horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus goddamn Christ does anyone here see "skeptic" as an actual complement or just a backhanded one?

Does skepticism exist as anything other than backhanded insult hiding as a compliment that nobody can ever live up to?
Click to expand...

Requiring good evidence before believing a claim does not fit your description. Which is the definition I'm using for skeptic and the reason I'm expressing incredulity that those that would claim the label seem quite willing to waive this requirement.

Questioning should never be taboo to a rationalist.
 
isissxn said:
It's not fair for the writer to claim people who disbelieved this were going to disbelieve any such story regardless. I thought this one sounded strange right off the bat, I just didn't bother saying anything because it didn't really concern me all that much. I figured the truth would be revealed eventually. I'd have no problem believing some dudes beat up a gay black man because he was gay and black, but the MAGA hats and the noose set off my BS alarms. It just sounded a little too... tidy.

I don't think that was a moral failing on my part. My opinion didn't matter at all. I didn't really care what the truth turned out to be on any kind of personal level, but I was unsurprised when it turned out to be a ruse.
Click to expand...


Of course it isn't a moral failing on you. These idiots have lost their minds. That's all I have the stomach to say today, these people are just freaking me out a little too much lately.

ETA: by "these" I mean douchebags whose agenda is so strong that - whatever who cares.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus goddamn Christ does anyone here see "skeptic" as an actual complement or just a backhanded one?

Does skepticism exist as anything other than backhanded insult hiding as a compliment that nobody can ever live up to?
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of the veracity of your observation
 
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus goddamn Christ does anyone here see "skeptic" as an actual complement or just a backhanded one?

Does skepticism exist as anything other than backhanded insult hiding as a compliment that nobody can ever live up to?
Click to expand...

It is neither a complement nor an insult. It is merely a description.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus goddamn Christ does anyone here see "skeptic" as an actual complement or just a backhanded one?

Does skepticism exist as anything other than backhanded insult hiding as a compliment that nobody can ever live up to?
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of your post.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus goddamn Christ does anyone here see "skeptic" as an actual complement or just a backhanded one?

Does skepticism exist as anything other than backhanded insult hiding as a compliment that nobody can ever live up to?
Click to expand...

I was going to make a pot suggesting that we need to change the name of this site but I decided to vacuum the living room instead and while I was sucking up all those cigarette butts, beer caps and dead ( well most of them were) roaches I came to the conclusion that that was a stupid idea.

We need the word skeptic as a reminder as to why we're all here. We're here to discuss the facts of an event or issue based on the information we have at hand.

It's tempting to jump to a conclusion on an issue when it's first reported, to view it through a partisan lens and loudly trumpet "I'm on the side of GOOD" and stick with that partisan position even when presented with contrary evidence.

Then I decided to go hang a towel rack and while I was doing that I got to thinking about the Atheism+ debacle and how that should have served as a warning that barcrap crazy can indeed spring from the loins of a secular and evidence based movement. About how A+ scorned and attacked the very concept of skepticism while trying to hang on to it's apron strings and market itself as being "rational"

Then I decided to wash the dishes and as I was scraping off the dried on SpaghettiOs I started wondering whether this place could become like the now defunct A+ and decided that no, it couldn't all due to one factor.

Any guesses as to what that one factor might be ?

So now I'm out of chores and so much time has passed that I can't even remember what thread it is but safe to say, it's one of those ones where we were presented a story that turned out to be a misrepresentation of what really happened.

Teal Dear: "Skeptic" is good
 
JoeMorgue said:
The "Always believe victims, no harm no foul" narrative only works if you assume being falsely accused of something doesn't make you a victim.

True in this case no particular individual one person was directly accused of committing the crime but it threw fuel on a broader cultural fire.

Again this... treating of "Crimes" and "False accusation of crimes" as opposite sides of some coin baffles me here as much as it does in the rape discussion. These are not points for each side to accrue and they don't cancel each other out.

"Evil" and "Over-reaction / inappropriate reaction to evil" just add up to more evil, they don't cancel each other out.

The people who were absolutely sure from the onset that Smollet had faked the attack weren't being less "biased" or "neutral" then the people who immediately assumed he was telling the truth. They were just assuming that one black guy lying about being attacked gave them "racism" points to cash in later.
Click to expand...

In my case I wasn't trying to score ideological points to be cashed in later, but skeptical points for accurately discerning reality. I looked and I saw that the Emperor had no clothes, and I just blurted it out like the little boy in the story. But I would also happily point out fakery that runs the other way. Racism is real and there are real hate crimes too. Of course there are. Only a fool would deny that. My comment was only about this particular claim, which didn't smell right from the beginning for reasons that have been repeated ad nauseum in this thread already.
 
sadhatter said:
Its Not waiting that is the issue.

It's the premise that to disapprove the claim their needs to be an absurd amount of evidence, and that the null hypothesis is that a claim is true.

It's not a matter of waiting for more information, it's not disregarding the information presented because it doesn't mesh with your world view.

For many people it took the man being caught red handed to even question the claim, that is a problem, especially on a ******* skeptics board.
Click to expand...

