|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 22, 2019 10:29:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 22, 2019 10:38:33 GMT -5
Some people just don't know when to put down the shovel.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 22, 2019 11:24:06 GMT -5
My point is that Smollet's stupid/criminal act is being used by many on the right as evidence that gay/black people make false claims about bigotry/racism. Because it feeds into their narrative that basically bigotry and racism don't exist anymore. If a white/straight person does something stupid/criminal, it doesn't affect the reputations of white/straight people. I mean, honestly, do you feel judged by the left when white straight men do stupid or criminal things? Disagree. So many serial killers, so many mass murderers, so many school shooters are white men and that point is hammered home whenever there is a new one. And ditto for sexual assaults ala Weinstein and others (though then it's more about men, in general). So yeah, I feel--to some extent--judged all the time because I'm a straight white male. I'm not wound up about it, but I know it's happening. That said, I also think it's true that the cost to marginalized groups from stupidity like Smollett's is more pronounced and more damaging, so I take nighttimer's point. What Rob said. I feel like if a straight white male or guy in general does something, we get a collective blame. Toxic masculinity and all that. And if you call it out, you're told to 'not all men'. At the same time, minorities, especially men get it harder. This can feed into the 'see there's no racism' trope which is absurd. But also, while people won't usually say it, if a black male beat someone up, if reinforces the 'scary black guy' narrative that exists. Both can be true at the same time. That doesn't make it right. It doesn't justify the fear and hatred and passive racism of White people when a Black guy beats "someone" (presumably White), so whether (White) people say it or not, they're using an outlier, an aberration and an isolated neer-do-well to condemn the whole group and guess what, that IS what racism means.
The journalist Carl T. Rowan observed, "A minority group has 'arrived' only when it has the right to produce some fools and scoundrels without the entire group paying for it." By that standard neither Blacks not gays have arrived yet, because one stupid fuck like Smollett is all it takes to stigmatize everyone else like him and I don't have anything to do with it.
I have never---EVER---heard a White male say they feel any sense of collective guilt over what a Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer or Heinrich Himmler did. White people as a collective are allowed to ostracize their fools and scoundrels without the entire group paying for it, where if one Black guy steals a six-pack of beer from the gas station, every Black guy who comes in after him and wanders near the coolers is gonna get a lot more scrutiny because, "They ALL steal."
For reasons I'm not sure I understand, a nearly 50-year-old interview popped back up this week and while there's a lot of startling content in it, there's a candor and freedom to speak forthrightly that is almost refreshing in this age of spin doctors, political correctness and carefully parsing of words already filtered through lawyers and P.R. flacks and that's the 1971 Playboy interview with John Wayne and boy, it is FIRE.
The interviewer probably had to resist throwing up in his mouth a bit from all the bile, so he shifted the subject to another group The Duke had plenty of interaction with. At least in his movies.
Wayne's nauseating bigotry and ignorance is appalling and yet relevant. Why? Because of Fux News, silly!
The Duke is the quintessential American hero. He represents so many of the virtues of the country, and yet he embodies so many of its vices, but you'd never know it from the revisionists on the Right. For them, history means nothing when it comes from a dead conservative icon like John Wayne. What matters is the current hot topic of the day where a manipulator like Jussie Smollett, a clueless screw-up like Ralph Northam, or an accuser sexual assaulter like Justin Fairfax can be weaponized to trivialize and distract from the noxious racism of a beloved actor best known for killing a whole lot of Indians in his movies.
Ain't that America?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 22, 2019 11:39:52 GMT -5
While it wouldn't shock me to hear someone super woke talk about collective guilt of a serial killer, I don't think most whites feel that way. What you do hear is talk about toxic masculinity, attacks on straight white males, etc, and collective blame from those woke. It's not right, but it happens.
None of that diminishes the fact that blacks have always been judged by the worst actions, the stereotypes, etc. That a black man arrested and charged for the same crime as a white person will get twice the sentence. That viewing a black man in a hoody on a dark night will make people like George Zimmerman think he's a thug and not a kid with skettles in his pocket.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 22, 2019 12:51:19 GMT -5
I'm about to create a thread on this board about something I really care about, but somehow nobody else seems to even know about. Did you create this thread and I missed it? I genuinely curious.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 22, 2019 13:14:03 GMT -5
Seen on the internet: "This tale of an attack is so fishy I can smollett."
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 25, 2019 18:10:05 GMT -5
I'm about to create a thread on this board about something I really care about, but somehow nobody else seems to even know about. Did you create this thread and I missed it? I genuinely curious. I had every intention to. Then I thought, "why bother?" Why go somewhere when I know I'm the only one who wants to. So, no.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 25, 2019 19:50:38 GMT -5
Did you create this thread and I missed it? I genuinely curious. I had every intention to. Then I thought, "why bother?" Why go somewhere when I know I'm the only one who wants to. So, no. Bummer. I too was curious.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 25, 2019 20:50:11 GMT -5
I’m curious too, NT.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 25, 2019 21:06:15 GMT -5
Same, so that's like, at least half of the audience You're pretty much obligated now
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 9, 2019 0:59:12 GMT -5
Each of those counts carries a max sentence of 3 years, from what I understand. He also potentially faces federal charges for mailing himself a fake death threat. Granted, I doubt he'll get convicted on all 16 counts and also doubt he'd get the full amount for each of them, but he's still looking at some serious jail time. www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/entertainment/jussie-smollett-indictment/index.html
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 9, 2019 9:20:00 GMT -5
I think maybe that's going overboard. Don't get me wrong, I think he should get in trouble, should probably be charged, but I don't think locking him away for years is a good idea. I think maybe it's something that should see some heavy fines and maybe--at most--six months in jail. Really, 60 days might be enough.
And throwing the book at someone for manufacturing a crime like this may still have a negative impact on the reporting of real crimes like this.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 9, 2019 16:30:32 GMT -5
Yeah, seems a bit over-the-top in light of the undeservedly lenient sentence of Manafort.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Mar 9, 2019 16:55:11 GMT -5
For his state charges, any sentences would run concurrently (because they arise out of the same facts and circumstances), so while he technically could face multiple three year sentences, three would likely be the max.
But yeah, 60 days seems like plenty to me.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 10, 2019 18:19:55 GMT -5
|
|