Trump questioned who is really behind anti-Semitic threats and vandalism, official says
75 replies, posted
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51892570]
LOTS OF LINKS
Here's a small list of [B]verified[/B] hoaxes.
The JCC bomb threats and graveyard vandalism cases are [B]ongoing[/B] and we have no idea who perpetrated them. It very well could be white supremacists or Trump supporters. It could also be Jews doing it. Or black supremacists doing it. Or Islamists doing it. Or kids/pol.[/QUOTE]
There are some duplicates, like these:
[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/nyregion/racism-charges-in-bus-incident-and-their-unraveling-upset-u-of-albany.html[/URL]
[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/02/us/new-york-albany-bus-attack/index.html[/URL]
And these:
[URL]http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/09/29/online-personality-charged-with-felony-vandalism-after-being-accused-of-filing-false-police-report/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/07/20/calum-mcswiggan-summoned-to-court-over-fake-hate-crime-claims/[/URL]
Not all stories are from 2016 either. I counted at least 5 from 2015 in the first 10 links.
Also, for what its worth, almost none of these stories seem to involve Jews.
Clearly it's all the Rothschild's. He asked his buddy Alex Jones.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51892254]What I have already provided is supporting evidence. Now, you've got to find evidence to discredit mine if you wish to dismiss it, evidence that supports your claim that the report is, and allow me to correct my earlier mistake, "absolute crap."
You've failed to produce that. And continue to refuse to do so. The best you've come up with is to point out that not all the reports are verified - which I've totally agreed with, and so does not help you at all.
The simple fact of the matter, and the basis of my argument, is that there will not be enough falsified hate crime reports to discredit the majority of the list.
Buh-bye now. Have yourself a good night. :smile:[/QUOTE]
You should be really embarrassed to have this be your post, and the same applies to nearly every post you've made in this topic. You can make an argument without sounding like an edgy high school newspaper editorialist but you've chosen not to.
[QUOTE=FZE;51893576]You should be really embarrassed to have this be your post, and the same applies to nearly every post you've made in this topic. You can make an argument without sounding like an edgy high school newspaper editorialist but you've chosen not to.[/QUOTE]
It's reasonable when you consider the fact the opposition wasn't presenting anything (at the time) while they continued to go against his source when they themselves didn't even have one. He asked for sources and listed his own to start, they just called it shit and went off that without their own substance. It's understandable to be annoyed with someone that very clearly wants to disregard anything that goes against their views.
[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51893736]It's reasonable when you consider the fact the opposition wasn't presenting anything (at the time) while they continued to go against his source when they themselves didn't even have one. He asked for sources and listed his own to start, they just called it shit and went off that without their own substance. It's understandable to be annoyed with someone that very clearly wants to disregard anything that goes against their views.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying unverified anecdotal accounts are now considered valid evidence in debate? Good to know you have such low standards.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51892134]Until you can prove 1064 facebook posts, tweets, and web submissions are verified and not anecdotal(which the SPLC acknowledges they are) what you say holds no water. A Facepunch poll is about as credible as the shit your tryin to push bud.
Surely you can find DoJ or FBI numbers to make your case.[/QUOTE]
Official federal figures for 2016 aren't released till nov 2017.
You're asking for something that's not possible to provide.
There are however numerous sources for a rise in reports of hate crime, which in the past have correlated with rise of actual hate crime in official statistics.
Unless you can provide a valid reason for why this pattern is no longer valid then, given the unoffical stats from groups like [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/reports-of-bias-based-attacks-tick-upward-after-election.html?_r=0"] splc[/URL], given that trump himself told supporters to [URL="https://qz.com/836417/stop-it-us-president-elect-donald-trump-tells-his-supporters-on-60-minutes-to-stop-harassing-minorities-in-his-name/"]stop being racist [/URL], given official local figures track an increase in hate crime eg [URL="http://observer.com/2016/12/nypd-reports-huge-spike-in-hate-crimes-since-donald-trumps-election/"]New York measuring 35% increase for 2016, specifically an 115% increase in november, those are police figures[/URL], given that the KKK, neo-nazis and other white supremecists have spoken out in support of Trump - I think its safe to say there has been an increase in hate crime this year and a very strong possibility of it correlating with Trump, Trump running on a platform of discriminating on grounds of religion and ethnicity.
Maybe it doesn't correlate with Trump. I believe it does but if you want an out you could cite that hate crime has been increasing steadily for the past few years, you can argue that Trump is not to blame and its just the continuation of a pre-existing Trend. That would be inconsistent with actual evidence but its a stronger argument than "Nya nya nya evidence insufficient, hate crime not on increase, everything is ok".
Please stop being so damn disingenuous.
[editline]1st March 2017[/editline]
Oh yeah its george soros and msm manipulating everyone and doing false flags. Please.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51892184]I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself to you: I want reasonable evidence that all 1064 are verified (your basic burden of proof) before anyone has to do anything about showing that any of them are false.[/QUOTE]
You're trying to shift the burden of proof. You made the claim that the SPLC are biased and unreliable. It is not our job to support your argument for you. Find evidence to support your claims or concede. Stop with the blatantly dishonest debating.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51893886]So you're saying unverified anecdotal accounts are now considered valid evidence in debate? Good to know you have such low standards.[/QUOTE]
Spin it whatever way helps you sleep at night, man. Yeah some of it is unverified, but it's interesting that you care more about that then when the opposing poster didn't even post a source, saying "yeah there's a lot of it".
