Irrelevant in what way? I know I've harped on this a lot, but the actual problem of hate crimes and if they're increasing or being driven by the current political discourse is much more important than simply harping on and on and on about the OP lacking evidence.
There are a few different (but mostly related) things going on in this thread. One of them is that the OP has poisoned the discourse by opening with what was essentially a bogus narrative. This gesture of bad faith on the part of the OP is why you are having difficulty now in getting the benefit of the doubt when you wish to rehabilitate the OP after the fact.
The first rule of talking about what's really going on is to talk about what's really going on. Not what you imagine is going on or what you hope to show is going on at a later date.
And that's not how his sentence reads anyway. 'Dating from when this thread was created' would not simply remove instances before the election, it would eliminate better data compiled today as well, because a report released today wouldn't date to the time this thread was created either.
Yeah, my sentence does not read clearly. Sorry 'bout that. But this thread has a specific topic: The supposed sudden increase in hate crimes immediately following the election.
A more gradual increase in hate activity tracking with political rhetoric from before the election is definitely worth discussing. Is it happening? Is it a problem? Is Trump the cause, or does Trump's election and this rise in violence stem from the same cause? Do the answers to these questions vary depending on which groups are perpetrating the violence and which groups are the victims?
These are all good questions. I'm not sure that this thread is a good home for them, though. This thread isn't about a gradual increase. It's about a sudden increase. Introducing questions about a gradual increase seems like moving the goalposts in an attempt to rehabilitate the bogus narrative of the OP.
My feeling is that if you can show a massive wave following the election, then show it. If you want to talk about politically-motivated violence more generally, before and after the election, start another thread for it. In this thread it just looks like you're trying to give the OP credit for a claim they didn't make, and helping to perpetuate a mythical version of events.
That's what I was trying to convey with my request for cites. In the context of the topic of the thread--the "massive wave" following the election--I'm interested in two kinds of data: First, data that would have been available to the OP when they made the claim. And second, data that was compiled or published later that supports the claim.
I do not believe that reasonable posters here would ever honestly find harping on how the OP didn't have enough data to come to the conclusion that Trump's election was responsible for a massive wave of hate crimes more interesting or important than understanding factors that could be driving hate crimes.
It's not clear that there really was a "massive wave" (outside of New York).
The OP's thesis seems to be that blaming a massive wave of hate crimes on Trump is indeed interesting and important. It seems like you might be implying that it's sufficient for us to assume that the massive wave was real, and that Trump was the cause, so that we can move on to a more general discussion of hate crimes. I wouldn't mind moving on, but I do think we should reject the OP's bogus thesis first. And probably start a separate thread for discussing real things that are really happening.
Basically, I need reassured that if the data comes out that does show Trump's election or actions have increased hate crimes, that posters currently mocking the OP will follow the evidence and not simply continue to mock the OP because 'they couldn't have known at the time'. Currently I heavily suspect that for many, the response would be silence.
You will not get that reassurance. By making claims they could not support, the OP sought to push a false narrative. If later evidence emerged to validate that narrative, it would be luck, not honesty or good faith or skeptical debate to the OP's credit. The OP doesn't get to come back later and say "see?! I was right all along!"
If data does come out showing a massive wave, let's talk about it. But let's start fresh, and talk about it honestly and skeptically, not under the shadow of the OP's bogus claims.
EDIT: Cross posted with above. And I will repeat my point about how if it turns out that Trump's campaigning increased hate crimes, and not just his election, then that's important to know to, regardless of what this OP said.
I agree that it's important to know. However, I don't think we can simply disregard what the OP said. Trump's rhetoric isn't the only thing contributing to political violence. Trump's supporters aren't the only ones who have been emboldened and encouraged to act violently against their political opponents. It's still not clear that Trump's supporters are even the most active in this regard.
