Smollett committed a hate crime: change my mind

[pr0ner]

There may be other charges coming. But remember, this is Cook County. Home of light sentencing and lighter charges. Kim Foxx recused herself rather than deal with the intricacies of this case. The CCSA office is a joke and their results are...well the result.

Don't worry, he's not getting special treatment. All criminals get the same treatment here.

Sounds like Washington, DC!

[LordMortis]

If it helps, I am a white man living in Chicago and I did not feel remotely terrorized or in any way jeopardized by this scenario.

That's not what is being argued. I made the same assumption.


This is analogous to a Jewish man temporarily terrorizing his Jewish neighbors when he secretly paints a swastika on his own garage in an attempt (painfully wrong headed) to lower his own property taxes.

Unless you are a black gay man in Chicago, your feelings of terror are not what's being considered here.

If the argument is that Smollet committed a hate crime against gay black men, that's even more tortured and absurd than the argument that he committed a hate crime against white men by falsely accusing white men. Any hate crime statute that is going to stand up to any sort of legal challenge is going to at least require that the perpetrator have some specific intent related to the hate. That would be some serious self loathing.

If the story is advertised, he didn't reportedly say they were white, only he believed them to be white saying something about "MAGA country" but I would say again, if as advertised, it is reasonable to attribute he intended to use fear of white MAGA voters as a tool to generate fear for black gay men and anger in the communities most closely affected by homophobic and violent racism against people of color and then use somehow use that fear to generate publicity for himself. Also if as advertised, it doesn't sound like he intended to file a police report but he didn't think through his actions when he took publicity stunt to social media and filing a police report was the next step to advance a lie with another lie.

[ImLawBoy]

If it helps, I am a white man living in Chicago and I did not feel remotely terrorized or in any way jeopardized by this scenario.

That's not what is being argued. I made the same assumption.


This is analogous to a Jewish man temporarily terrorizing his Jewish neighbors when he secretly paints a swastika on his own garage in an attempt (painfully wrong headed) to lower his own property taxes.

Unless you are a black gay man in Chicago, your feelings of terror are not what's being considered here.

If the argument is that Smollet committed a hate crime against gay black men, that's even more tortured and absurd than the argument that he committed a hate crime against white men by falsely accusing white men. Any hate crime statute that is going to stand up to any sort of legal challenge is going to at least require that the perpetrator have some specific intent related to the hate. That would be some serious self loathing.

If the story is advertised, he didn't reportedly say they were white, only he believed them to be white saying something about "MAGA country" but I would say again, if as advertised, it is reasonable to attribute he intended to use fear of white MAGA voters as a tool to generate fear for black gay men and anger in the communities most closely affected by homophobic and violent racism against people of color and then use somehow use that fear to generate publicity for himself. Also if as advertised, it doesn't sound like he intended to file a police report but he didn't think through his actions when he took publicity stunt to social media and filing a police report was the next step to advance a lie with another lie.

"reasonable to attribute" does not pass the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement of a criminal conviction in my book. From what I've heard, his intent here was to try to use the publicity from this to garner sympathy and extend his stay on the show "Empire", and really had nothing to do with intending to generate fear among any communities.

[stimpy]

Oh...sorry judge. I didn't intend to have that guy crash, flip his car and die a fiery death when I cut him off.
I just needed to get to McDonalds before the breakfast menu closed. Please forgive me.

Cause and effect. Doesn't matter his intention.

[GreenGoo]

Wait, so hate crimes are a thing and motive is extra important, or cause and effect, so intention doesn't matter?

Are you suggesting you can "accidentally" hate crime? Because holy shit if so.

[stimpy]

Wait, so hate crimes are a thing and motive is extra important, or cause and effect, so intention doesn't matter?

Are you suggesting you can "accidentally" hate crime? Because holy shit if so.

I guess I am. Do any of us know the full ramifications of anything we do or say?

[LordMortis]

"reasonable to attribute" does not pass the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement of a criminal conviction in my book. From what I've heard, his intent here was to try to use the publicity from this to garner sympathy and extend his stay on the show "Empire", and really had nothing to do with intending to generate fear among any communities.

I'm a long way from having an informed opinion on the crime.

With regard to generating sympathy, in this case it is hard for me divorce sympathy from the fear or the anger aspects. It seems to me sympathy is generated as a sort of symbiosis to the fear and anger.

[LawBeefaroni]

Oh...sorry judge. I didn't intend to have that guy crash, flip his car and die a fiery death when I cut him off.
I just needed to get to McDonalds before the breakfast menu closed. Please forgive me.

Cause and effect. Doesn't matter his intention.

What was the effect here that was analagous to someone dying a firey death. In fact, who is the victim here, aside from the CPD and taxpayer?

[stimpy]

Oh...sorry judge. I didn't intend to have that guy crash, flip his car and die a fiery death when I cut him off.
I just needed to get to McDonalds before the breakfast menu closed. Please forgive me.

Cause and effect. Doesn't matter his intention.

What was the effect here that was analagous to someone dying a firey death. In fact, who is the victim here, aside from the CPD and taxpayer?

We'll never know because the CPD did it's job.

[GreenGoo]

I guess I am. Do any of us know the full ramifications of anything we do or say?

But you still want to be taken seriously? It's one thing to take an outlandish position to stimulate debate. It's another thing to do so sincerely. By this argument *you* are guilty of Smollett's so called hate crime. Do you really know the full ramifications of anything you've done or said?

I thought my calling the butterfly effect a hate crime covered this fairly well.

[stimpy]

I guess I am. Do any of us know the full ramifications of anything we do or say?

But you still want to be taken seriously? It's one thing to take an outlandish position to stimulate debate. It's another thing to do so sincerely. By this argument *you* are guilty of Smollett's so called hate crime. Do you really know the full ramifications of anything you've done or said?

I thought my calling the butterfly effect a hate crime covered this fairly well.

If I intentionally do or say something that unintentionally leads to harming some other person or group, then yes, I should be held accountable.
That's why if someone willingly drives a person to rob a bank, the driver also gets charged with robbery.
If someone knows that someone else to going to commit a crime and accompanies them and then someone gets murdered, even if they didn't pull the trigger, they are still charged with murder.

[GreenGoo]

Sure, and that's a good example, except that that does not carry over into all aspects and crimes of the justice system, and in the case being discussed, we're not even sure the unintended consequences exist, or that it's reasonable for them to exist in the first place. There's a reason that this is relatively limited.

If I DUI into a cornerstore window in the middle of the night and it gets looted, are we ready as a society to convict the driver of theft related charges? If the objects stolen are knives and a looter uses that knife on his girlfriend, are we going to pin that on the dui driver as well? We want that to be true? Eventually this leads to all crimes resulting in the death penalty. How many degrees of separation are we going to follow here? To make matters worse, we're discussing how other people feel about a crime determining punishment. All it takes is everyone feeling threatened all the time by anything even remotely illegal and now everything is a hate crime?

If I am different race than you and I don't like the way you look, and you cross the road and I feel scared, your jaywalking doesn't make you guilty of a hate crime. Or does it? This can't possibly be the intended result of categorizing these sorts of things like this. Is it? I mean, outside of this case, this is what you want for society? Everybody is guilty of everything all the time because there is a tertiary or further relationship between their illegal (potentially relatively minor) actions and literally how it makes other people feel?

The goal of the justice system is not to use the most extreme interpretations to achieve a political point. Bizarrely, this logic, and it's adoption by society, is most likely to result in more racist white people being convicted of hate crimes (unjustly in my opinion) than ever before. I mean, I've heard of cutting off the nose to spite the face, but this is extreme even by alt-right standards. That it has some progressives onboard doesn't lend it legitimacy, it just means convoluted logic, ignoring context or a law's intent is not limited to the either side.

[Combustible Lemur]

Sure, and that's a good example, except that that does not carry over into all aspects and crimes of the justice system, and in the case being discussed, we're not even sure the unintended consequences exist, or that it's reasonable for them to exist in the first place. There's a reason that this is relatively limited.

If I DUI into a cornerstore window in the middle of the night and it gets looted, are we ready as a society to convict the driver of theft related charges?

If I am different race than you and I don't like the way you look, and you cross the road and I feel scared, your jaywalking doesn't make you guilty of a hate crime. Or does it? This can't possibly be the intended result of categorizing these sorts of things like this. Is it? I mean, outside of this case, this is what you want for society? Everybody is guilty of everything all the time because there is a tertiary or further relationship between their illegal (potentially relatively minor) actions and literally how it makes other people feel?

The goal of the justice system is not to use the most extreme interpretations to achieve a political point. Bizarrely, this logic, and it's adoption by society, is most likely to result in more racist white people being convicted of hate crimes (unjustly in my opinion) than ever before. I mean, I've heard of cutting off the nose to spite the face, but this is extreme even by alt-right standards. That it has some progressives onboard doesn't lend it legitimacy, it just means convoluted logic, ignoring context or a law's intent is not limited to the either side.

Except in this case you paid two Nigerians to assault you and claimed the Jay walker was wearing a Maga hat and a noose in a fashion that says the national increase in hate speech and crimes is palpable in your community specifically to create PR anger and fear in your community

???

Profit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

Except in this case you paid two Nigerians to assault you and claimed the Jay walker was wearing a Maga hat and a noose in a fashion that says the national increase in hate speech and crimes is palpable in your community specifically to create PR anger and fear in your community

???

Profit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

So we're back to motive.

I don't for a second believe his goal was to sow fear in the black community. That fear was sown does not make it a hate crime. A community's response to a crime should not be the determining factor in the charges being laid. As was touched on, if "hate crime" is nothing but a label and the charges and sentencing are the same with or without that label, then I don't give a shit what anyone calls it. It might as well be a media created nickname for all I care about it from a justice system standpoint. I don't believe that's true however. If I'm wrong, please inform me. And if I'm wrong, please let me know what makes this determination to call it a hate crime important in any way.

For the record I have very similar concerns about the definition of terror as a crime in the US.

[LawBeefaroni]

Oh...sorry judge. I didn't intend to have that guy crash, flip his car and die a fiery death when I cut him off.
I just needed to get to McDonalds before the breakfast menu closed. Please forgive me.

Cause and effect. Doesn't matter his intention.

What was the effect here that was analagous to someone dying a firey death. In fact, who is the victim here, aside from the CPD and taxpayer?

We'll never know because the CPD did it's job.

So then the proper analogy is the guy who sped to McDonald's, got lucky and caused no accidents, got a speeding ticket and is now before the judge accused of involuntary manslaughter because he could have killed someone in a firey crash.


You want Smollett accused of a hate crime because a white man might have been arrested if the CPD had fucked up and for some reason thrown a guy in jail because he was white. I want Smollett sent to Area 51 for further study because he might have been given an alien implant if aliens were real and for some reason chose to abduct and implant him while giving him false memories of an attack.

[ImLawBoy]

Oh...sorry judge. I didn't intend to have that guy crash, flip his car and die a fiery death when I cut him off.
I just needed to get to McDonalds before the breakfast menu closed. Please forgive me.

Cause and effect. Doesn't matter his intention.

This is a terrible analogy for a multitude of reasons, but I'll just focus on two reasons why it actually supports the opposite of the position you seem to be taking.

First, in order for this to apply to the Smollet case, you'd need to prove that there was some sort of fear or terror effect on whatever community you want to assert the hate crime was committed against. If you can't prove that (and I have yet to see real proof on that - I'm not even sure how you'd go about proving it), then you're punishing someone for something that might have happened instead of something that actually happened. In your example, the person was driving recklessly, which led to the crash and death. Yes, the driver is responsible for the crash and death he caused. But if he just got pulled over for reckless driving before getting into the fiery death crash, he'd only be charged with reckless driving. He wouldn't be charged for killing the potential victim, because it never happened. Same with Smollet. There was no actual fear or terror created (that can be proven), so you can't charge him for creating fear or terror.

Second, intent matters even in the scenario you provide. If the person didn't mean to kill anyone, they'd likely get some kind of charge of vehicular manslaughter (depends on the jurisdiction, laws, and prosecutorial discretion, of course). If, however, the person went out with the intent of causing a fiery death crash, they'd get charged with first degree murder. Same as in the Smollet case. If you have no proof of his intent to sow fear and terror, you can't charge him with trying to incite fear and terror (assuming the relevant statute requires specific intent, which I think is a rational assumption for a hate crime).

I guess I am. Do any of us know the full ramifications of anything we do or say?

But you still want to be taken seriously? It's one thing to take an outlandish position to stimulate debate. It's another thing to do so sincerely. By this argument *you* are guilty of Smollett's so called hate crime. Do you really know the full ramifications of anything you've done or said?

I thought my calling the butterfly effect a hate crime covered this fairly well.

If I intentionally do or say something that unintentionally leads to harming some other person or group, then yes, I should be held accountable.
That's why if someone willingly drives a person to rob a bank, the driver also gets charged with robbery.
If someone knows that someone else to going to commit a crime and accompanies them and then someone gets murdered, even if they didn't pull the trigger, they are still charged with murder.

I'm not a prosecutor, but the driver's culpability for the bank robbery would likely be founded on a conspiracy charge, which ties the people into a common criminal goal for which all co-conspirators are guilty. If the driver merely thought he was dropping off the robber so he could make a deposit, he would not be guilty of bank robbery.

As for the responsibility for the murder, that's due to felony murder statutes. These are very specific and more or less unique in criminal law and do not apply to non felony murder situations.

[GreenGoo]

I want Smollett sent to Area 51 for further study because he might have been given an alien implant if aliens were real and for some reason chose to abduct and implant him while giving him false memories of an attack.

I kind of want that too. Can I second this? If we're loud enough do you think we can get the justice system to comply?

I don't want it lost in the back and forth that I think Smollett should be punished not just socially through unemployment and pariahism, but through the justice system. I just find the logic used to arrive at "hate crime" to be an extreme example of what happens when you follow a tiny thread of logic down a rabbit hole without ever caring about where that rabbit hole leads or whether the rabbit hole is relevant in the first place.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not a prosecutor, but the driver's culpability for the bank robbery would likely be founded on a conspiracy charge, which ties the people into a common criminal goal for which all co-conspirators are guilty. If the driver merely thought he was dropping off the robber so he could make a deposit, he would not be guilty of bank robbery.

As for the responsibility for the murder, that's due to felony murder statutes. These are very specific and more or less unique in criminal law and do not apply to non felony murder situations.

Thank goodness for Ilb. I thought these things were true, but I'm not a lawyer and watching them on tv has not increased my knowledge of the details of the justice system as much as you might think.

[Alefroth]

Oh...sorry judge. I didn't intend to have that guy crash, flip his car and die a fiery death when I cut him off.
I just needed to get to McDonalds before the breakfast menu closed. Please forgive me.

Cause and effect. Doesn't matter his intention.

You don't think he would have been charged differently if his intent was to kill the person in a fiery death?

edit: Oops, of course LawBoy said it better than me.

[Pyperkub]

It's more like Die Hard. Not Terrorists but Thieves.

[Combustible Lemur]

Except in this case you paid two Nigerians to assault you and claimed the Jay walker was wearing a Maga hat and a noose in a fashion that says the national increase in hate speech and crimes is palpable in your community specifically to create PR anger and fear in your community

???

Profit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

So we're back to motive.

I don't for a second believe his goal was to sow fear in the black community. That fear was sown does not make it a hate crime. A community's response to a crime should not be the determining factor in the charges being laid. As was touched on, if "hate crime" is nothing but a label and the charges and sentencing are the same with or without that label, then I don't give a shit what anyone calls it. It might as well be a media created nickname for all I care about it from a justice system standpoint. I don't believe that's true however. If I'm wrong, please inform me. And if I'm wrong, please let me know what makes this determination to call it a hate crime important in any way.

For the record I have very similar concerns about the definition of terror as a crime in the US.

Fear, anger, and public outcry is the only way the plan works. That's how PR stunts work. Sympathy requires the audience to be averse to the situation the character finds themselves in. Hate crimes by design elicit more than sadness. Whether he intended "harm" is questionable but the instigation of negative emotion is the whole point.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

Whether people feel emotions or not should not be the basis for a justice system. Not in a free society anyway. Making people feel angry should not be a crime. He filed a false police report. That the report made people afraid/angry/sad/horny should not impact what punishment he receives.

[Combustible Lemur]

Whether people feel emotions or not should not be the basis for a justice system. Not in a free society anyway.

Well, whether hate crimes should be a thing at all is a separate argument.

All we're saying is that a fraudulent hate crime should maybe still meet the hate crime rider. Whatever his crime, he attempted to stage a hate crime.

His plan was stupid.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

Whether people feel emotions or not should not be the basis for a justice system. Not in a free society anyway.

Well, whether hate crimes should be a thing at all is a separate argument.

All we're saying is that a fraudulent hate crime should maybe still meet the hate crime rider. Whatever his crime, he attempted to stage a hate crime.

His plan was stupid.

The crime is that he filed a false police report. You're saying that staging a hate crime is in itself a hate crime. That this is a reasonable conclusion for some people is what makes hate crimes particularly useless in their intended goal.

If a racist murders his own family to start a race war, those murders are now hate crimes. If he fakes those murders, that is also a hate crime. If he burns down his house for the insurance money and claims black people did it because where he lives, people automatically believe stories that depict black people in a negative light and his story exploits this to reduce the chances of being investigated. Also a hate crime.

If Smollett's hate crime is against black people, then they need to be victims of hate. If he's hate criming against white people, then they need to be victims of hate. The argument is that black people are the victims here, because they were duped into being angry/scared/whatever. If hate crimes can just be tossed out to see which races/protected classes are negatively impacted by the crime, then we're back to an unprincipled application of the law. I hates that. There's nothing just in a system that works that way. Being duped is not a hate crime, even if you're being duped into hating something/someone.

[stessier]

A hate crime in Illinois is very specifically defined. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Editorial - hate crime laws are unnecessary (and I think stupid).

(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he or she commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 12-7.3, 12-7.5, 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-1, 26.5-2, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of Section 12-6, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.

Much more at the link.

[ImLawBoy]

A hate crime in Illinois is very specifically defined. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Editorial - hate crime laws are unnecessary (and I think stupid).

(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he or she commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 12-7.3, 12-7.5, 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-1, 26.5-2, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of Section 12-6, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.

Much more at the link.

The "by reason of" is your intent. The race (or color, creed, etc.) has to be the motivating factor.

[Combustible Lemur]

criminal trespass to real property, mob action, [=bold]disorderly conduct[/BOLD] , transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 12-7.3, 12-7.5, 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-1, 26.5-2, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of Section 12-6, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.

Much more at the link.

The "by reason of" is your intent. The race (or color, creed, etc.) has to be the motivating factor.[/quote]

Also disorderly conduct, which according to NPR was the actual crime filed.

I'm ambivalent to hate crime statutes. But that probably because they aren't for me.

This event seems to fall squarely into the category.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ImLawBoy]

criminal trespass to real property, mob action, [bold]disorderly conduct[/BOLD] , transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 12-7.3, 12-7.5, 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-1, 26.5-2, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of Section 12-6, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.

Much more at the link.

The "by reason of" is your intent. The race (or color, creed, etc.) has to be the motivating factor.

Also disorderly conduct, which according to NPR was the actual crime filed.

I'm ambivalent to hate crime statutes. But that probably because they aren't for me.

This event seems to fall squarely into the category.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

So you're suggesting that Smollet filed a false police report because of some level of racial or sexual animus? Because I don't think that would pass the "reasonable doubt" test in any court in the country.

[stessier]

A hate crime in Illinois is very specifically defined. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Editorial - hate crime laws are unnecessary (and I think stupid).

(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he or she commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 12-7.3, 12-7.5, 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-1, 26.5-2, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of Section 12-6, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.

Much more at the link.

The "by reason of" is your intent. The race (or color, creed, etc.) has to be the motivating factor.

My bad, I thought that meant if one of these categories is subject to one of these crimes, then it is a hate crime.

I'm now positive hate crime laws are stupid.

[GreenGoo]

A hate crime in Illinois is very specifically defined. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Editorial - hate crime laws are unnecessary (and I think stupid).

And in California (I realize not relevant to the case, but relevant to the topic), every single crime on the books is also (potentially) a hate crime. Jaywalking? Could be a hate crime. Shoplifting? Hate crime. Purposefully soiling yourself on the bumper cars? Hate crime.

I'm not a big fan of subjective feelings being the basis for legal charges. My country has freedom of expression laws that hinge on that. I used to argue that they were appropriate if enforced with reason and caution. I no longer feel that way. People are too crazy for laws to be defined as "whatever you decide should be illegal, I'm cool with that".

[ImLawBoy]

And in California (I realize not relevant to the case, but relevant to the topic), every single crime on the books is also (potentially) a hate crime. Jaywalking?

I haven't read the actual statute, but assuming this to be true, here's a fun scenario. "I crossed the street outside of a crosswalk so that I didn't have to walk close to that black person." Jaywalking hate crime!

[GreenGoo]

Ok, lol.

In fairness I'm sure there is serious evaluation involved so that the actual charging of someone with a hate crime is hopefully more reasoned than that. However, the wiki did say that California made changes (in the 80s I think) to allow literally every crime to be labelled a hate crime. Shoplifting as a hate crime boggles my mind.

To counter that fairness, your country is in the middle of a debate over whether faking a hate crime is a hate crime, and (some) members of both sides of the aisle are concluding that yes, it is. In that light, your scenario doesn't seem so far fetched or fantastical as it should.

[Zarathud]

I guess I am. Do any of us know the full ramifications of anything we do or say?

You do know something if you think before you speak (or post). Being ignorant is not an excuse.

This trolling is beneath you.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not sure it is. Something broke loose recently and it's rattling around in there.

[em2nought]

Found this piece by Candace Owens interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKlJLKMZQs

[pr0ner]

Candace Owens should NEVER be taken seriously.

But it is clear you cannot do better.

[Unagi]

Found this piece by Candace Owens interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKlJLKMZQs

you need to acknowledge that while one can show examples of 'racist statements' made by black people, racism against blacks people is in a whole other league.



And Candice here just told us that "you are acting like we are actively living in a racist time, we are not, we are not!"

and then about 1 minute later when she talks about how great black conservatives are, she says "And we are seeing that with Black conservatives, people are racist to us all the time obviously, just look at my timeline if you want to see what's been said about me."

So, which is it? We do or we don't? What ever fits I guess.


She is right that Smollett was wrong and used the existence and history of racism in a very ugly way, but it's bone-headed to call it 'racism'.

Also, the article she talks about (knowing Nothing about it at all), the title being "how do we save the world from white men".... As a White Man, I don't take that as an attack at my race in a racist way -- it's likely an article discussing how to handle the racism that's alive and well and in control of a lot of the world.

And finally, she slips in there that she knows that the attacks at 'white men' is really a veiled attack against "Conservative White Men"....
If she knows that, isn't she realizing that it's not the white race that's being attacked in these Op-eds, but rather the Conservative ideology ?


Not that you will actually have a conversation about this... so I'm wasting my time.

[Daehawk]

Jussie Smollett sentenced to 150 days in jail for lying to police in hate crime hoax

Former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett was sentenced Thursday to 30 months of felony probation, including 150 days in jail, and ordered to pay restitution of more than $120,000 and a $25,000 fine for making false reports to police that he was the victim of a hate crime in January 2019.

[Jeff V]

Jussie Smollett sentenced to 150 days in jail for lying to police in hate crime hoax

Former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett was sentenced Thursday to 30 months of felony probation, including 150 days in jail, and ordered to pay restitution of more than $120,000 and a $25,000 fine for making false reports to police that he was the victim of a hate crime in January 2019.

I think I said it before -- the most unbelievable part of Smollett's story was the claim his attackers said "this is MAGA country." Chicago is most certainly not, and TFG avoided coming here like we were a plague city.

[LawBeefaroni]

Foxx is doubling down.

Following the sentencing, Kim Foxx released an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times blasting the decision to give Smollett jail time. In it, she claimed Black women-elected prosecutors face a “mob mentality” and defended her office’s decision to drop the original charges.

She is terrible. The gist of her op-ed is that Smolett has no history of violence and the case should have been dropped but was prosecuted by feds as part of a nationwide crusade against black female prosecutors.