Hate crimes

Do We Really Need New Anti-Asian Hate Crime Laws?

A holistic look at the data shatters the narrative about bias-based violence.


In March, a man opened fire at Young's Asian Massage, just north of Atlanta. Later, he shot up two more Atlanta-area Asian spas. All told, eight people were killed. Six of them were Asian women.

Was this a hate crime?

Clearly, it targeted a certain sort of business. In the immediate aftermath, people chalked the killings up to anti-Asian sentiment. Many were quick to implicate the Trump administration's anti-Chinese rhetoric during the COVID-19 pandemic. After all, the shootings came amid a much-discussed uptick in alleged anti-Asian crimes. But neither the Atlanta massage parlor murders nor the broader narrative around anti-Asian incidents is so easily categorized.

The Atlanta shooter—Robert Aaron Long—told police he struggled with sex addiction. He was a devout Christian who felt guilty about visiting sex workers at Asian spas, friends said. Were Long's hateful acts really about race? Or were they more about misogyny—a man lashing out at women for inspiring lust in him? How significant is the fact that the victims were largely Asian women? Was his true bias against sex workers?

In one sense, none of this makes a difference. Eight lives were senselessly lost. Long's acts were morally heinous whether driven by anti-Asian racism, general misogyny, resentment of sex workers, or total randomness. And hate crime or not, murder is a serious criminal offense, punishable in Georgia by life in prison, with the possibility of life without parole or even execution.

Yet if Long was motivated by anti-Asian or anti-female bias, this would be considered, under Georgia and federal law, a hate crime. If he was motivated by hatred of sex workers, it would not. This ambiguity perfectly encapsulates the tangled logic behind U.S. hate crime laws.

Multiple high-profile bias crimes have gained attention in recent years: the 2020 shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black man killed by three white assailants; the 2019 massacre of nearly two dozen people at an El Paso Walmart by a 21-year-old white man who told police he was targeting Mexicans; the 2018 shooting at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue that killed 11 congregants.

Looking at these tragedies, which often splay out in wall-to-wall media coverage for days or even weeks, it's easy to understand the emotional appeal of hate crime laws. But there is no solid evidence that such laws have a deterrent effect on hate-driven attacks. And as hate crime statutes have expanded, they have increasingly ended up penalizing people for getting mouthy with cops or otherwise punishing pure speech in violation of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, media coverage of hate crimes and "awareness" campaigns around them tend to distort Americans' perceptions of the true frequency of bigotry and violence, exacerbating divisions and stirring up fear while giving strength to political agendas that threaten civil liberties and serve to uphold status-quo power. Hate crime laws might feel good. But it's far from clear that they do good.

Constructing a Hate Crime Epidemic

Crimes rooted in bias, prejudice, and identity-based hate have always existed, and too often they were greeted with insufficient concern. Attention to such crimes grew throughout the 20th century in tandem with the civil rights movement. But it wasn't until the 1980s that the concept of "hate crimes" took off as a special category of criminal offense with enhanced sentencing possibilities.

The first state hate crime laws were passed in Oregon and Washington, based on model legislation drafted by the Anti-Defamation League. By 1992, most states had them. At the federal level, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 required the Department of Justice to tally up hate crime data from state and local law enforcement. More federal hate crime statutes were passed in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton.

The early laws focused on racial and religious motives, but as the '90s wore on, interest groups began lobbying to expand the definition of what could legally be called a hate crime. The Violence Against Women Act—authored by then–Sen. Joe Biden and eventually passed as part of the 1994 crime bill—said crimes of violence against women were a form of hate crime that robbed women of their civil rights. Soon, activists were pushing for protections based on sexual orientation.

The latter effort was deeply intertwined with the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student in Wyoming. The 21-year-old's brutal killing at the hands of two young men—Russell A. Henderson, 21, and Aaron J. McKinney, 22—would be a driving force in federal hate crime expansion efforts for more than a decade. "Matthew's death, I hope, will bring about a better and deeper understanding of hate-crime laws," Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, told The New York Times in the days following his death.

Police said from the outset that Henderson and McKinney's primary motive was robbery. "But investigators also said Mr. Shepard's sexual orientation was a factor," the Times reported in October 1998. "They said the suspects lured Mr. Shepard from the bar by saying they, too, were gay." Some accounts indicated one of the killers had been embarrassed when Shepard made a pass at him.

In addition, Wyoming had recently failed to pass proposed hate crime legislation. One of the first people to talk to the national press about the murder was a college instructor and friend of Shepard's named Walt Boulden, who drew a link between the failed legislation and the murder.

That was enough to make Shepard a symbol for anti-LGBT violence and a poster child for expanding hate crime statutes. Celebrities including Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, Madonna, and Barbra Streisand got involved. "While new laws are unlikely to cure the hate crime problem," a Southern Poverty Law Center statement said, "one thing seems clear: They will draw the nation's attention to it and make an important statement."

Shepard's murder was a textbook example of what Robert Blanchard, writing in Reason in 1999, called the "hate crime news formula," in which a coalition of media, activists, academics, and politicians—"all of whom have vested interests in fomenting a sense of continuous social crisis"—descends on high-profile tragedies "to suggest that the United States is a seething cauldron of hate directed at members of unpopular groups."

Throughout the '90s, the idea that America was experiencing an "epidemic" of hate crimes had been building. The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 1993 that "hate-motivated violence is spreading across the United States in 'epidemic' proportions." Democratic Lieutenant Gov. Leo McCarthy announced "an epidemic of hate crimes and hate violence rising in California."

"Hate crime is so often referred to as an 'epidemic' that one might well believe that there is a solid foundation of facts documenting that this social problem is out of control and getting worse," wrote James B. Jacobs and Jessica S. Henry in "The Social Construction of a Hate Crime Epidemic," published in the winter 1996 volume of the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. But no one, they noted, had actually established facts to back up the narrative, and there was ample evidence to the contrary.

"It is impossible to prove the null hypothesis: there is no hate crime epidemic," Jacobs and Henry wrote. But the data used as evidence for such an epidemic "can be used to tell a very different story than that which prevails in the media, government, and the legal academy." In other words, it wasn't clear there was a hate crime epidemic even then. The same metrics show a drop in such crimes since the publication of Jacobs and Henry's paper. Yet the same dire warnings about a rising tide of hate have persisted.

Stopping Anti-Asian Hate

The first half of 2021 was awash in stories about an alleged spike in bias-based actions against Asians in the United States. From TV ads to newspaper articles to the halls of Congress, stopping "Asian hate" became a major rallying cry. A New York Times headline from April 3 conjured "swelling anti-Asian violence" in America. "Covid 'hate crimes' against Asian Americans on rise," warned the BBC, while Voice of America reported that "Hate Crimes Targeting Asian Americans Spiked by 150% in Major US Cities."

The narrative was based on a grain of truth: In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Asians do seem to have faced an increase in verbal harassment—and occasionally worse—in some U.S. cities. But increases were far from consistent, and overall incident numbers remained quite small.

For instance, New York City saw an 833 percent rise in anti-Asian incidents between 2019 and 2020, according to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB). That certainly sounds dire. Yet the leap represents a rise from three incidents in 2019 to 28 incidents in 2020—in a city with an Asian population of 1.2 million overall.

Many reports of a supposed surge in anti-Asian animosity relied on data from CSUSB, which culled police records to assess bias-based incidents in 16 big U.S. cities. It found only one (Washington, D.C.) with a decline in anti-Asian incidents and one (Chicago) with no change. Data from the other cities looked grim: Anti-Asian incidents were up 150 percent in San Jose, 133 percent in Boston, and 114 percent in Los Angeles.

Yet expressing the data in terms of the percentage increase can be misleading. The raw numbers went from four to 10 in San Jose, six to 14 in Boston, and seven to 15 in Los Angeles. Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia each saw six incidents in 2020, up from zero to two in 2019. Cincinnati and San Diego went from zero to one; Phoenix from two to three; San Francisco from six to nine; and Seattle from nine to 12.

Another much-cited figure came from a group called Stop AAPI Hate, which reported a staggering 3,795 hate incidents against Asians and Pacific Islanders between March 19, 2020, and February 28, 2021. But unlike the CSUSB study, this figure came from self-reports to the group's hotline, not police records. And its reporting went far beyond potentially criminal incidents.

The Stop AAPI Hate tally lumps together physical attacks and serious crimes with verbal insults, discrimination, and "shunning." If someone crossed the street or moved aside when an Asian person walked by, and the Asian person perceived it as deliberate avoidance based on race, that would be counted among the group's statistics. (Notably, the period in question was during a pandemic, when many were going out of their way to avoid crossing paths with others, regardless of race.) Overall, 68.1 percent of reported incidents were verbal harassment, an additional 6.8 percent were online harassment, and 20.5 percent were shunning. Only around 11 percent of incidents reported to AAPI—or 421—alleged physical contact.

None of this is to diminish the emotional pain or fear that taunts or avoidance can cause. But it does add important context. Talk of hate crimes and bias incidents tends to conjure images of vandalism and violence. This makes the idea of even a small increase appear extremely dangerous to the targeted group and drives up trepidation among members of the community. As an example, several Asian teen girls told NPR in April that they were afraid to leave home or partake in ordinary activities.

Unfortunately, conflation of serious crimes with verbal insults and perceived avoidance has become standard in press coverage of crimes against Asians. Media accounts have also taken to framing every crime against an Asian person as a likely hate crime, even in the absence of any evidence that the incident was racially motivated.

Reporting last March on the stabbing of a Chinese man in Manhattan, The New York Times noted that "the perpetrator, a 23-year-old man from Yemen, had not said a word to the victim before the attack" and that prosecutors were not prosecuting it as a hate crime. Nonetheless, the Times reported that "for many Asian Americans, the stabbing was horrifying, but not surprising. It was widely seen as just the latest example of racially targeted violence against Asians during the pandemic." Hunches, feelings, and blind assertions were all that was needed to make the case.

Then there was the killing of 84-year-old Vicha Ratanapakdee, who died after being knocked down on the street by 19-year-old Antoine Watson. "The fatal assault in San Francisco on a defenseless older man was the latest terrifying episode for Asian-Americans, many of whom have endured racist taunts, rants and worse during the pandemic," said The New York Times. But according to San Francisco's district attorney—who charged Watson with murder and elder abuse—there was no evidence of an anti-Asian motive. "This unfortunate assault has to do with a break in the mental health of a teenager," said Sliman Nawabi, the public defender assigned to Watson's case. "Any other narrative is false, misleading, and divisive."

A number of crimes against elderly Asian people in California were similarly pegged by the press and social media onlookers as hate crimes even though they were not charged as such. While it's possible that race or ethnicity was a motivating factor, the perpetrators didn't say or do anything leading police to believe this.

One such assault involved a suspect—Yahya Muslim—with a history of random and unprovoked attacks on people of various races and whom a judge described as having significant mental health issues. The fatal assault on Pak Ho, a 75-year-old Asian man in Oakland, took place during the course of a robbery. Sakhone Lasaphangthong of Family Bridges in Oakland's Chinatown told The Oaklandside, "I don't see people just targeting Asians. They're targeting vulnerable people. I don't see it as Blacks against Asians. I see it as crimes of opportunity."

The Trump Effect

The suspects in many of these cases were young black men. That doesn't rule out xenophobia as a motive, but it also isn't quite what most people picture when they imagine MAGA-loving, "Wuhan flu"–fearing hate crime perpetrators. Yet President Donald Trump was often pegged as complicit in alleged anti-Asian hate crimes.

"After Donald Trump repeatedly used his platform to try to racialize this disease, we continue to see a spike in rhetoric and actions against the Asian American community because of misguided fears surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak," Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.) said, sans evidence, in a May 2020 statement.

"Inflammatory and racist rhetoric from officials at the highest level of our government has contributed to a disturbing rise in hate crimes targeting Asian Americans during the coronavirus pandemic," Sen. Mazie Hirono (D–Hawaii) announced—also without evidence—alongside Duckworth's statement.

In covering the Atlanta massage parlor shootings, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that "no-one did more to legitimise violence than former president Donald Trump." Late-night host Stephen Colbert commented after the shootings that Trump "bears a particular responsibility for amplifying this form of hatred."

Again and again while reporting on a brutal attack on an Asian person that has no apparent connection to race, media will adorn the story with statistics based on self-reported surveys of perceived discrimination conducted by activist groups and supplement it with mentions of white supremacy, MAGA-crowd racism, or Trump's anti-China rhetoric. By tying together these disparate threads, stories often gave the overall impression that Trump was seeding and his followers carrying out a widespread uptick in violent assaults on Asians.

The underlying idea had, in fact, been percolating since before the pandemic. After Trump was elected president, Democratic politicians and liberal commentators took to insisting that he had provoked a spate of violent bigotry.

Many of the most notable incidents used to back this assertion turned out to be hoaxes, fabrications, or misinterpretations. Some went viral under the assumption that they were carried out by Trump supporters—a Nazi flag showing up over a home in San Francisco, a message left on an Elon University whiteboard reading "Bye Bye Latinos Hasta La Vista"—but were later revealed to be anti-Trump antics.

