horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

[theprestige]

Maybe Mumbles is making some kind of "available evidence" argument?

The available evidence is that hate crimes do happen, therefore this hate crime probably happened.

---

ETA: It's kinda funny, actually. The whole point of all the "... While Black" threads was to inoculate us against doubting unsupported claims of hate crimes. But poor Mumbles seems to be all alone in keeping the faith on this one.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

But poor Mumbles seems to be all alone in keeping the faith on this one.

I can't find it today, but last night on my other computer I Googled something like "why I still believe Jussie Smollett" or something similar - just out of a grotesque curiosity to see what was out there. I came across a youtube video of a woman laying out why she was still pretty confident that Jussie was really attacked.

I think the believers and their explanations of how it still could have happened will start coming out of the woodwork soon, truther style.

 

[theprestige]

I think the believers and their explanations of how it still could have happened will start coming out of the woodwork soon, truther style.

And I think we're probably in for another round of "... While Black" threads, as a sort of booster shot.

 

[tyr_13]

This is the biggest problem with how the vocal parts of both the Left and the Right (albeit in totally different ways) treat social problems... acting as if they "scale."

Like statistically I'm much more likely to be hit by a car then murdered by a serial killer. But if a serial killer is standing in front of me holding a chainsaw screaming "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!" I shouldn't stay standing in front of him instead of running outside where the cars are because "It's statistically safer."

But that's how a lot of people want to treat this case, in which direction depends on their ideology.

All the cases of racist attacks before this didn't make this one any more or less likely and this one douchebag lying about being attacked doesn't make the next case of a black person claiming to be assaulted more or less likely.

This case hasn't given anybody "racism" or "racism is over blown" points to cash in next discussion and nobody came into this discussion with "racism" or "racism is over blown" points to spend.

Even I (ultra-unreasonable SJW cuck libtard that I am told I am) wouldn't say all those who disbelieved this from the start were doing so just for such point scoring. Some did make caveats, provisions, and were open to change their minds.

Some were definitely not though and outright refuse to see that some of the reasoning presented as rock-solid reasons to doubt were abjectly foolish and as it turns out factually incorrect. I therefore can't disagree completely with what you're saying.

Its Not waiting that is the issue.

It was for Zigg.

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.

Oh, like the 'while black' threads can never actually be racism as long as the bad actor doesn't admit to racism (and even sometimes after that)?

The null hypothesis is also not 'I know this can't be true'.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Absolutely floored. Honestly don't know what I could say to make a joke, it's already made.

 

[sadhatter]

Even I (ultra-unreasonable SJW cuck libtard that I am told I am) wouldn't say all those who disbelieved this from the start were doing so just for such point scoring. Some did make caveats, provisions, and were open to change their minds.

Some were definitely not though and outright refuse to see that some of the reasoning presented as rock-solid reasons to doubt were abjectly foolish and as it turns out factually incorrect. I therefore can't disagree completely with what you're saying.



It was for Zigg.



Oh, like the 'while black' threads can never actually be racism as long as the bad actor doesn't admit to racism (and even sometimes after that)?

The null hypothesis is also not 'I know this can't be true'.

It is "no attack unless sufficient evidence is provided". What sufficient evidence was provided here that would let a reasonably skeptical person say "those are facts that would make me believe this attack occurred. "

Keeping in mind " attacks like this happen" is not evidence. People breathe, but if I say John Wayne is doing it, I'd expect to be asked for proof.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Even I (ultra-unreasonable SJW cuck libtard that I am told I am) wouldn't say all those who disbelieved this from the start were doing so just for such point scoring. Some did make caveats, provisions, and were open to change their minds.

Some were definitely not though and outright refuse to see that some of the reasoning presented as rock-solid reasons to doubt were abjectly foolish and as it turns out factually incorrect. I therefore can't disagree completely with what you're saying.

This might broaden the discussion a bit too far but it's been in the margins of a LOT of discussions lately.

There's this... strawman I guess version of "neutrality" (and "unbiased" and similar concepts) where we're all supposed to go into every discussion with 0 opinions of any kind.

That's not how the human mind works. We're all a collection of our biases and assumptions and hangups and narratives. That doesn't make us bad people. Feet to the fire nobody went into this with some mathematically perfect 50/50 view of what probably happened.

It's not about no forming an opinion. That's impossible the human mind is wired to integrate new information into it's world view. Anybody who says "They aren't leaning toward one side being the correct one way, way, way before some 'court room' level burdens of proof are met" is lying, either to themselves or other.

The "On I had zero opinion until full metaphysical certainty was reached" nonsense is just a result of everyone wanting to be the "I told you so" guy.

But we're not stupid and we can generally tell the difference between people who held an opinion that later changed with new information and the people who immediately made up their minds and nothing ever change it.

 

[tyr_13]

It is "no attack unless sufficient evidence is provided".

It actually isn't, and that isn't just some hair-splitting. In this case, we have evidence against it being as initially reported. That is not the same as the null hypothesis being 'it definitely didn't happen'.

What sufficient evidence was provided here that would let a reasonably skeptical person say "those are facts that would make me believe this attack occurred. "

Keeping in mind " attacks like this happen" is not evidence. People breathe, but if I say John Wayne is doing it, I'd expect to be asked for proof.

'Attacks like this happen' is evidence against the line of reasoning 'this can't be true because attacks like this don't happen'.

This might broaden the discussion a bit too far but it's been in the margins of a LOT of discussions lately.

There's this... strawman I guess version of "neutrality" (and "unbiased" and similar concepts) where we're all supposed to go into every discussion with 0 opinions of any kind.

That's not how the human mind works. We're all a collection of our biases and assumptions and hangups and narratives. That doesn't make us bad people. Feet to the fire nobody went into this with some mathematically perfect 50/50 view of what probably happened.

It's not about no forming an opinion. That's impossible the human mind is wired to integrate new information into it's world view. Anybody who says "They aren't leaning toward one side being the correct one way, way, way before some 'court room' level burdens of proof are met" is lying, either to themselves or other.

The "On I had zero opinion until full metaphysical certainty was reached" nonsense is just a result of everyone wanting to be the "I told you so" guy.

But we're not stupid and we can generally tell the difference between people who held an opinion that later changed with new information and the people who immediately made up their minds and nothing ever change it.

Oh, all very true and I fully agree. Those who pretend they don't have bias are often (usually?) just trying to advance their viewpoint, and those who don't believe they have a bias cannot correct for it.

 

[sadhatter]

It actually isn't, and that isn't just some hair-splitting. In this case, we have evidence against it being as initially reported. That is not the same as the null hypothesis being 'it definitely didn't happen'.



'Attacks like this happen' is evidence against the line of reasoning 'this can't be true because attacks like this don't happen'.



Oh, all very true and I fully agree. Those who pretend they don't have bias are often (usually?) just trying to advance their viewpoint, and those who don't believe they have a bias cannot correct for it.

Null hypothesis is it didn't happen, that is the point, and why you are wrong.

The problem is, in daily life we relax this rule, and most of the time it works out just fine. Your friend says they drank a beer, you are not going to demand proof, because of trust and because likely if they did or did not drink a beer doesn't effect you.

But sometimes we get so used to this we apply it in situations where it is not appropriate such as this one where there are real stakes.

You cannot say " well we do things in this wrong way often so really you are wrong" , it is up to each individual to decide when they ask for proof and to what extent they will accept proof. And as you can see, extending this to anything with consequence, is a horrible idea.

 

[dudalb]

Absolutely floored. Honestly don't know what I could say to make a joke, it's already made.

It reminds me of the threads on Ferguson, where people refused to believe the kid shot was a criminal even after he was caught robbing a store on a video cam.
IMHO they ruined their own case by this foolishness,trying to defend something obviously false, rather then focus on whether the kid's shooting was justified,a point which can still be debated today.
And same exact reason: people bought into a scenario that fitted their political beliefs early on, and many became so emotionally commited to it they just could not abandon it.

