All Charges Against Jussie Smollett Dropped

[Andsed]

Man, that is some shady, really dirty corruption, like, seriously breathtaking in its sheer audacity.

I'm curious what the *real* bribe was beyond the $10k he forfeited, or alternatively what dirt the defense had on the judge to make this happen. There is no way on Earth a regular schmuck could have brokered a deal like this...now, remember this doesn't mean he didn't do the crime, he totally did, but got away with it by having the charges suddenly and mysteriously dropped. I would be very interested to see the credit card and bank statements of those involved in the prosecution over the days and weeks to come.

It says a lot about how fucked up this is when you have both Rahm Emanuel and Donald Trump Jr. on the same side of an issue.

So when was he found guilty in a court of law? Because until he is we don't know if he definitely did it.

Well when looking at the facts of the case it does seem very likely that Smollet did fake the attack and bribed the court to get the charges dropped so I think some speculation is justified here.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Honestly though this is a pretty good example of how if you just have money the law doesn't really apply to you.

[Vetalia]

So when was he found guilty in a court of law? Because until he is we don't know if he definitely did it.

Well, we have clear evidence of the brothers buying the noose and hats, the sheer implausibility of the allegations and the fact that he was even charged to begin with, not to mention the fact that he was not "exonerated" of the crime but basically settled. Innocent people don't forfeit their bonds to the court.

[Liriena]

Specifics. What mistreatment? Of what sort? By whom? On what grounds?

Verbal racial abuse of white people being dismissed as "Not racism because-" is one example. There's others too but we'll see if you can even grant the point there.

So saying mean things to white people? Yeah, that sucks. It's worth a discussion. It also, however, doesn't sound anywhere near as immediately pressing and harmful an issue as, you know, racist mass murders, economic discrimination, sentencing disparities, school segregation...

This is like saying "heterophobia is the main problem here because sometimes gay people say mean things about straight people on Twitter" and then blaming that same "heterophobia" for Jussie Smollett's actions, rather than the fact that homophobic violence is real and people are aware of that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Honestly though this is a pretty good example of how if you just have money the law doesn't really apply to you.

Does this include using USPS to terrorize? Was he charged with that and were the charges dropped there or is this still pending an investigation from the Fed?

[Nazeroth]

Honestly though this is a pretty good example of how if you just have money the law doesn't really apply to you.

yeah, this seems to be a issue of corruption/bribery.

[Yusseria]

Honestly though this is a pretty good example of how if you just have money the law doesn't really apply to you.

Does this include using USPS to terrorize? Was he charged with that and were the charges dropped there or is this still pending an investigation from the Fed?

Still pending. Hopefully they succeed where Chicago prosecutors failed.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Does this include using USPS to terrorize? Was he charged with that and were the charges dropped there or is this still pending an investigation from the Fed?

Still pending. Hopefully they succeed where Chicago prosecutors failed.

I’m not from the US originally but I know the Fed takes mail fraud like that very seriously.

[The South Falls]

Yea, I think he should have been prosecuted to serve as an example.

[Ostroeuropa]

Verbal racial abuse of white people being dismissed as "Not racism because-" is one example. There's others too but we'll see if you can even grant the point there.

So saying mean things to white people? Yeah, that sucks. It's worth a discussion. It also, however, doesn't sound anywhere near as immediately pressing and harmful an issue as, you know, racist mass murders, economic discrimination, sentencing disparities, school segregation...

This is like saying "heterophobia is the main problem here because sometimes gay people say mean things about straight people on Twitter" and then blaming that same "heterophobia" for Jussie Smollett's actions, rather than the fact that homophobic violence is real and people are aware of that.

You don't think creating a hostile environment in educational institutions, mainstream media outlets and so on, is "anywhere near as immediately pressing"? Because that's what verbal abuse does.

It's economic discrimination dude. it also impacts mental health and wellbeing. It's also not the only issue, yet we're supposed to take racial abuse against minorities extremely seriously, whereas complaining about racial abuse of whites is itself taken to identify that white as an enemy of progressive institutions for noticing the epistemic injustice they perpetuate.

If verbal abuse isn't as serious, then why the disparity of action? it's not because the energy should be spent on those other issues you mentioned, that is a rationalization. It's because of the target of that racial verbal abuse.

"The police care about theft but there's a lot of murders right now so go away, oh wait, you're white? Sorry, gotcha mixed up there for a moment, sure we'll arrest the perp."

[Liriena]

Verbal racial abuse of white people being dismissed as "Not racism because-" is one example. There's others too but we'll see if you can even grant the point there.

So saying mean things to white people? Yeah, that sucks. It's worth a discussion. It also, however, doesn't sound anywhere near as immediately pressing and harmful an issue as, you know, racist mass murders, economic discrimination, sentencing disparities, school segregation...

This is like saying "heterophobia is the main problem here because sometimes gay people say mean things about straight people on Twitter" and then blaming that same "heterophobia" for Jussie Smollett's actions, rather than the fact that homophobic violence is real and people are aware of that.

See, this is all because of the progressive LGBT+ anti-cishet agenda demonizes and dehumanizes straight and cisgender people.

WHY do the characteristics Smollett talked about feed right into the prejudices of people who view left wing media? Because of the various prejudiced frameworks that media espouses through campaigns about heterosexuals.

What's particularly interesting is that in a naked profit motive, he immediately understood he needed to pander to anti-straight progressive prejudices and the left wing media.

this is actually pretty fun

[Ostroeuropa]

So saying mean things to white people? Yeah, that sucks. It's worth a discussion. It also, however, doesn't sound anywhere near as immediately pressing and harmful an issue as, you know, racist mass murders, economic discrimination, sentencing disparities, school segregation...

This is like saying "heterophobia is the main problem here because sometimes gay people say mean things about straight people on Twitter" and then blaming that same "heterophobia" for Jussie Smollett's actions, rather than the fact that homophobic violence is real and people are aware of that.

See, this is all because of the progressive LGBT+ anti-cishet agenda demonizes and dehumanizes straight and cisgender people.

WHY do the characteristics Smollett talked about feed right into the prejudices of people who view left wing media? Because of the various prejudiced frameworks that media espouses through campaigns about heterosexuals.

What's particularly interesting is that in a naked profit motive, he immediately understood he needed to pander to anti-straight progressive prejudices and the left wing media.

this is actually pretty fun

The sexuality of the perpetrators wasn't mentioned in his narrative. I also find it unfortunate that you'd now going to bat for capitalist media despite knowing how it operates.

[Liriena]

So saying mean things to white people? Yeah, that sucks. It's worth a discussion. It also, however, doesn't sound anywhere near as immediately pressing and harmful an issue as, you know, racist mass murders, economic discrimination, sentencing disparities, school segregation...

This is like saying "heterophobia is the main problem here because sometimes gay people say mean things about straight people on Twitter" and then blaming that same "heterophobia" for Jussie Smollett's actions, rather than the fact that homophobic violence is real and people are aware of that.

You don't think creating a hostile environment in educational institutions, mainstream media outlets and so on, is "anywhere near as immediately pressing"? Because that's what verbal abuse does.

Not insofar as I think you are vastly exaggerating the problem and giving excessive legitimacy to the way white supremacists themselves are framing the issue.

It's economic discrimination dude.

And white people, on average, still make a lot more money than most minorities.

it also impacts mental health and wellbeing.

And lead poisoning mainly affects black Americans. And that's without getting into the nit and gritty of how other forms of discrimination affect black Americans (including how they are disproportionately punished for misbehaving in school).

It's also not the only issue, yet we're supposed to take racial abuse against minorities extremely seriously

Yeah, because it's usually life-or-death in real life, for one.

whereas complaining about racial abuse of whites is itself taken to identify that white as an enemy of progressive institutions for noticing the epistemic injustice they perpetuate.

Stop conflating white supremacists with the entirety of the white race. White supremacy is the "enemy" of progressive institutions, not all white people.

[Liriena]

See, this is all because of the progressive LGBT+ anti-cishet agenda demonizes and dehumanizes straight and cisgender people.

WHY do the characteristics Smollett talked about feed right into the prejudices of people who view left wing media? Because of the various prejudiced frameworks that media espouses through campaigns about heterosexuals.

What's particularly interesting is that in a naked profit motive, he immediately understood he needed to pander to anti-straight progressive prejudices and the left wing media.

this is actually pretty fun

The sexuality of the perpetrators wasn't mentioned in his narrative. I also find it unfortunate that you'd now going to bat for capitalist media despite knowing how it operates.

Capitalist media is primarily run by white people (and mainly white men) who have shown no interest in effectively combatting white supremacy, so that's two misses for the price of one. And leave it to you to assume that Smollett's decision to describe the perpetrators as men was directly influenced by feminism. You are drawing a causal link out of nowhere, apparently based solely on the idea that if someone says a bad thing about any man ever, even an imaginary one, that's feminism's fault.

[Gravlen]

Mayor Emanuel pointed out that the city has spent much more than $10,000 on manpower due to this investigation.

When the mayor and the police superintendent are both furious I think it's safe to say something went wrong here.

Something has indeed gone wrong, and I'm curious as to what has really happened.

Man, this is a proper shitshow.

[Gormwood]

When the mayor and the police superintendent are both furious I think it's safe to say something went wrong here.

Something has indeed gone wrong, and I'm curious as to what has really happened.

Man, this is a proper shitshow.

Black political comedy.

[Burz-Hai]

If you've got money, you can get out of just about anything. We been knew dat, fam.

[Cedoria]

Indeed I can. I just did. Ostro's tangent is irrelevant to the entire thread, despite that pointless word-salad trying to claim otherwise. Don't expect other people not to point it out.

->

The media ran with the story in part because it was male suspects. A woman suspect would not garner interest because it does not fit the narrative, and doesn't do what it is designed to do;

Sell toxic crap to people who want their prejudices confirmed to them.

Much like male victims of women don't generate a media frenzy, because that doesn't validate the prejudices of those consuming that media, and they get angry and stop watching.

They were white AND male, and the "victim" was black. That's what made this a major scandal.

They were also "Trump supporters", it was tailor made to pander to the prejudice of the left wing media's audience. Literally, made up for that specific purpose.

Ignoring WHY that is the case and what ideologies MAKE that the case? Ridiculous.

"What characteristics do I need to give my made up boogeyman to get Fox news viewers glued to their televisions and generating a frenzy over it and thus to give me money for my story...

Hmmm...

Well, he's brown obviously, and muslim, and a democrat, and LGBT too... oh, and he screamed, "Black lives matter" at me when he hit me in the head."

"Hey man, why are you making this about the constellation of right wing prejudices? It's JUST about him being BLM, nothing else."

Sure. Seems like willful ignorance to me. The aspects of the fraud were calculated to play into the prejudices of the progressive left. What those prejudices are and where they come from are as important as the most in your face aspect of the story.

You can repeat the words you stated above as often as you like. Doesn't make you correct.

Well of course they reported as if he'd been a victim of a hate crime until they knew better. What are we supposed to do, not report developing stories in case they turn out false later? No press organisation of any credibility should ever or would ever do that.

Well yes, I mean, the fact that the alleged attacker was white and the alleged victim black was probably a big part of why it was labelled a 'hate crime'. Let me ask you this, if it actually happened that way, should it not be labelled as such?

Seems like you're acknowledging that hate crimes exist and then simultaneously blaming the press when it reports instances of such as if they actually are hate crimes. Guess what? More often then not, they are.

And of course ideology is mentioned when hate crimes are involved, because hate crimes tend to be caused in one way or another by ideological leanings, no matter their internal coherency (or lack thereof). Again, should we NOT discuss the relevant aspects involved in hate crimes when they occur?


Once again, whine all you like, but you're not really doing anything beyond pointing out a few obvious points and then using simplistic catchphrases to say 'this is bad' without any kind of meaningful examination of why or what the alternative is.

[Cedoria]

If you've got money, you can get out of just about anything. We been knew dat, fam.

Indeed, shouldn't really be surprising, but it's rarely ever quite so blatant, even in the windy city...

[Woodfiredpizzas]

If you've got money, you can get out of just about anything. We been knew dat, fam.

Indeed, shouldn't really be surprising, but it's rarely ever quite so blatant, even in the windy city...

He’s got that gay and black bonus hidden trait “preferred minority”- increases social defence

[Kowani]

If you've got money, you can get out of just about anything. We been knew dat, fam.

Indeed, shouldn't really be surprising, but it's rarely ever quite so blatant, even in the windy city...

Al Capone has been left in the dust.

[Farnhamia]

Indeed, shouldn't really be surprising, but it's rarely ever quite so blatant, even in the windy city...

Al Capone has been left in the dust.

Well, he's been dead since 1947, so ...

[Gormwood]

Al Capone has been left in the dust.

Well, he's been dead since 1947, so ...

He wasn't even in his vault when Geraldo Rivera dropped by.

[Liriena]

->

The media ran with the story in part because it was male suspects. A woman suspect would not garner interest because it does not fit the narrative, and doesn't do what it is designed to do;

Sell toxic crap to people who want their prejudices confirmed to them.

Much like male victims of women don't generate a media frenzy, because that doesn't validate the prejudices of those consuming that media, and they get angry and stop watching.

They were white AND male, and the "victim" was black. That's what made this a major scandal.

They were also "Trump supporters", it was tailor made to pander to the prejudice of the left wing media's audience. Literally, made up for that specific purpose.

Ignoring WHY that is the case and what ideologies MAKE that the case? Ridiculous.



"Hey man, why are you making this about the constellation of right wing prejudices? It's JUST about him being BLM, nothing else."

Sure. Seems like willful ignorance to me. The aspects of the fraud were calculated to play into the prejudices of the progressive left. What those prejudices are and where they come from are as important as the most in your face aspect of the story.

You can repeat the words you stated above as often as you like. Doesn't make you correct.

Well of course they reported as if he'd been a victim of a hate crime until they knew better. What are we supposed to do, not report developing stories in case they turn out false later? No press organisation of any credibility should ever or would ever do that.

Well yes, I mean, the fact that the alleged attacker was white and the alleged victim black was probably a big part of why it was labelled a 'hate crime'. Let me ask you this, if it actually happened that way, should it not be labelled as such?

Seems like you're acknowledging that hate crimes exist and then simultaneously blaming the press when it reports instances of such as if they actually are hate crimes. Guess what? More often then not, they are.

And of course ideology is mentioned when hate crimes are involved, because hate crimes tend to be caused in one way or another by ideological leanings, no matter their internal coherency (or lack thereof). Again, should we NOT discuss the relevant aspects involved in hate crimes when they occur?


Once again, whine all you like, but you're not really doing anything beyond pointing out a few obvious points and then using simplistic catchphrases to say 'this is bad' without any kind of meaningful examination of why or what the alternative is.

I'm fascinated by the galaxy brain take that acknowledging the fact that white supremacist hate crimes perpetrated by white men are a thing and are cause for concern is actually proof that progressives and feminists are on an insane, unprovoked crusade against white people and men.

[San Montalbano]

You can repeat the words you stated above as often as you like. Doesn't make you correct.

Well of course they reported as if he'd been a victim of a hate crime until they knew better. What are we supposed to do, not report developing stories in case they turn out false later? No press organisation of any credibility should ever or would ever do that.

Well yes, I mean, the fact that the alleged attacker was white and the alleged victim black was probably a big part of why it was labelled a 'hate crime'. Let me ask you this, if it actually happened that way, should it not be labelled as such?

Seems like you're acknowledging that hate crimes exist and then simultaneously blaming the press when it reports instances of such as if they actually are hate crimes. Guess what? More often then not, they are.

And of course ideology is mentioned when hate crimes are involved, because hate crimes tend to be caused in one way or another by ideological leanings, no matter their internal coherency (or lack thereof). Again, should we NOT discuss the relevant aspects involved in hate crimes when they occur?


Once again, whine all you like, but you're not really doing anything beyond pointing out a few obvious points and then using simplistic catchphrases to say 'this is bad' without any kind of meaningful examination of why or what the alternative is.

I'm fascinated by the galaxy brain take that acknowledging the fact that white supremacist hate crimes perpetrated by white men are a thing and are cause for concern is actually proof that progressives and feminists are on an insane, unprovoked crusade against white people and men.

there kind of is a crusade against white men though, in the name of "social justice" white people are often caught in the tension, hence why you see things like " Oh it's not racist against white men because we don't have power" or other non-sensical arguements, or the liberal colleges and their treatment of white/asians.