hate crimes occurred in those 1,000 jurisdictions before 2017? The article doesnt disagree with me [/Quote] addition to the tense political climate, the increase also points to a growing awareness among various law enforcement agencies of the importance of identifying and reporting hate crimes to the F.B.I.
Or perhaps it occurred and it wasn't reported...perhaps even if it were reported it would still be less than before 2017. I mean, if there's no increase or anything it's odd he would say something like that in regards to the report.
Thats what im saying. There is more reporting since Trump has been elected so it doesn't mean there are more hate crimes Thanks for agreeing
