RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

CNN: Jussie Smollett PAID Two Brothers to STAGE The Assault
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 9471



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 3:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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

Quote:
Jussie's family just gave TMZ a statement, saying the actor's story has never changed, and he is one of the increasing number of hate crime victims. l They go on to say, "Hateful words lead to hateful actions." This seems pointed at the President, particularly because Jussie says the attackers screamed "MAGA Country" as they left.

The family says, "This was a racial, homophobic hate crime ... We want people to understand these targeted hate crimes are happening to our sisters, brothers and our gender non-conforming siblings."

The statement goes on ... "These are inhumane acts of domestic terrorism and they should be treated as such."


https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/31/jussie-smollett-attack-family-homophobic-racial-domestic-terrorism-donald-trump/



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



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11672
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 3:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Since when are the MAGA dumbasses rational? I'm sure these wastes of flesh weren't pondering the demographic breakdown of Chicago as they were beating, terrorizing, and hurling racists and homophobic insults...


What do Trump supporters do or say that is irrational?
I hope it isn't as bad as: "I support our immigration law, but don't want it enforced - and that's not because I want to pay for illegal workers instead of American workers. In fact, I am concerned about the low salaries of American workers". Or, "I am for more 'border security', but would never support a wall or fence on the border".

Laughing Laughing Oh, myyy....of all the posters here at Reb's, I don't think I've ever seen such an IRRATIONAL, stilted obsession with immigration. As if that's the crux of our lives here. This thread IS about a hate crime. Rolling Eyes

Meanwhile, to address your query re: Trump/supporter irrationalities, you really need help recognizing the constant barrage of that shit??

*Donald Trump himself (and parroted by his deplorables): "What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!"
*He sez: “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school,” re: Iran, N. Korea, Russia
*Sarah Sanders says 'God wanted Trump to be president'
*Stephen Bannon said he was "doing the Lord's work." in his service.
*Mitch McConnell says suggested Election Day holiday is Dem 'power grab,', cuz, ya....MORE people voting isn't good for Democracy.
*ILLEGAL immigrants are coming out of the woodwork of Trump's own clubs/employee lists.

That's just a couple of recent gems from the past 48 hours. There's not enough capacity here at Rebs to get it all in.



Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple. Wink



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 9471



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 4:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple. Wink





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



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14666
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 4:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Wow. It's like some of you are just WAITING to be misinformed so you can project hatred and vitriol towards people you disagree with. Seriously, just grasp at ANYTHING at this point! I'm not saying it's all of you... you know who you are.

This story has all the credibility of the Buzzfeed story that ran on the 18th (and I had to endure watching people fight about it in Detroit at the airport for 3 hours because they have CNN on the big screens). Maybe this guy really was attacked, but by random Trump supporters in Chicago yelling "This is MAGA country?" You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe some bullshit like that.


Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple.


So you both are saying that a well-known actor made this up? Is that what you want to go on the record as believing?

There is no middle ground here. So, just say it.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7297
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 5:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Wow. It's like some of you are just WAITING to be misinformed so you can project hatred and vitriol towards people you disagree with. Seriously, just grasp at ANYTHING at this point! I'm not saying it's all of you... you know who you are.

This story has all the credibility of the Buzzfeed story that ran on the 18th (and I had to endure watching people fight about it in Detroit at the airport for 3 hours because they have CNN on the big screens). Maybe this guy really was attacked, but by random Trump supporters in Chicago yelling "This is MAGA country?" You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe some bullshit like that.


Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple.

What the fuck are you people talking about? This isn't some random "social media story gone crazy". This is a human being who was fucking assaulted, went to the fucking hospital and has photographic images of the beating he took, and has reported the assault to the police. The police are actively investigating a goddamn hate crime, and before they have even begun we have a bunch of keyboard "truthers" explaining to us all how stupid we must all be. Seriously?

So, according to the "truther" the default position we are supposed to take here is that this is somehow a hoax? That this person just decided to bash his own face in, or make up a story like this? That doubt should be the way to approach a person who claims they were victimized?

I am sick and tired of armchair detectives deciding that victims are making up their stories because they don't behave in some fantasy world "ideal" way that they believe that they should.

