horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
carlitos said:
The correct take on this case is in the Huffington Post today.
I Don’t Regret Believing Jussie Smollett. Here’s Why.
Click to expand...

I couldn't get through the backstory.

Is there a point in the article where the author states, in plain language, the principle upon which her lack of regret is based?

It seems to me that people with a real interest in getting more recognition for the reality of hate crimes in America, would have no regrets about questioning Smollett's story from the very beginning.
 
theprestige said:
I couldn't get through the backstory.

Is there a point in the article where the author states, in plain language, the principle upon which her lack of regret is based?

It seems to me that people with a real interest in getting more recognition for the reality of hate crimes in America, would have no regrets about questioning Smollett's story from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

"Believe victims. Don’t let this story plant doubt in your mind when it’s possible that unconscious bias already lives there."
You may have emotional/biased reasons for doubting black people and LBTQ+ peoples claims, so you should level the playing field by discounting rational reasons for doubting them and instead rely on your emotional/biased reasons for believing them. That is about as condensed as I can render it.
 
theprestige said:
I couldn't get through the backstory.

Is there a point in the article where the author states, in plain language, the principle upon which her lack of regret is based?

It seems to me that people with a real interest in getting more recognition for the reality of hate crimes in America, would have no regrets about questioning Smollett's story from the very beginning.
Click to expand...
Basically it's a column that could have been computer-generated, written by a grievance bot or community college student. It's practically a parody of a column on this type of incident.




  • Virtue-signaling - I'm a queer something-or-other, and I'm a victim too. And so's my husband! But we are the lucky ones, because we are white queers!
  • Hate crimes are on the rise, people!
  • Anecdote
  • Anecdote
  • Mis-application of statistics
  • Anecdote
  • Those who disbelieve Smollett were going to disbelieve all stories anyway (which is sadly true to a large extent)
  • Anecdote
  • More virtue-signaling (I work in the juvenile justice yada yada yada)
  • And the wind-up - appeal to the "larger truth:"


Don’t let the Jussie Smollett case distract us from what is actually happening every day. When we focus on his story, we miss the point.
I don’t regret believing Jussie Smollett because anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes happen and are on the rise. They happened to me in my comfortable progressive neighborhood, and they are happening more often to people who are way more marginalized than my husband and me.


Believe victims. Don’t let this story plant doubt in your mind when it’s possible that unconscious bias already lives there.
Click to expand...
 
shuttlt said:
"Believe victims. Don’t let this story plant doubt in your mind when it’s possible that unconscious bias already lives there."
You may have emotional/biased reasons for doubting black people and LBTQ+ peoples claims, so you should level the playing field by discounting rational reasons for doubting them and instead rely on your emotional/biased reasons for believing them. That is about as condensed as I can render it.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I think I can distill it a little more:

"Overlooking the problems with Smollett's story means my heart is still in the right place. I'm still providing a safe space for hate crime victims to share their experiences, and that's the most important thing. I let Smollett hoodwink me, but #noregrets."
 
carlitos said:
The correct take on this case is in the Huffington Post today.
I Don’t Regret Believing Jussie Smollett. Here’s Why.



The author of that piece states her personal situation in the opening paragraph.
Click to expand...

A proper summary of the article.

"I really want to avoid the conversation this event is going to create, so here is a bunch of events and statistics designed to make you feel guilty about even letting this event get you thinking about looking at claims like this from a critical standpoint".

It's essentially just a lot of words asking people to ignore this event. My response is the opposite "no".
 
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.
 
I can't believe people did not think it was odd from the get-go.

Just the idea of this guy walking by himself to Subway at 2AM in bitter winter weather...

And he happens to run into the only other two people silly enough to be out walking that night, on the same route, and they happen to know who he is, and they happen to have a noose and ready to sprinkle bleach...
 
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.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I can't believe people did not think it was odd from the get-go.

Just the idea of this guy walking by himself to Subway at 2AM in bitter winter weather...

And he happens to run into the only other two people silly enough to be out walking that night, on the same route, and they happen to know who he is, and they happen to have a noose and ready to sprinkle bleach...
Click to expand...

Yeah, walking for a bite at that time and temp was odd, but not unbelievable. And if the 'attackers' were stalking him, I could even buy that they had their accessories handy.

What got me was keeping the rope on 'because he wanted the cops to see it' and that he hoped that it was caught on video so people would see how he fought back.
 
sadhatter said:
A proper summary of the article.

"I really want to avoid the conversation this event is going to create, so here is a bunch of events and statistics designed to make you feel guilty about even letting this event get you thinking about looking at claims like this from a critical standpoint".

It's essentially just a lot of words asking people to ignore this event. My response is the opposite "no".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

On CNN Friday several people pointed out that the Chicago media were skeptical about this from day one, since a lot of it just did not sound right to anybody familiar with Chicago.
I admit I judged too quickly, and will try to wait until more facts come out before making a judgement.
Problem with the idea of "it's ok to lie in a good cause" is that, as John Adams said "Facts Are Stubborn Things", and the truth will eventuall come out and bite you in the butt.
 
I have changed my mind.

I think we should all believe Jussie Smollett, because if we don't, it will prevent other people from coming forward, who also didn't get attacked.
 
I think "believe the victims" is a gross simplification, to the point of error. And, frankly, I have trouble believing an unbelievable story, regardless of the stories actual status as true or false. It's a bit difficult to control ones belief.

That being said, I think a better, fairer, and more accurate message to send is "always take allegations seriously, and investigate them whether you believe them or not".

Frankly, I put "always believe" and "never believe" almost side-by-side on the "I am going to make an incorrect choice" scale.
 
dudalb said:
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...

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.
 
Drewbot said:
I have changed my mind.

I think we should all believe Jussie Smollett, because if we don't, it will prevent other people from coming forward, who also didn't get attacked.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. With all the attention on Jussie Smollett, many are forgetting about the millions of others who haven't been attacked. And in a country of this size (~325 million), there are probably even others who have not been attacked in a similar manner with beach and a noose. Let us not forget them!
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
This is a good point. With all the attention on Jussie Smollett, many are forgetting about the millions of others who haven't been attacked. And in a country of this size (~325 million), there are probably even others who have not been attacked in a similar manner with beach and a noose. Let us not forget them!
Click to expand...

Exactly. And how can we expect these people to come forward, if we treat just ONE person, who didn't get attacked, with such disdain.
 
dudalb said:
On CNN Friday several people pointed out that the Chicago media were skeptical about this from day one, since a lot of it just did not sound right to anybody familiar with Chicago.
I admit I judged too quickly, and will try to wait until more facts come out before making a judgement.
Problem with the idea of "it's ok to lie in a good cause" is that, as John Adams said "Facts Are Stubborn Things", and the truth will eventuall come out and bite you in the butt.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom