Colin Kaepernick Praises Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro

[bcking 3,157]

my own theories? no dear, this is the fbi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html

That looks to be quoting 2015 data. I don't think we will have 2016 data until the year is over, but I would venture it would be higher. That's a guess though.

However I would also say that to ignore the crimes that have been committed against Trump Supporters would be unfair. There has been a decent amount since the election. I don't think there was much "violence" prior to the election (mostly just mocking since non-Trump supporters assumed he would lose) but after he won it did turn violent in some situations. I can't condone that. I think there bad apples on both sides, though I would imagine if you looked at the numbers there is probably more violence against muslims than against Trump supporters (per capita). I dont' have that data though so I can't really defend it.

EDIT:

To be fair the article links to another report of violence going up since the election, however that isn't the FBI data. The FBI data is up to/through 2015.

Edited December 2, 2016 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

That looks to be quoting 2015 data. I don't think we will have 2016 data until the year is over, but I would venture it would be higher. That's a guess though.

However I would also say that to ignore the crimes that have been committed against Trump Supporters would be unfair. There has been a decent amount since the election. I don't think there was much "violence" prior to the election (mostly just mocking since non-Trump supporters assumed he would lose) but after he won it did turn violent in some situations. I can't condone that. I think there bad apples on both sides, though I would imagine if you looked at the numbers there is probably more violence against muslims than against Trump supporters (per capita). I dont' have that data though so I can't really defend it.

EDIT:

To be fair the article links to another report of violence going up since the election, however that isn't the FBI data. The FBI data is up to/through 2015.

lyou're right, totally my theories. i'm just so humble, didn't' want to take credit.

[bcking 3,157]

lyou're right, totally my theories. i'm just so humble, didn't' want to take credit.

The article links to another article that is then quite honest about the fact that we need to time to really confirm how many reports of violence post-election are true and substantiated. There are the ones that end up on youtube, but obviously that must be a minority. The actual numbers will take time to be able to report.

Violence has occured against Trump supporters, and also by Trump supporters. Neither one is good, and neither side should support either one. I would say my "gut" feeling is there is more violence by Trump supporters than there is against them, but that doesn't mean both isn't happening. That also doesn't mean the majority of Trump supporters condone it, or that Trump himself condones it.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The article links to another article that is then quite honest about the fact that we need to time to really confirm how many reports of violence post-election are true and substantiated. There are the ones that end up on youtube, but obviously that must be a minority. The actual numbers will take time to be able to report.

Violence has occured against Trump supporters, and also by Trump supporters. Neither one is good, and neither side should support either one. I would say my "gut" feeling is there is more violence by Trump supporters than there is against them, but that doesn't mean both isn't happening. That also doesn't mean the majority of Trump supporters condone it, or that Trump himself condones it.

i'm not denying that violence has occurred against trump supporters (remember that free speech discussion we had yesterday, you can voice your opinion all you want but the first doesn't stop the offended from punching ya in the mouth?) what i am saying is that the violence against those that trump has railed against the past year is far more worrisome and widespread. but primarily i was responding to lfn's assertion that this is a theory of mine. like i'm spouting off fairy tales while he's right posting solid undeniable truths. yeah, no.

trump condones the support of people who encourage bigotry, and some of us who can see through his manipulation also know that he condones it with the lies he spreads to rouse his support.

you don't need to trust your 'gut' if you'd like to check out the splc but i don't know, maybe you don't find them credible?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Yeah. NYT. Fair and unbiased reporting from Clinton's network, eh?

At least they threw this in at the end to encompass everyone:

"Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump, however, say they too have been victimized."

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Pretty sure the mods will not view this racist term with fondness. But that's none of my business.

i'm not denying that violence has occurred against trump supporters (remember that free speech discussion we had yesterday, you can voice your opinion all you want but the first doesn't stop the offended from punching ya in the mouth?) what i am saying is that the violence against those that trump has railed against the past year is far more worrisome and widespread. but primarily i was responding to lfn's assertion that this is a theory of mine. like i'm spouting off fairy tales while he's right posting solid undeniable truths. yeah, no.

trump condones the support of people who encourage bigotry, and some of us who can see through his manipulation also know that he condones it with the lies he spreads to rouse his support.

you don't need to trust your 'gut' if you'd like to check out the splc but i don't know, maybe you don't find them credible?

Edited December 2, 2016 by LFEHFN

[bcking 3,157]

Yeah. NYT. Fair and unbiased reporting from Clinton's network, eh?

At least they threw this in at the end to encompass everyone:

"Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump, however, say they too have been victimized."

I noticed that as well.

However, look at the links you provided. I don't see websites like Brietbart mentioning violence that Trump supporters are carrying out. They don't even have that token sentence at the end like the NYT adds. So neither side is really providing a "fair and balanced" report.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Yeah. NYT. Fair and unbiased reporting from Clinton's network, eh?

At least they threw this in at the end to encompass everyone:

"Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump, however, say they too have been victimized."

because the trump victims are not the majority of the reports, they are insignificant in comparison.

if you don't like nyt, check the sources they cite in the article. that's what i did with a couple of your links.

So neither side is really providing a "fair and balanced" report.

thanks reagan.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Pretty sure the mods will not view this racist term with fondness. But that's none of my business.

let me familiarize you with the letter "L"

[bcking 3,157]

because the trump victims are not the majority of the reports, they are insignificant in comparison.

if you don't like nyt, check the sources they cite in the article. that's what i did with a couple of your links.

thanks reagan.

I'm not going to sit here and judge how significant or insignificant the violence against Trump supporters has been since the election. I never supported the "Not my president" protests and I know many of them went to far. How many acts of violence were there? I have no idea.

My point is just a fair and balanced report about the spike in violence post-election day would include an investigation and reporting on ALL acts of violence no matter who the victim/perpetrator is. NYT's article was focusing on violence against Muslims. It wasn't trying to provide a "fair and balanced" report, I give them credit for adding that sentence at the end, but in fairness they could do a write up on that as well to investigate how frequently it is really happening. Brietbart and it's ilk are, alternatively, providing individual singled out stories of people getting attacked. There are several, but it's not clear what it amounts to. In a country our size you are bound to have examples or any type of person attacking any other type of person. Someone will need to retroactively look back at a later date to decide how bad it really is.

[smilesammich 10,727]

I'm not going to sit here and judge how significant or insignificant the violence against Trump supporters has been since the election. I never supported the "Not my president" protests and I know many of them went to far. How many acts of violence were there? I have no idea.

My point is just a fair and balanced report about the spike in violence post-election day would include an investigation and reporting on ALL acts of violence no matter who the victim/perpetrator is. NYT's article was focusing on violence against Muslims. It wasn't trying to provide a "fair and balanced" report, I give them credit for adding that sentence at the end, but in fairness they could do a write up on that as well to investigate how frequently it is really happening. Brietbart and it's ilk are, alternatively, providing individual singled out stories of people getting attacked. There are several, but it's not clear what it amounts to. In a country our size you are bound to have examples or any type of person attacking any other type of person. Someone will need to retroactively look back at a later date to decide how bad it really is.

you're the one that brought up your gut assessment.

starters? i can't get on board with giving as much journalistic credibility to brietbart as nyt.

secondly, i said 'thanks reagan' in regards to the fair and balanced anyone, right or left, thinks they're getting from their choice in journalism because

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Of course neither side does that. Fair and balanced doesn't make as much money as unbalanced reporting does.

I noticed that as well.

However, look at the links you provided. I don't see websites like Brietbart mentioning violence that Trump supporters are carrying out. They don't even have that token sentence at the end like the NYT adds. So neither side is really providing a "fair and balanced" report.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

In case it did not at first occur to you, I included several links from different sources in an attempt to "be fair". I also tried to make sure none of them overlapped. Also, my links were in no way intended to say that there is more violence against Trump supporters than others. I am smart enough to know better than that. It's just the current sensation, and it will die off eventually. Doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and I provided links to show you the error of your words. It's ok to be wrong, it happens to all of us. Blanket statements such as the one you made are usually hard to back up for anyone.

you're the one that brought up your gut assessment.

starters? i can't get on board with giving as much journalistic credibility to brietbart as nyt.

secondly, i said 'thanks reagan' in regards to the fair and balanced anyone, right or left, thinks they're getting from their choice in journalism because

[bcking 3,157]

you're the one that brought up your gut assessment.

starters? i can't get on board with giving as much journalistic credibility to brietbart as nyt.

secondly, i said 'thanks reagan' in regards to the fair and balanced anyone, right or left, thinks they're getting from their choice in journalism because

While I think the NYT over the last year or two has become progressively more biased, I agree that comparing brietbart to NYT is unfair. NYT still does much better reporting, though not what they used to in my opinion.

No journal/newspaper is required to be fair and balanced, as you point out with your link. However I do believe that the point of media is to provide facts and figures and let the people interpret them and decide for themselves. I don't think news exists to make me think a certain way. It exists to tell me the data and then I can think how I want. A discussion of the data must include all types of data. To list a bunch of facts and figures about one type of violence, and then just say "Oh and there have been reports about other forms of violence" is misleading. They should try to be objective about the other types of violence being reported. I believe that if they are objective they will still show that the violence against Muslims is rising and is of much larger concern than the violence against Trump supporters. However, for them, or you or me to say that we should have data to back it up.

It is probably my fault for trying to apply how I think when I read scientific journals to how I think when I read news articles.

[smilesammich 10,727]

In case it did not at first occur to you, I included several links from different sources in an attempt to "be fair". I also tried to make sure none of them overlapped. Also, my links were in no way intended to say that there is more violence against Trump supporters than others. I am smart enough to know better than that. It's just the current sensation, and it will die off eventually. Doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and I provided links to show you the error of your words. It's ok to be wrong, it happens to all of us. Blanket statements such as the one you made are usually hard to back up for anyone.

nope, if i'm wrong i'll claim it but you attempting to explain something or prove something to me that it waaay off base with what i'm talking about in the first place isn't me being wrong dear. i said violence against trump supporters wasn't 'a thing' because it's not. the surge in reported hate crimes against muslims, poc and lgqtb is very much 'a thing'. i'm sorry that you decided, yet again, to try and take me to school on a matter i wasn't even arguing.