Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:32 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Anyone could be mentally ill and anyone could be armed. What you’re proposing is nothing more than a recipe for never standing up for yourself, and allowing anyone to just walk all over you.
No I'm talking about a teenager at a heated political rally and a grown man walks up to him and gets in his face. You are saying that teenager should stand up to that adult. I'm saying that could get him killed. Your advice to this kid is very dangerous and irresponsible. I'm sorry your dad gave you these unhelpful lessons, but escalating things is generally not a good idea. What if both people have the same attitude, that's when people die. We should be teaching kids to be the bigger person, not to strive to increase conflict.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #252  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:32 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,058
He stared down Phillips with these guys behind him.

Quote:
In multiple videos, the students—some of whom, prior to gathering at the Lincoln Memorial, were allegedly howling “MAGA!” at random female passers-by—can be seen engaging in the familiar chant, bringing their arm downward as if wielding a tomahawk while belting out a crude version of traditional Native American songs.
So brave.

Link
  #253  
Old 07-31-2019, 12:59 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
What would you instruct your child to do in that situation? Stand there and stare and smirk? Or maybe just walk away?

"Son if a man comes up to you and starts drumming in your face, the best thing to do is stand there and stare at him with a shit eating grin", somehow something tells me that is not what you would say to your son before he attended a political protest rally.
Which is why I think it's the ADULTS who were supposed to be in charge should be the ones getting this treatment. The kids, not so much.

As soon as the Black Hebrew Israelites started their bullshit, they should have gotten those kids away, and they should also have instructed them not to wear any kind of partisan gear except for school stuff.

But I, personally, have yet to see anyone in the media, whether on the left or right, bring that up.

Yes, these kids WERE 17. But they still weren't the ones in charge, and why the hell those that were didn't step in still baffles me. It doesn't seem like they joined in with the whole protest, but they just let it all happen.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 07-31-2019 at 01:00 PM.
  #254  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:15 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Yes, these kids WERE 17. But they still weren't the ones in charge, and why the hell those that were didn't step in still baffles me. It doesn't seem like they joined in with the whole protest, but they just let it all happen.
Just like they let the overt racism at their sporting events happen.
  #255  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:37 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Which is why I think it's the ADULTS who were supposed to be in charge should be the ones getting this treatment. The kids, not so much.
The "treatment" started with people reacting on social media. The word "should" doesn't really apply to social media because there is no way to control what people do with that platform. It just is what it is. So in this day and age, where everything can be recorded, everyone needs to be aware of how they might come across. Is it fair? Well is anything in life fair?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #256  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:38 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
What’s that line about cowards dying a thousand deaths?
Quote:
Originally quoted by Bret Maverick:
"As my Pappy used to say, 'A coward dies a thousand deaths. A brave man, only one.' Thousand-to-one's a pretty good advantage."
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)

Last edited by CaptMurdock; 07-31-2019 at 01:39 PM.
  #257  
Old 08-01-2019, 10:06 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
I prostrate myself before your supreme legal understanding of the law as demonstrated by your ability to fork over $190 to take the LSAT, but would humbly ask that with your new found mastery of all things legalistic, you would point to the statutes that would restrict the extent of the legal argument presented in the case to only accusations of sexism and racism.

It would seem to my somewhat less logical mind (having only a PhD in statistics with an H-index of 59, so being thus a far inferior intellect to the high and mighty law student) that this basically would open up any "news" organization whose disparaging remarks about someone resulting in them being hounded by social media to a multi million dollar law suit. Given that riling up the masses against some random liberal is the bread and butter of right wing media, be careful where you throw them stones.
Good for you. You have a PhD in statistics. I'm sure you know far more about statistics than I ever will. And if this discussion at all concerned statistics, that would be relevant. And you aren't doing any claim you're making of your logical abilities any favors with your post. Let me break it down for you:

Your original post stated that if this law suit succeeded and set a "precident" (it's precedent by the way, as in to precede) that it would pose a serious legal threat sufficient to shut down Fox News blah blah. Seems unlikely for several reasons.

First of all, cases of defamation are very, very fact specific. If for no other reason than they deal with the infinite variety of what people can say or print, etc . So to the extent that any precedent was ever set it could be extremely narrow. In fact, the precedential value of defamation cases in general can be frequently less than other types of cases for just that reason. The more important the specific facts are the less likely another case will be sufficiently similar for precedent to apply. That's logic.

Second, I was referring to racism in terms of a theoretical legal victory by Smirky where it is assumed the defendant was found liable on same basis for false and defamatory accusations that the plaintiff was a racist or acted in a racist manner. If you envision a Smirky victory and precedent based on something else feel free. There's essentially an infinite amount of fact patterns and the same for your future hypothetical Fox News case. It's almost like the details are important and you attempt to not only posit two different hypothetical cases without providing any of those really important details but then try and draw some tenuous connection via precedent that can't possibly be made in any meaningful logical sense, let alone a legal one. Exactly because of that lack of details.

Third, regardless of whatever bullshit Fox News traffics in, it's generally not accusations of racism, whether founded or unfounded. That's just not their primary schtick. Wouldn't you actually agree that such accusations, once again whether founded or unfounded, appear more often on the left? And statistically speaking wouldn't that mean that Fox News would be less likely to be sued for defamatory and false claims of racism than more left leaning defendants since they make less of those statements and all else being equal? Wouldn't that be logically yet another reason a precedent set by a Smirky victory would be less likely to apply?

That was my original point about Fox News and this case. That not only are defamation precedents set by a Smirky victory not likely to apply in general due to the nature of defamation but specifically because Fox News doesn't make the same kind of accusations as a matter of course. See how I took facts and applied an actual legal analysis? You know unlike you or most other people in the thread?

Also, I never said that such claims would ever be limited to sexism and racism. At all. Not logically implied in any way. The issue was a part of the case in question and it's even more important because it's in that grey area between fact and opinion in defamation cases. And I lumped in sexism because legally speaking they often present similar issues.

I already outlined why I don't think Fox News would need to be concerned about a Smirky precedent based on defamatory and false claims of racism and that was the only hypothetical I was positing. Like I said, if you have another hypothetical complete with a real legal fact patterns have at it. But connecting two cases by precedent, a vague and undefined precedent by the way, just because they both involve defamation and making predictions on the resultant legal impact is bad logic and bad legal analysis. Just like talking out your ass about highly technical and complex subjects that you lack sufficient expertise in to reasonably do so is bad logic. You're really not coming off well here.

Lastly, the whole "riling the masses" and vicarious liability issues are likely moot if you can't successfully argue defamation in the first place. Maybe not but either way I'm not going to bother at this point. Also, I believe I could show you statistics that show the average cost to take the bar is much higher than $190 and I got my JD 15 years ago so l haven't been a student in a long time.

So all your feeble attempts at logic and legal analysis have done is provided evidence that strong reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills are not necessarily positively correlated with people that have a PhD in statistics (or claim to, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't matter. I know far too many PhDs and JDs for a degree to impress me in and of itself). And that you personally are a data point in the set of "people who talk out their ass about subjects they are ignorant about." Good job. It is a large set and you have plenty of company, here and in the world at large. So there's that.

Last edited by DirkHardly; 08-01-2019 at 10:08 AM.
  #258  
Old 08-01-2019, 11:41 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Also, I never said that such claims would ever be limited to sexism and racism. At all. Not logically implied in any way.
When pointed out that Fox News also engages in similar behavior your response was that Fox didn't make accusations of sexism and racism, and so wouldn't be affected, that certainly implies that if an entity didn't engage in sexism and racism they would have nothing to worry about. If you wanted to imply otherwise you should have said that Fox didn't engage in defamatory false claims. You would be wrong, but at least you would be logical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I got my JD 15 years ago so l haven't been a student in a long time.
I stand corrected. So you've been a lawyer for 15 years, and yet you use your having taken the LSAT as proof of your legal cred? It really must have been all down hill from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I know far too many PhDs and JDs for a degree to impress me in and of itself). And that you personally are a data point in the set of "people who talk out their ass about subjects they are ignorant about." Good job. It is a large set and you have plenty of company, here and in the world at large. So there's that.
I agree as would most of the members of this board, and your postings so far confirm it. Which is why most people here don't try to lord their credentials as proof of their superiority. I wouldn't have either except you went on spouting how your LSAT score made your powers of logic superior to all us peons, and so I decided to emphasize the fallacious asininity of such statements.
  #259  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:15 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
So how should the typical teenager react to a random stranger pushing up into their face while chanting and banging a drum?
Same way you'd react to anyone expressing passive aggression. Walk away and get on with your life? That's not cowardice, that's maturity and not getting sucked into someone else's games.

Last edited by Inigo Montoya; 08-01-2019 at 03:18 PM.
  #260  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:42 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,770
Sadly, most teenagers aren't that mature. I'm not excusing them, mind you. But that's just a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Just like they let the overt racism at their sporting events happen.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. But I do indeed hope that was addressed by the school. If not, they're seriously failing at their duty.

(Was that kid part of the group at the March?)
  #261  
Old 08-03-2019, 06:15 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Nah, he just taught me not to be a gutless, cowering pussy. If only your dad had taught you the same, maybe you wouldn’t have been bullied in school by a kid who looked a bit like Nick Sandmann.

I mean, that is what all this is really about, isn’t it.

I agree with others who counsel a different approach. I was “carfree” for several years and often had car drivers pull dangerous shit when I was on my bike. My first impulse of the moment, seeing red, was often to flip them off before immediately regretting it. This was in rural Missouri, and there were two different occasions when this led to a double barrel being quickly pulled down from the redneck’s gun rack and my life flashing before my eyes. It’s not worth it.

Sam Harris talks effectively about how testosterone-fueled hairless apes can be so dangerous when they feel their manhood is challenged. In particular, they can take offense even to someone inadvertently making eye contact with them. He described what he says when this happens. and I’m sure you would think it makes him a “pussy”; but I believe it is extremely sage advice.

When a bristling macho guy, spoiling for a fight, challenges him with “What are you fucking looking at?” he responds “Oh, sorry man: I was just kinda zoning out and staring off into space. It’s been a long day.” Confrontation defused, and what has he lost? If your self-image is tied up in maintaining a strong and unwavering exterior of someone who doesn’t back down, that’s a pretty sad existence if you ask me.
  #262  
Old 08-03-2019, 01:39 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Nah, he just taught me not to be a gutless, cowering pussy. If only your dad had taught you the same, maybe you wouldn’t have been bullied in school by a kid who looked a bit like Nick Sandmann.

I mean, that is what all this is really about, isn’t it.
We've had threads and threads on this, so I must thank you for the object lesson.

If anyone was wondering, this is what toxic masculinity looks like.
  #263  
Old 08-03-2019, 02:09 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
We've had threads and threads on this, so I must thank you for the object lesson.

If anyone was wondering, this is what toxic masculinity looks like.
Saying people should stand up for themselves; toxic masculinity.

Bullying teenagers on the internet over fuck all; not toxic masculinity. Actually encouraged.

Cool. Got it. Thanks for the lesson, chief.
  #264  
Old 08-03-2019, 02:20 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Maybe my perspective is a little different because I don’t come from a country where any nutcase can get a gun, but I’ve been in a few fights in my time and, in my experience, no beating can equal the pain that comes from backing down from a confrontation with a bully. I’m not talking about starting fights. I’m talking about not running away if someone else brings a fight to you.

I stopped doing that in the seventh grade and it improved my life immeasurably.
  #265  
Old 08-03-2019, 02:53 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Saying people should stand up for themselves; toxic masculinity.

Bullying teenagers on the internet over fuck all; not toxic masculinity. Actually encouraged.

Cool. Got it. Thanks for the lesson, chief.
Calling someone a pussy and implying that they had a poor upbringing because they don't escalate confrontations; toxic masculinity.

Quote:
Maybe my perspective is a little different because I don’t come from a country where any nutcase can get a gun,
Well, there is that, since this is a country where any nutcase can get a gun, your advice gets people killed.
Quote:
but I’ve been in a few fights in my time and, in my experience, no beating can equal the pain that comes from backing down from a confrontation with a bully. I’m not talking about starting fights. I’m talking about not running away if someone else brings a fight to you.
Backing down from a confrontation with a bully is different than escalating any and all confrontations that you come into contact with. Not to mention, I have seen stories of people who are permanently disabled due to fights in school, so, there may be some people who would disagree with you on whether or not there is any pain that can equal not getting into a fight that leaves them disabled.

It's just pride, that's all that is wounded. And if your pride being wounded is more painful than having your skull fractured, then yes, the value you place on your pride is a problem, and it is a result of toxic masculinity.
Quote:
I stopped doing that in the seventh grade and it improved my life immeasurably.
I got into fights quite a bit through about seventh grade. I usually gave as good as I got, but I also ended up getting detention or worse. Learning to swallow my pride and deescalate fights improved my life immeasurably.

YMMV
  #266  
Old 08-03-2019, 03:18 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender
Calling someone a pussy and implying that they had a poor upbringing because they don't escalate confrontations; toxic masculinity.
Didn’t you read the post I was responding to? I said “My dad taught me not to back down from confrontations with belligerent strangers” and Lance Strongarm said “Your dad sounds like an asshole. Tell him to go fuck himself from me”

Now, you tell me. Who’s the one who escalated that? Me, or Lance? Seems pretty fucking clear to me that it was Lance. And if so, why shouldn’t I give some back? Please, be specific. And while you’re at it, why not explain why Lance’s “tell your dad to go fuck himself” isn’t “toxic masculinity” but my retort is?

I was insulting him, you moron! As he insulted me. That’s all it was. An insult. OBVIOUSLY I don’t think that people who choose not to escalate confrontations have poor upbringings. But I’ll happily say it to Lance. Because fuck that guy.

Quote:
Backing down from a confrontation with a bully is different than escalating any and all confrontations that you come into contact with.
Good thing I never advised anyone to do that then, isn’t it?

Quote:
Not to mention, I have seen stories of people who are permanently disabled due to fights in school, so, there may be some people who would disagree with you on whether or not there is any pain that can equal not getting into a fight that leaves them disabled.
Yeah, well I’ve seen plenty of stories of kids who’ve committed suicide rather than confront their bullies. So there may be some people who would disagree with you that walking away is always the best option.

Quote:
It's just pride, that's all that is wounded. And if your pride being wounded is more painful than having your skull fractured, then yes, the value you place on your pride is a problem, and it is a result of toxic masculinity.
See above. Also, 99.999% of people who get into a fight walk away with nothing worse than a few cuts and bruises. Get a grip.
  #267  
Old 08-03-2019, 03:47 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Didn’t you read the post I was responding to? I said “My dad taught me not to back down from confrontations with belligerent strangers” and Lance Strongarm said “Your dad sounds like an asshole. Tell him to go fuck himself from me”

Now, you tell me. Who’s the one who escalated that? Me, or Lance? Seems pretty fucking clear to me that it was Lance. And if so, why shouldn’t I give some back? Please, be specific. And while you’re at it, why not explain why Lance’s “tell your dad to go fuck himself” isn’t “toxic masculinity” but my retort is?

I was insulting him, you moron! As he insulted me. That’s all it was. An insult. OBVIOUSLY I don’t think that people who choose not to escalate confrontations have poor upbringings. But I’ll happily say it to Lance. Because fuck that guy.
Yeah, it's the pit, and no one is going to get shot or have their skulls fractured. That is a different place than the real world, where such insults can get you seriously injured in fair short order.

Lance's comment was an insult to you and to your father. That's what it was, an insult. You comment was a comment about how "real men" should behave, that your dad taught you to be a real man, and by implication, the person that you are responding to is not.
Quote:

Good thing I never advised anyone to do that then, isn’t it?
It is exactly what you are advocating people to do when you tell people not to back down from belligerent strangers. It is even more what you are advocating people to do with your defense of Sandman's not backing down from a stranger.
Quote:
Yeah, well I’ve seen plenty of stories of kids who’ve committed suicide rather than confront their bullies. So there may be some people who would disagree with you that walking away is always the best option.
Yeah, bullying sucks, and the idea that standing up to a bully will make it stop is simply a fantasy that people tell to explain why people get bullied, and absolve themselves of any responsibility of actually doing anything about it. You know why these kids kill themselves, because people like you are telling them that they are pussies and cowards because they don't want to get into a fight. When you see your classmate get into a confrontation with a bully, and you say something like, "he just taught me not to be a gutless, cowering pussy. If only your dad had taught you the same, maybe you wouldn’t have been bullied in school, " do you really think that you are helping, or are you actually just being a bully there yourself?
Quote:

See above. Also, 99.999% of people who get into a fight walk away with nothing worse than a few cuts and bruises. Get a grip.
99.999% of people who have a Native American play a drum near them walk away with even less.
  #268  
Old 08-03-2019, 05:35 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
When pointed out that Fox News also engages in similar behavior your response was that Fox didn't make accusations of sexism and racism, and so wouldn't be affected, that certainly implies that if an entity didn't engage in sexism and racism they would have nothing to worry about. If you wanted to imply otherwise you should have said that Fox didn't engage in defamatory false claims. You would be wrong, but at least you would be logical.



I stand corrected. So you've been a lawyer for 15 years, and yet you use your having taken the LSAT as proof of your legal cred? It really must have been all down hill from there.



I agree as would most of the members of this board, and your postings so far confirm it. Which is why most people here don't try to lord their credentials as proof of their superiority. I wouldn't have either except you went on spouting how your LSAT score made your powers of logic superior to all us peons, and so I decided to emphasize the fallacious asininity of such statements.
Nah, once again you just don't get it. And the fundamental mistake you keep repeatedly making is assuming that it can't possibly be you who doesn't understand. This all started with a statement about how the right and Fox News should worry about unforeseen blowback if Smirky would have won. This was a profoundly idiotic statement and showed a complete lack of understanding of how the law and the underlying logic work.

The reason being, you making a vague statement about this case setting such a precedent is just about as meaningless as me handing you a sheet of numbers and saying it proves something statistically. A precedent that lacks a resolution on the legal issues presented and the reasoning behind those decisions is not a precedent. And it is entirely useless from not only a practical standpoint but even as a hypothetical. The fact that you repeatedly seem to be unable to grasp this simple bit of logic is astounding.

So I made my comment because not only did I recognize the inanity of your statement but I also recognized the irony of picking Fox News in this instance exactly because they are unlikely to be the subject of defamation claims involving false accusations of racism etc. So see it was logically coherent, relevant, and even legally sound reasoning this whole time. You just couldn't grasp that. And, like the others, despite the fact that you know that you have no relevant legal expertise you still illogically assume that the fault can't possibly lie with you.

Speaking of which, and of things you still don't get. As I explained to Big T, my posts about the legal issues here speak for themselves. I never offered my possessing any particular credentials as evidence of those posts validity at all. Where they came up was when I was accused of poor logic and reading comprehension among other things. Except they, like you continue to do, couldn't quite articulate how I was being illogical or failing at reading comprehension.

I have no need to rebut bare assertions offered without support. The significance is that it is objective evidence that I have myself of my own skills in those areas. I have plenty of other evidence but nothing quite as distilled as a test designed to quantify exactly those skills and a degree based on the same. So when I brought those things up it was to make the point that I personally, from my point of view, have objective reason to believe that I not only possess these skills but they are at a fairly high level. And if you are going to assert that I don't, again without any evidence, then I not only have no reason to believe you but ample reason to doubt you. Once again, pretty basic logic. Though evidently too subtle for you and the others to grasp.

Also, there is a follow-up logical implication there that you also failed to appreciate. And that is that regardless of my claims to have objective evidence of my abilities in these areas there is the simple fact that you know deep down that you have no such evidence of your own skills in that regard. You can't possibly, because you suck so badly at it. Instead it's pretty obvious that whatever faith you have in your skills re logic, reading comprehension, and legal analysis is based entirely on wishful thinking on your part and your ego. And if you cite your PhD in statistics as proof of your logical qualifications again you should know you weaken that argument every time you post.
  #269  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:57 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,058
LOL. DirkHardly thinks he's winning this argument. What a colossal dumb fuck.
  #270  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:21 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
LOL. DirkHardly thinks he's winning this argument. What a colossal dumb fuck.
He sure uses a lot of unnecessary words, like some lawyers do.

But I think he might be wrong. (if I understand what he's saying) This case, if it had gone the other way, could have a negative impact on all media, including Fox. (maybe especially Fox)
  #271  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:49 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
OBVIOUSLY I don’t think that people who choose not to escalate confrontations have poor upbringings. But I’ll happily say it to Lance. Because fuck that guy.
It must be difficult going through life keeping track of the ways you’ve lied about what you think just to spite people, and exhausting to have to convince people that what you said before was a lie, but this time is obviously the truth, because this time you feel like being honest.
  #272  
Old 08-06-2019, 02:28 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
People who shame people for not standing up to bullies are bullies.
  #273  
Old 08-06-2019, 04:20 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
It must be difficult going through life keeping track of the ways you’ve lied about what you think just to spite people, and exhausting to have to convince people that what you said before was a lie, but this time is obviously the truth, because this time you feel like being honest.
In his defense, at least one of his parents was kind of an asshole.
  #274  
Old 08-06-2019, 05:30 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
LOL. DirkHardly thinks he's winning this argument. What a colossal dumb fuck.
What argument? The one where you said that, "You can't sue a newspaper for for [sic] reporting the truth" and I pointed out how that, along with the rest of your post, shows you have absolutely no fucking idea what's going on with this case? The one where Truth as a defense had absolutely nothing to do with the case whatsoever because the defendant argued its allegedly defamatory speech was protected opinion and the court agreed in its order dismissing the case? And where the court in no way found that the defendant's speech was a true statement of verifiable fact because that issue wasn't legally relevant or was at least unripe? That one?

Tell me, do you feel you are "winning" because you deny that what you said was irrelevant and dumb or do you feel that you are "winning" despite all the dumb and irrelevant things you've said?
  #275  
Old 08-06-2019, 05:34 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
What argument? The one where you said that, "You can't sue a newspaper for for [sic] reporting the truth" and I pointed out how that, along with the rest of your post, shows you have absolutely no fucking idea what's going on with this case? The one where Truth as a defense had absolutely nothing to do with the case whatsoever because the defendant argued its allegedly defamatory speech was protected opinion and the court agreed in its order dismissing the case? And where the court in no way found that the defendant's speech was a true statement of verifiable fact because that issue wasn't legally relevant or was at least unripe? That one?

Tell me, do you feel you are "winning" because you deny that what you said was irrelevant and dumb or do you feel that you are "winning" despite all the dumb and irrelevant things you've said?
Colossal.
Dumb.
Fuck.
  #276  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:44 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
He sure uses a lot of unnecessary words, like some lawyers do.

But I think he might be wrong. (if I understand what he's saying) This case, if it had gone the other way, could have a negative impact on all media, including Fox. (maybe especially Fox)
Since I'm not only explaining complex legal concepts but having to point out all the many ways some others are wrong, it's taken a lot of words. If you read the complaint at issue in this case it's composed of a lot of words as well. The order of dismissal? Lots of words. I'm not going to say there aren't lawyers guilty of excess verbosity or overuse of legalese but on the other hand that tends to be how these complex legal and factual issues go and thus it's the bread and butter of the legal profession.

As far as the precedent issue goes it's almost like people are throwing around a term they loosely understand as a basic concept but don't understand the actual technical legal mechanisms and underlying logic. Imagine that. And while they keep saying that a Smirky win could set a precedent that could hurt Fox News etc like it is legally self-evident somehow they are never able to offer actual legal reasoning for that conclusion. You know, the really, really, important stuff that would give a hypothetical like that actual meaning. But since your post had a minimal level of snark and for the benefit of those who still don't get it, I'll explain (in simplified terms):