Reporting on this supposed hate crime spike often relied on numbers from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). "Over 400 Reports of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Post-Election," said an ABC News segment based on the group's data. "Report: Hate crimes surge post-election," read a headline in The Hill.

But the incidents compiled by the SPLC were not only unverified; they included many things that—while objectionable—are far from crimes. The data included students in a cafeteria chanting "build a wall," a white man telling a Hispanic man to "go back to Mexico," and elementary school children telling their parents that classmates had said they would be deported.

After a gunman opened fire at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, media members and activists turned to the same playbook, warning of a supposed surge in anti-Semitic violence and pointing their fingers at Trump. Many cited an Anti-Defamation League study showing a nearly 60 percent jump in overall anti-Semitic incidents between 2016 and 2017. But the same study showed a 47 percent decrease in physical assaults driven by anti-Semitism. It also included in its data some questionable incidents, such as synagogue bomb threats that had since been determined not to be based on anti-Semitism.

Claims of a subsequent spike in anti-Jewish hate crime—spurred by news of a December 2019 machete attack on Hasidic Jews in Monsey, New York—were based on similarly murky evidence.

"We're facing an anti-Semitism crisis, and not just in this city," asserted New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio in January 2020. "It's happening across our country and planet." Reports of anti-Jewish crimes were up significantly in New York City in 2019 (242 complaints, compared to 186 in 2018 and 151 in 2017). But they dropped precipitously in 2020, down to 116 complaints.

National data also paint a more complicated picture. After steadily falling since 2008, reports of anti-Jewish bias incidents began rising again in 2015, dropped in 2018, then rose again in 2019, per FBI data. But the latest number—953 incidents in 2019—was still lower than in many years throughout the '90s and '00s, despite a rise in reporting agencies.

Democratic politicians and their activist/media allies were similarly quick to blame Trump's rhetoric for the 2019 Walmart shooting in El Paso. "People say to me, 'Did Donald Trump cause those folks to be killed?' Well, no, of course he didn't pull the trigger, but he's certainly been tweeting out the ammunition," said then–Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.).

To back up such assertions, politicians from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) and media outlets from CNN to the Associated Press all cited a working paper purporting to show that hate crimes spiked after Trump rallies.

To reach this conclusion, Regina Branton and Valerie Martinez-Ebers of the University of North Texas and Ayal Feinberg of Texas A&M University Commerce had compared crimes in counties that held rallies with crimes in those that did not. When other researchers attempted to replicate the study, they too found evidence of a Trump rally effect. But they also found that hate crimes spiked even more following Hillary Clinton campaign rallies. The researchers hypothesized that this was not because the rallies were causing crime but because the rallies were held in bigger cities, where crime already tends to be higher. "Adding a simple statistical control for county population to the original analysis causes the estimated effect of Trump rallies on reported hate incidents to become statistically indistinguishable from zero," wrote Harvard economics Ph.D. students Matthew Lilley and Brian Wheaton in a 2019 article for Reason.

Hate Crimes Mirror General Crime Trends

Decades of data on hate crimes tell a much different story than the one that gets attention. It's nowhere near as simple—nor as compelling a cause for urgent action—as the conventional narrative suggests.

Since the '90s, the FBI has been collecting hate crime data from police departments across the country as part of its annual Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) initiative. The stats on hate crimes have loosely mirrored larger crime trends, with steady falls from the 1990s through the middle of the last decade and smaller upticks beginning around 2015.

As with rising homicide numbers more broadly, the recent uptick in hate crimes may be cause for concern. But any such analysis needs to come with a few key caveats.

The first is that these numbers are not comprehensive: Not all law enforcement agencies in the United States report UCR data, and the total number of participating agencies has increased over time. It's also worth keeping in mind that UCR data does not measure hate crime arrests, charges, prosecutions, or convictions. Instead, it measures potential hate crime incidents known to police. That means it may still count incidents later found to be hoaxes—a situation surprisingly common among high-profile stories of hate crimes—or simply crimes not based on bias.

From the data we do have, at least three encouraging observations can be made. First, hate crimes make up a very small percentage of overall crime. In 2019 (the most recent year for which we have data), law enforcement agencies reported to the FBI some 7,314 bias-based incidents, including 4,526 crimes against people (violent and otherwise) and 2,811 crimes against property. That compares to 1,203,808 overall violent crime incidents and 6,925,677 incidents of property crime. While the FBI counted 16,425 total murders in 2019, it classified just 18 murder or nonnegligent manslaughter incidents as hate crimes. Thirty rapes (out of 139,815 total) and 866 aggravated assaults (out of 821,182 total) were classified as hate crimes.

Second, most incidents classified as hate crimes do not involve serious violence. Of the 4,526 incidents categorized as crimes against persons, the vast majority were either intimidation (1,849)—that is, words, circumstances, or actions intended to induce fear—or simple assault (1,730), a label that includes things like spitting, slapping, pushing, or threatening assault while behaving in a menacing way. The vast majority of crimes against property were categorized as vandalism (2,152 incidents).

Third, hate crimes appear to be less common now than in the '90s and early '00s, even with the uptick in the last few years. Compare the 7,314 incidents in 2019 or the 7,120 incidents in 2018 to 9,730 incidents in 2001, 7,876 incidents in 1999, or 8,759 incidents in 1996.

By far the most common category of bias over time has been race, ethnicity, or ancestry bias, with anti-black incidents dramatically outnumbering all others. But there has at least been progress on this front, with the number of anti-black incidents dropping from 3,674 in 1996 to 2,640 in 2006 to 1,739 in 2016. (Anti-black bias incidents ticked up slightly in 2017—to 2,013—but by 2019 had once again fallen, to 1,930.)

Incidents targeting Asians or  Pacific Islanders also fell, from 355 in 1996 to 138 in 2011. After 2012, the data categorization changed slightly, with anti-Asian bias as one category and anti–Pacific Islander and anti–Native Hawaiian bias as another. In 2019, there were 21 incidents in the latter category and 158 incidents in the former—up somewhat from the start of the decade but still down from the '90s and early '00s.

The data also don't support the narrative that rising white supremacy is driving a hate crime spike. In cases with a known offender where that offender's race was available, 65.9 percent of offenders in 1996 and 65.5 percent of offenders in 2001 were white. Last decade, the percentage of white offenders dropped below 60 percent—59 percent in 2011, 52.4 percent in 2013, 48.4 percent in 2015, 50.7 percent in 2017, and 52.5 percent in 2019.

Of course, there's another way to read these data: As more attention is paid to hate crimes, more minority communities might be getting targeted for hate crime prosecution in a discriminatory way. And that could interact with another trend: hate crime statutes being used to protect police.

'Blue Lives Matter' and Other Hate Crime Dangers

This year, the bipartisan COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act funneled more money to state and local police departments under the mantle of fighting hate crimes. While progressives celebrated the law, it will encourage more intensive policing at a time when criminal justice reformers have started successfully campaigning for the opposite. And history shows that intensified policing too often trickles down to disproportionate policing against minorities.

Since their earliest days, hate crime laws have been used to attempt to impose extra punishment on people who insult police officers. In 1991, a Florida man was charged with violating the state's hate crime law for telling a police officer responding to a domestic disturbance, "I'll shoot you, white cracker." The charge—which was eventually dropped—would have raised his potential punishment for simple assault from one to three years.

Flash forward a few decades, and we've seen hate crime enhancements added to charges for spray painting negative messages about police, calling cops "Nazis" or "Gestapo," and stomping on a "Back the Blue" sign.

With the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, this tendency to use existing hate crime laws to punish people for hurting cops' feelings has solidified into an effort to make police a protected category under hate crime statutes. Never mind that assaults on police officers are already punished more harshly than assaults on ordinary citizens. In 2015, the National Fraternal Order of Police started pushing for cops to be included in a proposed federal hate crime law. "Right now, it's a hate crime if you attack someone solely because of the color of their skin, but it ought to be a hate crime if you attack someone solely because of the color of their uniform as well," Jim Pasco, executive director of the union, wrote in a letter to then–President Barack Obama.

In 2016, Louisiana's "Blue Lives Matter" law officially extended hate crime protections to cops and first responders. It was subsequently used to charge a man with a felony hate crime for using sexist and racist slurs against officers arresting him (the charge was later dropped) and against a man who threatened to shoot police officers. One Louisiana police chief said it could even apply to simply resisting arrest.

A few years later, Kentucky passed a Blue Lives Matter law of its own, and other states have considered doing the same. In 2018, the idea made it all the way through the U.S. House of Representatives, where just 35 members voted against a federal Blue Lives Matter law.

This year, New York City has charged people with hate crimes for using anti-Asian slurs against plainclothes New York Police Department (NYPD) officers. Charges like these implicate two hate crime dangers: a tendency to use them to go after First Amendment–protected activity, and the way changes in enforcement can produce misleading statistics.

After reporting just 28 anti-Asian hate crimes in 2020, the NYPD launched a new Asian Hate Crime Task Force, which included the use of undercover Asian officers. The number of anti-Asian hate crimes in New York City shot up to 80 between January 1 and April 4, 2021, the department says. That jump has been cited as evidence of an anti-Asian hate wave. But could it simply be evidence of more policing, including more arrests for insulting undercover cops?

As vile as they may be, such insults are protected by the First Amendment. Even though the charges won't stand legal scrutiny, it's not uncommon to see authorities use hate crime statutes to target mere hateful speech. In 2017, a Maryland teenager was charged with a hate crime for burning a Trump sign. Earlier this year, a teen was arrested for a racist social media post.

Prior to 2009, hate crimes were only a federal criminal concern if they involved interference in a federally protected activity, such as voting, or in certain other cases. But in 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act expanded federal jurisdiction to include all crimes of violence based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability status.

Unnecessarily federalizing crime can lead to prosecutorial overreach. For instance, an early 2010s case involving Amish-on-Amish beard and hair cutting—a serious transgression in that community—was tried by federal prosecutors, who successfully convicted Samuel Mullet Sr. and 15 others of federal hate crimes. The convictions were overturned a few years later by a federal appeals court, with judges writing that the prosecution "treads uncomfortably close to the line separating constitutional regulation of conduct and unconstitutional regulation of beliefs" and also brings up "whether the federal hate-crime statute exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause powers as applied to the facts of this case."

Entrenching Power and Dominance

American discourse tends to treat hate crime laws either as condemnations of bigotry with no legal meaning or as a way to punish actions that wouldn't otherwise be punished. But neither representation is accurate.

Hate crime statutes generally do one specific thing: enhance criminal punishments for actions that are already against the law. They say that for whatever the underlying offense is—vandalism, harassment, theft, assault, murder—the sentence will be harsher if the offense was committed out of identity-based bias or prejudice instead of, say, pure greed or lust or non-specific anger.

Hate crime laws work similarly to the drug sentencing enhancements that were popularized in the 1980s, '90s, and '00s. The latter have since fallen out of fashion, with reformers pointing out that these enhancements drive up prison sentences, incarcerated populations, and parole logs without any evidence of a payoff in public safety. If we're serious about reforming the U.S. criminal justice system, hate crimes must receive the same scrutiny.

Hate crime statutes may make people feel like they're doing something about a serious problem. But judged by their results, they're likely to be harmless but ineffective at very best. At a 2018 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights briefing on hate crimes, none of the panelists could point to data, studies, or other evidence showing that designating something a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime or helps authorities catch perpetrators.

At worst, hate crime laws and their emphasis on individual bad motives can distract from more systemic issues.

In his 1996 book Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, Andrew Sullivan argued that hate crime and anti-discrimination laws can function to undermine the classical liberal project as well as distract from fights against a more potent driver of abuse and inequality. "The truth is, leaving private discrimination aside, liberalism has not yet succeeded in achieving even the most basic public equality to homosexuals," Sullivan pointed out. "Homosexuals are still systematically discriminated against by the state in the military, in the law, and in marriage rights. By first emphasizing discrimination by private citizens, or even by emphasizing it at all, liberals actually undermine the strength of their argument. By inference, they have ceased to focus on the most pressing discrimination of all—that of the government."

In the case of Matthew Shepard, the crime was portrayed as two homophobes so angry over a stranger at a bar hitting on one of them that they lured him outside, beat him savagely, set him on fire, and then left him for dead, tied to a fencepost. But the act-of-hate story never quite added up. Why did police insist that the perpetrators' primary motive was robbery? Why did the allegedly violently homophobic perpetrators supposedly pretend to be gay? And if hate crime protections were needed to stop horrific acts like this from happening, why did Wyoming have no trouble convicting the men of first-degree murder and sentencing them to life in prison?

For many years, such questions were largely ignored. Activists, politicians, and media benefited from turning Shepard's story into a simple, lurid tale of bigotry turned violent. Eventually, in 2009, this narrative led to the passage of a  federal law bearing Shepard's name that further expanded the definition of hate crimes, the role of federal law enforcement in policing and prosecuting such crimes, and the punishments possible.

