Jussie Smollett found guilty of fake hate crime.

Post Reply New Topic

I doubt it.
Too much salad and not enough meat.

Even a gang of twenty Singapore otters would have at least knocked it out of your hand, and stomped all over it. Though, like MAGA guys, otters wouldnt be vegan enough to actually eat it themselves.

Apparently this wasnt the first fake police report Smollett made in his lifetime.

This doc opines that Smollett has a disorder. A type of narcissism.

Nice find.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10311625/Sole-black-juror-Jussie-Smollett-trial-says-not-work-left-noose-on.html

On the scale of things

And meanwhile in MAGA land

Maga guy: Let's beat up Jussie Smollett

Other Maga guy: Jussie who? Also I'm to tired, and it's to cold to go outside.

I wouldn't say shocking, but it is considered appropriate to wait until all the evidence is out and some version of verdict rendered before promoting the idea. Hate crimes are seen in the same way sexual harassment and sex crimes are seen, in that it is important to take the victim at their word until PROVEN otherwise.

I strongly believe in that stance, that you don't openly mock and conclude it's a lie, when it comes to these types of charges which truly are, far too often, downplayed and mocked to the harm of real victims.

What Jesse did does erode the cause of getting such complaints taken seriously. Incredibly wrong and self-serving. I don't know what the heck he was thinking.

Really? I thought the rule of law was supposed to be sacrosanct in the US? Are you suggesting one paltry incident like Smollet's hoax crumbles the edifice of your legal system

That doesn't engender much confidence in how your criminal justice system works in responding to hate crimes, maybe BLM have a point.

I think there are a lot of components involved that you aren't separating.

And, FYI, I've always said that BLM has a point. Studies upon studies show the same systemic issues. We talk reform, tinker, it might change slightly for a time, then the same patterns continue. But that is a different topic.

Back to the components.

Dox had written about public discourse, how the conservative forums had picked up on the charade immediately, but that liberal media seemed silent on the points supporting a charade. That was the vein in which I responded. Neither of us were talking about the law at that moment.

The public discourse can be an important driver when it comes to what gets reported and what gets prosecuted because public discourse establishes the culture in which evidence is evaluated and decisions are made, but it isn't part of the legal system.

I can't speak directly to the cultural effects of how we talk, as a society, about hate crimes, but I most definitely know the cultural effects when it comes to how we talk, as a society, about sexual harassment. They are devastating. We see it over and over and over how large segments of our population (usually conservative) refuse to believe the women, and focus on the rare case someone always seems to personally know about where a woman lied. To listen to the chatter, one would think women lie about harassment all the time.

They don't. It is, in fact, extremely rare, and most of the anecdotal stories are made up, exaggerated, or start from male figures who are blind to how their own actions come across and the harm they do, in fact, cause (the later is quite common; I was involved as a witness in such a situation).

But women get the message: tell the truth, and you won't be believed.

It is hard enough to have to open up to someone else about situations that made you extremely uncomfortable and that you would rather forget, but add on the layer that you could be branded a liar and someone capable of making up these uncomfortable actions? Much easier to stay silent.

Most women tell no one, never report what happened, and try to move on, generally leaving the men to live their lives in peace, while leaving more damage to other women in their wake. 30 years later the women might finally speak their truth when that guy which haunts their dreams is proposed for a high ranking position, and fall prey to the "why didn't they tell anyone?" line. It's a vicious, vicious cycle.

So. The social position in liberal communities is to always, always, believe the woman, until there is significant proof otherwise.

The social position in liberal communities is the same for hate crimes: believe the victim. The reasons for that social position are similar to the reasons for the social position on sexual harassment: we're worried about the damage it causes if we vocalize skepticism without significant proof. That doesn't mean we won't have skepticism, and it doesn't mean we won't investigate. But we won't make it part of the public discourse until we're sure its real.

That doesn't sound particularly compatible with due process, an issue I frequently have with feminists these days. My stance is closer to "trust but verify" except in the case of high profile "hate crimes", the number of hoaxes there is much higher than you're likely aware, and this particular one was so preposterous from the start that I was comfortable dismissing it immediately.

This is plain untrue, women lie just as much as anyone else, are just as prone to misinterpreting ambiguous situations, and there is no reason to believe that they are uniquely truthful when the question is sexual harassment. Like I mentioned in my previous comment, I view this line of thought as a ruinous attack on the concept of due process, not simply in the legal sense, but generally, as we all know that even an accusation is enough to ruin a life regardless of the proof, or lack thereof.

@Dw-a Mom, Are you saying that the media influence how a jury read a particular case? Even in the pre-internet era, newspapers set the agenda for public discourse.

The question over whether a woman or a minority involved in domestic violence, rape or a hate crime should be objectively tested using the available legal tools available to the courts. The issue of women in domestic violence or rape has a slightly different nuance and should be treated in a seperate thread.

Turning back to Smollet, people forget the "Justice for Jussie" movement wasn't started by the black community or BLM, it was started by the LGBTQI community. The LGBTQI community is dominated by gay white males/females who set the agenda for this minority.

The moment Smollet was publicly outed as having hoaxed the incident then not surprisingly the predominately white LGBTQI community (particularly Ellen De Generes who was supposed to be his friend) quickly left Smollet to the sharks. Interestingly the black community supported Jussie by keeping quiet because they knew he was lying.

Jussie Smollet has become a convenient punching bag for the right wing in America (perhaps he contributed to his situation and deserves it) and it's telling that only BLM are standing by Smollet. Why? because they know that race is always the strongest determinant in who gets social support. Ultimately black people are left to pick up the pieces from the Smollet incident and any mental issues he is going through it's they who have to support him even if he did something unforgivable. The gay community have effectively washed their hands off him.

No, I am not.

The court of public opinion is entirely different and separate from a court of law. Juries are required to view the evidence and set aside any chatter they may have absorbed before the trial. During the trial they are supposed to avoid discussing or reading about the case.

What public discourse might influence, however, is whether or not policeman and prosecutors care about pursuing a case.

We will have to agree to disagree. I’m relatively sure there are studies out there that back up my summary, but none of that is why I brought it up. I was making a point about how liberal social structures (at least the ones I circulate in) treat certain issues.

I understand the concern about due process, but public opinion isn’t a court of law, and I’m just as quick to remind people that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

I believe the person that claims something bad happened to them.

I withhold judgement on the person they say did it pending proof.

Yes, that leaves a gap. So does our justice system. A lot of harms get recognized as real without any perpetrator ever facing justice for causing those harms. Not everything can be proven to the standards we require. I’m not going to be forced into picking A or B just because the gap is inherently uncomfortable to live with.