horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
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. 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.
Click to expand...

"Crazy" isn't a very good word. Imprecise, ambiguous words lead to faulty reasoning. "Improbable" or "implausible" might be better. Not perfect, just a little better.

There is no objective scale we can use to evaluate a degree of "craziness" to a particular claim and then compare that to another claim. The same may be true for "improbable" or "implausible" in this case, but I think they get a little closer to what people mean when they say that his story "didn't add up" or seemed highly unlikely to be true as claimed or as originally reported.
 
Puppycow said:
"Crazy" isn't a very good word. Imprecise, ambiguous words lead to faulty reasoning. "Improbable" or "implausible" might be better. Not perfect, just a little better.



There is no objective scale we can use to evaluate a degree of "craziness" to a particular claim and then compare that to another claim. The same may be true for "improbable" or "implausible" in this case, but I think they get a little closer to what people mean when they say that his story "didn't add up" or seemed highly unlikely to be true as claimed or as originally reported.
Click to expand...



That was the difference I was trying to point out. When a gay couple is run over and they have serious injuries, multiple witnesses...I don’t even think the word crazy applies. It’s heavily on the “probable” side of the probability spectrum.

Smollett’s story, on the other hand started off on the probable side when I saw the first reports, slightly on the improbable side when I read a bit more and then just stuck the needle all the way there the more and more we learned.

Crazy is indeed too imprecise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Puppycow said:
"Crazy" isn't a very good word. Imprecise, ambiguous words lead to faulty reasoning. "Improbable" or "implausible" might be better. Not perfect, just a little better.
Click to expand...

But it wasn’t merely the fact that his story was implausible. Just as importantly, it fit an established pattern of false accusations. And it’s that failure to recognize the pattern which is what caught so many people flat-footed.
 
Ellen Page on hate crimes:

Ellen Page on Jussie Smollett Fallout: Hate Violence Is Not a Hoax (Guest Column)

I don't really have a huge problem with what she writes here in general except to note that she didn't look carefully at the underlying data that she cites to claim that there is "a rising tide of hate violence". In the other thread it was noted that data from year to year is not directly comparable because different numbers of police departments report data from year to year, and a large number (890 I believe) that hadn't previously been reporting data started reporting it in 2017. And of course, not all police departments are the same size.

To summarize, she starts with, Never mind the Jussie Smollett case, let me tell you about this other hate crime that really happened. (Some drunk guy at a football game harassed and attacked a lesbian couple in front of dozens of witnesses. The other fans "tackled him to the ground". story here). But OK, nobody ever questioned that that one was real.

While the media and public debate the case and await more information, we must not lose sight of the very real, endemic violence that LGBTQ+ people, people of color and other underrepresented communities face every day.

I ask you not to question our pain, not to draw into question our trauma, but to maintain, wholeheartedly, that hate violence exists. The merits of one case should not and cannot call that into question. The media coverage does not convey the reality and totality of the cruelty and danger we face. This is the story that must be told.
Click to expand...

Overall, I think she's misunderstanding the skepticism about the Jussie Smollett case and conflating it with people doubting that hate crimes happen at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
But it wasn’t merely the fact that his story was implausible. Just as importantly, it fit an established pattern of false accusations. And it’s that failure to recognize the pattern which is what caught so many people flat-footed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been thinking about that aspect too. It's an old, overused cliche to say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, . . . et cetera (you know the rest)", but once you've seen the details of enough hoaxes, you start to notice similar features of most of them, or many of them anyway. Certain tell-tale signs that this is BS. (OTOH, there is a potential risk in relying on pattern recognition, which is confirmation bias).
 
I'm not sure what the pattern is: Does this one fit the pattern, for instance?

 
Puppycow said:
Ellen Page on hate crimes:

Ellen Page on Jussie Smollett Fallout: Hate Violence Is Not a Hoax (Guest Column)

I don't really have a huge problem with what she writes here in general except to note that she didn't look carefully at the underlying data that she cites to claim that there is "a rising tide of hate violence". In the other thread it was noted that data from year to year is not directly comparable because different numbers of police departments report data from year to year, and a large number (890 I believe) that hadn't previously been reporting data started reporting it in 2017. And of course, not all police departments are the same size.

To summarize, she starts with, Never mind the Jussie Smollett case, let me tell you about this other hate crime that really happened. (Some drunk guy at a football game harassed and attacked a lesbian couple in front of dozens of witnesses. The other fans "tackled him to the ground". story here). But OK, nobody ever questioned that that one was real.



Overall, I think she's misunderstanding the skepticism about the Jussie Smollett case and conflating it with people doubting that hate crimes happen at all.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of that going around.

This case does not show hate crimes don't happen, it shows we need to use logic and reason even in emotionally charged situations.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Puppycow said:
"Crazy" isn't a very good word. Imprecise, ambiguous words lead to faulty reasoning. "Improbable" or "implausible" might be better. Not perfect, just a little better.

There is no objective scale we can use to evaluate a degree of "craziness" to a particular claim and then compare that to another claim. The same may be true for "improbable" or "implausible" in this case, but I think they get a little closer to what people mean when they say that his story "didn't add up" or seemed highly unlikely to be true as claimed or as originally reported.
Click to expand...

xjx388 said:
That was the difference I was trying to point out. When a gay couple is run over and they have serious injuries, multiple witnesses...I don’t even think the word crazy applies. It’s heavily on the “probable” side of the probability spectrum.

Smollett’s story, on the other hand started off on the probable side when I saw the first reports, slightly on the improbable side when I read a bit more and then just stuck the needle all the way there the more and more we learned.

Crazy is indeed too imprecise.


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

Yes, 'crazy' is not precise enough. It lets people who actually disagree with each other think they agree, and those who largely agree believe they are miles apart.

The element that some (although not all) are seeing as highly improbable that I keep arguing against is the 'it's highly or extremely implausible that MAGA people would commit petty hate crimes' (or the like). It isn't in the least implausible. There are entire alt-right gangs who have attacking people in the streets as an entry requirement. It would be the same as hearing a report of an Antifa guy punching a guy with a MAGA hat on. It isn't unlikely. Being overly skeptical because of that element is simply wrong.

And, to repeat this yet again, I'm not and have not argued that the default position should be 'definitely happened until proven otherwise'. That's why xjx388 I was so surprised by your post. I'm not even arguing against hearing the report and 'leaning towards improbable' is not something I argued against. Your journey there isn't even that different from mine, with the exception that when I first heard the report I assumed some distortion and exaggeration in reporting. I specifically said that following the evidence as one finds it is correct.

Ziggurat said:
But it wasn’t merely the fact that his story was implausible. Just as importantly, it fit an established pattern of false accusations. And it’s that failure to recognize the pattern which is what caught so many people flat-footed.
Click to expand...

State the pattern.
 
tyr_13 said:
The element that some (although not all) are seeing as highly improbable that I keep arguing against is the 'it's highly or extremely implausible that MAGA people would commit petty hate crimes' (or the like).
Click to expand...

That's not the element that some are seeing as highly improbable. It's the combination of elements, taken in their entirety. I thought I explained that pretty clearly in my post which you quoted but apparently didn't read.
 
Ziggurat said:
State the pattern.
Click to expand...
In my opinion it seems to be the prominent display of MAGA/Trump slogans and paraphernalia. Doesn't necessarily mean its a false report but in this case, added to the unlikely location and circumstances it left reasonable doubts.
 
State the pattern.
Click to expand...

Well for one thing, they tend to be heavy on symbols or icons (e.g. the noose or swastikas, racist slurs) and light on actual harm to the alleged victim. The details vary of course, but the icons or symbols of some sort are usually an important element to show that the alleged crime was a hate crime.
 
Puppycow said:
Well for one thing, they tend to be heavy on symbols or icons (e.g. the noose or swastikas, racist slurs) and light on actual harm to the alleged victim. The details vary of course, but the icons or symbols of some sort are usually an important element to show that the alleged crime was a hate crime.
Click to expand...

One major thing I notice is the racisim doesn't tend to be very ...vile in comparison. It's always very simple, just enough to get the point across, not the loving poetry to ignorance real racists tend to prefer.

Anyone remember the crap some long banned posters user to say? That was real racist garbage. Hell listen to the tames white power song you can find and it will be worse than "black fag" hell, Archie bunker was worse than that ( used the word coon as opposed to black when angry and fag was a favorite)
 
alfaniner said:
I find it amazing how suddenly I ceased caring about this story (today) after following it since the beginning.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Smollett has just become a tragic meme, punchline, and worst actor example in the #LWB or maybe #LivingWhileGayAndWantingToBeSeenAsTough battle ground.

It's all so horrifying.
 
Puppycow said:
Well for one thing, they tend to be heavy on symbols or icons (e.g. the noose or swastikas, racist slurs) and light on actual harm to the alleged victim. The details vary of course, but the icons or symbols of some sort are usually an important element to show that the alleged crime was a hate crime.
Click to expand...

Better than mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom