Sept. 11 was the day my religion was hijacked

[Goober]

FBI sees leap in anti-Muslim hate crimes / 9/11 attacks blamed for bias -- blacks still most frequent victims - SFGate



Read the link. I gave you all the information you could have wanted for a web search if you were suspicious.

Now 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2002 while it supports the percentage stated created an impression that hate crimes were extremely high in the US before and much more so after 911- I think that you should have posted the numbers to then give fair comment. Without the link you saw the response and I agree with the response received.
Stats for African Americans are and were much higher.

The most dramatic change noted by the report was a more than 1,600 percent increase in reported hate crimes against Muslims -- a jump from 28 hate incidents in 2000 to 481 last year.

The report, however, showed that African Americans -- with 3,700 victims of hate crimes counted in 2001 -- were by far the largest group of victims, as they have been since the FBI began gathering hate crime statistics from local law enforcement in 1992. Hate crimes against African Americans rose slightly, from 2,884 incidents in 2000 to 2,899 incidents in 2001.

 

[CDNBear]

Naw ... if I laid off it a little, I'd be in pain and not laughing my ass off trolling yours....

You got me!!!



Good work!

Bastard!

Now that you came to the dark side, I guess you'll be wanting some cookies?

I'll have SCB bake up some of her special star spangled peanut butter ones.

 

[Tonington]

Now 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2002 while it supports the percentage stated created an impression that hate crimes were extremely high in the US before and much more so after 911- I think that you should have posted the numbers to then give fair comment. Without the link you saw the response and I agree with the response received.

All it supports is that after 9/11 hate crimes against Muslims rose dramatically, which they did. In 2001, every 13 days a Muslim would be the victim of hate crime in the US somewhere. In 2002 that figure is far different, one Muslim every day, and 2 on some days, is a victim of hate crime.

1600% is the change, and it's not insignificant.

 

[DaSleeper]

UK Muslims Burning US Flag Outside USA Embassy on 9/11 Anniversary - YouTube

 

[CDNBear]

A good exercise in free speech.

Although you have to love the irony of the anti western slogans.

 

[Cliffy]

All it supports is that after 9/11 hate crimes against Muslims rose dramatically, which they did. In 2001, every 13 days a Muslim would be the victim of hate crime in the US somewhere. In 2002 that figure is far different, one Muslim every day, and 2 on some days, is a victim of hate crime.

1600% is the change, and it's not insignificant.

What also makes it significant is the percentage of Muslims in the American public.

 

[CDNBear]

What also makes it significant is the percentage of Muslims in the American public.

2.2% of the US population, or roughly 7.000.000 persons.

 

[Goober]

What also makes it significant is the percentage of Muslims in the American public.

481 is not significant considering the events of 911 - Spin it what ever way you want - people act out of fear - anger - hate - the same would happen in any country - perhaps more as i have stated with what occurred in Muslim countries regarding the Danish Cartoons and that Nutbar burning the Koran - Not trying to minimize it but the US has over 300 Million people. Put it in the perspective of all that along with other facts, then it is not significant nor is it unexpected.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/06/07/hate-crimes-statscan.html

The largest increase was in hate crimes motivated by religion, which increased 55 per cent, the agency said, and seven in 10 of those involved hate crimes directed against Jews, who were the target of 283 reported hate crimes.

Hate crimes against the Muslim faith increased to 36 incidents from 26 in 2008. Police reported 33 hate crimes against Catholics, three more than in 2008.

 

[CDNBear]

481 is not significant considering the events of 911 - Spin it what ever way you want - people act out of fear - anger - hate - the same would happen in any country - perhaps more as i have stated with what occurred in Muslim countries regarding the Danish Cartoons and that Nutbar burning the Koran - Not trying to minimize it but the US has over 300 Million people. Put it in the perspective of all that along with other facts, then it is not significant nor is it unexpected.

That's moral relativism and one of my biggest issues with EAO and the rest of the usual suspects.

There is no way anyone can/should, justify focused, premeditated, retributive, violence against innocent third party non combatants.

Period.

It's like saying your kids should be punished because you once carried a weapon.

 

[Colpy]

2.2% of the US population, or roughly 7.000.000 persons.

Jews are 5,275,000, or 1.7% of the population.

The Muslims suffered 6.8 hate crimes per 100,000 population.

the Jews suffered 22.5 hate crimes per 100,000 population.

Must be Hebophobia, an epidemic!!!!

the point being that the numbers do NOT show a significant wave of anti-Muslim hatred...........

 

[CDNBear]

the point being that the numbers do NOT show a significant wave of anti-Muslim hatred...........

I can agree with that.

It was the "so what" attitude and pointing to other hate crime stats to dismiss what Ton had provided, that your other post had in it, that caught my eye.

You do realize that was a common tactic EAO and Abtfet used right?

 

[Tonington]

481 is not significant considering the events of 911

Calculate the risk before and after. It's not an insignificant change.

Your fallacy is evident if we change the events. By your logic, 9/11 is not significant considering the Holocaust. The Holocaust is not significant considering Mao's murders.

The fallacy is similar to moving goal posts...in that you are telling us that something is insignificant because something worse has happened before and you are demanding equivalence with another event to be in fact significant. Meaning that there must be only one truly significant crime against humanity.

That, is ridiculous. I'm not trying to compare the two, that's not sensible. But neither is it sensible to define one by the other.

 

[Goober]

That's moral relativism and one of my biggest issues with EAO and the rest of the usual suspects.

There is no way anyone can/should, justify focused, premeditated, retributive, violence against innocent third party non combatants.

Period.

It's like saying your kids should be punished because you once carried a weapon.[/QUOTE

Not at all - I am not condoning it - It is an expected result of 911 - If you asked pundits in all their respective fields what the general reaction of the US public would be to an event such as 911 - well this would in all probability be the best scenario -
We saw what the reaction in the Arab world was to the cartoons and the burning of the Koran - Supported by leading figures - No charges laid for the murders -

The US crimes would have been investigated and we do not know how many were charged and convicted.Now do we - All we have are stats showing an increase - No more than that. So they then become suspect.

Now compare that to just 60 years prior - Pearl Harbor - An amazing change in thinking - tolerance - knowing who was and was not responsible for 911 - That is what I see.

 

[Tonington]

the point being that the numbers do NOT show a significant wave of anti-Muslim hatred...........

The wave is large enough to stand out against the background.

That's why I love statistics. Significance actually means something, and it's not subjective.

 

[taxslave]

The question to ask is would that happen today?

I'd like to say no but I wouldn't bet a paycheque on it.

 

[Goober]

The wave is large enough to stand out against the background.

That's why I love statistics. Significance actually means something, and it's not subjective.

What is that line about statistics and lies - You are a scientist - Well educated - and a prisoner of your skill sets. Why - Because you cannot quantify human emotion - you cannot place a statistic on hate - Or anger - Or fear. You look for what is quantifiable and human emotion cannot be measured in a highly accurate manner. You know that as well as I - Human emotions & reactions to an event such as 911 bring forth hate, anger, fear to name a few. As we know Govts run many different scenarios thru massive computers, programmed by all the experts in the respective fields to arrive at what may, may happen.
I think that the stats show a positive for the US as a whole considering the events, the emotions that run wild, rumors, fear add it all up and try to put that in a Stat. You cannot, why human emotion is only measurable to a point. After the initial event to many variables come into play that cannot be measured so the reaction to the event can be run from both ends of the scale.

 

[Tonington]

What is that line about statistics and lies - You are a scientist - Well educated - and a prisoner of your skill sets. Why - Because you cannot quantify human emotion - you cannot place a statistic on hate - Or anger - Or fear. You look for what is quantifiable and human emotion cannot be measured in a highly accurate manner. You know that as well as I - Human emotions & reactions to an event such as 911 bring forth hate, anger, fear to name a few. As we know Govts run many different scenarios thru massive computers, programmed by all the experts in the respective fields to arrive at what may, may happen.
I think that the stats show a positive for the US as a whole considering the events, the emotions that run wild, rumors, fear add it all up and try to put that in a Stat. You cannot, why human emotion is only measurable to a point. After the initial event to many variables come into play that cannot be measured so the reaction to the event can be run from both ends of the scale.

What are you on about? Who is attempting to make the stat about fear or human emotion? That the number of hate crimes went up by so much lends evidence to what the author of the essay in the OP was talking about.

The line about lies, damned lies, and statistics is often only known partially by lay people. It has two meanings. Basically, someone can make a statistic for almost anything, and can use statistics to add strength to weak hypotheses. Second, some people will choose to ignore statistics that do not fit the model they have.

Sort of like this. You are disparaging against this statistic. All along, Muslims are victims of hate crimes in the tens. Then after 9/11 it jumps by a full order of magnitude to hundreds. It doesn't matter how many other groups are targeted and how often, because hate crimes have specific targets. A Jew and a Muslim as hate crime victims are mutually exclusive.

The change is significant.

 

[captain morgan]

What is that line about statistics and lies - You are a scientist - Well educated - and a prisoner of your skill sets. Why - Because you cannot quantify human emotion - you cannot place a statistic on hate - Or anger - Or fear. You look for what is quantifiable and human emotion cannot be measured in a highly accurate manner. You know that as well as I - Human emotions & reactions to an event such as 911 bring forth hate, anger, fear to name a few. As we know Govts run many different scenarios thru massive computers, programmed by all the experts in the respective fields to arrive at what may, may happen.
I think that the stats show a positive for the US as a whole considering the events, the emotions that run wild, rumors, fear add it all up and try to put that in a Stat. You cannot, why human emotion is only measurable to a point. After the initial event to many variables come into play that cannot be measured so the reaction to the event can be run from both ends of the scale.

Any statistical model is fully dependent on the underlying assumptions, add to that the less tangible components of defining 'what' is a hate crime, are the definitions used today the same as before or were the # of instances actually marginally higher after 9/11 but there were simply more people reporting them.

Because these factors are so easily manipulated and have the potential for subjective analysis/interpretation, the adage that "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" has been adopted by society at large.

 

[JLM]

What are you on about? Who is attempting to make the stat about fear or human emotion? That the number of hate crimes went up by so much lends evidence to what the author of the essay in the OP was talking about.

The line about lies, damned lies, and statistics is often only known partially by lay people. It has two meanings. Basically, someone can make a statistic for almost anything, and can use statistics to add strength to weak hypotheses. Second, some people will choose to ignore statistics that do not fit the model they have.

Sort of like this. You are disparaging against this statistic. All along, Muslims are victims of hate crimes in the tens. Then after 9/11 it jumps by a full order of magnitude to hundreds. It doesn't matter how many other groups are targeted and how often, because hate crimes have specific targets. A Jew and a Muslim as hate crime victims are mutually exclusive.

The change is significant.

Brings back memories of myself beating my head against the wall, trying to convince S.J.P. of the fallacy of statistics. As far as 9/11 goes the only valid statistic is the U.S. hasn't suffered a similar attack since! :smile:

 

[Goober]

What are you on about? Who is attempting to make the stat about fear or human emotion? That the number of hate crimes went up by so much lends evidence to what the author of the essay in the OP was talking about.

The line about lies, damned lies, and statistics is often only known partially by lay people. It has two meanings. Basically, someone can make a statistic for almost anything, and can use statistics to add strength to weak hypotheses. Second, some people will choose to ignore statistics that do not fit the model they have.

Sort of like this. You are disparaging against this statistic. All along, Muslims are victims of hate crimes in the tens. Then after 9/11 it jumps by a full order of magnitude to hundreds. It doesn't matter how many other groups are targeted and how often, because hate crimes have specific targets. A Jew and a Muslim as hate crime victims are mutually exclusive.

The change is significant.

I am questioning what type of hate crimes - I do not in nay way try to minimize it - I also say Jews were at the 1000 mark for hate crimes. I also stated that human emotion plays a large part in people reactions to an event such as 911 - or do you remember the King riots when the Police were accused of beating a black man. The city went out of control. Look at the US society over a period of time - 1941 they were locking Japanese up - after 911 they had a substantial increase hate crimes but it would not, not be unexpected. Humans react that way.
The stats do not provide a break down - what type of crime - how many convictions - Do you recall the Sikh man that was murdered after 911 because some freak thought, thought he was a Muslim. Those are the points i am making. I am not justifying it - nor do i consider it a laughing matter - hate is hate -