I haven't expressed an opinion about the McCain supporter allegedly beaten up for her political views, because it seemed likely that she had made it up, but I didn't want to risk piling on an actual victim. Now we know: it was a fantasy.
I'm sure some bloggers will cast this as a dark Republican conspiracy, or somehow symptomatic of conservatism. In reality, AFAIK, faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes, if only because the left has more groups who can realistically complain of attack. But while a few of them have been faked by student groups looking for attention, as far as I can tell the overwhelming majority are disturbed people looking for attention from their ideologically supportive peers, or, a la Tawana Brawley, trying to get out of some other trouble. It isn't "symptomatic" of the fight for racial equality or gay rights that some sad members of those movements engage in false accusations; it's symptomatic of the fact that some people will do anything to feel important. I expect the same applies here.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
In reality, AFAIK, faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes, if only because the left has more groups who can realistically complain of attack.
You of course have facts and figures to substantiate this.
What right wing group is covered under the rubric of "hate crimes"?
In reality, AFAIK, faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes, if only because the left has more groups who can realistically complain of attack.
Is this a Jonah Goldberg guest post? Before making such a blanket accusation, how about, you know, lifting a finger and doing a little research instead of dropping AFAIK bombs on us. Perhaps having such a shelter life you just weren't aware, but it's a bit of a sensitive subject, one which deserves a modicum of forethought before spouting off.
When you begin a paragraph on a very serious topic with, "In reality, AFAIK...", it's easy to see why there's an entire website devoted to mocking you're employment by the Atlantic.
Why lookee here:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/13182.html
ed
your
ed
There are no FBI statistics, but news stories searched by either Google or Lexis-Nexis turn up almost entirely campus incidents involving blacks, gays, or women alleging hate crimes.
Megan,
I recall a story from Princeton where a student claimed to have been attacked for being a conservative Christian...
Ah, yes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/nyregion/18hoax.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
It turned out that Nava was the one who actually sent the threatening emails, too.
I don't know whether you consider Christians to be a group that can "plausibly" complain of discrimination or attack, but complain they do, sometimes. And I honestly don't know whether the fakery is more prevalent from liberals or conservatives, but it does happen on both sides.
In reality, AFAIK, faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes
Fair and balanced!
Megan, there's this awesome book I read in Junior High (no silly, not "Atlas Shrugged"!). It's called "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. It's a fine read. You should totally check it out. It was made into a movie starring Gregory Peck (look for a young Robert Duvall too!). Anyhoo, the more you know, you know.
Megan, it IS a symptom of conservatism that Drudge and (especially) Fox News have been heavily selling this story despite how obviously BS it looked. I don't see any two ways around that.
Megan is almost certainly correct. Hate crimes in the US are usually defined as crimes against people who are quite overwhelmingly on the left side of the political spectrum, and it would be a big surprise to find that most hate crime hoaxs are not being perpetrated by these same classes of people.
I didn't say that there were no hate crimes faked by right-wingers; obviously, there's at least one. I just said that as far as I can tell from media reports, they tend to cluster on the left, for the simple reason that those groups are more likely to be victims of hate crimes. For starters, as far as I can tell from media reports, women seem to be more prone to fake these sorts of things than men, which makes sense--women will also get more sympathy and attention for victimhood, with no loss of their sense of femininity.
So predictable. Here you have a classic campaign stunt, tailor made to match up with McCain's latest gambit, which was to appeal to the rednecks of western PA to turn his campaign around.
They find a young female operative to concoct a horror tale right out of the white lizard brain: big black robber, rapist (Ashley added that one to her list), mutilator, and left-wing black political activist.
The whole thing unravels, so what does Megan McArdle do? She does what every Republican racist would do: Blames it on the liberals. Well, Megan, this time it's not going to work out for you and your white-sheeted friends. Your string has finally run out. Welcome to the wilderness.
Atlanic Monthly, when are you going to drop this sorry excuse for a "conservative" "economics" columnist, anyway?
Fair enough. I guess the statistic to look at, then, would be the ratio of faked hate crimes to reported hate crimes overall. I'll let someone with access to Lexis do that.
Newsflash when the attack was alleged: There are crazy people in the world.
Newsflash when he attack was revealed as a hoax: There are crazy people in the world.
This is only a newsworthy if it turns out the McCain campaign was pushing the story. I haven't heard of any evidence or even allegations (yet) to that effect. Drudge and Fox News hardly need the encouragement--they ran with it because this is exactly the sort of story outlets like Drudge and Fox News love to run with.
On the flip side, outlets like TPM and Huffington Post, who rightly downplayed the story when it looked like just a random assault, are hyping it now that it looks like just a random hoax. It has just dawned on me how a partisan, polarized media prop each other up: gin up some mutual outrage and witness the clicks clicks clicks pile up.
"It isn't 'symptomatic' of the fight for racial equality or gay rights that some sad members of those movements engage in false accusations; it's symptomatic of the fact that some people will do anything to feel important." -- M.M.
Hmmmmm - but could it, also, perhaps be "symptomatic" of something else?
Something having to do with, oh say, race or racism?
Or even the murky crossroads where sexuality comes into play too? Female and male?
Nothing in America's uglier history is evoked by this woman's claim of an attack by a 6'4" African-American boogieman (dressed entirely in black) who held a knife to her throat and then . . . well, she was beginning to claim some sort of sexual attack too?
There's nothing in the current climate or our long history that this pathetic incident illuminates or evokes?
That it's, you know, "symptomatic" of?
How about the way it was handled by the media? By Drudge or Fox News? Could that be "symptomatic" of something?
Could the fears and fantasies this woman conjured up be at all "symptomatic" of uglier forces that are being appealed to even now in ads running and speeches being given in places like Western Pennsylvania where this loathsome hoax took place? And if so, is that irrelevant? (Hey, I'd be receptive to an argument that said yes to the first and no the second. Or yes to both. Or no to both. But it'd be nice to have some argument or attempt at insight. Some sort of reflection.)
McArdle often seems to view her job as smugly delivering the libertarian talking-point on the relevant issue and then shutting down any process of thought. Maybe if we're lucky she'll sigh at "liberal" strawman.
Case in point:
1) She says that more hate crimes are committed by the left.
2) She says that most people do it for attention.
3) Talking points delivered (and isn't she proud!), she sighs at bloggers who might knock Republicans or conservatism.
4) Her brain then shuts down for the day.
She utterly fails to reflect on what this pathetic, disgusting incident might illuminate. And, oh, it illuminates a lot.
A real lot. Though we could argue about what exactly?
You want "symptomatic" -- where to even begin?
(Also, McArdle's a blogger for the Atlantic. Not someone in junior-high-school discussing the response to her updated MySpace page. Can we lose things like "AFAIK"? Can we pretend to be adults?)
I think the biggest problem we, "the left," have with your post is not necessarily what you said but that you made the claim ("In reality") without a shred of evidence ("AFAIK"). I think I can virtually speak for the rest of us, "the left," when I virtually say that we'll take the links to all those "media reports" at your earliest convenience. Any scientific studies on this sensitive subject would be helpful too, you know, since you did make the blanket statement on a prominent blog and all. Thanks in advance.
Do you know nothing about the Young Republicans? This kind of thing their stock in trade. (Usually pulled off much better, as every '72 Dem candidate save McG would acknowledge, but still...)
On the flip side, outlets like TPM and Huffington Post, who rightly downplayed the story when it looked like just a random assault, are hyping it now that it looks like just a random hoax. It has just dawned on me how a partisan, polarized media prop each other up: gin up some mutual outrage and witness the clicks clicks clicks pile up.
Every wingnut website was all over it from the get-go, ranting and raving about the black savage. Now that they've been caught, their auxillary at the Atlantic Monthly has decided that she ought to join the clean-up brigade.
This is beyond disgusting, Megan McArdle. At long last, have you no decency?
In reality, AFAIK, faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes, if only because the left has more groups who can realistically complain of attack.
AFAYK, you don't know your a** from a hole in the ground.
What right wing group is covered under the rubric of "hate crimes"?
There is no hate crime law in this country which singles out women, gays, religious minorities or non-whites for special protection. A white person, man, Christian or heterosexual is equally protected under these laws. Without exception. If you believe otherwise, you're just as ignorant about the law as you are about economics.
Um, what about all the crimes committed by white women/white men and blamed on black men, ala Charles Stuart, Susan Smith, a recent incident in Hartford, etc etc etc.
Of course, I don't know the politics of those individuals. Probably all a bunch of white liberals too, I suppose.
Seems pretty clearly just a nutjob to me. The indictment is neither of liberals or conservatives, but of a newsmedia that looooooves sensationalistic irrelevencies like this one.
I love how Megan pretends she's never heard of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, or the concept of ratf*cking. Really, now.
I think Megan McArdle ought to get herself a guest blogging slot on FreeRepublic.com
I'm wondering if you have any response to Fox News executive vice president John Moody's statement...
"If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee."
Does that make sense to you?
uh, had this been true, doubtful it would have been prosecuted as a hate crime, at least based on the political dimension. Pennsylvania law doesn't cover crimes of bias against political affiliation.
Beyond that, this is the usual strawman malarkey. This statement -- "the left has more groups who can realistically complain of attack" -- is laughable. It's easy to think that hate crimes establish "protected" groups that are more equal under the law. False. The laws apply to everyone, equally.
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a racial group, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or disability." Break it down... black is a racial group, but so is white. female is a gender, but so is male. gay is a sexual preference, but so is straight. Hate crime laws apply to all those groups, not just the ones generally identified with the left end of the political spectrum.
We can realistically debate as to how broadly or narrowly these laws are applied, but the laws DO NOT CREATE protected groups in and of themselves.
Find me a bias crime statue anywhere on the books in the United States that applies only to "blacks, gays and women" and I'll eat my hat.
No, which is why I don't watch Fox News.
What right wing group is covered under the rubric of "hate crimes"?
We gun nuts come in for a fair amount of hatin' but for some reason not so many hate crimes.
No, which is why I don't watch Fox News.
No need to watch it. To judge from your output here, you pick it up through the fillings in your teeth.
Fox News executive vice president John Moody's statement...
"If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee."
wow. just wow.....LITERALLY, this makes no sense: it's as if Moody is saying voters will wonder about Baraka's alibi that evening.
of course, in the metaphorics of racism, it makes all the sense in the world ("Obama is 'really' the black bogeyman of your nightmares")
but of course you're right Megan, this whole thing says nothing, nothing whatsoever about the politics of race in America. nooo, nooo, nothing at all.....
So...even though this comes from the right, it's usually the left, and so....?
But as long as you don't carry on pretending to be an Obama supporter, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
No, which is why I don't watch Fox News.
No need to watch it. To judge from your output here, you pick it up through the fillings in your teeth.
Posted by Magic Dog | October 24, 2008 3:28 PM
WIN
Meg, wouldn't the analysis be which group left or right has the higher rate of hate crime hoaxes per capita? You comment is ridiculously stupid.
What is symptomatic is the willingness of the usual right-wing hate sites -- Drudge, Instapundit, Powerline, Fox, Scaife -- to trumpet a racially-charged story that any sensible person could have spotted immediately as a likely hoax, and the eagerness of the McCain press operation to push this (mostly unsuccessfully) on the mainstream media.
Reynolds's criticism of the press for not pushing what turned out to be a hoax is especially typical. Think he'll learn anything? Me neither.
I don't often give credit to Michelle Malkin, but she laid out all suspicious aspects of the McCain worker's claim, and forcefully decried any one who fakes an attack. This was before it was "officially" deemed a fake.
What is symptomatic is the willingness of the usual right-wing hate sites -- Drudge, Instapundit, Powerline, Fox, Scaife -- to trumpet a racially-charged story
That's all true, but what about the willingness of the Atlantic Monthly to allow its so-called "economics columnist" turn around and try to justify this with attacks on past hoaxes, and misleading portrayals of hate crimes laws?
I expect the wingnut blogs to be full of wingnut junk. But the Atlantic Monthly ought to be operating in a different sphere. I really hope they'll use this as an opportunity to take a close look at Megan McArdle and what the hell she's been doing in their name.
I didn't say that there were no hate crimes faked by right-wingers; obviously, there's at least one. I just said that as far as I can tell from media reports, they tend to cluster on the left, for the simple reason that those groups are more likely to be victims of hate crimes. For starters, as far as I can tell from media reports, women seem to be more prone to fake these sorts of things than men, which makes sense--women will also get more sympathy and attention for victimhood, with no loss of their sense of femininity.
You do realize that you're calling women "a left-wing group".
Megan is almost certainly correct. Hate crimes in the US are usually defined as crimes against people who are quite overwhelmingly on the left side of the political spectrum, and it would be a big surprise to find that most hate crime hoaxs are not being perpetrated by these same classes of people.
I see that Yancey and Megan have the same high standards of evidence. In addition, both consider women and minorities to be ipso facto left-wing.
Hi! I’m Joe Izusu and I’m a College Republican and I was attacked in the back seat of this lovely car I'd like to sell you.
faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes
Actually, I've seen plenty of "fake" crimes reported in comments on conservative sites. Of course, they claim the attack was real, and in the end the poster ends up pulling his gun and chasing off the liberal attacker. Either that, or using their black belt in Karate.
Just take a look around. I don't see those kinds of posts on liberal sites.
Actually, this isn't a faked hate crime. This is a white woman faking an attack by a scary black man. It's usually more opportunism than craziness. I think it would be more likely to be a story told to a conservative audience, since it is more in keeping with their deepest fears and is likely to be better received by folks who think all black men are just waiting to assault white women. Where I come from, Hawaii, there was a big case called the Massie case, which had Hawaiian "assailant" but was otherwise the same. The "victim" was a military wife from down south somewhere. The victim's husband and friends killed the Hawaiian man trying to extract a conviction.
By the way, there have been at least three faked attacks on young conservatives, and I am not aware of a single faked attack by young democrats, so that pretty much blows your theory out of the water.
The idea that "hate crime legislation" wasn't created and enshrined to defend poor left-wing minorities more so than white straight males IS LAUGHABLE. Please, hate crime legislation began to gain national recognition from the Shepard case (gay), and was seized upon by race baiters like Al Sharpton and feminazis to protect their groups.
Oh yes, we can all say "well, hate crimes are strictly netural." Yeah, right; because if a group of black guys beats up a white guy, it'll be treated as a hate crime in exactly the same percentage as if a group of whites beats up a black. Yes, please see the Jena 6 monsters.
You can cover your eeys and say "it's neutral, it's neutral" when it clearly isn't. it's designed to give surpierior status to left-wing minority groups over others, whose deaths for other stupid reasons are not as meaningful.
I hope that South park episode plays. "Cartman's silly little Hate crime."
Morons
Also, these kinds of attacks aren't usually considered hate crimes, which is why they won't come up in your internet search. Here is an example that I remember from 2004:
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2004/09/bogus-assault-father-freeper-of-year.html
How many examples do you find of Democrats reportedly being attacked by Republicans?
Whoa Megan....with the spanking you got here in the comment section I suspect your cheeks will be inflamed and sore for weeks!
Shame on you for this awful post, and on The Atlantic for publishing your pathetic screeds!
Let's put it this way:
Black guy/white guy get in a fight. Drunkenly, outside of some bar, middle of nowhere, saturday night.
White guy calls black guy darkie.
Black guy calls white guy white boy/honky.
Who gets charged with the hate crime?
hmmm, I wonder...
The equal protection clause is dead.
In October 2006, a College Republican leader from Oakland College in Michigan said that he was beaten up by "liberals." He later admitted that it was a lie.
In December 2007, a College Republican leader from Princeton claims that he was assaulted by a pair of assailants who had also sent him threatening emails over editorials in a school paper. He later admitted to inflicting the injuries and sending the emails himself.
In reality, faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes.
I think my name says it all quite clearly.
Or let's put it this way...
The College Republicans have a history of 36 years of ratfucking and dirty tricks, many of them racially tinged.
But this member of the College Republican National Committee is just a disturbed girl.
Andrew: yes, generalize. And college democrats have a history of coerced and forced abortions, rioting, destruction, and lower IQs.
Oh, and dirty trickts; terrorism; and theft.
Generalizing without facts is fun.
Megan, you're damn right, and don't let these "blacks/gays/women are always right, white straight men are always wrong" morons intimidate you.
N.B. I'm a white straight man, so you can trust what I have to say.
any idiot arguing that lefties groups get charged with hate crimes as much as righties, I got 2 words for you:
Jena 6.
Kindly go bite yourselves.
Indeed, let's hope we get some insightful legal analysis from "South Park."
And Basic Fact, in Jena, who were the "righties" and who were the "lefties"? I mean that sincerely. Please let us know.
Ah, yes, those fake hate crimes perpetrated by leftists. In fact, Matthew Shepard is still pretending to be dead. I wish he'd just get over it.
South Park, the most insightful show on television? Are you seriously criticizing something that has offered the best critique of American culture of the last 20 years? El_nino, your brain must be huge to be that arrogant.
Let's see: blacks are a lefty minority group. White straight males are not. So when the lefty minority group commits an obvious hate crime, do they get a "hate crime" put on them? No? Heck, even when the little monsters are punished severely, the lefites run out and scream that blacks shouldn't be punished for hate crimes.
In other words, el_nino, the only people protected by hate crimes are lefty minoritiy groups. Q.E.D.
it's hilarious that el_nino takes a shot at South Park while he probably thinks the Colbert Report is gospel and the Daily Show is the most intelligent show on television.
Man, you lefties do live in an echo chamber.
Hate crime legislation is unnecessary, destructive, and violates the 14th Amendment.
That is all.
White guy calls black guy darkie.
Black guy calls white guy white boy/honky.
Who gets charged with the hate crime?
Who actually committed one? Who actually committed a crime not just against an individual but against a community?
I think someone hasn't thought through what a "hate crime" actually is, and why burning a cross (for instance) is a more substantial crime, objectively, than just the arson component.
Let's not forget the Paterfamilias of self-inflicted hate-crime hoaxes, one K. Rove, who famously broke into his own campaign office in Texas and blamed it on the Democrats.
In this latest incident, it seems like young Todd was embarking on a path well-worn by the amoral side of the Republican party. And who helps clear that path? Empty-headed bloviators such as Megan McArdle.
"AFAIK" (i.e., let me make something up because I am intellectually lazy), the number of cranium-in-rectum incidents seen at hospital admitting rooms, is 5-to-1 Republicans over Democrats. But McArdle's prolific output will increase that ratio to 5.5.
OK, I'll take the bait. I don't think I criticized "South Park" at all. I've enjoyed it for years. All the way back to "Jesus vs. Santa." And I agree, it does occasionally offer insightful (though simplistic) commentary. It's just not the first place I'd turn for a thoughtful exploration of a complex issue, particularly a legal one. Do they have funny takes on relevant topics, absolutely. But it's never going to change my mind about something -- call me arrogant (oh wait, you already did), but self-respect demands that I don't allow my opinions to be shaped by a half-hour cartoon. As far as the Daily Show and Colbert go, I rarely watch them these days (gotta wake up early), so I can't comment on their current quality. But back when I did watch, I found them funny and occasionally insightful. Again, never let them shape what I thought of things, but was entertained by them. Cause that's what they are -- entertainment, nothing more.
And Basic Fact, your response indicates you similarly rose to the offered bait. Your response speaks for itself.
I think someone hasn't thought through what a "hate crime" actually is, and why burning a cross (for instance) is a more substantial crime, objectively, than just the arson component.
Chet, you're making the exact point that the anti-hate-crime-law people are making: the laws, even if neutral on their face, only really protect favored groups and ignore others.
Oh, that's right el_nino--I let South Park control and change all my opinions for me. Oh wait, I just called it "the best critique of American culture of the last 20 years." Never said it always changes and controls my opinion. That is what they call, little man, a strawman.
And yes, you did take a shot at it, though now you're trying to backtrack and say "oh, but I always loved it!" Just admit you did, take it back, and move on. Don't try to dance around that one, you stepped in it already.
And saying The Colbert Show/Daily Show are only their for "entertainment" is the typical bogus shield Jon Stewart uses when he's criticized, and it isn't valid. The shows are there for more than just sheer entertainment--the present points of view, and mock those they find ludicrous. Comedy/mockery is a powerful weapon in persuasion, and many, many people tune into those shows to have their views validated or hear an argument, not merely to laugh. To say otherwise is to insult their craft and ability, and to ignore the stance they present.
And simplistic. Right. I'm sure the multi-talented South Park people would love to hear that. It ain't James Joyce, but its certainly got more depth than most things on television--including the self-serious ones.
And yes, my answer does speak for itself. When the Jena 6 monsters get charged for a hate crime, then I'll make an allowance that maybe these hate crime legislators aren't all in it to get whitey. Right now, though, the facts speak pretty clearly on that one.
Wow.
I'm usually a fan of yours, Megan.
But even a casual student of history knows about the horrific history of false crimes blamed on minority groups, as justifications for lynchings, pogroms, and other massacres.
And yet you make it sound like there's some broad plague of false crimes being perpetrated by "the left." I can think of one: Tawana Brawley. Even if there are more (are there? what are they?), I think we need to be honest and admit that Ms. Todd's little stunt was precisely in line with a long tradition employed by conservative reactionaries clinging power.
Most faked hate crimes occur on campuses, and news searches overwhelmingly turn up cases of people alleging anti-gay, anti-black, or anti-woman actions. There may be news bias, of course, but the FBI doesn't track them.
I explicitly did not blame this on the left; I blamed it on nut jobs who happened to be left-wing. The point was that the nut jobs do not reflect on the broader movement, or its goals; they're just nut jobs.
Megan McCardle:
You know, I may be wrong here, but, As Far As I Know:
Most faked crimes in which the alleged perpetrator is black are faked by Republicans / Wingers, if only because liberals usually don't have anything to gain, or any prejudices to confirm amongst their base, that would be advanced by such an accusation.
Ooh, wow. That was fun. Anyone can play that game!
.
AFAIK, I lost another 2 IQ points reading your post today. If I keep clicking on links to your threads, I may end up voting Republican.
Here's a hint, cupcake. Look up all the bombings and assassinations of women's healthcare facilities and the staff who worked in these facilities. Also, check who bombed the Alfred Murrah building in Oklahoma.
Then tell us again, AFAYK, who creates the majority of hate crimes in this country.
Does this website pay you for these posts? Or do you do this as A PSA to equalize the average IQ of this country?
JGabriel:
Oh, and let's not forget the anecdotal evidence to back it up: Susan Smith.
And then there's that guy, whose name I forget, who killed his wife in Boston and blamed it on a black man.
And so on.
Face it, McArdle. The trope of committing a crime or faking one, and then blaming it on a black man, is a disproportionately Republican meme.
.
"There are no FBI statistics, but news stories searched by either Google or Lexis-Nexis turn up almost entirely campus incidents involving blacks, gays, or women alleging hate crimes."
And clearly these are all 'liberal groups'. Your post and subsequent comments have provided me with much hilarity today. Thank you ever-so-much.
P.S. At least Michelle Malkin had the decency to admit when it all smelled fishy. You, however, come back with more garbage about how evil the left is. GOOD JOB!
Most faked hate crimes occur on campuses, and news searches overwhelmingly turn up cases of people alleging anti-gay, anti-black, or anti-woman actions.
We'll take that evidence now. Since it's so overwhelming and all. Thanks in advance.
Basic Fact,
Actually, it's not a strawman. I presented my perception of "South Park," and my own disinclination to let it shape my opinion. I didn't say you let it shape or control yours -- if you care to infer that and vigorously disagree, so be it, but it's not what I wrote. As for the "little man" bit, whatever.
Further, I lumped SP, DS and CR together as entertainment, which is what I find them to be. If you think dismissing "South Park"- (or DS- or CR-)level legal analysis is a slam, so be it. I would never take any argument or critique I found on those shows as anything other than an entertaining, or humorous, or novel take on an issue. I enjoy them as entertainment, but don't take their critiques (of any topic) that seriously. If you choose to, fine, just don't expect everyone to operate on that level. I don't think it's unfair to the people to create those shows(some of whom I have known for years) to describe what they do as entertainment. I've heard them say as much themselves.
I'm sure this has been addressed already in comments but when I read it. I had to comment...
There are no FBI statistics, but news stories searched by either Google or Lexis-Nexis turn up almost entirely campus incidents involving blacks, gays, or women alleging hate crimes.
WTF? So your basis for original un-supported comment is that there are not hate crimes? They only exist on paper as alleged crimes?
Wow, just WOW.
You people unabashedly just grabbing at straws now aren't ya?
I explicitly did not blame this on the left; I blamed it on nut jobs who happened to be left-wing. The point was that the nut jobs do not reflect on the broader movement, or its goals; they're just nut jobs.
I blame it on trust fund nut jobs who somehow got someone at the Atlantic Monthly to let them in the door. Megan, if I disagreed with you but respected your thinking, it would be one thing. But I don't begin the respect you.
Ahem
el_nino:
1. You slammed them, now you're backtracking, and lying to boot. Your credibility, little man, is shot.
2."And saying The Colbert Show/Daily Show are only their for "entertainment" is the typical bogus shield Jon Stewart uses when he's criticized, and it isn't valid. The shows are there for more than just sheer entertainment--the present points of view, and mock those they find ludicrous. Comedy/mockery is a powerful weapon in persuasion, and many, many people tune into those shows to have their views validated or hear an argument, not merely to laugh. To say otherwise is to insult their craft and ability, and to ignore the stance they present."
----Hmmm, guess what? I said that. Before you opened your mouth and tried to argue the whole "we're only comedy/entertainment" ploy.
If you're going to posit this easily deniable fiction that the Daily Show/Colbert Report isn't there to convince you of one point of view by ceaselessly mocking the other side, you're either stupid, naive, or someone working on the show.
John Stewart/Colbert can tell me as many times as they want that he's "just a comedian, telling jokes." When the live audience isn't 95% left wingers cheering at every joke; when John Stewart doesn't shy away from Obama gags in favor of McCain/Palin gags; and when Colberts entire routine isn't "right wingers are crazy," come talk to me like a grown up. Their jokes serve a serious purpose: to mock and destroy what Stewart/Colbert/and staff consider silly or outrageous thought, which, as the years have passed, almost exclusively has become, in their eyes, right wing thought.
South Park doesn't buy such nonsense about "just being comedians", and its creators/writers are well aware that their mockery serves a purpose and can help to point the ridiculous in the every day--and, because they recognize this, and do not hide from it, they are more respectable that Stewart/Colbert, who are sniveling cowards at admitting their agenda. It's no wonder, therefore, that Norman Lear and the South Park crew have a kinship-bond, despite the fact that Lear's views are far to the left of South Park's: Lear also recognized that simple half hour television comedy could inform and challenge worldviews, and did not shy away from admitting that he was trying to do so.
Please try to remember Chesterton's famous quip about humor: "Mr. McCabe thinks that I am not serious but only funny, because Mr. McCabe thinks that funny is the opposite of serious. Funny is the opposite of not funny, and of nothing else."
When the live audience isn't 95% left wingers cheering at every joke; when John Stewart doesn't shy away from Obama gags in favor of McCain/Palin gags; and when Colberts entire routine isn't "right wingers are crazy," come talk to me like a grown up. Their jokes serve a serious purpose: to mock and destroy what Stewart/Colbert/and staff consider silly or outrageous thought, which, as the years have passed, almost exclusively has become, in their eyes, right wing thought.
And here I thought I had forgotten just how hilariously self-pitying the wingnut fringe can be! Thanks for reminding me!
In reality, AFAIK, faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes, if only because the left has more groups who can realistically complain of attack.
Fuck you, you fucking retarded cunt.
This is only a newsworthy if it turns out the McCain campaign was pushing the story. I haven't heard of any evidence or even allegations (yet) to that effect.
John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the "B" carved into the victim's cheek stood for "Barack," according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain's Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, "You're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson."
Verrilli also told TPM that the McCain spokesperson had claimed that the "B" stood for Barack. According to Verrilli, the spokesperson also told KDKA that Sarah Palin had called the victim of the alleged attack, who has since admitted the story was a hoax.
The KDKA reporter had called McCain's campaign office for details after seeing the story -- sans details -- teased on Drudge.
The McCain spokesperson's claims -- which came in the midst of extraordinary and heated conversations late yesterday between the McCain campaign, local TV stations, and the Obama camp, as the early version of the story rocketed around the political world -- is significant because it reveals a McCain official pushing a version of the story that was far more explosive than the available or confirmed facts permitted at the time.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/mccain_aide_gave_reporters_inc.php
Posted by Megan is a fucking idiot | October 24, 2008 4:35 PM
Preach on, brother.
You guys are wasting your time. Telling Megan that she's stupid is as useless as telling someone who is tone-deaf that they're singing out of tune.
Megan McArdle at 6:51 p.m.
I explicitly did not blame this on the left; I blamed it on nut jobs who happened to be left-wing.
Megan McArdle at 206 p.m.
In reality, AFAIK, faked hate crimes are usually faked by left wing causes, if only because the left has more groups who can realistically complain of attack.
Is Megan McArdle an idiot? You decide.
Basic Fact,
I can't believe I'm indulging this, as no I'm certain no one besides you and me (and perhaps G.K. Chesterton and Norman Lear) could possibly be interested, but fine. I'll ask you one question.
In re no. 2 of your 11:36 post, you quote yourself at length, and then claim this: "Hmmm, guess what? I said that. Before you opened your mouth and tried to argue the whole "we're only comedy/entertainment" ploy." Posted at 6:29.
In fact, that was a response to my post at 6:02 (the first time the word "entertainment" appeared in this thread). If anyone cares to go back and look, I stated in my 6:02 post that I considered SP/DS/CR to be sometimes-insightful entertainment, nothing more. And yet, somehow at 11:36, you found a way to make 6:29 previous to 6:02.
So, back to my question. Since when is 6:29 "before" (your word) 6:02? I'm on the edge of my seat. Really.
I've been saying for weeks she's an idiot. But people jumped on me and asked, "Does that feel cathartic?"
Well. . . yes now it does.
November 4th can't come soon enough. McArdle McCain's campaign DID push this story. Are you ever going to admit you're wrong about anything?
You have now devolved to the level of a young, female George W. Bush. Enjoy your time here.
Oh, that's right el_nino--I let South Park control and change all my opinions for me. Oh wait, I just called it "the best critique of American culture of the last 20 years." Never said it always changes and controls my opinion. That is what they call, little man, a strawman.
I guess I was still reading, el nino and BF (BFF?) because that line had me laughing out loud.
Basic Fact, you know you brilliantly self-illustrated a straw man argument by mis-characterizing and exaggerating what el nino posted, thereby making it easier to challenge, right? Right? And then challenging the exaggeration by leveling the charge of "strawman". Just too funny.
And BF, why are you so touchy about South Park anyway? Sounds like Matt and Trey need to do an episode about SP fans who get all bent out of shape when someone misquotes Cartman or says that the Simpsons already did some bit.
Oh wait...
What right wing group is covered under the rubric of "hate crimes"?
Blacks, who are more socially conservative than whites (as measured by their greater opposition to same-sex marriage.)
There is a difference between two groups: leftists, and the people whose causes leftists support. For example, to say that many crime fakers are women, as Megan has said in one of the replies above, and from that to conclude that most crime fakers are leftists is logically incorrect. Ann Coulter will object to such a leap of logic. So would Phylis Schaffly.
Um. Let me be the first to say I yield to no one in the amount and degree of Megan bashing.
But let's be honest here. Megan isn't dumb, and she isn't as blindly partisan as some(which is why I don't post or read Instapundit or Cafe Hayek, for example.)
I think what most people object to is the lack of scholarship. Maybe it's just me coming from an academic background, but I've always been taught that you really shouldn't say anything if you don't have a certain degree of support for it - some solid research, some respectable cite, newspaper clippings, journal articles, etc. So, for example, you don't say things like 'overwhelming majority' without including some sort pointers as to where this information came from.
Otoh, perhaps it is a problem with being a certain age and coming out of a certain academic tradition; sometimes I want to bang my head on my desk for the way my students _don't_ support their answers on paper. But who, when questioned, obviously think that they have.
I think what most people object to is the lack of scholarship. Maybe it's just me coming from an academic background, but I've always been taught that you really shouldn't say anything if you don't have a certain degree of support for it - some solid research, some respectable cite, newspaper clippings, journal articles, etc. So, for example, you don't say things like 'overwhelming majority' without including some sort pointers as to where this information came from.
Yes. This is what we objecters are objecting to. However, the ease with which Ms. McArdle slips into such anti-intellectual blog speeches suggests that she is, in fact, pretty dadgum blindly partisan, and hardly independent (kind of like:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/oreilly-correction/ )
More:
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/10/24/mcfacty/
Yes, so many fake hate crimes by liberals out there. Like Tim McVeigh, for example. Or the "Let's drag James Byrd behind our pickup truck" guys in Texas. Or the beat the gay out of Matthew Shepard duo. Or the shootings at Jewish community centers in Los Angeles. Or the Knoxville church shooting. Or the man who shot Arkansas Democratic party Chair, Bill Gwatney.
Oh wait. Those were real hate crimes by right wing criminals.
Nevermind.
Hoo, boy, el_nino and St. Adeline, I don't how you get through the day, seeing as you apparently have the brains of arugula (wait, is that racist to say that??). I'll type this slowly, because I know you don't read fast:
1. You STATED at 6:02 that DS/CR are merely entertainment. I made an ARGUMENT at 6:29. Then you tried to ARGUE at 8:34 why they were entertainment. In other words, before you tried to ARGUE your point I had already stated an ARGUMENT.
Try to keep up.
2. St. Adeline: please see what el_nino wrote at 6:02: "But it's never going to change my mind about something...but self-respect demands that I don't allow my opinions to be shaped by a half-hour cartoon...Again, never let them shape what I thought of things"
---So, St. Adeline, he was strongly implying that I was letting them shape and control my opinions---and I perfectly called him on his strawman. Go back to logic 101 before you step out of the kiddie pool. Perhaps the KosKids might be swayed by your style of (non)thinking.
Right, Steven D.
Tawana Brawley.
Al Sharpton.
Cynthia McKinney.
We can play anecdotal stories all day. Looks like I found some libby fakers, therefore, they are all correct.
hate crime legislation lovers=fascists.
Uh, it wasn't a "fantasy" it was a "lie", for political gain, within a political party and its subset--the college republicans--who have quite a history of faking/publicizing fake attacks against themselves as a way of drawing attention to themselves and their party and discrediting democrats and liberals. McMegan's *fantasies* notwithstanding the issue is the number of fake accusations to real incidences, not fake to fake across the spectrum of real victimization.
aimai
Also, needless to say, this has nothing to do with "hate crimes" as a right wing synonym for "thought crimes" since she claimed she was assaulted and mugged--both crimes in and of themselves and she added the political angle because *that was the whole point of the smear* not to increase the legal liability of the non-existent attacker. You morons. Since there was never any real attacker there was never really any liklihood, absent her actually going through with a direct accusation of an innocent man, that there would be any prosecution of any individual person. The whole thing was a massive fraud aimed at gaming this electoral moment in the political system. It was not a "hate crime" because it *never happened.*
aimai
What right wing group is covered under the rubric of "hate crimes"?
Ummmmm, Christianists?
Apparently, those people thinking Megan is "making shit up" about lefties committing more hate crimes than righties don't have the ability to scroll up on her blog postings:
see "More on fake crimes", posted Oct. 24th.
Again, morons.
hate crime legislation lovers=fascists.
Indeed. In reality, AFAIK, the notable fascist regimes of the 20th century were bib on hate crime legislation. In face, AFAIK, it's their defining characteristic, the very definition of "fascist," AFAJGK.
,i>Apparently, those people thinking Megan is "making shit up" about lefties committing more hate crimes than righties don't have the ability to scroll up on her blog postings:
see "More on fake crimes", posted Oct. 24th.
I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it's a "basic fact" that the "More on fake crimes" post on Oct 24 came after this one. AFAIK. In reality. Also.
Hey ed:
Hmm, did fascist regimes set up classes of people who held more rights than and were more important than others, establishing a de facto caste system? Methinks you didn't ponder that one. Oh wait, you're a lefty. Never mind.
And ed....I never said she didn't post her facts later. Megan offered evidence to back up her postings. Q.E.D., birdbrain.
BF:
I know you are, but what am I? No backsies. Infinity. Also.
Hmm, did fascist regimes set up classes of people who held more rights than and were more important than others, establishing a de facto caste system?
I don't follow you. Please explain.
Megan offered evidence to back up her postings.
Um, what? How? Quite the opposite. AFAIK. Also.
Apparently ed thinks that just typing in catchphrases wins an argument. Sounds like a lefty to me. But I'm game for a battle of wits against an unarmed man:
"I don't follow you. Please explain."
---Nazis: crimes against aryans are horrible, crimes against non-aryans not that bad. They deserve it.
Liberals: Crimes against minorities who vote democrat are horrible, crimes against non-democrat minorities not that bad. They deserve it.
Caste system.
"Um, what? How? Quite the opposite. AFAIK. Also."
---I pointed out the post where she gives proof. It occurred after this post that got you all hot and bothered. Go on, look it up. It's good for you.
Have fun in sped class, kid. AFAIK. Also.