Jussie Smollet got a sandwich

[TheDeamon]

In case there was any doubt about what the phrase "defund the police" is intended to mean. I find it ironic that BLM in this instance is actually doing precisely what Smollet did - trying to inflame race relations on a spurious narrative.

See Wikipedia,

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement protesting against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.[1][2][3][4][5] While there are specific organizations such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter", the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

So the BLMGN who owns that website, isn't representative of the movement, it is one group who is using the name of the movement.

So you really shouldn't ready anything into what is on that site as to being representative of the BLM movement.

Ah, so they get the benefit of the doubt. But if you're conservative, some random white supremacist says something, I'm somehow liable for their comments.

[TheDrake]

In case there was any doubt about what the phrase "defund the police" is intended to mean. I find it ironic that BLM in this instance is actually doing precisely what Smollet did - trying to inflame race relations on a spurious narrative.

See Wikipedia,

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement protesting against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.[1][2][3][4][5] While there are specific organizations such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter", the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

So the BLMGN who owns that website, isn't representative of the movement, it is one group who is using the name of the movement.

So you really shouldn't ready anything into what is on that site as to being representative of the BLM movement.

Ah, so they get the benefit of the doubt. But if you're conservative, some random white supremacist says something, I'm somehow liable for their comments.

Are they? I don't remember Paul Ryan getting branded as in league with white supremacists. Or Marco Rubio. If you're Ben Shapiro or Tucker Carlson, yeah, you're liable.

[Crunch]

And thus ends the jury deliberations. Guilty. On to sentencing.

So not only did he get a sandwich. He got a conviction too.

Justice appears to about to be served. He could get up to three years in prison although it’s likely he’ll get less than a year - if he gets any at all.

Personally, I think he should get the max, all three years. He lied to police and investigators. He’s maintained that lie throughout the trial, committing perjury. He has shown zero remorse and taken no responsibility. Quite the opposite, in fact, as he intends to appeal. Had a couple of white guys been in the wrong place at the wrong time, Smollett would have let them burn to maintain his lies.

Then theres the impact on similar crimes that may actually happen. Evert one of these hate crime hoaxes, of which there are many, erodes the opportunity of victims to find justice. Smollett has made it easier to dismiss the crime as just another hoax. He has impacted all the other victims of race based crime.  It’s imperative to make the penalty sufficient to deter the next Smollett.

He deserves every day of a three year sentence.

[Fenring]

In this case it's weird, because a lot of the damage Smollet did involves abusing the public trust, which has perhaps many soft effects, one of which is no doubt increasing the general sense of alarm and tension. In the case of someone actually committing a crime against a singular victim, that person might well civilly sue for pain and suffering in addition to whatever criminal action the state brings against them. But in a case like this, is there precedent for a class action suit, to civilly sue someone like Smollet 'on behalf of the wounded public' hurt by the hoax? In other words, if there's a crime with no specific victim, but with many affected people, can they sue as a group?

[TheDrake]

Isn't it strange to be talking about holding an actor to account for the public trust, instead of police?

[Fenring]

Isn't it strange to be talking about holding an actor to account for the public trust, instead of police?

Police get sued all the time...

[TheDrake]

sure police get sued all the time. Do they get more press than Jessie's false accusation? We should be talking about police overreach day after day after day after day, but somehow we're talking instead about how one sad actor did a *censored*ty thing.

[Fenring]

sure police get sued all the time. Do they get more press than Jessie's false accusation? We should be talking about police overreach day after day after day after day, but somehow we're talking instead about how one sad actor did a *censored*ty thing.

You're preaching to the choir. I would be happy for much more pushback against police misconduct. However it's a bit apples and oranges, because Jussie fits less into the "crimes that make people miserable" category, and more into the "people abusing media narrative to make all of humanity hate each other." Both are serious, but on the balance the latter is a more serious and immediate threat to democracy.

