Jussie Smollett attack

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Yeah, in hindsight it's pretty obvious. Anyone who was really dragged/choked/etc in a noose would take that shit off their neck the second they were able.

To be fair, sexual assault victims are instructed not to destroy evidence. They are not permitted to rinse, brush, or drink; to rinse or wash any part of their body; use the restroom; or change their clothes. They have to sit for hours in the fluids of the person who attacked them, parched and holding their bladder. So I can see the 9-1-1 operator instructing him not to disturb anything.

LOL!!!!!!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To be fair, sexual assault victims are instructed not to destroy evidence. They are not permitted to rinse, brush, or drink; to rinse or wash any part of their body; use the restroom; or change their clothes. They have to sit for hours in the fluids of the person who attacked them, parched and holding their bladder. So I can see the 9-1-1 operator instructing him not to disturb anything.

Another possibility, just one which I doubt. Based on nothing but my inability picture someone going through all that and leaving the noose on while phoning 911. There are indeed instructions on what to do after being raped, but not so much on what to do after being dragged around by the neck

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Another possibility, just one which I doubt. Based on nothing but my inability picture someone going through all that and leaving the noose on while phoning 911. There are indeed instructions on what to do after being raped, but not so much on what to do after being dragged around by the neck

Exactly what do you think he went through?

If he hypothetically went through it, obviously.

piss off, time waster troll

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To be fair, sexual assault victims are instructed not to destroy evidence. They are not permitted to rinse, brush, or drink; to rinse or wash any part of their body; use the restroom; or change their clothes. They have to sit for hours in the fluids of the person who attacked them, parched and holding their bladder. So I can see the 9-1-1 operator instructing him not to disturb anything.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
If he hypothetically went through it, obviously.

piss off, time waster troll

So you're leaning more towards this not being a hoax?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you're leaning more towards this not being a hoax?

didn't say or imply that, in fact I'm inclined to believe it was a hoax. I'm just not pretending to know for certain, like you are.

all you clowns know how to do is kick the strawman. Gtfo boring time waster troll.

The guys who beat him up admitted they did it, they were black, we have video of them buying masks and hats, we have a check he wrote them

Its no more certain it was a hoax then death and taxes.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
again, I never gave an opinion on the topic here, or anywhere really. I wasn't aware that I owed one. Oh wait I don't.

From my first post in this thread, my position has been that the appropriate time to accept a claim is when there is sufficient evidence to believe it is true.

Is it plausible he was the victim of a targeted, bias-motivated attack? Yes. Was there sufficient evidence at the time to believe that is what happened? No.

Likewise, is it plausible the alleged attack was a hoax? Yes. Was there sufficient evidence at the time to believe that was the case? Also, no.

My entire point has been that there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another. So people drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence were rushing to judgment.

We have a system to investigate claims, and we should allow it to work. What was telling to me, is when people were willing to suspend their judgment.

When a person who is disproportionately more likely to be the victim of bias-motivated violence made a claim that he was attacked, everyone was supposed to treat that claim with suspicion.

But on the word of "anonymous person with knowledge of the investigation" that the attack was hoax, we were supposed to take that claim as gospel.

Both claims are built on circumstantial evidence and hearsay reports, yet the usual suspects are shrieking that is sufficient to believe one claim, but not the other.

Apparently, pointing out that discrepancy means you have stated a position, even if you have not. And by not jumping on their bandwagon, you have sided against them, and they can ascribe all kinds of attitudes and beliefs to you.

It has been a total shit show for days. Everyone who did not take a position, who has no skin in the game whatsoever, is totally trigg'd and melting down.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Apparently, pointing out that discrepancy means you have stated a position, even if you have not. And by not jumping on their bandwagon, you have sided against them, and they can ascribe all kinds of attitudes and beliefs to you.

bingo

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
From my first post in this thread, my position has been that the appropriate time to accept a claim is when there is sufficient evidence to believe it is true.

Is it plausible he was the victim of a targeted, bias-motivated attack? Yes. Was there sufficient evidence at the time to believe that is what happened? No.

Likewise, is it plausible the alleged attack was a hoax? Yes. Was there sufficient evidence at the time to believe that was the case? Also, no.

My entire point has been that there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another. So people drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence were rushing to judgment.

We have a system to investigate claims, and we should allow it to work. What was telling to me, is when people were willing to suspend their judgment.

When a person who is disproportionately more likely to be the victim of bias-motivated violence made a claim that he was attacked, everyone was supposed to treat that claim with suspicion.

But on the word of "anonymous person with knowledge of the investigation" that the attack was hoax, we were supposed to take that claim as gospel.

Both claims are built on circumstantial evidence and hearsay reports, yet the usual suspects are shrieking that is sufficient to believe one claim, but not the other.

Apparently, pointing out that discrepancy means you have stated a position, even if you have not. And by not jumping on their bandwagon, you have sided against them, and they can ascribe all kinds of attitudes and beliefs to you.

It has been a total shit show for days. Everyone who did not take a position, who has no skin in the game whatsoever, is totally trigg'd and melting down.

It's always amusing watching people pretending like there's not enough evidence currently available to form an educated opinion. It's also funny watching others go off on crazy conspiracy theories in order to cling to the notion that he's actually telling the truth.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Look at, me I'm a time waster troll

cool 👆

Quote editing is a rather common form of trolling, does anyone else notice the hypocrisy that the person responsible is one who just recently hoped that someone would be banned for trolling.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I have nothing to contribute to this forum besides lots and lots of time wasting phaggotry

true

Since you're repeating your tactic of quote editing, this post remains relevant

Originally posted by Silent Master
Quote editing is a rather common form of trolling, does anyone else notice the hypocrisy that the person responsible is one who just recently hoped that someone would be banned for trolling.

Originally posted by Silent Master
i literally have nothing intelligent or relevant to say.

Why don't you try shutting up then?

Are you okay?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
From my first post in this thread, my position has been that the appropriate time to accept a claim is when there is sufficient evidence to believe it is true.

Is it plausible he was the victim of a targeted, bias-motivated attack? Yes. Was there sufficient evidence at the time to believe that is what happened? No.

Likewise, is it plausible the alleged attack was a hoax? Yes. Was there sufficient evidence at the time to believe that was the case? Also, no.

My entire point has been that there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another. So people drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence were rushing to judgment.

We have a system to investigate claims, and we should allow it to work. What was telling to me, is when people were willing to suspend their judgment.

When a person who is disproportionately more likely to be the victim of bias-motivated violence made a claim that he was attacked, everyone was supposed to treat that claim with suspicion.

But on the word of "anonymous person with knowledge of the investigation" that the attack was hoax, we were supposed to take that claim as gospel.

Both claims are built on circumstantial evidence and hearsay reports, yet the usual suspects are shrieking that is sufficient to believe one claim, but not the other.

Apparently, pointing out that discrepancy means you have stated a position, even if you have not. And by not jumping on their bandwagon, you have sided against them, and they can ascribe all kinds of attitudes and beliefs to you.

It has been a total shit show for days. Everyone who did not take a position, who has no skin in the game whatsoever, is totally trigg'd and melting down.

I agree with this and it should be applied to all situations.

Tbh, I think it was always seemed unbelievable to me and many others. The whole thing has been so dumb.