Hate Groups Increase Their Numbers -- Thanks to Trump

[Matata]

Everybody rolling their eyes because here's another "scrotus is bad for the US post"? Living with the consequences of the election is tough, unless of course, you subscribe to the lie and hate-filled narrative of the 4th reich.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/02/15/hate-groups-increase-second-consecutive-year-trump-electrifies-radical-right

Our annual hate group numbers are up — this year, we counted 917 hate groups, an increase from last year's number. The most dramatic growth was the near-tripling of anti-Muslim hate groups – from 34 in 2015 to 101 last year.

“2016 was an unprecedented year for hate,” said Mark Potok, senior fellow and editor of the Intelligence Report. “The country saw a resurgence of white nationalism that imperils the racial progress we’ve made, along with the rise of a president whose policies reflect the values of white nationalists. In Steve Bannon, these extremists think they finally have an ally who has the president's ear.”

 

[lovedogs]

Everybody rolling their eyes because here's another "scrotus is bad for the US post"? Living with the consequences of the election is tough, unless of course, you subscribe to the lie and hate-filled narrative of the 4th reich.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/02/15/hate-groups-increase-second-consecutive-year-trump-electrifies-radical-right

Our annual hate group numbers are up — this year, we counted 917 hate groups, an increase from last year's number. The most dramatic growth was the near-tripling of anti-Muslim hate groups – from 34 in 2015 to 101 last year.

“2016 was an unprecedented year for hate,” said Mark Potok, senior fellow and editor of the Intelligence Report. “The country saw a resurgence of white nationalism that imperils the racial progress we’ve made, along with the rise of a president whose policies reflect the values of white nationalists. In Steve Bannon, these extremists think they finally have an ally who has the president's ear.”

Yup. And yet somehow this will be blamed on liberals, or people will claim this has nothing to do with Trump.

 

[Matata]

Yup. And yet somehow this will be blamed on liberals, or people will claim this has nothing to do with Trump.

The blind will continue to lead the blind, lovedogs, clear over the edge of the cliff. The hate map, for those who don't want to read. Oh, what have we here...red states host a plethora of hate groups. And red states voted for scrotus who spewed fear and hate all during the campaign and filled his cabinet with nazi knockoffs. Hmmmm 2 + 2 = 5?

 

[katharath]

WRONG! Obama did it!

 

[Matata]

WRONG! Obama did it!

Oh noes, Dancing Fire hacked kath's account.

 

[katharath]

WRONG! Obama did it!

Oh noes, Dancing Fire hacked kath's account.

 

[Calliecake]

Everybody rolling their eyes because here's another "scrotus is bad for the US post"? Living with the consequences of the election is tough, unless of course, you subscribe to the lie and hate-filled narrative of the 4th reich.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/02/15/hate-groups-increase-second-consecutive-year-trump-electrifies-radical-right

Our annual hate group numbers are up — this year, we counted 917 hate groups, an increase from last year's number. The most dramatic growth was the near-tripling of anti-Muslim hate groups – from 34 in 2015 to 101 last year.

“2016 was an unprecedented year for hate,” said Mark Potok, senior fellow and editor of the Intelligence Report. “The country saw a resurgence of white nationalism that imperils the racial progress we’ve made, along with the rise of a president whose policies reflect the values of white nationalists. In Steve Bannon, these extremists think they finally have an ally who has the president's ear.”

Yup. And yet somehow this will be blamed on liberals, or people will claim this has nothing to do with Trump.

Of course! Who else would they blame?

 

[katharath]

Seriously though, this is frightening. It would be amazing if the Trump voters who claim they aren't racist could at least recognize what is happening here.

 

[ruby59]

Seriously though, this is frightening. It would be amazing if the Trump voters who claim they aren't racist could at least recognize what is happening here.

I would love to comment in an open discussion, especially as a Jewish woman who saw more than enough bomb threats and graffiti in her temple.

A Jewish woman in an Interfaith marriage, long before it became the norm.

But look at you baited comments. Judge, Jury, Executioner to anyone with a different opinion.

 

[redwood66]

Don't bother Ruby.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Seriously though, this is frightening. It would be amazing if the Trump voters who claim they aren't racist could at least recognize what is happening here.

As a rational, fact-based individual, I'll take a stab.

But just curious ... The very first sentence of the "article":

The number of hate groups in the United States rose for a second year in a row in 2016 as the radical right was energized by the candidacy of Donald Trump, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) annual census of hate groups and other extremist organizations, released today.

Did anyone who is laying this at Chump's feet actually read the survey quoted in the article?

When I reviewed the SPLC's annual census results, there was NO EVIDENCE or even reference to Chump's candidacy/election and the rise in hate groups, aside from the initial article 'saying that was the case'. Just because two things happen in the same span of time does not mean one causes or is related to the other. You know else happened during the study's noted 'rise in hate groups's: 1) Islamic extremist terrorist attacks in the U.S. and our allies countries; and, 2) violent protests across our country led by blacks in objection to law enforcement. But no one wants to consider that those events may have contributed to the rise in hate groups because ... CHEETO!

The study breaks the rise in hate groups into four study areas with links to read what the studies revealed:

197% Increase in total number of anti-Muslim hate groups up from 2015.

Anti-Muslim hate groups are a relatively new phenomenon in the United States, with many appearing in the aftermath of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Beginning in 2010, anti-Muslim legislation increased and opposition to the development of an Islamic Center in lower Manhattan made headlines.

No mention of Chump or evidence in that portion of the survey.

663 Total number of antigovernment ‘patriot’ groups in 2016.

The Intelligence Project identified 623 extreme antigovernment groups that were active in 2016.
...
Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. The list was compiled from field reports, group publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports.

Again, no mention or evidence of Chump correlation.

130 Total number of Ku Klux Klan groups in 2016.

With its long history of violence, the Klan is the most infamous — and oldest — of American hate groups. When the Klan was formed in 1865, it was a single, unitary organization. Today, there are dozens of competing Klan groups. Although black Americans have typically been the Klan’s primary target, it has also attacked Jews, immigrants, homosexuals, and Catholics.

Annnnd once again, no mention or evidence of Chump correlation. Just a long list of KKK groups.


193 Total number of Black Separatist groups in 2015.

Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks. Most forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks are the Biblical "chosen people" of God.
...
If a white group espoused similar beliefs with the colors reversed, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. Although the racism of a group like the Nation may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.

Yup, you guessed it ... no causal link to Chump or even mention of him.



So, aside from the writer saying "it's Chump's fault", where exactly are you all reading that it is - in fact - Chump's fault?

 

[Matata]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38149406

 

[Matata]

http://observer.com/2016/12/nypd-reports-huge-spike-in-hate-crimes-since-donald-trumps-election/

 

[Matata]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/13/hate-crimes-since-the-election-heres-whos-been-targeted-since/21712876/
"...That's the number of hate incidentsThinkProgress has tracked since Nov. 9, 2016, when Donald Trump was declared president-elect. Of the 261 incidents, 109 — or 42% – "included specific references to Trump, his election, or his policies."

 

[the_mother_thing]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38149406

And that article is quoting the original article you posted above, and regurgitates the same allegation of it being Chump's fault based on a survey ... that does not even mention Chump.

Again, where is the causal evidence linking Chump to the rise in hate crimes/groups?

I can say "I have a million dollars in my checking account," but when I log into online banking, the evidence doesn't support my statement.

 

[katharath]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/13/hate-crimes-since-the-election-heres-whos-been-targeted-since/21712876/
"...That's the number of hate incidentsThinkProgress has tracked since Nov. 9, 2016, when Donald Trump was declared president-elect. Of the 261 incidents, 109 — or 42% – "included specific references to Trump, his election, or his policies."

Huh. So what you're saying here is that the very people committing the hate crimes are themselves mentioning Trump?

I still think it's somehow Obama's fault. He was PRESIDENTING while BLACK!!

 

[lovedogs]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/13/hate-crimes-since-the-election-heres-whos-been-targeted-since/21712876/
"...That's the number of hate incidentsThinkProgress has tracked since Nov. 9, 2016, when Donald Trump was declared president-elect. Of the 261 incidents, 109 — or 42% – "included specific references to Trump, his election, or his policies."

Huh. So what you're saying here is that the very people committing the hate crimes are themselves mentioning Trump?

I still think it's somehow Obama's fault. He was PRESIDENTING while BLACK!!

I think it's probably HRC's fault. She was running for POTUS while having a VAGINA!

 

[katharath]

.

 

[the_mother_thing]

http://observer.com/2016/12/nypd-reports-huge-spike-in-hate-crimes-since-donald-trumps-election/

Again - two things happening at the same time does not indicate a causal link. But ...

Boyce said the department has also seen an increase in hate incidents committed against whites and against members of the LGBTQ community. He compared the rash of recent attacks on Jews to a similar outbreak during Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip in 2014, and argued that news events influence acts on the streets.

“The same thing happens. The national discourse has effects on hate crimes—hate speech I should say, hate speech,” he said.

Glad to see that someone is recognizing 'hate crimes' against non-minorities. On the bolded item, maybe the left's argumentative and vindictive behavior since the election is contributing to the 'national discourse' that is allegedly contributing to the rise in hate crimes. Just a thought.

But it was nice of them to note at the very bottom of the article:

Trump, who ran on a program of deporting undocumented immigrants and barring Muslims from entering the United States, urged supporters committing hate crimes to “stop it” on 60 Minutes in his first interview as president-elect.

 

[the_mother_thing]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/13/hate-crimes-since-the-election-heres-whos-been-targeted-since/21712876/
"...That's the number of hate incidentsThinkProgress has tracked since Nov. 9, 2016, when Donald Trump was declared president-elect. Of the 261 incidents, 109 — or 42% – "included specific references to Trump, his election, or his policies."

Huh. So what you're saying here is that the very people committing the hate crimes are themselves mentioning Trump?

I still think it's somehow Obama's fault. He was PRESIDENTING while BLACK!!

Yea, because the first three article didn't back up the left's version of "facts".

So, Less than half included references to Chump. That means there is more than just Chump to blame, it would seem.

And:

The reported incidents included acts of violence toward Trump supporters and protesters under "other."

Why is that? Is a black person being targeted because he/she is a trump supporter any less horrendous than against someone who is not?

But hey, you believe whichever set of "stats" you want to help you sleep.

 

[lovedogs]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/13/hate-crimes-since-the-election-heres-whos-been-targeted-since/21712876/
"...That's the number of hate incidentsThinkProgress has tracked since Nov. 9, 2016, when Donald Trump was declared president-elect. Of the 261 incidents, 109 — or 42% – "included specific references to Trump, his election, or his policies."

Huh. So what you're saying here is that the very people committing the hate crimes are themselves mentioning Trump?

I still think it's somehow Obama's fault. He was PRESIDENTING while BLACK!!

Yea, because the first three article didn't back up the left's version of "facts".

So, Less than half included references to Chump. That means there is more than just Chump to blame, it would seem.

And:

The reported incidents included acts of violence toward Trump supporters and protesters under "other."

Why is that? Is a black person being targeted because he/she is a trump supporter any less horrendous than against someone who is not?

But hey, you believe whichever set of "stats" you want to help you sleep.

Jen: what articles do you think don't match up with the idea that this surge has to do with Trump? the BBC one does, the AOL one does, the Observer one does, and the original SPL center one does. I don't know how you think the articles aren't backing up the "left's version of the facts", when all of them state that these crimes have increased since Trump was elected.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Jen: what articles do you think don't match up with the idea that this surge has to do with Trump? the BBC one does, the AOL one does, the Observer one does, and the original SPL center one does. I don't know how you think the articles aren't backing up the "left's version of the facts", when all of them state that these crimes have increased since Trump was elected.

All each of these articles does is state that since Chump announced his candidacy and/or took office, "X, Y & Z" have happened. The only correlation is the timing. They don't cite any actual causal evidence or even consideration of any other possible causes for X, Y, Z having happened (such as the increase in terrorist attacks and violent protests, which both reasonably also tie directly to the hate groups as a possible cause, but no mention of those.)

So again, the mere observation that two things happened at the same time does not translate into one actually causing the other. And that is all each of these articles does - observes two things overlapping to some degree, but it presents them as fact when they are not because it doesn't provide any actual evidence that Chump saying "A, B & C" directly resulted in X, Y & Z taking place. As a scientific researcher yourself, surely you can appreciate how ineffective and unsubstantiated that is in arriving at a reasonable & factual conclusion.

 

[arkieb1]

For people who didn't vote for Trump and put him somewhere down the list when they did or left him off the voting paper entirely why do you spend so much energy defending the guy?

 

[the_mother_thing]

For people who didn't vote for Trump and put him somewhere down the list when they did or left him off the voting paper entirely why do you spend so much energy defending the guy?

I'm not defending 'Chump'; I'm arguing the left's willing acceptance of articles feeding them false conclusions WITHOUT evidence. If they want to mosey on up to the buffet and gorge themselves on inconclusive theories, that's their choice.

Show me something factually tying Chump's actions/behavior to the rise in hate groups (besides mere timelines), and I'll consider sticking around for an appetizer.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I found this tweet-comment on one of the articles particularly amusing ...



... simply because - 2A advocates have said the same thing about "gun free zones" and restrictive gun laws for years, as if criminals care about laws and 'gun free zones'. Glad ya'll are finally 'getting it'.

 

[arkieb1]

For people who didn't vote for Trump and put him somewhere down the list when they did or left him off the voting paper entirely why do you spend so much energy defending the guy?

I'm not defending 'Chump'; I'm arguing the left's willing acceptance of articles feeding them false conclusions WITHOUT evidence. If they want to mosey on up to the buffet and gorge themselves on inconclusive theories, that's their choice.

Show me something factually tying Chump's actions/behavior to the rise in hate groups (besides mere timelines), and I'll consider sticking around for an appetizer.

So when the conservatives argue by then putting articles irrespective of if they are true or not true or factual or not on here, (not saying you personally do this but a number of conservatives do) isn't that doing exactly the same thing? If we are being skeptical about sources then why is one lot of articles right and the others wrong? The simple truth is that we all choose to believe what we like. What annoys me is that for people who have openly said they don't seem to like Trump much more than I do, why expend so much time energy trying to prove your own version of "the truth" your own set of "the facts" with the aim of seemingly defending this guy no matter what.

 

[the_mother_thing]

For people who didn't vote for Trump and put him somewhere down the list when they did or left him off the voting paper entirely why do you spend so much energy defending the guy?

I'm not defending 'Chump'; I'm arguing the left's willing acceptance of articles feeding them false conclusions WITHOUT evidence. If they want to mosey on up to the buffet and gorge themselves on inconclusive theories, that's their choice.

Show me something factually tying Chump's actions/behavior to the rise in hate groups (besides mere timelines), and I'll consider sticking around for an appetizer.

So when the conservatives argue by then putting articles irrespective of if they are true or not true or factual or not on here, (not saying you personally do this but a number of conservatives do) isn't that doing exactly the same thing? If we are being skeptical about sources then why is one lot of articles right and the others wrong? The simple truth is that we all choose to believe what we like. What annoys me is that for people who have openly said they don't seem to like Trump much more than I do, why expend so much time energy trying to prove your own version of "the truth" your own set of "the facts" with the aim of seemingly defending this guy no matter what.

Yes, it's the same thing. And I am not saying one side is right or wrong. Lots of spinning happens on both sides.

I won't speak for anyone else on here, but what you possibly perceive as me 'defending Chump' is not; it's defending facts because when someone is quick to promote accusations based on false information, that doesn't help anyone and just contributes to the divisiveness. But again, if someone has an appetite for BS, they are welcome to gorge themselves on it, with whipped cream. And it's my prerogative to point out the falsehoods if/when I choose.

 

[Dancing Fire]

WRONG! Obama did it!

Oh noes, Dancing Fire hacked kath's account.

 

[Dancing Fire]

For people who didn't vote for Trump and put him somewhere down the list when they did or left him off the voting paper entirely why do you spend so much energy defending the guy?

Maybe some of these people are sick and tired of failed liberal policies?

 

[arkieb1]

For people who didn't vote for Trump and put him somewhere down the list when they did or left him off the voting paper entirely why do you spend so much energy defending the guy?

Maybe some of these people are sick and tired of failed liberal policies?

That explains why people voted against liberals in general, it doesn't explain why so many are willing to defend Donald's poor decisions to the very end.