I think, the statistics for hate crimes against white people are only recorded when it is impossible to deny. Major efforts by the judiciary and the media to stymie suggestions of a hate crime against whites, is the standard fare.
On the other foot, it's kinda the opposite. Any hint of a racist remark by an offender is enough.
That's just my observation.
Your observations about FBI statistics shouldn't be based on what you've seen on TV, and I don't feel like I should even need to say that to you. Go take a moment to review the methodology, yeah?
The reality in the U.S. justice system is that blacks are more quickly accused, villainized and convicted than any other race. They are sentenced longer than whites convicted of equivalent crimes. They encounter police more often even in affluent neighborhoods. So, not at all rhetorically, I ask: What leads you to believe there is a higher level of scrutiny when whites are the victim?
You don't see hate crimes against whites nearly as often because
they don't occur nearly as often. I'm lily white. I have always lived in neighborhoods with plenty of black people. A black person has never laid a hand on me. I got my ass (face, actually) kicked by a white supremacist. Now, of course, my single anecdotal piece of evidence isn't meant to be the gospel on the subject. But, what are the odds, that me, living around all these black people, has only been assaulted by a skinhead, even though blacks outnumber skinheads by god-knows how much?
I am honestly evaded by what might lead you to think crimes against whites encounter more scrutiny. I have not encountered any evidence to support that belief. Sure, hate crimes against blacks garner more media attention, generally, but that's not what drives FBI statistics.
[doublepost=1472013820,1472012756][/doublepost]I have to say, you guys who challenge me (not wrongly so, necessarily) seem to think I've gone out and found statistics that back my chosen position. That's not at all the case. I used to be a Megan. I was a hardlined, white Libertarian (although she's solidly alt-right). Pete likes to reference my Ron Paul days. Yeah, that was me.
But I can't lay out an argument without doing excessive research. I can't. I review every study available. Every news source reporting. I want to make sure what I am saying is right.
The problem I encountered is that a lot of what I was saying was wrong. It goes back to my days in debate class. We ran a drill - we would pick a hot topic, and debate both sides. If the teacher could tell which side our inherent opinion lay, we failed the drill.
I was raised by a Libertarian. I have always tended toward the Libertarian way. The problem is, in the current economic/political environment, shit's not jiving with Libertarian theory. That's not necessarily a problem with Libertarianism, but it's just not playing out like theory said it would (private prisons being a prime example).
I'm not anti-ideology. I'm pro-data. And I have not yet been introduced to data in these conversations that debunks what I've found.
I used to bury people in links, but found no one read them. I can start back up, if someone wants to read them.