In my occasional posting on “hate crimes” that were faked by the victims (usually leftists), like many people I call such incidents “hoaxes”. But is that the right word?
hoax
hōks/
noun: hoax; plural noun: hoaxes1. a humorous or malicious deception.
While faked hate crimes are malicious, in no way are they humorous. But I have a more serious objection. Calling these incidents “hoaxes” implies, not only that the incident was faked, but also that no real hate was involved. And I think that’s wrong.
We know that the Left is preoccupied with categorizing people by race, gender, orientation, etc. We know that emotions like envy, hatred, etc. are prevalent on the Left. We know that racism is a traditional province of the Left (such as the racism of Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood; or that of the Democrats who bequeathed the KKK and Jim Crow to America; or that of the Nazis, who were, after all, pro-worker advocates of ‘mixed economy’ socialism). And we know that even modern-day leftists will say the most racist things to be heard anywhere, if they think no one is listening except their fellow leftists.
Why, then, should we assume that a hate crime faked by a political lefty is really all that fake? When a leftist fakes a hate crime, he or she has tried to mislead people as to the crime’s author. But how is he or she not still doing a deeply hateful act?
For at least some modern-day leftists, it must be agony to have to be officially so anti-racism, all the time. Would not hate crime “hoaxes” express the repressed hatreds of their own hearts?
This question matters, because the word “hoax” sets up a dynamic where the leftist hoaxer is morally off the hook. “Oh don’t be hard on them, they just got carried away by their zeal to start a ‘conversation’ about race.” Golly, ya think?
Might it be that, due to their own racial preoccupations and (repressed) hatreds, lefties enjoy ‘conversations about race’ rather too much? A successfully-faked hate crime is a two-fer for the leftie hoaxer: He got everyone discussing his favorite obsession, and in the process, he actually hurt the victim group’s feelings (thus indulging his unadmitted hatred).
In creating a dynamic where the leftie hoaxer is morally off the hook, the word “hoax” also creates a dynamic where conservatives are still to blame, even though the crime was faked and even though a leftie did it. Because another implication is that if a conservative-leaning person had done it, it wouldn’t be a hoax. The implication is that a hate crime by a conservative is real by definition, because conservatives are h8ers who do such crimes; while a hate crime by a leftist is “just a hoax” by definition, because lefties are against hate crimes and never do them without a noble reason.
And that is, of course, total baloney. So, what would be a better word, for these faked hate crimes?
Fake hate crime = hate crime.
Those making such a false claim should be prosecuted for a hate crime of their own-making. Jail ’em.
The same for malicious false-rape accusations.
I like the sound of “criminal misdemeanor”, as long as it is paired with “automatic fine and/or jail time”. Sure it does not exactly roll off the tongue, but it has a certain ring to it.
Consider the opposites to get a feel for what it should be called:
A white teen, in order to escape the wrath of her mother for being out later than her mother allows, makes up a story about being attacked by three black males who called her names, abused her, covered her with excrement and stuffed her in a bag. Two white lawyers and a white preacher then get on the news for weeks, drumming up a frenzy about how the cops in the area, who are predominately black, ignored her pleas and could have been complicit in the crime. It is later shown that the white teen had invented the story. What do you call the white teen? What do you call the lawyers and the preacher?
A straight woman, working in a restaurant, claims that a lesbian couple stiffed her of her tip and left a nasty note on the bill about her being a “breeder”. It is later shown to be a lie. What do you call her?
You figure out the proper label for them, you have the proper label for the opposite.
I have a different take. A ‘hate crime’ is supposedly a crime committed with malice apart from/in addition to another illegal act that may or may not be specifically related to the expressed malice. (For example, a physical assault may have nothing to do with the characteristics of those involved but by attaching intent [mens rea] to those with specific characteristics, such a crime can be legally defined as a hate crime, making such a legal definition especially dangerous to those who a culture or legal community define as suspect.) By contrast and to my knowledge, a hoax of this nature always expresses a hatred defined by current social conventions and/or traditions in order not to hurt the target of the hoax but to hurt the alleged perpetrators, either directly or indirectly (in an effort to maintain the status of victimhood also defined by current social conventions) — vaguely (anyone who isn’t in the group defined as the hoax target) or specifically (a specific person or group who will suffer consequences of the hoax). A hoax of this type is cultural libel.
The perpetrators of such hoaxes know perfectly well the cultural climate to which they themselves largely contribute and these activities are done in order to extract some kind of payment, financial, psychic, emotional or simply to do damage; one might even argue that since very real policies have been written to supposedly benefit certain groups with certain characteristics, that the consequences of hate hoaxes are not hurt but helped in the maintenance and/or increase in these policies. That they damage a community and in many cases individuals should be enough reason to forbid and prosecute any such behavior. However, they also greatly damage the cause that hate crime legislation and policies exist to address because the admittedly few cases where real malice is expressed in the commitment of a crime are not taken seriously because of the prevalence of hoaxes. (This is not to state agreement with such policies, just to mention their general impetus.)
