Jussie Smollett: Life and Death of an MSM Hate Hoax - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14989619
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is one of several current threads where no one was actually hurt but some conservatives are treating this as a vindication of their victimhood.

Nobody was physically hurt, but Jussie Smollet wasted the time of scores of Chicago Police detectives, drove the mainstream media into an uncalled for vigilance against Trump supporters, made fools out of Hollywood actresses (who were already fools, but it wasn't so apparent), and wasted a lot of the country's time debating whether Trump supporters were really of the mindset to run around attacking homosexuals, while Trump is pushing for de-criminalization of homosexuality globally. If anything, this shows that homosexuals can be terribly vindictive people.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think in terms of simplistic absolutes.

Bwahahahaha!

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you agree that no one was hurt here?

No. A lot of resources were wasted.
#14989621
maz wrote:It can be argued that this incident was staged to hurt people. If not physically, just to smear their political enemies. And just because no one was hurt doesn't excuse it, if that is what you are trying to argue.


Do you think that smearing the reputation of your political enemies is a bad thing?

Do you think that smearing the reputation of your political enemies is such a bad thing that it deserves being sued?
#14989624
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think that smearing the reputation of your political enemies is a bad thing?


If the smears are true and factual, then no.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think that smearing the reputation of your political enemies is such a bad thing that it deserves being sued?


If the smears are baseless and obviously fake and gay, then yes.
#14989625
maz wrote:If the smears are true and factual, then no.


So, if Trump supporters actually do attack people, this hoax is justifiable?

If the smears are baseless and obviously fake and gay, then yes.


So you support using economic power to censor others even when the speech does not actually hurt anyone.
#14989627
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, if Trump supporters actually do attack people, this hoax is justifiable?


It is not acceptable for right wing Trump supporters to stage stupid hoaxes because anti-Trump people have repeated physically assaulted Trump supporters since 2016.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you support using economic power to censor others even when the speech does not actually hurt anyone.


Just like you said, I don't think so in simplistic absolutes. Individuals should have the right to protect themselves and retaliate against people who wish to harm them, even if they are not trying to physically harm them.
Last edited by maz on 21 Feb 2019 17:37, edited 1 time in total.
#14989629
Do you support the current tactic of censorship being used by the family of the unhurt teen? Oops. Wrong thread,

Do you think anyone was actually hurt by this?

Edit:

maz wrote:It is not acceptable for right wing Trump supporters to stage stupid hoaxes because anti-Trump people have repeated physically assaulted Trump supporters since 2016.


But you said it was earlier, when you said that if the smears were true and factual (and it is a true fact that Trump supporters have attacked people).

And since that fact is true, such smears ahould be justified according to your previous argument.
#14989632
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think in terms of simplistic absolutes.


I asked you a question. Please answer it.

This thing where you answer questions with questions is not sufficient.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you agree that no one was hurt here?


Define harm.
#14989635
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I asked you a question. Please answer it.

This thing where you answer questions with questions is not sufficient.


Again, I am not here to do your bidding. If there is no benefit for me, I will not answer your questions.

This thing where you ask questions as a ham handed way of trying to make people obey you is irrelevant.

Define harm.


I am using the standard definition.
#14989638
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am using the standard definition.


Which is what?

It wouldn't happen to be the same one you used in a different thread regarding people getting fired for not honoring their terms of employment per the school charter is it?

:lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, I am not here to do your bidding. If there is no benefit for me, I will not answer your questions.


So no argument then? Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This thing where you ask questions as a ham handed way of trying to make people obey you is irrelevant.


Quit it, your making me horny.

I get that you have this delusion that the white guy must be asking you questions in order to put you under his dominance (some sort of post-colonial fetish I suppose); however, in debate your feelings are quite irrelevant and questions asked in a debate ought to be answered.

However, if you don't like good-faith debates; then perhaps you should just admit it when you do the same thing with your own incessant demands for evidence. After all, you might just be doing it in order to get people to obey you...isn't that your argument here? :lol:
#14989640
Pants-of-dog wrote:But you said it was earlier, when you said that if the smears were true and factual (and it is a true fact that Trump supporters have attacked people).


The people who have been attacked by Trump supporters should be able to smear their attackers.. They would certainly be given a platform by every media outlet to do so.

What is your point in this line of questioning? Seems irrelevant.
#14989642
Victoribus Spolia wrote:...a bunch of stuff that is not applicable to the argument...


Sure.

Moving on:

maz wrote:The people who have been attacked by Trump supporters should be able to smear their attackers.. They would certainly be given a platform by every media outlet to do so.

What is your point in this line of questioning? Seems irrelevant.


I am womdering why people are using thisas a vindication of their victimhood.
#14989662
Hong Wu wrote:I don't think there's any point in trying to name names here. The Kavanaugh stuff was never proven (or even prosecuted) and there's plenty of shady Dems out there, like the AG who has 911 calls attacking his girlfriend, the guys in Virginia who were wearing blackface despite being Democrats who condemn that sort of thing etc.


I love the contortions that you have to make to try to justify your actions :lol: . Ultimately, whether Kavanaugh did or did not do anything is besides the point. He had plenty of people going to great length to justify the hypothetical scenario that he had done what he was accused of doing. When they say "please tell me... what 17 year old boy has not done this [referring to the accusation of sexual harrassment] done this..." how low do you have to go to pretend every single pubescent boy is a criminal. No the comparison is not even on the same plane of existence.
Also, I am glad you bring the guys in Virginia, because this proves my point. They have received plenty of criticism from the left regarding those actions and they have apologized for their actions. The point is not to be some sort of non-existing saint (or even pretend to be) but rather to be responsible for your actions and accept criticism and if warranted punishment.
Having the poor taste of wearing an insensitive costume does not even come close to the accusation of rape, violent attacks and criminal activity that the Trump supporters love to ignore.

blackjack21 wrote:Hrmmm... and they demonstrate this by running Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 with a War on Women theme with Bill Clinton at her side? Where are the Senate Judiciary committee members with respect to the Lt. governor of Virginia? Where is the media demanding that the women be believed before their testimony has been made public? The left is rarely quick to remove anyone from power on their side if it means their side losing any power.

Yes yes, I know you live in the parallel conspiracy theorist universe and Clinton was running a pedophile operation in a pizza store... Whaah whahh wahh.. stop crying and get over it, Clinton is gone until when are you gonna keep using her as the boogyman? rofl.
That is BS. I gave you a few examples of the left criticizing and removing many of their own, even for transgressions that are FAR less significant than what the right does. Your "what about...." excuses are running out.

See? There is the presumption of guilt again without any reliable evidence to support the charges. I will happily vote for anyone but the left, because being a leftist is despicable and criminal to the very core.

ROFL.
Criminal? Oh you mean like Greg Gianforte assaulting a journalist? which there are proof and Republicans still elect this violent idiot to represent them? Or criminal Trump, who defrauded Trump University's students or use charity money for personal use... just to mention a few of the hundreds of criminal offenses that your people support :lol:
Again, I know you live in a parallel universe but even that is not an excuse....

Al Franken and Anthony Weiner were pushed out, because they would have like-minded replacements--i.e., no net loss of political power for the left. Franken would have survived had it not been for the hilarious picture of him mock-grabbing the woman's boobs, and that was because it would be used in campaign ads against them. So it was about self-preservation.

LOL more contorsions. Trump was caught on tape bragging about sexual harrassment, I would have loved if he had 10% of the integrity of Al Franken, and that is already a pretty low bar given that Al Franken is not even a particular good role model as we have come to appreciate. Again... you have absolutely no point here.

Yeah. I'm laughing too.


Offcourse you are, you are very shortsighted and you think bigotry and racism is winning because trump got elected :lol: , wait until the pendulum swims back and you get a bernie sanders or a AOC-like candidate elected as a rebound affair after trump and your laugh will come to an abrupt stop.

Rancid wrote:The one indisputable point is that this was all a waste of tax payer money on this guy's part. However, that is being addressed by getting charged for filing a false report.

Everything else is just noise.

Exactly.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, if Trump supporters actually do attack people, this hoax is justifiable?



So you support using economic power to censor others even when the speech does not actually hurt anyone.

The Hoax is never justified. We have plenty of actual real hate crimes very frequently in this country, we don't really need to invent news ones to prove a point.
Don't fall for the trap.
#14989680
XogGyux wrote:Criminal? Oh you mean like Greg Gianforte assaulting a journalist? which there are proof and Republicans still elect this violent idiot to represent them?

It was the day before the election. Gianforte plead guilty. I don't live in Montana, so he doesn't represent me. I didn't think he was a very good candidate.

XogGyux wrote:Or criminal Trump, who defrauded Trump University's students or use charity money for personal use...

There was no criminal fraud charge brought against Trump. Trump settled the case out of court. Trump wasn't running his charity.

XogGyux wrote:just to mention a few of the hundreds of criminal offenses that your people support :lol:

Hundreds?

XogGyux wrote:Trump was caught on tape bragging about sexual harrassment,

More like bullshitting...

XogGyux wrote:Again... you have absolutely no point here.

The point is that Democrats only take out people that can be replaced with like-minded people--and it's generally Democrats that make political-correct and identity politics issues out of everything.

XogGyux wrote:Offcourse you are, you are very shortsighted and you think bigotry and racism is winning because trump got elected :lol: , wait until the pendulum swims back and you get a bernie sanders or a AOC-like candidate elected as a rebound affair after trump and your laugh will come to an abrupt stop.

I'm literally rooting for the establishment's demise. A Bernie Sanders win would--even if he were the nominee and went on to lose--would be a victory for me.
#14989686
Question:

Should the magnitude of the lie in a false report be considered when figuring out what the consequences are for filing a false report?

For example, let's say I made up a lie,that I was mugged, and lost $20. If I file that fake mugging as a false report, should I be punished less, the same, or more as say Jussie?
#14989688
Rancid wrote:Question:

Should the magnitude of the lie in a false report be considered when figuring out what the consequences are for filing a false report?

For example, let's say I made up a lie,that I was mugged, and lost $20. If I file that fake mugging as a false report, should I be punished less, the same, or more as say Jussie?


The charges that Smollett made against himself would have actually been hate crime charges, which are federal crimes. The punishment for federal crimes are much higher than a mugging. That's not including the federal crime of using the postal system to send a threat.

Hate crime hoaxes are rampant and have been growing and growing each year since hate crime laws have been passed. There is a website that has documented many of them, but I cannot find it now.

I would argue that our media, and in a lot of ways our society has indirectly incentivized minorities and sexual alphabet people to perpetrate these hoaxes. If we had a law that would severely penalize people for staging these hoaxes, I have no doubt that people would definitely not stage them as much as they do.
#14989691
Rancid wrote:Question:

Should the magnitude of the lie in a false report be considered when figuring out what the consequences are for filing a false report?

For example, let's say I made up a lie,that I was mugged, and lost $20. If I file that fake mugging as a false report, should I be punished less, the same, or more as say Jussie?

Yes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13

They also supported the hideous unproportional Al[…]

Many lefties are so ignorant they don't even kn[…]

You want people to ignore it because it's accur[…]

"In 1988, families accounted for about 1% of […]