Plausible bordering on persuasive

An interesting insight. From Hate Crime Hoaxes are More Common than You Think by Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning.

Why are we seeing more and more hoax hate crimes? They have been around for decades, the first and most prominent in my recollection being the Tawana Brawley Rape Hoax in 1987.

From my systems thinking and economics perspective, the answer is ready framed. Despite their amateurishness and obviousness, there must be little downside risk to the perpetrator, much upside potential, and a significant reward in terms of reputation or money or recognition or status or power.

That answers the why do people make facially false accusations question but not the why these type (hate crimes) question or the why now question.

The why now is also relatively easy to answer. Penalty enhancements based on intent (hate) only emerged at the state level in the late 1970s becoming much more common over the next decade. Prior to that, you committed a crime or not. Your motivation was of relatively minor consequence.

Hate crime designation has generally been well-intentioned. We do want to stamp savage hatred. On the other hand it is also a deeply dangerous concept. Charging people based on their intent dangerously infringes on freedom of speech, relies on psychological inference (mind reading) and is difficult to enforce consistently (necessary for equality before the law). So while well intentioned, the actual implementation has been spotty.

None-the-less, these state laws have increased the reward for bringing a hate-crime accusation.

So people make fake accusations because it is more rewarding than in the past and because there is now the legal framework which makes it easier to do so.

But why now. Campbell and Manning make an argument I am not certain I have seen before.

Jonathan Haidt has been making the argument for the past few years that we used to live in traditional honor cultures, and in the modern era transitioned to a dignity culture and that in some corners (media, academia, and state bureaucracy) we are seeing the cultivation and transition to victimhood culture.

Most of us put this in the philosophical terms of social justice theory and postmodernism. Haidt is, I think, arguing that the philosophy is perhaps incidental. It provides a cover and justification but that the central issue is not philosophical but psychological. More and more people are assuming a victimhood culture affect even if they are justifying it in terms of critical theory or postmodernism.

Campbell and Manning make the point that there is a connection between Victimhood Culture and Hoax Hate crimes.

Real hate crimes happen, of course. We’re not arguing that all or even most alleged hate crimes are hoaxes. But the ones dominating the headlines in recent years have often been false or misleading, possibly because fake cases are better designed to push the buttons of drama and partisanship. Real hate crimes don’t necessarily have offenders who conveniently announce themselves to be members of your political outgroup, or display a stylized iconography of evil, like nooses and swastikas. The hoaxes, by contrast, often read like political-struggle fan fiction, with the hoaxers making themselves Mary Sues and their adversaries stock villains. At St. Olaf College, a racist note later revealed to be a hoax read in part, “You have spoken up too much. You will change nothing. Shut up or I will shut you up.” Or consider a case at the University of Wyoming, where a student posted anonymous comments about herself on the “UW Crushes” Facebook page. Intended to look like it came from a Republican man, the post expressed sexual desire for the hoaxer and referred to her as “that chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time.”

That the hoaxes act as simple morality tales illustrating an outgroup’s evil, or that they flatter the hoaxers, are part of what makes them attractive to the hoaxer’s audience. Whether hoaxers have personal motives—such as seeking fame, sympathy, or support—or political motives—such as mobilizing allies to fight a common enemy or injustice—they succeed among those sharing their moral and political commitments, not despite their sloppiness but because of it. Political polarization means that hoaxes that tap into one side’s fears and biases are likely to be believed.

Long term cultural trends matter, too, and the third thing to know is that hate crime hoaxes thrive in a culture of victimhood. We use the term victimhood culture to refer to a new moral framework that differs from the older cultures of honor and dignity. Honor culture refers to a morality that revolves around physical bravery. In honor cultures one’s reputation is important, and it might be necessary to engage in violence to protect it. In the dignity cultures that replaced honor cultures, morality more often revolves around the idea that people have equal moral worth. Insults and slights don’t lower one’s status as they do in honor cultures, and people can ignore many minor offenses and go to the police and courts for more serious ones. Victimhood culture, which is in its most extreme form among campus activists, is different from both honor and dignity cultures. Its morality revolves around a narrative of oppression and victimhood, with victimhood acting as new kind of moral status, much like honor was a kind of moral status in many traditional societies.

There are significant dangers in playing the hate crime hoax in an honor culture culture. You not only get called out but you get punished for the false accusation. In a dignity culture people pity you for making the false accusation. But in a victimhood culture, you gain standing and status by making false accusations. Within the the victimhood culture circles (academia, media, and bureaucracies), there is much upside benefit and little downside risk to such accusations.

It is in a victimhood culture that hate crime hoaxes are most attractive. Hate crime hoaxes are false tales of oppression, and those who understand human interaction in these terms are quick to believe such tales and offer support to those they see as the victims. And to the extent that the hoaxer already belongs to a group seen as a victim group—ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, etc.—adherents of the new culture tend to see them as especially credible. They might even promote the idea that it’s our moral duty to believe victims. In that context waiting for evidence or giving due process to the accused is itself a form of injustice, a way of further victimizing the oppressed and aiding their oppressors. In a victimhood culture, even when hate crime hoaxes are exposed, they are excused as an attempt to raise awareness of a real problem or as the understandable reaction of someone suffering from so much unrecognized oppression.

If Campbell and Manning are right, the implication is that you would see larger volumes of fake hate crime accusations in the environments in which victimhood culture are most rampant. And indeed, hoax accusations do seem primarily made in academic settings and most ardently believed by the mainstream media.

But there is a delicate transition point. If it can be kept entirely as a press matter or entirely contained within an academic environment, these crimes will flourish.

It is when they intersect with the real world where things get dangerous. In a low consequence environment like academia and the press and among progressives, using hoax hate crimes is deemed beneficial and acceptable and is highly useful for generating advocacy energy. The danger comes when the accusation is to serious or outrageous or sustained that it invites serious scrutiny by non-victimhood culture enterprises such as the police.

That is when most these hoaxes collapse.

Hate crime hoaxes are common and rising because the legislation makes it easy, the rewards are generally high and the risks low as long as they can remain outside of scrutiny and they are bred in those locations steeped in victimhood culture.

It is certainly a plausible argument, bordering on persuasive.