 

[Elagabalus]

Null hypothesis is it didn't happen, that is the point, and why you are wrong.

The problem is, in daily life we relax this rule, and most of the time it works out just fine. Your friend says they drank a beer, you are not going to demand proof, because of trust and because likely if they did or did not drink a beer doesn't effect you.

But sometimes we get so used to this we apply it in situations where it is not appropriate such as this one where there are real stakes.

You cannot say " well we do things in this wrong way often so really you are wrong" , it is up to each individual to decide when they ask for proof and to what extent they will accept proof. And as you can see, extending this to anything with consequence, is a horrible idea.

Something did happen, though. We have Jussie and the two bros on the same street at the same time. Ergo, they made a fake attack on Jussie as the two bros described it to the police.


There's actually quite a few pages dedicated to finding out why Jussie needed the two bros to be there in the first place.

 

[sadhatter]

Something did happen, though. We have Jussie and the two bros on the same street at the same time. Ergo, they made a fake attack on Jussie as the two bros described it to the police.


There's actually quite a few pages dedicated to finding out why Jussie needed the two bros to be there in the first place.

You are going to be that pedantic?

I was obviously talking about an attack. He claimed an attack happened, logic dictates until evidence is presented null hypothesis is no ATTACK (just in case you didn't catch it, I don't want confusion. ) happened.

Something is always happening, that philosophical tidbit doesn't really advance this conversation though.

 

[tyr_13]

Null hypothesis is it didn't happen, that is the point, and why you are wrong.

The problem is, in daily life we relax this rule, and most of the time it works out just fine. Your friend says they drank a beer, you are not going to demand proof, because of trust and because likely if they did or did not drink a beer doesn't effect you.

But sometimes we get so used to this we apply it in situations where it is not appropriate such as this one where there are real stakes.

You cannot say " well we do things in this wrong way often so really you are wrong" , it is up to each individual to decide when they ask for proof and to what extent they will accept proof. And as you can see, extending this to anything with consequence, is a horrible idea.

When a 'mundane' claim like this is made, the 'null hypothesis' (which as we aren't talking statistical analysis I assume you're using as 'starting point') is not 'didn't happen' but 'we do not know'. There is no drawback to that. Someone makes a mundane claim and all you have as evidence is that they are making the claim. That doesn't mean it 'didn't happen', it means you can't treat it as if it did or did not happen. Otherwise you discourage investigation. It appears the police did right here in 'believing the victim' enough to investigate, then following the evidence.

Absolute 'believe' or 'disbelieve' simply are not the only choices by a long shot. There is an entire world in between. Behaving as if a claim is 'proven false' or 'proven true' when 'has yet to be supported' is available as a starting point (again, for mundane claims) isn't the best way to go.

 

[sadhatter]

When a 'mundane' claim like this is made, the 'null hypothesis' (which as we aren't talking statistical analysis I assume you're using as 'starting point') is not 'didn't happen' but 'we do not know'. There is no drawback to that. Someone makes a mundane claim and all you have as evidence is that they are making the claim. That doesn't mean it 'didn't happen', it means you can't treat it as if it did or did not happen. Otherwise you discourage investigation. It appears the police did right here in 'believing the victim' enough to investigate, then following the evidence.

Absolute 'believe' or 'disbelieve' simply are not the only choices by a long shot. There is an entire world in between. Behaving as if a claim is 'proven false' or 'proven true' when 'has yet to be supported' is available as a starting point (again, for mundane claims) isn't the best way to go.

You do not have to believe anyone to investigate.

The police are a service, people use them for good or ill. When someone makes a claim they are asking for service, and the police are attempting to figure out if said claim is legitimate.

I don't have to believe anything happened to go ask someone about an incident, and i don't have to disbelieve either, until I have some evidence either way.

They did not "believe the victim enough to investigate" they had a request for service, during the request it appeared as if the request was under false pretenses , and further evidence confirmed this.

You do not have to believe someone for one second to effectively investigate their claim.

Unless that is you want to make a case that James randi and the like believed in psychics enough to investigate their claims. Which, I'm pretty sure isn't the case.

 

[theprestige]

When a 'mundane' claim like this is made

I think the first problem you have is that almost nobody agrees with you that a couple of MAGA hat wearing white guys who watch Empire and recognize Jussie Smollett on the streets of downtown Chicago in freezing weather at 2 in the morning while he's out buying a tuna sandwich at Subway is an even remotely 'mundane' claim.

That's an immediate "pics or it didn't happen" from me. And, oh, look: There are no pics.

 

[Mumbles]

CPD has more evidence that they aren't telling us about.

I think Smollett is messing with the wrong police chief.+

Possible. CPD have a well-deserved reputation for lying, though. They've also had to back off of claims here. And since faked hate crimes are rare, I'll stay by position until evidence is presented.

Something did happen, though. We have Jussie and the two bros on the same street at the same time. Ergo, they made a fake attack on Jussie as the two bros described it to the police.

Doesn't follow.

 

[Mumbles]

It reminds me of the threads on Ferguson, where people refused to believe the kid shot was a criminal even after he was caught robbing a store on a video cam.
IMHO they ruined their own case by this foolishness,trying to defend something obviously false, rather then focus on whether the kid's shooting was justified,a point which can still be debated today.
And same exact reason: people bought into a scenario that fitted their political beliefs early on, and many became so emotionally commited to it they just could not abandon it.

The problem with the Ferguson case is that the PD was found to be an outright white supremacist shakedown force, and the DA nakedly corrupt. Still, I don't list Mike Brown among the certain victims of racial attacks because I concede that yes, it's entirely possible that he was running towards the officer who shot him, and who he had attempted to disarm before.

(And in fact, my initial response was "Oh, the police chief seems to be okay". Then the cops outright attacked the neighborhood, while storeowners credited protest groups for protecting their stores when police mysteriously refused to do so)

 

[Thermal]

When a 'mundane' claim like this is made, the 'null hypothesis' (which as we aren't talking statistical analysis I assume you're using as 'starting point') is not 'didn't happen' but 'we do not know'. There is no drawback to that. Someone makes a mundane claim and all you have as evidence is that they are making the claim. That doesn't mean it 'didn't happen', it means you can't treat it as if it did or did not happen. Otherwise you discourage investigation. It appears the police did right here in 'believing the victim' enough to investigate, then following the evidence.

Absolute 'believe' or 'disbelieve' simply are not the only choices by a long shot. There is an entire world in between. Behaving as if a claim is 'proven false' or 'proven true' when 'has yet to be supported' is available as a starting point (again, for mundane claims) isn't the best way to go.

Truth. You don't take did/didn't happen, you take neutral and start turning your dial in the direction you see the evidence leaning towards.

Unless it's a LWB story. Ya ass get blasted if you question those

 

[Elagabalus]

Truth. You don't take did/didn't happen, you take neutral and start turning your dial in the direction you see the evidence leaning towards.

Unless it's a LWB story. Ya ass get blasted if you question those

Lyndon Waines Bohnson?

or the Greenbrier Valley Airport?




I ******* hate that airport!

 

[theprestige]

Possible. CPD have a well-deserved reputation for lying, though.

I think if the CPD were lying, they'd simply point out that there's no footage of the attack, claim that they have no other workable leads, and let the investigation die a lingering death in the cold case files. There's no percentage in them going through a bunch of rigamarole about a hoax that didn't happen.

They've also had to back off of claims here.

Which claims have they backed off from? You've been asked this before.

And since faked hate crimes are rare,

Are they, though? How rare? How do we know?

Hell, we don't even seem to have any idea of how to distinguish a change in rate of reports from a change in rate of incidents. As far as I know, nobody has even tried to study the ratio of false reports to real ones.

I'll stay by position until evidence is presented.

How about some evidence that Smollett was attacked as he claimed?