In The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, published in 2013, author Stephen Jimenez—a gay man and respected investigative journalist who had no ideological reason to oppose the original narrative—suggests it was drugs, not homophobia, that fueled the murder. In the course of research for a screenplay about Shepard's death, Jimenez discovered that the young man had had a crystal meth habit and had been dealing the drug. He also already knew one of his assailants, McKinney, with whom he had allegedly had previous sexual encounters. And both men had reportedly dabbled in gay sex work.

"It was fairly well known in the Laramie community that McKinney wouldn't be one that was striking out of a sense of homophobia," Flint Waters, one of the officers on the Shepard case, told The Guardian in 2014. "Some of the officers I worked with had caught him in a sexual act with another man, so it didn't fit—none of that made any sense."

At the time of the murder, McKinney reportedly knew that Shepard had or was about to receive a shipment of meth worth $10,000.

From the beginning, Shepard's parents asked that their son's death not be made into a political cause. "We should not use Matt to further an agenda," Dennis Shepard reportedly told Wyoming's governor at the time. "Don't rush into just passing all kinds of new hate crimes laws. Be very careful of any changes and be sure you're not taking away rights of others in the process to race to this."

But Shepard's murder took place in a rural Western state without a hate crime enhancement on the books. Even though Laramie, home to the University of Wyoming, was a relatively liberal area, the idea of hillbilly homophobes was an easy sell nationally. The original story was more useful to mainstream activists than a gay sex worker and drug dealer murdered by a greedy associate.

Perhaps Shepard's death wasn't a tragic illustration of the need for new hate crime laws. Perhaps it was a tragic case of yet another victim of drug prohibition. What was more culpable here—what the government didn't do, or what it did?

This retelling casts a new light on the Atlanta spa shooter case. As with Shepard's murderers, no hate crime enhancement was necessary to serve a severe punishment to the killer. In July, Long pleaded guilty to four of the murders. (The others are being tried in a different county, where prosecutors are trying it as a hate crime.) He received four life sentences without parole.

"This was not any kind of hate crime," reiterated Cherokee County District Attorney Shannon Wallace at the time of Long's plea. Yet slotting the killings into a narrative about anti-Asian hate and COVID-19 gave both parties an easy way to condemn the violence and to purport to do something about it (while giving Democrats a bonus way to lash out at Trump and Republicans). The findings section of the 2021 COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act mentions victims of the Atlanta spa shooter by name, then uses this as partial justification for giving more money to police, to federal programs to raise "awareness of hate crimes during the COVID-19 pandemic," and to anti–hate crime hotlines, as well as for allowing courts to impose more supervised release requirements on people convicted of such crimes.

Unexamined by most mainstream coverage of the killings was the way that government scrutiny of Asian massage parlors puts workers at these places at more risk and fuels narratives in which staff members are assumed to be sex workers or even sex slaves. Activists have actually pushed local ordinances to disallow precautions such as locked doors during business hours, buzzing customers in, or using multiple entrances and exits—things that could help protect staff and clients alike—under the theory that these measures facilitate sex trafficking. Meanwhile, overzealous vice cops and Homeland Security agents mean immigrant massage and sex workers who do face harassment or violence from customers may be afraid to report them. (In one recent case, after a massage parlor owner helped law enforcement bring down a stalker and suspected serial killer, the FBI went after her for sex work allegedly happening at her business.) Yet nothing in the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act will help decrease stigma and violence against sex workers. To the extent that it encourages more policing of these places, it could actually increase danger for people like Long's victims.

Progressives and others hail hate crime laws as a way to protect vulnerable groups, yet they often end up being used to entrench power and dominance. And the statistics used to justify hate crime laws tell a much more nuanced—and even optimistic—story than "hate crime epidemic" narratives suppose. There may be reasons for worry, but there are also reasons for hope. America hasn't eradicated bias-based crime and probably never will, but a holistic look at the data suggests a nation growing more tolerant over time.

NEXT: Environmentalists Pan Unintended Environmental Consequences of Flawed Agricultural Laws

Hate crimes Overcriminalization Statistics

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.

Please to post comments

360 responses to “Do We Really Need New Anti-Asian Hate Crime Laws?

  1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,…………… READ MORE

    1. Do We Really Need Any Hate Crime Laws For Anybody? FTFY

      1. The headline is a question, and as in 99% if those cases, the answer is “No.”

          1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. YOZ Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

            Here is I started.…………… JOBS BOX1

        1. Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.GTv Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

          Start today………………… IncomeOpportunities

      2. No. All hate crimes laws do is make wrong *thoughts* punishable by a prison sentence. This is clearly unconstitutional and goes much further than punishing someone for what they say.

        It is not a crime to hate someone for their race or any of the other million characteristics that make up people. Should we make it a crime if someone says ‘screw you you [racial slur]’? No.

        Hate crimes go further and punish people for thinking hateful thoughts.

        Crime is crime and should be punished for what the crime is. Hate is not a crime and therefore cannot be punished, nor should it (by the law).

    2. Who hates Asians?

      “The suspects in many of these cases were young black men.”

      1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.VGr Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..

        Here………… Pays24

      2. This tracks, I also just read that straight black men were also part of the problem in the US.

    3. This is very informatie and interesting article.I have enjoyed reading your post and have come to the conclusion that you are a proffesional writer.

      Real Relax Massage Chairs

  2. I find it curious that they talk about “anti-Asian” hate crimes as if “Asians” were a single indistinguishable category when Asia covers a third of the Earth’s land area and half its population and there are some distinct differences among these various groups of people. You might not be able to tell the difference between a Vietnamese and a Cambodian, but I’ll bet you can tell the difference between an Indian and a Korean, a Japanese and a Kazakh, or a Filipino and a Pakistani. Who exactly are the target of these anti-Asian attacks?

    1. The Anti-Asian hate meme is an effort by the CCP to stop criticism of China by delegitimizing its critics as hatemongers, and the press is taking money the CCP to beat the “racism” drum for it.

      Ask yourself why the media called it the Wuhan virus until the moment the Chinese government began their big propaganda push, then it instantly became racist.
      The media is much, much worse than just biased.

      1. Reporters and editors have always been whores. Sometimes for money, sometimes for ideology, sometimes for both.

      2. This is the correct take. The Chinese know that Americans hate being called racist so they are saying we’re racist again Asians.

        1. Except for Harvard admissions, of course.

          1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

            So I started……… READ MORE

    2. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.GEf simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now………….. Pays24

    3. Reporting last March on the stabbing of a Chinese man in Manhattan, The New York Times noted that “the perpetrator, a 23-year-old man from Yemen, had not said a word to the victim before the attack”

      Uh, I know “Geography is hard,” but isn’t Yemen an Asian country? Wouldn’t this be an Asian-On-Asian crime?

      1. No. Yemen is Arab. Arab is not Asian.

        Geographically, Yemen is Arabian.

        Yemen is more North African than Asian, geologically.

        Culturally, Yemen is more like Ethiopia than its border countries, in part because the Red Sea is less daunting to traverse than the desert.

      2. Persian from Iran: White

        Persian from India: Asian

        Makes total sense when you think about it.

    4. Meh. In the US, Asians are the new Jews, too successful and independent to be a pet minority group, and be consistently exploited by the left.

      1. I’ve made that comparison before about Indians in the U.S.: insular, clannish group, that is renowned for ‘sharp practice’, cheap, different language, different food. Usually gravitate to merchant-type fields, higher education, intelligence than the hoi polloi.

        In this case, the East Asians (and Indians too) like to deal in cash and gold, versus banks, so they’re perceived as easy targets by people engaged in “jugging”.

    5. In California that will be “Asian and Pacific Islander hate” we have to stop, thank you.

      And most of Russia is in Asia, but Dems seem to hate Russia anyway.

    6. Who exactly are the target of these anti-Asian attacks?

      White men, until the videos come out..

      1. FACT: White man bad until the facts come out.

    7. Who exactly are the target of these anti-Asian attacks?

      Adherents of Western Civilization.

  3. “For instance, New York City saw an 833 percent rise in anti-Asian incidents between 2019 and 2020”

    Fucking right wing red state hellholes.

    And can you really be sure that this isn’t more of a hate crime *pandemic*?

    1. “Cincinnati and San Diego went from zero to one;”

      So these two cities had an *INFINITE PERCENTAGE INCREASE* in Asian hate?! That’s super bad.

    2. And the data shows blacks are committing crimes against Asians at nearly 5x the rate of other races.

      1. ^This;; I find it humorous that overwhelmingly these crimes come from “Democratic” cities (Atlanta) and “Democratic” voters (Blacks) and the big-push is ‘Trump’ supporters…

        Projection at it’s finest.

        1. It was the same bullshit after the tree of life shooting. They blamed a rise in antisemitic hate crimes on trump based on a report from some national Jewish advocacy group. But when you actually read the report, violent crimes against jews were waaaay down under trump. But what was waaaaaay up was “antisemitic harassment crimes”. And when you looked at the collection of incidences… Over 80% were reported from the campuses of incredibly leftist colleges and universities, nearly all associated with the boycott and divest from Israel protests on these leftist campuses.

          So again, blame trump when in reality it was little lefty college shits harassing their Jewish classmates on college campuses.

      2. How dare you!

        We are allowed to use minority racial labels when describing victims, but never to attribute guilt.

    3. So the BLM campaign, enabled by the Democrats, was vital to get Biden in the White House. They knew that it was going to be dicey winning the election even with 100% of the loyal, obedient black vote, so of course they were fine with all the looting and lawlessness that came with it as long as it mobilized the votes they needed.

      Unfortunately, it’s hard to completely harness that kind of momentum, and one of the unforeseen side effects of their plan to cover racism 24/7 was light being shed on anti-Asian violence, which is absolutely real and of course is often instigated by blacks. Luckily for them, the Democrats and their friends in the media control what is headline news, and the damage to BLM’s image was quickly contained.

      Race baiting has always been a successful tactic for the Democrats, and they’re not about to change their stripes. The hope for a post racial world is definitely a naive one, especially when the coming uni-party will do anything to keep us at each other’s throats. The question is: should race baiting methods be used against the Democrats and the uni-party that’s coming? Republicans LARPing for social justice is a nightmarish image, but is there an alternative that will cause Democrats to loose elections? Can we have any idea of the unforeseen consequences that might result?

      1. “Republicans LARPing for social justice is a nightmarish image[.]”

        Nightmarish? Or *hilarious*?

      2. But there was a post-racial world developing, at least in the USA. Young people were less racist than ever. Hence the need to rile them up.

    4. or mostly peaceful protests with some incidental property damage to small businesses?

    5. Incidents, not reported crimes.

      Incidents include slights and snubs and hurt feelings. When the definition expanded to include melting snowflakes, numbers increased.

  4. Of course we need new hate crime laws.

    I was deeply disturbed by all those videos of vicious attacks — always committed by white Drumpf supporters, of course — against Asian Americans. So clearly the laws we currently have aren’t enough.


    1. Furthermore, maybe it should be illegal to spread the Sinophobic conspiracy theory that covid escaped from a lab. After all, the definitive authority on the subject, the Washington Post fact checker, has explained how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab.

      1. That was one of the greatest lies of this pandemic. They completely hoodwinked me.

        When scientists in the field and people like Fauci said that they had examined the DNA sequence of the virus and there is no way it came from the lab, I believed them. This was easy to verify, and if they said they looked at the sequence and it was not related, I had no reason at all to doubt them… This was iron-clad proof.

        Of course, they didn’t tell me that they Chad not, in fact, examined any such sequences and they were relying on the word of the guy who was directing the research with no corroboration at all. They all flats out lied about the level of evidence presented and who had in fact examined it.

        That there has been no sanction for this is unconscionable.

        1. Uhhhhhhhhh, I still believe Glenn Kessler. You don’t get to where he is — fact checker for Jeff Bezos’ newspaper — unless you’re really on top of your game.


          1. You are an absolute treasure, OBL.


          2. OBL hitting for the cycle during the Sunday matinee game.

            1. Can we verify that he will be 35 by 2024? There’s no way he couldn’t carry the electoral college. Pair him up with a LatinX, part tranny, tri-binary illegal immigrant and it’s a slam dunk.

              1. “They”.

                OBL uses ‘they/them’ pronouns.

        2. Damn Chad. Always lying.

          1. He should be hung.

            1. But hanging Chads are dangerous to democracy!

        3. I believed them.

          I Larfed out lout Cyto.

  5. I like that you took the time and space to do a real, long form examination of the issue and argument against the creation of thought crime.

    That being said, I think you are still missing the big picture. Progressive organizations have adopted a strategy of creating racial division in this country in the wake of Obama’s election and the “post-racial” America it lead to.

    The Asian hate crime epidemic was just one prong of this nakedly political strategy of winning by division. Particularly in the west, progressive policies directly harm Asian citizens. This, combined with their relative economic success puts their status as Democrat voters in jeopardy. So it was imperative to find a way to distract from the reality of Asian oppression in America at the hands of progressives through the fiction of Republican anti-racism racism.

    This is why your friends in the media called black people assaulting Asian people in democrat strongholds “Trump-inspired MAGA hate crimes”. Nobody seriously believes that saying ” Wu-Han flu” inspired anyone to go out and assault some octogenarian from San Francisco. But they reported it anyway. Just in the same way that they have been trying to generate black a white racial animus since shortly after Obama was elected.

    This is all electoral politics being run by the progresives, pure and simple. Black Lives Matter, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League…. Even the ACLU… They are all acting with intention to create a world with more racism and more division… All for simple partisan politics.

    They have been working hard to unwind the gains of the disciples of Martin Luther King Jr. for decades. Now, if you ask any of the leaders of these “civil rights” organizations, they will tell you that the ideal a colorblind society is racist. They are actively opposed to races neutral government. They want hatred between the races. It is an unholy alliance of activist groups who cannot exist to oppose racial oppression if there is no racial oppression and a Democrat political machine that needs minority groups to feel oppressed so they will vote for them in extremely high numbers.

    That these groups would act in their own self-interest even to the detriment of the people they purport to represent is not surprising. What is surprising is the enthusiastic participation of the 4th estate. There was a time when accurate reporting was taking hold as an ideal. No longer. The 4th estate has devolved into the worst of yellow journalism. Accurate reporting on important issues is not celebrated, it is actively punished.

    This does not end well, people. It should be patently obvious to anyone over the age of 35 just how dangerous this game they are playing is. I am astonished that Reason has not managed to find the courage to take up this issue. There really is no greater threat to your liberty at this moment than the subversion of the 4th estate and this push to indoctrinate people in racist ideologies for the sake of partisan advantage.

    1. I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote, and, good job!

      However… “I am astonished that Reason has not managed to find the courage to take up this issue.”

      They just did! But they try to more-so stay factual, not so much all editorial all the time, and for them to speculate about what the REAL motives of race-fights-fabricators might be, pushes them too strongly into editorial territories.

      I did notice there was NO mention of colleges and universities discriminating against too-smart and too-hard-studying Asians… In admissions, of course. De facto branches of Government Almighty are some of the WORST anti-Asian racists around these parts!

      1. Uh… Exactly what did you think I was referring to when I wrote “Particularly in the west, progressive policies directly harm Asian citizens.”

        So far Robby Soave is the only reporter on this beat, and he primarily reports on the college angle.

        The subversion of the 4th estate is absolutely the most dangerous aspect of the New Millennium. “Bias” created space for alternative sources like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

        We left bias behind long ago.

        And with only propaganda to base decisions on, you cannot have a democratic society. This is one of the core tenants of the American constitutional system. This is why the first amendment was so critical. This is why we want a literate populace. You cannot have free and fair elections if the electorate does not have access to accurate information.

        And right now… We don’t.

        Sure, some information leaks through. But just as you don’t know about “the perfect crime” (by definition), you also don’t know what they have successfully suppressed. You do know that you are being actively lied to, every day. And so is everyone else in this country.

        Whether the impact of that is to have the electorate believe the lies and vote accordingly, or to drive people to distrust the press and seek out dubious “alternative sources” on the internet, surely we can all recognize that this is a bad thing.

        There used to be a level of shame involved with getting a story wrong, at least at a major news outlet.

        It has gotten so bad that recently Rachel Marrow won a defamation case because the judge ruled that no statement she ever made could ever be taken seriously as a statement of fact by any reasonable person. Think about that for a moment. The flagship host of a major national news channel just got a defamation case dismissed because their lawyers argued in court that she is so completely untrustworthy that as a matter of law, absolutely no statement she makes could ever be taken as a statement of fact…. Even if she takes the extra step of saying “we now know that this is true. We have the proof. This is literally true.” (As she did in this case, repeatedly). This has become known as the “Maddow Defense”, probably in tribute to the ” Chewbacca Defense”.

        That is where we are. Major, national news channels are so unconcerned about their reputation for telling the truth that they will argue in court that *nothing* that their flagship host says can *ever* be taken as fact.

        That is the story. That is the forest. All this other stuff is the trees.

        Without a 4th estate that is robust and free, you cannot have a democracy that is robust and free.

        Right now, we do not have a robust and free 4th estate. And they are be coming less free with each passing day.

        1. Wow! I wasn’t aware of that, thanks!


          OAN loses appeal in defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow

          A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a San Diego federal judge’s decision last year to dismiss One America News’s (OAN) defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, arguing that the MSNBC host’s statement that the far-right network was “paid Russian propaganda” was “an obvious exaggeration,” rather than an asserted fact. ”

          Also… https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/09/msnbc-rachel-maddow-awarded-legal-fees-after-oan-lawsuit/4447175001/

          OAN parent company ordered to pay MSNBC, Rachel Maddow $250,000 after losing defamation lawsuit – again

          This REALLY sucks!!!!

          1. It is a beautiful example of “unintended consequences” that are totally intended.

            They have to pay her lawyer fees because the lawsuit was dismissed under anti-SLAPP legislation. This legislation was designed to prevent large corporations and people with deep pockets from filing lawsuits to silence the little guy. In this case, a giant multinational corporation is being protected in making speech that is actually defamatory, and as a bonus the little guy has to pay their court costs. This, even though every element of defamation was proven. “Literally”.

        2. Thanks, Cyto, I am now as well-cultured as a petri dish!


      2. spastic asshole flag!

        1. Be careful man!!! Do NOT piss off Sevo the Pedo, man!!! Sevo the Pedo has special permission to insult others all day every day, with unfounded accusations, but can NOT be trolled by disrespectin’ others!!! Or else Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo, will SUE you in the courts of Government Almighty!!! Pedo’s LAWYERS might wear speedos IN YOUR FACE in court ass well, so BEWARE!!!

          1. Sevo is an excellent judge of character.

            1. No he’s a senile alcoholic

              1. Sevo isn’t sarcasmic.

                1. You all claim Sarc’s a drunk.

                  He’s way more coherent than Sevo.

                  You have to admit Sevo is a fucking moron?

                  You won’t because he supports your looney far right bs.

    2. Its called woke critical race theory Marxism. In their own words, they want all of us to live in a constant struggle for power and domination.

    3. That being said, I think you are still missing the big picture. Progressive organizations have adopted a strategy of creating racial division in this country in the wake of Obama’s election and the “post-racial” America it lead to.

      This was exactly my complaint.

    4. There is a difference between “creating racial division” and “exposing the racism that already exists within the system”. Exposing what was hidden is not the same as creating that thing from thin air.

      For example, there is a 30-point black/white home ownership gap in this country.


      Why is that? There are of course many reasons, but one of those reasons undoubtedly has to be the legacy of racism and racist policies in this country. Talking about that, exploring that connection, is not “creating racial divisions”, it is exposing what already exists.

        1. It’s Jeff’s specialty.

      1. Don’t you mean creating racism while cloth when it doesn’t happen enough for the real racists to highlight? Do I need to link you to the hate crime hoax database again shit weasel?

      2. And by the way jeff… do you realize home ownership rates correlate with 2 vs single parent households much more nicely? Likewise rates are lower in large urban centers by design.

        But you want everything to be magically about race.

      3. Blacks are among the poorest people in the country, thanks in large to urban policies many of them support. Their community is also poorly networked compared to immigrants, who often import their culture from their homeland and create jobs and business in their cultural circles. You need money to buy homes.

        If you (without evidence) assume racism as reason behind any racial disparity and insist on exploring the “racism” that’s pretty much creating racial division. You’re saying that virtue signaling woke liberals who run the banks and urban development don’t want to give black people housing because they’re practicing the legacy of Jim Crow?

      4. That would be pertinent, if he was talking about housing policy. This however was a post about the media driving a narrative of racism that doesn’t really exist. At least not to the extent that they portray.

      5. Jeff wrote:
        “For example, there is a 30-point black/white home ownership gap in this country.”

        Racism had little or nothing to do with that difference, which was/is primarily caused by the massive increase in single parent households (i.e. fatherless children) in cities controlled by Democrats.

        Two parent families have always had far higher rates of home ownership (and far higher high school graduation rates and higher incomes) than fatherless households.

        1. There is also the price structure in densely-populated cities: A house or condo costs millions, when there is one for sale at all. Only a small percentage of blacks or whites can afford to own an urban home, but poor to middle-class blacks are much more likely to live in a dense city than whites of the same income.

      6. Why is that?

        Perhaps because of the constant reinforcement that one can follow a failed culture to success?

  6. Hate crime laws aren’t about hate. They are about allowing the government to circumvent the double jeopardy protection provided by the Constitution.


    1. Not to mention due process, the First Amendment and common sense.

      1. Those are oppressive ideas from slave-owning dead white males.

  7. Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch is undoubtedly looking at these pictures with great interest.

    Texas: thousands of migrants gather under border bridge in makeshift camp

    Literally thousands of people. That’s thousands of potential workers for Koch Industries who would be far more cost-effective than US-born workers.


    1. I’m pretty sure this is unverified. I just happened to see a CNN report where the reporter mentioned that she couldn’t actually see what was going on since it was on the other side of the border and she was apparently unable to travel into Mexico. Meanwhile, the FAA barred FOX News from flying a drone in Mexican airspace to film what was going on and, after a FOX News reporter hitched a ride in a Border Patrol helicopter to film what was going on, I am assuming the DHS has issued an order barring their helicopters from giving rides to reporters as well. If you’re not allowed to see what’s going on or if you refuse to look and see what’s going on, who’s to say what’s going on?

      1. Like how CDC stopped counting breakthrough COVID cases, just in case people might use that count to question the efficacy of the vaccines. Like how OSHA stopped enforcing the law requiring employers to report adverse reactions to any mandatory COVID vaccinations: “OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, or disincentivizing employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022.”

        Don’t let people know things you don’t want them to know (and have the press help you on that front) and they can’t use them against you. A favorite tactic of dictators everywhere.

      2. Time for the Dems to switch their spirit animal from a donkey to an ostrich?

      3. It’s verified. Center for Immigration Studies sent a guy to the Mexican side to take video there and talk to all the Haitians flooding the zone.


      4. I believe that bridge and the refuse beneath it is on the US side of the border.

    2. This may seem harsh but, I have been to Haiti multiple times. The conditions under the bridge while not good are not vastly worse than how they normally live. And that was before the latest political upheavel and earthquake.

  8. You will notice that all the anti asian bias talk ended after Trump was out of office. Like the covid panic it was another tool used by those in real power to put in their puppet senile old man Joe in office who will then sign any document they put in front of him. And what a raft of legislation and executive orders they have so far done and proposed. Why even now they are telling you that it’s good the IRS should want to watch your bank accounts full time. It’s good to have the federal government mandate injections. It’s ok that the government can demand no evictions. This is just the start, and it’s a long time until January 2025. Buckle up.

    1. It’s also a CCP tool to freeze criticism of China.

      1. Which is some bullshit since it’s entirely possible to despise the CCP specifically *because* one loves the actual Chinese people, and would like to see their suffering under the CCP end.

  9. In the immediate aftermath, people chalked the killings up to anti-Asian sentiment. Many were quick to implicate the Trump administration’s anti-Chinese rhetoric during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Yes. Democrats lied for political reasons. Why beat around the bush ENB? Most of the anti Asian violence is coming from PoC in major urban areas. Hardly the trump voter. You are allowed to discuss reality directly without having to hedge quietly to protect the left.

    1. The Trump Effect
      The suspects in many of these cases were young black men. That doesn’t rule out xenophobia as a motive, but it also isn’t quite what most people picture when they imagine MAGA-loving, “Wuhan flu”–fearing hate crime perpetrators. Yet President Donald Trump was often pegged as complicit in alleged anti-Asian hate crimes.

      Again. You are beating around the bush again. These crimes are used politically by the left to gain power. This whole article rarely focuses on that fact. You talk about how hate crime laws are misguided by somehow miss blaming the left, CRT, focus on race, and the other actions focused on race coming from that side.

      1. So why do liberals do this… from yesterday…

        The judges wrote that the attorneys defending the law failed to prove that it “would have been enacted in its present form if it did not tend to discriminate against African American voters.”

        Liberal judges are now demanding proof of non discriminatory intent despite precedence requiring proof of such. They are asking to prove a negative to make even minor changes to voting laws that democrats oppose. This is madness.


        This is the opposite of how the law works. But liberals don’t give a fuck about norms.

        They noted that they did not find that any individual lawmaker supporting the voter-ID law “harbors any racial animus or hatred towards African American voters,” but rather that the legislature’s Republican majority targeted those voters because they were more likely to be Democrats.

        In a dissenting opinion, Judge Nathaniel Poovey wrote that the evidence presented during the three-week trial did not support a finding that the state legislature “acted with racially discriminatory intent.” He noted that the measure was a bipartisan one “that was supported along the way by multiple African American legislators.”

        So the left has created this dogma of race based actions and attacks to use as a form of animus to weird power. Even in cases of biracial, bipartisan votes. The left chooses to declare racism and indo valid votes from state legislatures.

        ENB of course misses the big picture. Protecting the left.

      2. “The suspects in many of these cases were young black men. That doesn’t rule out xenophobia as a motive, but it also isn’t quite what most people picture when they imagine MAGA-loving, “Wuhan flu”–fearing hate crime perpetrators. Yet President Donald Trump was often pegged as complicit in alleged anti-Asian hate crimes.”

        Which raises the question, did the Left take advantage of a spontaneous trend or were the perpetrators acting under instructions in order to create this very narrative?

        1. I suspect the perps simply didn’t like the victims, or thought they were targets of opportunity. Or maybe they genuinely dislike Asians.

          1. The perps are morons and thugs. We got our share of people in America who fit that description.

            1. Just don’t mention the dominant portion of black thugs, right?

          2. I remember when Russell Simmons was married to Kimora Lee and every black dude wanted to date an Asian. My how the times change.

            1. I doubt those are the same black dudes who commit assaults on Asians.

              Now let me search for “Kimore Lee”…not bad. And I see they waited 21 years before getting divorced. That sounds better than the entertainment-industry average.

              1. Kimora, not Kimore.

              2. I doubt those are the same black dudes who commit assaults on Asians.

                You’d be wrong.

        2. The TDS afflicted media, which includes ENB, used anything it could to attack orange man bad. This article itself accuses Trump of anti-Chinese rhetoric. This is sloppy reporting, intentionally, and should be “anti-Chinese government.” If you don’t want folks in other countries judging you by what President Bush or Trump did, don’t do that to them.

        3. Reporters simply glommed onto the situation and started reporting “incidents.” I knew an Asian who owned a convenience store in a “changing” neighborhood. He was always complaining about shoplifters of a certain complexion who would call him a “slant-eyed mofo” or the like if he challenged them. I doubt he reported 1/10th of the “hate” crimes and you can bet the local “journalists” never covered such stories until those Asian massage women got murdered.

  10. Won’t work because the vast majority of the perps are black.

    1. Anti-asian hate crime laws = disparate impact on dingers.

  11. But Smart People have proven that race and gender are just social constructs and have no basis in fact. How can we be prosecuted for hating “just an idea”?

    1. Race is a social construct. There is no biological basis for what we call race. Even culturally there are major differences in what we call racial groups.

      I do not think there should be separate laws for hate crimes but not for the above reasons.

      1. There is no biological basis for what we call race.

        That’s the meme, but that’s also not remotely true.

        Just like how the left redefined gender to mean something other than sexual characteristics, they redefined race to mean something other than a population with a shared ancestry and shared genetic and phenotypical characteristics.

        Acknowledging these differences in medicine is vitally important for aiding in health diagnosis. Almost as important as gender. You don’t look for uterine cancer in males, and you don’t look for Tay-Sachs in Filipinos, Sickle-cell anemia in Inuit and cystic fibrosis in Yoruba.
        So many medical studies that feature people of Northwestern European descent, don’t carry over very well for Southeast Asians, Amerindians or Southern Africans. That’s because of different responses to medication in the populations, due to genetic differences on a racial level.

        1. but the major medical differences cross racial lines — blood type, obesity, age, etc.

          1. So, no need then to worry about under-researched medical issues that impact people of certain “races”.

        2. “You don’t look for … Sickle-cell anemia in Inuit.” You also shouldn’t look for it in all blacks. It’s only the ones with ancestry from particularly malaria-ridden areas that might carry the sickle-cell gene. Tay-Sachs is not limited to “whites”, but to particular sub-groups; a Swede with no Jewish ancestry is no more likely to carry the gene than a Filipino. A B blood type is much more common among south Asians (over 30% in some countries), but it’s present in all races and ethnic groups; I am type B+ even though my ancestry is all from Great Britain, Germany, and France, where the occurrence of this trait is only around 8%.

          If the treatment for a disease is different for type B and the doctor is distinguishing this by color or nationality rather than by testing for the trait, I would get the wrong treatment. If a researcher groups his results by race rather than by the actually relevant traits, he is at best blurring the distinctions, and at worst doing pseudo-science.

      2. So people just wake up with certain physical characteristics by random chance?

        And I suppose you don’t see much value (or validity) in any research that correlates intellectual variations with those random physical characteristics. (Its OK to say so on Reason, no CRT nanny will prosecute you.)

        1. It’s merely a coincidence that every single competitive world-class male sprinter, without exception, is of strong west African decent.

  12. Dingers attacking Asians is the new black face of white supremacy.

    1. No Supreme Court appointments for them!

    1. Well of course, because most of today’s left are 18th century aristocrats wearing skin suits made out of 19th century revolutionaries.

      1. It puts the lotion on its skin.

    2. Rules for thee, not for me.

    3. Cunts of a feather…

    4. I believe we’ve established beyond doubt that obedient Democrat voters yearn for hypocrisy in their leaders and their special circle of friends/hired help.

      The illusion that they’re lead by their betters gives them a warm, worshipful feeling that all’s ok and that the free shit is never going to stop.

  13. We need to get rid of all Hate crime laws. Speaking about not expanding them is stupid. ( note I did not read article, as it is Reason after all.)

    1. In woke utopia, we only need one law, prohibiting all hate*.

      *Prosecution of those who prefer equal standing under the law, open markets, and free speech is not hate.

  14. Okay, it’s 10 o’clock and time we move on to the open commenting.

    I don’t recall that *Reason* has said anything about France withdrawing its ambassadors to the US and Australia over the news that they were blindsided by this deal between the US and Australia to supply Australia with American-made nuclear-powered submarines which also queered a deal France had with Australia to supply Australia with French-made diesel-powered submarines. Most of the stories I see seem to be playing this up as France being pissed off about losing a potential 90 billion dollar deal with Australia and not so much as being pissed off that they had no idea this deal was happening and felt they maybe, as a close ally with both Australia and the US, should have been consulted on the issue or at least should have been given a heads-up.

    But the thing is, the French ambassador to Australia has said that Australia is making “a huge mistake” in making this deal with the US and I kinda have to wonder what exactly he meant by that. Did he just mean that Australia shouldn’t be buying nuclear submarines from the US – which admittedly are much better submarines than diesel-powered submarines – or did he mean a little bit more? Maybe he was hinting that Australia was making “a huge mistake” in relying so much on the US and perhaps that France – and possibly Europe as a whole – are having uneasy thoughts about just how reliable the US is these days. That maybe having that wild man cowboy Trump whom you never knew from one day to the next what he might say or do in office might be better than having old reliable Biden in office when what you can rely on Biden doing is fucking things up. I mean, playing Russian Roulette with a revolver is a very risky game and the outcome is much more certain if you played Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic, but I’m pretty sure most people, given the choice, would prefer the revolver to the semi-auto.

    1. There are many commenting here who regard the difference between the revolver and the semi-auto to be irrelevant and further, the revolver makes ugly sounds, so some prefer the semi-auto.

    2. Jesus dude. You’re reaching. The French didn’t wirhdraw their ambassador to the UK. Does that mean they like the British? No, they basically said they expected this from the English and thus there was no need to consult with that Ambassador. It’s a little convoluted but essentially the fact that they did temporarily withdraw their ambassador to the US means they think there’s a future of good relations with the USA. They think the USA will respond to their expression of disappointment.

      And back to the subs. Apparently there was no fixed final agreement between the Australians and the French. Their deal was falling apart and wasn’t going to happen, period. You guys have Biden Derangement Syndrome or something.

      1. Jesus shit lord, you’re stupid!

      2. “There has been lying, duplicity, a major breach of trust and contempt,” Le Drian said. “This will not do.”

        Le Drian said that France’s decision to withdraw their ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia was a “very symbolic” act that they hope shows they are “unhappy” about what has happened and that there is a “serious crisis between us.”


      3. The French were so indignant that they canceled a gala scheduled Friday at its embassy in Washington to mark the 240th anniversary of a famous Revolutionary War battle, signaling frostier relations ahead.

        French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called Biden’s sub deal a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision” certain to drive a wedge between two longtime allies.


      4. Wow, all that spin and you still didn’t go anywhere, Jacob.

    3. Jeff said this was no bid deal and really caused through trumpian actions.

    4. They are just having a hissy fit. Who cares. It makes perfect sense to buy the nuclear powered subs instead of those obsolete French ones.

      They already fly F-18s and now F-35s.

      When France rejoined NATO the proper retort should have been “oh you were gone? We didn’t notice”

      Someone, Soldiermedic I think, brought up the story of when De Gaulle requested that all US troops leave France after the war Dean Rusk replied “does that include the ones under the ground?”

    5. So France thinks they’re entitled to our submarine contracts? They thought they had bought enough Hunter Biden artwork or something? Or did Australia renege (can you still use that word) on them? Sacre bleu! (can we still say that?)

      Isn’t the bigger issue that Biden just provoked China?

  15. If it doesn’t address institutionalized college admission discrimination against Asians, then no.

    1. They need to start being bad at school. If they do, we can get them some equity.

      1. As long as they don’t get uppity.

  16. The end of every day is the perfect time to let your imagination run wild and declare yourself to that special someone. A simple goodnight message can bring a smile, but a very passionate and romantic phrase is even better!

  17. “whether driven by anti-Asian racism, general misogyny, resentment of sex workers, or total randomness. ”

    Jesus, the guy was radicalized by religion. Why can’t you see the obvious? Christianity is insanity, harmful or even good often, but still a house built on lunacy.

    1. *Harmful should be harmless, as in religious beliefs are harmless delusions often.

      1. Religions like CAGW-CC and CRT are quite harmful. The religion of Fauci is quite dangerous too. There is even one that promotes strapping suicide bombs to kids but I am assured that this is right-wing media misinterpreting things.

        1. I’m not aware of anyone thinking Fauci is a religious figure? Is this more far right nonsense like BlueAnon?

          1. Who is JFree.

            1. So one poster on a shitty comment section?

              I still think it’s bullshit like BlueAnon.

      2. Sober up before posting, Shit Lord.

        1. So you’re back on the wagon! Good for you Sevo!

          It’s too bad you’re so old and senile. I doubt anyone can tell the difference.

    2. And yet the white protestant work ethic seems to have put the drive into the building of America. Youre a bigot.

      1. You mean the same “Protestant Work Ethic” that brought us Sunday closing laws and Blue Laws on alcohol and fishing?

        1. Yeah that is a myth. It basically signals that other groups don’t have a work ethic but ‘we’ taught you one.

        2. Lol. Thats your focus of the comment? The work ethic is separate from the religious aspects dummy. It is part of the religion involving non idle hands but that aspect didn’t drive blue laws moron. Blue laws were done based on sabbath and the concept of rest. Just like Jewish religion and Saturday.

          Are you really that full of hate you can’t look into the philosophical aspects if religion?

        3. Yes, because Lutherans don’t homebrew.

          I like the concept of Sunday (or Friday, Saturday) closing. I just think that it should be a cultural tradition rather than I government regulation. A day that everyone takes off of work to relax or have fun together is a great concept that promotes unity.

          1. Some folks have seven of those “relax days” each week. Funded by folks that may not always get that one day off a week.

            1. Poor Gumby is overworked!

              1. KARen got defensive from Chumby’s comment.

                1. How was I defensive R Macdonald had a farm?

                  I made a joke

                  1. Is that what you call that?

                    1. It takes a lot of effort to be creative.

                      It takes almost no effort to tear down other’s creativity.

                2. Maybe he’s a stay-at-home dad deadbeat.

                  1. Good one!

                    No I’m happily employed

              2. Yeah. I work once every two years. It is a lot of effort. I have to travel for it too. The long journey to the local polling station. Some years there is even a short wait. They should have complimentary oxygen tanks. And I cast my team blue ballot to maintain my freebies. Thankfully, no ID is required. That would be way too much of a burden.
                Am glad we got Biden. A coherent and organized fella with an amazing memory and great articulation.

                1. It’s not your fault there are no jobs in the rural shithole you call home.

                2. Biden sucks, but I’ll take a senile idiot willing to listen to others(even if I don’t trust the others) over a senile idiot who thinks he know everything and aspires to be a dictator.

                  1. Biden sucks so you’re saying that it’s better to vote for Biden than it is to vote for Biden?

                    And it’s not Biden who’s aspiring to be a dictator, it’s his handlers. Biden aspires to getting pudding if he’s good.

        4. plenty of hard working Catholics eager to immigrate here.

    3. Sure, it was Christian hang-ups associating guilt with sex and holding women as agents of temptation against feckless, pawn men that brought about this man’s delusions which led him to murder.

      “Those who can be made to believe in absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.” –Voltaire.

      1. Let me guess… secularism has no absurdities in your view?

        1. And it worked so well for Mao and Stalin to cut down unorganized crime in their countries…

      2. Voltaire probably could have used some of those Christian hang-ups about sex himself, then he might not have taken to fucking his niece.

        Also, you seem to be confusing a Roman Catholic doctrine, with Christianity as a whole.

  18. “US to send migrants gathered under Texas bridge back to Haiti: Report”
    “The Biden administration is planning to send thousands of migrants who have gathered under a bridge near a Texas border crossing back to their home nation of Haiti beginning Sunday, the Associated Press reported Friday night.
    More than 13,000 migrants, the vast majority from Haiti, were estimated to have taken shelter under the International Bridge that connects Del Rio with Ciudad Acuna, Mexico as of Friday night — and hundreds more are arriving each day….”

    Which is not really the story; this is reporting the result of what should be the story:
    There is no land-bridge from Haiti to Mexico, and 13,000 folks did not swim from Haiti to Mexico. Someone paid to provide transportation.
    That person or group should now be billed for the cost of feeding the hoard and for returning them to Haiti; who is that or who are they?

    1. This is an excellent point.

      The giant herd that was sent to the border after Trump was elected was sent there by a coalition of NGOs, funded by progressive political groups in the US. Nobody at any of the major news outlets thought to report on this, even though they were talking with these same groups to get updates on what the herd was doing.

      Now we have a new herd… And you make a great point…. It is not cheap to go to Mexico from Haiti…. Not if you are economically desperate. It might cost a year’s wages. And all at once? It has to be coordinated and funded by some outside group.

      1. It could easily be a group of Haitians in the US… Many have come here and had high levels of success.

        But one wonders why there is no curiosity about these obvious questions….

      2. It may be “nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd.” When I was in Mexico, we passed a large group moving north. Also ran into a lone voyager at a railroad crossing about to hop a train.

      3. sounds kind of like “human trafficking”

    2. Advocating against this group being allowed in the US is a hait crime.

  19. Hey look; Democrats committing race crimes and blaming it on Trump and the right…

    Never could have seen that coming. Just ask the 70% Registered Democrats in prison how they got themselves into prison and I’m sure they’ll have some huge PROJECTION story about how it’s all those White Republicans, and Black Racist Republicans, and Greedy Resource Providers, and Water Vapor in the Air, and Welfare that made them kill those people, rob those banks, trespass, harass, and rape — It’s NEVER EVER their own fault.

    1. Global warming made them do it.

    2. kill those people, rob those banks, trespass, harass, and rape — It’s NEVER EVER their own fault.

      Celebrate ALL cultures!

  20. “Do We Really Need New Anti-Asian Hate Crime Laws?”

    If you need to ask, the answer is yes. We also need laws against depression and stupidity, both of which disproportionately harm women, minorities, and the poor.

    P.S. Props to ENB for asking a question that probably isn’t within the standard news media’s Overton window. For goodness’ sake, if people start asking whether we need new anti-Asian hate crime laws, they might start thinking about whether we need the old ones, too.

    1. How about a law prohibiting beer and cake from making us fat?

      1. It’s a real problem.

      2. In the world of progressives, they would eat the cake and you would gain weight. You would exercise and they would lose weight. And you would pay for their cake.

        1. And the cake would be trans-gender.

    2. The whole point of “hate crime” laws is to signal your concern. Assault and battery and murder and arson and vandalism and destruction of property are already crimes, and have criminal penalties (unless the DA opts to waive them for political or ideological reasons). So it’s not as if making something a “hate crime” adds any deterrent effect.

      Hate crime status may allow the Feds to jump in on local criminal enforcement, of course, as prohibited by the Constitution.

      1. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        Oh, effing THIS.

  21. Blacks and other Asians account for a majority of anti Asian bias crimes.

  22. A short film you really should watch.

    I forget if it was here or elsewhere that I saw a link to this film, but it’s damn good and deserves a mention, even if it’s a second mention.

    1. That really was good. Thanks for the recommendation.

      Chemjeff and JFree’s paradise come alive.

    2. Well, that looks horrifyingly prescient.

      Remember when we all laughed at Demolition Man?

      1. I just laughed as a cover because I couldn’t figure out what the 3 shells were for….

  23. Britains Daily Mail summarizes the week in the US.

    Biden departed DC on Friday morning as multiple crises unfolded
    Late Friday the Pentagon admitted killing 10 civilians in bungled drone strike
    France recalled their ambassador to the US in anger over AUKUS pact
    FDA rejected Biden’s demand to give COVID booster shots to general population
    A migrant camp of 10,000 Haitians is quickly growing at the border in Texas
    Biden will spend the weekend in seclusion at his mansion in Rehoboth Beach

    1. Well, to be fair, Harris is handling the border crisis for him, so I’m sure that will be all taken care of before long.

  24. Oh look. Trump supporters whining about laws targeting Trump supporters. Boo hoo.

    1. Trump trump trump trump!!!!!

      Man. You’re really broken.

      1. And not even trying.

        1. Clearly anti-Asian hate crime laws are written to target Trump supporters and talk radio listeners stirring up hatred about the “Chinese flu” and the Chinese people who created it.

          And so what? They’re so full of hate it’s dripping out their ears. Fuck ‘em.

          1. No they aren’t. That is an idiotic strawman that you created. It isnt in the article nor did anyone in the thread claim that. You made it up full cloth because you’re a drunk broken piece of shit who prefers to push leftist narratives.

          2. The Democrats media called it the Wuhan virus until the moment the Chinese government began their big propaganda push and paid off a bunch of people, and then it instantly became racist.

            Sarcasmic, now a CCP shill. Is there a low he won’t go to? And unlike everyone else, this idiot does it for free.

            1. Hey, does anyone have a link to the comments from last Sunday that Sarc claims were from a sock? There’s an easy way to check, by muting this one and seeing if those comments are still visible or not.

                1. Just tried it. It’s him alright, perlhaqr.

          3. By the way…

            Nice of you to be just fine with using the power of the state against those you hate. Many in 1930s Germany felt the same. Lol. No wonder you get off to the shooting of an unarmed woman.

          4. Blacks are committing crimes against Asians at nearly 5x the rate of other races. The large majority of blacks in this country did not vote trump.

          5. It’s fucking hilarious for you to call out anyone’s hate.

    2. And the laws don’t even target trump supporters dumbshit. Did you even read the article?

      1. I think he called ENB a Trump supporter…..

  25. Brenda Bock, the county coroner for Grand County, told Attkisson that in November she processed a murder-suicide case “and the very next day it showed up on the state website as COVID death.”

    “And they were gunshot wounds,” she continued. “And I questioned that immediately because I had not even signed off the death certificates yet, and the state was already reporting them as COVID deaths.”

    Bock even claimed that authorities counted as COVID deaths two individuals who were very much not dead.

    “Two of them were actually still alive,” she told Attkisson, “and yet they were counting them. Had I not called them on it and asked them who those were, where were they from, all the information about it — and it’s like, ‘Oh, well that was a typo. They just got put in there by acciden.'”


    1. Where I live the county only acknowledges 3 covid deaths, but the official count is 8 according to the state. I know one was a suicide, one was an accident, and one was a diabetic that didn’t seek help because of fear of covid. I’m not sure about the other 2. Anyway, the numbers are garbage.

      1. They are certainly inaccurate as are case numbers, hospitalizations, and severe cases. It is also not helpful to compare from one country to another as they are reported differently. That has been known all along.

        If you look at all of them however trends can be seen. We know we had a big spike last winter and then a bottom over the summer. Now it is trending back up.

        It is also apparent that death rates relative to infections are dropping.

        It is pointless to look for an absolute correct number. It is also not helpful to make day to day comparisons. I do think looking at the big picture is helpful.

        This is particularly true for the US as we are a large country without a central organized health care system. One reason why we look at Israel and the UK for better data.

        1. No. Accurate counts are needed because the numbers are what politicians are using to drive their actions.

          1. Well the political part is just what politicians do about anything. You could give them accuracy to the third decimal and they would just claim something else.

            I am more interested in the scientific part. In that it is important to know when your numbers are inaccurate. It doesn’t make the data worthless you just have to interpret it knowing there is a range of error, confounding factors, and limitations. Every decent scientific paper has a section with a whole discussion about that.

            There is a difference between taking something to try and prove a point versus looking for answers. You can always find evidence to prove your point. You can’t always find clear answers. In which case there is your answer.

          2. It would be great if we could get more precise data but as I said above you just can’t. The nature of our health care and public health system is disorganized and disconnected. There is a range of error in any measurement and ours in particular. Anything like the Covid case rate is an estimate. The epidemiologists use fancy statistical tools but you still have an estimate and they are often wrong about many things. There is also human error.

            1. There is also Progs lying for dollars and power.

          3. To put it another way. The politicians are not deriving an agenda from the numbers. They already have an agenda. They use the numbers to drive that.

            1. Exactly.

        2. Is there a trend in actual deaths from Covid, though? Or a trend in the *reports* of deaths from Covid? How could anyone even tell, if gunshot fatalities are being reported as Covid fatalities.

          Though that one kinda surprises me. Sarah Brady must not have as much pull as she used to.

        3. You just have to ignore that all the details are lies and more importantantly, lies skewed heavily in one direction in any way possible.

        4. I do think looking at the big picture is helpful.

          a handful of dead out of 8 BILLION people does not amount to lockdowns, mandates, give-aways, and hysteria.

    2. Jesse, you undermine your own case when you do shit like this. Post an article from an obvious right-wing website, from a right-wing journalist. The two people she cites in the story, Brenda Bock and James Caruso, are elected Republicans but the author does not disclose this. The “multiple public officials” that she claims have been warning about supposed inflated COVID deaths are really just reporting on hearsay from Bock and Caruso. This is extremely lazy, incompetent, agenda-pushing ‘journalism’. Anyone with a small semblance of media literacy would see through this obvious ruse yet you report on it uncritically. Why is that Jesse?

      You would do yourself a favor by using more reputable sources for your claims.

      1. Lol. “Obvious right wing” why? Because of John Solomon you retarded fuck? They have the Dig In tab on the story with the primary sources fatty. You simply don’t like what is said so you dismiss it.

        My God what a piece of shit you are.

        1. He really is.

  26. Mormons are usually against hate crime legislation. Except when it benefits them. They love lying to make themselves look like suffering Christ like martyrs. Whether it’s lying about being persecuted during the holocaust or my name calling and threats are “discrimination” they can’t help but play the victim.

    I’m ok if hate crime laws are applied in the narrowest sense and only used when it’s necessary. For example 3 civil rights workers being killed in Mississippi and the state of Mississippi refusing to do jack shit about it.

    1. Weird how Shrike and his fellow travelers can go from making death threats against one group, to bemoaning the same fate for others in the same breath. Not unusual and not unexpected, but still weird.

      1. I’ve said repeatedly that the world would be considerably better without Mormons. However I have too much to live for to die or go to jail.

        What are you gonna lie about today?

        Also I assume you’re not voting in your upcoming election? Erin Otoole being pro-choice and all. How can you in good conscience support the conservatives?

        1. No, you expressly said here that you are going to kill some Mormons. Then you called for others to kill them.

          Would you like some cites?

          1. Yes I’ve said that. I shouldn’t of.

            1. Where’s Nardz? Haven’t seen him lately. Was there some Klan camp out recently?

              I’d still like to know when I libeled or lied about him.

        2. Also, why the fuck would you think I would vote for Erin O’Toole?
          I’d vote Jagmeet Singh before I’d vote for that vaccine passport pushing piece-of-shit. They both want to do the same thing but at least Singh is honest about it.

          I’ve already said a dozen times I’m voting for Maxime. He’s the only sorta-libertarian in the pile.

          1. Oh I feel stupid. I should of been able to see your vote for the irrelevant far right party.

            1. Less irrelevant the the LP and twice as libertarian.


              1. Still irrelevant.

    2. asshole gets flagged

  27. Hate crime laws are wrong, but at the point who cares? Laws aren’t about justice or protecting rights anymore. They’re about punishing people you don’t like by any means possible. If Trumpistas are going to praise that abortion law in Texas that clearly violates federal supremacy because they hate the people it targets, then hooray for hate crime laws that target them. Everyone involved is a hate-filled asshole.

    1. Remember. Nobody was pro life before trump said sarcasmic.

      1. Cry about the election more.

        1. Awww. Did I point out the idiocy of your argument?

        2. Nice non-sequitur. “No, look over there!”
          Fucking idiot.

        3. “Cry about the election more.”

          What sort of a personality does it take to continue posting on a site where you are universally despised and insulted without fail?
          Whatever sort of diseased state it is, I’d want nothing to do with it in person.

          1. Glibs hates him too.

            1. I heard sarcasmic got banned from the glibs. Is that true?

              1. He claimed some time back that they welcomed him and his ‘intelligent’ posts; it wouldn’t surprise anyone reading the shit-piles he post here if the claim were an outright lie, and he did get tossed.

              2. I wouldn’t be shocked. I dont go there often.

            2. I have read their website for the fun links. I am not cool enough for those dudes.

              It is nice to see that they have a nice community without all of these personal attacks.

              1. Yeah, calling people on bullshit really shouldn’t be tolerated!

              2. Personal attacks are deserved when one doesn’t even try to make an honest argument. Why engage with them in argument? And let’s not pretend sarcasmic doesn’t roll around in the mud.

                1. “Personal attacks are deserved when one doesn’t even try to make an honest argument.”

                  Tony, turd, KAR, and others simply never argue in good faith. There is zero reason to address that sort of dishonesty other than to call them the lying piles of shit which they are.

                  1. Tony actually believes what he is arguing is correct. The others lie and post knowingly wrong articles even after you show them they are wrong. Tony just believes what he believes.

                    1. Cite me lying

                  2. You should talk to your sponsor about slandering people you’re inferior to like me.

                    It’s not my fault you’re too much of a pussy to handle your booze.

                    You know you can mute me?

                2. My feeling is why engage someone at all when they don’t make an argument or point. There is nothing to discuss. I’m not perfect either but life is short.

                  I guess if that is what some people want to do it is no business of mine.

                  1. Because they do also thread ahit to obfuscate the arguments of others. See how many times sarcasmic runs into a dem critical article to just throw shit everywhere. He does it to muddy the waters.

                    1. I think that shitting on that just creates more shit. I have our resident antisemite blocked for example because I learned long ago that arguing with them just creates more of a platform to spread their hatred which is why there are on the forum to begin with.

                      Some of what happens on the internets is just people who are looking for attention and get off on that. Why give it to them?

                    2. Not speaking specifically about Sarcasmic.

                    3. But it definitely applies in his case.

    2. By the way. The fact that you think abortion falls under federal supremacy is hilarious. Can you show me the enshrined constitutional directive of abortion being the realm of the feds?

      Also you seem completely ignorant to what the precedence of Casey or Roe actually is. It actually does allow regulations at the moment of viability you ignorant shit. Texas simply declared that to be at heart beat. Supreme Court has turned down cases post 20 weeks as fetuses have survived out of womb at that point.

      Are you just full on not even trying to not push leftist ignorance now?

    3. Wait….. so the “trumpistas” that support the Texas abortion law “hate the people it targets”?

      Is that why they want them to reproduce? Or are the clumps of cells the target of their hate?

      I don’t care about abortion. None of my business. Just not sure where the “hate” is directed here, or why? Is it just self evident, needing no cause or explanation?

      Or is “hate” just the default go-to as a distraction from a weak argument?

    4. The Texas abortion law doesn’t violate “federal supremacy.”

      The left claims it violates the right to abortion, as made up in Roe. Roe is not the “Constitution, [or] the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,” which is the conflict you need for a Supremacy Clause claim.

      I sort of wish the Democrats had enacted a ridiculous federal abortion rights law, which would provide an actual Supremacy Clause claim. The constitutionality of such a law under the Commerce Clause (which it would inevitably be claiming) would then be presented. And could be struck down.

    5. I don’t agree with the new Texas law, but pretending it has anything to do with hate is fucking stupid. And thinking abortion should be anything other than a state power shows you to be a giant moron. Oh, and hate crime laws aren’t going to just target MAGA people (regarded FA’s might, but that’s a different story).

      Congratulations on hitting a trifecta of retarded in one post..

  28. Breaking:

    Chelsea Manning denounces Julian Assange, regrets ever leaking information to Wikileaks and publicly turns against Glenn Greenwald, who visited Manning in jail and raised money for her.

    *starts popping popcorn*

    1. I guess he/she/it cut a pardon deal with the Biden administration.

      I always said Snowden was a real hero, but Manning was always just a piece of shit.

      1. And then signs a contract with the Krazy Kardashian Klan.

      2. Manning didn’t leak out of any noble cause. Manning was bitter and wanted to create chaos and burn something down.

        Snowden did what he did because he loved this country and wanted to save it. Manning did it because she hated everything and everyone.

        Whether or not Manning’s leak was good for America (or bad) is an accident of the consequences.

        1. Exactly, well said.

        2. Manning was bitter and wanted to create chaos and burn something down.

          Kinda like a lot of Trump voters in 2016.

          1. And your bosses at the fifty-cent factory.

          2. Not a lefty folks!

          3. Yes. That great economy for everyone and record wage and employment gains for people of color really destroyed shit.

            1. The multiple peace treaties was terrible as well. No wonder he didn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected.

      3. Chelsea Manning hits the folk hero glass ceiling that doesn’t apply to Snowden. 🙂

      4. Manning did pay her pound of flesh (rounding up) so…

    2. You are guilty of dead naming. The correct name now is Chelsea De Manning.

  29. This is what happens when the Democrats throw a Jan. 6 entrapment party and no one shows up.

    Overzealous DC Stormtroopers Accidentally Target Undercover Fed Then Had to Pretend Like They Were Arresting Him – 1min

    1. Hey MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer, I refuted your exact statement you just made, 1.5 years ago! Using my time-crystal-ball and time-travelling powers as granted to me by my tinfoil hate-hat!

      …where MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer talks out of her ass and twat at the same time, just making up bullshit and asserting it as FACT, not even checking the date buried in the link, at the end of the link!

      https://www.businessinsider.com/campaign-finance-experts-stunned-by-trump-camps-reported-money-bomb-2021-4 … Look, dipshit, it’s right in the link! 2021-4 means April of this year! That means that this story was refuted almost 1.5 years BEFORE it was written, per YOUR lies! Now WHO is the moronic liar here?

      I hereby pre-refute everything that you are going to say or write for the next 1,000 years, MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer! Your thousand-year Reich is hereby revoked and annulled!

      1. I’ll give Sqrlsy this one. Because I barely ever read what the retard posts, I thought he was repeating Shrike’s phony allegation early in the same thread.

        I still haven’t actually read it yet, so I promise I’ll properly dismantle Sqrlsy’s allegations later.

        In the meantime, Mea Culpa, I’ll let you chalk this up as a little win. Enjoy it.

        1. Whoa, a “Mea Culpa”! Wow! Mamma is less hard-headed and stubborn than some of the others around here! I guess I’ll have to be decent, and NOT repeat this goof by Mamma!

          Thanks for doing the right thing, and admitting error!

    2. Lol. You made sarcasmic retreat back to his sqrsly sock.

      1. Yeah, and the content of the video unnerved him so he’s shitposting distractions again.

  30. I mostly don’t care when hate is looked at as motivation in the context of an actual crime.

    What really bothers me is when hate crime laws are used to turn non-crimes into crimes. This is one of the dangers these hastily, badly written, virtue signaling laws pose.

    1. Yeah man!

      When someone robs me, can I pile on extra penalties because they hate “the rich” (me, supposedly rich)?

      When AOC writes “tax the rich” on her ass, can we sue her for anti-rich-people “hate speech”? It surely isn’t “love speech”, right?

      1. Those anti rich crimes should be punished. I’ve been trying to get into the top 1% for years, so I deserve the hate. Sadly I’ve only ever reached the top 2%.

  31. People get obsessed with culture war shit, but the only story that really matters over the next week will be the fate of the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. If it isn’t passed by September 27, it probably won’t pass, and it’s facing some serious headwinds. Whether the bill slides into home this week may turn on these two stories:

    1) Natural gas prices are going through the roof.

    Prices doubled since the spring; they’re up almost 20% in September; and the winter hasn’t even started. The Green New Deal portion of the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill follows through on Biden’s campaign promise to eliminate the use of natural gas in power production, and if and when the Democrats pass this over the objection of every Republican in Congress, there will be some cold and angry voters to face come the midterms.

    Crank the scale out on the following chart to 25 years to see where this is headed.


    2) The Democrats are planning to vote on raising the debt ceiling this week, to prepare for the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, but the Republicans are refusing to vote for it.

    In refusing to vote to raise the debt ceiling, McConnell is saying that it should be included in the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. However, because zero Republicans in either chamber will be voting for the budget reconciliation bill, if the Democrats include it, that will no only mean the Democrats are raising the debt ceiling over the Republicans objections but will also make moderate Democrats go on the record in favor of raising the debt ceiling. In other words, it makes the nine moderate Democrats in the House even less likely to vote for the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. For their part, the progressive wing of the Democratic party is going forward by preparing to have a vote on raising the debt ceiling this week.

    We should expect the Republicans to cave on the debt ceiling if and when it looks like the government might default on some interest payments, run out of money for social security and disabled veterans, etc., but the important thing here is the timing. If the Republicans filibuster raising the debt ceiling this week, they can still vote to raise it sometime after September 27th. On September 27, however, the nine moderate Democrats and Joe Manchin will have voted on the infrastructure bill, and the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill probably won’t pass after that date. It’s all coming to head either way.

    I’ll still be surprised if the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill doesn’t pass, but I’ll be surprised if the bill passes as large as it is, too. I think the most likely outcome is that they pare the bill down to the $1.5 trillion level, and take out a whole bunch of things that the progressives want–like free community college in perpetuity, etc. It’ll be interesting to see if AOC and Bernie Sanders like complaining about not getting everything they want more than they like nothing. The Republicans confronted that issue when Rand Paul and others weighing in against ObamaCare reform (rather than repeal), and I suspect that disease may be bipartisan. We’ll have to wait and see.

    1. I disagree Ken. The budget caps are also upcoming and are just as big of a deal. The left has already started screaming recession if it doesn’t pass.

      1. I think that’s debt ceiling related.

        What budget caps are you talking about?

        P.S. And why does what the Democrats scream about matter?

        1. Meant the debt ceiling. I relate the two as you can’t drive budget through the caps even if allocated. They are linked. Mea culpa

      2. “Republicans are urging Democrats to attach the debt-ceiling measure to their $3.5 trillion social-welfare package, which is moving via a special process called reconciliation that requires just a simple majority in the Senate. Democrats have said they don’t want to do that.

        “Let me be crystal clear about this: Republicans are united in opposition to raising the debt ceiling,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) told reporters last week . . . .

        Democrats have pointed out that they voted with Republicans to suspend the debt limit three separate times during the Trump administration, including in the fall of 2017, when the GOP sought to advance tax cuts using budget reconciliation.

        “We didn’t play games. We didn’t risk the credit of the country. We did it,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) told reporters last week.


        Yeah, Schumer (and the Democrats) are crying about how unfair it all is–but so what?! As it stands, McConnell is making them choose between raising the debt ceiling without any Republican support or adding something to the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill that makes it even harder for moderate Democrats to vote for it. Good move!

        And the Democrats are almost certainly losing control of the House anyway in the midterms. The real question is whether they’re likely to lose one, two, or three seats in the Senate.

        And that’s regardless of what Democrats scream about.

  32. It is very plausible that the murders in Georgia were motivated by his sexual craziness and not because they were Asian. Everyone knows about certain massage parlors where you can get that kind of action and a lot of them are Asian.

    1. Plausible as in he literally stated to the feds his motivation?

    2. Good point! “Hate crime” laws surely seem to assume that judges, juries, lawyers, etc., can mind-read, and see your true motives. NO ONE can reliably mind-read! Not even MEEEE, otherwise omnipotent that I am!

      1. spaz, spaz, spaz!

        1. Sevo the pedo supports “hate crimes”! What a surprise!

          Sevo the pedo apparently thinks that it can mind-read!

    3. Everyone knows about certain massage parlors where you can get that kind of action and a lot of them are Asian.

      I’ll need more proof of your allegations. Perhaps you could provide some Massage parlor names, addresses and hours of operation.

      1. Asking for a friend?

        1. I’m the friend.

      2. See Robert Kraft.

      3. join the police and investigate them first hand

  33. New slogan: “California! At least we’re not Oregon!”

    “Opinion: Oregon gives a cold shoulder to love letters”
    “In today’s very competitive real estate market, buyers’ love letters are a common practice to try to get a little more attention and sympathy from a seller.
    Buyers can tell sellers what they really love about the home and how they plan to use it. Sellers in turn often appreciate this gesture because it helps them ensure that they are selling to someone who will live inside their home rather than an investor looking to buy and flip the property. A win-win for communication and free speech, right?
    But over the summer, Oregon became the first state in the nation to ban the transmission of these love letters, enacting House Bill 2550. Sellers’ agents who pass such a letter along to sellers could face fines or even criminal misdemeanor prosecution.”

    Pretty sure if you asked the scumbag who wrote that bill what they thought of the 1st amendment, you’d get a quizzical look in response.

    1. They aren’t even pretending anymore.

    2. they also don’t let you do background checks on tenants, because racist

    3. Perhaps these love letters will discriminate against the future Oregon public school graduates that won’t even need to pass simple reading and writing proficiency exams to receive a diploma. But will those folks ever be buying a house?

  34. “California Bill Passes, Giving Amazon Warehouse Workers Power To Fight Speed Quotas”
    “The bill, if signed by the governor, could also make public more comprehensive details about the demands Amazon makes of its warehouse staff, specifically about the impact of speed quotas on the workers’ health.
    “It’s the first step in changing working conditions in the warehouse,” said Veena Dubal, an expert on labor law and technology at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who supports the legislation….”

    Anyone surprised at a pile of lefty shit teaching at Cal’s legal school? Me neither.
    Sevo’s law:
    When a third party sticks its nose in a transaction between two parties involved in a trade, at least one, and likely both, lose.

  35. The ‘Tax the Rich’ dress designer whom @AOC went to the Met Gala with:

    • Owes $103,220 in back taxes
    • Received $41,666 in PPP
    • Has ‘legions’ of unpaid interns
    • Owes $62,722 in workers comp
    • Still found $250,000 for a table at the Met Gala


    1. The workers at Pelosi’s vineyard are non-union.

    2. You have to admit it looked great on AOC though.
      She’s kind of hot, in a findom sort of way.

  36. For instance, an early 2010s case involving Amish-on-Amish beard and hair cutting—a serious transgression in that community—was tried by federal prosecutors, who successfully convicted Samuel Mullet Sr. and 15 others of federal hate crimes.
    Sporting a mullet or forcibly creating a mullet on another should be a federal crime.

  37. Wow that Janet Yellen piece in the WSJ is just complete pathetic pandering trash. “We may not pay our bills on time! Millions of seniors may not get checks! Troops may not get paid!” This is unbecoming of a US treasury secretary. That WSJ allowed it signifies that organization is getting less trustworthy as well.

    Honestly we are at a level of discourse that means no rational person can help. On top of this, the GOP has no real say here because democrats hold a majority in the House and 50 seats in the Senate. McConnell is right to let them hang themselves with it. Instead of making budget adjustments to discretionary spending, passing legislation to adjust non discretionary, Congress just kicks the can down the road. One day it will be the end of the road and then what.

    1. Because gods forbid they pay those bills *first*. There’s always enough money in the till to pay for the bullshit, but never enough for the things more people actually care about. Because they always want to make it hurt, so people will turn over their wallets.

      Much like a mugger.

    2. and there’s an easy fix — don’t spend more than you can tax in. if there’s political will to raise taxes, have at it. the debt ceiling is way too high already. it’s a ceiling, not a hat.

    3. I believe that end of the road is serfdom.

  38. Obama’s daughter introduced a site that can help many people financially. If you want to earn extra income every month … look no further! This is a great opportunity for anyone to earn from home. you can work online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that I personally couldn’t accept it as true before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. go to the home tab section for more details…..www.cashidea1.com

  39. So-called ‘hate crime laws’ are a bad idea. Violation of someone’s rights is enough of a hateful act as it is.

    Trying to end racism should not be the job of the courtroom. That is a job for teachers and parents.

    1. Teachers at public schools who run mandatory critical race theory classes, you mean.


    2. Fuck off. Teachers should not be teaching morality outside the view of parents.

      1. Ever watch 3 year olds playing? They don’t care about such things. It never occurs to them. Even later. Racism is learned. It is not innate.

        They learn to accept normal by family and the community around them. This is not something to be taught in school by lessons. Children pick up on cues. A passing comment can have a big impact. They can sense an attitude.

        You don’t teach morality. You live it.

        1. Ummm. No. Sunday schools impart a morality. Yes parents generally are involved on that form of teaching as well. But we have plenty of examples of teachers imparting on their kids to join leftist marches for extra credit and grades. Once kids become parts of those scenes they meet other kids and form social groups that reinforce the behaviors. So yes, teachers are influencing kids and hiding it from parents.

          1. Then don’t send them if you object to the religion and beliefs of the particular church whatever.

            I have no place judging any of that.

  40. Why not offer amendments, whenever an “anti-Asian hate” bill comes up, to stiffen the penalties for racial discrimination by, say, universities? Explain that this is needed because of anti-Asian discrimination.

    I mean, the #stopAsianhate people will come up with reasons to oppose such an amendment, but that would be valuable if only for amusement purposes.

    1. can we still say “stiffen” the penalties?

  41. Why is it that every time there is a problem, someone says we need a new law? What we need is to enforce the laws we already have.

    Take this guy:

    In March, a man opened fire at Young’s Asian Massage, just north of Atlanta. Later, he shot up two more Atlanta-area Asian spas. All told, eight people were killed. Six of them were Asian women.

    In my book, that is capital murder. Give him a fair trial, with the best counsel, and then if the jury finds him guilty, hang him. No need for “hate crime laws” or other such things. You go on a killing spree, you hang, regardless of the ethnicity of your victims.

  42. Yes. We need hate crime laws targeted against Asians.


  43. The entire narrative on race today is a fake hysteria ginned up by the Left/Democratic Party for political purposes. That includes the hoaxes of racist police murdering people of color, systemic racism, rampant white supremacy, etc. It’s all basically complete nonsense. As for blaming Trump, it’s a load of manure. Pointing out that the virus originated in China isn’t racist. China is a country not a race. And it’s an important fact since the CCP engaged in a massive criminal coverup and very possibly created the virus. These actions may have cost millions of lives. And looking at specific incidents, they don’t appear Trump related. The Tree of Life killer hated Trump. If anything, Trump is the most pro Jewish President ever and his opposition is openly anti-Semitic. The crimes against Asians appear to be mainly perpetrated by non Trump voters. There is an epidemic of violence mostly perpetrated by certain people not specifically Trump voters, White supremacists or police for that matter.

    As for hate crimes, the very idea is ridiculous. It criminalizes thought. It doesn’t matter of your killer loved you, hated you or was indifferent. You’re still dead. And they’re applied in a discriminatory sexist and racist manner. If you’re white, male and/or heterosexual, you can be a victim of a hate crime too but it won’t be treated as such. So your life is considered to be worth less under hate crime laws.

    1. Which reminds me…. Did we ever find out what motivated that guy with the bump stock in Vegas? You know, the one who shot up the country music festival?

      Pretty much every mass shooting spawns a cottage industry of psycho-analizing the shooter and exploring their ideology of hate. Like the Orlando Night Club Shooter…. Remember him? We had endless speculation about how he was a right wing christian homophobic gay man … Until we learned that he was a Muslim extremist who didn’t know that it was a gay club. Then suddenly all reporting on motive stopped.

      We never really got any reporting about Bump Stock Guy.. well, except that he had a bump stock. And his wife was Filipino… and something about a vacation.

      I wonder why?

      1. And his wife was listed as a CIA asset. And he had no visible means of support. LOL at professional videopoker player. I know professional cardplayers. The ones that stick it out, year-to-year, are grinders. They know every rebate, coupon, angle, and scheme on the strip. This guy, did not seem like those guys. IMHO.

        Guy reminded me of Eugene Hasenfus more than anything else: anonymous bagman who can pilot an airplane. As I said at the time, not a spook, but damned if he wasn’t in a spook’s rolodex.

        The Saudi connection to the events of that night would be interesting to unravel. Besides, if this clown wanted to light up a beaten zone filled with bunch of country hicks at 400 yards plus, why not an actual belt fed? He looked like the kind of guy who could afford one. Or make a DIAS and have a bunch of D60s? Like you care if the gas tube catches on fire.

        Instead of what was it, 15 or so rifles? The entire memory-holing of the event is jarring. And smells.

      2. because he targeted right wingers at a country music festival?

      3. There is no why to that kind of crazy. You cannot find rational motives in that irrational mind. Sociopaths may seem reasonable on a superficial level. They can be charming, intelligent, functional or even successful socially and in business. You would never know. They are highly manipulative.

  44. The biggest systemic assault on Asian Americans has been from the federal and state and city governments, forcing small businesses to close for COVID, letting mobs ransack small businesses in mostly peaceful protests, and then preventing landlords from evicting deadbeat tenants.

  45. Haha Robert ‘Gun Grabber’ O’Rourke plans to run for governor of Texas. A candidate only jeff/sarc/sqrsly or tony/buttplug/molly could love. Maybe Biden will sniff his hair. Fortunately he’s now widely despised and loathed. Maybe he could wear tennis shoes like Wendy, that’ll work.

    1. Not great. He may be an idiot who married into money, but his backers aren’t. If they’re seemingly comfortable with the prospect of him taking another L, then they may be thinking that Texas is a lot more purple (and/or has the cheating that, e.g., Veritas was uncovering in Harris County in 2020) than expected.

      Texas is browning. And brown folks have voted D so far.

      1. because Dems are pro-choice?
        because Dems are woke?
        because Dems call them Latinx?

        1. because Dems push the socialism they are fleeing?

          1. Because they come from a paternalistic, autocratic culture, and want some parts of the same here? Or just simply because the Ds promise more gibs than the Rs.

            Take it up with Pew, but other than 1st generation Cubans fleeing Castro, it holds true in the aggregate. I wonder if it also was true for Nicaraguans fleeing Ortega?

            In any case, the “They’re natural conservatives!” line is some of the biggest bullshit that the CoC wing of the Republican Party (and hangers-on like the Cato crowd) has ever pushed.

            Culture matters. We don’t insist anymore that newcomers adopt American culture if they want to stay. Go ask the Smithsonian Museum of African-American History if you need a primer on what American culture was.

            1. Define culture.

        2. Latinx. What is that?

          Does that make me a Jewx? Silly stuff.

          I have never heard anyone using that term. Democrat or whatever.

    2. just because an empty suit beat Trump doesn’t mean an empty suit can beat Abbott.

  46. I better title to the article would be “Do We Really Need Hate Crime Laws?”

    1. That would be the question with an obvious answer that an actual libertarian would ask

  47. Compare and contrast this article, which reads like a classic reason piece from the Postrel-era, with the garbage ENB and the rest of them post daily on the website.

    1. The BIG DONORS must only read the print edition.

  48. On an unrelated note, western social media bows to Kremlin pressure and de platforms Russian opposition ahead of Parliamentary elections:

    Authorities had taken drastic measures to deter the “Smart Voting” campaign, which provided lists of candidates with the best hope of denying Kremlin-aligned politicians a seat.

    The campaign’s website was shut down and on Friday Apple and Google removed the Smart Voting app from their stores, causing an uproar among the opposition who accused them of giving in to Kremlin “blackmail”.

    Sources familiar with Google and Apple’s decision told AFP the move was taken under pressure from Russian authorities, including threats to arrest the tech giants’ local staff.

    The popular Telegram messenger also removed Navalny’s Smart Voting bot, and on Sunday Google Docs and YouTube videos containing the lists of recommended candidates were blocked.

    As of Sunday evening, independent election monitor Golos — which authorities branded a “foreign agent” ahead of the polls — had tracked over 4,800 reports of voting violations.

    1. They’re fortifying elections planetwide!

    2. I do not doubt that Putin used the tools he has to silence opposition; got any back up for that?

    3. Navalny’s account is still present though. And I think you can get the bot via the USA version of the account. Russians so inclined can use a VPN to access it.

  49. Echospinner
    September.19.2021 at 6:08 pm
    “Ever watch 3 year olds playing? They don’t care about such things. It never occurs to them. Even later. Racism is learned. It is not innate.”

    Yes and having been a 3 year old not long after the end of WWII, I had no issue with Takeo, a neighbor buddy; racism is learned.
    But having gone back and forth on the issue, what seems clear now is that DNA markers can identify a ‘race’ of a person with little error, down to eye color. But the race of that person is irrelevant except as an ID for legal issues.

    1. Jesus Christ you’re old.

      Don’t worry. You’ll be out of your misery soon.

      1. fuck off asshole; flagged.

        1. Why don’t you just mute me you senile old drunk?

          God fucking damn you’re old and stupid.

          It’s comforting knowing you’ll die soon. Not soon enough though. You’re a horrible person.

    2. Lemme put it otherwise: if the person I’m trading with is other than my race, I don’t care.
      What matters here is the transaction, not the ‘races’.

  50. Do We Really Need New Anti-Asian Hate Crime Laws?

    It’s lacist to even ask that.

  51. HI, Great! thanks for sharing awesome Thought. I really love read your blog.

    Digital Marketing & Blogging Tips

  52. Wow first I want to say thank you and this is
    is very important to me Nice article for reading and deal information for me thx again

    Good Morning Image

    Healthy Dost

  53. When G. W. Bush was running for office it was brought up that Texas didn’t have a hate crime law to persecute the white assholes that had dragged a black man behind their truck. His answer has been one of my favorite responses ever. It was basically, “We gave them the death penalty, what more do you want.”
    I always remember the irony of people simultaneously complaining about Texas laws being too harsh but wanting to make them harsher for hate crimes.

  54. Remember, this phrase might seem the *opposite* of hate, but you’re wrong:


  55. Hate is not a crime. All so-called ‘hate-crimes’ do is make wrong-think a crime punishable by an actual prison sentence.

    Should it be a crime to say ‘fuck you [racist slur]”? No. This is America. Free speech is protected. Hate crimes go further by making wrong *thoughts* punishable by a prison sentence. This is evil.

    Crime is crime. Criminals should be punished for committing crime. Hating someone because of their race or the other million characteristics of people is not a crime.

    There should be no hate crimes laws in America. Period.

  56. Will the black women from Texas who attacked an Asian hostess at a restaurant in NYC be charged with a hate crime? I know certain people would be calling it such a crime if the hostess were black and attackers white.

    1. It was a Yankee Hate Crime.

  57. European Americans (non Jewish) seem to be the one “tribe” under attack by the media, academia, grifter non profits and “civil rights’ orgs….the constant attacking, blame, and stereotyping is doing a great job..daily you read about Irish, Italian, Greek, German Americans beaten, killed and not a peep from the media that this is a “hate crime.” Where is the SPLC when the Rochester Irish American mentally challenged man was set afire and dies by two African Americans? oppss he doesn’t count right boys?

  58. Excellent, well-supported article! Pretty well sums up why I hate “hate crimes” legislation. Oops! Am I criminal now?

Comments are closed.