Lesson Learned? Don’t Bet on It

GLAAD, Feb. 14:

“Jussie Smollett was victimized first in a hate-motivated and violent attack in Chicago and has since been doubly victimized as the subject of speculation by the media industry and broader culture,” GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis, said in a statement. … “GLAAD joined with Color of Change to condemn the racism and homophobia that fueled the physical violence against Jussie and today we double down on that stance, while also calling out a culture where LGBTQ people of color are too often the last to be believed.”

Jonah Goldberg, Feb. 22:

A host of liberals are bleating about conservative “gloating” over the Smollett debunking. What they seem to sincerely not understand is that their instant acceptance of the story and their instant condemnation of anyone who voiced skepticism over it was an act of oppression. “You must care!” “You must believe!” There is no safe harbor. No right to skepticism or even reflection.

Related: A list of hoax hate crimes in the Trump era.

More.

2 Comments for “Lesson Learned? Don’t Bet on It”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    That Jonah Goldberg piece has some really twisted parts.

    “First, people who live under real oppression have no need to fabulate oppression.”

    I don’t agree with this at all.

    Didn’t Nat Turner lead a suicide mission (yes, hindsight is 20/20)? What need did they have to court certain death if they weren’t oppressed? …too much of a stretch? How about the militants and separatists during the Civil Rights Movement? Things were so horrible they couldn’t even bear to live in this country…? How did everyone else take it?

    Trauma inflicted by other people can create warped views of reality. It can teach oppression and power-seeking as moral values, and honesty as a vice. The idea that the oppressed don’t need to create fake stories about oppression betrays a very stereotyped understanding of what creates pathological attention-seeking behavior in the first place. I think the difference between today and the 20th Century is that there was more community, and less isolation, among the oppressed groups.

    “Second, when you live in an oppressive country, there’s no one you can take your grievances to because that is what it means to live in an oppressive country!

    I’ll have to remember this: Goldberg gets unbelievably stupid when he gets shrill.

    “A free society is a rich ecosystem of competing institutions. Some are powerful, some weak… But none have unchecked power over the whole of the society and, thanks to the Constitution, that goes for the government itself, too.”

    I’m so relieved that the 15 year old who was shot to death yesterday on his way to buy food died a free man in some parts of society.

    “Culture warriors demand that you care. They demand that you be part of the solution, and if you’re not, you’re part of the problem. When this spirit takes over, there’s no one to appeal to for your grievance, because everyone is in on the new crusade or too afraid to say they’re not. Oppressive societies are societies where you don’t have the right to exit.

    A host of liberals are bleating about conservative “gloating” over the Smollett debunking. What they seem to sincerely not understand is that their instant acceptance of the story and their instant condemnation of anyone who voiced skepticism over it was an act of oppression.”

    Is this some kind of joke?

    Gay black men worried about being murdered aren’t oppressed–I don’t agree but it’s a logical argument. But now the same author’s exploding the definition to include knee-jerk conservative bias?

    This is just another dumb “But this is different, I am actually right, look at my evidence!” argument for yet another dumb holy war.

    “That’s why it’s particularly galling to see Al Sharpton opine on the Smollett case given that his entire career stemmed from the Tawana Brawley hoax and his role in a real hate crime that killed seven people.”

    That was over 20 years ago. Get over it.

    Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Until last week I’d never heard of Jussie Smollett or Empire. As a retired lawyer, though, with experience in sorting out murky/conflicting fact situations, I suspect that both sides of the intensely emotional argument in this situation are running well ahead of the facts, both sides pushing a narrative (one pushing black/gay victimization and the other pushing white/straight victimization). The outrage machines on both sides are running full tilt boogie, and both are probably running amok.

    If Smollett was responsible for or implicated in fabricating the attack, if won’t have been the first time that celebrities of one sort and another have fabricated fables to secure publicity and advance their careers, and if the two brothers who claim to have been paid by Smollett are lying in whole or in part, it won’t be the first time that accused criminals have done so in order to take the heat off. The facts will become clearer as more evidence is obtained and the story unfolds.

    Right now, though, Jorge’s observation that this is “yet another dumb holy war” in on target.

    Reply

Leave a Comment