There are a lot of Jewish, pro-Israel professors in the US. I don't see any evidence that it was a factor in this man's death. I think it would be irresponsible for a news organization to speculate until more information is actually available.
(You'll note that even Yeshiva World News isn't speculating about motives here.)
How on earth are you making conclusions about the motive of the killer?
People also get burgled and shot. Lovers take revenge. A grad student loses their mind.
It's entirely irresponsible to suggest that something is being hidden if there's zero evidence so far that someone's religion or political views are even remotely relevant.
Omitting facts that are utterly irrelevant is not lying by omission. The media doesn't report what he ate for breakfast or which brand of clothing he buys either.
People's religion and political views aren't generally considered relevant to a homicide unless there's an indication they had something to do with the motive, at which point they get reported. Otherwise, the media sticks to basic biographical details like occupation and family status.
Otherwise, the media gets accused of sensationalizing things, implying someone's religion is relevant to stir up controversy, etc.
If it turns out this was either a hate crime or a politically-motivated crime, do you really think the media will suppress that? Spoiler: they don't.
Lying by omission has a specific requirement that the liar knows something relevant and chooses not to disclose it. That’s quite different than refraining from speculation about the killer’s motive.
You’re trying too hard to make that conspiratorial take: most responsible outlets don’t speculate on motives until there’s some evidence of a connection. For example, the stories I’ve read quoted his neighbors wondering whether there’s a connection to what happened at Brown, which is just an hour away and still has the killer at large. If there’s any evidence of an anti-Jewish motive, I will be shocked if it’s not an NYT headline within minutes.
> most responsible outlets don’t speculate on motives until there’s some evidence of a connection
That is simply not true, every single news outlet without fail speculates, uncritically quotes a speculator, or leaves out warranted critical speculation at their own discretion. Pick a news site that you think doesn’t do this and I will happily find an example from their front page.
Reporters tend to be very careful about this in the context of things like deaths, embarrassing scandals, etc. where they might be sued. If you note, the kind of stories you’re referring to tend to be referencing what someone else said—a source in law enforcement, neighbors, friends, etc.—because that makes it clear that there are not the opinion of the news organization itself.
I agree with everything you said, but the news organization's decision to include or not include a quote or speculation from someone is fundamentally a narrative choice. And every news organization makes those choices at their own discretion and it can result in uncritical reporting.
Pick a few frontpage stories from any news site you like, then see how its covered one a new source you don't like/leans the opposite way politically (short of the crazy outlets) and see how the same stories are reported. You'll see different quotes, different speculation, different choices of what to include or not include. Hell even the choice of what is covered on the frontpage will obviously vary if you just compare them. Saying that what a news outlet is reporting is "not the opinion of the news organization itself" may be technically correct in a legal sense, but that's worst kind of correct.
Yes, coverage follows trends for most news organizations but that’s pretty far off of my original point which was that the reason the responsible news organizations weren’t covering this as an anti-Jewish hate crime was just there was no evidence supporting that theory. Now that details have started to come out, we have a good example of why serious journalists have that policy.
The title of this article leads with "Jewish, Pro-Israel MIT Professor..." so I think they've already decided to go with the "victim of antisemitism" default until proven otherwise.
Certainly it's more conspiratorial to assume that his death had something to do with his research, or that he was secretly a some kind of Walter White character?
Being politically outspoken on an issue which is contentious in that area, and which has caused violence before seems like the most plausible explanation that I have heard so far.
No, it’s just sticking to the publicly known information. Not listing something isn’t saying it’s not a factor, it’s just literally going with what the police were saying: they didn’t have any information about the motive yet.
Another data point is that Jews are getting killed and assaulted around the world. With that said, I agree that for now there's no actual evidence supporting this allegation. But I wouldn't be totally shocked to learn that his ethnicity or zionist beliefs had something to do with this, if indeed he was Jewish (which hasn't been confirmed).
The problem is that most people have many parts of their identities and you don’t know which factored into the attack. It certainly wouldn’t be a shock if it was anti-Semitism but it’s unclear why he would have been singled out from the many thousands of other Jews in the Boston area.
