horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
I'm trying to figure out if anyone else with a drug problem acted this way.

I don't see it.
Click to expand...

It would be even more interesting to figure out how a drug problem could compel someone to plan such a detail and involved hoax as opposed to, you know, loll around their apartment and watch TV.
 
baron said:
Is that literally hours after they claimed he was a real professional and a great asset to the show and would be going nowhere?
Click to expand...


Have you never seen a Football Club President at a press conference saying that "the Coach has our full vote of confidence?". That is the point when the coach starts packing his bags because he knows he will be gone in a week.


Norm
 
Just curious if anyone has seen anyone anywhere still defending Jussie. It seems like he is getting criticism (rightfully so) from all sides. I do notice some that were defending him early on have gone silent, but that's a bit different than a continued defense.

Of course, Jussie himself and his PR/Defense people don't count.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Just curious if anyone has seen anyone anywhere still defending Jussie. It seems like he is getting criticism (rightfully so) from all sides. I do notice some that were defending him early on have gone silent, but that's a bit different than a continued defense.

Of course, Jussie himself and his PR/Defense people don't count.
Click to expand...
There are current reports that there are people at Empire who believe he is innocent. Of course "out in the world" there would be people believing him as well. There are too many billions of people for there not to be any true believers.
 
theprestige said:
If it wasn't affecting his work, I guess he was managing it pretty well, and it wasn't really much of a problem.
Click to expand...
I don't think molly is actually addictive. If he has a serious addiction it is more likely to be cocaine or heroin. But then maybe it's some other opiate or form.
 
William Parcher said:
I don't think molly is actually addictive. If he has a serious addiction it is more likely to be cocaine or heroin. But then maybe it's some other opiate or form.
Click to expand...
My assessment doesn't depend on it being molly.

Whatever it (supposedly) is, he seems to have been showing up on set, hitting his mark, and delivering his lines.

Drugs can make you act crazy, sure. But it doesn't seem like any of his coworkers are saying, "you know he's always been a little difficult on set. This hoax thing is totally believable, knowing him."
 
pharphis said:
What's the TL;DR on an anti-lynching bill? Why would such a thing be necessary or at all useful? Murder/attempted murder is illegal. All kinds of variations less severe than that are also illegal. Is this another useless bill to make one's side look good and the other look bad if they reject it as more useless legislation?

Or does the bill have a lot of other stuff attached like all of these things do
Click to expand...
I realise this is now not the main theory, but I didn't see it properly responded to. If you read the bill, it redefines the meaning of the word lynching.

"If 2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person"


“(A) IN GENERAL.—If 2 or more persons, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully cause bodily injury to any other person because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

So, in this lynching law any time 2 or more people cause bodily injury to somebody in a protected class, for reasons of their class, that would be a lynching. If the townsfolk believed a child murderer was held by the police, broke into the police station to get their hands him, and hanged him from a lamppost, that would not be the sort of lynching that would be counted. If a crowd of antifa attack a jewish man, or some marines, because they mistake them for nazis.... that would not be a lynching in the sense of this law. If a couple of drunks throw a bottle at a transsexual, that could well be a lynching.

If I had to bet, I'd say that at least part of the intention is to create a situation where an inflated number of lynchings are recorded, skewed heavily in favour of straight white men as the aggressors. It's the privileged plus power redefinition of lynching.
 
theprestige said:
My assessment doesn't depend on it being molly.

Whatever it (supposedly) is, he seems to have been showing up on set, hitting his mark, and delivering his lines.

Drugs can make you act crazy, sure. But it doesn't seem like any of his coworkers are saying, "you know he's always been a little difficult on set. This hoax thing is totally believable, knowing him."
Click to expand...
We don't know anything about what happens on set with Smollett. Maybe he needs extra takes when others don't, but he still delivers. We don't know. Maybe the problems happen if he shows up sober (not under the influence). Maybe he's a high-functioning coke or heroin addict.

Maybe his addiction didn't contribute to this crime but still he mentions having an addiction and that is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom