Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

What the **** is this ****? Can we stop using Twitter as a news platform?

 

Gotta respect a "what the **** is this ****" post.

 

Hey, now that the JC auto-censors, I'm gonna make good use of it.

 

New evidence has come out suggesting that he may have paid two people to stage the attack.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

 

Hell yeah i'm here for this ****ing ****

also at Vivec - this is... exactly what we need not to happen.

 

With all due respect how is the fact that Jussie Smollett may have lied bigger than this particular isolated case? Are we supposed to keep on believing people who come forward are liars until proven truthful? How well has that worked throughout American history? How many people have not received justice based on that thinking?

The collective right wing spin barely holding in their exuberant joy on Twitter over this is telling particularly since they never cared what happened to Smollett.

 

A lot of people were ready to use what allegedly happened to Smollet as gotchas towards their online political opponents on Twitter. Nobody actually cared to begin with.

 

When people lie/stage attacks against themselves, that only hurts those who are really attacked.

 

Pretty much this. As well as those who may end up being falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit.

 

11-year-old kid refuses to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, gets arrested.

A student at the Lawton Chiles Middle Academy in Lakeland, Florida was arrested after he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The incident began after a substitute teacher asked the 11-year-old to stand and he refused, explaining that he thought the U.S. flag was racist. The teacher then apparently got into a contentious argument with the boy and asked “Why if it was so bad here he did not go to another place to live,” according to a statement the teacher gave to the district. “They brought me here,” the boy replied.

The teacher apparently then thought that the best course of action was to continue arguing with the 11-year-old. “Well you can always go back,” she said she replied, “because I came here from Cuba and the day I feel I’m not welcome here anymore I would find another place to live.” The teacher decided to escalate the issue “because I did not want to continue dealing with him.” The boy was then arrested after he “refused to follow multiple commands, repeatedly called school leaders racist and was disruptive,” according to Bay News 9. The student denied accusations that he threatened to beat the teacher. He was ultimately charged with disruption of a school facility and resisting an officer without violence, reports the Washington Post.

Freedom of expression unless you're black and refusing to support a stupid hyper-nationalist ritual.

 

He was lucky he wasn't shot.

Sent from my SNE-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

At that age was about when I stopped saying the pledge. No one gave a ****. Dread to think what would have happened had I been black.

 

I don't think any of you understand. Totalitarian states and communist nations force their youth, against their will, to cite daily oaths of loyalty to their corrupt and vile leadership.

In America, our youth gladly participate, as part of required civic duties, to declare their pledges of allegiance to the government, to remind them of their personal liberties and freedoms.

Besides, as any good conservative knows, the Pledge of Allegiance was created by the Founding Fathers and enshrined within the US Constitution.

 

I mean that skepticism should never happen when survivors come forward. Even if this was a lie it isn’t evidence of mass false accusations

 

Their trauma is why a victim's word should never be dismissed out of hand. That there are such things as false reports is why, nevertheless, the accused must remain innocent until proven guilty.

 

Is this unreasonable? There is legitimately and unquestionably inflammatory rhetoric in play from the Trump administration on a variety of subjects. Steven Miller was on television today comparing Mexican immigrants to international terrorism by ISIS. Descriptions of people of African descent have similarly been pretty consistently demeaning and hostile, whether in Trump's "very fine" Neo-Nazi pro-Confederate protestors or Steve King's lamentation for white supremacy not being more well-respected. When something happens in the aftermath of increasingly inflammatory rhetoric I don't see how it's that wild or inappropriate to connect the two.

By contrast, hiring people to stage an attack on one's self is deeply weird and over-complicated. That wouldn't be my first suspicion at all. I don't think it would or should be anyone's.

I also don't see where the whole discussion about "guilty until proven innocent" make sense. No specific individuals were accused. Someone said something happened to them. Fine. You don't have to assume some terrible ulterior motive on the part of people that took him at his word. Nor does a single liar really imply more than that one individual being deeply troubled.

 

Fundamental human rights principle when going to court (which a case of assault may very well do).

 

Sure. But it only applies when if a specific individual is actually accused.

The idea is not to abstractly doubt the account of someone claiming to have been wronged. Like if someone is mudered one wouldn’t cute that principle and say “but are they really dead though.”

 

Really not like that at all. When someone is found dead without explanation, to stay on the murdered parallel, an inquiry into causes of death is at the very least made (the murder may or may not be obvious), and then an investigation is launched, which may or may not turn out a suspect or act on a witness reporting a suspect. Nobody, however, is going to pretend at any point that the dead person isn't dead (there might be a problem about identification, these things also happen).

However, once a suspect is brought to court, be it for murder or for assault, there are a modicum of rules and principles, including the human right protecting a person's innocence until they've been found guilty (even if, in some cases, allows for intimate conviction to replace proof; and even then, there are first and last resort systems to avoid judicial errors, which do occur).

Why am I insisting on that principle? A question of perspective. I've grown up in a country which remembered, in living memory, how things went when "guilty until proven innocent" became the principle. It was open season, and false denunciations happened literally by the hundreds of thousands.

 

"deeply weird and overcomplicated" words I wouldn't be using for "staging a hoax to further ones career." Maybe if I sraged a hoax about how black people attacked me and it created a discussion online about how violent blacks are you'd see why staging a hoax is bad. In fact, you know why I get pissed off about the 'terrorist threat eliminated before they could attack" **** I see on the news. Cause I know it's the FBI goading someone into something and then arresting them. And that hoax plays into effect and makes things harder for brown people like myself. So yeah, maybe this is "weird and overcomplicated" but it's also literally lying for him to further his career.