1) Precedent occurs when a case is sufficiently similar to a previous case in terms of facts and legal issues raised so that it compels the same result. If the latter case presents issues of relevant fact or law sufficiently different from the earlier case then it is legally distinguishable and the precedent does not apply. Precedent can be binding or merely informative. Binding means the court is obliged to follow the precedent as part of the Court's hierarchy. Informative precedent comes from outside the court's hierarchy and can be cited as persuasive or rejected at the Court's discretion. This suit was filed in the District Court for the Sixth Circuit (and relied in part on the laws of Kentucky), a lower court whose decisions have no appreciable binding precedential value. If the order of dismissal was successfully appealed it would still be remanded to this Court. And even if a precedent was somehow still created in this case at a higher Court in the Sixth Circuit it would still only be binding in that Circuit. Now that could encourage forum-shopping but that's not necessarily an insignificant legal obstacle.

2) Defamation cases are very fact-specific. Among other things, defamation analysis involves the particular published statements, their context, and in relation to the first two, the crucial distinction between fact and opinion. Since a hypothetical Smirky precedent would almost certainly rely on those factual and legal analyses as they apply to the particular published statements in that case and a hypothetical Fox News suit would most likely involve different published statements, possibly in a different context, and possibly with a different resulting determination of fact vs opinion, then it is extremely likely the cases could be legally distinguished and the Smirky precedent wouldn't apply.

3) While no one has produced any details of this hypothetical Smirky precedent we know it would be limited to a victory based on the allegations in the complaint right? In a nutshell, Smirky alleged the defendant defamed him by falsely claiming he was guilty of committing physical assault, taunting, and being a racist/engaging in racist conduct. Now first of all, a hypothetical Smirky victory could involve him winning on only one or both of the first two allegations. Given all that, is anyone arguing that a Smirky victory for defamatory accusations of taunting and physical assault would create a meaningful precedent in general and one that would likely apply to future suits against Fox News in particular?

The alleged defamatory accusations of racism/racist conduct, however, are much more interesting legally speaking. Most statements can be easily classified as either fact (falsifiable or verifiable) or opinion. And those cases based on clear determinations of either fact or opinion don't tend to make for meaningful precedent. Precedent isn't generated by, or needed for, obvious and non-controversial determinations of law.

But accusations of racism (and sexism) fall squarely in the middle-ground between fact and opinion. The exact same words could even be held to be a statement of falsifiable fact in one instance and protected opinion in another, depending on context. And it is precisely because accusations of racism/sexism in defamation law are so contentious and subject to such legal and factual dispute that the most likely significant Smirky precedent would likely be based on that exact issue. However, by the same reasoning such a precedent would also almost certainly be limited to accusations of racism/sexism because that's exactly the narrow legal issue in dispute before the Court and that's the area of law more unsettled. Fox News does not traffic in accusations of racism/sexism so such a narrow precedent would be unlikely to apply to future suits against them. Get it now? Notice how I supplied actual reasons and you and others provided exactly none for your legal "hunches"? Do you really not see the difference?
  #277  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:49 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Colossal.
Dumb.
Fuck.
Aw, look. Someone's fervent delusion of being smart and a tough guy on the internet is being threatened. I wouldn't want to take that way from you since it seems to be all you have. Nah, on second thought I'll gladly take that away from you while laughing and waving it just out of your reach.
  #278  
Old 08-07-2019, 04:50 AM
jz78817 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Aw, look. Someone's fervent delusion of being smart and a tough guy on the internet is being threatened. I wouldn't want to take that way from you since it seems to be all you have. Nah, on second thought I'll gladly take that away from you while laughing and waving it just out of your reach.
I’ll note the irony of this being said by someone who seems to need to gloat about how smart he thinks he is.
  #279  
Old 08-07-2019, 07:41 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
... in my experience, no beating can equal the pain that comes from backing down from a confrontation with a bully. I’m not talking about starting fights. I’m talking about not running away if someone else brings a fight to you.
That Pride is a royal bitch innit? Makes you think validating some real-life troll on his own terms is a good idea. Pain that comes from within is called shame, and shame is just you not living up to a standard you've set for yourself. Pride poisons that standard by importing conditions created by part of society that may not make sense for your situation, are short-sighted and ultimately self-destructive, or are just plain superficial and wasteful of your time and resources. If your rational brain tells you to walk away, then you need to walk away. If that hurts, then Reason is probably something you're not cut out for and you need to just accept you'll never be any more nuanced than a pea-brained knuckle chucker.

