Thursday, April 19, 2018

Truck Defaced in "Hate" Crime






Is this a criminal destruction of property and a "hate" crime,  or is it another example of "Fake Hate" by one with an agenda. 

If it is "fake hate", the element from which it is produced is projection of contempt for Christians.  

Which do you think it is, and why?



24 comments:

Kimberly Carroll said...

It looks fake to me. Written with something that can be easily washed off. Considering all the fake attempts to discredit conservatives and christians we have seen by the desperate the liberal democrats.....I smell a RAT!!

Peregrine said...

I'm guessing fake hate. "Woke up to this" Missing pronoun-seems distancing. He can own the missing bumper stickers but not to waking up to finding the truck. "Gone" implies anything could have happened to them including him pulling them off. "Ripped off" or "stolen" would be more expected. Missing time from waking up to bumper stickers gone.

sonjay said...

I can spot two elements in his post that suggest "fake."

1. The dropped pronoun in "Woke up to this." He can't quite bring himself to lie outright by saying plainly that he woke up to this.

2. Alibi-building in the attempt to persuade us that it happened while he was sleeping. He wants us to think "I was sleeping when this happened, therefore I couldn't have done it."

Hey Jude said...


‘Woke up to this’.
This is his priority, that his readers should know he woke up to this - which is to give the idea that if he was sleeping, he could not have done it himself. He avoids using the pronoun ‘I’ - he doesn’t say who woke up to this, or that he woke up to this.

‘My atheist bumper stickers gone.’
He uses passive language - he doesn’t say ‘someone’ or ‘vandals’ tore off his atheist bumper stickers - only that they are gone.

‘Loving Christians?’ He asks a question, rather than state that he believes ‘loving Christians’ or ‘Christians’ vandalised his truck and removed his atheist bumper stickers. It is to question whether Christians could be loving, to do such a thing, yet he does not commit to Christians having done it.

There are no pronouns - he does not state that anyone did this to his car.
He does not express anger or shock that his truck has been vandalised - his concern is that his ‘atheist’ bumper stickers are ‘gone’.

How are they gone? He does not accuse anyone of having removed them.

The graffiti-‘If you don’t like God go!’ is interesting. Christians do not usually say that they ‘like’ God or ask if others ‘like’ God. It is quite comical to imagine that anyone would vandalise a truck and want someone to ‘go!’ because he had atheist bumper stickers and therefore did not ‘like’ God. I am not sure how passionate anyone could become about someone merely not ‘liking’ something, regardless of what it was. The graffiti writer is apparently not even sure if the truck owner dislikes God, as it leaves room for doubt - ‘*if* you don’t like God.’

Expected would be that a religious fanatic had defaced his car overnight - or, if he considered the ‘like’ to be understated, that someone pretending to be a religious fanatic had done it.

I think it is Fake Hate due to the avoidance of pronouns, and because he seems more concerned about his ‘atheist stickers gone’ than the actual damage to his truck. That he was asleep, and that he is an atheist, is more important to him than that someone has been prowling around at night, and has caused damage to his truck.

Ursula said...

He did it. "Woke up to this", no commitment, the pronoun "I" is absent, "with" shows closeness.
"My atheist bumper stickers gone", here passivity.
“Loving” Christians?, a question that indicates that he opens to the possibility that it couldn't be an action of Loving Christians.

ursula said...

Sorry I did a mistake in the other comment was "this" and not "with".

He did it. "Woke up to this", no commitment, the pronoun "I" is absent, "this" shows closeness to the action.
"My atheist bumper stickers gone", here passivity to conceal or hide identity and/or responsibility.
“Loving” Christians?, a question that indicates that he opens to the possibility that it couldn't have been an action of Loving Christians.

Dave Walton said...

The possessive pronoun "I" was dropped showing a psychological distancing from what he is claiming. The first thing he wants us to know is that he was asleep when the alleged incident occurred; the order of priority is important for it tells us what is particularly sensitive to him: alibi building. This is reinforced with using "this" which also shows closeness in thought to the action, and another glimpse into his "snapshot of reality."

The word "gone" is not what we would expect from someone who was angry about their vehicle being vandalized and property taken, we would expect something like "stolen" or "taken". "Gone" is noncommittal language and belies how someone is likely to feel, and thus express themselves, in such a situation.

An atheist doesn't "like God" because an atheist doesn't believe in the existence of a God. This isn't what we would expect from someone who is allegedly fanatical enough about their faith; they would be very unlikely to miss that distinction. A religious person would be more likely to express the word "God" in terms of "love", using a stronger term of endearment. It may be the case that the subject is not particularly bothered about atheism, but just someone wanting to gain attention with fake hate.




Bobcat said...

Is this a criminal destruction of property and a "hate" crime, or is it another example of "Fake Hate" by one with an agenda.

If it is "fake hate", the element from which it is produced is projection of contempt for Christians.

Which do you think it is, and why?

"Woke up to this. My atheist bumper stickers gone. "Loving" Christians?"
-------------------

Fake Hate

Expected: "Someone vandalized my vehicle! Police are one the way! My bumper stickers were also stolen! Who did that??? I'm scared!"


(X) Woke up to this.

The subject begins by suggesting they were asleep, but the dropped pronoun removes personal commitment to the statement.

"This" is psychologically close.


My atheist bumper stickers gone.

There are missing words in the statement, indicating self censoring. Instead of saying "My bumper stickers WERE stolen."; they are just "gone", missing the verb "are".
There is no action or theft involved regarding the bumper stickers.

"Gone" is a minimization using passive language. Passivity seeks to conceal identity and (remove) responsibility.

"Atheist" is an extra word, therefore it is given extra importance.
It is very important to the subject that we know they are an atheist.
It is more important than saying their bumper stickers were stolen, or that their vehicle was vandalized. If the subject won't say it, I won't say it for them.



Anonymous said...

I agree with psychological distancing (dropped pronoun) it lacks commitment and ownnership.

"Woke up"

Is extraneous. (but important to the speaker and analyst)

Why do we need to know this? (Woke up)

"Woke Up"

Is not to say they were asleep (dropped pronoun)

"Woke up to this"
"This" being close.

. My atheist bumper stickers gone.

Note the pronoun "my" (ownership)
I believe them.
Who took it? Was it them (possessive [my]


Fake hate!

Mike Dammann said...

In addition to what has been said regarding "waking up" meaning he has the alibi of sleep, waking up is an unnecessary "activity" to be mentioned here. But it is one thing he can own... He did wake up. "Gone" is passive language. "Someone stole my..." would be a definite.

Deception indicated in his Facebook update.

As for what is written on the truck, I cannot tell anything other than what was mentioned above being that the blue part looks like something easily washed off.

Turtle Babble said...

"My atheist bumper stickers gone"

This is setting up the narrative. He uses the word "atheist" unnecessarily, specifically defining what sort of bumper stickers he had. Unnecessary information is doubly important and therefore necessary for him. Why is this necessary for him?

This is telling us why he has graffiti on his truck. This is important or else we wouldn't understand why someone wrote what they did and why he was targeted. He has anticipated us asking 'why do you have graffiti on your truck?' Or even more particularly 'why do you have graffiti about God and Jesus on your truck?'. When someone tells us why something happened rather than just reporting what happened it is highly sensitive to them.

Samantha_C said...

All that damage,and the only concern is the bumper sticker? The bumper sticker is sensitive to the truck owner. Was a comment made about the sticker. Did the sticker play a role in this.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Samantha_C said...

doesn't seem to be much damage. might just wash off but you make a great point.

the individual might have been humiliated over the bumper stickers. humiliation is a strong motivator for certain crimes.

Anonymous said...

Did the sticker play a role in this?

Stickers dont do anything.

Anonymous said...

Hard to say. It looks like the drivers side window was hit with a snowball, but there's no snow on the ground. The tailgate looks like a different marker/paint used, but there's a powdery substance on the bumper.

As far as his bumper sticker goes, it appears it was on the tailgate and not the bumper and someone removed it. Maybe it was the idiot that put it there in the first place when he realized it could damage his paint. It wouldn't be easy to get off if it was there during heated summers.

Typically haters will damage items such as cutting accessories, ripping/puncturing tires,screwing with the brakes, etc.

Maybe it was a little old lady on her way back from church service?

Agnostics love to fight and argue, that may be why he felt the need to have a bumper sticker stating his philosophy in the first place.

Willow said...

The Fb-poster uses words "atheist" and "christians" as labels opposing each other in the narrative.
"Atheists" and "christians" are diminished and disconnected from the greater meaning of the concepts.
The words are used as if they were weapons in an assault-kind of monologue. Why? Where does this belligerence come from? How did this monologue spark off? Does it have an origin that we don't see? Some previous series of events in the neighborhood? Is this post a message to someone in particular?

There are hotheads with an agenda under all banners and -isms.

Deception indicated.
But who is trying to deceive whom?

Does the fb-poster consider themself an "atheist" messaging at a "christian"? Or is it a "christian" doing the same at an "atheist".
Does the method of SA bring clarity to this question?

Bottle Cap said...

Daily Mail article

Night Court star HARRY ANDERSON'S WIFE'S 911 CALL AFTER FINDING HIM DEAD

Operator: Buncombe County 911 Police, Fire and Medical.

Morgan: Yes, um, I am not sure who I need. Um, I woke up this morning and, um, my, uh, I think my husband has passed away in the night.

Operator: Okay. What is your address?

Morgan: It’s ***.

Operator: Are you off of **** and ****** ?

Morgan: Yes ma’am.

Q: Okay what’s your phone number?

A: It's****

Q: Okay are you certain he’s not breathing?

A: I mean I - I’m in disbelief. I look at him and I feel like (should) I see him breathing. He’s cold.

Q: He is cold?

A: His hand - he’s cold. He’s not ice cold but he is definitely cold. His eyes are partially open, uh, but he’s not lookin’ at anything, he’s not responding.

Q: Okay - all right.

A: Um...

Q: What I need for you to do is get right next to him and check and see if he’s breathing. Okay?

A: I don’t think he’s breathing.

Q: Okay.

A: He’s cold and his skin is a different - kind of different color.

Q: Okay. Are you able to move his head at all to position his head and open up his airway a little bit?

A: (Unintelligible). No. And in fact he’s very - feels pretty stiff. Uh, he’s had some health problems recently, so.

Q: Okay ma’am, do you want to try CPR?

Man: (Unintelligible).

A: I don’t - I think he’s been...

Q: You think he’s...

A: ...(unintelligible)...

Q: ...too far gone?

A: ...I don’t think he’s here anymore. Yes ma’am.

Q: Okay - okay, all right. (Unintelligible).

A: I can’t even move his head.

Q: You can’t even move his head? When’s the last time you...

A: No.

Q: ...saw him?

A: Um, I (unintelligible)...

Q: When’s the last time you saw him?

A: ...slept, um, we slept in the bed together last night.

Q: Okay when...

A: Um..

Q: ...was the last time you...

A: ...and that’s...

Q: ...talked to him or saw him breathing?

A: Right before bed.

Q: Right before - and that was at what time?

A: I saw him at, uh, 9. In fact, um, I stayed up a little later than he but I remember him moving around, um, last night in bed.

Q: Okay so sometime around 9 pm is the t- last time you saw him for sure?

A: That’s the last - around - that’s the last time, um, 9 - 10 o’clock. That’s the last time I talked to him.

Q: Okay so he...

A: But then we slept in the...

Q: You don’t wanna try to do CPR on him?

A: I - I would try to do it but I don’t think that...

Q: Okay it’s - it’s...

A: ...um...

Q: ...totally up to you. If you think he’s beyond help and you don’t think you want to do that, that’s fine. Otherwise I can talk you through it. It’s totally up to you.

A: I mean his - I can’t really move his face.

Q: You can’t even move his face? Okay.

A: No he’s - he’s turned - his body is turned to the side. His head is on the pillow -- oh gosh -- and, um, and he’s - he - he is - I can’t really move his neck.

Q: Okay so do you bel- you - you think that he’s beyond help?

A: Well y- his - the tips of his fingers are - is all basically all of his finger is kind of purplish.

Q: Okay well basically what I’m asking, do you want to start CPR on him or not? If n- if you do we need to get started. If you don’t...

A: No.

Q: Do...

A: No.

Q: Okay.

A: I - I don’t think that that’s gonna help.

Q: Okay. And you said he has been sick?

A: He had, um, some strokes at the end of January following the flu.

Q: Right.

A: And he may have had some sort of a heart thing last night and that may have been him tur- turning around. ‘Cause I was aware at some point...

Q: Mm-hm.

A: ...at night of kind of being waken up.

Bottle Cap said...


Night Court star HARRY ANDERSON'S WIFE'S 911 CALL AFTER FINDING HIM DEAD (continued)

Q: Okay. And how old is your husband?

A: He’s 65.

Q: All right we have already got help, um, dispatched out. Uh, since you don’t wanna try the CPR -- you believe he is beyond help -- then we will just have you to go ahead and unlock your door and turn on the porch light. Is there anyone that...

A: I mean I can...

Q: ...you can call to stay with you - come with - be with you?

A: I’m gonna call my parents and have them on the phone with me.

Q: Okay.

A: And, um, I’m gonna put the - my dogs that are in bed too (unintelligible).

Q: I’m so sorry ma’am. Is there anything else that we can do for you? Or do you wanna go ahead...

A: No.

Q: ...hang up the phone and call your family?

A: (Unintelligible). Yeah, I thank you very much. I’m (gonna) - yeah I’m gonna call them now.

Q: Okay. All right ma’am, we do have help dispatched out to you. Okay?

A: Thank you.

Q: If you need anything before we get there, just dial 911 again. Okay?

A: I will.

Q: All right.

A: Thank you.

Q: You’re welcome ma’am.

A: Bye.

Q: Bye-bye.

Hey Jude said...

I wondered if he was fed up with being an atheist, or advertising himself as such, and so he took off the stickers - if he didn't want to admit to giving up his atheist 'faith', he could save face by claiming those pesky Christians pinched his stickers and vandalised his truck. He might want to see if he would get any sympathetic response or invitations from Christians. It must be quite difficult to stop holding an entrenched position - some of those militant atheists are like religious maniacs, but they don't see it. He probably is the militant and confrontational type of atheist, to advertise himself with stickers.

Or he may just be looking for attention and confrontation and inventing Christian enemies as he hasn't found any real ones.

Anonymous said...

I dont think i ever encountered a militant athiest b4. Or ever heard of it b4.

Hey Jude said...

You're fortunate, Anon. :-)

Lars Bak said...

"jesus is life" doesn't seem to be written by the same person as the rest. If this is a fake, could that be what provoked "Loving christians?" or is it standard to use plural when the perpetrator is unknown?

Anonymous said...

Fake report. I won't call it 'hate' because he doesn't call it hate!

"woke" can mean, literally, to "awaken" from sleep; in which case, he's making sure we know he couldn't have done this because he was asleep. If we take him literally, he's telling us he woke up and the first thing he saw was his truck. Was he asleep on the ground next to it? Or were there other things he did between waking up and seeing his truck? In today's vernacular, "woke" also means to become personally and socially aware of one's role in seeking 'social justice', and one's personal role in perpetuating 'injustice'. Read in that context, it has a different meaning altogether.

Several previous posters noted his fixation on the bumper sticker over the vandalizing of his truck. Totally agree the 'atheist bumper sticker' is very important to him. A bumper sticker costs a few dollars; if he bought his truck new, he probably paid close to $30-$35 thousand, if not more. We wouldn't expect him to be concerned about his bumper stickers when he's looking at damage to his biggest investment, second only to his mortgage (assuming he has one). Yet at the same time, he doesn't appear to include a photograph of the area of his bumper from which the stickers were removed. He only includes the 'anti-atheist' graffiti. If that's so important to him, why not show the world the evidence of the crime these horrible Christians committed.

He's telling us one thing is most important, but doesn't show us this important thing in the photos. This is incoherent and leads me to believe this is fake.

Missing personal pronoun "I" does not appear anywhere in the brief statement. He is not psychologically present or committed to what he is writing/representing. As others have already indicated, he allows for the possibility that "loving Christians" may not have been responsible. Agree!

"my" bumper sticker is "gone" (vague; he claims ownership of the bumper sticker, but if he doesn't tell us it was stolen or scraped off, we won't conclude it for him). Again, he offers no photograph to show this to us.

Personally, if this were legit, I'd be more worried about "my" truck than "my" bumper sticker.

ursula said...

Anonymous wrote: "Great comments everyone. If you keep this up, I may finally "get it." Learning so much from you all. (Wonder why I left off the pronoun on that last sentence? haha.) And Peter, thank you isn't enough. But, thank you".

"Woke up to this" mirror "Wonder why I left off the pronoun on that last sentence?".
"I left" shows commitment instead.
No reliable denial yet.