Police Shootings are the topic that really causes knee jerk reactions from both sides on this website.
Guaranteed, everytime there is thread on a police shooting, you have those who automatically assume the evil racist cops just gunned down an innocent black youth, and those who automatically assume that every police shooting is justified and the kid had it coming.
Neither side waits for, you know, the full facts to come out, but has to fit in it with whatever ideological narrative they believe.
One of the people they talked to on CNN about this case mentioned that even today, there are many people who believe the Person who was killed in the Ferguson incident was shot with this hands up in the air, though it has been proven pretty much beyond any reasonable doubt that will not happen. \
This drives me crazy in the police shooting threads here. Forget the facts, let's just go straight into the political narrative.
When it comes to making people have a warped view of reality,, religion has nothing on political ideology.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
My response is "Hell, No".

I love the flat "Believe Victims" command.
I guess the whole idea of "Case by case basis" is beyond this individuals comprehension.
Yes, often in the past aqccusation of assault were ignored and not taken seriously,when they needed to be seriously investigated. But to go the other extreme that a victim needs to be automatically believed is just plain dumb.

It's another case of ideology winning out over reality.
Click to expand...

By deeming it worthy of investigation you are, at least, provisionally believing in the story -until such time as the facts or evidence prove otherwise.
 
Puppycow said:
In my case I wasn't trying to score ideological points to be cashed in later, but skeptical points for accurately discerning reality. I looked and I saw that the Emperor had no clothes, and I just blurted it out like the little boy in the story. But I would also happily point out fakery that runs the other way. Racism is real and there are real hate crimes too. Of course there are. Only a fool would deny that. My comment was only about this particular claim, which didn't smell right from the beginning for reasons that have been repeated ad nauseum in this thread already.
Click to expand...
Ditto. Yes, we are skeptics here and require evidence. The question is, what will be the default position until the issue is resolved? In this case, Jussie's story so obviously stunk that the default was that he was lying until proved otherwise. If someone was going to apply "innocent until proven guilty", which just applies to a court of law anyway, they should be applying it to the theoretical attackers.
 
Ziggurat said:
You should watch The Prestige (the movie, not the forum member. That would be creepy). It's full of twists that are telegraphed beforehand, but it's so expertly done that even when you know it's foreshadowing (like all the hats on the ground at the start of the movie), you can't really tell what it's foreshadowing of until the twist is revealed.
Click to expand...

I did watch it. I had also read the book many years before and I STILL didn’t see some of the plot twists coming.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The "Always believe victims, no harm no foul" narrative only works if you assume being falsely accused of something doesn't make you a victim.
Click to expand...

Given that this applies only to friends of the victim, and not to any institution, I don't really see an issue.

In any event, given that CPD's story has proven false at least twice, and that TMZ has proven to be entirely unreliable, I'm still at my initial position, except adding that it's possible that the two guys Smolett hired to help him train, may be thew two that attacked him. And *if* CPD can scrounge together a case against Smolett, then okay then.
 
Mumbles said:
Given that this applies only to friends of the victim, and not to any institution, I don't really see an issue.

In any event, given that CPD's story has proven false at least twice, and that TMZ has proven to be entirely unreliable, I'm still at my initial position, except adding that it's possible that the two guys Smolett hired to help him train, may be thew two that attacked him. And *if* CPD can scrounge together a case against Smolett, then okay then.
Click to expand...

Curious that this is the hill you want to defend...

How has CPD's "story' been "proven" false? It has not of course, but there were Japanese soldiers who held out until 1974, and I get the feeling that our skeptical posters here are every bit as fanatical.

You know
I wish that I had Jussie's grift
I wish that I had Jussie's grift
Where can I find a scammer llike that?

I play along with the charade
There doesn't seem to be a reason to change
You know, I feel so dirty when they start their dumb ruse
I wanna tell him he's stupid
But the point is probably moot

You know
I wish that I had Jussie's grift
I wish that I had Jussie's grift
Where can I find a scammer llike that?
 
Mumbles said:
Given that this applies only to friends of the victim, and not to any institution, I don't really see an issue.

In any event, given that CPD's story has proven false at least twice, and that TMZ has proven to be entirely unreliable, I'm still at my initial position, except adding that it's possible that the two guys Smolett hired to help him train, may be thew two that attacked him. And *if* CPD can scrounge together a case against Smolett, then okay then.
Click to expand...

Here's your first post in the thread:

Mumbles said:
This is according to Chicago PD, whop aren't well-known for being thorough and professional, to say the least, even when Dolt 45 isn't involved - and given the idiot's express support for police brutality, I'd expect that a PD known for brutality such as Chicago (these are the guys that had a black site and a torture chamber, after all) could easily "forget" to write it down.

This story doesn't sound all that unbelievable to me, all things considered. Gay black guy is beaten and has a noose put around his neck? Actually, that sounds like a fairly normal hate crime. Actually, the "blacks rule" guy sounds more unlikely.

Yes, the legal system will be slow and thorough, in the end, and that's as it should be. I'm not a part of that system, I'm just a guy that detests this sort of attack, so I hope that they put these two guys under the jail.
Click to expand...

Your initial position seems to be that a real hate crime is the most plausible conclusion from the available information. Is that still the case for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom