Treat Far-Right Terror as the Threat It Is

[SummerMadness]

I think it's funny that we see continued attacks from far-right extremists and there are still people trying to say, "No, we have to watch out for the liberals!"

 

[Ana the Ist]

1. There are many systemic issues driving inequality and intolerance. Much of this is driven by local dynamics that predate / are unrelated to Trump. It is important to address underlying, systemic injustice and inequality, not just focus on high profile incidents and attribute them to Trump.

Any chance you could back this up with any evidence or facts?

 

[jkjk]

Any chance you could back this up with any evidence or facts?

Look further up in the thread. That was a quick synopsis of an article I linked to in an earlier post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Look further up in the thread. That was a quick synopsis of an article I linked to in an earlier post.

You posted several links....can you repost the one you're talking about or at least tell me which one?

 

[jkjk]

You posted several links....can you repost the one you're talking about or at least tell me which one?

Sure. Hate Crimes Are Multiplying In Massachusetts But We Can't Blame Trump

 

[JosephZ]

Do you think someone like Tommy Robinson is far right?

Do you really need to ask? Tommy Robinson is certainly far right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. Hate Crimes Are Multiplying In Massachusetts But We Can't Blame Trump

There's no evidence of "systemic" anything in that article...

It just pointed out inequalities and made empty claims about the causes. Worse, it fell back on the old "implicit bias" trope that has been scientifically debunked.

 

[USincognito]

At the same time as the events in NZ, hundreds of Christians in Nigeria are being slaughtered by Moslem terrorists, but no one in the West cares, except for some religious publications and small-time Conservative websites. Certainly not CNN, NBC, etc. etc.

This is just a flat out lie.

Here's a CNN article from July of last year, so it's a lie that CNN isn't reporting on it.
Nigeria's herdsmen-farmers conflict six times deadlier than Boko Haram in 2018, ICG says - CNN
It's also bogus, as that article and the one below shows, to characterize this as simply Muslim jihadis killing Christians.
Dwindling Farmland Sparks a Deadly Conflict in Nigeria

It doesn't fit the schema of the "Progressives" who can neither bring themselves to care so long as the victims are Christian instead of Moslem and, as well, it doesn't leave them with much of an opening for blaming it all on...you guessed it, President Trump.

You whine about "their" agenda while spreading a bogus meme?

 

[jkjk]

There's no evidence of "systemic" anything in that article...

It just pointed out inequalities and made empty claims about the causes. Worse, it fell back on the old "implicit bias" trope that has been scientifically debunked.

I disagree with your assessment.

I agree that "systemic racism" or "implicit bias" is often overstated and that it is often an easy cop-out to explain away the effects of individual agency. I agree that the article didn't go in-depth into the actual causes of the inequalities it describes.

However, the fact is that the inequalities are persistent and widespread. Ie, they are systemic. This much is clear and not really debatable.

Also, the article did link to outside sources. One of them was a metro Boston report on inequality that further elaborated on factors that contribute to outcomes like segregation.

Of course, to determine the causes of those causes, you have to dig even deeper. Now we are getting into hundreds of pages long academic studies territory. Incidentally, the book I recommended earlier in the thread, Locking Up Our Own, specifically addresses some of those root causes--particularly with regards to the criminal justice system.

Edit: oops, I recommended that book in a different thread, not this one. Anyways, I added the link above.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I disagree with your assessment.

I agree that "systemic racism" or "implicit bias" is often overstated and that it is often an easy cop-out to explain away the effects of individual agency. I agree that the article didn't go in-depth into the actual causes of the inequalities it describes.

If implicit bias is invoked at all...it's overstated. The same Harvard scientists who created the implicit bias test have admitted there's no link between it and behavior.

However, the fact is that the inequalities are persistent and widespread. Ie, they are systemic. This much is clear and not really debatable.

The existence of inequality is evidence of nothing but....inequality.

Calling it systemic is a claim about the "system"...whatever that means.

Also, the article did link to outside sources. One of them was a metro Boston report on inequality that further elaborated on factors that contribute to outcomes like segregation.

And?

Of course, to determine the causes of those causes, you have to dig even deeper. Now we are getting into hundreds of pages long academic studies territory. Incidentally, the book I recommended earlier in the thread, Locking Up Our Own, specifically addresses some of those root causes--particularly with regards to the criminal justice system.

The high estimates of innocent people wrongly convicted are somewhere between 2-3%. So whatever you think about the fairness of the justice system....the vast majority of those caught up in it are there because they committed crimes.

Don't worry about the book.

 

[JackRT]

Do you think someone like Tommy Robinson is far right?

I have no idea who he is.

 

[SummerMadness]

Sure. Hate Crimes Are Multiplying In Massachusetts But We Can't Blame Trump

This article is talking about inequality, which is different than discussions of hate crimes.

If you wanted to understand how intolerance has affected the country, you should look at the studies actually focusing on that topic. Institutional and systemic racism are another subject.

Virginia Study Finds Increased School Bullying in Areas That Voted for Trump

After the 2016 presidential election, teachers across the country reported they were seeing increased name-calling and bullying in their classrooms. Now, research shows that those stories — at least in one state — are confirmed by student surveys.

Francis Huang of the University of Missouri and Dewey Cornell of the University of Virginia used data from a school climate survey taken by over 150,000 students across Virginia. They looked at student responses to questions about bullying and teasing from 2015 and 2017. Their findings were published Wednesday in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.

 

[jkjk]

The existence of inequality is evidence of nothing but....inequality.

Calling it systemic is a claim about the "system"...whatever that means.

I just stated what it means. It means that the current systems result in widespread and persistent inequality.

You can argue whether such inequality is a problem or not, whether it needs to be addressed or not, etc. But you can't deny the outcomes produced by the current socioeconomic processes.

And?

You claimed the article didn't provide any evidence. That is an exaggeration. As I stated, I agree that the article does not thoroughly support its claims. But it does refer to outside sources that support its points.

The high estimates of innocent people wrongly convicted are somewhere between 2-3%.

Sources?

So whatever you think about the fairness of the justice system....the vast majority of those caught up in it are there because they committed crimes.

And?

Don't worry about the book.

Suit yourself.

 

[jkjk]

This article is talking about inequality, which is different than discussions of hate crimes.

If you wanted to understand how intolerance has affected the country, you should look at the studies actually focusing on that topic. Institutional and systemic racism are another subject.

Virginia Study Finds Increased School Bullying in Areas That Voted for Trump

I posted this article because I found it to be an interesting perspective. I agree that systemic inequality and hate crimes are two different things. But they are related.

For that matter, I don't believe that distinguishing hate crimes from other crimes is helpful or just. But that is a topic for a different thread.

 

[SummerMadness]

I posted this article because I found it to be an interesting perspective. I agree that systemic inequality and hate crimes are two different things. But they are related.

For that matter, I don't believe that distinguishing hate crimes from other crimes is helpful or just. But that is a topic for a different thread.

Of course there is reason to distinguish hate crimes from other crimes. Most crime is directed at individuals, but crimes like terrorism and hate crimes are directed at communities in order to intimidate them. Someone spray painting their neighbor's house because of a personal dispute is different than someone spray painting a neighbor's house due to their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc., in such cases the entire community is targeted, hence the distinction for hate crimes. It's the same for terrorism charges.

 

[rjs330]

Extremism should be fought against on all fronts. Left wing radical extremists and radical right wing extremists are all members of the same boat. Extremism always seems to lead to violence. We've had leftists killing people and rightists killing people. None of it is acceptable.
We need to treat all radicals as threats. Right wing radicals can be just as deadly as anyone as we've seen.

 

[jkjk]

Of course there is reason to distinguish hate crimes from other crimes. Most crime is directed at individuals, but crimes like terrorism and hate crimes are directed at communities in order to intimidate them. Someone spray painting their neighbor's house because of a personal dispute is different than someone spray painting a neighbor's house due to their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc., in such cases the entire community is targeted, hence the distinction for hate crimes. It's the same for terrorism charges.

I don't find your argument convincing. Designating something as a "hate crime" means choosing to privilege certain characteristics over others. That flies in the face of the supposed American values of equality and equal protection under the law.

Saying the whole community is targeted is hogwash. Crimes directly affect their immediate victims. Every single crime also has an indirect effect on the larger community. Muggings, break-ins, and serial rapes terrorize residents of local communities and make them fear going out just the same as a synagogue bombing makes a Jew fear walking down the street wearing a yamaka.

Counterterrorism is hardly a model you should be pointing to for emulation within the criminal justice system. In fact, there is a strong argument that we should be treating acts of terrorism as the crimes they are--murders, NFA violations, conspiracies, etc. Instead, by constructing acts of terrorism as grave existential threats rather than "merely" as crimes, we are ceding to terrorists the power and notoriety they seek. By treating acts of terrorism as something fundamentally more insidious and frightening than other crimes, we end up incentivizing all manner of unjust policies and resource allocations in order to "secure" us from terroristic "threats." Even though "normal" crimes are much more proximate and pervasive.

So, no, hate crimes shouldn't be a thing anymore than terrorism should be. Murder is murder. Rape is rape. Trafficking is trafficking. Etc.

 

[JosephZ]

So, no, hate crimes shouldn't be a thing anymore than terrorism should be. Murder is murder. Rape is rape. Trafficking is trafficking. Etc.

Terrorism and hate crimes have to be classified differently than regular crimes because one of the primary intents of the perpetrator is to intimidate and create fear among an entire community or group as the poster you quoted has already pointed out. When a person shoots up a mosque, a church, or a synagogue, it strikes fear into the entire community that was targeted. In the recent case of the New Zealand Mosque shootings it wasn't just those who were killed and wounded who were victims, but Muslims and immigrants throughout that country and around the world. When a homosexual is beaten on a city street simply because they are gay, every homosexual in that community is a victim because they now have to live in fear.

Other crimes of murder and a assault have specific targets with specific motives. A man may kill his wife out of jealousy, but she will be the only victim. A man may kill another man for cheating him out of some money, but he will be the only victim. The motives in those examples are clear. If a person who has been posting racist memes and comments on social media kills another person who he had no previous relationship with simply because the victims skin color was different than his own, then he wasn't only targeting that one individual, the killer intended to intimidate and create fear among an entire community.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I just stated what it means. It means that the current systems result in widespread and persistent inequality.

You can argue whether such inequality is a problem or not, whether it needs to be addressed or not, etc. But you can't deny the outcomes produced by the current socioeconomic processes.

Oh actually I can...

You see, the idea that inequality is caused by "socioeconomic processes" is presupposed by the idea that there's some "system" which results in equality. In all of human history, no such system has ever existed. So to blame inequality on "systems" without any evidence seems like a mistake.

You claimed the article didn't provide any evidence. That is an exaggeration. As I stated, I agree that the article does not thoroughly support its claims. But it does refer to outside sources that support its points.

I didn't see any outside sources that weren't making the same mistake. Inequality is evidence of inequality. Proving the cause of inequality is an entirely different issue.

Sources?

How about the Innocence Project? They, more than anyone, have motives to overestimate the number of innocent people wrongly convicted.

How Many Innocent People are in Prison? - Innocence Project

They put it at about 1%.

And?

And that means 99% of those caught up in the justice system are to blame for their own situation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Terrorism and hate crimes have to be classified differently than regular crimes because one of the primary intents of the perpetrator is to intimidate and create fear among an entire community or group as the poster you quoted has already pointed out.

If that's what you think....the threat of "white supremacists" has been badly exaggerated.