Jussie Smollett
- Thread starter dumass
- Start date
This asshole is a joke, but he was trying to incite racial hatred.
He'a already claiming to have a drug problem, so he'll probably skate on doing time, pay a fine and go on his very merry way.
He'a already claiming to have a drug problem, so he'll probably skate on doing time, pay a fine and go on his very merry way.
MAGA isn't a race.
Anyway I hope he does time. He didn't do anyone any favours no matter what race or political affiliation you are.
In the initial news reports it was stated that Jussie said he was attacked by two white men saying This is MAGA country and racial and homophobic slurs. The inclusion of the MAGA slogan was to add fuel to the fire that they were Trump supporters ergo white thus inciting both racial and political hatred.
Again, not equivalent. Also homophobic people can be violent against their own race. I'm white and I didn't feel threatened or blamed by this false report.
I didn't see criticism of white people by people who thought this attack was real. I saw criticism of Trump supporters. Unfair in this case but still not racist.
Virtually everyone who first commented on the attack who believed the attack was real called it a racist homophobic hate crime. Only a few of them mentioned Trump.
Here is a sample. https://pagesix.com/2019/02/21/jussie-smollets-celeb-supporters-are-backtracking-or-staying-quiet/
Smollett said that the attackers were white, he was wearing a noose around his neck to symbolize a lynching and those stating it was a racist attack would thus believe that it was committed by white people. Why would this be classified as a hate crime otherwise?
Whether or not you feel threatened or blamed by any of this is meaningless.
You're confusing two things. Yes, it was portrayed as a racist hate crime. But Cock Throppled said Smollett was trying to incite racial hatred. Not the same thing. It was the latter I was objecting to.
If he was trying to incite racial hatred that can only mean he was either (a) trying to encourage copycats or (b) get white people in general attacked in retaliation. Neither of these things happened. Racism (and Trump supporters) were blamed, but a race was not blamed. Blaming racists is not blaming a race. Hence it didn't incite racism.
Nothing happened BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT. Who knows what might have resulted if he got away with it.
We also don't know what his real motive in staging this was. Sure the story is that he was trying to raise his profile as a victim to get more money per Empire episode...but was it really? Everything else in this case he has said has been a lie and saying that you were trying to get more money per episode is less likely to lead to a severe sentence than saying that you were deliberately trying to inflame racial tensions which could lead to violence and possibly deaths in an attempt to get Trump out of office.
He was definitely trying to incite racial hatred by lying about being attacked specifically by WHITE men, using the symbolic noose around his neck (read Corey Booker and Kamala Harris quotes calling it a "modern day lynching") and throwing in the mention of MAGA, as the current rhetoric associates MAGA and the red hats as being not only Trump supporters, but racists. Just look at how the Covington high scool students were villified, primarily because they were filmed with some of them wearing MAGA hats.
He also said they called him a "ni**er fa**ot".
There isn't any stronger trigger word in race relations in America than white people calling a black man the "N" word.
The media described it as a hate crime. That could relate to either his sexual orientation, or his race. Take your cjoice, it was still meant to incite people.
He also said they called him a "ni**er fa**ot".
There isn't any stronger trigger word in race relations in America than white people calling a black man the "N" word.
The media described it as a hate crime. That could relate to either his sexual orientation, or his race. Take your cjoice, it was still meant to incite people.
Ok, we have our opinions. In the interest of reasonable debate, let me explain what mine is based on: his Twitter rhetoric is primarily conservative vs. liberal, democrat vs. republican. If he was deliberately trying to incite any kind of civil war, so to speak, I genuinely think it was intended to be along political lines, not racial lines, and he said "white" because it played into the MAGA stereotype, not the other way around.
He even pressed the point in his interview where he said he didn't see why he would need to make up the additional detail that they had MAGA hats because he seemed to feel his description made their politics "obvious" regardless. It's clear who he had in mind for the villain in his play, and it was a political villain not a racial one.
And throwing a little more whimsical speculation in, he was probably trying to vilify MAGA because he wanted to galvanise opposition as the election approaches. (Americans seem to start their election rallying way far in advance.)
So when you said he "was trying to incite racial hatred" I disagreed. Might that be a secondary consequence regardless? Maybe. But I don't think that's the hatred he was "trying" to incite.
Last edited:
And I disagree. I believe it was....the end justifies the means. Otherwise why use the symbolism of the noose which he knows (and used it in an anti Trump music video) is sure to trigger the anger of the black community. It was probably fresh in his mind having just a few days earlier attended a rally with Democrat Presidential candidates Kamela Harris and Cory Booker to help promote their anti lynching bill.
I believe this incident would have incided racial hatred.
Remember, it was in Chicago, a city full of crime and racial tension. He said the attackers where WHITE, when they are Black. He said they were MAGA supporters which are majority white and falsely portrayed as majority racists in US news. He also said in the interview, that he wouldn't have doubters if he said the attackers were Muslim, Latino, or Black, further race-baiting to stir fragile racial tensions.
But whatever. I'm glad he Police is getting to the bottom of it. He deserves some jail time or it would be a bad precedent.
Remember, it was in Chicago, a city full of crime and racial tension. He said the attackers where WHITE, when they are Black. He said they were MAGA supporters which are majority white and falsely portrayed as majority racists in US news. He also said in the interview, that he wouldn't have doubters if he said the attackers were Muslim, Latino, or Black, further race-baiting to stir fragile racial tensions.
But whatever. I'm glad he Police is getting to the bottom of it. He deserves some jail time or it would be a bad precedent.
Last edited:
Look I know this is subtle, but I didn't disagree with what you just said. I disagreed with Cock Throppled saying Smollett was trying to incite racial hatred. I do believe his intent was to tarnish a political group not a race. (A political group that isn't known to be pro-LGBTQ either, and he equally made a point of his "attackers" being motivated by homophobia.) That doesn't stop the consequences that it could incite race violence anyway, but I don't think it was his specific intent, based on his pre-attack Twitter rants. Like the whole debacle I don't think he thought it through completely, and escalated racial tension was just another idiotic byproduct of his plan, not the goal. In the end it probably doesn't matter. Just pointing out our opinions aren't necessarily as far apart as you might think.
Edit to add: I also don't think this makes it the slightest bit more forgivable. It's just that this whole thing is so nutty, everybody is trying to figure out "why'd he do it?" and that's the question that's been on my mind. I mean how was this supposed to get him a better salary, as claimed, anyway?
1. Fake hate crime
2. ???
3. Profit!
Last edited:
Oh, i get you. We don't know his true intent, because he hasn't discussed it (or even admitted it was a hoax, unbelievably despite the proof to the contrary). I do believe his intent was based on selfishness and self-advancement, but the fact he was willing to have a race riot result from it (and this is not far-fetched in Chicago for an incident like this) was truly disgusting and deplorable.
As for getting a better salary, the entertainment industry has embraced a 'victimhood' mentality and rewards those who were allegedly wronged. Christine Blaisey-Ford got 800k in Crowdfunder donations despite lying her teeth off about Kavanaugh and has a book deal in the works. Stormy Daniels has gotten so much free publicity and book deal because there is so much Trump derrangement syndrome. Jussie Smollett wanted the publicity and sympathy of being a poor gay Black man who got beatup by racist White MAGA Supporters, to drum up his dying acting career. He was allegedly going to be written of his show, but the attack would have stopped that because it would be perceived as quite insensitive by the Network to do that after he was just beaten up by 'White racist Trump supporters'. The publicity would have brought him more fame, and given him more salary and acting opportunities.
Small correction, dumass: the show had maintained (before the hoax was exposed) that he was not being written out of the show; their language was pretty strong and they sounded like the idea was absurd. I tend to believe them. There was a theory put forward by some show staff that sounds reasonable to me, though: there was a guy of importance (director? producer?) who had gone on at some length about the struggle a family member who'd been a victim of a hate crime, and they think Smollett thought he could gain favour with the guy by coming to him with a similar story.
If what allegedly happened to him was described as a hate crime, why isn't the fact he faked the attack not a hate crime against the people he tried to smear (ie - white people)?
I'll take back my word he was "trying" to incite racial hatred, and say he WAS inciting racial hatred.
I'll take back my word he was "trying" to incite racial hatred, and say he WAS inciting racial hatred.
Still comes down to that word "tried" again. To be guilty of a crime they have to establish intent. He's currently charged with what they can clearly prove: he faked it. They can't prove it was a hate crime because they can't prove that it was his intent to incite racial hatred, even if it was a consequence all the same. Kind of like the difference between murder and manslaughter.
It may seem odd but since his made up villain was also homophobic, and homophobia is not intrinsically white nor intrinsically against non-whites, it diminishes the caricature as a purely racial stereotype and thus weakens the racial hate crime argument. His fictional attackers clearly stated their motive though, which is what gave the police the ammo to call the attack (if it had happened as described) a hate crime.
People keep calling this case "intersectional" and I think that's true.
ound:
