Fake Hate Crimes

[Immanuel Can]

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

No, I just used the "quote" feature, so it's exactly how you wrote it. I wouldn't bother to misrepresent you. (It would be too easy for you to check, anyway.)

Okay, we cleared that up.

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.

So now Smollett is "bold," is he? He is noble for having "taken a risk," and getting caught, and for being held accountable?

Naw. He's a faker and a coward, who could not even be "bold" enough to take the stand and admit his own lie. And he sold everybody who supported him down river.

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.

Don't be silly.

To be "liable," you have to have done something wrong. And nothing I have said is not already documented in the court transcripts of a man who has been found guilty by due process of law.

I'm taking a break from this.

That's okay. Thanks for your time.

[henry quirk]

He's a faker and a coward...

...and he got caught, and scott wants to give him a medal.

jeez

When you gotta lie to prove a point (and I don't think he was even doin' that) it undercuts the point.

I staged a racist, homophobic attack on myself to illustrate the inherent racism and homophobia of society.

Quotin' the houseplant: c'mon, man!

[Scott Mayers]

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.

So now Smollett is "bold," is he? He is noble for having "taken a risk," and getting caught, and for being held accountable?

Naw. He's a faker and a coward, who could not even be "bold" enough to take the stand and admit his own lie. And he sold everybody who supported him down river.

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.

Don't be silly.

To be "liable," you have to have done something wrong. And nothing I have said is not already documented in the court transcripts of a man who has been found guilty by due process of law.

I never thought that "bold" was restricted to the positive evaluation those using it. [Note that I actually "bolded" the term. Does one using a term require only one unique meaning?

The context of the term as normal people would read into how I used bold to mean is "not frightened of danger or risk" and the quality of Smollet to have behaved was oddly 'risky' to challenge when it is obvious that to get caught for such deception is high.

Let me then clarify for you in more clear terms: You are a coward for boldly maligning the reputation of all the Leftwing proponents without relevance by association to a single non-representative character regardless of the fact that the Left does not defend such behavior; you can 'boldly' lie without risking the possiblity of having to be liable.

And, by contrast of your own Rightwing-biased backing of those who lie and cheat REGARDLESS of actual convictions of those charged afterthefact makes you twice the coward than Mollet.

[Immanuel Can]

Let me then clarify for you in more clear terms: You are a coward for boldly maligning the reputation of all the Leftwing proponents

Nothing I've said is libelous. And so far as I know, everything else I've said is also true, because it is not based on rumour but on what the Leftists themselves proudly declare about themselves.

As for Smollett, the Left loved him, and now they flee from him...with the exception of BLM, which is still backing him, even though he's proved guilty, for no greater reason than because they like the colour of his skin.