|
Dude's a hero for wasting CPD's time.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
He's the opposite of a hero for giving chuds a stick with "they're faking it for attention" written on it to bash stories with for the next few years. Same poo poo happened with Mattress Girl and I'm not looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:fau said ya the probation was bad in qqcs if that's any consulation, it's really the same trump conundrum from Trump and 2016. All racists believe Smollet was faking, but not all people who doubted Smollet are racist. Thanks for pointing me to that. I appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
mod challenge: apologize to predicto
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
Kith posted:mod challenge: apologize to predicto No. That post was made nearly a month ago, when there was no actual reason to surmise it was a hoax other than vague gut feelings. That he happened to guess right doesn’t change that the speculation was baseless at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No. That post was made nearly a month ago, when there was no actual reason to surmise it was a hoax other than vague gut feelings. That he happened to guess right doesn’t change that the speculation was baseless at the time. Really though practically everything anyone said about this event at the time was just baseless speculation. It's kind of an inherent problem with parsing current events, and why we should always be suspicious of mob mentalities. We can only make sense of these things after a real investigation. That impulse to jump to conclusions was WRONG, and that is true both for those who were overly quick to defend and denounce Smollett. Even now I'm not especially comfortable interpreting the meaning of what is known. The worst though are those who will post hoc justify their mistakes with bland excuses like "well maybe it was fake, but it felt true at the time, so really I was completely justified in all those things I said and did, and really its still true in a higher moral and philosophic sense, so what I said is still fundamentally right even if it was objectively wrong." Those people are doomed to be caught again and again by future frauds, and they won't always be easily discredited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Or, you know, we default to giving alleged victims the benefit of the doubt until investigations or information give reason to do otherwise? And coming back when they do to boast to all the people who did that you were right to think that a hate attack seemed unlikely or fishy for random reasons like "it was cold" seems not to serve a lot of purpose and maybe should cause you to take a step back and ask what you're getting out of it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Or, you know, we default to giving alleged victims the benefit of the doubt until investigations or information give reason to do otherwise? And coming back when they do to boast to all the people who did that you were right to think that a hate attack seemed unlikely or fishy for random reasons like "it was cold" seems not to serve a lot of purpose and maybe should cause you to take a step back and ask what you're getting out of it? "You may have been right, but I'm still better than you since you were only right by virtue of being a bad person." Plenty of good journos (not the Fox crowd) were expressing a desire to stay the gently caress away from the story from day one, so it's not like skepticism in this case was a completely unheard of idea, even if it wasn't allowed here. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
predicto posted:No, I was the one who was wrong. I admit it, and I served my time and I deserved it. I'm not sure why I posted. The incident just seemed so, I don't know, stereotypical. Too perfect of a story, with every hateful box checked. Like a movie script written by an 8th grader. Why apologise when he said he hosed up. There is nothing wrong with believing an apparent victim. False accusations are so rare they are practically statistically irrelevant. Do you know what's worse? Not believing someone when they tell you about their trauma. I grew up getting called friend of the family and bullied in school. I know what it feels like to not feel safe because of who you are. No one deserves this. I will always believe someone when it comes to their trauma because I know from painful personal loving experience that the flip side of that is so much worse. And further more, there is nothing wrong not trusting a police department known for drugging, kidnapping, torturing and murdering people until further evidence is released.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:"You may have been right, but I'm still better than you since you were only right by virtue of being a bad person." I mean, its cool that being right on the internet about picking which hate crimes to believe and not is the main issue here. For the record, I was wrong about Smollett being the victim of a hate crime. I still stand by my basic stance of supporting alleged victims until investigations or evidence prove otherwise. Judge me how you will for that apparently controversial stance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I mean, its cool that being right on the internet about picking which hate crimes to believe and not is the main issue here. For the record, I was wrong about Smollett being the victim of a hate crime. I still stand by my basic stance of supporting alleged victims until investigations or evidence prove otherwise. Judge me how you will for that apparently controversial stance. I don't think people who believed him did anything wrong, I just think actively punishing people for expressing skepticism leads to dangerous tunnel vision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No. That post was made nearly a month ago, when there was no actual reason to surmise it was a hoax other than vague gut feelings. That he happened to guess right doesn’t change that the speculation was baseless at the time. Really? It was based on the several historical examples I put right there in my post of celebrities doing dumb poo poo to get attention, and on the specific weird circumstances of the story during the middle of an insane polar vertex where temperatures in Chicago reached 25 below zero and absolutely no one was out on the streets AND I tried to acknowledge that I might just have become cynical when a celebrity is involved. My post was motivated by a concern about it being a hoax because that would give the chuds ammunition for the next 20 years, the same way that the the Duke lacrosse team hoax has done, giving ideological cover for the Brett Kavanaughs and Clarence Thomases of the world. I'm not asking for an apology but it really does kind of suck that you are doubling down here, which sort of perpetuates the idea that I'm a "bigoted shitlord" (as one friendly poster so kindly put it). I know this is a dying Polynesian knitting forum, but I care a little bit what people on here think of me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
predicto posted:Really? It was based on the several historical examples I put right there in my post of celebrities doing dumb poo poo to get attention, and on the specific weird circumstances of the story during the middle of an insane polar vertex where temperatures in Chicago reached 25 below zero and absolutely no one was out on the streets AND I tried to acknowledge that I might just have become cynical when a celebrity is involved. My post was motivated by a concern about it being a hoax because that would give the chuds ammunition for the next 20 years, the same way that the the Duke lacrosse team hoax has done, giving ideological cover for the Brett Kavanaughs and Clarence Thomases of the world. So are you retracting your previous statement or just going with whatever flow you think benefits you at the moment like our very own Lindsay Graham
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
predicto posted:Really? It was based on the several historical examples I put right there in my post of celebrities doing dumb poo poo to get attention, and on the specific weird circumstances of the story during the middle of an insane polar vertex where temperatures in Chicago reached 25 below zero and absolutely no one was out on the streets AND I tried to acknowledge that I might just have become cynical when a celebrity is involved. My post was motivated by a concern about it being a hoax because that would give the chuds ammunition for the next 20 years, the same way that the the Duke lacrosse team hoax has done, giving ideological cover for the Brett Kavanaughs and Clarence Thomases of the world. I mean, yes, I do stand by it. You happened to get lucky and be right, but I think the odds of that on balance were not high in the sense that the vast majority of the time, they’re not hoaxes. In the context of when that post was made, yes I think it was poo poo. I don’t think that post would have made you a bigoted shitlord. It just would’ve been a bad post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Or, you know, we default to giving alleged victims the benefit of the doubt until investigations or information give reason to do otherwise? And coming back when they do to boast to all the people who did that you were right to think that a hate attack seemed unlikely or fishy for random reasons like "it was cold" seems not to serve a lot of purpose and maybe should cause you to take a step back and ask what you're getting out of it? I got nothing out of it, but my reasons were not random. It wasn't just cold, it was hazardous and there were lots of other things weird about it. You are assuming that I just automatically default to doubting the victim (or doubting gay people, or doubting black people) or something. I don't. At best my post was slightly aambiguous in retrospect (and I apologized for that) Look, this isn't Free Republic, why is it appropriate to assume from the getgo that someone else on here is a bigoted shitlord?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, yes, I do stand by it. You happened to get lucky and be right, but I think the odds of that on balance were not high in the sense that the vast majority of the time, they’re not hoaxes. In the context of when that post was made, yes I think it was poo poo. Just curious. How many individual bad posts by non-bigoted non-shitlords pull a week long ban? And OF COURSE the vast majority of the time they're not hoaxes. I never said anything to suggest otherwise. Anita Hill wasn't a hoax. Christine Ford was not a hoax. FFS
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't think people who believed him did anything wrong, I just think actively punishing people for expressing skepticism leads to dangerous tunnel vision. I didn't super agree with the probation at the time because probating people for saying stupid or offensive poo poo is somewhat arbitrary and selective and I'm not in love with the way its handled in D&D. But its over and done with so I don't really see the point in re-litigating it and demanding an apology, especially when the poster said they were wrong for the post. But even if they didn't like... what is accomplished for coming back for a round of "I told you so?" What lesson do we learn? Don't give the benefit of the doubt to alleged victims? Be more suspicious of hate crimes that allegedly happen in the cold?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Why apologise when he said he hosed up. I hosed up by being a little bit vague. I tried to clarify. But I'm still being treated like a bigoted shitlord. Or maybe a bigoted shitlord-lite. But I'm done talking about it because it's not going to get better by dragging along any further.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
predicto posted:Just curious. How many individual bad posts by non-bigoted non-shitlords pull a week long ban? This thread has a three day punishment floor. That’s why it was longer. If you would like to PM/email me, I will talk to you about it all night instead of occupying this thread further.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
Ironically a -25 night is like the one time where people going about in ski masks (or, for that matter, buying days earlier) would be completely normal. Ski masks are amazing in extreme cold and against wind chill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This thread has a three day punishment floor. That’s why it was longer. Nah, it's ok.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
predicto posted:I hosed up by being a little bit vague. I tried to clarify. But I'm still being treated like a bigoted shitlord. Or maybe a bigoted shitlord-lite. Not by us tho?? Ask for an apology from the people who are being lovely to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:What lesson do we learn? Don't give the benefit of the doubt to alleged victims? Be more suspicious of hate crimes that allegedly happen in the cold? I don't have a great answer to that, but this isn't the first time the broad left side of the spectrum has gone all in on a hoax, and every time it happens that itself does a lot to make it harder for future victims to be believed. I think giving credible victims the benefit of the doubt to some extent is good, but obviously people are going to draw the line on who does and doesn't seem credible differently, and on what the evidence at hand (generally limited at first) suggests that may conflict with that narrative, and a healthy discussion allows for some difference in opinion on that without the assumption of bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Ironically a -25 night is like the one time where people going about in ski masks (or, for that matter, buying days earlier) would be completely normal. Ski masks are amazing in extreme cold and against wind chill. Hi there friendo, the one who announced that I'm a bigoted shitlord. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not saying it's fake, I'm saying it's a bad faith medium post by an opposition researcher. C'mon. Well hey at least PPJ isn't retweeting Hugh Hewitt anymore Anyway, Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC's chief of staff, is tearing this article a new one in the comments. Name Change fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
predicto posted:I got nothing out of it, but my reasons were not random. It wasn't just cold, it was hazardous and there were lots of other things weird about it. You are assuming that I just automatically default to doubting the victim (or doubting gay people, or doubting black people) or something. I don't. At best my post was slightly aambiguous in retrospect (and I apologized for that) Look, I'm sorry. I did and still do think that the "cold" and "bleach" things were dumb reasons to be suspicious of this. You can feel free to disagree with me on that but I don't see how they in anyway factored into the debunking of Smollett's story. And as I said somewhere I don't get how "it was too cold to do a hate crime" doesn't just run parallel to "it was too cold to stage a hate crime." It seems like a not super meaningful factor. But I'm not calling you a bigot either. There's a million reasons why you might have gotten there. Maybe you genuinely were ignorant to the role bleach has played in historical hate attacks? Or maybe you are just naturally suspicious of celebrities as you've seemed to voice since? Or maybe you just had a day where you voiced things badly as you've suggested? I have days and posts where I'm dumb and subjects that I make a fool of myself on. And you don't have to agree with me that you were wrong. If you still feel it was too cold and the bleach was too weird, you do you. I still think those were spurious reasons to doubt it but I'm obviously not gonna be fighting hard for Smollett's honor at this point. But if at some point I called or implied you were a bigot I DO apologize for that. Because I will confess that I got kind of hot about this subject for a few days and I kind of forcibly withdrew from these threads because I could feel myself ready to say something I'd regret.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't have a great answer to that, but this isn't the first time the broad left side of the spectrum has gone all in on a hoax, and every time it happens that itself does a lot to make it harder for future victims to be believed. I think giving credible victims the benefit of the doubt to some extent is good, but obviously people are going to draw the line on who does and doesn't seem credible differently, and on what the evidence at hand (generally limited at first) suggests that may conflict with that narrative, and a healthy discussion allows for some difference in opinion on that without the assumption of bad faith. I think healthy discussion is good. I'm definitely not going to bat for the poster saying "Maybe the CPD made deep fake videos with AI" or thinking we have any credible reason to assume this is all a CPD framejob. Once the CPD officially announced they had a paper trail it seemed pretty plausible that Smollett was guilty. And if people who paid more credence to the rumors that came out the days earlier wanted to rub it in my face that they were right and I was wrong to doubt them... well they're probably right but I still don't see what that accomplishes besides someone feeling superior. I still think we should have healthy skepticism of anonymous sources that don't present any evidence to their claims, especially when the official channels are publicly denying it (apparently the CPD was lying when they said Smollett wasn't a suspect of a crime). Like I said, I could feel myself losing perspective the last few days so I withdrew. But like we're talking about weeks earlier and stuff like "it was really cold out and why were they carrying bleach?" That's different than "Smollett seems linked to the suspects and there's sources saying he may have faked it." And yeah, if we give all victims the benefit of the doubt we're gonna get burned every now and then. I can live with that because it means me sticking with my principles. And I can live with my principles, even if they don't always play out in my favor. edit: Ack, double post. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't have a great answer to that, but this isn't the first time the broad left side of the spectrum has gone all in on a hoax, and every time it happens that itself does a lot to make it harder for future victims to be believed. I think giving credible victims the benefit of the doubt to some extent is good, but obviously people are going to draw the line on who does and doesn't seem credible differently, and on what the evidence at hand (generally limited at first) suggests that may conflict with that narrative, and a healthy discussion allows for some difference in opinion on that without the assumption of bad faith. So what? Until fake rapes/attacks/whatever become more common than people dismissing real assaults, that’s just the the price we pay for centuries of loving over victims. There might be some “healthy debate” to be had, but early skepticism (or even aloof "reserving judgement") of victim's claims by bystanders is not healthy. Stickman fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
Stickman posted:So what? Until fake rapes/attacks/whatever become more common than people dismissing real assaults, that’s just the the price we pay for centuries of loving over victims. There might be some “healthy debate” to be had, but early skepticism (or even aloof "reserving judgement") of victim's claims by bystanders is not healthy. So you'd say it's morally right to support victims' claims no matter how skeptical you might be of a particular case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Insanite posted:So you'd say it's morally right to support victims' claims no matter how skeptical you might be of a particular case? Hello traveler from 2010, that is indeed the message of #MeToo and BLM. If that sounds crazy to you, just wait until you learn who is president right now!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
I don't think that's a fair reading of any of BLM and most of #MeToo, but I also think that the probe was pretty dumb. I also had "vague gut feelings" that something was off after being horrified by the initial reports, but I also don't have the wisdom of a SA mod so maybe I'm just an idiot for having them. It's a good thing I didn't type those feelings in a discussion forum to talk them out with other people, or else bad things might have happened. Insanite fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
predicto posted:Hi there friendo, the one who announced that I'm a bigoted shitlord. The gently caress are you talking about? E: cuz I was actually curious what you might be referring to. You posted about how the attack seemed very stereotypical and I replied that, yes, people committing hate crimes certainly are known for their nuanced, non-stereotyped ideas. Hate crimes (ironically both made up ones and real ones and whatever this one turns out to be once some actual evidence is presented) are almost by definition stereotypical to the point that they'd be considered cliched and boring. I guess you misread that as being called a bigot or something, which, while I probably feel that way wrt to rushing to make a 'he was faking it' post, I avoided saying. As an aside, pretty much every hate crime I can think of is painfully stereotypical and unimaginative, that's not a disqualifying factor, it's practically a precondition. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Look, I'm sorry. I did and still do think that the "cold" and "bleach" things were dumb reasons to be suspicious of this. You can feel free to disagree with me on that but I don't see how they in anyway factored into the debunking of Smollett's story. And as I said somewhere I don't get how "it was too cold to do a hate crime" doesn't just run parallel to "it was too cold to stage a hate crime." It seems like a not super meaningful factor. Here's the thing. It was terrifyingly cold, well below zero plus 25 mph wind. This is weather that you die in very quickly. Smollett said he left his hotel on a whim to go to a 7/11 at 2 am. If he was being stalked because of his BLM activism, race, and homosexuality, then his attackers' apparent plan was to wait around outside his hotel hoping he would suddenly appear alone at 2 am for some inexplicable reason. They would have no way to know that he ever would come out and it was unlikely he would given that weather, and they would literally be risking their lives standing out there hoping for that minor chance to come through. Racist homophobic criminals are dumb but not dumb, and not suicidal. On the other hand, if this was a random racist or homophobic attack, then those same guys had a plan to wander around outside when virtually no one was out on the streets because of the polar vortex, hoping to find a random black man to throw bleach on and put a noose on while they cackle stereotypical MAGA slogans, and according to Smollett some of those slogans were homophobic even though people attacking a random black man would have no way to know that he also was gay. So that story doesn't hold up either. So it's not that it was "too cold to do a hate crime," it was that it probably was too cold for the kind of hate crime that Smollett described. I absolutely default to believing the victim, but this wasn't a "he said she said" situation - Smollett gave lots of facts, and those facts did not add up under any theory. And now I really am done. I'm not trying to rub anything in anyone's face, and I am sorry for all the derailing. predicto fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The gently caress are you talking about? holy poo poo I totally misread your post. I thought you were calling me a bigoted shitlord. I am so sorry. I appear to be laboring under a persecution complex. Gonna take a little voluntary time out now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No. That post was made nearly a month ago, when there was no actual reason to surmise it was a hoax other than vague gut feelings. That he happened to guess right doesn’t change that the speculation was baseless at the time. Odd, the admin of the forums disagrees and thankfully has final say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:Odd, the admin of the forums disagrees and thankfully has final say. You say, as if I haven’t already discussed it with FAU. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 12:09
|
|
|
Would you guys just apologize for probing him, admit you goddamn clowns had a knee jerk reaction to reading something you didnt like, and then move the gently caress on, please? Jesus Christ. The virtue signaling in here is insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
mods for the crime of not allowing some shithead to post for several hours i demand an apology!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
The Science of Suck posted:mods for the crime of not allowing some shithead to post for several hours i demand an apology! EDIT: In case anyone's wondering, I just noticed that this whole topic is covered in the thread below, so probably best to clear out of the USNEWS thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3882752&pagenumber=1 JazzFlight fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Demanding the black mod apologizes for a probation in a forum she doesn't moderate is a choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:10
|
|
