All Charges Against Jussie Smollett Dropped

[Katganistan]

Why bother with a trial? Everyone knows he's guilty! He wouldn't have been charged if he weren't!/sarcasm

"Innocent until proven guilty" is only for rich white males accused of sex crimes.

Well of course. How dare you ruin their LIVES over what some sexually promiscuous slut/manwhore/child said? They're only doing it for the money! I mean, how can you believe it when so many people are saying the same thing about the same person? It's a conspiracy!/sarcasm

[Katganistan]

Why bother with a trial? Everyone knows he's guilty! He wouldn't have been charged if he weren't!/sarcasm

What an inane post. Do you have anything of value to post or are you just shitposting because you can?

Right back atcha, bucko.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is only for rich white males accused of sex crimes.

Well of course. How dare you ruin their LIVES over what some sexually promiscuous slut/manwhore/child said? They're only doing it for the money! I mean, how can you believe it when so many people are saying the same thing about the same person? It's a conspiracy!/sarcasm

This is not a he said she said situation where we're being asked to evaluate what happened based on two contradictory narratives. There is physical evidence which corroborates one narrative.

[Katganistan]

Yeah, I was previously of the opinion that the media fucked up but I don't really see what they could have done differently now.

It's not like they could've worked with information they didn't have. All they had to go on was the accusation of an unsuccessful lynching, something that hasn't happened in America since the 1970s. It's not like they could've done anything different.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchin ... ael_Donald

[Vetalia]

The key is to decouple the profit motive from media reporting, or at least mute it, or punish companies for placing it above the public interest.

I don't necessarily think the profit motive is the reason behind it; the profit comes from advertising revenues first and foremost, so anyone that goes way out of line will lose viewers and business, ultimately forcing them back closer to an unbiased viewpoint. The bigger problem is lack of competition - you have an oligarchy of 5 companies that controls 90% of the media market. Compare that to the early 1980s, when 50 companies held that same market share. It's no surprise the quality of reporting is going down as the industry consolidates and will only get worse, not better as this trend continues.

Now, I do think there is a place for not-for-profit/government news programming as well, provided it is closely regulated to ensure it is unbiased and is not just a venue for delivering government propaganda.

[Ostroeuropa]

The key is to decouple the profit motive from media reporting, or at least mute it, or punish companies for placing it above the public interest.

I don't necessarily think the profit motive is the reason behind it; the profit comes from advertising revenues first and foremost, so anyone that goes way out of line will lose viewers and business, ultimately forcing them back closer to an unbiased viewpoint. The bigger problem is lack of competition - you have an oligarchy of 5 companies that controls 90% of the media market. Compare that to the early 1980s, when 50 companies held that same market share. It's no surprise the quality of reporting is going down as the industry consolidates and will only get worse, not better as this trend continues.

Now, I do think there is a place for not-for-profit/government news programming as well, provided it is closely regulated to ensure it is unbiased and is not just a venue for delivering government propaganda.

I'm open to anti-trust action to break up the media conglomerates, sure.

[Vetalia]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchin ... ael_Donald

In fact, I would argue the murder of James Byrd Jr. in 1998 was the most recent lynching for all intents and purposes.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

So when was he proven guilty?

Why bother with a trial? Everyone knows he's guilty! He wouldn't have been charged if he weren't!/sarcasm

No one here has advocated for extrajudicial punishment.

[Vetalia]

I'm open to anti-trust action to break up the media conglomerates, sure.

I think this is the most effective approach. Regulations only work if there's a willingness to enforce them, something that has failed miserably in the United States in recent years and continues to fail.

[Katganistan]

Well of course. How dare you ruin their LIVES over what some sexually promiscuous slut/manwhore/child said? They're only doing it for the money! I mean, how can you believe it when so many people are saying the same thing about the same person? It's a conspiracy!/sarcasm

This is not a he said she said situation where we're being asked to evaluate what happened based on two contradictory narratives. There is physical evidence which corroborates one narrative.

Point is, there are definitely different reactions in society to people facing charges depending on their race, gender, and socioeconomic situation. Important (rich) white dudesoften are treated with the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, and people of color, people of lesser means, people who do not identify as cis gendered, and women tend to be treated as if they are guilty until proven innocent. Hell, until recently, clergy were treated as "transferred and never stopped from molesting children" -- they never even had to worry about a trial.

He should be tried. The evidence should be weighed. His conviction or acquittal should be on the merits of the case and evidence and nothing more.

If he's convicted of crying wolf, it's a completely shitty thing to have done for the impact it will have on others who come forward and actually have been abused, and for anyone who might have been wrongfully accused. If he's convicted of concocting this whole hoax, then he should face consequences for it, there is no argument about that. But if we bend over backwards to provide some with the presumption of innocence until conviction, then all should have that same protection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchin ... ael_Donald

In fact, I would argue the murder of James Byrd Jr. in 1998 was the most recent lynching for all intents and purposes.

Yes. It is not as buried deeply in the past as people believe.

Why bother with a trial? Everyone knows he's guilty! He wouldn't have been charged if he weren't!/sarcasm

No one here has advocated for extrajudicial punishment.

And yet much of the discussion is pretty much "he is guilty of this!"

He's charged with it. We'll find out if he's guilty of it.

[Andsed]

No one here has advocated for extrajudicial punishment.

And yet much of the discussion is pretty much "he is guilty of this!"

He's charged with it. We'll find out if he's guilty of it.

Well I mean based off the facts of the case it does look quite likely he is guilty.

[Galloism]

This is not a he said she said situation where we're being asked to evaluate what happened based on two contradictory narratives. There is physical evidence which corroborates one narrative.

Point is, there are definitely different reactions in society to people facing charges depending on their race, gender, and socioeconomic situation. Important (rich) white dudesoften are treated with the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, and people of color, people of lesser means, people who do not identify as cis gendered, and women tend to be treated as if they are guilty until proven innocent. Hell, until recently, clergy were treated as "transferred and never stopped from molesting children" -- they never even had to worry about a trial.

Um, exactly the opposite on this one, at least compared to men.

Women receive the benefit of privilege when it comes to being accused of crimes, at every stage, from investigation to sentencing, and including the media.

Hell, how many articles have you read about a female teacher being accused of "having sex with" or "having a sexual relationship with" a 12 year old student? We deliberately as a social standard try to downplay women's criminal actions based on their gender.

Women are the white people of gender, Kat.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And yet much of the discussion is pretty much "he is guilty of this!"

He's charged with it. We'll find out if he's guilty of it.

We're not a jury, we don't need to be impartial. It's blatantly obvious he's guilty and the whole thing was staged.

[Katganistan]

And yet much of the discussion is pretty much "he is guilty of this!"

He's charged with it. We'll find out if he's guilty of it.

Well I mean based off the facts of the case it does look quite likely he is guilty.

Based on the facts as reported, which include the statements of the people he allegedly hired and who were persons of interest in the matter, and Smollett's own statements. Both sides would have a strong motive spin things to avoid punishment, were they guilty of a crime.

This is why we need to wait for trial.

[Katganistan]

And yet much of the discussion is pretty much "he is guilty of this!"

He's charged with it. We'll find out if he's guilty of it.

We're not a jury, we don't need to be impartial. It's blatantly obvious he's guilty and the whole thing was staged.

Bless your heart for proving my point.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We're not a jury, we don't need to be impartial. It's blatantly obvious he's guilty and the whole thing was staged.

Bless your heart for proving my point.

I could shoot you 30 times in the chest on live TV and you could make the same argument. In some cases it's pretty apparent when someone is guilty.

[Galloism]

Bless your heart for proving my point.

I could shoot you 30 times in the chest on live TV and you could make the same argument. In some cases it's pretty apparent when someone is guilty.

I think this is where someone immediately inserts a Hitler/Stalin were never proved guilty meme.

[Andsed]

Well I mean based off the facts of the case it does look quite likely he is guilty.

Based on the facts as reported, which include the statements of the people he allegedly hired and who were persons of interest in the matter, and Smollett's own statements. Both sides would have a strong motive spin things to avoid punishment, were they guilty of a crime.

This is why we need to wait for trial.

Motives are irreverent here. Smollets story when put to scrunity has glaring holes and police investigations have found some shady stuff. While I am not going to say he is 100% guilty I am going to say he is likely guilty

[Ostroeuropa]

To be clear, regarding someone as guilty is separate from saying they should face extrajudicial consequences, which is where people usually take grievance with the progressive left and their mentality on this.

I'm sure if you asked Washington Resistance Army and others whether Smollett should be fired or something before the trial has concluded they would pivot and say no, he is not yet proven guilty.

This is the difference here. When feminists and the progressive left do this kind of thing there is a tendency to demand extrajudicial consequences without trial or defend such consequences on the grounds that "This isn't a court room" and so on, an entirely separate matter from simply regarding the person as guilty.

The attempt to pretend that people are treating Smollett the same way feminists and others routinely treat people that stand accused, and the hand-wringing over "rich white males", is misframing the issue and pretending there is an equivalence which simply isn't there.

Nobody has proposed Smollett face extrajudicial consequences. That is the key thing here, and it is what makes Kat's attempts to allude to some kind of discrepancy in peoples attitudes poorly founded.

[Katganistan]

Same shit, different day -- trying people in the media.

Men are the abusers in any relationship so they are guilty.
People of color are criminals -- guilty.
Muslims are terrorists -- guilty.
Latinos are criminals -- guilty.
Women are whores -- guilty.
Clergy are child molesters -- guilty.
Women are best at parenting so they should be given custody.

Seriously, it's ridiculous. Until trial we don't know what precisely is going to come out. Does it look good? No. But we don't yet have enough to say he's guilty, just as we don't have enough facts to make the above presumptions true in any, let alone the preponderance, of the time.

[Ostroeuropa]

Same shit, different day -- trying people in the media.

No, it really isn't. People cannot magically force themselves not to form an opinion. What they can do, and should do, is show restraint and leave punishment up to the appropriate authorities rather than forming progressive mobs to harass employers, family members, friends, and so on. You're merely trying to cast an equivalence between two political factions and how they handle this issue which simply isn't there.

[Galloism]

Same shit, different day -- trying people in the media.

It is a glaring problem in society.

I'm ok with waiting for the trial.

Hell, we're still waiting to see if Weinstein is guilty or not. His trial is still on hold, as I understand.

[Aclion]

To be clear, regarding someone as guilty is separate from saying they should face extrajudicial consequences, which is where people usually take grievance with the progressive left and their mentality on this.

I'm sure if you asked Washington Resistance Army and others whether Smollett should be fired or something before the trial has concluded they would pivot and say no, he is not yet proven guilty.

This is the difference here. When feminists and the progressive left do this kind of thing there is a tendency to demand extrajudicial consequences without trial or defend such consequences on the grounds that "This isn't a court room" and so on, an entirely separate matter from simply regarding the person as guilty.

The attempt to pretend that people are treating Smollett the same way feminists and others routinely treat people that stand accused, and the hand-wringing over "rich white males", is misframing the issue and pretending there is an equivalence which simply isn't there.

Nobody has proposed Smollett face extrajudicial consequences. That is the key thing here, and it is what makes Kat's attempts to allude to some kind of discrepancy in peoples attitudes poorly founded.

This.

Also adding that people who uncritically accepted his story have no business talking about waiting for the evidence/trial once it comes out that things are not what they've seen.

[Luminesa]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is only for rich white males accused of sex crimes.

Well of course. How dare you ruin their LIVES over what some sexually promiscuous slut/manwhore/child said? They're only doing it for the money! I mean, how can you believe it when so many people are saying the same thing about the same person? It's a conspiracy!/sarcasm

Harvey Weinstein exists and uhhhhh he wasn't exactly given the "innocent until proven guilty" approach. And I dunno, he's pretty...wealthy? I mean, shoot, pretty prominent example right there. And Louis C.K. And Kevin Spacey. You can actually look these things up and pay a modicum of attention to the news instead of bouncing off a substance-less which offers nothing of any debatable value to the thread.

[Luminesa]

Same shit, different day -- trying people in the media.

It is a glaring problem in society.

I'm ok with waiting for the trial.

Hell, we're still waiting to see if Weinstein is guilty or not. His trial is still on hold, as I understand.

We've got video for some of the stuff he did, so he's definitely going to be guilty unless he manages to buy his way out of jail-time. Which is a possibility. R.Kelly is probably going to try and do the same thing, if he doesn't go into a wild fit of rage during an interview again.