My favorite: he won't give the police his phone. Well no shit. I wouldn't either, and my ass is white, straight and fucking privileged as all hell (and not really famous at all). And I would be afraid they would find something on there that could get me in trouble. I can only imagine the countless reasons a famous gay, black man would not want to give the police/strangers access to his phone. None of which is because of some elaborate hoax.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Iluvacc



Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 2648



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 6:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Since when are the MAGA dumbasses rational? I'm sure these wastes of flesh weren't pondering the demographic breakdown of Chicago as they were beating, terrorizing, and hurling racists and homophobic insults...


What do Trump supporters do or say that is irrational?
I hope it isn't as bad as: "I support our immigration law, but don't want it enforced - and that's not because I want to pay for illegal workers instead of American workers. In fact, I am concerned about the low salaries of American workers". Or, "I am for more 'border security', but would never support a wall or fence on the border".

Laughing Laughing Oh, myyy....of all the posters here at Reb's, I don't think I've ever seen such an IRRATIONAL, stilted obsession with immigration. As if that's the crux of our lives here. This thread IS about a hate crime. Rolling Eyes

Meanwhile, to address your query re: Trump/supporter irrationalities, you really need help recognizing the constant barrage of that shit??

*Donald Trump himself (and parroted by his deplorables): "What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!"
*He sez: “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school,” re: Iran, N. Korea, Russia
*Sarah Sanders says 'God wanted Trump to be president'
*Stephen Bannon said he was "doing the Lord's work." in his service.
*Mitch McConnell says suggested Election Day holiday is Dem 'power grab,', cuz, ya....MORE people voting isn't good for Democracy.
*ILLEGAL immigrants are coming out of the woodwork of Trump's own clubs/employee lists.

That's just a couple of recent gems from the past 48 hours. There's not enough capacity here at Rebs to get it all in.



Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple. Wink


Cthskzfn FTW


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 8:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Wow. It's like some of you are just WAITING to be misinformed so you can project hatred and vitriol towards people you disagree with. Seriously, just grasp at ANYTHING at this point! I'm not saying it's all of you... you know who you are.

This story has all the credibility of the Buzzfeed story that ran on the 18th (and I had to endure watching people fight about it in Detroit at the airport for 3 hours because they have CNN on the big screens). Maybe this guy really was attacked, but by random Trump supporters in Chicago yelling "This is MAGA country?" You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe some bullshit like that.


Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple.


So you both are saying that a well-known actor made this up? Is that what you want to go on the record as believing?

There is no middle ground here. So, just say it.


I'm having as hard a time with the story as some of you are having accepting and forgiving the fact that some people are having a hard time with the story without pretty much lumping us all in together and implying that we're all the same, and all a bunch of racists, and there is no middle ground and you better watch what you go on record saying you believe and all the other nonsense that seems to be infecting so many people.

From the moment I heard this, and looked at the actor (not literally, meaning INTO who he is etc. because I'd never heard of him) a lot of bullshit wires were tripped. This is who I am and how I live. I don't trust people. I believe in liars. I believe in hoaxes and that bullshit happens. I'm always like, prove it.

I just have a lot of problems with this story as it's been reported. I'm glad the guy is okay. I hope a lot of people are okay. Some right here.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 8:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Wow. It's like some of you are just WAITING to be misinformed so you can project hatred and vitriol towards people you disagree with. Seriously, just grasp at ANYTHING at this point! I'm not saying it's all of you... you know who you are.

This story has all the credibility of the Buzzfeed story that ran on the 18th (and I had to endure watching people fight about it in Detroit at the airport for 3 hours because they have CNN on the big screens). Maybe this guy really was attacked, but by random Trump supporters in Chicago yelling "This is MAGA country?" You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe some bullshit like that.


Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple.

What the fuck are you people talking about? This isn't some random "social media story gone crazy". This is a human being who was fucking assaulted, went to the fucking hospital and has photographic images of the beating he took, and has reported the assault to the police. The police are actively investigating a goddamn hate crime, and before they have even begun we have a bunch of keyboard "truthers" explaining to us all how stupid we must all be. Seriously?

So, according to the "truther" the default position we are supposed to take here is that this is somehow a hoax? That this person just decided to bash his own face in, or make up a story like this? That doubt should be the way to approach a person who claims they were victimized?

I am sick and tired of armchair detectives deciding that victims are making up their stories because they don't behave in some fantasy world "ideal" way that they believe that they should.

My favorite: he won't give the police his phone. Well no shit. I wouldn't either, and my ass is white, straight and fucking privileged as all hell (and not really famous at all). And I would be afraid they would find something on there that could get me in trouble. I can only imagine the countless reasons a famous gay, black man would not want to give the police/strangers access to his phone. None of which is because of some elaborate hoax.


I'm not a cop. If I were a cop and someone came to me to report an assault I would investigate thoroughly under the assumption that the person was telling the truth.

Even as a person on the internet I have no 'default' position that something that is reported is a hoax. I have trip wires based on a lifetime of experience. I hear the story and skepticism creeps in when appropriate. I'm skeptical. I don't understand how we've entered into a world where that is something that makes otherwise rational people so angry.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7297
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 10:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 10:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Wow. It's like some of you are just WAITING to be misinformed so you can project hatred and vitriol towards people you disagree with. Seriously, just grasp at ANYTHING at this point! I'm not saying it's all of you... you know who you are.

This story has all the credibility of the Buzzfeed story that ran on the 18th (and I had to endure watching people fight about it in Detroit at the airport for 3 hours because they have CNN on the big screens). Maybe this guy really was attacked, but by random Trump supporters in Chicago yelling "This is MAGA country?" You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe some bullshit like that.


Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple.


So you both are saying that a well-known actor made this up? Is that what you want to go on the record as believing?

There is no middle ground here. So, just say it.


I was thinking "attacked, but not in the manner he says" sounds like a valid middle ground. But when you throw in the "seen on camera walking into a condo building with a noose around his neck" it wouldn't fit.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 10:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:


A woman who lives in Jussie Smollett's apartment building told cops she saw a suspicious man -- whom she said looked like a "red-neck" -- loitering just outside the entrance to the building an hour and a half before Jussie says he was attacked.

The woman -- who asked us not to use her name -- tells TMZ, she walked out of the building at 12:30 AM Tuesday to take her dogs out and saw the man near the door, pacing between the parking garage and entrance, looking agitated and smoking a cigarette. She says, "He looked out of place." He was a white man with scruff on his face wearing a blue winter beanie, a blue zip-up sweatshirt with a hood and blue jeans that were too short, exposing "thick, grey hunting socks" with camel-colored dress shoes.


This sounds like it has to be the guy, but the Chicago ABC reporter tweeted:

Quote:
UPDATE: Chicago police have confirmed a @TMZ report to @ABC that a neighbor of Smollett's did come forward with information. Her description of a man she said she saw with a rope of some kind was "significantly different" than one provided by Smollett.

Detectives took her information but have yet to find any surveillance video that shows an individual matching the description she gave.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14666
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 10:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Wow. It's like some of you are just WAITING to be misinformed so you can project hatred and vitriol towards people you disagree with. Seriously, just grasp at ANYTHING at this point! I'm not saying it's all of you... you know who you are.

This story has all the credibility of the Buzzfeed story that ran on the 18th (and I had to endure watching people fight about it in Detroit at the airport for 3 hours because they have CNN on the big screens). Maybe this guy really was attacked, but by random Trump supporters in Chicago yelling "This is MAGA country?" You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe some bullshit like that.


Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple.


So you both are saying that a well-known actor made this up? Is that what you want to go on the record as believing?

There is no middle ground here. So, just say it.


I was thinking "attacked, but not in the manner he says" sounds like a valid middle ground. But when you throw in the "seen on camera walking into a condo building with a noose around his neck" it wouldn't fit.


That is, in fact, not middle ground. You think the actor is lying. You people should just say it. You think he made up a racist and homophobic attack against himself.

Maybe you are right. But don't beat around the bush. If you think it didn't happen like he said, you think he is lying. That is what lying means.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 11:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Since when are the MAGA dumbasses rational? I'm sure these wastes of flesh weren't pondering the demographic breakdown of Chicago as they were beating, terrorizing, and hurling racists and homophobic insults...


What do Trump supporters do or say that is irrational?
I hope it isn't as bad as: "I support our immigration law, but don't want it enforced - and that's not because I want to pay for illegal workers instead of American workers. In fact, I am concerned about the low salaries of American workers". Or, "I am for more 'border security', but would never support a wall or fence on the border".

Laughing Laughing Oh, myyy....of all the posters here at Reb's, I don't think I've ever seen such an IRRATIONAL, stilted obsession with immigration. As if that's the crux of our lives here. This thread IS about a hate crime. Rolling Eyes


Illegal immigration is, unfortunately, a subject where "non-Trump supporters"are irrational, even completely contradicting previous positions. If the elite hadn't succeeded in making infinite immigration policy a sacred cow we'd all be obsessing over something so contraindicated, particularly when sitting in rush hour traffic jams.

Quote:
Meanwhile, to address your query re: Trump/supporter irrationalities, you really need help recognizing the constant barrage of that shit??

* (1)Donald Trump himself (and parroted by his deplorables): "What the hell is going on with Global Warming? Please come back fast, we need you!"
* (2) He sez: “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school,” re: Iran, N. Korea, Russia
* (3) Sarah Sanders says 'God wanted Trump to be president'
* (4) Stephen Bannon said he was "doing the Lord's work." in his service.
* (5) Mitch McConnell says suggested Election Day holiday is Dem 'power grab,', cuz, ya....MORE people voting isn't good for Democracy.
* (6) ILLEGAL immigrants are coming out of the woodwork of Trump's own clubs/employee lists.

That's just a couple of recent gems from the past 48 hours. There's not enough capacity here at Rebs to get it all in.


1) Looking for statements of "Trump supporters", not Trump. I think Trump is just trying to stir people up with that tweet. He doesn't see a cold spell in Chicago as proof regarding Global Warming or want Global Warming. You are on record as saying you don't use twitter, so how do you know what his supporters are saying about it?
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.
3) Sarah Sanders works for Trump in a PR capacity.
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.
5) Mitch McConnell is not a Trump supporter.
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.




Last edited by tfan on 02/01/19 12:08 am; edited 4 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/19 11:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:

That is, in fact, not the middle ground. You think the actor is lying. You people should just say it. You think he made up a racist and homophobic attack against himself.

Maybe you are right. But don't beat around the bush. If you think it didn't happen as he said, you think he is lying. That is what lying means.


I don't see "I'm so sure I'd bet $10,000 everything he is saying is the truth" and "I'm so sure I'd bet $10,000 he's lying about something" being the only two opinions. "I wouldn't bet $10,000 either way" doesn't mean, "you think he is lying about something". It allows for the possibility. Now, if the issue is "you shouldn't express doubts publically on a national platform like Twitter on something like this", that is a good point. Can't disagree. Definitely wouldn't like reading that if I was the person involved. I also can see where people would get upset about expressing doubt on a forum like this. If I had it to do over again I wouldn't have pointed out how "un-MAGA country" Chicago is.




Last edited by tfan on 02/01/19 7:22 am; edited 4 times in total
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11881
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 12:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing 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. Laughing

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!
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 12:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
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.


You really have to be kidding if you think that this perspective warrants the kind of emotional reaction you took to people here who just expressed a skepticism to the story as it has been reported.

Think about your language here. You say things like having skepticism about this case "devalues a human life" and you characterize things either "support" or "turning our backs on" them or that "we tell them that they are lying trash."

Little too much dire and florid imagery there.

Yes, and you said, "we tell them." I'm not telling this actor anything. I'm telling you people on Rebkell's simply that I don't think this story quite adds up.

This is where your choice of language indicates your proclivity to elevate and blow up a simple statement of what's going in my head with metaphorical language that reimagines my opinion with a fantastical one on one interaction between me, us, whatever. and the actor who reported this that isn't happening and will never happen. But let's just imagine this and overlay it on what is actually reality. This is a thought police tactic right out of Mao's China.

I'm not trying to be right so I can come here and say I was right and you guys were wrong. I'm not trying to win a cookie as you mockingly suggest. I'm just simply saying that things for me don't add up in this story as far as I'm concerned. As far as how elaborate the hoax might be, I'm not thinking about that. As to standing with communities that have been traditionally persecuted? You can't call me to stand on a case that I have deep suspicions about. What would you have me do? Tweet my horror and support like Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and every celeb in the world has done? I believe this is going to backfire for them. I really do. So do I have to go on record to support this guy in order to be a person who supports communities that have been traditionally persecuted?

Here's is what I will do if this turns out to be not as it has been reported to be and reacted to. I will come here and remind you people as to how harsh you were to anyone here who expressed their skepticism, how to do that was simply wrong. Not that you were wrong about the actor's story. But that you were wrong in your attitudes and your treatment and your abusive language towards people here who actually had it right.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7297
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 1:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:

Here's is what I will do if this turns out to be not as it has been reported to be and reacted to. I will come here and remind you people as to how harsh you were to anyone here who expressed their skepticism, how to do that was simply wrong. Not that you were wrong about the actor's story. But that you were wrong in your attitudes and your treatment and your abusive language towards people here who actually had it right.

But that's the point. Even if in the end you were to have been correct about it being a hoax, you would not have been "right". My attitude is not about how this story ends, it's about how we treat alleged victims.

Skepticism without absolute evidence in a situation like this is ethically and morally wrong. And it's not the just you here on RebKell, it's the people on social media, the wave of armchair investigators who are all weighing in on something that there is very little information out there about. And collectively as a society, the damage that skepticism can do to someone if it turns out that he is, in fact, telling the truth, is unconscionable. And no matter what nuggets of the story we think we are hearing, no matter what conclusions we are jumping to, no matter what someone's "bullshit detector" is telling them right now, they know so little of the story, have so few of the facts, there is no way they could actually come anything close to a sound conclusion about this. All it would be is a "gut feeling conjecture". And whether or not that "gut feeling conjecture" is borne out to be accurate or not is irrelevant, since by definition conjecture could just as easily go the other way.

Again to put it in perspective, if I came onto this forum and wrote out a conspiracy theory about how I thought Jayme Closs faked her own abduction and and how it was just an elaborate hoax for attention and the eventual reward money, you all would think me a total piece of shit. And you would be right.

There is plenty of time down the road to pillory someone if it turns out to be some sort of hoax. Right now is a time for messages of support and belief, even if it requires a suspension of disbelief. Because there is no harm to society in doing that while the opposite has the potential for great harm.

As for Pelosi and Waters and all them, even if it turned out to be a hoax, what they did is the morally correct action. They supported a person they had no reason to disbelieve in a time of need, they called the acts described reprehensible, which they were, and they spoke to the context of them. Remember, it's not like even if this event were to be a hoax it isn't like the underlying truths beneath it are fake (that this shit does still happen today in this country, that racism and homophobia are still major problems, that Trump has fed and emboldened these types).

And then there is the obvious: If there was something in the person's story that just didn't sit right in the gut, there is always the option of just not saying anything at all...



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 1:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 3:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
tfan wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Wow. It's like some of you are just WAITING to be misinformed so you can project hatred and vitriol towards people you disagree with. Seriously, just grasp at ANYTHING at this point! I'm not saying it's all of you... you know who you are.

This story has all the credibility of the Buzzfeed story that ran on the 18th (and I had to endure watching people fight about it in Detroit at the airport for 3 hours because they have CNN on the big screens). Maybe this guy really was attacked, but by random Trump supporters in Chicago yelling "This is MAGA country?" You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe some bullshit like that.


Why did you have to go and perfectly articulate everything I was thinking? What gives you the right? I had a perfectly good animated Brian Cranston disgusted gif just ready to go. Now you've burst the bubble. Or pimple.


So you both are saying that a well-known actor made this up? Is that what you want to go on the record as believing?

There is no middle ground here. So, just say it.


I was thinking "attacked, but not in the manner he says" sounds like a valid middle ground. But when you throw in the "seen on camera walking into a condo building with a noose around his neck" it wouldn't fit.


That is, in fact, not middle ground. You think the actor is lying. You people should just say it. You think he made up a racist and homophobic attack against himself.

Maybe you are right. But don't beat around the bush. If you think it didn't happen like he said, you think he is lying. That is what lying means.


You're so smart. But something is wrong here. You only see black and white. Either or. And with infinitely complex human beings and social interactions. Shocked It's shocking. The actor. Us.

Let's go over this. People are thinking that him lying may be a possibility here. People are skeptical of the story. But you, pumatty, want those people to definitively say that he IS lying. There's no middle ground here!

But YOU say... "Maybe you are right." Thank you. Except I've only said that I'm skeptical and that things don't add up, etc. I haven't said this mother fucker is lying! lol. But you're allowing for exactly what I'm allowing for. He could be lying! As you have corroborated, we might be right in asserting that. But just that. Could be.

Second. The actor himself. To YOU, he's either lying or he's not. I'm not going to grill you about your life experiences or anything. I will TELL you from mine. When something bad happens and especially something unexpected, like you're jumped or your boyfriend whips your ass, you will very likely be in shock for a good 48 hours. Even your fucking vision changes. You see like you are in a tunnel. For instance. People are judging this guy for having the rope around his neck. Yeah, I'm just so sure he was making perfect decisions after getting jumped and beaten up on the street. I'm not saying he was or wasn't. I'm saying I wouldn't be judging the dude for leaving the noose on for the police to see just out of shock and outrage.

I don't think I would type on the internet that he is a liar because even if his story turns out to be untrue, and I don't know all the facts on his medical condition or injuries, apparently, he did experience a beating of some sort.

I don't KNOW what happened here. I'm not going to say he's lying just because you think there's no middle ground. You just need to think harder and deeper. I've said I'm skeptical, the story doesn't sound right. But lord have mercy I am old enough to know that however unlikely I may think something is, in a very large city like Chicago or LA, anything can happen and eventually will. But I'm skeptical.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 3:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:

Again to put it in perspective, if I came onto this forum and wrote out a conspiracy theory about how I thought Jayme Closs faked her own abduction and and how it was just an elaborate hoax for attention and the eventual reward money, you all would think me a total piece of shit. And you would be right.


Perspective? Seriously? Shocked I say I'm skeptical and you compare that to what if you came to Rebkells and "WROTE OUT A CONSPIRACTY THEORY" about how "JAYME CLOSS FAKED HER OWN ABDUCTION" and "IT WAS AN ELABORATE HOAX FOR ATTENTION" and "REWARD MONEY."

Just so you know. You didn't put it in perspective. You're showing that, in this case, for some reason, you have no remaining sense of what perspective even means. I didn't concoct an elaborate conspiracy theory with character motives. I just said I'm skeptical. Do you know the difference? Because it sounds like you're saying I'm guilty of doing what you confected regarding Jayme Closs and not what I'm actually saying about this case.

What you've done, in addition to displaying no sense of proportion and perspective in your arguments, is claim moral superiority. Really? Because you seem to be missing something. Another difference between this story and Jayme Closs. It's called the political angle. Overtones. Implications.

First, there are none to the Closs story. So zero political overtones to that story. How about this one? Uh dude was on twitter railing against MAGA caps and Trump and calling anyone who wears a MAGA hat a racist in the weeks and days leading up to the evening of this incident. So whatever happened, this guy was publicly and preemptively expressing anger and hostility towards the political viewpoints of those who he says attacked him. Because, he says they were white and verbally expressed their loyalty to MAGA as a political viewpoint. This starts to suggest a possible political motive surrounding HIS version of events.

So when you claim the moral high ground over me for not supporting this person or because I would express skepticism about his story instead of assuming and conducting myself online with horror and unquestioned support for the guy, in essence, taking a political position along side him as a show of political support, when I'm skeptical of his story to begin with, I'm going to come here and tell you that the only moral high ground that you can claim over me is in your imagination.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7297
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 4:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

/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



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19911



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 5:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
/sigh

I am claiming only that there is a moral imperative to side with victims and not be "skeptical" of their accounts


Yeah. No. There is no moral imperative as humans to suspend critical thinking and judgement and not allow skepticism to creep impurely into our minds for the sake of our humanity. Just, no. Sigh.

The political component. Because I don't think you understood that aspect or you are choosing not to. He has alleged the most supremely toxic political motivations to his attackers. So we what? MUST side with him and support him and not let skepticism enter into our minds for the sake of our humanity.

But what happens if he has fabricated details of the attack or the part where the attackers were MAGA people? Say it turns out he was beaten by his partner? Or that his attackers were black? And he just made up this shit about MAGA and all that because he fucking hates MAGA and Trump? Are you clutching your pearls yet at these horrible suggestions? Because that could be the case here. It has happened before. It is going to happen again. People are liars. People are drama queens. Sounds like this guy is neither but he was saying some politically harsh shit building up to this incident.

You can give up. I don't agree with you. I don't cede any moral high ground to you. This wasn't moral high ground ten years ago or even five years ago. You've been skeptical before. Let's see how this plays out.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 8:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 9471



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 9:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7314



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/01/19 10:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.




Last edited by tfan on 02/01/19 11:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 2 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin