horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mumbles said:
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.

Doesn't follow.
Click to expand...

not holding breath that the race card dealer here is going to back up this claim.

Faked hate crimes are not rare
 
The Big Dog said:
they did say jussie was a victim.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that the CPD said that Smollett was a victim. I think they said that they were treating him as a victim or that they regarded him as a victim.

To say that Smollett is a victim is a statement of fact, as one would say if they have proof. CPD never had proof that Smollett was a victim, nor would they ever have said that they had proof.

Public relations and political correctness are about nuances and turning of phrases.

IOW, they didn't say Jussie was a victim as a matter of fact.
 
Last edited:
Mumbles, I don't think CPD has reversed any of their official statements. Other than ad hominem, do you actually have anything?

Anyway, while we're on the subject, let's not forget that Smollett also has a history of being a lying douchebag.

So my ad hom cancels out your ad hom, and all you're left with is the evidence. Which is what, exactly?
 
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...

It can't be them. Smollett himself said so (through his attorneys).

"It is impossible to believe that this person could have played a role in the crime against Jussie or would falsely claim Jussie's complicity," the attorneys said.
Click to expand...
 
sadhatter said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I didn't say belief was required I'm going to assume you're unintentionally creating a straw man.

Police do not have to investigate every claim to the level they did here. I don't think they even have to investigate every claim. They believed something happened enough to look into it. And look, they were right. It was not made up wholesale. They staged it rather than just said it took place.

The police did good; they didn't do good by rejecting the claim outright.

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

You and others have harped on that this couldn't have been true because it is 'crazy' sounding, but as I've repeatedly shown, it is not. Crazier things much like this have happened a lot recently, specifically from Trump Republicans. I didn't think I had, how was it said, a better insight in to reality but that people keep saying something demonstrably untrue, I guess I do.

It is a mundane claim because it isn't something like a scientific hypothesis, a supernatural claim, etc, and not because it is likely. I remembered to put 'mundane' in quotes, but forgot to define that I meant it in that sense.
 
tyr_13 said:
You and others have harped on that this couldn't have been true because it is 'crazy' sounding, but as I've repeatedly shown, it is not.
Click to expand...

I've taken a look at your posts in this thread. You say this a couple times, about having repeatedly shown that crazy stuff happens, but as far as I can tell you don't actually do that even once, let alone repeatedly. Am I missing something?
 
applecorped said:
When you got nothing just keep repeating the word mundane
Click to expand...

No, content free sniping is what is done when 'you got nothing' (or, you know, not saying anything). Both have the advantage of not having to make an argument, defend it, present reasoning, you know, the hard stuff.

It does have the disadvantage of making one look foolish when you admonish someone for not stating a position fast enough that you yourself have not actually stated.

But yes, I said mundane, three times? Four? I expect you were keeping count.

theprestige said:
I've taken a look at your posts in this thread. You say this a couple times, about having repeatedly shown that crazy stuff happens, but as far as I can tell you don't actually do that even once, let alone repeatedly. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
You also occupy a culture where actual hate crimes are far more common than fake ones. A culture where people really mail bombs to the wrong addresses based on the bomber's political rage. A culture where white-supremacists march in the streets with tiki-torches chanting 'the Jews will not replace us'. A culture where cars are driven into crowds and people still justify it and want to make it legal to do so.

Any skepticism based on 'it sounds too much like a cartoon hate crime' is ridiculous. That remains true regardless of if this incident was really one or a hoax, because other things just as crazy really did happen.

In short, even in cases where skepticism is legitimately warranted, there remain arguments for skepticism which are abject ********.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
Yeah, Americans refuse to fake beat up people in staged hate crimes.

Instead they drive cars at high speeds into gay couples (because the couple is gay).

They get together with a couple of friends to stab a trans teen to death, or they train a bit and do it solo to a gay Jewish college student.

They good old fashioned just straight up shoot them. A lot.

Americas will find a gay teen, strip them naked, beat them, steal their clothing and other possessions, record a video of it, and post it to Facebook.

When people are upset at Smollett for his fake attack downplaying the very real damage done in many, many real attacks, they are not saying they accept the excuse that Smollett's fake is a valid reason to dismiss the others.

(And yes, I get that you're 'joking', but some definitely think it is one of those 'joking on the square' situations when it absolutely is not.)
Click to expand...

And sorry, it turns out that one of them I was thinking of was from the thread you told me to go back to, the one where you said evidence wouldn't suffice if it were presented in that thread. So I'll repost the link here too.

Seriously, the details of so many of these actual attacks have been crazy sounding. A right wing advocate praises Dylan Roof's manifesto and encourages others to target liberals for killing, opens fire in a movie theater killing two. A white nationalist GOP supporter infiltrates a Black Lives Matter group then opens fire on them in front of a police station. An alt-right member goes on a rape and murder spree targeting non-whites after advocating people do just that. A GOP volunteer angry about immigration opens fire on a room full of exchange students, killing two.

You were so close to playing this one perfectly. Being skeptical, but still expressing and openness to the possibility some actual attack happened. Asking for specific pieces of valid evidence. Accepting criticisms of some of your own reasoning. Really the only mark off (besides the mocking snark going overboard in some places that I don't feel qualified to judge) is this insistence that taking a 'neither believe nor disbelieve' attitude at first was unjustified because 'it sounds too crazy'. It would be great if that were true, but it just is not so.
 
theprestige said:
I mean, I'm still going to call it a "horrifying" attack. Just not for the reasons Travis probably had in mind.
Click to expand...
Where is Travis? Is simply admitting that he made a mistake so horrifying that fleeing the scene is more appealing?
 
tyr_13 said:
No, content free sniping is what is done when 'you got nothing' (or, you know, not saying anything). Both have the advantage of not having to make an argument, defend it, present reasoning, you know, the hard stuff.



It does have the disadvantage of making one look foolish when you admonish someone for not stating a position fast enough that you yourself have not actually stated.



But yes, I said mundane, three times? Four? I expect you were keeping count.















And sorry, it turns out that one of them I was thinking of was from the thread you told me to go back to, the one where you said evidence wouldn't suffice if it were presented in that thread. So I'll repost the link here too.



Seriously, the details of so many of these actual attacks have been crazy sounding. A right wing advocate praises Dylan Roof's manifesto and encourages others to target liberals for killing, opens fire in a movie theater killing two. A white nationalist GOP supporter infiltrates a Black Lives Matter group then opens fire on them in front of a police station. An alt-right member goes on a rape and murder spree targeting non-whites after advocating people do just that. A GOP volunteer angry about immigration opens fire on a room full of exchange students, killing two.



You were so close to playing this one perfectly. Being skeptical, but still expressing and openness to the possibility some actual attack happened. Asking for specific pieces of valid evidence. Accepting criticisms of some of your own reasoning. Really the only mark off (besides the mocking snark going overboard in some places that I don't feel qualified to judge) is this insistence that taking a 'neither believe nor disbelieve' attitude at first was unjustified because 'it sounds too crazy'. It would be great if that were true, but it just is not so.
Click to expand...



A gay couple gets run over and badly injured by a car at high speed in a targeted attack. Sounds definitely crazy but sadly plausible. A gay couple gets softly bumped into by a car driven by maga hat wearing nazis yelling “die faggot, this is maga country!” Both crazy and somewhat more implausible, no?

If Smollett had suffered some major injuries and the little touches like the noose, maga hats, manager on phone at 2am overhearing and bleach (do you have cites for similar attacks?) were not part of the initial reports, I have no problems believing him outright. It was those little touches that were a touch too much. Then add in no video. Then add in refusal to hand over phone records.

I mean c’mon...isn’t some skepticism warranted?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OK.....who posted the lyrics to a song, Jussie's Grit, yesterday.

Damn thing's been stuck in my head all day. :mad:

That's all.
 
tyr_13 said:
No, content free sniping is what is done when 'you got nothing' (or, you know, not saying anything). Both have the advantage of not having to make an argument, defend it, present reasoning, you know, the hard stuff.

It does have the disadvantage of making one look foolish when you admonish someone for not stating a position fast enough that you yourself have not actually stated.

But yes, I said mundane, three times? Four? I expect you were keeping count.







And sorry, it turns out that one of them I was thinking of was from the thread you told me to go back to, the one where you said evidence wouldn't suffice if it were presented in that thread. So I'll repost the link here too.

Seriously, the details of so many of these actual attacks have been crazy sounding. A right wing advocate praises Dylan Roof's manifesto and encourages others to target liberals for killing, opens fire in a movie theater killing two. A white nationalist GOP supporter infiltrates a Black Lives Matter group then opens fire on them in front of a police station. An alt-right member goes on a rape and murder spree targeting non-whites after advocating people do just that. A GOP volunteer angry about immigration opens fire on a room full of exchange students, killing two.

You were so close to playing this one perfectly. Being skeptical, but still expressing and openness to the possibility some actual attack happened. Asking for specific pieces of valid evidence. Accepting criticisms of some of your own reasoning. Really the only mark off (besides the mocking snark going overboard in some places that I don't feel qualified to judge) is this insistence that taking a 'neither believe nor disbelieve' attitude at first was unjustified because 'it sounds too crazy'. It would be great if that were true, but it just is not so.
Click to expand...

That was mundane
 
xjx388 said:
A gay couple gets run over and badly injured by a car at high speed in a targeted attack. Sounds definitely crazy but sadly plausible. A gay couple gets softly bumped into by a car driven by maga hat wearing nazis yelling “die faggot, this is maga country!” Both crazy and somewhat more implausible, no?
Click to expand...

More implausible? Yes. A good analogue for what was (falsely) reported here? Of course not. Getting away with little injury from a quick attack from human hands is a hell of a lot more plausible than being gently bumped with a car. I wouldn't dismiss either out of hand though.

Does that mean you find the other example sufficiently crazy?

If Smollett had suffered some major injuries and the little touches like the noose, maga hats, manager on phone at 2am overhearing and bleach (do you have cites for similar attacks?) were not part of the initial reports, I have no problems believing him outright. It was those little touches that were a touch too much. Then add in no video. Then add in refusal to hand over phone records.

I mean c’mon...isn’t some skepticism warranted?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Seeing as part of my description of 'playing it perfect' did involve skepticism...what? No, seriously, what? Don't say you too have fallen into this binary thinking that being critical of some of the assertions here means arguing against being skeptical? 'If you didn't think this was fake from the first report, you're biased liberal false hate-crime monger' sure isn't the most nuanced position, but it sure looks to be closer to what some are arguing here than I'd want for hyperbole.

On the subject of exaggeration, I was much more skeptical of some of the elements of the attack than other when it was first reported. That is to say, I didn't lean towards every aspect being as reported, and especially the report of 'bleach'. But it isn't implausible in the least to think that a couple of thugs took advantage of the almost empty streets to sucker punch a guy (who happened to be famous) while yelling 'fag!' and throwing their drink and some damn string one was screwing around with growing into a story about a targeted attack singling out the 'star' with 'bleach' and a 'noose'.

Some of the usual suspects are hitting the wall on a victory lap. Pointing out that 'neither believe nor disbelieve' the initial report is a valid, and superior stance is not arguing against skepticism. It isn't arguing against skepticism by pointing out the incorrect reasoning that is 'can't believe it because it sounds too perfect'.
 
tyr_13 said:
More implausible? Yes. A good analogue for what was (falsely) reported here? Of course not. Getting away with little injury from a quick attack from human hands is a hell of a lot more plausible than being gently bumped with a car. I wouldn't dismiss either out of hand though.

Does that mean you find the other example sufficiently crazy?
Click to expand...
You seem to be taking a broad definition of "crazy" and using it to equivocate on the plausibility of Smollett's claim.

Yes, crazy stuff happens.

Yes, we tend to agree that crazy stuff that is well documented, and attested by multiple independent witnesses, really did happen even if it does seem crazy.

We didn't doubt Smollett because his story was "crazy". We doubted him because his story had a specific set of details that was implausible when taken together as part of a single incident. And because not only were the details implausible when taken all together, but there were no other witnesses to attest to it, and there was no other documentary evidence to support it.

I'm also dubious about the premise that because we know that certain specific "crazy" things have in fact happened, we should therefore be a priori credulous about every "crazy" claim that comes our way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom