Fake Hate Crimes

[Immanuel Can]

So, like me, you don't believe in dictatorship of any kind and don't believe bloody revolution is ever a good thing. I do think there are a lot of economic injustices in the world today and that we should speak up when we see them.

I completely agree.

I believe that Marx was probably (rightly) outraged at the conditions he witnessed in the factories and ghettos of his day. I also believe he had a point in the labor theory of value--that the profits of capitalism that allow the uber-rich to continue to dominate politically are essentially the unpaid wage of the workers.

That's too simple. It presupposes a fixed class of "workers," who work in "factories," and live in "ghettos." That's Industrial Revolution talk...fine for Marx, maybe; but not at all reflective of the situation today.

And Marx wsa wrong about the labour theory of value. He supposed that all the value of an item or product was a result of the worker. But it never is. It's a combined effect of the actions of all kinds of people...inventors, investors, managers, mechanics, marketers, owners, various middlemen like warehousers and shippers, and so on. Value is a function of the free market, too...people only pay what they want to, what they think is worth paying. And everybody involved in the earlier stages of production has to make his or her slice of the pie out of whatever can actually be sold on that basis.

Marx never foresaw social mobility, free markets, a non-factory economy, the cleaning up of the urban ghettos, technological innovation, world markets, investment banking, multinationals, foreign aid and welfare, and so on. His theories are a blunt, antiquated instrument...somewhat like trying to use a stone axe to fix a watch or a computer.

Would you say I'm a "Marxist"?

No, my guess would be not. You don't appear deeply engaged with Marx. And that's a good thing.

You're just a nice guy who wants to see the right kinds of things happen. But whereas you seem drawn to political solutions, to the promises of the collectivists and propagandists, whereas I see the basic solutions as intimately tied to the moral condition of the individuals, and not solvable apart from a personal commitment to the right things.

I think we'd both like to see the same sorts of fairnesses established; we probably only differ over how it's all to be done.

[Scott Mayers]

Jussie Smollett has been found guilty of five counts of faking a "homophobic," "racist," "right wing" hate crime.

If "White Supremacy" is such a massive, national danger, why did he find it necessary to fake one? Why didn't he just go out and find some "White Supremacists" and taunt them, or invite them into beating him up? They should have been pretty willing to oblige, shouldn't they? Why did he have to pay two Nigerian friends to stage the event? And why would anybody wish to be beaten up, anyway?

What is this need for fake instances of "White Supremacy"? If they're happening all the time, why should it be necessary to fabricate any? Shouldn't evidence of such a national threat be abundant?

Thoughts?

Oh, I see what you were trying to entrap me...

No trap. Just a question.

Why did Smollett have to fake a hate crime, if, as the media says, America is a place overflowing with "racism" and "homophobia"?

The English have a saying, "You don't carry coals to Newcastle." Newcastle UK is a coal-mining region, you see. If there's already lots of coal, you don't need to bring any in.

In a similar way, nobody needs to fake a hate crime in a place where real hate crimes are common.

So why did Jussie do it? Because if you think about it, his doing it is actually an accidental admission that he couldn't find enough racism or homophobia to have a real one.

My concern with your concern is that you are not being neutral with respect to the issue but seeking examples to malign the general political "Left" as though the you interpret the cause as UNIQUELY about such examples. If you were seeking cases to show injustices of those who are deceptive, why would you ONLY seek the rarest of usual cases that represent your STEREOTYPE of the "LEFT" politically?

You assert that there is NO proof of any association of those on the "Right" to be racist extremists, such as "White Supremacists". But if you want to be technical, I'm not aware of anyone who particularly LABELS themselves as "supremacist" where they are. So, IF anyone were to provide some KIND of evidence that you might accept, ...

(1) What do you interpret is "white" in the accused label by outsiders of a person who might be "White Supremacists"? I don't know whether to capitalize the term or not but given you did, you could be intending this to be a 'trick' by asking what PARTICULAR group exists who would name themselves this. As such, I need to establish whether you are asking if there is a group of people who LABEL themselves this particularly AND, either way, what class of people in the world the term "white" should mean if one were to have evidence of such? For instance, are Semitic people 'white'? Are Arabs 'white'? Are Spanish 'white'? Are East Indians 'white'?
(2) What do you interpret the general term, "supremacist", is as a term to describe a potential person who might be this in your own understanding. [I don't want what you think others may think because it wouldn't matter if it is you who wants proof of some class of people who are in general, "white supremacists" [not a given label of some group but the generic meaning.]

[Immanuel Can]

So why did Jussie do it? Because if you think about it, his doing it is actually an accidental admission that he couldn't find enough racism or homophobia to have a real one.

My concern with your concern is that you are not being neutral with respect to the issue but seeking examples to malign the general political "Left" as though the you interpret the cause as UNIQUELY about such examples.

No, you can "unconcern" yourself about that. I did nothing to arrange Jussie Smollett, obviously. What he did, he did himself. And what the Left did in response, they chose to do all by themselves.

If you were seeking cases to show injustices of those who are deceptive, why would you ONLY seek the rarest of usual cases that represent your STEREOTYPE of the "LEFT" politically?

Because I literally do not know of a "Right" fake hate crime. You're welcome to point one out, if you know one; but I suspect you don't, because a fake hate crime from the Right would find no sympathy on the Left or in the media, if such a thing even existed.

But I know about Jussie. He's made sure of that. He's rocketed himself into the limelight, and the Left has seized on his cause as if he were a martyr, and blown it up to national proportions.

I'm not aware of anyone who particularly LABELS themselves as "supremacist"

Nor am I.

So, IF anyone were to provide some KIND of evidence that you might accept, ...

(1) What do you interpret is "white"

It's a Leftist prejudicial category. What does a rich, American male of English heritage have in common with a poor Finnish widow or an Italian middle class child?

...what class of people in the world the term "white" should mean if one were to have evidence of such? For instance, are Semitic people 'white'? Are Arabs 'white'? Are Spanish 'white'? Are East Indians 'white'?

That's a question only the Left can answer: it's they, not me, who assert that "white" is a meaningful category, just as it is they who assert that such a thing as "White Supremacy" exists.

I think they're lying. And you, it seems, realize the problem: it's not an accurate category at all. There is no "whiteness." The pigmentation of a person's skin says nothing important about the person. Nobody's actually just "white".

(2) What do you interpret the general term, "supremacist",

Again, they, the Left, coined the term. I didn't. And I think it's nonsense. So I don't "interpret" it as anything at all, except a hoax.

Since it's their term, it's up to them to prove it means something. My contention is that it's largely another hate-fake; and if they can find anything to stick that label on, it will be some odd little fringe group of the inbred from somewhere, like a pocket of leftover KKK hiding in the hills of West Virginia. There's no way it refers to anything that represents a national threat.

But that's what they want us to think it is. They want us to think "White Supremacy" is everywhere, and it's a dire threat to our future.

So why can't they find it? That's the real question.

P.S. -- You wonder why I capitalize "White Supremacy"? Because it's proper to capitalize the names of religions and ideologies.

[Scott Mayers]

So why did Jussie do it? Because if you think about it, his doing it is actually an accidental admission that he couldn't find enough racism or homophobia to have a real one.

My concern with your concern is that you are not being neutral with respect to the issue but seeking examples to malign the general political "Left" as though the you interpret the cause as UNIQUELY about such examples.

No, you can "unconcern" yourself about that. I did nothing to arrange Jussie Smollett, obviously. What he did, he did himself. And what the Left did in response, they chose to do all by themselves.

If you were seeking cases to show injustices of those who are deceptive, why would you ONLY seek the rarest of usual cases that represent your STEREOTYPE of the "LEFT" politically?

Because I literally do not know of a "Right" fake hate crime. You're welcome to point one out, if you know one; but I suspect you don't, because a fake hate crime from the Right would find no sympathy on the Left or in the media, if such a thing even existed.

But I know about Jussie. He's made sure of that. He's rocketed himself into the limelight, and the Left has seized on his cause as if he were a martyr, and blown it up to national proportions.

The LEFT are NOT siding with him NOW! Why would you think that they should NOT initially jump on the same bandwagon you are doing now when the flaw of this lie was due to the guy's particular intent to make in political?

I'm not aware of anyone who particularly LABELS themselves as "supremacist"

Nor am I.

So, IF anyone were to provide some KIND of evidence that you might accept, ...

(1) What do you interpret is "white"

It's a Leftist prejudicial category. What does a rich, American male of English heritage have in common with a poor Finnish widow or an Italian middle class child?

...what class of people in the world the term "white" should mean if one were to have evidence of such? For instance, are Semitic people 'white'? Are Arabs 'white'? Are Spanish 'white'? Are East Indians 'white'?

That's a question only the Left can answer: it's they, not me, who assert that "white" is a meaningful category, just as it is they who assert that such a thing as "White Supremacy" exists.

I think they're lying. And you, it seems, realize the problem: it's not an accurate category at all. There is no "whiteness." The pigmentation of a person's skin says nothing important about the person. Nobody's actually just "white".

(2) What do you interpret the general term, "supremacist",

Again, they, the Left, coined the term. I didn't. And I think it's nonsense. So I don't "interpret" it as anything at all, except a hoax.

Since it's their term, it's up to them to prove it means something. My contention is that it's largely another hate-fake; and if they can find anything to stick that label on, it will be some odd little fringe group of the inbred from somewhere, like a pocket of leftover KKK hiding in the hills of West Virginia. There's no way it refers to anything that represents a national threat.

But that's what they want us to think it is. They want us to think "White Supremacy" is everywhere, and it's a dire threat to our future.

So why can't they find it? That's the real question.

P.S. -- You wonder why I capitalize "White Supremacy"? Because it's proper to capitalize the names of religions and ideologies.

So you completely responded in a way that no one can DISPROVE your accusation. I KNOW that actual 'supremacists' exist and COULD point out some if you were able to define what you INTERPRET it is meant by 'White Supremacist'. How can you claim to assert definitively that you are against their view if you cannot even tell me what you interpret this means? The best you can claim is that you don't find them defining the term appropriately.

What I CAN assure you is that there are people who exist in ALL genetic and cultural subclasses who are 'supremacists'. The nature of 'hate' is actually co-equal to 'love' and so when someone FAVORS their OWN kind, often based upon 'family' or 'kin', implies a bias to favor those of their own genetic heritage. When this gets coupled with a belief that one also 'owns' a right to pass on PROPRIETORY behaviors based upon personal choices of lifestyle, this arrogantly assigns stereotypes that BEGIN the foundation of 'supremacy' that CAN lead to 'hate'.

An example form of 'supremacy' that I vocalize very clearly as existing is the state of Isreal's Constitution that defines its nation as a "Jewish" state (a ''cult" or "cultural" belief of a PROPRIETARY nature). People do not OWN their ancestral culture OR they have to accept the NEGATIVE stereotypes from outsiders as they demand others accept of their POSITIVE stereotypes as insiders. To me, this is the foundation of racism.

...And this is why I asked you if you include say, Semitic, as 'white'. I understand that the legal common stance of the British Commonwealth is that "Semitic" is not white, which then permits any government discretionary support that leaves out those who are 'white' as to not include them. This bias is why you will see an even larger percentage of Jewish government supports where such laws that grant 'special' status to minorities to permit them while denying the non-Semitic 'whites' the same. This is, to me, an example of 'white supremacy' but hides it by undefining them as being 'white'. [NOTE that I do not think this bias is universal but based (at least presently for some) on FAMILY bias due to inheritance rights. As such, this is how and why I interpret this as a flaw in Rightwing ideology. They favor the 'clan' or 'tribe' (indirectly worded as "family") over general supports for individual unaffiliated with genetic lineage (or mixes of race). Judaism is also non-evangelical (they do not try to get converts) and so will have a tendency towards isolating a coinciding genetic purity along with a proprietary culture of common identity.

The same can be said of Saudi Arabia but with Islam being their defining 'cult'.

A 'sexism' example (a form of racism where the race may be 'womenkind') exists also when women demand that all men accept some presumed universal PROPRIETARY behavior supposedly 'owned' as a right exclusively by all women [or men] as it certainly distinguishes or SEGREGATES themeselves from all men such that they want ONLY the POSITIVE stereotypes to be accepted as interpreted of themselves but to ignore the NEGATIVE ones these also imply if it is appropriate to declare ANY stereotypical reality.

[Immanuel Can]

But I know about Jussie. He's made sure of that. He's rocketed himself into the limelight, and the Left has seized on his cause as if he were a martyr, and blown it up to national proportions.

The LEFT are NOT siding with him NOW!

No, of course not. They only side with somebody when they think that person's going to allow them to show off as defenders of the oppressed. Now that he's discredited, he's just an embarassment to them, and they want us to forget as quickly as possible what they did when he first reported.

So you completely responded in a way that no one can DISPROVE your accusation.

No, I responded that the burden is on the Leftists to prove the thing they claim exists. And it is.

If that makes it "impossible to disprove" my "accusation" that "White Supremacy" is a fake, then it means I'm right: there's no real entity behind the label.

How can you claim to assert definitively that you are against their view if you cannot even tell me what you interpret this means?

Heh. That's a bad argument, for two reasons, Scott: firstly, it says, "If the Left says something exists, then it does, unless you can prove it doesn't." But secondly, it takes a term the Left invented, a term that may well refer to nothing but a bogeyman, and asks me to define it for them.

Why should I save them from their stupidity? If they've invented a nonsense term, that's their fault; and if it's not nonsense, let them not only defne it but show it refers to something real.

That's all on them, not on me.

The best you can claim is that you don't find them defining the term appropriately.

It's their term to define. They coined it. I didn't.

What I CAN assure you is that there are people who exist in ALL genetic and cultural subclasses who are 'supremacists'.

That may be. I have known some folks who thought their "culture" was pretty hot stuff, and everybody else's was a step down. Islamists are a good example. And I've met Indians (both kinds) and other Southeast Asians who think their cultures are better than all others. But of course, these folks aren't generally "'white" at all, so the term "White Supremacy" still stands in need of evidence.

...this is why I asked you if you include say, Semitic, as 'white'.

I don't believe "white," in this context, means anything in particular. It's the colour of paper, snow and dandruff. It's not a descriptor of any people group, as you have yourself pointed out...many different types can be classified as "white."

In fact, I have in my family people whom you would most likely immedately take for "black." But genetically, they're perhaps 70% other things. So are they "black" because they look it, or "white" because of the preponderance of their DNA? Who is to say?

But the problem is again on the Left. It's they who keep hammering on about "whiteness." I think they're full of hot air.

A 'sexism' example (a form of racism)

I think most people would argue (and I'm speaking even of the Left here) that sexism is a form of prejudice, but is different from racism. And that has to be kind of right, since sex transcends racial categories: there are men and women in all "race" groups.

[Immanuel Can]

Smollett.jpg

[Gary Childress]

Smollett.jpg

Yeah. I sort of wonder if he's the least bit sorry for what he did or has any concept of how wrong it was.

[Immanuel Can]

Smollett.jpg

Yeah. I sort of wonder if he's the least bit sorry for what he did or has any concept of how wrong it was.

He should be...for a number of reasons. He betrayed anyone who has ever really been hurt in that way, made a mockery of the cause he claimed to be representing, embarassed those who came to his support, brought dishonour to his community and sold out his conspirators.

So I think we have to doubt he is sorry. He didn't show much awareness, humility, contrition or honesty, even at his own trial.

Sad. That's a deep, bad character flaw he's got there.

But I actually picked the meme for the other part of what it says. It points out that the lie Jussie Smollett tried to tell about his own country -- that it is rotten with racism and full of oppostion to people like him -- is not true.

He had to fake it, because he couldn't find it.

The truth is that people like Smollett are privileged to the point of spoilation, and provincially-minded, so petty and small, so full of entitlement they can't even see how lucky they are to be in the country they're in. And they want more. They can never get what they think they deserve. There's no end to that.

But in a way, we can all be like that. So maybe there's hope for Jussie still.

[Skepdick]

But if his goal was exposing or fighting racism, he shouldn't have needed to fake a crime. He could have just pointed one out, without any risk to himself at all. So you're right: what he wanted was "publicity."

Well, his goal may have been to fight racism AND to get personal publicity.

You know as well as anyone that celebrities voicing their support in the fight against X is way way waaaay less viral a story; and way less impactful a message (to the public psychology) than celebrities becoming victims of X.

He was trying to game society's dysfunction and he got caught.

[Immanuel Can]

But if his goal was exposing or fighting racism, he shouldn't have needed to fake a crime. He could have just pointed one out, without any risk to himself at all. So you're right: what he wanted was "publicity."

Well, his goal may have been to fight racism AND to get personal publicity.

Yes...he's the model of Social Justice empathy...I'm sure he was thinking of others, not himself.

He was trying to game society's dysfunction and he got caught.

Well, you can't game anybody in that way if they're skeptical. They just weren't. And there wasn't enough racism around for him to make use of, apparently.

[Skepdick]

Yes...he's the model of Social Justice empathy...I'm sure he was thinking of others, not himself.

Or...he was thinking about others AND himself.

The publicity benefited him.
The social discourse benefited everyone.

Well, you can't game anybody in that way if they're skeptical.

Well, they lapped it up from the get-go, no? So he clearly gamed them. Is just that the "crime" was a re-enactment.

They just weren't. And there wasn't enough racism around for him to make use of, apparently.

That's a pretty lame line of reasoning. There's plenty of COVID to make use of, but if I am going to leverage my social standing to raise awarenss about COVID I'd much prefer to stage the ICU visit than to actually try and develop an acute respitory failure.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes...he's the model of Social Justice empathy...I'm sure he was thinking of others, not himself.

Or...he was thinking about others AND himself.

The publicity benefited him.
The social discourse benefited everyone.

It's hard to see how everybody "benefitted" from being lied to. The City of Chicago sure didn't appreciate the slander, his co-conspirators got caught, and his supporters got embarassed.

Well, you can't game anybody in that way if they're skeptical.

Well, they lapped it up from the get-go, no? So he clearly gamed them. Is just that the "crime" was a re-enactment.

They lapped it up because it offered them the chance to virtue signal. But the crime didn't "re-enact"; no "enacting" even happened. There was no crime except for the fraud.

They just weren't. And there wasn't enough racism around for him to make use of, apparently.

That's a pretty lame line of reasoning...

"Lame" is faking a hate crime because nobody hates you enough to do you dirt. "Lame" is buying into an obvious fraud in order to pose as "virtuous." "Lame" is betraying all your friends. "Lame" is lying on the stand, when everybody already has proof you're lying. So there's plenty of "lame" to go around there. But it ain't on me.

You know what's really, really "lame"? Insisting that a fake crime still proves that America is a hotbed of racism and homophobia. Now, THAT's "lame."

[Scott Mayers]

So you completely responded in a way that no one can DISPROVE your accusation.

No, I responded that the burden is on the Leftists to prove the thing they claim exists. And it is.

If that makes it "impossible to disprove" my "accusation" that "White Supremacy" is a fake, then it means I'm right: there's no real entity behind the label.

The one POSITING the accusation has the burden of proof. You are POSITING that no "White Supremacist" exists and so have the burden to prove...

(A) that any such SINGLE person's behavior, such as this Smollet guy, is universally representative of the "Left",
[Disproven because those who jumped to his charity (Is this a crime?) have stopped after recognizing he was lying.]

(B) that you understand what "White Supremacist" is defined as by your challenge. [You cannot prove to someone that some X exists or not if you cannot share a common definition of what X is.]

and
(C) that you are also NOT worse than this Smollet guy by making accusations in a way that can be held against you in a court of law should you be lying. [You risk absolutely nothing hidden safe behind your avatar being so bold to make universal charges about others knowing that you cannot be held to account if you were proven to be lying like Smollet.]

So, put up or shut up. Prove that you have sincere 'faith' in your charges by presenting to us your real identity given you are so confident that you are correct and not simply being at least as deceptive as Smollet was. What have you got to fear?

[Immanuel Can]

So you completely responded in a way that no one can DISPROVE your accusation.

No, I responded that the burden is on the Leftists to prove the thing they claim exists. And it is.

If that makes it "impossible to disprove" my "accusation" that "White Supremacy" is a fake, then it means I'm right: there's no real entity behind the label.

The one POSITING the accusation has the burden of proof.

Right. And they are positing that a thing called "White Supremacy" is a major threat. I'm just questioning the truth of their claim. And they have nothing to show for it.

..that you understand what "White Supremacist" is defined as by your challenge. [You cannot prove to someone that some X exists or not if you cannot share a common definition of what X is.]

No, that's not true.

I can question that unicorns exist. It doesn't imply I'm agreeing that a "unicorn" is a real thing. In fact, they could say to me that a mxttl exists, and I could question that, even without knowing what a mxttl is.

But "White Supremacy" is a descriptor: people who are "white" and think they're "supreme." So there's no mystery as to what kind of unicorn they're alleging.

...you are also NOT worse than this Smollet guy by making accusations in a way that can be held against you in a court of law should you be lying.

I think your syntax is not what you intended to say here. You just said I'm "not worse" than Smollett, which I think might be the opposite of what you actually suppose.

But that's wrong again. Jussie Smollett has been found guilty on five of six counts, by a jury of his peers, on the basis of clear evidence. So no, I'm not liable at all, and am only repeating the findings of the court. In fact, you'd probably be wise to take their judgment seriously; for they had access to information none of us had, and they quickly found him guilty.

No, what Smollett did is on him -- and on the people who rushed to the conclusion that "White Supremacy" had gotten him beaten up. They were just wrong, and rather embarassingly so.

[Scott Mayers]

...you are also NOT worse than this Smollet guy by making accusations in a way that can be held against you in a court of law should you be lying.

I think your syntax is not what you intended to say here. You just said I'm "not worse" than Smollett, which I think might be the opposite of what you actually suppose.

Yes, I missed the error in my edit check unless you partially quoted how I wrote the whole sentence. It would help that you add the reference id and time so that I could link back to that post wherever it is now (?).

I was saying that you ARE worse than Smollet for NOT being similarly BOLD but lack the risk that he did that got him caught and held accountable. If you maintain your anonymity, you have an onus to resist being dishonest or you are risking nothing for boldly lying because you cannot be caught and held liable regardless. So that makes you worse. [IF the error is not context by you, then my own errors in expression are more often about losing my intial thought of the whole sentence in my head so that by the end of it I alter the syntax by proper grammatic structure. I probably wanted to ask a rhetorical statement but then turned in into a statment.

"...then are you NOT worse than... ?"

becomes

"...then you are NOT worse than... ."

I'm too tired now and I'd only make more such mistakes that I'll miss if I continue. I'm taking a break from this. I doubt you'll alter your mindset (at least without some time to let it sink in). You advocate like a lawyer would be obligated to regardless of the truth in the same way as the extremes for their views unapologetically. So for whatever reason, you are benefitting in a way by your advocacy that prevents you from admitting fault. I have no direct immediate benefit to argue this topics other than to effectively argue in a way that HOPEFULLY influences you to change by being as logical as possible. I'll just have to leave it be for today.

Later.