The Jussie Smollett Affair

[woolfe9998]

I literally quoted someone's entire post.

Yes, at one point in a long discussion you and he addressed what was said by someone on page 1 and Homer's response. It never occurred to me that there was literally no broader point in the entire discussion.

So again, are you conceding my point about UC?

 

[allisolm]

They are doing the same thing they did earlier... Acting as if they were on his side...

He's clearly dumb as a fucking rock...

Could very well be - on both counts

 

[realibrad]

Yes, at one point in a long discussion you and he addressed what was said by someone on page 1 and Homer's response. It never occurred to me that there was literally no broader point in the entire discussion.

So again, are you conceding my point about UC?

I don't know enough about UC. But, if you thought it was about anyone other that someone in terms of Black people claiming victimhood then explain post 766 where it has my post and his response. I say him, not them. Homer's response summarized Someone's comment as...

"In other words there goes those black people again claiming victim hood over nothing."

I clearly reference Homer's 2nd post where he responds to someone. I quoted his post multiple times. I referenced Homer's response to someone multiple times.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Its obvious the Coastal elites and hollywood/media are demanding victims to put on a pedestal so they can point fingers at people. The day he reported the attack it was like throwing red meat to a bunch of hungry wolves looking for prey.

Now all of the sudden they are clamming up, shutting down the hatches. He was the perfect victim, checked all the boxes and people jumped.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't know enough about UC. But, if you thought it was about anyone other that someone in terms of Black people claiming victimhood then explain post 766 where it has my post and his response. I say him, not them. Homer's response summarized Someone's comment as...

"In other words there goes those black people again claiming victim hood over nothing."

I clearly reference Homer's 2nd post where he responds to someone. I quoted his post multiple times. I referenced Homer's response to someone multiple times.

LOL that you don't know anything about UC. You've been in almost every thread he's started or participated in since you tend to join most threads about race and gender and that's what he posts about more than anything. Now you're just being full of it. You don't want to comment about UC for some reason. Clearly you feel you can defend someone but not UC, so you're avoiding comment about UC.

 

[UglyCasanova]

LOL that you don't know anything about UC. You've been in almost every thread he's started or participated in since you tend to join most threads about race and gender and that's what he posts about more than anything. Now you're just being full of it. You don't want to comment about UC for some reason. Clearly you feel you can defend someone but not UC, so you're avoiding comment about UC.

Damn you’ve got it out for me for some reason. Since you know so much about me summarize my viewpoints. What is it he’s supposed to instinctively know about me.

 

[realibrad]

LOL that you don't know anything about UC. You've been in almost every thread he's started or participated in since you tend to join most threads about race and gender and that's what he posts about more than anything. Now you're just being full of it. You don't want to comment about UC for some reason. Clearly you feel you can defend someone but not UC, so you're avoiding comment about UC.

Someone recently asked me about the post he made about the 90% thing. I said he was wrong for that. I do spend a lot of time on this forum, but, I don't follow people on the forum. The discussion about the 90% thing I totally missed. When it was shown the post I criticized it.

So ask again and I will address it. Just don't accuse me off something that did not happen.

 

[Ichinisan]

You could say that but you can't deny it takes more effort to come up with an obscure Tawana Brawley reference over something that happened in 1987 (had to look up) vs the "B" girl which happened in 2008 (I remembered that one)

The Tawana Brawley case was a national media circus bandwagon. Far more sensational than the "B" girl, which would be "obscure" by any measure of comparison.

 

[Dari]

Here is a nice synopsis of some of the vile things that has been attributed to Trump supporters that later turned out to be nothing but lies. Socialists are a sick breed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1097020092791934976

 

[brandonbull]

On the contrary, the confusion is all yours. I'm referring to the mental state required to believe providing healthcare or using Grey Poupon is an affront to all things American, while undermining the Constitution and being a Russian asset are fine. I'm more concerned with the term being accurate than appeasing trumpets, you got me.

Wait, you're defending the guy who caused DoJ to have a sit down about the 25th, and is currently on Mueller's grill for working with Putin to win the election. You share Trump's lack of credibility here, sorry.

Russian asset? LOL?? The funny thing is the Dems did everything they could to enable the Russians while Obama was president. The DOJ considering using the 25th for Trump is an attempt to bypass democracy.

 

[blankslate]

They already were.

True enough but now they have something else to point to in support of their idea that racism is over if this incident goes in the direction it appears to be going...


_____

 

[UglyCasanova]

something else to point to in support of their idea that racism is over

Nobody has ever said that.

 

[Victorian Gray]

True enough but now they have something else to point to in support of their idea that racism is over if this incident goes in the direction it appears to be going...


_____

It wouldn't matter if there wasn't a single episode like this, ever. They'd still be whining the same tune.

 

[Paladin3]

Yes. Absolutely.

[edit]
Death threat letter at work (didn't seem very authentic).
[/edit]

"Two white guys"

"Masks"
Oh that's too bad (convenient). You can't identify them

"Noose"

"Bleach / smelled like bleach"

"This is MAGA country."

"On phone while it happened"
How convenient.

[edit]
"Waited over 45 minutes to call police."
Why?
[/edit]

[edit]
"Still had rope on neck when he met with police."
Why? Sounds like a prop / costume!
[/edit]

Bullshit alarms went off like crazy. I didn't say anything in this thread about my hunch, but I told my brother unequivocally: "Mark my words. Whatever happened DID NOT happen as it was described." I watched with amazement as people in this thread apparently took the whole story at face value and attacked anyone expressing doubt.

There's a chance Jussie intended to fool the guy on the other end of the phone call. Maybe that guy wasn't in on the scheme.

Screenshot of an unsolicited PM that I sent early on:

And another:

The story sounded manufactured from the start, but I too kept my mouth shut and waited for the facts rather than provoke any accusations of being racist/homophobic.

 

[UglyCasanova]

This is probably the funniest one I’ve seen

 

[UglyCasanova]

https://abc7chicago.com/brothers-to...t-get-enough-attention-staged-attack/5143364/

CHICAGO -- Two brothers told police that "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett staged an attack on himself because he was upset a threatening letter he received a week prior did not get enough attention, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told ABC News on Monday.​

First thing I’ve read conclusively drawing he line from Jussie to the letter and not just speculation.

 

[Paladin3]

As I said many time as facts came out to doubt his story I stated such.

What in the initial story let you to conclude he was lying.
What was his incentive in the initial story to perpetrate this hoax? We still don't know why he did it.

We do know crimes like this are on a sharp rise in this country so circumstances made it plausible.

People empathized with him these kinds of crimes going on in the country so chose to believe him until facts dictated otherswise.

BTW - Did you go back and read my first sentence in the OP??

The details that were hard for me to swallow were that he kept the noose on, that he was on the phone with his publicist when the attack occurred, and that it took so long to call 911. Slightly less suspicious was red MAGA hats, "this is MAGA country," "...Empire n-word..." and the bleach thrown on him. Add it all up and there was way too much wrong with the story. I'm naturally cynical at first and quick to question because I was a newspaper journalist for so long. I try hard not to believe any story I'm told without questing first.

This whole story is heartbreaking. Even if his intentions were good, he just made it that much easier for real attacks to be called fake. Discrimination based on race and sexuality exist and we need to confront that without ignoring or exaggerating the problem according to any agenda.

 

[UglyCasanova]

And honestly the idea of a noose in general is pretty over the top and a red flag. It’s like something people who would do a caricature of a racist would use and I question if there’s really very many examples of legit nooses being hung by racists trying to invoke fear and hatred. At most it seems like something maybe dumbass high schoolers would do to be funny. And I know I’ve read multiple stories about somebody freaking out on social media because they found a noose and when investigated it would be a loose wire or balloon in a tree or some other crap like that. There’s probably real cases but it just seems so over the top and I’ve heard them debunked so many times that when a story (like Jussies) pops up I can’t help but question it.

 

[jackstar7]

Um, I understood the human in the story. Its why I, as well as others were cautious about this story. It was Homer that could not understand the person and because of that believed the claim.

Did you just use Sociopath and have no idea what it means?

It's the people who would choose to believe Jussie's story at the outset that you don't understand.

I used the word correctly in regards to what you post and how.

 

[jackstar7]

Nobody has ever said that.

Sorry, most people only talk about racism in the sense of the less powerful being oppressed by the powerful.

We know you think there's lots of racism against white people, but that's not what the common use of the word entails, victim.

 

[woolfe9998]

Damn you’ve got it out for me for some reason. Since you know so much about me summarize my viewpoints. What is it he’s supposed to instinctively know about me.

He should know, not by instinct but by reading with his own two eyes, that you are the type who would disbelieve this kind accusation even had the facts been more persuasive than they were.

And no, I don't have it in for you. I probably criticize you less often than most people around here.

 

[HurleyBird]

Sorry, most people only talk about racism in the sense of the less powerful being oppressed by the powerful.

No, they don't. That's the way sociology and gender studies professors as well as radical SJW-types talk about it. And it's little more than an Orwellian attempt to control language (and therefore thought) that most people are able to see right through.

 

[woolfe9998]

Nobody has ever said that.

See, here's the problem. You can't get around this by saying you agree there's racism in the abstract because you never seem to acknowledge it in any particular case unless it's racism against white people. If you ever have, it's been few enough times to escape my attention.

Suppose we had a poster here who, every time there was a thread about a cop shooting a black guy, always took the side that the shoot was bad and the cop was a racist. When pressed as to how he could believe that every case of a cop shooting a black guy was unjustified and because of racism, he says, "I never said that was the case every time!" Except every single individual case he had an opportunity to comment on he drew the exact same conclusion.

See the problem?

 

[HurleyBird]

Except every single individual case he had an opportunity to comment on. See the problem?

Ignoring the ad hominem here, well, that's what 99% of all the posters in this forum (and people in general) do depending on whether any individual narrative benefits their tribe or not. It doesn't mean that they don't agree that something obviously terrible that looks bad for their tribe is terrible, it's that they don't feel compelled to comment on it. Media does this all the time too, which is why you get selective coverage.

However, in the case of UC I do distinctively remember him agreeing with the liberal majority here about the MAGA kids before the truth came to light, and I have general memories of him doing similar elsewhere. I'd guess he's one of the least worst offenders here. Whether that's anything to do with him being more open or just more politically moderate than most, I couldn't tell you.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ignoring the ad hominem here, well, that's what 99% of all the posters in this forum (and people in general) do depending on whether any individual narrative benefits their tribe or not. It doesn't mean that they don't agree that something obviously terrible that looks bad for their tribe is terrible, it's that they don't feel compelled to comment on it. Media does this all the time too, which is why you get selective coverage.

However, in the case of UC I do distinctively remember him agreeing with the liberal majority here about the MAGA kids before the truth came to light, and I have general memories of him doing similar elsewhere. I'd guess he's one of the least worst offenders here. Whether that's anything to do with him being more open or just more politically moderate than most, I couldn't tell you.

Yes, lots of people are biased, and I've called out others for it as well. On many issues. But we're talking about a specific issue here and a particular poster. I may have a different opinion than you about UC, but I also don't think he's the worst poster around here.