The problem with this position is that it assumes that there is a definition of both 'victim' and 'hate crime' that is both meaningful and static. It's simple to see in the Smollett case because the facts are so stark - but I fear that what is more likely to happen is a broadening of what constitutes a 'hate crime' - something already happening, and a self-fulfilling monetisation and commodification of victim status (that's next).

What will likely happen is that society will be unable to understand where traumatised and suffering people are and give them the help they require. They will be lost in a sea of people who have linguistically dug themselves into a faux trauma and are victims of 'hate crimes' they alone define. If you make everything up for grabs, differentiation isn't easy.

It's a complicated mess. And it's getting more complicated by the day. Thanks for adding your opinion into the mix - much appreciated. :o)