Actor Jussie Smollett Attack/Hoax?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

"You must always believe the victim" has become a huge rallying point, and if someone is going to turn around and accuse the victim, they better make that accusation as insanely bulletproof as possible before even uttering it.

I maintain that people crying out the bolded quote are, as is the sentiment itself, fantastically f---ing stupid.

We take victims and their claims seriously, but we don't just believe them without sufficient evidence.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I maintain that people crying out the bolded quote are, as is the sentiment itself, fantastically f---ing stupid.

We take victims and their claims seriously, but we don't just believe them without sufficient evidence.

Its just the state of today. We’re becoming a victim culture. If anything hurts someone’s feelings or makes them feel bad then it must be bad...

[bluejays]

I'd imagine the police are playing prisoners dilemma right now with the two men and this guy, so it's likely just a matter of time before one breaks. On a side note, I'd love every social justice warrior on my facebook who posted about him originally to post a redaction and not buy the victim mentality without knowing the full story.

[CliffFletcher]

Not at all surprised by this. Any behaviour we reward with status will be taken up by people seeking higher status.

[PostandIn]

Douglas Murray has a great take on this and fake incidents in general: https://spectator.us/faked-hate-crimes/

[FlamesAddiction]

Often it seems like too many people jump to guilty verdicts on these issues. We saw the same thing happen with the Karlsson/Hoffman drama in Ottawa. Or with political stories. Someone yells "scandal", and the hordes will believe it without evidence.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I maintain that people crying out the bolded quote are, as is the sentiment itself, fantastically f---ing stupid.

We take victims and their claims seriously, but we don't just believe them without sufficient evidence.

That sort of attitude is, dare I say, "fantastically f*$&ing stupid". There wouldn't be a #metoo movement if victims had historically felt comfortable reporting what had happened to them. I am speaking as an American here, but women have historically not been believed when coming with stories of rape (you wore a skirt so you were asking for it); blacks in the south faced trials by all white juries that just happened to never side with peoples of color, etc.

There is obviously some amount of false claims. We never live in a world of absolutes. But to act is if the tables have always been tilted in favor of the victim is just absurd. There have been a lot of groups of people that did not have the luxury of being believed. Not to sound too much like icecube, but I think it's a pretty good example of when we need to check our privilege.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I think TorqueDog is speaking in 'ideals' in that the police should take claims seriously but not take everything as 100% fact.

[CaptainCrunch]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1098362386313105408

a police official says “empire” actor jussie smollett is now considered a suspect “for filing a false police report” and that detectives are presenting the case against him to a grand jury.


Police spokesman anthony guglielmi tweeted the news on wednesday after smollett’s attorneys met with prosecutors and detectives.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by dobbles

But to act is if the tables have always been tilted in favor of the victim is just absurd.

*sigh* You do know you can read the post you've quoted while you're writing your reply, yes?

There is nothing in my post to even remotely imply what you are suggesting. I am advocating for taking people seriously when they make a claim, but not automatically jumping to conclusions and committing to a belief in a position because it fits our biases of the world around us. To do so without taking a moment and considering all the information in front of us would be...

Originally Posted by dobbles

… "fantastically f*$&ing stupid".

This applies to everybody, including the police who evidently agree as they investigated, located the suspects and -- upon meeting with the victim again -- found that there was clearly more to this story than had been initially reported on. Where my sentiment really applies nowadays is to the media and social media users. We are way too eager in the court of public opinion to reach a conclusion and get out the pitchforks.

Look, I read about this story too, and like many people, I thought "Holy f---ing s---, look at that guy, they beat the f--- out of him. I hope they catch the people responsible."

But that was it. I didn't go shouting from the rooftops about who it might have been, what / who motivated the attack, and hell, I didn't even point out the glaring issues like "How exactly were two random attackers so well equipped to do something so f---ing awful to a very specific target?" Instead I wanted to hear what the investigation turned up, as I do with pretty much any sort of crime I hear about. And that decision to wait bore fruit, as we now have more information on the case than we previously did, and it would seem a lot of people's initial assumptions based on the victim statement were erroneous. Is that always the case? No; sometimes you find more evidence to support the initial account. There is no shame in waiting for information before formulating an opinion on something.

Seriously, if we can't hold our positions in uncertainty until an actual investigation has been done, we are screwed.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

*sigh* You do know you can read the post you've quoted while you're writing your reply, yes?

There is nothing in my post to even remotely imply what you are suggesting. I am advocating for taking people seriously when they make a claim, but not automatically jumping to conclusions and committing to a belief in a position because it fits our biases of the world around us. To do so without taking a moment and considering all the information in front of us would be...
This applies to everybody, including the police who evidently agree as they investigated, located the suspects and -- upon meeting with the victim again -- found that there was clearly more to this story than had been initially reported on. Where my sentiment really applies nowadays is to the media and social media users. We are way too eager in the court of public opinion to reach a conclusion and get out the pitchforks.

Look, I read about this story too, and like many people, I thought "Holy f---ing s---, look at that guy, they beat the f--- out of him. I hope they catch the people responsible."

But that was it. I didn't go shouting from the rooftops about who it might have been, what / who motivated the attack, and hell, I didn't even point out the glaring issues like "How exactly were two random attackers so well equipped to do something so f---ing awful to a very specific target?" Instead I wanted to hear what the investigation turned up, as I do with pretty much any sort of crime I hear about. And that decision to wait bore fruit, as we now have more information on the case than we previously did, and it would seem a lot of people's initial assumptions based on the victim statement were erroneous. Is that always the case? No; sometimes you find more evidence to support the initial account. There is no shame in waiting for information before formulating an opinion on something.

Seriously, if we can't hold our positions in uncertainty until an actual investigation has been done, we are screwed.

You are the one that implied people that believe the accuser are f-ing stupid. If you wan to walk that back now, that's cool, but don't try and act like I am taking things out of context.

And I agree with your sentiments for the most part. I too hold myself to having measured responses. Despite my liberal leanings, you certainly won't find posts from me overreacting about this, the maga teen story, or anything else. I stay relatively quiet even in the Trump thread which everyone loves to label as a circle jerk.

To me though, it felt like you were doing some virtue signaling (which the right LOVES to call out the left on) in your statement. Whitetiger's post had a pretty big hyperbole vibe to it, and with what you added in your response, it felt pretty over the top to me.

C'est la vie. I gotta head out, so apologies if I don't respond until tomorrow.

edit: I should also add, in just about all these stories, there are the crazies that start sending death threats and doxxing people. I am of the opinion that that happens regardless of the leanings of the story. There are ######s on both ends of the spectrum that love to use the anonymity of the internet to go way past cool.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by dobbles

You are the one that implied people that believe the attacker are f-ing stupid. If you wan to walk that back now, that's cool, but don't try and act like I am taking things out of context.

Wanna fix that? You look silly.

You are not just taking things out of context, but adding your own. If you want to argue things I've said, keep it to things I am actually saying, not just what you hear. Try listening -- we're on a forum, so try "reading and comprehending" the posts of people you wish to reply to, perhaps without automatically operating under the assumption that they must be some kind of cretin.

Now, what you said I did, again, I did not imply: I said that people parroting sentiments similar to "you must always believe the victim" are stupid. Not whether or not they believe them, but the idea that we all must immediately pick a side. The idea is entirely devoid of critical thought. If you want to understand why, swap out 'victim' with 'claim', as that is what it is at its core; a claim.

Here we go: David Stephan claims he and his family are a victim of our medical and -- now -- justice system. Do we believe him, or believe his claims have merit? Why don't we? Could it be because we evaluated his claims and the evidence against him and found his claims to be, politely, without merit?

Not all claims are made equal.

Originally Posted by dobbles

To me though, it felt like you were doing some virtue signaling (which the right LOVES to call out the left on) in your statement. Whitetiger's post had a pretty big hyperbole vibe to it, and with what you added in your response, it felt pretty over the top to me.

Again, you're imposing upon my viewpoint what you wanted it to be. What you're trying to suggest was 'virtue signaling', that was me simply responding to a sentiment I've noticed to be a common trend -- shared by another poster -- and my opinion of said sentiment.

It can be worded differently, whether it is the as-quoted "You must always believe victims" or "#IBELIEVESURVIVORS" or whatever the hashtag was, but the sentiment behind them is the same. It's an emotional subject, to be sure. But emotion is exactly the sort of thing we know can drive people to exercise poor judgement in times of crisis. It is exactly why we structure our justice system on weighing the evidence and testimony, and not on how many people on Twitter screamed which answer is the right answer.

You may notice I don't exactly post very much on here, chiming in once in a while. S--- like this is why.

[OldDutch]

Dude wanted attention and man is he going to get some.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You may notice I don't exactly post very much on here, chiming in once in a while. S--- like this is why.

Based on your last couple of posts in this thread, I'd say that's our collective loss. Well said.

[Hockey_Ninja]

I'm very disappointed in Jussie. He seriously decided to pull a stunt like this during black history month? There are real hate crimes that happen to LGBTQ+ and black people, and this is just something that people are going to refrence when an actual hate crime does happen and they want to deny the legitimacy of them being real. Terrible.

[OMG!WTF!]

Are the two "attackers" culpable here as well? It seems like they got off the hook pretty quickly. I'm sure they weren't doing it for free.

Smollett said he had finished up with a rope around his neck, but was still holding on to his Subway sandwich.

This I believe. You can punch me, bleach me, yell stupid stuff at me but I'm not giving you my sub. The late night/24 hr Subway is a damn unicorn. I would not be giving that up to some Maga twits.

[CaptainCrunch]

Sounds like he turned himself in last night and is facing felony charges for filing a false police report, which means he can get up to three years in jail and have to pay for the police investigation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Annnnddd its all about the money

https://twitter.com/user/status/1098604281433858051

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Per Superintendent Johnson in that video, "I am concerned that hate crimes will be met with a level of skepticism that previously didn't happen.

Bingo. Or, to put it more eloquently...

Originally Posted by PostandIn

D https://spectator.us/faked-hate-crimes/

On Monday night in London’s Soho, Maajid Nawaz was assaulted by a stranger. While Maajid wasn’t looking the stranger, who was white, called him a ‘####ing Paki’ and punched him in the face. Maajid has related the events on Twitter here and people will be able to see the severe facial injuries this has caused him. As is often the case people in real life behaved wonderfully. Passers-by heard the insults, witnessed the assault and have given their descriptions of the attack and the assailant to the police. Since there is apparently some CCTV footage, hopefully this racist thug and criminal will soon be caught.

Online, as is also so often the case, the worst of people was on show. Obviously there was crowing from the Islamists who hate Maajid for calling out their own sickness. Such people were all over Twitter blaming Maajid for the attack on himself, or otherwise glorying in this act of racist violence. A strange reminder that the extremes always meet somewhere. But the reason I started with the Smollett story is that another set of people online decided, once the story of Maajid’s assault came out, with: ‘Ah yes, here is another “hate crime” which will unravel in time.

Perhaps we shouldn’t spend too much time focusing on such crazies. But it is worth noting. Faked hate crimes do a lot of things. They increase societal distrust, they assault the truth and they inflame any existing racial or other communal tensions. But they also make people forget the fact that there are people out there who are racist and otherwise bigoted. There really are problems that need to be addressed. There really are people who perpetrate crimes in the world. Among the many reprehensible things about faked hate crimes is that they make people doubt the real thing. Which in turn makes people complacent about a real and visible problem.

Unfortunately, there's likely to be no nuance to the debate that occurs in the aftermath of this.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Wanna fix that? You look silly.

My bad. I meant accuser and mixed up my words. I was in a hurry and it was unintended.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You are not just taking things out of context, but adding your own. If you want to argue things I've said, keep it to things I am actually saying, not just what you hear. Try listening -- we're on a forum, so try "reading and comprehending" the posts of people you wish to reply to, perhaps without automatically operating under the assumption that they must be some kind of cretin.

Believe it or not, it is possible to respond to me without being smarmy and insulting my intelligence. I AM reading your statements, and the reason I am responding is that when I read what you are saying, its seems in-congruent. It's really no different than when someone posts in FOI about a questionable head hit. Everyone is watching the same video, but conclusions usually vary from totally clean, to should have kept his head up, to throw the aggressor out of the league. People can interpret the very same words and images in different ways.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Now, what you said I did, again, I did not imply: I said that people parroting sentiments similar to "you must always believe the victim" are stupid. Not whether or not they believe them, but the idea that we all must immediately pick a side. The idea is entirely devoid of critical thought. If you want to understand why, swap out 'victim' with 'claim', as that is what it is at its core; a claim.

Not all claims are made equal.
Again, you're imposing upon my viewpoint what you wanted it to be. What you're trying to suggest was 'virtue signaling', that was me simply responding to a sentiment I've noticed to be a common trend -- shared by another poster -- and my opinion of said sentiment.

It can be worded differently, whether it is the as-quoted "You must always believe victims" or "#IBELIEVESURVIVORS" or whatever the hashtag was, but the sentiment behind them is the same. It's an emotional subject, to be sure. But emotion is exactly the sort of thing we know can drive people to exercise poor judgement in times of crisis. It is exactly why we structure our justice system on weighing the evidence and testimony, and not on how many people on Twitter screamed which answer is the right answer.

Again, there is a lot there that I agree with you on. I guess the point I was trying to make was this: For a long time, in my opinion, victims did have an exceedingly high burden of proof for 'beleivability'. In the last year or two, that has started to shift because of things like the metoo movement. However, as soon as the pendulum started swinging, it started facing resistance. And while some of it is deserved, a lot of it feels like people trying to push things back to the way they have always been.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You may notice I don't exactly post very much on here, chiming in once in a while. S--- like this is why.

Because I slightly disagreed? I did so in a respectful manner and have added my reasoning and respected your rebuttals. Is it really necessary to play the victim like that?


Regardless though, you win. I have given my 2 cents and it doesn't look like you have any interest in discussion; just talking down to me.