[TheDrake]

sure police get sued all the time. Do they get more press than Jessie's false accusation? We should be talking about police overreach day after day after day after day, but somehow we're talking instead about how one sad actor did a *censored*ty thing.

You're preaching to the choir. I would be happy for much more pushback against police misconduct. However it's a bit apples and oranges, because Jussie fits less into the "crimes that make people miserable" category, and more into the "people abusing media narrative to make all of humanity hate each other." Both are serious, but on the balance the latter is a more serious and immediate threat to democracy.

That is a preposterous statement. A false accusation is a threat to DEMOCRACY? Have you lost the script? As opposed to appointed representatives of said democracy MURDERING people in the name of our society and getting away with it over and over and over?

[Fenring]

That is a preposterous statement. A false accusation is a threat to DEMOCRACY? Have you lost the script? As opposed to appointed representatives of said democracy MURDERING people in the name of our society and getting away with it over and over and over?

So...you're saying you don't understand the difference between false narratives designed to make everyone hate each other, a brand new technological phenomenon since WWII, from typical corrupt misconduct that officials have been perpetrating for all of history? Not sure what you're trying to argue here, that since politicians do murder for money, we shouldn't be concerned about the fact that America is in a cold civil war right now? Like I said, apples to oranges.

[TheDrake]

We already hate each other with good reason, and it isn't a particularly false narrative when you can substitute 99 real cases for the one fake one that got attention. There is a true narrative that a wide swath of our country relates to the proud boys and think that immigrants are subhuman.

If Smollet lit a match, I can go with that. It's bad that he did that. The problem we should be addressing is the dry tinder that allows it to matter.

If somebody made a false accusation against a Magic, The Gathering hate group, we'd all wrinkle our noses and say, What?

We should strive to make it impossible for a false accusation to gain any traction, whether it is sexual misconduct, racism, or other horrific societal traits. Rather than focusing on, "aha, these false accusations are the problem we must address!"

[TheDrake]

Oh, and maybe it isn't clear, that the appointed representatives I'm talking about are police, not politicians. That kill unarmed, mentally disabled people, that shoot people in their own backyards because they are holding a cell phone.

[Fenring]

We already hate each other with good reason, and it isn't a particularly false narrative when you can substitute 99 real cases for the one fake one that got attention. There is a true narrative that a wide swath of our country relates to the proud boys and think that immigrants are subhuman.

White supremacy is practically dead, has no political power, and is mostly a joke with a social media megaphone now. That you take it as seriously as you do is part of the media narrative hate that's been stirred up. The program had been a success - the left was winning the culture wars almost universally. And everyone politically speaking saw the writing on the wall after the Strom Thurmon business. So no, we don't hate each other with good reason. In fact there IS not good reason to hate each other. I would suggest you need to really reconsider matters in a broader perspective.

If Smollet lit a match, I can go with that. It's bad that he did that. The problem we should be addressing is the dry tinder that allows it to matter.

In order for your analogy to apply accurately, it's more like Smollet is the one removing concrete and replacing it with dry tinder, and is lighting a tiny symbolic match knowing it will cause others to bring in blow torches. He's not just lighting a flame inside a fire hazard, his goal is outright to make it as much of a fire hazard as he can. I find it odd you don't see that. He's part of the reason it's so flammable.

[TheDrake]

If you think white supremacy is dead, I invite you to peruse the comment section on Breitbart and Newsmax. White supremacy isn't the KKK lighting a cross on fire, it's the guy who goes viral on youtube screaming at people to "talk American".

It's cops pulling over black people at higher rates than whites. It's all inequality, and it needs to be fixed, and that's not an overblown or false narrative cobbled up by some media conspiracy.

It's the guy who sat at the bar next to me two days ago who thought it was perfectly okay to talk about "ni**ers".

[rightleft22]

White supremacy is practically dead, has no political power, and is mostly a joke

Is that statement made based on facts or is it a intuition? My understanding is that white supremist's have become more sophisticated in their methods.?