[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51895026]Spin it whatever way helps you sleep at night, man. Yeah some of it is unverified, but it's interesting that you care more about that then when the opposing poster didn't even post a source, saying "yeah there's a lot of it".[/QUOTE]
That's a nice tu quoque fallacy, but I'm not talking about the other poster. I'm talking about the bad source that was used. If an account can't be verified, then there is no reason to include it into the hard data unless you're trying to fluff up your numbers, which is exactly what the SPLC is doing. If you have verified numbers, then post them. Otherwise, that source and that statistic is illegitimate for this conversation because it's artificially inflated with unverified numbers.
two users post with insufficient evidence (in your eyes)
you decide to specifically criticise one of them and ignore the other completely
this implies that you have no problem with the one you're ignoring, or you have a big problem with the other.
either way, you're clearly setting the goalpost differently based on the political idea being posed. this is the problem strider has.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;51895171]two users post with insufficient evidence (in your eyes)
you decide to specifically criticise one of them and ignore the other completely
this implies that you have no problem with the one you're ignoring, or you have a big problem with the other.
either way, you're clearly setting the goalpost differently based on the political idea being posed. this is the problem he has.[/QUOTE]
I'm not ignoring anything. The other poster has no evidence either. Don't use an argument from silence to tell me what my position is. His claims are being scrutinized fairly well by everyone else. But one wrong does not excuse another.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51892570]
Here's a small list of [B]verified[/B] hoaxes.
The JCC bomb threats and graveyard vandalism cases are [B]ongoing[/B] and we have no idea who perpetrated them. It very well could be white supremacists or Trump supporters. It could also be Jews doing it. Or black supremacists doing it. Or Islamists doing it. Or kids/pol.[/QUOTE]
While some of those links are blogs that don't cite their sources, some are duplicates, and a couple of them did not have any mention of fabricated reports at all (Save for the comments section, which is why they turned up in your search) Holy shit, I'm impressed you went and did all that research. I'll admit that way more reports than I thought were faked, and I'll concede that sure, at least 4-5% of those reports in that list can reasonably be considered to be made up. Happy now?
Sadly, we won't really know how many of the crimes on SLPC's list are legit until the FBI publishes their list in 2018, and even that won't be guaranteed, if only because many hate crimes are tried as lesser offences if the police can be sure of getting a conviction on those.
[editline]1st March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51895182]I'm not ignoring anything. The other poster has no evidence either. Don't use an argument from silence to tell me what my position is. His claims are being scrutinized fairly well by everyone else. But one wrong does not excuse another.[/QUOTE]
I have plenty of evidence. My evidence is that the SLPC recieved 1064 reports of hate crime, and have stricken from the list those that they found to be false. They even go on to list others that are looking like they may be fake. My own point, which I've repeated like ten times in this thread, is adequately supported.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51895868]While some of those links are blogs that don't cite their sources, and a couple of them did not have any mention of fabricated reports at all (Save for the comments section, which is why they turned up in your search) Holy shit, I'm impressed you went and did all that research. I'll admit that way more reports than I thought were faked, and I'll concede that sure, at least 4-5% of those reports in that list can reasonably be considered to be made up. Happy now?
Sadly, we won't really know how many of the crimes on SLPC's list are legit until the FBI publishes their list in 2018, and even that won't be guaranteed, if only because many hate crimes are tried as lesser offences if the police can be sure of getting a conviction on those.[/QUOTE]
Now that you've seen that these hoaxes are more common than you previously thought, maybe you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not denying that these attacks are happening but the existence of idiots faking attacks for political gains makes me weary when these attacks pop up. And until we know who it is carrying out the vandalism and bomb threats, I'm gonna reserve my judgement. That's reasonable, ya?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51895999]Now that you've seen that these hoaxes are more common than you previously thought, maybe you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not denying that these attacks are happening but the existence of idiots faking attacks for political gains makes me weary when these attacks pop up. And until we know who it is carrying out the vandalism and bomb threats, I'm gonna reserve my judgement. That's reasonable, ya?[/QUOTE]
I still maintain that there are way more actual attacks happening than faked ones, if only because of the FBI statistics from previous years. I also think that it's indefensible for a President of a free country to go "Hey, maybe they did it themselves!" when a bunch of minorities have been attacked and the courts haven't yet determined who is responsible, don't you?
Trump's a piece of shit.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51893886]So you're saying unverified anecdotal accounts are now considered valid evidence in debate? Good to know you have such low standards.[/QUOTE]
Also good to know that a small number of unverified sources ensures that an entire statistic is thrown out the window. Just because some parts of a source maybe have the slightest possibility of being false or exaggerated does not mean that you get to completely disregard that source, instead you take it and you give it a little bit of uncertainty, but we know from other sources through past history that a lot of those claims are probably not "false flags" but are actual fucking things that happened. Even this statistic that has a possiblity of having false accounts is so so sooooo much better than having nothing...
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;51897190]Also good to know that a small number of unverified sources ensures that an entire statistic is thrown out the window.[B] Just because some parts of a source maybe have the slightest possibility of being false or exaggerated[/B] does not mean that you get to completely disregard that source, instead you take it and you give it a little bit of uncertainty, but we know from other sources through past history that a lot of those claims are probably not "false flags" but are actual fucking things that happened. Even this statistic that has a possiblity of having false accounts is so so sooooo much better than having nothing...[/QUOTE]
The ENTIRE source is, as far as we have evidence for, unverified and anecdotal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.