I agree that the left is obsessed with hate, whether it exists or not. The left is also obsessed with controlling language, including word usage. The word hoax is fine.
Just for the record, the quoted sentence reads a little differently now in the post, because I was re-editing it at the same time you wrote your comment. I didn’t change its meaning and I’ve halted any further post-publication editing of the post.
Agree, and I should have acknowledged that better. My point was psychological. As you say, the hoaxer may consciously intend his actions to hurt the alleged perpetrators (say, whites). But the mechanics do require the hoaxer to hurt the alleged victims (say, blacks). Given the hoaxer’s ideological and social commitments, it would be impossible for him to take such an action in any other context. It’s his only opportunity. I’m speculating that, on a level that is perhaps unconscious, he enjoys that aspect (along with the other aspects) – or he wouldn’t do it.
So, I should have written that that a successful hoax is a “three-fer” (rather than a two-fer) for the hoaxer: He gets everyone discussing his favorite obsession, he feels noble for hurting the group that he hates officially (say whites), and he finally got to hurt the victim group (say blacks) – all at the same time.
All goodness & light comes from liberal ideology. Where individualism & diversity do not exist, in order that equality (sameness) can thrive.
Liberals don’t understand the damage that they do & their lack of morality allows them to disclaim any responsibility for their actions.
Kyle Wood
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/10/25/gay-republican-assaulted-for-political-activism/
I think in many cases they are crimes.
In the case of the racial slurs written in a dorm door-if the slurs were real and written by a white person that white person at the very least would likely be kicked out of school so when students fake hate they are falsely accusing someone of a crime and put that person at risk or various sanctions.
It’s fake hate and it should be a crime.
Kyle Wood – So, gay Republican faked a hate crime. I don’t see how that changes anything in my post. My opening sentence said, “usually” leftists (not “always”). It’s not clear if Wood physically bashed himself (or if he merely *claimed* to have been hospitalized), but if he did physically bash himself, that might indicate self-hate on some level. Some lefties have either bashed themselves, or exploited injuries that they got another way, as part of their fake hate crime reports.
Hey rusty, what are you criticizing, since you support faking hate crimes?
Pick a morality and stick with it. Otherwise you just look like a selfidh little hypocrite and snot.
Maybe a DA could try prosecuting for ‘theft of services’, as the hoaxer has tied up law enforcement resources on a false complaint.
Crimes? I mean, that’s what they are. I actually think that Ted B is on to something. When it can be demonstrably proven that the accusation is a lie, why SHOULDN’T the perpetrator pay the very penalty they sought to inflict on others?
I think you guys are onto something. A faked hate crime is, at the end of the day, a hate crime. It just has some fraud or false accusation mixed in, as well.
Kyle Wood, who claimed to have been beaten in his apartment because he is gay and did not support Mark Pocan for Congress, was sentenced to 30 days in jail Wednesday after pleading guilty to obstructing police.
Wood, 30, of Madison, took up valuable time that police and emergency medical personnel could have been using for real emergencies, Dane County Circuit Judge William Hanrahan said.
“You concocted the story and corroborated it with injuries,” Hanrahan said. “This is quite simply bizarre and outrageous.
http://m.host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/campaign-volunteer-sentenced-to-month-in-jail-for-false-report/article_d2420e11-21ad-57d3-b4c0-6c9e922f71c4.html?mobile_touch=true
(continued) I’ve been saying “faked” hate crime in this post, but I’m not sure that is any better than “hoax”. It might still carry an implication that there was somehow no real hate or real crime. (When there was a real crime, with real hate behind it.)
“Staged” hate crime?
There was a time when such malicious foolishness was dealt-with by prosecution for “…filing a false report”, and “…perpetrating a public hoax”. Those laws are probably still on the books most-places. Prosecutors and public officials just need to show some backbone and file charges.
I continue to reject the concept of a “hate” crime. A crime is a crime and motivation is up to the judge or jury in the sentencing phase. I can be comfortable with hate motivation yielding a stronger sentence.
If a “victim” involves the state in investigating a lie perpetrated by the “victim”, the state can charge the “victim” with false claims and costs. When that is shown to be the case, then the sentence can reflect the cost to the general good will done by insinuating racism, rape, etc.
But note that Attorney General Holder does not pursue crimes against blacks who intimidate whites at voting places. Reverse discrimination is fundamentally impossible in the belief system which holds that blacks can not be racists.
To continue to insist that “hate crime” is a separate crime is to diminish the actual crime.
I find it ironic that the one guy to fake a hate crime charged and sent to jail is the guy who was a republican. Not that I object to the charge but most of these people don’t get charged much less jailed.
Although I think the fake lesbian hate crimes get more sympathy. Women tend to get treated far more lightly in the justice system than men.