Fake Hate Crimes

[promethean75]

Okay we'll mess around with the facts of Marxism later then. I'm tryna tell you tho, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would roll over in their graves if they saw what those countless you list as 'marxist', actually became. Those were MINOs bruh (Marxist in name only). No more Marxist than north Korea is a 'democratic republic'.

As for Smollett... I dunno why this intrigues you so much. Are you suggesting that he ought to have picked a fight with some Nazis or something so he could get beat up for real?

[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 into 'defending' of the supposed unanimous "Left" in the other thread! Unfortunately, I don't support the predominating members of the "Left" using its anti-male, anti-white rhetoric. But I also don't support the "Right" using intentional deception tactics based upon optimizing one's selfish interests in profiteering.

So given the "Right/Left" division that both extremes are perpetrating, what ideology am I to choose when the extremes DEFINE things FOR us all as either FOR or AGAINST absolute dichotomies?

As for this unusual degree of deception by a single person, how does this 'crime' of FRAUDULENT behavior counter the normal deceptive practices of ANY FRAUD perpetrated by those who believe in PRIVATE PROPERTY rights with PRIORITY, such as the Right-wing view?

Although we do not 'legally' define slavery as the INDIRECT means of power over the freedom of individuals that such overtly DIRECT forms of obvious control over individuals is, is it still not "slavery" for one to INDIRECTLY command those using or living on property to behave in strict ways of their whims any different?

You keep 'defending' the Right without attending to the positions held by the Right. By NEGATIVELY attacking the Left as though the minority of the majority represent the democratic whole, you HIDE the fact that the Right is anti-democratic in principle for believing in some 'right' to OWN more than they can carry. While I don't expect us to give up on capitalism in some extreme, I also don't expect us to give in to the extremes that deny a system of government run BY the people regardless of whether they 'own' or not.

Do you favor ANY government that serves the people based upon majority interests with each person having an equivalent value of one person = one vote? Or do you favor one's worth as being equivalent based upon one's economic class, owner of greater economic value = greater votes?

[Skepdick]

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?

What a dumb fucking setup. The evidence is abundant, just none of the evidence had Jussie Smollett at the centre of attention.

He wanted the publicity without risking injury/death.

[Walker]

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?

See how nobly the young Juicy, the modern-day Cary Grant, endures the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? For the Left, there be nobility in victimhood, nobility in martyrdom caused by injustice.

Real Men find shame in their own carelessness and lack of foresight that causes them and others to be victims of poverty, or victims of a bad situation such as living in MAGA country where tornadoes often appear.

The real revelation over the fake hate crime is how many influential people voiced their instant support for the Victim before even a police investigation had been launched. Those included Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the Left news outlets such as CNN, top cops in Chicago, and others with a public voice who said poor Juicy, we need fundamental change to correct evil America.

Not a peep now from any of those peoples, except maybe the cops who probably feel like idiots for being forced by their superiors to investigate the farce for 3000 hours.

Same old same old in a culture being fundamentally changed from the days when Men were Men, to the days when Men are Women and Women are Men.

All Juicy did was disrespect the memory of Emmitt Till, which was a real hate crime, and should never be repeated although it will be repeated somewhere in the world, and likely is every day.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

He wanted the publicity without risking injury/death.

Yes, I think that's true. You can see that from how limited his injuries actually were, and from the fact that his "assailants" did not pour gasoline on him, as he first thought it should be. They didn't want actually to hurt him, and he didn't want to be hurt.

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."

And the media and the Left gave it to him, right away. The BLMers are still pretending Smollett's allegations are true, in fact.

[Sculptor]

uh

[Immanuel Can]

The real revelation over the fake hate crime is how many influential people voiced their instant support for the Victim before even a police investigation had been launched. Those included Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the Left news outlets such as CNN, top cops in Chicago, and others with a public voice who said poor Juicy, we need fundamental change to correct evil America.

That strikes me as true. But even Donald Trump, when asked for his take on Jussie Smollett, said, “That I can tell you is horrible. I’ve seen it. Last night. It’s horrible. Doesn’t get worse.” Unless Trump already understood that it was a hoax, I assume he was speaking of the first video, before the facts came in.

Now, I grant you that at first glance, it looks like an assault. And given that Smollett is hardly closeted, it could be mistaken for a gay-bashing. And assaults of all kinds are always "horrible." So maybe we can say that was what Trump meant.

But what's interesting is that despite the obvious, wild implausibilties of the story, everybody felt they had to weigh in on the "crime" and virtue signal their support. There was a rush to delare one's position on the issue: on the Left, the gleeful chance to pose as a rights advocate and to declare MAGA even more awful than Hitler, and on the Right, a rush to say something like, "Well, that's not us, because we support freedom of choice." The Left was immediately on the attack, but the Right was immediately on the defensive, issuing its own disclaimers and declaring its own position on the right of young black gay men to stroll the streets of Chicago for a subway sandwich at two in the morning in the middle of the winter without being mysteriously beaten up.

It's like there's this general public assumption that everyone owes it to the world to take a position on the optics, even when something is merely at the allegation stage...and that the Right "owes" it to the left to rival it in expressing shock and horror over the Left's pet causes, just to "prove" that which the Left will never allow it to prove -- namely, that it isn't the fascist, hate-filled, gay-hating, narrow, unsympathetic thing the Left spends all its time telling the public that it is.

This surrenders the perceived "high ground" to the Left, even when, as in the Smollett case, they had no legitimacy at all in claiming it. They were being duped; but so was the Right. Everybody was being played. But the Right dutifully bowed to the Left's virtue signalling, and tried to join the "We believe Jussie too" side.

Conservatives and classical liberals have to find a way to stop following the Leftist's agenda. But the media, being in the Leftist's back pockets, is calling the tune, and the Right is dancing, if a bit slowly.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay we'll mess around with the facts of Marxism later then.

Any time. I'm ready.

I'm tryna tell you tho, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would roll over in their graves if they saw what those countless you list as 'marxist', actually became. Those were MINOs bruh (Marxist in name only). No more Marxist than north Korea is a 'democratic republic'.

I doubt that's true.

If you know the biographies of those men, you'd know that they were pretty savage in their own right. Marx, for example, molested the only real "proletarian" woman he had in his life, (his semi-crippled housekeeper), and was otherwise very bourgeois himself. So much for his proletairan sympathies. Lenin's policies killed at least 3 million, and as many as 5 million, and paved the road for Stalin, too. They certainly were no saints.

But here's the important point: every single time anyone has ever even TRIED to implement Marxism, the result has been economic ruin and the mass murder of their people. Every single time. No exceptions. And that, if nothing else, has to give you real pause as to why this "glorious" theory is so utterly and irredeemably toxic and hellish every time it comes into contact with reality. And it certainly is.

Moreover, you've got to wonder what gives the next "revolutionaries" so much confidence that they are better than the stupid Russians, the foolish Chinese, the confused North Koreans, the incompetent Cubans, the ignorant Africans, the bewildered Balkan states, and so on...it's like they think everybody in the world is stupid and can't figure Marxism out...so many dumb people, it seems. But that THEY, these Western middle-class revolutionaries from the suburbs, when THEY get the opportunity, can. THEY can't be fooled, can't make mistakes, aren't misleadable, and THEY have this Marxism thing figured out.

You'll forgive the world if we don't find their bravado encouraging, won't you?

As for Smollett... I dunno why this intrigues you so much. Are you suggesting that he ought to have picked a fight with some Nazis or something so he could get beat up for real?

It intrigues me because the spectacle of a fake hate crime is truly bizarre, and requires some sort of explanation. It's not even the kind of thing a person normally does; so it takes some thinking to figure out why it happened at all...and why we all got fooled by it, when it was so transparently fake.

That should worry us.

[promethean75]

Yeah I read about that deal with the housemaid and I can't find any definitive proof either way. Crippled housemaids need lovin too, tho, and ol' Karl was quite the looker before he broke out in boils and shit from living in squalor after he was exiled. Anyway I try to steer clear of the ad homs tho when assessing a fellow's ideas. For example, Jefferson's idea's were no worse because he owned six hundred slaves... and Socrates still had some good arguments even tho he mighta been puttin from the rough with the dashing young aristocratic men.

And I think the chances of a successful revolution are better now than ever before. Because all the needed resources are light years ahead of what they were back then. Communications and technology, most importantly... and back then they had agricultural problems that are laughable today. Add to that civil war and infighting and your chances of stabilizing a Marxist economy are slim to none, bruh. You don't really think people will stand for hours in a bread line in the 21rst century, do ya? C'mon man, those old arguments talkin' bout Marxism won't work because of this and won't work because of that, are tired af. S'goin on two tours old now. you gotta come up with some new shit.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyway I try to steer clear of the ad homs tho when assessing a fellow's ideas.

I'm sorry...I thought you were saying that you thought Marx, Lenin et al. would be unhappy with Marxism today. Did you not write,

"I'm tryna tell you tho, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would roll over in their graves if they saw what those countless you list as 'marxist', actually became."

That's an ad hom, for sure, since it really wouldn't be relevant whether or not the ideologues who created the ideas "would roll over in their graves", if the ideas themselves were so horrendous as Marxism has proved to be.

Did I misunderstand your point?

C'mon man, those old arguments talkin' bout Marxism won't work because of this and won't work because of that, are tired...

You know why they're tired? Because 100% of the data supports them. I don't wonder that Marxists get "tired" of talking about Marxism's record.

And I wish we could afford to forget Marxism too. It certainly deserves to be reduced to a nasty a historical relic. But the naivete of Western Marxists appears to be infinite: no matter how utterly and universally bad Marxism's whole history has been, they keep believing, somehow, that it will work "the next time." And they want to be leading it when it does.

I say we can't afford another mistake like that. Too many people die.

[Gary Childress]

Okay we'll mess around with the facts of Marxism later then.

Any time. I'm ready.

I'm tryna tell you tho, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would roll over in their graves if they saw what those countless you list as 'marxist', actually became. Those were MINOs bruh (Marxist in name only). No more Marxist than north Korea is a 'democratic republic'.

I doubt that's true.

If you know the biographies of those men, you'd know that they were pretty savage in their own right. Marx, for example, molested the only real "proletarian" woman he had in his life, (his semi-crippled housekeeper), and was otherwise very bourgeois himself. So much for his proletairan sympathies. Lenin's policies killed at least 3 million, and as many as 5 million, and paved the road for Stalin, too. They certainly were no saints.

But here's the important point: every single time anyone has ever even TRIED to implement Marxism, the result has been economic ruin and the mass murder of their people. Every single time. No exceptions. And that, if nothing else, has to give you real pause as to why this "glorious" theory is so utterly and irredeemably toxic and hellish every time it comes into contact with reality. And it certainly is.

Moreover, you've got to wonder what gives the next "revolutionaries" so much confidence that they are better than the stupid Russians, the foolish Chinese, the confused North Koreans, the incompetent Cubans, the ignorant Africans, the bewildered Balkan states, and so on...it's like they think everybody in the world is stupid and can't figure Marxism out...so many dumb people, it seems. But that THEY, these Western middle-class revolutionaries from the suburbs, when THEY get the opportunity, can. THEY can't be fooled, can't make mistakes, aren't misleadable, and THEY have this Marxism thing figured out.

You'll forgive the world if we don't find their bravado encouraging, won't you?

As for Smollett... I dunno why this intrigues you so much. Are you suggesting that he ought to have picked a fight with some Nazis or something so he could get beat up for real?

It intrigues me because the spectacle of a fake hate crime is truly bizarre, and requires some sort of explanation. It's not even the kind of thing a person normally does; so it takes some thinking to figure out why it happened at all...and why we all got fooled by it, when it was so transparently fake.

That should worry us.

Hi, IC. You say you are against "Marxism." How do you define "Marxism," (i.e. that which you proclaim to be against)? Do you define it as the belief that workers should NOT be exploited by the super-rich? Do you define it as believing that production and social institutions should be run democratically and not for the benefit of the few? Do you prefer hierarchical institutions? Or are you more against Marx's notions of a "revolution" and so-called "dictatorship" of the proletariat? The last two points certainly seem questionable to me (even abhorrent). But the first two seem pretty solid. I mean, I would think Marx's predictions concerning the future are certainly suspect, however, his analysis of capitalism's behavior seems to me to be his more valuable contribution.

[Immanuel Can]

Hi, IC.

Hi, Gary.

You say you are against "Marxism."

I'm against collapsed economies and dead people, so sure.

How do you define "Marxism,"

Like Marx did. As I was saying to P., I have Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto right here, on my desk.

Do you define it as the belief that workers should NOT be exploited by the super-rich?

That's a very old and simplistic idea, so no. Even Marx himself was not that simplistic.

Do you define it as believing that production and social institutions should be run democratically and not for the benefit of the few?

That's what Marxists sometimes say they believe, but it's belied by the way Marxism always does business. In reality, what you end up with is a very, very elite group of "Party" folks who have every privilege and all the power, and under them a whole bunch of hapless "proles" who suffer like dogs under the tyranny of the elite. So they never end up running "production" and "social institutions" for "the benefit of" the many; rather, its' a worse form of exploitation than the one it claims to cure.

Going Marxist is the equivalent of giving yourself cancer in hopes of curing your headache.

Do you prefer hierarchical institutions?

Hierarchy is inevitable. But there's no reason it's "institutional" at all. Hierarchy is merely a product of different talents, abilities and skills. To hate hierarchy is to hate excellence of any kind. It's a very toxic viewpoint, really.

Worse still, the only way to banish hierarchy from society is to impose totalitarian limitations on people's skills, talents, abilities and even their hard work.

Did you ever read the short story "Harrison Bergeron," by Vonnegut? It's totally brilliant, and illustrates this very, very well. Here: https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBerg ... n_djvu.txt

Or are you more against Marx's notions of a "revolution"

Revolutions kill people.

and so-called "dictatorship" of the proletariat?

I'm against dictatorship of the anybody.

I would think Marx's predictions concerning the future are certainly suspect,

Absolutely. And that's no small problem, Gary. Because Marxism absolutely depends on Marxist historicism and the Hegelian idea that "history" has its own trajectory and teleology toward the better, that will happen automatically if we just smash the present (through revolution). If history actually has no such automatic trajectory and teleology, and you smash the present, then what happens is nothing but chaos and death.

Of course, that's a mad idea...and it really gets people killed.

however, his analysis of capitalism's behavior seems to me to be his more valuable contribution.

He really didn't understand Capitalism at all. He thought that the "proletariat" was a stable thing that you could talk about as a single entity, that the "bourgeoisie" was the final great Satan, and the conditions he saw in the Industrial Revolution were bound to be universal. He thought that all history was about "class struggle," which it never was, of course..."class" was only ever one of many categories that have been important in history, and often it was not at all important. He thought Atheism was not only necessary but good, and that human beings "self-actualize through praxis," which isn't true either.

Of course, none of that was true. Classes are not stable categories: people move in and out of them. Industrialization is now being undone by technological replacement -- how many factory jobs do you see around these days? And the bourgeoisie turned out the the largest group, the commercial middle class. Moreover, his "revolution" was going to happen in feudal Russia, but was not even going to come close to happening in England, where he thought it was sure to happen.

The guy was just wrong, about Capitalism and about most everything else. And the world he described isn't even the world we live in today.

[Gary Childress]

Hi, IC.

Hi, Gary.

You say you are against "Marxism."

I'm against collapsed economies and dead people, so sure.

How do you define "Marxism,"

Like Marx did. As I was saying to P., I have Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto right here, on my desk.

Do you define it as the belief that workers should NOT be exploited by the super-rich?

That's a very old and simplistic idea, so no. Even Marx himself was not that simplistic.

Do you define it as believing that production and social institutions should be run democratically and not for the benefit of the few?

That's what Marxists sometimes say they believe, but it's belied by the way Marxism always does business. In reality, what you end up with is a very, very elite group of "Party" folks who have every privilege and all the power, and under them a whole bunch of hapless "proles" who suffer like dogs under the tyranny of the elite. So they never end up running "production" and "social institutions" for "the benefit of" the many; rather, its' a worse form of exploitation than the one it claims to cure.

Going Marxist is the equivalent of giving yourself cancer in hopes of curing your headache.

Do you prefer hierarchical institutions?

Hierarchy is inevitable. But there's no reason it's "institutional" at all. Hierarchy is merely a product of different talents, abilities and skills. To hate hierarchy is to hate excellence of any kind. It's a very toxic viewpoint, really.

Worse still, the only way to banish hierarchy from society is to impose totalitarian limitations on people's skills, talents, abilities and even their hard work.

Did you ever read the short story "Harrison Bergeron," by Vonnegut? It's totally brilliant, and illustrates this very, very well. Here: https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBerg ... n_djvu.txt

Or are you more against Marx's notions of a "revolution"

Revolutions kill people.

and so-called "dictatorship" of the proletariat?

I'm against dictatorship of the anybody.

I would think Marx's predictions concerning the future are certainly suspect,

Absolutely. And that's no small problem, Gary. Because Marxism absolutely depends on Marxist historicism and the Hegelian idea that "history" has its own trajectory and teleology toward the better, that will happen automatically if we just smash the present (through revolution). If history actually has no such automatic trajectory and teleology, and you smash the present, then what happens is nothing but chaos and death.

Of course, that's a mad idea...and it really gets people killed.

however, his analysis of capitalism's behavior seems to me to be his more valuable contribution.

He really didn't understand Capitalism at all. He thought that the "proletariat" was a stable thing that you could talk about as a single entity, that the "bourgeoisie" was the final great Satan, and the conditions he saw in the Industrial Revolution were bound to be universal. He thought that all history was about "class struggle," which it never was, of course..."class" was only ever one of many categories that have been important in history, and often it was not at all important. He thought Atheism was not only necessary but good, and that human beings "self-actualize through praxis," which isn't true either.

Of course, none of that was true. Classes are not stable categories: people move in and out of them. Industrialization is now being undone by technological replacement -- how many factory jobs do you see around these days? And the bourgeoisie turned out the the largest group, the commercial middle class. Moreover, his "revolution" was going to happen in feudal Russia, but was not even going to come close to happening in England, where he thought it was sure to happen.

The guy was just wrong, about Capitalism and about most everything else. And the world he described isn't even the world we live in today.

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 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. Was Marx wrong about some things, yes. Most philosophers are.

Would you say I'm a "Marxist"?

[henry quirk]

How do you define "Marxism(?)"

slavery