| Just in case anyone else is interested, "Jussie" is a female name (derived from Justine et al). |
|  |
|
Post Reply |
|
Forum |
Posted by: LateForLunch ®
12/09/2021, 20:19:08
Author Profile Mail author Edit
|
Even though the fool's birth name is "Justin" his self-ascribed derivation "Jussie" is never applied to males. The derived-name "Jussie" is traditionally a female version of "Justine", not the male "Justin". The male form of a Justin is either "Juss" or none at all (seeing as it is a fairly short name, people rarely adopt shortened versions). The fact that the little cacogen adopted a female name is not surprising considering "his" homosexuality.
So a guy asking to be called "Jussie" is sort of like a male named "Alex" preferring to be called "Alexa".
|
|
Posted by: LateForLunch ®
12/10/2021, 14:45:37
Author Profile Mail author Edit
|
...since the only work he will be offered any time soon is (drumroll) GAY PORN!!
He already looks like a goat/human hybrid to me. He might as well behave like one on camera.
Modified by LateForLunch at Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 14:47:03
|
Posted by: LateForLunch ®
12/11/2021, 18:43:03
Author Profile Mail author Edit
|
...as well he should. Chappelle is a gift. A longer version of the video is also out there somewhere, but I'm unable to locate it just now. Kudos to Chappelle's courage in being unafraid of being "cancelled". He's sort of the heir to George Carlin's legacy of irreverent contempt for anyone or anything which promotes or demands stupidity from people in the name of "conformity to Correct Thought".
BTW, the "u" in the name is properly pronounced like "uh", not "oo". Chappelle mispronounces it as "Juicy" just to be insulting. He also pronounces the last name like "sommelier" (French word for a wine steward).
There's a previous part of the performance in the posted video, where Chappelle talks about the difference between how black folks lie and other people lie. He pointed out that when black males lie, they don't often come up with credible, reasonable-sounding lies, but instead fantastic, highly-unlikely (ridiculous) scenarios.
He gave examples. Then he repeated what Smollett said happened to him and the audience roared with laughter. When he rolled his eyes and nodded his head ruefully.
The best part of the video for me is the imagined interaction with a Chicago cop/Smollett as the officer takes his "statement" regarding the incident.
Modified by LateForLunch at Sat, Dec 11, 2021, 19:37:43
|
Posted by: LateForLunch ®
12/12/2021, 17:38:51
Author Profile Mail author Edit
|
...what is arguably one of the more-compelling items of logic which indict Smollett's version of events turns out to be that Subway sandwich he bought. It has been pointed out that in most (all) similar scenarios involving violent assaults on people such as Smollett claimed, victims invariably leave whatever incidental items they may have purchased (such as sandwiches, groceries, cigarettes etc.) and been carrying when attacked, at the scene.
People attacked with such violence do not as a rule, retrieve small items dropped when attacked, (such as a sandwich) and take them home with them as Smollett admitted to doing. They leave such items at the scene. Adrenaline rush tends to kill appetite immediately and for some time after, then a feeling of exhaustion is a usual secondary-reaction, not hunger.
The fact that the moron took the sandwich home (presumably to enjoy when he got there) further discredited the validity of his claim as far as law-enforcement investigators were concerned. It demonstrated that in fact the whole thing was not traumatizing for him at all, but rather something that was apparently no big deal emotionally.
That reaction is similar to how detectives view supposedly "close" relatives or loved-ones who are not highly upset when they learn of their loved-one's murder. It's a BIG red flag (directly from elementary psychology on, "normal/abnormal affects").
Modified by LateForLunch at Sun, Dec 12, 2021, 17:51:03
|
|
|
