As always, you are highly selective in what you consider to be true or not.
Why, thank you, I do try to . . . oh, that's criticism.
OK yeah, I carefully select the incidents with compelling evidence (like multiple corroborating witnesses, forensics, or actual video footage) behind them as true, and remain skeptical of incidents without any. That's a kind of selectivity known as "Trust but Verify," and I highly recommend it.
There's a competing kind where the facts and evidence are disregarded, and the truth of the incident and credibility of the witnesses are decided based on race/sex/(other meaningless trait)/etc of those involved. This selectivity is known as "Listen and Believe," and I recommend dismissing it (and any organization/movement/cult that adheres to it).
True, I haven't seen anyone here do that, which makes me happy. I think there's denial of news media bias though.
Yet you are blind to what some few of their fellow supporters do despite the also indisputable facts. You demand the honeymoon period for Trump? Try some honesty first yourself. This sort of selecting facts and ignoring what happens on the other side that leads to this partisanship that divides this society - but you sir, you are a part of the problem.
I was going to post what argatoga did about the SPLC (IMO they're motivated more by political partisanship these days than opposing "hate"; they were also duped by the Pepe narrative), but let's read your link.
How many "hate incidents" are at least verifiable in
four importants ways: do we know a) what happened, b) who did it, c) who they did it to and d) why (or c-a-d-b in the order of the cited post)?
The story only cites two hate incidents that come close (again, thanks to video footage):
For instance, in Redding, California,
a student brought ?deportation letters? to school and recorded himself handing them out to Latino students. In Royal Oak, Michigan, students
chanted ?build the wall? in a school cafeteria the day after the election.
Both of these are anti-illegal-immigration statements, not "hate incidents." They make it sound like the kid handing out deportation letters targeted Hispanics, but the linked article says it was "multiple ethnicities," maybe even including white (french). Oh, and "the students involved are all friends" and the whole thing was a joke. One thing missing from all of this is any violence. Yet Trump got on TV and said "STOP IT!" anyway.
Is there something I'm missing here? Because off the top of my head I can think of three incidents of anti-Trump violence (2 actual, 1 threatened) caught on film, where there's no doubt about what happened, and why. Again, I'm glad no one here is denying that, but the national news media certainly did, which is my point. They gave the "Trump hate crime wave" front page headlines and ignored the (proven) other side of it until there was video footage of racist sadists outright committing torture and yelling their motivations. That's the standard of proof it took to force the news media into paying the problem any attention, and
even then they tried to play down (or blantantly lie about) the racial and political component because it didn't fit a narrative they wanted to push:
I neither demand nor expect a media honeymoon for Trump; I'm just pointing out that it shows how insanely hypocritical and biased they still are, and why when Trump points at one of them and tells him to his face "You are fake news," it rings true every time.
