• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jussie Smollet Trial

Myriad said:
That article's from a year ago. At the time, some people were believing Smollett's account, and some were questioning it due to incongruities or inconsistencies with the increasing amount of available evidence.

There were also some who were disbelieving it for racist or homophobic reasons. For instance, speculating without evidence that Smollett was coving up an attempted drug deal or gay liaison gone wrong. Disbelieving the account for racist or homophobic reasons was indeed racist or homophobic.
Click to expand...

Any one who didn't have serious doubts from the very start of this story should avoid using the words critical and thinking in the same sentence for the rest of their lives.
 
Belz... said:
Reading the couple of first pages of this thread (part 1) is quite interesting. The "doubters" sound much more reasonable than their opposition.

Also amusing, MikeG, who was probably the most ardent pro-Smollet poster, left a day or two after he was shown to be wrong, without ever following up on this:
Click to expand...

trustbutverify said:
Any one who didn't have serious doubts from the very start of this story should avoid using the words critical and thinking in the same sentence for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

Definitely there are many teachable moments for skeptics-to-be in the original thread. But those would would benefit the most from the exercise are least likely to adjust their way of thinking about these sorts of things.
 
theprestige said:
I'm a little disappointed that Myriad is doubling down on the "it was reasonable to believe it at first" narrative.
Click to expand...

I think this is too uncharitable a reading of his post, though I have some issues with it.

Myriad said:
That article's from a year ago. At the time, some people were believing Smollett's account,
Click to expand...

He seems to be silent on whether or not it was reasonable to believe at first. That's suggestive, but he doesn't actually say it was. Perhaps he should have explicitly said it wasn't reasonable, but failing to say something true isn't the same as saying something that is false.

and some were questioning it due to incongruities or inconsistencies with the increasing amount of available evidence.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with this part.

There were also some who were disbelieving it for racist or homophobic reasons. For instance, speculating without evidence that Smollett was coving up an attempted drug deal or gay liaison gone wrong. Disbelieving the account for racist or homophobic reasons was indeed racist or homophobic.
Click to expand...

The problem I have here is that, while it may describe some people, it doesn't describe most of the people who disbelieved Smollett. Focusing on a fringe with bad motives when most skeptics were motivated correctly by the facts of the case seems to miss the important lessons of this case. I'm sure a few people were motivated by racism, but they don't really matter.
 
Ziggurat said:
The problem I have here is that, while it may describe some people, it doesn't describe most of the people who disbelieved Smollett. Focusing on a fringe with bad motives when most skeptics were motivated correctly by the facts of the case seems to miss the important lessons of this case. I'm sure a few people were motivated by racism, but they don't really matter.
Click to expand...

- "I don't believe this is a true story."
- "Oh, so you're a racist, then? Black man surely made hoax, right?"
- "Turns out I was right to be suspicious."
- "Yeah but you were right for racist reasons so it doesn't count"

Sounds rather circular, does it not?
 
I admire the chutzpah of those who guessed correctly whether an event for which they had no evidence happened or not in congratulating themselves for their excellence in skepticism. Had it turned out the other way I'm certain they'd be admitting failure. In guessing, because that's all anybody was able to do. One day perhaps far in the future internet randos will stop confusing their reading of news with making them qualified investigators present on the scene with witnesses testimony and physical evidence in hand.

Shall we take guesses on when that'll be?
 
TragicMonkey said:
I admire the chutzpah of those who guessed correctly whether an event for which they had no evidence happened or not in congratulating themselves for their excellence in skepticism.
Click to expand...

That's a bit uncharitable, though. Although I made no comment about the truth or falseness of Smollett's claims at the time, many pointed out to suspicious facts about the events as reason behind their suspicions.

I say let them gloat.

