This post is also available in: German
The latest Fake Stat currently rubbing shitlib clits raw is this [very special study] purporting to prove that hate crimes are far more prevalent than are hate hoaxes:
Hate crimes in the US (2016-2018): 21,000
Hate crime hoaxes in the US (2016-2018): 50
What Smollett did was wrong but the big problem isn’t the .2% which are hoaxes, it’s the hate crimes which have risen 20% since Trump took office.
— Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) February 21, 2019
Here go shitlibs again, with their inverted logic (a hate hoax means hate crimes are real!) playing fast and loose with data they comprehend just enough to obfuscate and twist into misleading headlines, hoping to pull a fast one on a short attention span public who still thinks the $PLC isn’t an anti-White hate organization.
A Sailer commenter called out this bullshit and tiresome leftoid tactic,
Just like that, the latest NYT “factoid” joins the “10% of Americans are gay” and “1 in 4 women are raped” and the rest of the BS everyone believes because they “read it somewhere.”
The online hoax lists show hundreds of examples.
And many–if not most–of the “real” ones are fakes.
The category error is definitional. There are reported hate crimes which were never investigated, there are investigated but unsolved hate crime reports, and there are proven and prosecuted hate crimes. “Hate crimes in the US (2016-2018): 21,000” doesn’t tell us much. 21,000 hate crimes could mean 21,000 reported hate crime hoaxes that were never disproven by a full police investigation. And it could mean 21,000 black-on-white hate crimes.
I’ll crib from International Jew, who came up with an apt analogy for this tedious data-sodomizing legerdemain by shitlibs,
When it comes to alleged hate crimes, the interesting question is: what percent of the thoroughly investigated ones were real?
You’d get a high “real” percent for UFOs to, if you compared total alleged sightings to the number that were investigated and debunked.
Maybe I’m slightly biased by my politics in this, but right now I can think of more hate hoaxes than I can recall real hate crimes.
Going down the shabbos hole to the source of the Fake Stat above, we find something very…predictable.
Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, who has been tracking staged and real hate crimes, counted 49 fake reports between 2016 and 2018. In the same time, Levin told Quartz, there were about 21,000 hate crimes. That makes the percentage of falsely reported attacks 0.2% of all hate crimes. (The FBI received 13,000 hate crime reports in 2016 and 2017, according to its latest data.)
While Levin concedes that his data collection methodology has limitations—he and his team rely on media reports—it is indicative of how rare it is for a hate crime to be made up.
A [special person] consulted an industry run by [special people] for tautological “evidence” that would support a [special narrative].
“It was in the media, so it must be true!”
Good lord, what a load of libfuckery.
More on Brian Levin,
The one-man-band behind the garbage called “research” in that article is Brian Levin.
You can find plenty about him online. Here is an example:
Andy Ngo has more: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo
This Levin character sounds like someone who really has a stick up his ass about Christian America.
One more great comment, from Almost Missouri:
Mikel Jollett’s “hate crime” numbers are really Annalisa Merelli’s numbers, which are really Brian Levin’s numbers, which are basically meaningless tautologies invented by Brian for the purpose of perpetuating his career.
OTOH, Merelli does write that “The FBI received 13,000 hate crime reports in 2016 and 2017”, which is true, in the sense that over two years the FBI received about that number of “reports”. But it turns out the FBI stats aren’t much better than SPLC alum Levin’s fake numbers.
The FBI—or other DoJ arm—could just total up the number of hate crime convictions in a year and have a pretty robust, verifiable and traceable number. But they don’t do this. Instead they total up “reports”, which are not convictions. They are just reports: someone (example: Jussie Smollett) told a law enforcement officer that a hate crime happened, and someone at the law enforcement agency (and by law that person has to be a designated “expert” on “hate crimes”, giving said “expert” a vested interest in justifying their “expertise” with large numbers of reports) passes a few general specs about the allegation on to the FBI, who tally it up for the big report. If the allegation is never confirmed, or if it turns out to be false, does the FBI subtract the number back out? Maybe, maybe not. Apparently certainly not if it takes into the next reporting period to establish the falsehood of the allegation, since the FBI does not issue revised statistics.
Then there is the fact that the definitions of “hate crime” are extremely loose. The perp, if they even have one, does not need to be charged with a hate crime for it to count as a “hate crime” for the FBI’s statistical purposes. For example, if the alleged victim is a member of the NAACP, the allegation is automatically a “hate crime” if the “hate crime” “expert” so designates it.
Unsurprisingly , the definitions and examples in the official docs are written to maximize culpability of whites. In spite of this, whites still manage to under-perform compared to their share of the population. No prizes for guessing which race most over-performs compared to their share of the population, despite the fact that this category of crime was tailor made to boost their victimhood and camouflage their criminality.
Finally, there seems to be no way to trace the FBI’s Hate Crime statistics back to the actual events that underlie them short of submitting thousands of FOIA requests per year, which still may not suffice. So there is no objective, independent way to verify the FBI’s “Hate Crime” stats.
Despite the existence of actual, verifiable numbers of hate crime convictions existing, the FBI/DoJ ignores that in favor of an opaque, unverifiable, easily distorted process that maximizes “hate crime” claims with no connection to actual convictions. Lazy and dishonest journalists such as Jollett and Merelli bandy these fake stats about with gay abandon. Thus does the public-private partnership Fake News Juggernaut roll on.
Hoaxes as elaborate as the Empire TV star’s are rare, but it’s hardly uncommon for, say, the perpetrator to turn out to be nonwhite, or the act, such as posting a flyer mentioning “It’s okay to be white,” to be not (yet, at least) a crime, or for the motives to be murkier than you’d imagine from reading Southern Poverty Law Center fund-raising junk mail.
But what percentage of these press allegations have since been validated?
The methodological issue is, how do we keep advocates from memory-holing contrary data?
My solution is to use The New York Times’ own “This Week in Hate” columns. I let the pinnacle of Establishment respectability take their best shot, curating their own list of hate crimes from across the country. I then evaluate how The New York Times did.
For the purposes of this essay, I analyzed all 21 incidents in the second (12/6/16) and third (12/13/16) weeks of “This Week in Hate,” looking for pro and con evidence that has accumulated in the 26 months since on the validity of the NYT’s accounts. (I skipped the first week, assuming it was better to let the NYT get into its stride. I encourage other researchers to check out the rest of “This Week in Hate,” which finally petered out in July 2017.)
How many of the 21 incidents have resulted in hate-crime convictions? How many have been shown to be a complete hoax? How many are unconfirmed by the justice system but seem plausible? How many unconfirmed occurrences are dubious?
As I count them, of the 21 incidents carefully curated by the NYTto demonstrate that white Trumpists are waging a war of hate on the true Americans:
Two are more or less proven.
Five are unproven but more likely than not.
Seven are unproven and more unlikely than not.
And seven are disproven.
So, the nation’s Newspaper of Record got at least an average of one out of three of its “This Week in Hate” stories right. On the other hand, the facts in another one out of three cases undermine the NYT’s Narrative.
For the Times to be right on merely a simple majority (11 of 21) of its handpicked stories of white Trump criminality, four of the seven unlikely incidents would have to turn out to be true.
Therefore, the Times probably failed to reach even 50 percent accuracy.
Brutal debunking. FATALITY
Andy Ngo likewise concludes that there is an epidemic of (mostly anti-White blood libeling) hate hoaxes:
Poli-sci professor Wilfred Reilly has found more than 400 instances of hate crime hoaxes in America in his research. The epidemic we are experiencing isn’t in hate crimes but rather hate hoaxes. https://t.co/2BbSOJ3XOE #HateHoax
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) February 24, 2019
PS There’s no such thing as “hate speech”. There is only free speech. And there is no such thing as “hate crime”. There is crime. We shouldn’t prosecute thoughts. We should prosecute actions. End the “hate crime” farce now.