This is problematic because most of the sources saying he was Jewish and pro-Israel seem to be quoting each other. The Wikipedia reference was added yesterday and removed today because the linked sources didn’t say anything about his religion, and I haven’t seen any sources about pro-Israel stances which I’d think would be easier to find if he was outspoken enough to be targeted. It’s still quite possible that he was the unfortunate victim of a stalker-most of the professors I know have had to work with security to keep someone off campus because colleges attract a certain brand of mentally ill people–but it seems odd that these sources are so confident about this assertion without citing sources.
Based on e.g. https://news.mit.edu/2018/nuno-loureiro-faculty-physics-1016 it really seems like his passion was physics and I think we should commemorate someone who tried to improve humanity’s understanding of the universe. If new details emerge, I’m sure they’ll be posted here.
There is no global hate movement against lefties that encourages and relishes in their pain. There is for Jews, who despite accounting for only 2% of the US population are victims of 69% of religious-based hate crimes. Doing the math, Jews are 35x more likely to be the victim of a hate crime. This is not true for lefties.
(This is a general statement responding to your analogy. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I don't even know if this professor was Jewish or why he was killed.)
No, I don't. I include only FBI statistics of hate crimes targeting religious groups in the United States. Jews are 35x more likely to be victims of hate crimes in the US. Nothing to do with Gaza.
Some people refuse to acknowledge this reality and others attempt to justify it. Many resort to sarcasm as a defense mechanism, revealing their own biases in written records on major public forums.
First of all, that’s not true. Your statistic is probably based on one that indicates Jews account for 69% of religious-based hate crimes, while being 2% of the population. That’s about 35 times more likely if religious-motivated hate crimes were the only type of hate crime. But they’re not, so you’re just misrepresenting the data. The most generous stat you could use would be the one from 2023-2024, which has Jews as 16% of all hate crimes in the US, so an 8x multiplier. But this was a dramatic uptick, which came along with the genocide being committed in their name.
Also, there is a massively asymmetric application of hate crime laws, as you can clearly see by the automatic “hate crime” conclusion you’re already seeing here simply because the victim was Jewish. This asymmetry is glaringly obvious when you look at the handling of these two stabbings.
In one case, the perpetrator stabbed a white woman to death, and said on camera "got the white bitch." In the other case, the subway stabbing happened "blocks from" a synagogue following an argument. Which one do you think gets the hate crime treatment?
This asymmetry makes it impossible to gain much insight from the statistics on this. It’s very likely that 8x is a very high upper bound, and only in an exceptional year where those stats coincided with a genocide committed in their name, which has been a cause for global outrage and disgust.
You’re not “correcting” me. You’re swapping denominators and then accusing me of misrepresentation.
The ~69% figure is not “probably based on” anything. It’s directly from the FBI’s 2023 hate crime data as summarized by DOJ: 2,699 religion-based incidents, 1,832 anti-Jewish. That is 1,832 / 2,699 = 67.9% (call it ~68–69%).
Source: https://www.justice.gov/crs/news/2023-hate-crime-statistics
Now you try to “debunk” that by quietly switching the denominator to all hate crimes. Fine. Do that math too: 1,832 / 11,862 total incidents = 15.4% of all reported hate crime incidents in 2023. For a ~2% population, that’s still about 7–8x disproportionate. So no, it’s not “not true.” You’re just changing the question and hoping nobody notices. You even implicitly concede the underlying statistic (“69% of religion-based hate crimes”) and then pretend it’s false by changing denominators mid-argument.
Your “only if religion-based hate crimes were the only type” line is nonsense. I explicitly restricted the claim to religion-based incidents, and the DOJ/FBI table does the same. You’re arguing with a strawman you invented.
As for “overreported” and “asymmetric” enforcement: that’s vibes plus two cherry-picked links about a specific incident. If you think the FBI/DOJ figures are inflated, show a dataset and a method, not anecdotes and insinuation.
Also, plenty of incidents never get reported at all. I’ve personally been assaulted for being Jewish and didn’t report it. That is what undercount looks like in real life.
Finally, please stop misrepresenting what I wrote. I explicitly said “religion-based hate crimes.” Your comment only makes sense if you pretend I didn’t.
Switched the denominator? So you were specifically talking about religious-based hate crimes? Why were you talking about that very specific subset, and why wouldn’t you mention that or imply it anywhere in your comment? You wouldn’t be… a liar, would you?
Also, nice AI slop - I stopped reading at the first angle quotes.
You’re accusing me of “not mentioning the subset” while quoting a thread where I literally wrote “religious-based hate crimes.” So either you missed it or you’re pretending you missed it. But it's here in this exact thread for anyone to see. Permalink: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46304753
If you want to change the denominator to “all hate crimes,” say so up front. That gives 15.4% of all incidents, still massively disproportionate.
It's common to use angle quotes on HN, but either way, you accusing me of "AI slop" because you don't like the way I quote things doesn't change the arithmetic and is not a rebuttal.
I see it now, you said that in a different comment which wasn’t the one I replied to. My bad for not noticing.
Still, restricting it to “religious-based” hate crimes is transparently misleading. Using a statistic from a narrow category to imply a claim about the whole is a classic substitution error. Either you are lacking in statistical literacy, or you are being intentionally misleading.
And let’s not forget the massive, undeniable asymmetry here that makes the entire point meaningless. None of this is sufficient to assume that a crime against a Jew is automatically a hate crime until proven otherwise.
Thanks for the correction, I appreciate you owning it.
But the rest is just another goalpost move. Quoting a clearly labeled subset is not “transparently misleading,” as you put it It’s how statistics work. I said “religious-based hate crimes” explicitly, because we were discussing hostility toward Jews. The DOJ/FBI table is explicit: 2023 had 2,699 religion-based hate crime incidents; 1,832 were anti‑Jewish.
And I already gave the “whole” denominator too: those same 1,832 incidents are 15.4% of all 11,862 hate crime incidents in 2023. For a 2% population, that is still ~7–8x disproportionate, as I've mentioned. So the “substitution error” accusation doesn’t apply here, because I didn’t imply 69% of all hate crimes. I stated the subset and then did the math for the broader denominator as well.
On the “asymmetry makes it meaningless” claim: I see you're asserting that, but you haven’t demonstrated it. FBI hate crime data is not “crime against a Jew = hate crime until proven otherwise.” It’s incidents agencies specifically classify as bias-motivated based on evidence. The well-known problem in this space is underreporting and incomplete reporting, not some magical inflation that conveniently zeros out anti‑Jewish bias. I can attest to the underreporting having not reported an assault where I was beat up on the NYC subway and told "they should have burned you all" while minding my own business on an NYC subway.
Finally, none of this was me calling any specific crime a hate crime. I explicitly said we don’t know the motive in the professor’s case. This thread started because you challenged a statistical claim. The numbers stand. Given you opened with "liar" and "AI slop," you might want to recalibrate before accusing others of ‘statistical illiteracy'.
Using a religion-specific hate-crime metric to argue about hate crimes in general is not valid inference. It’s a case of category substitution amplified by base-rate neglect, and is misleading even if every quoted number is technically true.
You’re still arguing with a sentence I did not write.
I did not use a “religion-specific metric to argue about hate crimes in general.” I said, explicitly, “69% of religious-based hate crimes.” Then, when you insisted on the “general” denominator, I gave that too: anti‑Jewish incidents are 15.4% of all hate crime incidents in 2023, still ~7–8x disproportionate for a ~2% population. Both numbers come from the same DOJ/FBI table.
https://www.justice.gov/crs/news/2023-hate-crime-statistics
So the “category substitution / base-rate neglect” lecture is just a rhetorical reset button. You keep pretending I implied “69% of all hate crimes” because that’s the only way your critique has a target.
At this point the pattern is clear:
1) miss what I actually wrote,
2) accuse me of lying/AI,
3) admit you missed it,
4) reframe anyway by inventing a broader claim I never made,
5) argue against your invention.
I’m not doing more laps of that. If you want to dispute the DOJ/FBI numbers or show actual evidence of systematic inflation, present a dataset and method. Otherwise we’re done here.
Contrary to the consensus opinion, losing a war one started is not genocide. For any doubts you can use comparables for civilian deaths in various theatres of war throughout history.
He's saying Hamas lost a war, that's all that happened. You're making an unrelated point, which is that genocide is often carried out in the context of war. That may be true, but that doesn't make the hoax that Israel's war against Hamas was a genocide any less false.
Israel's war against Hamas was not a genocide. (Nor was it a distinct war, but merely part of the much longer war against the Palestinian people.)
Israel's war against Hamas was part of a campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people that has been conducted through much of that longer war, a campaign that it started decades before Hamas existed (and fostered the creation of Hamas, during the more intense period of its occupation of Gaza, as a tactic to facilitate through both dividing its opposition and making it less internationally sympathetic, as the primary constraint on the campaign has always been international, and particular US, tolerance.)
Of course it's not and never was a genocide. But jimbo808 wishes it were, because he thinks that will help him justify the very rise in hate crimes against Jews that he also tries to downplay.
jimbo808 wrote: "The most generous stat you could use would be the one from 2023-2024, which has Jews as 16%... which came along with the genocide being committed in their name."
What kind of worldview motivates such a comment? He invents a genocide and says it's being committed in the name of American Jews? This is a novel claim even by the low standards of the antizionist crowd. Laughable.
Yes, American media is anti-Israel, which is why we've seen daily accusations of genocide, forced starvation, and other absurd allegations for what was a totally normal war, much less destructive than the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or even Vietnam. /non-sarcastic
There are a lot of Jewish, pro-Israel professors in the US. I don't see any evidence that it was a factor in this man's death. I think it would be irresponsible for a news organization to speculate until more information is actually available.
(You'll note that even Yeshiva World News isn't speculating about motives here.)
What evidence do you have that the "MSM" are "carefully avoid mentioning" it?
> a critically important fact pointing towards the motives of the killer
That's some Uri-Geller-level mindreading you're doing there, of someone we can't yet identify.
How on earth are you making conclusions about the motive of the killer?
People also get burgled and shot. Lovers take revenge. A grad student loses their mind.
It's entirely irresponsible to suggest that something is being hidden if there's zero evidence so far that someone's religion or political views are even remotely relevant.
And media lies by omission.
Omitting facts that are utterly irrelevant is not lying by omission. The media doesn't report what he ate for breakfast or which brand of clothing he buys either.
People's religion and political views aren't generally considered relevant to a homicide unless there's an indication they had something to do with the motive, at which point they get reported. Otherwise, the media sticks to basic biographical details like occupation and family status.
Otherwise, the media gets accused of sensationalizing things, implying someone's religion is relevant to stir up controversy, etc.
If it turns out this was either a hate crime or a politically-motivated crime, do you really think the media will suppress that? Spoiler: they don't.
Lying by omission has a specific requirement that the liar knows something relevant and chooses not to disclose it. That’s quite different than refraining from speculation about the killer’s motive.
You’re trying too hard to make that conspiratorial take: most responsible outlets don’t speculate on motives until there’s some evidence of a connection. For example, the stories I’ve read quoted his neighbors wondering whether there’s a connection to what happened at Brown, which is just an hour away and still has the killer at large. If there’s any evidence of an anti-Jewish motive, I will be shocked if it’s not an NYT headline within minutes.
> most responsible outlets don’t speculate on motives until there’s some evidence of a connection
That is simply not true, every single news outlet without fail speculates, uncritically quotes a speculator, or leaves out warranted critical speculation at their own discretion. Pick a news site that you think doesn’t do this and I will happily find an example from their front page.
Reporters tend to be very careful about this in the context of things like deaths, embarrassing scandals, etc. where they might be sued. If you note, the kind of stories you’re referring to tend to be referencing what someone else said—a source in law enforcement, neighbors, friends, etc.—because that makes it clear that there are not the opinion of the news organization itself.
I agree with everything you said, but the news organization's decision to include or not include a quote or speculation from someone is fundamentally a narrative choice. And every news organization makes those choices at their own discretion and it can result in uncritical reporting.
Pick a few frontpage stories from any news site you like, then see how its covered one a new source you don't like/leans the opposite way politically (short of the crazy outlets) and see how the same stories are reported. You'll see different quotes, different speculation, different choices of what to include or not include. Hell even the choice of what is covered on the frontpage will obviously vary if you just compare them. Saying that what a news outlet is reporting is "not the opinion of the news organization itself" may be technically correct in a legal sense, but that's worst kind of correct.
Yes, coverage follows trends for most news organizations but that’s pretty far off of my original point which was that the reason the responsible news organizations weren’t covering this as an anti-Jewish hate crime was just there was no evidence supporting that theory. Now that details have started to come out, we have a good example of why serious journalists have that policy.
The title of this article leads with "Jewish, Pro-Israel MIT Professor..." so I think they've already decided to go with the "victim of antisemitism" default until proven otherwise.
Certainly it's more conspiratorial to assume that his death had something to do with his research, or that he was secretly a some kind of Walter White character?
Being politically outspoken on an issue which is contentious in that area, and which has caused violence before seems like the most plausible explanation that I have heard so far.
No, it’s just sticking to the publicly known information. Not listing something isn’t saying it’s not a factor, it’s just literally going with what the police were saying: they didn’t have any information about the motive yet.
Your only data point is the ethnicity of the victim, and that's all it takes for you to suggest it was a hate crime?
Another data point is that Jews are getting killed and assaulted around the world. With that said, I agree that for now there's no actual evidence supporting this allegation. But I wouldn't be totally shocked to learn that his ethnicity or zionist beliefs had something to do with this, if indeed he was Jewish (which hasn't been confirmed).
The problem is that most people have many parts of their identities and you don’t know which factored into the attack. It certainly wouldn’t be a shock if it was anti-Semitism but it’s unclear why he would have been singled out from the many thousands of other Jews in the Boston area.
This is problematic because most of the sources saying he was Jewish and pro-Israel seem to be quoting each other. The Wikipedia reference was added yesterday and removed today because the linked sources didn’t say anything about his religion, and I haven’t seen any sources about pro-Israel stances which I’d think would be easier to find if he was outspoken enough to be targeted. It’s still quite possible that he was the unfortunate victim of a stalker-most of the professors I know have had to work with security to keep someone off campus because colleges attract a certain brand of mentally ill people–but it seems odd that these sources are so confident about this assertion without citing sources.
Based on e.g. https://news.mit.edu/2018/nuno-loureiro-faculty-physics-1016 it really seems like his passion was physics and I think we should commemorate someone who tried to improve humanity’s understanding of the universe. If new details emerge, I’m sure they’ll be posted here.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I agree.
Left-handed people are getting killed and assaulted around the world, but no one ever seems to care about that open conspiracy!
Every time a lefty gets cut off in traffic, it's just one more data point.
There is no global hate movement against lefties that encourages and relishes in their pain. There is for Jews, who despite accounting for only 2% of the US population are victims of 69% of religious-based hate crimes. Doing the math, Jews are 35x more likely to be the victim of a hate crime. This is not true for lefties.
(This is a general statement responding to your analogy. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I don't even know if this professor was Jewish or why he was killed.)
Do you include the deaths in Gaza in the hate crime statistic?
No, I don't. I include only FBI statistics of hate crimes targeting religious groups in the United States. Jews are 35x more likely to be victims of hate crimes in the US. Nothing to do with Gaza.
Some people refuse to acknowledge this reality and others attempt to justify it. Many resort to sarcasm as a defense mechanism, revealing their own biases in written records on major public forums.
First of all, that’s not true. Your statistic is probably based on one that indicates Jews account for 69% of religious-based hate crimes, while being 2% of the population. That’s about 35 times more likely if religious-motivated hate crimes were the only type of hate crime. But they’re not, so you’re just misrepresenting the data. The most generous stat you could use would be the one from 2023-2024, which has Jews as 16% of all hate crimes in the US, so an 8x multiplier. But this was a dramatic uptick, which came along with the genocide being committed in their name.
Also, there is a massively asymmetric application of hate crime laws, as you can clearly see by the automatic “hate crime” conclusion you’re already seeing here simply because the victim was Jewish. This asymmetry is glaringly obvious when you look at the handling of these two stabbings.
In one case, the perpetrator stabbed a white woman to death, and said on camera "got the white bitch." In the other case, the subway stabbing happened "blocks from" a synagogue following an argument. Which one do you think gets the hate crime treatment?
https://abc7ny.com/post/hate-crime-investigation-victim-stab...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-charlotte-train-stabbing-i...
This asymmetry makes it impossible to gain much insight from the statistics on this. It’s very likely that 8x is a very high upper bound, and only in an exceptional year where those stats coincided with a genocide committed in their name, which has been a cause for global outrage and disgust.
You’re not “correcting” me. You’re swapping denominators and then accusing me of misrepresentation.
The ~69% figure is not “probably based on” anything. It’s directly from the FBI’s 2023 hate crime data as summarized by DOJ: 2,699 religion-based incidents, 1,832 anti-Jewish. That is 1,832 / 2,699 = 67.9% (call it ~68–69%). Source: https://www.justice.gov/crs/news/2023-hate-crime-statistics
Now you try to “debunk” that by quietly switching the denominator to all hate crimes. Fine. Do that math too: 1,832 / 11,862 total incidents = 15.4% of all reported hate crime incidents in 2023. For a ~2% population, that’s still about 7–8x disproportionate. So no, it’s not “not true.” You’re just changing the question and hoping nobody notices. You even implicitly concede the underlying statistic (“69% of religion-based hate crimes”) and then pretend it’s false by changing denominators mid-argument.
Your “only if religion-based hate crimes were the only type” line is nonsense. I explicitly restricted the claim to religion-based incidents, and the DOJ/FBI table does the same. You’re arguing with a strawman you invented.
As for “overreported” and “asymmetric” enforcement: that’s vibes plus two cherry-picked links about a specific incident. If you think the FBI/DOJ figures are inflated, show a dataset and a method, not anecdotes and insinuation.
Also, plenty of incidents never get reported at all. I’ve personally been assaulted for being Jewish and didn’t report it. That is what undercount looks like in real life.
Finally, please stop misrepresenting what I wrote. I explicitly said “religion-based hate crimes.” Your comment only makes sense if you pretend I didn’t.
Switched the denominator? So you were specifically talking about religious-based hate crimes? Why were you talking about that very specific subset, and why wouldn’t you mention that or imply it anywhere in your comment? You wouldn’t be… a liar, would you?
Also, nice AI slop - I stopped reading at the first angle quotes.
You’re accusing me of “not mentioning the subset” while quoting a thread where I literally wrote “religious-based hate crimes.” So either you missed it or you’re pretending you missed it. But it's here in this exact thread for anyone to see. Permalink: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46304753
The DOJ/FBI table is explicit: 2023 had 2,699 religion-based hate crime incidents; 1,832 were anti-Jewish. That’s 67.9%. https://www.justice.gov/crs/news/2023-hate-crime-statistics
If you want to change the denominator to “all hate crimes,” say so up front. That gives 15.4% of all incidents, still massively disproportionate.
It's common to use angle quotes on HN, but either way, you accusing me of "AI slop" because you don't like the way I quote things doesn't change the arithmetic and is not a rebuttal.
I see it now, you said that in a different comment which wasn’t the one I replied to. My bad for not noticing.
Still, restricting it to “religious-based” hate crimes is transparently misleading. Using a statistic from a narrow category to imply a claim about the whole is a classic substitution error. Either you are lacking in statistical literacy, or you are being intentionally misleading.
And let’s not forget the massive, undeniable asymmetry here that makes the entire point meaningless. None of this is sufficient to assume that a crime against a Jew is automatically a hate crime until proven otherwise.
Thanks for the correction, I appreciate you owning it.
But the rest is just another goalpost move. Quoting a clearly labeled subset is not “transparently misleading,” as you put it It’s how statistics work. I said “religious-based hate crimes” explicitly, because we were discussing hostility toward Jews. The DOJ/FBI table is explicit: 2023 had 2,699 religion-based hate crime incidents; 1,832 were anti‑Jewish.
And I already gave the “whole” denominator too: those same 1,832 incidents are 15.4% of all 11,862 hate crime incidents in 2023. For a 2% population, that is still ~7–8x disproportionate, as I've mentioned. So the “substitution error” accusation doesn’t apply here, because I didn’t imply 69% of all hate crimes. I stated the subset and then did the math for the broader denominator as well.
On the “asymmetry makes it meaningless” claim: I see you're asserting that, but you haven’t demonstrated it. FBI hate crime data is not “crime against a Jew = hate crime until proven otherwise.” It’s incidents agencies specifically classify as bias-motivated based on evidence. The well-known problem in this space is underreporting and incomplete reporting, not some magical inflation that conveniently zeros out anti‑Jewish bias. I can attest to the underreporting having not reported an assault where I was beat up on the NYC subway and told "they should have burned you all" while minding my own business on an NYC subway.
Finally, none of this was me calling any specific crime a hate crime. I explicitly said we don’t know the motive in the professor’s case. This thread started because you challenged a statistical claim. The numbers stand. Given you opened with "liar" and "AI slop," you might want to recalibrate before accusing others of ‘statistical illiteracy'.
Using a religion-specific hate-crime metric to argue about hate crimes in general is not valid inference. It’s a case of category substitution amplified by base-rate neglect, and is misleading even if every quoted number is technically true.
You’re still arguing with a sentence I did not write.
I did not use a “religion-specific metric to argue about hate crimes in general.” I said, explicitly, “69% of religious-based hate crimes.” Then, when you insisted on the “general” denominator, I gave that too: anti‑Jewish incidents are 15.4% of all hate crime incidents in 2023, still ~7–8x disproportionate for a ~2% population. Both numbers come from the same DOJ/FBI table. https://www.justice.gov/crs/news/2023-hate-crime-statistics
So the “category substitution / base-rate neglect” lecture is just a rhetorical reset button. You keep pretending I implied “69% of all hate crimes” because that’s the only way your critique has a target.
At this point the pattern is clear: 1) miss what I actually wrote, 2) accuse me of lying/AI, 3) admit you missed it, 4) reframe anyway by inventing a broader claim I never made, 5) argue against your invention.
I’m not doing more laps of that. If you want to dispute the DOJ/FBI numbers or show actual evidence of systematic inflation, present a dataset and method. Otherwise we’re done here.
Contrary to the consensus opinion, losing a war one started is not genocide. For any doubts you can use comparables for civilian deaths in various theatres of war throughout history.
> Contrary to the consensus opinion, losing a war one started is not genocide.
Genocide often is carried out in the context of war, and certainly it isn't harder for the winning side of a war to do so.
He's saying Hamas lost a war, that's all that happened. You're making an unrelated point, which is that genocide is often carried out in the context of war. That may be true, but that doesn't make the hoax that Israel's war against Hamas was a genocide any less false.
Israel's war against Hamas was not a genocide. (Nor was it a distinct war, but merely part of the much longer war against the Palestinian people.)
Israel's war against Hamas was part of a campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people that has been conducted through much of that longer war, a campaign that it started decades before Hamas existed (and fostered the creation of Hamas, during the more intense period of its occupation of Gaza, as a tactic to facilitate through both dividing its opposition and making it less internationally sympathetic, as the primary constraint on the campaign has always been international, and particular US, tolerance.)
A series of unsupported claims.
Wait so the children of Gaza started a losing war and therefore must be genocided?
Never happened.
Of course it's not and never was a genocide. But jimbo808 wishes it were, because he thinks that will help him justify the very rise in hate crimes against Jews that he also tries to downplay.
jimbo808 wrote: "The most generous stat you could use would be the one from 2023-2024, which has Jews as 16%... which came along with the genocide being committed in their name."
What kind of worldview motivates such a comment? He invents a genocide and says it's being committed in the name of American Jews? This is a novel claim even by the low standards of the antizionist crowd. Laughable.
Don’t take my word for it, but you might want to consider some of these notable organizations that have identified it as a genocide:
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
International Association of Genocide Scholars
UN Human Rights Office
And even some Israeli organizations, such as:
B’Tselem
Physicians for Human Rights Israel
Appeal to authority. Nullius in verba.
lol
"But the holy church of england says the earth is the center of the universe!"
Right, because American media is famously anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. /s
Yes, American media is anti-Israel, which is why we've seen daily accusations of genocide, forced starvation, and other absurd allegations for what was a totally normal war, much less destructive than the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or even Vietnam. /non-sarcastic
[flagged]
[flagged]