Where thier is Hate there is anger, where their is anger their is fear.

[Fenring]

It's cops pulling over black people at higher rates than whites. It's all inequality, and it needs to be fixed, and that's not an overblown or false narrative cobbled up by some media conspiracy.

You seem to overall be conflating discrimination (which exists broadly, around the world) with white supremacy, which is a very specific thing. I'm not personally amenable to play the redefine the dictionary game. Taking an instance of discrimination against a minority - which I share your distaste for - is not an example of white supremacy going strong. When the TSA was doing racial profiling to catch Islamic terrorists, putting aside how reasonable or effective this policy was, it was not a move for white supremacy, even though it was obviously discriminatory. You can't just use these interchangeably. You do know that the term 'white supremacy' includes the word "supremacy"? That implies more than just treating some people badly; if you believe your 'race' (or whatever) should be supreme that is a forward and overt political/social agenda. There are people who believe that in America, but not that many. And politically there is zero mainstream support for that. If you think there is I think you've been fed a crock.

[NobleHunter]

I understand why you want to believe that but you are very mistaken. Just because very few people stand up and actually say "I think only white people should be in charge" or "I think non-white people should be relegated to an underclass" doesn't mean that white supremacy isn't an active force in politics.

If you believe the GOP is actually concerned about voter fraud or even the slightly more true goal of attempt to disenfranchise likely democratic voters, I have several bridges to sell you.

[rightleft22]

Came across a argument that in America the label racist can only be applied if the incident was intentional.   
Systemic racism doesn't exist because if it did it would be intentional and so out in the open for society to correct. 

[Fenring]

Came across a argument that in America the label racist can only be applied if the incident was intentional.   
Systemic racism doesn't exist because if it did it would be intentional and so out in the open for society to correct.

Have you started changing definitions too, where systemic racism = white supremacy? By definition systemic racism does not allow for 'beliefs', such as wanting a particular color of people to win.

[LetterRip]

Fenring,

That implies more than just treating some people badly; if you believe your 'race' (or whatever) should be supreme that is a forward and overt political/social agenda. There are people who believe that in America, but not that many.

What is your definition of 'not that many'?

Thinking a particular race is lazier and dumber than your race and shouldn't 'race mix' with your race seems a pretty reasonable approximation of white supremacy to me.  And those beliefs are held by 42% (lazier) and 26% (less intelligent), and 26% (would object to close family member marrying) by white Republicans about African Americans.  So I'd say at least 26% of white Republicans could be classified as white supremecist, and about 12% of white Democrats.

89% of Republican's are white.  So at minimum 23% of Republicans could be reasonably called white supremacist.  60% of Democrats are white, so at minimum about 7% of Democrat's could be reasonably called white supremacist.

The biggest yawning gap between Democrats and Republicans is on the issue of motivation and will power. The GSS asks whether African Americans are worse off economically “because most just don't have the motivation or will power to pull themselves up out of poverty?”

A majority — 55 percent — of white Republicans agreed with this statement, compared to 26 percent of white Democrats. That's the biggest gap since the question was first asked in 1977 — though the gap was similar (60-32) in 2010.

The survey also asks people to rate the races on how hard-working or lazy they are, which allows us to compare whether people rate some higher than others.

In this case, 42 percent of white Republicans rated African Americans as being lazier than whites, versus 24 percent of white Democrats. That 18-point gap is the second-biggest on record, behind 2010 (19 points).

The gap is again unprecedented when it comes to intelligence.

As with the previous question, the survey didn't ask people to compare blacks and whites directly, but rather to rate each race separately. In this case, 26 percent of white Republicans rated African Americans as less intelligent, compared to 18 percent of white Democrats. That eight-point gap is slightly bigger than in 2010 (seven points) and 2004 (six points).

It's a similar story on interracial marriage; 26 percent of white Republicans say they'd be opposed to a family member or close relative marrying a black person, versus 12 percent of white Democrats. That 14-point gap is tied for the largest with 2010.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/31/the-gap-between-republicans-and-democrats-views-of-african-americans-just-hit-a-new-high/

[TheDrake]

You don't have to hate every black person in order to be a white supremacist, you just have to believe that the vast majority are inferior to white people. And that white people should be in charge of all important things. This is ADL's definition.

White supremacy is a term used to characterize various belief systems central to which are one or more of the following key tenets: 1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co-exist; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures; 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. As a full-fledged ideology, white supremacy is far more encompassing than simple racism or bigotry. Most white supremacists today further believe that the white race is in danger of extinction due to a rising “flood” of non-whites, who are controlled and manipulated by Jews, and that imminent action is need to “save” the white race.

Please note the "one or more" part of this definition. They don't have to tick all the boxes. #3 is the most widespread, I believe. If you were talking about #2, yes this is pretty vanishingly small.

Tucker Carlson qualifies. So does everyone else fretting about the "dilution" of the racial makeup of the country. It's not a small group that is terrified about a minority of white people.

This casting of white supremacy isn't some new fad that I rightleft and I dreamed up on the spot.

Lest Baldwin be counted along with Frantz Fanon and Malcolm X as more radical “fringe” voices on the topic of white supremacy, the idea of white supremacy as a shared culture has been floated by many of the establishment voices of the civil-rights movement, including none other than Martin Luther King Jr. In his 1967 book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, which is itself concerned with hope and building interracial solidarity, King wrote that “the doctrine of white supremacy was imbedded in every textbook and preached in practically every pulpit. It became a structural part of the culture,” one that persisted to the present day.

“However much it is denied, however many excuses are made, the hard cold fact is that many white Americans oppose open housing because they unconsciously, and often consciously, feel that the Negro is innately inferior, impure, depraved and degenerate,” King wrote. “It is a contemporary expression of America’s long dalliance with racism and white supremacy.”

[rightleft22]

Came across a argument that in America the label racist can only be applied if the incident was intentional.   
Systemic racism doesn't exist because if it did it would be intentional and so out in the open for society to correct.

Have you started changing definitions too, where systemic racism = white supremacy? By definition systemic racism does not allow for 'beliefs', such as wanting a particular color of people to win.

Sorry that was just a a-side
The debate involved a European and American approach to labeling a person racist.

   

[TheDeamon]

Thinking a particular race is lazier and dumber than your race and shouldn't 'race mix' with your race seems a pretty reasonable approximation of white supremacy to me.  And those beliefs are held by 42% (lazier) and 26% (less intelligent), and 26% (would object to close family member marrying) by white Republicans about African Americans.  So I'd say at least 26% of white Republicans could be classified as white supremecist, and about 12% of white Democrats.

Slow down a moment on the 42% believing "they're lazier" being racist in the context you're trying to make it. Although it does seem the 26% grouping is being racist.

The question seems to give no clarification as to the basis for why they believe the other group is lazier.

I knew plenty of Native Americans who knew that thanks to affirmative action programs and other social safety nets specific to Native Americans, they didn't have to push very hard to get admitted to a good college/university. That makes them lazy, due to systemic reasons even. But it isn't because of anything inherent to their race, but rather, it is a consequence of cultures that have evolved in response to systems that have put into place to "help" them.

[LetterRip]

Slow down a moment on the 42% believing "they're lazier" being racist in the context you're trying to make it. Although it does seem the 26% grouping is being racist.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, I was suggesting that the union (hence the word 'and') of the 3 beliefs is likely racist.

Thinking a particular race is lazier and dumber than your race and shouldn't 'race mix' with your race seems a pretty reasonable approximation of white supremacy to me.

 So I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the 16% who believed the first, but not the second and the third.  I was just providing the numbers for the individual beliefs so that it was clear what they were.

[LetterRip]

who believed the first, but not the second and the third. 

Meant to say who believed the first or second, but not who believed all 3.

[TheDrake]

People always have "reasons" for their racist beliefs. Black people aren't inherently inferior, its their culture that is inferior. Like, the way they style their hair, wear their clothing, talk loud, etc. They're lazier because of all that sweet welfare they are getting, but someone cognitively not understanding that far more white people are collecting sweet welfare checks. And somehow they are lazier because of affirmative action than all the wealthy white kids that have everything handed to them by their parents, who can get them into the best schools with mediocre grades? Only government money makes you lazy, I guess.

[Crunch]

Smollett sentenced to 150 days in Jail. 30 months felony probation. $120k restitution. $25k fine.

Aaaand ….scene.

[Fenring]

Considering the fact that the judge told him that he had been committing perjury during the entire trial, and that additionally he made a ludicrous outburst after sentencing, it's a small wonder he got so little jail time.

[TheDrake]

small wonder he got so little jail time.

I can't parse this odd phrasing

[Fenring]

Oh I see the confusion, I meant to say it's somewhat wondrous that he got so little jail time. I actually said the reverse of that.

[TheDrake]

Is it unusually light? I honestly have no idea what the baseline standard is for making a false report and the associated charges.

[Fenring]

Is it unusually light? I honestly have no idea what the baseline standard is for making a false report and the associated charges.

1,000 counts of perjury would add to it, wouldn't you think? Plus the fact that he was attempting to frame some people for aggravated assault/hate crimes.

[TheDrake]

Is it unusually light? I honestly have no idea what the baseline standard is for making a false report and the associated charges.

1,000 counts of perjury would add to it, wouldn't you think? Plus the fact that he was attempting to frame some people for aggravated assault/hate crimes.

Again, there are lots of people who lie through their teeth, they don't get charged individually for each lie. And who was being framed? The guys he hired? I'm not really feeling terrible for them.

[LetterRip]

Is it unusually light? I honestly have no idea what the baseline standard is for making a false report and the associated charges.

1,000 counts of perjury would add to it, wouldn't you think? Plus the fact that he was attempting to frame some people for aggravated assault/hate crimes.

The charges were 6 counts of disorderly conduct - false reports of abuse, of which he was found guilty of 5.  Maximum penalty 6 months and since they arise from a single act would be concurrent and not consecutive.  Since he wasn't making accusations against a specific person, he probably can't be sentenced to the maximum (though haven't checked the guidance so not certain- usually there is guidance on this). So he will be getting half the statutory maximum for the class of charge and probably the max applicable sentence given that it wasn't a false report against a specific individual.

As to perjury, generally it would be a single count of perjury,

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1755-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-charging

Also he has to actually be charged with perjury to be sentenced for it, even if the judge believes he was committing perjury during his defense.  Perjury charges would be a separate case.

[TheDrake]

A quick gander suggests that people can get 4-5 years sentences for successfully framing someone, attempts that landed their victims in jail or having to mount a vigorous defense. Smollett got 2.5, seems appropriate. I guess the people who wanted the book thrown at him should be grateful he didn't do the smart thing and plead guilty. He might not have had to serve any time.

[LetterRip]

Oops misread, 150 days so 5 months, not 3 months.  So he recieved 83% of statutory maximum.

[ScottF]

And just like that, he's out of jail. His attorneys said jail would not be good for his health and that apparently sufficed for the appeals committee.

[LetterRip]

Release pending appeal is common for those who aren't violent offenders and who aren't a flight risk,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3143

[ScottF]

Yeah I get it’s not super uncommon.

Honestly, my biggest concern is that Jussie's attacker is now back on the streets.

[TheDrake]

That's a lot of energy the right is wasting on one random guy making a false claim. I wonder if it is because they want to pretend that most of the black people attacked for their race are making the whole thing up.