I don't think it's as big of a problem as most people think.Yes, it's fueling a bit of radicalization, which isn't great.
What is the output of this radicalization? Just how big of a problem is it compared to what people are making out it? We know someone opened fire a pizza place as a direct result of this. Do you think the rise in hate crime (especially violent crime) is in some way related, too? Perps have left behind manifestos, like at El Paso, Christchurch, etc., with the same language as disinfo campaigns.
People are focused on this because it's the reason that people are being murdered because of their religion or where they were born.
Over what time period are you claiming there is a rise in hate crime? And how are you defining hate crime?
I've seen several kinds of fallacious arguments related to allegations of a rise in hate crimes. One is based on allowing people to simply claim that a hate crime occurred, without any evidence, verification, or objective definition of hate crime. Many of these claims were later shown to be false, though they continued to be cited as part of the evidence of a 'rise in hate crimes'. In these studies, the actual truth is that there is a rise in unsupported allegations of hate crime, wherein the reporter also decides for themselves what constitutes a 'hate crime.' This doesn't tell us very much about changes in the frequency or nature of real world crime.
> We know someone opened fire a pizza place as a direct result of this.
Pizzagate resulted in someone firing a single shot at the lock on a closet door to open it. In a discussion of disinformation, I think your characterization is misleading and exemplary of disinformation as well - in a manner quite similar to the disinformation that led that individual to decide to do a vigilante raid on the pizza parlor.
If we are going to be pedantic about it (in the interests of clearing up misinformation), it was 3 shots[1], and he pointed the gun at employees[2] before shooting at the closet.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Previous coverage I'd read hadn't specified how many times he shot at the lock (ex. "shot through the lock of a closet") and I guess my brain interpreted that as 1.
Was able to find multiple corroborating sources for the 3 shots number.
I find it amusing that I'm receiving downvotes for this clarification - I'd love to understand the reasons behind them. I assume they are idealogical, but what ideology find the difference between 1 and 3 gunshots significant?
The difference is that "opened fire" is a weasel word in this instance- it is misleading as it linguistically leaves open the interpretation that multiple people were injured or killed
Until I read cwkoss' comment right now I had always assumed someone came to the pizza joint and started firing rounds at people. I admit I'm not American so I never cared enough to look up what "opened fire" meant here, but I think it's evident what people will think of when they read that expression. Hint: not someone shooting a closet's lock once to open it.
Thank you for clarifying this. Based on the coverage I've seen, I had always been under the impression that a shooter shot multiple rounds at a group of people. I had no idea it was a single round directed at a lock in a door. It's amazing how dishonest the headlines and soundbite coverage of this event were.
What is the output of this radicalization? Just how big of a problem is it compared to what people are making out it? We know someone opened fire a pizza place as a direct result of this. Do you think the rise in hate crime (especially violent crime) is in some way related, too? Perps have left behind manifestos, like at El Paso, Christchurch, etc., with the same language as disinfo campaigns.
People are focused on this because it's the reason that people are being murdered because of their religion or where they were born.