Had it turned out the other way I'm certain they'd be admitting failure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, humans are what they are. Some people would, mind you.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I admire the chutzpah of those who guessed correctly whether an event for which they had no evidence happened or not in congratulating themselves for their excellence in skepticism.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, TM. There was in fact evidence from the start that the story was a fake. There have been a lot of fake hate crimes in recent years, and many of them share common features, features which showed up in the Smollett case. Were these features proof that Smollett was lying? No. But they were evidence that he was lying. And as the truth has come out, we have seen that these features were exactly what they appeared to be: evidence of a fraud.

The odds were in favor of it being a fraud from the start. That some people still refuse to understand that doesn't make the people who DID see it for what it was somehow wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
You're wrong, TM. There was in fact evidence from the start that the story was a fake. There have been a lot of fake hate crimes in recent years, and many of them share common features, features which showed up in the Smollett case. Were these features proof that Smollett was lying? No. But they were evidence that he was lying. And as the truth has come out, we have seen that these features were exactly what they appeared to be: evidence of a fraud.

The odds were in favor of it being a fraud from the start. That some people still refuse to understand that doesn't make the people who DID see it for what it was somehow wrong.
Click to expand...

"It sounded like a fraud"? Lemme give you a ribbon for skepticism.
 
Belz... said:
I don't understand your reaction. We make judgments based on observations and experience all the time. Why is this case fishy?
Click to expand...

The last three customers who walked in the door were obese. Does that make the next customer more likely to obese? Because "the odds" apparently hinge on events being observed by the same party and not by actual causal relationships?
 
theprestige said:
Subjectively, of course. It's an individual exercise. How did you determine the story was likely to be true, when you first heard the details? Etc.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat's wording implies it's not an individual exercise since he's chastising people for still refusing to believe that.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The last three customers who walked in the door were obese. Does that make the next customer more likely to obese? Because "the odds" apparently hinge on events being observed by the same party and not by actual causal relationships?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that answers my question. When event X has feature A, I've observed that it's often a hoax; this event Y has feature A, therefore it might be a hoax. I don't see why this is an issue for you.

True, I thought some of the posters in that thread called it a bit early, but once they explained their reasons it seemed to make sense.

In fact, calling the people who thought it was a hoax racists is using the exact same logic. So why was it ok to do so but not the thing that was being criticised i.e. doubting Smollett's story?
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
"It sounded like a fraud"? Lemme give you a ribbon for skepticism.
Click to expand...

Is the concept of pattern recognition really that alien to you? Or is that you don't recognize the patterns involved in fake hate crimes yourself, so you don't know how others can recognize them?
 
Ziggurat said:
Is the concept of pattern recognition really that alien to you? Or is that you don't recognize the patterns involved in fake hate crimes yourself, so you don't know how others can recognize them?
Click to expand...

Deciding that a selection of events is a series that has a pattern is begging a question. I pull three books at random from a bookshelf. Shall I deduce a pattern between them so I can predict characteristics of the next book?
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure that answers my question. When event X has feature A, I've observed that it's often a hoax; this event Y has feature A, therefore it might be a hoax. I don't see why this is an issue for you.

True, I thought some of the posters in that thread called it a bit early, but once they explained their reasons it seemed to make sense.

In fact, calling the people who thought it was a hoax racists is using the exact same logic. So why was it ok to do so but not the thing that was being criticised i.e. doubting Smollett's story?
Click to expand...

As I'm not one of the people calling anyone racist I can't answer your question. Ask them, instead.
 
theprestige said:
Yes it does. Is this really the fight you want to fight, though?
Click to expand...
Fight? I don't even know yet if I'll disagree with Zig's answer. He might know something about studies in to prior cases that match a profile or something.
theprestige said:
Was there ever a point where you thought this story was plausible?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'd go with possible rather than plausible since plausible is a loaded word. Why should have made my mind up one way or the other at all based on early reports?

I'm pretty sure my first post in the original thread was when I first became suspicious and it was due to realizing the similarity between one of his political videos and the crime. That's a hardly a show stopper since someone could have done that on purpose. In fact, right now, I can't think of any point of suspicion that couldn't be addressed by assuming the crime was committed by someone who knew him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom