Good post. I was very skeptical of the story but was scared to post how I felt, so I didnt engage in the discussion. I thought I would get banned. If plenty of people here felt the same way there is no discussion. And everything is a hive mind
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
CNN: New evidence suggests Jussie Smollett orchestrated attack (Check Threadmarks / Staff Posts) (UPDATE: Now a suspect)
- Thread starter Deleted member 43084
- Start date
- Status
I have a question about this. Were there actually that many bans given out, since this whole topic of conversation began? I haven't read through the entire thread myself, but was kind of curious on whether we have had any similar scenarios on ERA where someone's initial thoughts were believed to be outright negative to the subject matter, but later looked at differently when further context was brought into the picture.
And from a Mod perspective, how do you manage that?
Hahaha I was going to say the same thing, what an unfortunate last name.
I haven't read through through this whole thread or the previous but I'm I've seen a a few questionable bans when the attack first happened. Some posters were victim blaming but others were legit skeptical. As much as I wanted to post, I held off for fear of a ban. There's a couple other threads where I found myself in the same situation.
I don't watch Daily Show much but that was a well stated piece by Trevor Noah.
There were quite a few bans in the original thread. To answer your question, There have been other scenarios, the thread about Chipotle firing the manager for making customers pay first comes to mind.
Main thread
TLDR
BTW, I think a lot of the issue is that people take the whole statement of "Believe (insert person/people/etc)" meaning you need to take what they say as truth - fullstop... when it really means you need to listen to people and not just wholly dismiss what they say because of who they are.
As much as we can criticize the original story as presented for being too cartoonish, the story as it has currently developed sounds equally cartoonish to me.
Because this is now the story of a well-to-do black celebrity who decided, seemingly at random, that he wanted the sympathy of a MAGA victim. And when his initial attempt at staging a fake anthrax scare failed, he paid two Nigerian dudes to pretend to be two white dudes as they beat him up, poured bleach on him, wrapped a noose around his for kicks, and topped off with "MAGA country". And his hope was that Chicago PD would just shrug, find two random innocent white dudes, arrest them for committing a hate crime, and call it a day. And the only reasons I can think of as to why he thought this was a good idea was because he wanted to be a martyr against Trump and maybe get an anti-lynching bill named after him or something.
At this point I'm half-expecting him to accuse the Nigerian brothers of sexually assaulting him. Y'know, just to make this every MAGA idiot's worse nightmare.
Because this is now the story of a well-to-do black celebrity who decided, seemingly at random, that he wanted the sympathy of a MAGA victim. And when his initial attempt at staging a fake anthrax scare failed, he paid two Nigerian dudes to pretend to be two white dudes as they beat him up, poured bleach on him, wrapped a noose around his for kicks, and topped off with "MAGA country". And his hope was that Chicago PD would just shrug, find two random innocent white dudes, arrest them for committing a hate crime, and call it a day. And the only reasons I can think of as to why he thought this was a good idea was because he wanted to be a martyr against Trump and maybe get an anti-lynching bill named after him or something.
At this point I'm half-expecting him to accuse the Nigerian brothers of sexually assaulting him. Y'know, just to make this every MAGA idiot's worse nightmare.
Jesus, some of the mod posts in there...
We're all human and knee-jerk reactions are natural, but I guess I always assumed part of the duty of being a mod is to be above the fray.
Not being critical. Just surprised.
I chuckle a bit when I recall how Wendy's avatar guy got did early in that thread. He ducked out when it looked like bans were incoming.
HOW DARE YOU!
Some of the permanent bans I saw were posters who were banned a few days and then who came back, bitched about the mods and wouldn't drop the subject. At that point, you're kind of asking for it.....insert victim blaming joke here.
That's the weirdest thing about this, I think.
If you told me Smollett's story when it first came out and pointed out all the inconsistencies, and then I somehow knew the actual story and told you everything we've found out so far, his made up story would sound far more believable.
Truth really is stranger than fiction.
i laugh at all the people that at first sided with him without looking at all the facts. ridiculous times.
I have to say that when they post things like this, as in after X point in thread X action will no longer be tolerated, it really should also be edited it into the OP. A post half way down page 11 is going to be missed by a lot of people in a 20 page thread. People read the OP, they skim, check the latest page to see how the discussion evolved, and I'm sure a few people will actually read 50 pages before making a post. But really, something like that is easily missed.
Last edited:
As stated earlier in the thread, in an effort to ensure victims aren't ignored some have gotten to the point of outright believe everything, immediately, at face value. Everyone should be listened to and heard, but everything should be thought of critically and (ideally) without bias.
If you don't grab a pitch fork and join the fight, it's presumed you have an agenda and can't be trusted (or are warned and banned)
I agree. There is this new thing where there are "staff posts" you can click but it never works for me on mobile. Likewise, I also find the "we can can't talk about X anymore" to be over used, especially on a web forum built to promote discussion.
When fake incidents are so rare yet every real incident has tons of alt right trolls polluting the conversation, it's not that hard to understand why people err on the side of caution. The question is why does this seem to bother some people so much since it's such an insanely rare case.
Just because they don't last long doesn't mean they don't flood in droves with alt/burner accounts whenever something controversial happens
And we have a ton of centrists that like to walk a real thin line
See, I didn't even know that was a feature. I guess that's on me though.
But really, my position on this place and serious discussions is to, for the most part, stay out of them. Sometimes bans come from weird angles (Ever read a ban reason and been like, "huh, good to know?"). You really shouldn't feel you can't discuss things on a discussion forum.
What do centrist have to do with alt-right? Your post makes it sound like the political spectrum is left - centre - alt-right
Centrist that walk a real thin line? So if a centrist dont agree with your pov then they are walking a thin line huh? Probably then can claim they might as well be alt right
Could we not discuss things we all know they don't want us discussing so the thread doesn't get locked? Ok cool
I made the original thread. I had no reason to believe he was lying at the time. I'm not being "oddly silent." What can I say? These kind of stories aren't fabricated on a regular basis. And now the right gets to spike the football while the rest of us snipe at each other for reacting like a human being in, as the banned poster called them, ridiculous times.
So yes, hilarious.
This is where I honestly feel for the mods. On one hand, sensitive stories involving people belonging to historically disenfranchised groups require a watchful eye when people try to squirt their shitty little dog-whistles and winks into their posts without giving away their true intentions (the "I'm just sayin'" or "Just asking questions" shit).
On the other hand, stories that have major inconsistencies or problems should be open to discussion, IMO.
But when those two topics intersect, what can you do? If it's too open, racists and homophobes (as rare as we may like to believe they are on this website) will post their thinly-disguised horseshit with aplomb because they know they can just fall back on saying they're "playing airchair detective" like everyone else. But if it's too closed down, it's a circle-jerk where anybody who dares give an opinion that doesn't line up exactly with the majority gets shouted down, insulted, or possibly banned.
Play it safe or leave it open.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The thing that muddied the waters was how brutal other racial and homophobic attacks have been in the recent past. Typically far more violent than politically motivated attacks. I thought it seemed over the top until I started reading up on similar occurrences and then I had nothing to say.
https://twitter.com/nbcchicago/status/1097994522708115456?s=19
NBC reports tip Smollet was with the two brothers was unfounded according to the cops
So
Uhhhh
Seriously
What
NBC reports tip Smollet was with the two brothers was unfounded according to the cops
So
Uhhhh
Seriously
What
It says to check the threadmarks in the title, you just click "staff posts" in the lower right side (I don't know if it's the same for mobile) and it takes you right to it. I agree though that red text in the OP in addition to the threadmark is helpful though, but then that assumes people read the OP which a lot of times they don't haha, regardless in this instance it's pretty impossible to miss it with it being part of the title.
Leave the topic open and allow the weeds to show themselves so they can be pulled. One of the reasons I listen to the enemy's broadcast (for as long as I can stand it) is to hear how they think. It helps me in real life when I here people at work reciting the same rhetoric I hear on the radio, they dont expect me to know the keywords. I think the things that make ERA work is the underlying respect most of us have for each other and although I disagree often, its never without respect to the topic or the person(s). Those who move with that respect will get the hammer soon enough.
I do not envy the mods and having to decipher prejudices online from a few phrases, shit sounds impossible.
A source tells CBS News that a last-minute phone call might have kept the case against "Empire" star Jussie Smollett from going to a grand jury. The actor claims he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack last month, as he walked home in the middle of the night.
Seriously just edit staff posts in the OP since this magical threadmark system is borderline broken on mobile or when it actually works you need to scroll down a page to find the staff post
It isn't rocket science more people will see it on the first page in the op
It isn't rocket science more people will see it on the first page in the op
Man, why was Noah never this insightful during the actual show when I still watched? That was just as good as Stewart there. I'll have to check out these Between the Scenes deals.
Yeah he's a smart guy. He's right.
Edit: wait, nobody watches Trevor? Weird to see all these disclaimers: "well i don't watch him but.." Is he considered unfunny or something or unsmart? Or is the pain of Stewart leaving still too big (he was amazing, i agree)? Cause Trevor Noah is good.
That was a random tip they received yesterday. Doesn't change anything else.
Putting "READ OP" on like every single topic that diverges from arguing about game reviews is just such an archaic way to handle a conversation. I'm not saying you can't do it, or the thread bookmarks, but this place really comes across like a class school room at times.
If the forum is going to ask about 30 mods to steer the ship, then if you want a more natural way of handling things mods should (most of the time) simply be quoting posters and engaging. Either telling someone to stop something/explain further and so on.
Just banning everything is incredibly "lazy" at times. Outside of clear alt-accounts/burner accounts. And yes, I understand not being happy with victim blaming or the just asking questions the second this was reported, but on the other hand, will there be any self-reflection at all from what gets coined as "ban honeypots" like this event? It is okay at times for mods to hit the post reply button, rather than the moderate button.
Even I thought this sounded comically evil from the start, but I kept my mouth shut and just looked on hoping your cops would either find who done it or find out what happened. Only then did I comment. But in hindsight, I ain't going to sit here and lie and say on initial reporting my brain didn't think "Jesus, that sounds both horrific and comically evil". From the start, there were one or two details that seemed over the top given the time, weather, surroundings (heavy Democrat area) and reporting. None of that meant you had to 100% believe it was lies, but it was natural to think/articulate your thoughts stating some of the reporting was intense/strange.
Of course, some of that was down to the terrible gossip like reporting telling the public something different every 2 seconds.
If the forum is going to ask about 30 mods to steer the ship, then if you want a more natural way of handling things mods should (most of the time) simply be quoting posters and engaging. Either telling someone to stop something/explain further and so on.
Just banning everything is incredibly "lazy" at times. Outside of clear alt-accounts/burner accounts. And yes, I understand not being happy with victim blaming or the just asking questions the second this was reported, but on the other hand, will there be any self-reflection at all from what gets coined as "ban honeypots" like this event? It is okay at times for mods to hit the post reply button, rather than the moderate button.
Even I thought this sounded comically evil from the start, but I kept my mouth shut and just looked on hoping your cops would either find who done it or find out what happened. Only then did I comment. But in hindsight, I ain't going to sit here and lie and say on initial reporting my brain didn't think "Jesus, that sounds both horrific and comically evil". From the start, there were one or two details that seemed over the top given the time, weather, surroundings (heavy Democrat area) and reporting. None of that meant you had to 100% believe it was lies, but it was natural to think/articulate your thoughts stating some of the reporting was intense/strange.
Of course, some of that was down to the terrible gossip like reporting telling the public something different every 2 seconds.
Last edited:
I don't always agree with Trevor but this is a brillant statement. Putting aside the Jussie Smollett thing (we'll see what new evidence reveals), we have to be careful to not become like the one we are fighting.
It says something about this forum that being a centrist is seen as living dangerously.
Eh...I'm a centrist (but registered Democrat) I feel like I'm more open minded because I'm not blinded by allegiance.
Anyway, the twins are going to be testifying before a grand jury. Things are about to get more interesting.
Believe =/= Active Listening, so it's understandable if people are confused.
Sigh I hate hashtags for serious topics.
- Status