Indian American Engineer Fatally Shot in Kansas in Alleged Hate Crime.
70 replies, posted
There was that trump supporting canadian who shot up a mosque
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51872015]There was that trump supporting canadian who shot up a mosque[/QUOTE]
Because unilateral support compels association, of course.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51872006]I'm sure at least one trump voter has been struck by lightning since the election as well and yet you don't see me claiming hillary is summoning the wrath of the gods on her enemies.
You are shit at making assumptions. Stop making them.[/QUOTE]
What a shitty strawman. I'm drawing parallels from a presidential campaign built on xenophobic rhetoric to a rise in hate crimes. We have historical precedent both in Brexit and in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
You are shit at arguing. Stop trying.
[editline]24th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=kilerabv;51872014]Oooooh, we're playing this game?
Ok, let me remind you of all the Trump supporters that had their literal shit kicked in after the election. Clearly this is the proof of the start of the white genocide.[/QUOTE]
Who said hate crimes were going to be one way? Just as Neo-Nazism and the Alt Right are on the rise again, so are the same degenerates on the left wing, such as violent anti-fascism groups, as a direct response to them. Again, strawman.
It's not a strawman, it's purposefully absurd reasoning utilized to prove the faults in your own logic, by that you are making giant leaps and bounds to fit your narrative.
Explaining your logic does not make you right either. It just emphasizes the obvious faults in your logic.
And if you really want to go there, citing a fallacy does not automatically disprove a point, and is in fact a fallacy of its own - ie the fallacy fallacy.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51872031]It's not a strawman, it's purposefully absurd reasoning utilized to prove the faults in your own logic, by that you are making giant leaps and bounds to fit your narrative.
Explaining your logic does not make you right either. It just emphasizes the obvious faults in your logic.
And if you really want to go there, citing a fallacy does not automatically disprove a point, and is in fact a fallacy of its own - ie the fallacy fallacy.[/QUOTE]
So tell me, how does one equate lightning strikes to observable patterns in behavior linked to mainstream political movements?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51872023]What a shitty strawman. I'm drawing parallels from a presidential campaign built on xenophobic rhetoric to a rise in hate crimes. We have historical precedent both in Brexit and in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
You are shit at arguing. Stop trying.
[editline]24th February 2017[/editline]
Who said hate crimes were going to be one way? Just as Neo-Nazism and the Alt Right are on the rise again, so are the same degenerates on the left wing, such as violent anti-fascism groups, as a direct response to them. Again, strawman.[/QUOTE]
Missing my point which is you being a political vulture gorging on a body that isnt even cold yet. You literally just said,
[QUOTE]This would not have happened had Hillary Clinton won, I assure you of that.[/QUOTE]
"If the person who I supported was elected, this never would have happened."
Save me your strawmaning crap and adress the fact that you are behaving like a hyena, cackling "this is good ammo to use against Trump" while you sink your teeth into the latest controversy.
Sorry for the dramatics, but this shit(comming from the right, middle and left) drives me up a wall.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51872038]So tell me, how does one equate lightning strikes to observable patterns in behavior linked to mainstream political movements?[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think you're striking "observable pattern". You're playing mix and match and toying with facts to build a self-aggrandizing narrative.
Constantly dodging criticism by focusing endlessly on intentional fallacies, written with a purpose (which is to make a point), is no different than arguing semantics or moving the goal post.
You and several others are just being cackling hyenas who figuratively prey on tragedy to push a narrative.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51872062]You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think you're striking "observable pattern". You're playing mix and match and toying with facts to build a self-aggrandizing narrative.[/QUOTE]
What, then, would you say accounts for the statistical rise in hate crime in the US over the last few years? Fine, maybe it isn't the Trump campaign specifically. But what, then, is it?
[url]https://qz.com/843834/are-hate-crimes-really-on-the-rise-in-america-heres-a-guide-to-the-data/[/url]
This is a piece that attempts to analyze data collected on the subject, written in November 2016, and even then showed a slight rise immediately following the election.
From your own source :
[quote]What the data do not show: Like the SPLC data above, this is a useful collection of anecdotes, but [B]tells us little in terms of trends[/B]. The individual stories in collections like this are helpful in understanding the nature of hate crimes happening around the country, but not in drawing conclusions about geography, demographics or the rate of incidents.[/quote]
[quote]Although this collection has been cited as evidence of a “spike” in hate crimes since the election, the [B]Center has not been collecting data for long enough to show any trends[/B]. The SPLC also pointed out in a recent blog post that while they’re making attempts to verify the incidents, they haven’t verified them all:[/quote]
If your own source says that you shouldn't try to build trends on such a short span of time and anecdotal evidence, then maybe you shouldn't try to build trends on such a short span of time and anecdotal evidence.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51871995]I never pretended I could. Merely pointed out probable cause and effect. This isn't the first such incident since he won the election, is it?[/QUOTE]
When you assure something, you're claiming something akin to a fact. You did not "point out probable cause and effect", you [I]literally[/I] said that this act of violence [I]certainly would not have occurred if Hillary Clinton was elected[/I].
Just because this incident occurred while Trump was the president is not indicative of any influence or involvement of Trump. That's absolutely absurd. Under that logic, it's so easy to claim so many other baseless things. I could say that all of the other racially-motivated murders that have occurred in, say, the past 25 years is because of the relative president's occupation. There is no basis for this argument, and it's nothing short of riding on a tragedy committed by some fucking asshole in order to push a political narrative.
As for his Father's comments, I can understand his sentiment, however this doesn't mean you people can go around saying "No surprise because Trump is president!!!"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.