RebKell's Junkie Boards

[Genero36]

Jussie Smollett Family Doubles Down ... Attack Was Racist, Homophobic and 'Domestic Terrorism'

[cthskzfn]

[Genero36]

[PUmatty]

[justintyme]

[Iluvacc]

[jammerbirdi]

[jammerbirdi]

[justintyme]

Because it devalues a human life. There is a person who says this happened to him. That should be enough. It literally costs us nothing for our default setting to be "I believe you", and not to devour the minutiae of which we have no real knowledge of and try to make some case that he is establishing some elaborate hoax, something that we have absolutely no evidence of.

Let's consider this from an ethical perspective in which our ultimate goal is to do the least amount of harm.

Broadly, there are two possibilities here:
1) A man was beaten in a horrific attack meant to injure him both physically and mentally.

2) A very sick hoax is being orchestrated.

As we have imperfect knowledge of the situation, we have no way of knowing with absolutely certainly which of the two possibilities this is. Which means, also in the broadest of terms, we have a binary choice to make: believe him or not.

So what are the consequences here?

Under possibility 1:
If we choose to believe we support someone who has been through an unbelievably traumatic experience, and stand with communities that have long been persecuted.

If we choose to not believe, we turn our backs on someone who has just been physically and mentally debased. Who is traumatized beyond our grasp, and tell them we think they are lying trash. To put this in perspective, think about if we greeted Jayme Closs with accusations of her ordeal being something she made up (I use this because we know she is telling the truth, and in this ethical calculus, so is the victim). There is real harm done by us to the individual. And it also further harms the long persecuted communities, as they feel devalued and unimportant.

Now Possibility 2:

If we believe a hoax? There is some ethical danger of harm if some individual was being accused of a crime. But we don't have that here. We don't need to worry about jumping to a wrong conclusion, as no person's reputation is going to be irreparably damaged (or even damaged at all). By the time it became clear that this was a hoax, people having believed it would have little to no risk of harm to any individual. So that leaves us with the potential social harm from believing such a hoax. While this was a high profile and sensational story, the fact that racist and homophobic people exist and commit violence is not new. That they permeate the MAGA crowd is not new. Even if this specific happening was 100% a hoax, believing it happened would not be making society believe in some deeper falsehood. Because similar shit has happened.

And if it is a hoax and we didn't believe it? Congrats? I suppose you get a cookie? Besides being able to say "I guessed right", because with the information that we have available that is all it is, a guess through in through, there isn't much more that we gain by being right...especially since ethically we weren't "right".

The ethical calculus tells us that the only "correct" choice, the one that limits the potential harm, is to simply believe him when he says he was victimized.

_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[tfan]

[tfan]

[PUmatty]

[tfan]

[tfan]

[Howee]

I realize the very distinct possibility that your points here might have been meant to be a joke, but.....j-u-u-u-st in case not:

1) Looking for statements of "Trump supporters", not Trump. Trump is just trying to stir people up with that tweet. You are on record as saying you don't use twitter, so how do you know what his supporters are saying about it?
True, I don't have a twitter account, but tweets are constantly being fed to us via TV/internet/etc. But....t'hell with Twitter....Real Live People I know parrot that same line. Maybe I can get a voice recording at the gym I go to....loaded with Trumpettes.

2) Another Trump statement. The US Intelligence agencies claimed to be sure that Iraq had WMDs even when they couldn't direct UN Inspectors to any place that had them in hundreds of sites. Sounds like "go back to school" is the rational statement.
No, his blatant dismissal of what is revealed is NOT rational. Yes, US intel isn't flawless, but.....when people HE picked to do the job say what HE doesn't like/approve, and he discredits THEM, that's irrational. Compare that to his overt acceptance of Putin's emphatic denial of any election hacking (I believe him!), but reflexively denounces his own Intel department = Irrational.

3) Sarah Sanders works for Trump in a PR capacity.
I don't care if she's his hairdresser: she's a Trump supporter, who "claims" God wanted him in the White House; it's IRRATIONAL to present that as a fact as opposed to her bloviated opinion in the forum of a NATIONAL PRESS BRIEFING.

4) Is the irrational part that he knows what God wants done, or that he believes in God? There is similar proof for either and we never call the latter irrational.
All I know he said was that his stint was doing "God's work". He can have all the religious convictions he desires: but when he's anointing himself as a vessel of "God's" work, AND presents that publically, he is being irrational. My opinion. If you disagree, then you may not think it irrational.

5) Mitch McConnell is not a Trump supporter.
You certainly have a point there: "supporter" is actually far too gracious a term for him. He's a jellyfish of a wimp who DOES give the public impression he supports Trump's agenda, but has NO balls to do anything to stand up to Trump when things get iffy, either.

6) Another Trump issue (versus "Trump supporters"). Trump campaigned on building a wall, not on getting employers to stop using illegal workers. He said not a peep about "forcing E-Verify use" or "raiding workplaces to verify legal status of employees and severely punishing employers who are breaking the law". No inconsistency there. Trump has the same opinion on Americans and American companies hiring illegal workers as you do: if it doesn't get out that you are doing it, it's all good.

Well, you have no idea on my opinion re: hiring Illegals. EVERYBODY that's not in a coma knows what Trump says about allowing and hiring Illegals. But....he hires his own, anyway. Yep. "Irrational".

_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"

[jammerbirdi]

[justintyme]

[tfan]

True, I don't have a twitter account, but tweets are constantly being fed to us via TV/internet/etc. But....t'hell with Twitter....Real Live People I know parrot that same line. Maybe I can get a voice recording at the gym I go to....loaded with Trumpettes.

OK, I will concede that Republicans (I think it is broader than "Trump supporters") are irrational if they completely reject what scientists are saying about Global Warming and instead listen to their political and business leaders (they are being told a different opinion by authorities). The percentage by party who think Global Warming is primarily man-made 2009-2016 is: (no-college, college) Republicans (38%, 32%) Democrats (70%, 83%). College educated Republicans are actually more skeptical about Global Warming than no-college Republicans.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/605638/belief-in-global-warming-due-to-human-activities-us-by-education-and-political-view/

No, his blatant dismissal of what is revealed is NOT rational. Yes, US intel isn't flawless, but.....when people HE picked to do the job say what HE doesn't like/approve, and he discredits THEM, that's irrational. Compare that to his overt acceptance of Putin's emphatic denial of any election hacking (I believe him!), but reflexively denounces his own Intel department = Irrational.

I doubt Trump believes Putin is telling the truth or believes that US intelligence is as wrong as he implies. But regardless, that is Trump, not his supporters. Are the guys at your gym talking about "intelligence agencies are full of it" when they aren't admiring your physique?

I don't care if she's his hairdresser: she's a Trump supporter, who "claims" God wanted him in the White House; it's IRRATIONAL to present that as a fact as opposed to her bloviated opinion in the forum of a NATIONAL PRESS BRIEFING.

She's a Trump employee hired to put a positive spin on his administration and National Press Briefing is the forum created for her to voice that positive spin. If I'm wrong, please point me to when a White House Press Secretary went to a briefing and didn't positively support the administration and the president they worked for. And I don't think that if she was asked "is that in your opinion" she would have said, "no, it's not an opinion, it's a fact". We don't stick "in my opinion" in front of every opinion we give. Sean Spicer said "largest crowd in history" because he was told to. Not out of the question that Sarah Sanders made a statement she was told or encouraged to make - as part of her cushy well paid job. Complimenting your boss is not irrational - complimenting your boss Trump is extremely rational.

You certainly have a point there: "supporter" is actually far too gracious a term for him. He's a jellyfish of a wimp who DOES give the public impression he supports Trump's agenda but has NO balls to do anything to stand up to Trump when things get iffy, either.

McConnell fought Trump on his two signature issues - wall and tariffs. Don't see "Trump supporter" working if you fight the #1 and #2 issues (at least based on time allotted during rally speeches) of Trump.


Well, you have no idea on my opinion re: hiring Illegals. EVERYBODY that's not in a coma knows what Trump says about allowing and hiring Illegals. But....he hires his own, anyway. Yep. "Irrational".

Hmmm, you had a perfect chance to state your opinion on companies hiring illegal workers and passed. Trump does not talk about "hiring illegals". I'll change that if you can find a speech or interview where he does. I have only heard him talking about a wall - stopping the flow. He also never addresses "visa overstays". There is no "we're going to stop employers from hiring them" or anything similar that I can recall. And that is something that I would be listening for. There was something on his website during the campaign that mentions requiring E-Verify use (which never came to pass), but that section on immigration was written by Jeff Sessions and/or Steve Miller. Trump wasn't even aware that his page on immigration referred to one of his top opponents, Marco Rubio, as "Mark Zuckerberg's personal senator" (a reference to Rubio fighting with Schumer and company for more foreign workers for Silicon Valley) as he demonstrated in a debate. I also don't think Trump (again not "Trump supporters") speaking against hiring illegal aliens (if you can find any time that he did) still hiring them himself is irrational. Hypocritical might be the term.

[jammerbirdi]

[jammerbirdi]

[justintyme]

/sigh

I am claiming only that there is a moral imperative to side with victims and not be "skeptical" of their accounts without actual hard evidence and a deep examination of all the facts of the case/personal interviews with those involved because of the actual real harm that said skepticism can do. That is not saying someone needs to join some political rally for the person. It's just that not believing someone, or worse accusing them of outright lying, when they have gone through something traumatic can destroy a person. And that stance isn't even specific to this case. It is a simple ethical argument of how to handle all cases of these types to minimize harm to our fellow human beings.

And that is what the whole Jayme Closs thing was about. What do you think it would have done to her if she had returned just to be bombarded by Twitter and Right Wing Media discussing how her story didn't add up, how people were "skeptical"? So say this absolutely happened to Jussie just like he said it did. He has been outspoken on Twitter and some good ol' boys decided they were gonna teach him a lesson. This "skepticism" would be no different for him than it would have been for Jayme as far as the harm it would do. (To be clear, the Jayme Closs example is being used to show harm done to the victim by unbelief, it has nothing to do with overtones or lack thereof. I chose her case because it is a clear cut no doubter. The reason I would be a piece of shit is not that my conspiracy theory is an infinitely bigger stretch, rather it is the potential for harm of someone in a vulnerable state).

Again, if his story is false there is plenty of time for that to come out. At which time the fallout would be catastrophic for his career not to mention what it would likely signify about his mental health. So there is no need in the short term, while there is still so much that is still unknown, while the police and FBI are still investigating, to even throw these things out there. This isn't like the whole National Mall chaos, there is no individual whose face is going viral and we are only getting one side of a complex story. There is no actual consequence for trusting this story until we have conclusive evidence not to.

_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[jammerbirdi]

[tfan]

REPS CLARIFY STORIES ON PHONE, MAGA, ROPE

1) Didn't refuse to turn over phone, just didn't want to and cops didn't press for it
2) TMZ incorrectly reported "MAGA hats" which he never said
3) Left the rope around his neck till police arrived to preserve evidence

[Genero36]

Apparently, it’s easier for racists and homophobes to believe he’s lying rather than accept the fact that this man and those of us like him live our lives in very real danger everyday simply because of who we are.

_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.

[tfan]

The doubts I see on twitter and youtube (some of the posters are black, or at least their picture is) don't seem to be about the general idea of a black gay man being attacked by two (assumed white) men who utter racial and gay slurs. It is about details. But maybe their bias causes them to distrust the details.