Jussie Smollett Breaks His Silence After Vicious Attack: 'I'm OK'

[Royalan]

I'm pretty sure it's because a mod came in here and essentially threatened anyone who claim it's a hoax will be banned. Not sure if the news now changes that but I doubt it will.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to be clear (because I'm the mod in question).

There was no reason to disbelieve Jussie's account of what happened when this story initially broke outside of conjecture and conspiracy theorizing. That sort of thing is generally frowned upon here, especially in circumstances involving victims of assault, which as of today is still Jussie Smollett.

There was no threat. It was a restatement of policy on this board

As new facts become known, feel free to discuss them.

 

[Alucrid]

And again I'll say you're free to call it out all you want, just don't make judgement calls on who should and shouldn't be allowed on this site. Makes you look like a total ass. And also you can fuck right off with that condescending bullshit at the end of your post. You're the one calling others 'seriously garbage'. You should calm down



It's not a personal attack, it's the truth. I'm a random nobody, you're a random nobody, we're all random nobodies unless you're a mod or one of those posters that makes 100 posts a day on here. I don't know you, you don't know me, neither of us know Tagesreste or choodi and so none of us are able to make the judgement call on whether he's part of the community or not.

Click to shrink...

no one is denying that he's a part of the "community." clearly they have an account here. they're just saying they're a garbage part of the community based off their post since, you know, that's how we judge people here. feel free to report the post if you think that behavior shouldn't be allowed here and then if action isn't taken jump on to the thought police train with choodi

 

[LewieP]

You concluded your post with "I did have reason to pause and wait for more information before drawing a definitive conclusion".

But you're failing to detail why there was a legitimate reason to doubt the alleged victim from the start. Just because details might seem strange doesn't translate into "the alleged victim isn't/may not be telling the truth".

Click to shrink...

Like I said, I didn't think it quite added up, and so healthy skepticism meant I was open to other potential explanations (which I very much still am). Even without attributing dishonesty or malice to Smollett, I didn't think we had the full explanation. There are many potential explanations that wouldn't be indicative of a hoax, but would make the initial reporting incomplete/inaccurate.

 

[Surfinn]

Like I said, I didn't think it quite added up, and so healthy skepticism meant I was open to other potential explanations (which I very much still am). Even without attributing dishonesty or malice to Smollett, I didn't think we had the full explanation. There are many potential explanations that wouldn't be indicative of a hoax, but would make the initial reporting incomplete/inaccurate.

Click to shrink...

And I'm saying, again, "it didn't quite add up" is not a sufficient explanation to the question that's being asked of you:

Assuming he made the entire thing up, which I don't believe as I made the original thread, why was there a legitimate reason to doubt his account from the start?

Click to shrink...

The answer is, there was no legitimate reason to doubt his account. Even if you feel some the details don't add up or need further explanation. In order to get there, you would have needed to make assumptions that were not based on the factual reporting at the time. The question was not "did did you feel some of the details were off".

Using that information to doubt the victim is not "healthy skepticism", it's baseless conjecture.

 

[studyguy]

The reporting around this shit has been fucking trash since the jump.
Absolutely fucked up on virtually every front especially where social media is concerned including the people with checkmarks reporting unconfirmed claims and pushing hoax bullshit.

 

[Dead Guy]

no one is denying that he's a part of the "community." clearly they have an account here. they're just saying they're a garbage part of the community based off their post since, you know, that's how we judge people here. feel free to report the post if you think that behavior shouldn't be allowed here and then if action isn't taken jump on to the thought police train with choodi

Click to shrink...

The exact post was, "You're seriously garbage. You should never post here again. You are not welcome here."

The bold is what I take umbrage with. He doesn't speak for the community at large in any fashion and has no authority to make that statement.

I'm not jumping on any train. I've already stated I'll be incredibly disappointed if the whole thing turns out to be fake as it takes away credibility from legit hate crimes. Hopefully that doesn't end up being the case.

And I did report the post just for you ;)

 

[Rilakkuma Fanatic]

The reporting around this shit has been fucking trash since the jump.
Absolutely fucked up on virtually every front especially where social media is concerned including the people with checkmarks reporting unconfirmed claims and pushing hoax bullshit.

Click to shrink...

Yeah. I'm going to readily admit there are a lot of gaps in this story we don't know about, but your response should be 'wait and see until more official reporting emerges', not 'omg what a liar'. We're in an age where even supposedly esteemed news organisations are poorly representing events, if not outright providing bad info. Just this past month has seen so much terrible misinformation (Covington 'reporting', Senate Intelligence Committee investigation etc.).

 

[NoRéN]

In this case there seems to be no legitimate reason to doubt Smollett's account of what happened. As such, any discussion of him faking the attack will be treated as victim blaming and actioned as such.

Click to shrink...

Curious to see how this is handled overall because this story has been crazy.

 

[Alucrid]

The exact post was, "You're seriously garbage. You should never post here again. You are not welcome here."

The bold is what I take umbrage with. He doesn't speak for the community at large in any fashion and has no authority to make that statement.

I'm not jumping on any train. I've already stated I'll be incredibly disappointed if the whole thing turns out to be fake as it takes away credibility from legit hate crimes. Hopefully that doesn't end up being the case.

And I did report the post just for you ;)

Click to shrink...

it only takes credibility away from legit hate crimes if you're a garbage person. in fact i would probably say that any person who would use a false report to cast doubt on similar incidents wouldn't be very welcomed here.

 

[LewieP]

And I'm saying, again, "it didn't quite add up" is not a sufficient explanation to the question that's being asked of you:


The answer is, there was no legitimate reason to doubt his account. Even if you feel some the details don't add up or need further explanation. In order to get there, you would have needed to make assumptions that were not based on the factual reporting at the time. The question was not "did did you feel some of the details were off".

Using that information to doubt the victim is not "healthy skepticism", it's baseless conjecture.

Click to shrink...

I just think it's dumb to just believe everything you read/hear without engaging your critical faculties.

There are many reasons why someone might lie about something, or why someone's statements on a matter might be misrepresented in the media, or why key facts needed to get a full picture would be omitted from initial reporting.

I didn't think it all added up, so took a wait and see approach rather than just believing something because it was written on the internet.

The reason to doubt his account was that, as it was presented to me, it didn't seen entirely internally consistent. Not impossible, but with enough ambiguity to raise suspicions. For me, at least.

 

[Surfinn]

I just think it's dumb to just believe everything you read/hear without engaging your critical faculties.

There are many reasons why someone might lie about something, or why someone's statements on a matter might be misrepresented in the media, or why key facts needed to get a full picture would be omitted from initial reporting.

I didn't think it all added up, so took a wait and see approach rather than just believing something because it was written on the internet.

The reason to doubt his account was that, as it was presented to me, it didn't seen entirely internally consistent. Not impossible, but with enough ambiguity to raise suspicions. For me, at least.

Click to shrink...

That's not a legitimate reason. That's baseless and harmful conjecture. Nothing about the original reporting could reasonably lead anyone to legitimately question the accuser's account.

Even if you take issue with something specific he said.. you do realize that victims of crimes, especially traumatic ones, are not always going to perfectly recount an incident with a thorough and spotless explanation? That's not a reason to doubt them.

No one here is arguing that you should "believe everything you read/hear without engaging your critical faculties". Just that you use basic logic before you openly question a potential victim and spread that doubt to others.

 

[Carolina Reaper]

Are these 2 brothers the same as the 2 Nigerian brothers that were extras on Empire?

Click to shrink...

Yes.

 

[Dead Guy]

it only takes credibility away from legit hate crimes if you're a garbage person. in fact i would probably say that any person who would use a false report to cast doubt on similar incidents wouldn't be very welcomed here.

Click to shrink...

I'm not disagreeing with you on this but no one has said that here.

 

[B-Dubs]

Everyone calm down, any further hostility will be met with appropriate action. As of right now, there remains no reason to doubt that Smollett was attacked and according to the police he is not under investigation in any way. Like Royalan said earlier, as new facts become known, feel free to discuss them. Unless legitimate information comes out to the contrary, any talk of him faking the attack will be treated as victim blaming and actioned as such.

 

[julian]

I feel like everybody is just remembering what they want to to justify their frustration. The initial report was weird. It was 2am, record cold and it was presented as a premeditated attack. Why would you assume to know where somebody would be at 2am? That seemed weird. Denying that seems weird is...weird. Then lots of conflicting reports came out and we were told he went to the hospital but then he didn't or what they were wearing changed or whatever. There was lots of things flying around that contradicted what we'd just been told.

What doesn't make sense is posters saying they doubted his account from the start. I didn't think we heard his account for some time. That was one of the issues. We were hearing lots of different things and then eventually his account which didn't match with what had been reported earlier.

But now it's clear that the one thing that can't be denied is that all the reporting on this has been absolute garbage. Just pure hot garbage. And it doesn't seem to be getting better.

So really, let's just wait for more details and see. If you had doubts about the story, just remember, the reporting is garbage. Anything that stood out as contradictory or bizarre might simply not be true. Doesn't mean there wasn't an attack.

 

[LewieP]

That's not a legitimate reason. That's baseless and harmful conjecture. Nothing about the original reporting could reasonably lead anyone to legitimately question the accuser's account.

Even if you take issue with something specific he said.. you do realize that victims of crimes, especially traumatic ones, are not always going to perfectly recount an incident with a thorough and spotless explanation? That's not a reason to doubt them.

No one here is arguing that you should "believe everything you read/hear without engaging your critical faculties". Just that you use basic logic before you openly question a potential victim and spread that doubt to others.

Click to shrink...

How exactly did I openly question a potential victim or spread that doubt to others?

Like I said, I thought it was suspicious so opted to say nothing until more information became available.

Now it's a whole mess of shitty reporting and a media circus, but I don't think my doubting we had the full story and keeping those doubts to myself is to blame for that.

 

[Alucrid]

I'm not disagreeing with you on this but no one has said that here.

Click to shrink...

i'm glad we agree. thank you for your blessing to decide who isn't welcome

 

[Surfinn]

How exactly did I openly question a potential victim or spread that doubt to others?

Like I said, I thought it was suspicious so opted to say nothing until more information became available.

Now it's a whole mess of shitty reporting and a media circus, but I don't think my doubting we had the full story and keeping those doubts to myself is to blame for that.

Click to shrink...

I'm saying if you (anyone) posted in this thread or other places on the internet doubting the victim or hinting that the victim may not be telling the truth, you're spreading that doubt to others. This is sometimes how conspiracy theories and hoaxes/fake news are spread (regardless of wherever the investigation leads), which is partly why I was calling it harmful before. But we're getting away from the question being asked.

You're still not providing an answer for why anyone should have doubted the account. "Some stuff didn't line up" and citing inconsistencies in the reporting is not a legitimate reason for doing so. It is, of course, a legitimate reason for quietly waiting for all the facts without doubting the account in question.

So I'm just gunna assume that's the only explanation you have since we're going in circles now.

 

[Jon Carter]

As a reminder, during the Balloon Boy hoax, investigators publicly claimed they believed the family's story as a ruse to try and keep their trust while privately investigating them as hoaxers.

Click to shrink...

Wait, this was 10 years ago? I could have sworn I followed that story live on the old forum, but I wasn't a member until years later. Was there another balloon boy story in the past few years?

 

[Deleted member 38573]

both sides flip flopping between "haha told you so/let's wait for the facts" in the span of a couple hours is hilarious

the media reporting has been insane and you're all fiends for the outrage machine..

 

[smellyjelly]

both sides flip flopping between "haha told you so/let's wait for the facts" in the span of a couple hours is hilarious

the media reporting has been insane and you're all fiends for the outrage machine..

Click to shrink...

 

[Deleted member 1248]

you're all fiends for the outrage machine

Click to shrink...

Is there anything that you care about?

 

[Lundren]

Is there anything that you care about?

Click to shrink...

He cares deeply for Kanye West. Which explains some stuff.

 

[Tfritz]

i admit i find hate crimes outrageous

 

[Rilakkuma Fanatic]

Is there anything that you care about?

Click to shrink...

(not you, OP, just to be clear here!)

 

[Lundren]

i admit i find hate crimes outrageous

Click to shrink...

Someone being attacked because they are a gay black man upsets you? SJWs are the worst.

 

[Surfinn]

i admit i find hate crimes outrageous

Click to shrink...

What

 

[Deleted member 31817]

I still dont see why his account isnt credible tbh

 

[Deleted member 31817]

Meanwhile if it was a police report....

 

[Link]

I agree with this post. The moderation is waaaaaay to heavy handed here. And all these threadmarks just stifle discussion, it's basically the mods only wanting their perspective to be heard on the forum. The people who were banned for saying the story sounded fishy should be unbanned.

Click to shrink...

You're welcome to go to GAF and see what lack of moderation breeds. That place turned into a complete dumpster fire in record time. Forget that. This community is different from most forums because of the moderation. Yes, it may be heavy handed at times. I may even disagree with it on occasion. But it's far better than the alternative.

 

[LewieP]

I'm saying if you (anyone) posted in this thread or other places on the internet doubting the victim or hinting that the victim may not be telling the truth, you're spreading that doubt to others. This is sometimes how conspiracy theories and hoaxes/fake news are spread (regardless of wherever the investigation leads), which is partly why I was calling it harmful before. But we're getting away from the question being asked.

You're still not providing an answer for why anyone should have doubted the account. "Some stuff didn't line up" and citing inconsistencies in the reporting is not a legitimate reason for doing so. It is, of course, a legitimate reason for quietly waiting for all the facts without doubting the account in question.

So I'm just gunna assume that's the only explanation you have since we're going in circles now.

Click to shrink...

By all means quote my posts if you think I did that.

Otherwise I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me over.

If you're saying that it's not legitimate to have a degree of doubt, skepticism, and open-mindedness when reading reports that contain apparent logical inconsistencies, then I guess yes we have reached the heart of what we're disagreeing over.

I read the initial reports, figured that something didn't quite add up, and that there was more to the full story we hadn't yet heard, and so awaited more information. Now there's a variety of conflicting reports, and we still don't really have a full picture, but I hope we get one eventually.

In case it needed to be said, I think bigotry is bad, violent hate crimes are bad, and staging a hoax crime is also bad. I don't think we know which if any of these happened here yet.

 

[HStallion]

both sides flip flopping between "haha told you so/let's wait for the facts" in the span of a couple hours is hilarious

the media reporting has been insane and you're all fiends for the outrage machine..

Click to shrink...

Don't you have some kings to be forgiving?

 

[Surfinn]

By all means quote my posts if you think I did that.

Otherwise I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me over.

If you're saying that it's not legitimate to have a degree of doubt, skepticism, and open-mindedness when reading reports that contain apparent logical inconsistencies, then I guess yes we have reached the heart of what we're disagreeing over.

I read the initial reports, figured that something didn't quite add up, and that there was more to the full story we hadn't yet heard, and so awaited more information. Now there's a variety of conflicting reports, and we still don't really have a full picture, but I hope we get one eventually.

In case it needed to be said, I think bigotry is bad, violent hate crimes are bad, and staging a hoax crime is also bad. I don't think we know which if any of these happened here yet.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying I think you did it, I don't remember any of your posts from this thread before this conversation. I said many in this thread have, as an aside. The "you" was directed at the thread.

Except the bolded is not at all what I said. I was responding to you answering the question of why it was OK to doubt the accuser's account. And all I'm getting from you is "well, it's good to be skeptical when things don't add up".. ok, great, I never said otherwise. What I did say is that you've completely and utterly failed to provide a legitimate reason for why anyone should have doubted the accuser. This was the question being asked that you responded to. Inconsistencies in initial reporting was no reason to doubt him.

 

[Vonnegut]

I'm not saying I think you did it, I don't remember any of your posts from this thread before this conversation. I said many in this thread have, as an aside. The "you" was directed at the thread.

Except the bolded is not at all what I said. I was responding to you answering the question of why it was OK to doubt the accuser's account. And all I'm getting from you is "well, it's good to be skeptical when things don't add up".. ok, great, I never said otherwise. What I did say is that you've completely and utterly failed to provide a legitimate reason for why anyone should have doubted the accuser. This was the question being asked that you responded to. Inconsistencies in initial reporting was no reason to doubt him.

Click to shrink...

It was 2 am in the frigid cold and the attackers had apparently waited in the area on the off chance that Jussie Smollett would emerge from his apartment at that hour, in that weather, to walk to Subway.

 

[LewieP]

I don't know how to have doubts over something whilst also not doubting it.

 

[adj_noun]

I don't know how to have doubts over something whilst also not doubting it.

Click to shrink...

Schrodinger's Rumination

 

[Raguel]

I'm not saying I think you did it, I don't remember any of your posts from this thread before this conversation. I said many in this thread have, as an aside. The "you" was directed at the thread.

Except the bolded is not at all what I said. I was responding to you answering the question of why it was OK to doubt the accuser's account. And all I'm getting from you is "well, it's good to be skeptical when things don't add up".. ok, great, I never said otherwise. What I did say is that you've completely and utterly failed to provide a legitimate reason for why anyone should have doubted the accuser. This was the question being asked that you responded to. Inconsistencies in initial reporting was no reason to doubt him.

Click to shrink...

I see this thread has brought us back around like a god damn merry go round with the usual "just asking" questions bullshit. I'm so fucking tired of this. So god damn tired.

 

[Surfinn]

It was 2 am in the frigid cold and the attackers had apparently waited in the area on the off chance that Jussie Smollett would emerge from his apartment at that hour, in that weather, to walk to Subway.

Click to shrink...

I don't know how to have doubts over something whilst also not doubting it.

Click to shrink...

There's a difference between recognizing inconsistencies in what is being reported and doubting the credibility of the accuser. Reporting on this subject has been terrible from the start.

Which is why it's important to wait for relevant facts (you know, actual, verifiable reasons for why he would do all this) if you're going to doubt the accuser, as there was absolutely no reason to believe he would have faked the event or lied.

 

[Vonnegut]

There's a difference between recognizing inconsistencies in what is being reported and doubting the credibility of the accuser. Reporting on this subject has been terrible from the start.

Which is why it's important to wait for relevant facts (you know, actual, verifiable reasons for why he would do all this) if you're going to doubt the accuser, as there was absolutely no reason to believe he would have faked the event or lied.

Click to shrink...

According to a tweet that was shared in this thread, a lawyer for the two people identified in the video footage has stated that they are going to be charged with something tomorrow.

Those two people are Nigerian brothers, at least one of whom appeared as an extra on the show Empire.

Edit: so now I wait for tomorrow to see why someone who may have known Jussie Smollett, or at least may have interacted with him on set, decided to attack him at 2:00 am in frigid temperatures.

 

[Surfinn]

According to a tweet that was shared in this thread, a lawyer for the two people identified in the video footage has stated that they are going to be charged with something tomorrow.

Those two people are Nigerian brothers, at least one of whom appeared as an extra on the show Empire.

Edit: so now I wait for tomorrow to see why someone who may have known Jussie Smollett, or at least may have interacted with him on set, decided to attack him at 2:00 am in frigid temperatures.

Click to shrink...

Our entire conversation was about why people doubted the credibility of the accuser at and before the time of the mod post (before all of this new and contradictory information). So the question remains.. what was a legitimate reason people had for doubting the accuser?

Now that people have come out in full force with "I told you so, the mods look so bad now!"

And so far all I've seen is "stuff didn't line up in the reporting", which is not a reason for doubting the man who says he was attacked. There was no legitimate reason to believe he was lying and there was no reported or identifiable motivation.

 

[Vonnegut]

Our entire conversation was about why people doubted the credibility of the accuser at and before the time of the mod post (before all of this new and contradictory information). So the question remains.. what was a legitimate reason people had for doubting the accuser?

Now that people have come out in full force with "I told you so, the mods look so bad now!"

And so far all I've seen is "stuff didn't line up in the reporting", which is not a reason for doubting the man who says he was attacked.

Click to shrink...

People trusted the initial reports to be an accurate retelling of what Jussie Smollett said happened.

 

[Surfinn]

People trusted the initial reports to be an accurate retelling of what Jussie Smollett said happened.

Click to shrink...

There was still no identifiable or legitimate motivation for him to be dishonest in the reporting. You have to rely on baseless conjecture to get there.

 

[Wein Cruz]

You're seriously garbage and should never post here again. You are not welcome.

Click to shrink...

This is the type of post that is apparently acceptable on resetera.

Why point to FAQS when they aren't even applied uniformly.

 

[Deleted member 38573]

Is there anything that you care about?

Click to shrink...

Instead of coming at me with this nonsense why don't you go work on not being a reactionary mark

 

[Royalan]

Let's get back on topic and cut the ad hominem attacks.

 

[Deleted member 38573]

i admit i find hate crimes outrageous

Click to shrink...

Someone being attacked because they are a gay black man upsets you? SJWs are the worst.

Click to shrink...

It would be great if you didnt try and put words in my mouth

Literally nothing in my post implied you shouldn't be upset about Jussies claims

 

[Deleted member 1248]

Instead of coming at me with this nonsense why don't you go work on not being a reactionary mark

Click to shrink...

Just asking questions, bro.

 

[Trevelyon]

So glad he is "okay" and doing well. These pieces of shit scum need to be found and jailed, hate that they're still out there. Stay self LBGTQ PoC, lots of hate still out there.

 

[Deleted member 38573]

Just asking questions, bro.

Click to shrink...

I don't get how a post criticising flip flopping, media reporting and blue tick nobodies has turned into an attack on me

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Our entire conversation was about why people doubted the credibility of the accuser at and before the time of the mod post (before all of this new and contradictory information). So the question remains.. what was a legitimate reason people had for doubting the accuser?

Now that people have come out in full force with "I told you so, the mods look so bad now!"

And so far all I've seen is "stuff didn't line up in the reporting", which is not a reason for doubting the man who says he was attacked. There was no legitimate reason to believe he was lying and there was no reported or identifiable motivation.

Click to shrink...

Did anyone actually claim he was lying in the previous thread? All I saw was some raised eyebrows.