Hate crimes

This LGBT Activist's House Was Burned Down. Police Now Suspect He Set the Fire Himself.

Cops arrested Nikki Joly of Jackson, Michigan, for alleged hoax that resulted in the death of his five pets.

|

Joly
Screenshot via Mlive

In 2017, prominent Michigan LGBT activist Nikki Joly, a transgender man, was the victim of an apparent hate crime: An unknown arsonist burned down his house, which had two dogs and three cats trapped inside. Some presumed the act was retaliatory—a response to Joly's successful campaign to persuade the government of Jackson, Michigan, to adopt an anti-discrimination law, for which a local newspaper declared him "Citizen of the Year."

Now the police finally have a suspect in custody: Joly.

Police have long suspected that Joly set the fire himself, though it took a while to collect sufficient evidence. According to The Detroit News:

Joly told [police] that, on the morning of the fire, he bought $10 of gas at a Marathon station so he could cut his grass. He began to mow, but it got too hot so he stopped with the backyard half done.

He went to work at the church and got a call from Moore at 1:02 p.m., said the report. Moore had forgotten to pack her lunch so asked Joly to bring it to her at work. The couple share one car.

Joly returned home, which was two miles away, went inside for a minute or two, and left, he told police.

The fire was reported by neighbors at 1:16 p.m.

The sequence of events would have made it difficult for anyone but Joly to set the fire, Grove said in the police report.

"The timeline shows a window of less than five minutes for another person to enter the residence, splash gasoline around, ignite the fire and then leave without being scene," wrote Grove.

Joly told an insurance company investigator the arsonist must have been in the home at the same time he was, according to the report.

Lab tests by police found traces of gasoline on the clothes Joly was wearing on the day of the fire, said the report.

Joly didn't own the house, and thus did not collect any insurance money from it. He did receive more than $58,000 in donations, however. He may have suggested to friends that he was upset about the diminished attention being paid to his advocacy in the wake of the anti-discrimination law's passage—a possible motive, according to the police.

The authorities investigated a second suspect—a man who was angry about the anti-discrimination ordinance—but determined that he could not have been at the scene of the crime during the window of time in which the fire was set.

Just because Joly has been charged does not mean he is guilty, of course. He is entitled to due process and a presumption of innocence. Many in his community refuse to believe he could have played a role in the fire, given that it killed his five pets. Other former supporters of Joly's now believe they were duped, however.

"I feel as though I was used for a money scam," said Jeff Graves, a drag queen who helped solicit donations for Joly after the house burned down. "It hurt and it still does."

News of this suspected hate crime hoax comes amidst the unraveling of the Jussie Smollett attack: The Empire actor claimed he was assaulted by two men, racist homophobes, who shouted "this is MAGA country" as they doused him in bleach and put a rope around his neck. Police now suspect Smollett hired the men to fake the attack, and have charged the actor with felony disorderly conduct for filing a false police report.

The existence of two high-profile hate crime hoaxes—neither of them yet proven in a court of law—should not be used to discredit every alleged hate crime. But this news does provide a timely reminder that many stories are more complicated than they first seem. Self-described victims should be greeted with support and sympathy, not automatic belief that they must be telling the truth. Sometimes, they're not.

And, as Reason's Nick Gillespie, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, and I have all observed in recent articles, there just isn't a lot of evidence to support the idea that hate crimes are growing more prevalent.

NEXT: 'No Allegations of Human Trafficking' and 'Women Could've Walked Out' In Florida Massage-Parlor Prostitution Stings

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. So sweet. It was like finding a Christmas Goose on my dining table

      1. It’s like your moms vagina after a pineapple and kiwi binge.

        1. How can a collective have one vagina?

          1. You must be new here. It’s Crusty.

            1. Not new. Just wasn’t letting his apostrophe challenged discourse go un-pedanted.

              1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
                >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

            2. What’s crusty, the vagina?

              1. Gee Chipper, maybe you need Vagisil.

                1. Darn, I left it at your mom’s.

                  1. Watch your mouth. If you invoke her, it’s on you.

                    My mom would knock your ass on the ground and step on your nuts until you shrieked like a little girl. God help you if you make this happen. Just pray for a quick death.

          2. No, it’s your vagina of the moms variety.

        2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
          >>>>>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

      2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
        >>>>>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

    2. Only thing better than first is fourth.

      1. Doesn’t count because you didn’t reference the article. Haha

      1. And an afrear.

  1. Another one where it’s probably best to let the evidence and case play out.

    Torching your pets is cold-blooded….

    1. Torching your pets is cold-blooded….

      Unless they have hooves or fins, then it’s delicious too.

      Torching someone else’s house that you share without regard to any and all property inside; that’s sociopathic.

      1. Unless they have hooves or fins

        People don’t usually burn them alive.

        1. Terror adds a certain… savor…

          1. It is well known that stress makes the meat taste bad. The meat tastes best when they don’t see it coming.

            1. Taste is very subjective.
              But any cannibal will tell you clowns taste funny.

            2. Deer run after being shot and their meat is delicious.

              You are an ignorant retard.

              1. It’s late, lovecon89. If your mom catches you with your laptop under your blanket, you gonna get a spanking!

                1. Poor Chipper, first his comments get refuted by common sense then he projects his fantasies of spankings and hiding under blankets on other people.

                  1. Creepy third person at the slightest sign of offense. How many people do you have locked in your basement?

        2. People don’t usually burn them alive.

          Well duh.

      2. “that’s sociopathic.”

        So, typical Leftist activist behavior, then.

      3. “that’s sociopathic.”

        So, typical Leftist activist behavior, then.

    1. *ahem* exbitches

    2. Drama queens, amirite?

  2. “…without being scene”

    Damn spell-check.

    1. No, no, it fits.

  3. “without being scene”

    Being scene indeed

    1. It’s especially pathetic when you’re a police detective writing an official statement. I’m amazed with how much shitty grammar makes it through multiple layers of review before being published.

      But, it makes me happy that there are others who can appreciate basic English. I appreciate all you pedants.

      1. School teachers today aren’t allowed to hurt students’ feelings by telling them they don’t write correctly. Besides, that could be racist.

  4. Self-described victims should be greeted with support and sympathy, not automatic belief that they must be telling the truth. Sometimes, they’re not.

    Either its different when its a sexual assault or your stance on ‘supporting the victim’ is changing.

    If its the latter, good on ya – this is a better stance to take towards victims where you have absolutely no way to know these people personally or the circumstances around them.

  5. Jesus Fucking Christ, that poor landlord. I mean that’s the reason you have insurance, but it doesn’t mean going through all the claims and losing your property and the deductible is not a gigantic headache. This is one of my worst nightmares. Not to mention if the guy did burn down the house he was renting, and it spread and killed a neighbor, the risk of lawsuit to the landlord.

    1. For clarification, the nightmare is anyone burning down one of my rentals, whether an existing tenant or some random nutjob. But pretty sure having your own tenant as the arsonist is worse. Being charged doesn’t mean xhey are guilty etc etc

    2. “Not to mention if the guy did burn down the house he was renting”
      It’s a crazy old cat lady LARPing as a man… poorly.

  6. Well, he was smart enough to leave the pets inside. Pets miraculously escaping is clue no. 1 for the insurance companies.

    1. “Yes, I am saying that through the miracle of love from Zoroaster Smudgie, Jinx, Roos, and Fat Toots all made out through the providence of Zoroaster. They must have combined their cat powers to form a supercat and bust out through the doors.”

      1. “Also, my porn computer happened to be at the shop that day.”

        1. Funny!

    2. Yes, it is hard to believe someone would set their beloved dogs and cats on fire for money. Only the cruelest piece of shit would do something like that.

      1. Depends on the dogs and cats.

      2. Right, and we all know how mentally healthy transgender people are.

      3. If they’re chihuahuas, they probably deserve it.

        1. If they’re chihuahuas, they probably deserve it.

          Also, significantly less suffering than say a Labrador or a St. Bernard, especially since the hairless ones look like they’re cold to begin with.

        2. If they’re chihuahuas, they probably deserve it.

          Keep that shit up and one night you’ll wake up to find mine in your bed with you.

          I like it when he leaves the victim’s head for last…

      4. It is one of the first red flags Insurance investigators look for. If you’re going to do it, you have to commit.

      5. But instead of money, what if it was for the ‘greater good’? Surely Fido and Fluffy are worth it?

    3. Yeah, sociopaths like you don’t give a shot if you have to roast a few pets to advance your evil bullshit.

      If you ever pull this kind of shit I hope it’s you that burns, Tony.

  7. “What do you mean unnatural? Don’t you see on TV where cats can rotate their shoulders 360 degrees and turn their limbs into hi speed cutting blades? What kind of insurance do you sell?”

  8. The gas on his clothes could just be from the lawn mower. The pets dying, man, if he did start it and let them die to make it seem more realistic, man that’s a cold stone killer. Lock the sucker up.

      1. Nikki is a chick name. Someone goes through all that work to change “gender” and forgets to change the name.

        1. What about Nikki Sixx? Oh wait, never mind.

        2. Fuckin’ transtesticles!

      2. Hell, I don’t even know what a “transgender man” is: a male becoming female, or vice-versa? Does it matter how far along the process is? 10%, still original — 10-90%, transgender — 90%, close enough to complete?

        Fuck that noise. This FA says “he”.

        1. When in doubt, or out of personal integrity, just go with “it”

          1. Sh-it, didn’t think of that!

        2. Transtesticles!

  9. “He may have suggested to friends that he was upset about the diminished attention being paid to his advocacy in the wake of the anti-discrimination law’s passage…”

    His diminished relevance too.

  10. Ancient Denver curse: may you get what you want

  11. Is everything a false flag now? Fine if it is, but would be nice to know up front.

    1. That’s what the smart money says.

    2. It’s no false flag that just last week I was tied up and forced to have sex with a bevy of thicc bootied women. Please spread my story to all who will listen. They must know my plight.

      1. Too bad there’s not some kind of magazine column to which you could send your story. A forum maybe.

    3. The only legit assaults are against conservatives and libertarians. Progressives tend to be violent sociopaths, and are usually behind the attacks.

    4. Is everything a false flag now?

      Because up until now it was all ‘real flags’ and ‘actual news’?

      Fine if it is, but would be nice to know up front.

      I think most everyone’s been triangulating reality since the late 80s and there’s plenty of evidence that we *should*’ve been doing it since at least the 60s.

      If you went back to the late 80s/early 90s and said the term ‘false flag’, ‘gaslighting’, ‘fake news’, etc., you’d have to follow it up with explanations about what those terms meant for all but a narrow few. Now, not only does everybody fully know what those terms mean, they’ve all got different opinions about the myriad of egregious examples in recent history.

  12. Typical LBGT ” activist” What a bas—d.

    1. Careful with the generalizations. Look at who you people consort with.

      1. “…Look at who you people consort with.”

        hardly anyone here consorts with you, scumbag.

      2. Something tells me you use the phrase “you people” quite often in you daily life.

        Bigoted pig.

    2. I don’t believe this is typical.

  13. Am I the only one who paused at the picture and looked back to confirm the article was using male pronouns? Sorry, but that is a female left wing activist with a taste for trying to pass as a guy. Otherwise, I’m not shocked that yet another “hate crime” looks like it is a hoax by an activist. At what point do we get to say that among publicized “hate crimes” there is a larger trend of fakes than actual acts against “protected minorities?”

    1. “Activism” is a potentially severe mental health issue.

    2. “In 2017, prominent Michigan LGBT activist Nikki Joly, a transgender man…”
      It’s, like, in the very first sentence.

      1. I’m not sure what that even means anymore. Is that a man who thinks he’s a woman, or a woman who thinks he’s a man?

        1. It’s confusing because he looks like a woman and has the name Nikki

          1. “If it were straightforward then *everyone* would do it.”

        2. I have adopted the position that if they can decide what they are, I have an equal right to decide what they are.

          1. I hate that I’m expected to play along with the insanity.

            1. Its fun when you don’t play along and the Lefties flip out.

              1. Ignore them completely and that’s what really pisses them off.

                1. A lot like trolls that way.

          2. This guy had his “choice of pronouns” down:

            As the years progressed, Amin’s behaviour became more erratic, unpredictable, and outspoken. After the United Kingdom broke off all diplomatic relations with his regime in 1977, Amin declared he had defeated the British, and conferred on himself the decoration of CBE (Conqueror of the British Empire). His full self-bestowed title ultimately became: “His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular”.

            I’m considering something similar for when they pass a law that says you must address people by their pronoun of choice…I stick some hyphens in there to make it one long word.

            1. I’ve decided to go with “massa”.

    3. At what point do we get to say that among publicized “hate crimes” there is a larger trend of fakes than actual acts against “protected minorities?”

      We don’t and why stop at ‘among publicized’? For at least 5 yrs. the FBI UCR has been populated with blatantly slanted hate crime data and the numbers still aren’t alarming enough to support the notion that we’ve got some manner of habitual practice or epidemic of violent bigotry. ‘Intimidation’, a description of an act not rising to the relatively benign level of ‘simple assault’ (usu. a misdemeanor) routinely counts for something like 45-55% of all incidents and the criteria for ‘known offender’ overtly means that the offender isn’t *known* but that they have some sort of description of a/the perpetrator. On any given year, more people are intentionally killed by livestock than are killed by hate crimes but we don’t seem to hear to much about the epidemic of anti-human bias among undulates.

      1. Even with different pro-rights movements’ own numbers, the hype is obvious. A widely cited study claimed that ‘legalization’ of same-sex marriage reduced the number of attempted suicides by children by 134,000 per year. In the general population, there are something like 45K successful suicides per year. So, gay (~1/10 of the population) children (1/4 of the population) were attempting suicide at rate *at least* 3X higher than the rest of the nation actually commits suicide and, pretty specifically, because the state/federal government said they can’t get married.

  14. He may have suggested to friends that he was upset about the diminished attention being paid to his advocacy in the wake of the anti-discrimination law’s passage?a possible motive, according to the police.

    Good thing for prosecutors that motives don’t need to be logical.

    1. Illogical motive worked for Bush family-friend John Hinckley.

  15. It’s Pat.

  16. I’m not going to believe the charges just because the authorities have filed charges and the police have a ready-made explanation of the crime for the newspapers.

    In other words, this individual may be guilty, or may not be guilty, but at this point in the criminal justice news cycle, all we have are the authorities’ claims of what happened.

    I’m not saying cases should be tried in the newspapers, but with the media has a responsibility to keep cops and prosecutors honest by independently examining the evidence.

    How often to we get stories with “so-and-so arrested, police claim that A, B, and C.” And if there’s an allege victim, frequently, “victim’s name isn’t being released due to our policy of not releasing victims’ names.” So how do we know they’re a victim? Because the govt said so?

    Plus, I don’t know how small Jackson, MI is, but small-town politics, even in big towns, can get really embittered.

    1. Yeah, but he’s one of them progtards. I’ll bet he doesn’t even own a red hat.

    2. In addition, to emphasize a point on which I am kind of picky, after the latest Timbs decision on applying the Bill of Rights to the states, there’s no longer any room for refusing grand juries for serious crimes, as Michigan generally does.

      Instead of going outside the Constitution and searching for a fairer alternative to grand juries, make sure the grand juries themselves are fair.

      For most suspects, the only jury (if any) they will ever have deal with their case is a grand jury.

      Grand juries are the red-headed stepchild of the chattering classes, who turn up their noses at such a retrograde institution. And the enemies of grand juries have found ways to manipulate the jurors, proving that the enemies of grand juries are right that the institution is bad!

      1. Grand juries are not meant to be fair. Grand juries (where they are used) are only meant to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to bind the defendant over for trial. They are, in short, a tool for the prosecution and a testing ground for the prosecution’s case. Ordinarily the defendant is not even present and does not testify. California is among several states that does not proceed by grand jury in criminal cases but rather by what is called an “information”, simply a paper filed by the District Attorney specifying the charges and offering the defense the evidence on hand for the prosecution. I don’t know if that’s any more or less fair, but it is certainly more cost-effective. Grand juries here are reserved for investigations into misconduct of government agencies, government corruption and such.

        1. Grand jury members can vote against indictment.

        2. There isn’t a “cost effectiveness” exception to the Constitution.

          In Georgia, public officials suspected of crimes have the right to address the grand jury. My objection is not that they have this right, but that the average suspect doesn’t have that right. The reason for the distinction is obvious – public officials in Georgia want fairness for themselves, but see no reason to secure fairness for anyone else.

          In general, prosecutors, on penalty of a prison sentence, should be required to show the entire case file to the grand jurors, and the grand jurors should be able to receive information from other sources besides the prosecutor, including information from the suspect.

          “Probable cause” is mentioned in the Fourth Amendment regarding the issuance of warrants, but for some strange reason, the Founders, neglected to mention probable cause in the grand-jury provision of the Fifth Amendment.

          1. Hmm…it seems Georgia is limiting the rights of public officials to have access to the grand jurors.

            https://on-ajc.com/2U9k1Fd

          2. Grand juries cannot seize persons without probable cause.

            The grand jury is a check to prosecutorial power and the 4th Amendment is a check to grand jury and state power.

            1. The grand jury is a check to prosecutorial power

              When the jurors properly understand their duty, then the grand jury is a check on the prosecutor’s power to prosecute. The problem is that the system assumes that the prosecutor WANTS to prosecute. When the prosecutor doesn’t really want an indictment, and is proceeding to a grand jury merely because the law or political pressure requires it, he is free to act as a defense attorney for the suspect, and the grand jury will virtually always oblige him with a no-bill. That only one side is presented to the grand jury gives the prosecutor unchecked power to let the guilty go free.

              Of course, in the real world, grand jurors do not understand their role and give prosecutors any indictment they ask for, with only rare exceptions.

              1. But…allowing me to fantasize for a moment…imagine that the Supreme Court gave a really strong incorporationist decision saying the grand jury clause of the bill of rights applies to the states. In making that decision, the Supremes lay out the importance of grand juries in serving as a check on prosecutors. Patriotic news organizations, and maybe even judicial instructions, quote from this Supreme Court opinion and grand jurors suddenly grow a spine…

                It’s usually at this part of my fantasy that I wake up.

        3. Grand juries are not meant to be fair.

          Of course they are. Their degeneration into rubber stamp committees for the Elliot Spitzers of the world doesn’t change their original, and legal purpose.

          -jcr

    3. To be sure…

  17. Well this story tends to confirm my preexisting opinions about the whole hate crime narrative. But that doesn’t magically transform a bunch of local cops into paragons of virtue. Think I’ll reserve judgement for the time being.

  18. That’s a woman, not a man. No matter how fashionable it gets to cater to the delusions of the mentally ill, reality is still reality.

    1. So you’ll stop going to church, then?

      1. I bet Chipper thought this was an amazing riposte ever since he heard it on YouTube. He’s practically Aron Ra now, but uglier.

        1. Sounds like you don’t have a good reply to that, then.

          1. I can’t stop something I never started.

          2. It’s hard to have a good reply to something that completely fails to address the original topic.

    2. “That’s not your mother! It’s a man, baby!”

  19. What a sick fucker. I hope you burn you fucker.

  20. “Joly didn’t own the house, and thus did not collect any insurance money from it. He did receive more than $58,000 in donations, however. ”

    Hoax victimization pays. As long you’ve got the right identity. And you don’t get caught.

    1. I can’t think of a better crowd to lose money.

  21. The gasoline on his shirt is not especially probative. A great deal stands or falls on how well the time of 1:16 is actually known.

    1. Yeah, that seems whatever considering the admitted parts of his story.

    2. It’s pretty well known – they have the time stamps on Joly’s wife’s call that caused him to go home, and on the fire department report.

      As I said downthread, they had two german shepherds. Even with the dogs in crates, it’s hard to believe anyone else entered the house, plus to buy Joly’s story, the mystery arsonist couldn’t have even started splashing gasoline until Joly left.

  22. Just because Joly has been charged does not mean he is guilty, of course.

    Bullshit. Accusation implies guilt. Welcome to the revolution.

  23. I certainly agree that an accused person is entitled to the presumption of innocence. I merely suggest that we should apply the same standard to those of “hate crimes” (a monstrous phrase), and demand that they not be pilloried in the press until they have been tried and given a chance to defend themselves in a court of law.

  24. “transgender man” = woman.

    I always have to do a little mental conversion when I see that. Like having to switch times due to timezones or something

    1. Fuckin’ transtesticles!

  25. he was upset about the diminished attention being paid to his advocacy

    “His advocacy”?! I’m just getting used to “xir”!

  26. The authorities investigated a second suspect?a man who was angry about the anti-discrimination ordinance

    Naturally, being upset about new legislation automatically makes you a suspect in pet murder and arson cases

    1. Better keep that in mind as the GND stuff heats up.

    2. Elsewhere it was reported that this individual made a threat of violence. He claims to have been running a banking errand when the fire was allegedly set. That is one reason why the time is critical.

      1. Elsewhere it was reported that this individual made a threat of violence. He claims to have been running a banking errand when the fire was allegedly set.

        Armchair court of public opinion, this is a strike against Joly, IMO. Assuming the police are lazy bastards and the DA is scrupulously in pursuit of a high-profile ‘W’, they wouldn’t take a pass on the ‘freedom hating bigot next door without video footage from his bank, across town, showing him standing in line to cash a check from 1:01 to 1:17 p.m.

        That leaves Joly and some random arsonist with the fortuitousness of a leprechaun and the creeping and B&E skills of a ninja as suspects. So, again assuming police are lazy bastards and the DA is scrupulously in pursuit of a high-profile ‘W’, they’re never going to catch the leprechaun ninja arsonist and should probably go with Joly instead. At the very least, if they lock Joly up and the leprechaun ninja arsonist strikes again, they’ll know that Joly isn’t one of its many alter-egos (or would leprechaun ninja arsonist be on of Joly’s alter egos?!?).

    1. Something to puff upon?

  27. Does anyone doubt these people are mentally ill?

    1. Reason-contributor the late Dr. Thomas Szasz?

    2. These people fundamental delusions about their very existence.

      Nothing surprises me about transtesticals manifest their delusions.

  28. “The existence of two high-profile hate crime hoaxes?neither of them yet proven in a court of law?should not be used to discredit every alleged hate crime. But this news does provide a timely reminder that many stories are more complicated than they first seem.”

    Actually, there wasn’t anything rational to learn from these hate crimes–not even before we learned that they might be hoaxes. Anybody who thought there was something to learn about the state of America, our policies, or our politics because of either of these incidents was always wrong–even before it turned out that they might be hoaxes. In fact, there isn’t anything rational to learn from the fact that they’re hoaxes that wasn’t already obvious before they were thought to be hoaxes.

    You might think there are rational things to learn from this tabloid fodder–the fallacy of composition and the hasty generalization might be examples. Sure, go ahead and learn about one of them. Learn about them both! Learn the differences between them. And you’ll be doing your part to make America one person less susceptible to the horseshit that dominates the attention of our journalists these days.

    1. As you learn about them, however, realize that the fallacy of composition and the hasty generalization are always logical fallacies–regardless of whether they have to do with hate crimes or hoaxes. No need to remember that sometimes these stories are hoaxes–because that doesn’t matter.

      *tap* Is this mike working?

      I repeat. Logical fallacies about hate crimes are logical fallacies even though they’re about hate crimes, and they were always logical fallacies. And whether the hate crimes were a hoax doesn’t matter–never did and never will.

      1. The relevance is that in many cases (maybe in this latest case, maybe not) the media latch onto to false stories. This teaches us a lot about the media. It should also make us skeptical of their coverage.

        Assuming hate crimes are irrelevant in principle, if the media chooses to cover hate crimes but keeps getting facts wrong, that will spill over into other hot-button topics the media cover. And *that* makes it relevant.

        1. “This news does provide a timely reminder that many stories are more complicated than they first seem.”

          I hope the point isn’t getting lost here that hasty generalizations and fallacies of composition in stories like this aren’t failures in reason because sometimes they turn out to be hoaxes. They’re failures in reason because reason doesn’t work that way. They would be failures in reason–even if the stories didn’t turn out to be hoaxes.

          When the media was using these failures of reason before it became clear that these incidents might be hoaxes, then the media was failing at reason–in all obviousness–even before it became clear that the incidents might be hoaxes. Whether it was a hoax is beside that point. The point being made in the media would have been wrong–even if the hate crimes had happened just as the media initially described them.

          1. Betting your life savings on a single spin of the roulette wheel because of something you read in your horoscope is a stupid thing to do–and it was still a stupid thing to do even if you won. Betting your life savings on a single spin of the roulette wheel because of something you read in your horoscope can never be rational or reasonable or smart. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way.

            No, news stories aren’t like roulette wheels, but rationality is bounded by the rules of logic in both cases–regardless of whether squirrels sometimes find an acorn. Don’t be distracted by whether the stories are hoaxes. That isn’t the issue. That isn’t the relevant factor. The fact is that we can’t get to rational conclusions using logical fallacies like hasty generalization or a fallacy of composition. And possibility of hoaxes has nothing to do with it.

            Betting your life savings on a single spin of the roulette wheel because of something you read in your horoscope is a stupid thing to do–regardless of whether the game is fixed.

            1. “No, news stories aren’t like roulette wheels, but rationality is bounded by the rules of logic in both cases–regardless of whether [blind] squirrels sometimes find an acorn”.

              Fixed!

              1. Tip for Ken: when people dismiss what you’re saying, it doesn’t mean they don’t understand you. It just means they don’t think what you’re saying is of any value. Repeatedly explaining your point won’t help with that.

                1. Actually, there are a whole lot of people out there who think that just because their logical fallacies didn’t work last time, that doesn’t mean they won’t work this time! It’s a different story, so the logic works differently, amirite?

                  I’m here to help.

                  P.S. My response to Eddy was a clarification in response to his comment. The media being idiotic was obvious before we found out this was a hoax–for all the same reasons it was being idiotic after we found it was a hoax. Because it was a hoax doesn’t change anything about this point.

      2. did u have a stroke recently? Every article that comes out now you do this “how is this particular story relevant to the master plan” thing. Its some bizarre new fascination you have begun to obsessively contemplate and regurgitate in nearly every article over the last few weeks.

        Do you want reason to hold off on making articles until some number of similar events has occurred? if so how many events must take place before you will stop doing this?

        As far as I can tell nothing new has occurred with regards to Reason or anybody else with regards to reporting news stories; they report single happenings, its extremely common across the entire industry.

        Sometimes they might tie the event in question to similar events and point out patterns or give an opinion, but not always. None of this is new or interesting as far as I can tell, and it is not the responsibility of the reporter to report the event and then also tell you what you should think or do about it as an individual or as a society. So I am unclear why you are suddenly obsessed about this.

  29. The ultimate problem is that we make a big deal out of a “hate crime”, as if they have any actual meaning beyond just being an isolated incident, usually by a mentally ill person. Just because it turns out the victim is the mentally person, not the supposed attacker doesn’t mean they have any more meaning.

  30. I am earn with Google, Im making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I kept listening to extraordinary humans find to me how an awful lot money they can make on-line so I tested it. everything thought of it as, became all considerable and has definitely changed my lifestyles. For more records go to below site.. http://www.Mesalary.com

  31. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  32. In 2017, prominent Michigan LGBT activist Nikki Joly, a transgender woman, was the victim of an apparent hate crime: An unknown arsonist burned down her house…

    FIFY

    1. In 2017, prominent Michigan LGBT activist Nikki Joly, a woman, was the victim of an apparent hate crime: An unknown arsonist burned down her house…

      FIFY

  33. seen the tits on this fellar? gargantuan

    https://imgur.com/a/N1VxOtT

  34. Isn’t “they did it themselves” pretty much the default starting point in arson investigations, because it’s so freaking common?

    1. Arson investigations used to be pseudo-science which put innocent people away for fires that were accidental. Things have improved, but I would like to know more about this particular investigation.

      1. That’s the way the insurance companies wanted it.

      2. I just wen through this last week on a rental property. Just finished renovations and one of the contractor’s crew left some rags in a bucket. The consensus is tha the rags spontaneously combusted. Took the fire investigator,and the insurance people about two days to sort that out.

        As renovations were just completed, there wasn’t exactly a motive to burn the place anyway. In fact, the fire was pretty goddamned inconvenient.

  35. I am earn with Google, Im making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I kept listening to extraordinary humans find to me how an awful lot money they can make on-line so I tested it. everything thought of it as, became all considerable and has definitely changed my lifestyles. For more records go to below site. http://www.Mesalary.com

  36. Why should anybody believe any hate crime claim?

    I’ll just assume it’s a hoax for 72 hours until some evidence is presented otherwise.

    1. Yep, it’s reached that point, a hate crime accusation should be presumed a hoax until proven otherwise.

  37. The mentally ill are mentally ill. Shocking truth!

  38. “In the future everybody will be a victim for fifteen minutes.” Andy Warhol, sort of.

  39. The Detroit News has details.

    – Joly got a call from his wife at 1:02, drove two miles to his house, and then spent a couple minutes at home before leaving to bring her lunch. The fire was reported at 1:16. Joly’s theory was that the arsonist was in the home at the time, and set the fire immediately after he left.

    – Joly and Moore had two german shepherds in the house. (Both of whom died in the fire, one of whose body was found blocking the back door as it apparently tried to get out).

    – There is no way an intruder enters a home with a loose german shepherd. I’d be astonished if an intruder had the guts to enter a home with a crated german shepherd.

    1. Whoops – according to the official reports, Joly said the dogs were crated. (If so, one must have smashed out in an attempt to get out of the fire). Still, I find it had to believe an intruder had the guts to enter a house with two shepherds.

      1. You don’t have to fear a crated dog, usually.

        However, Dogs will go off when they know a stranger is around. I strongly doubt an arsonist was in the house doing what was said without the dogs barking.

        1. That’s pretty much what I meant: First, that our hypothetical intruder would have to guess that the dogs were locked up based on them not showing up when he or she approached, and second that the intruder would need to be confident she could get into and out of a house in a residential neighborhood without being seen while two shepherds were sounding off.

  40. If you have to refer to these disordered folks by their sex, use their real sex for Pete’s sake.

    Does everybody really have to pretend that a disordered mind and some cosmetic surgery is how science defines the reality of sex when it doesn’t?

    Keep your ignorant ideology to yourself.

    1. I’m happy to use whatever pronouns people want, but based on the court photos, I don’t think Joly had much if any cosmetic surgery.

      1. It matters. Acquiescing to the pronouns is expressing agreement with the false notion behind them.

      2. I bet you are happy to bastardize science and language to appease activists.

        1. I personally try to use language in a way that enrages activists to the point of apoplexy. Cackling triumphantly when they start losing their shit is a plus.

          I make my own fun.

          1. That’s a waste.

            Dumb fuck activists probably prefer that people laugh to actually seriously refuting their arguments.

            I prefer to be as serious as a heart attack until their argument is refuted, then it doesn’t seem as important to ridicule them.

            Nobody’s perfect.

      3. At the very least, as the form of transgender activist it chooses to take*, it would avoid standing next to and being photographed with people like Daniel Barnett.

        *Maybe we should be calling them Gozerians.

    2. I believe in science. Just not biology.

      1. Biology is the science of living organisms.

        Thanks for immediately sharing your irrationality.

        It saved time.

    3. They have to do it because they’re hoping to have careers after Reason. Heck, they’re hoping to have careers AT Reason would be enough, given how much the publication has bought into the left’s positions.

  41. If true. Sick fuck.

    Those poor animals.

    1. This asshole should be tortured to death for that.

  42. Victim chic. C’mon jump in, the water is warm.

  43. “In 2017, prominent Michigan LGBT activist Nikki Joly, a transgender man …”

    I think that should read “a ‘transgender man.'” You’re either a man or you’re not. There is no such thing as a ‘transgender man.’

    1. Imagine being a kid these days when grownups mix science and ideology with a cudgel.

      It’s the fucking dark ages.

    2. It should read “transgender woman”?a woman pretending to be a man.

      1. I’m fine with “a women who thinks she’s a man” in these situations…

  44. D-d-d-dude looks like a lady.

  45. Any update on this? I don’t reckon CNN or MSNBC (or even Fox News) will keep me abreast.

  46. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  47. Like they say in the engendering business KISS, keep in simple, stupid. If you have XX chromosomes you are female and if you have XY you are male. Just worry about the tiny handful of people of people with rare genetic abnormalities or physically based problems. The rest are just mentally ill people who may need sympathy and/or treatment, but not pandering.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.