As a wise man once said, "Fuck Pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps."
  #280  
Old 08-07-2019, 07:55 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Aw, look. Someone's fervent delusion of being smart and a tough guy on the internet is being threatened.
That person is you. Everyone can see it. It oozes out of each of your posts.
  #281  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:12 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,058
If anyone is ever looking for an example of projection, posting this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
That's ok, I'm comfortable with my intellectual, academic, and professional accomplishments in the real world and secure in the knowledge that were we to have this conversation in a real world setting where you couldn't take advantage of such cowardly tactics and where your stupidity would be quickly called out by myself and others you'd either be exposed for the stupid douche you are or you'd STFU real quick.
Then a week later posting this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Aw, look. Someone's fervent delusion of being smart and a tough guy on the internet is being threatened.
Is like the Poe's law of projection. Like this has to be a parody right? No one really has this completely clueless lack of self-awareness do they?
  #282  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:19 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
If anyone is ever looking for an example of projection, posting this...



Then a week later posting this...



Is like the Poe's law of projection. Like this has to be a parody right? No one really has this completely clueless lack of self-awareness do they?
And you've been on the SDMB since 1999? Heavens to Murgatroyd...
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #283  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:30 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
LOL, good point.
  #284  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:22 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
I’ll note the irony of this being said by someone who seems to need to gloat about how smart he thinks he is.
I never gloated about how smart I was. I just actually know what I'm talking about. I know that's a foreign concept to a lot of people here but that's really how it's supposed to work. That's how all this started, with people talking out of their ass about things they know nothing about. You know, like stupid people do. Like you seem to be doing.
  #285  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:33 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
If anyone is ever looking for an example of projection, posting this...



Then a week later posting this...



Is like the Poe's law of projection. Like this has to be a parody right? No one really has this completely clueless lack of self-awareness do they?
Still a moron with nothing else huh? You never seem to quite get to actual evidence that anything I've said is wrong (it's not) or admit how you were completely wrong (you were). Instead like the moron you are you throw around terms like "projection" without realizing the irony. We are discussing a legal case you fucking moron. I have the relevant degree and experience. You do not. That's the key fucking difference you seem to keep ignoring. I have no need to "project" anything, my degree is real, my knowledge is real. You on the other hand have neither but still insist you're right and I'm wrong without even coming close to citing a single logical reason why. Guess what they call that? Go on, guess
  #286  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:34 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Given all that, is anyone arguing that a Smirky victory for defamatory accusations of taunting and physical assault would create a meaningful precedent in general and one that would likely apply to future suits against Fox News in particular?

Yes. From the link in the OP:

Quote:
Nick and his attorneys had alleged that the gist of The Washington Post's first article conveyed that Nick had assaulted or physically intimidated Nathan Phillips and engaged in racist conduct.

Bertelsman ruled such claims were "not supported by the plain language in the article, which states none of these things."
So, yes, Fox could be in a world of hurt if someone was allowed to proceed to trial on defamation claims that were based on allegations that had no basis in reality.

The court has ruled that before you can sue "for defamatory accusations of taunting and physical assault" there have to actually be accusations of taunting and physical assault. A different ruling would hurt all media. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
  #287  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:35 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
That's how all this started, with people talking out of their ass about things they know nothing about.
You are right. That's how this all started. The first sentence of your first post in this thread was...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I strongly suspect your reverance for free speech and the 1st Amendment depends almost entirely on whose ox is being gored.
So, right out of the gate talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about.

Projection. It's not just a river in Egypt.
  #288  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:24 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
So you’re not delusional.


I get that. He lacks survival instincts for sure. And with parents who are going to sue anyone who says something bad about him, he’s has no incentive to develop any. Someday he’s going to play privileged activist to the wrong person and end up without any teeth.
I'd pay good money to watch.
  #289  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:27 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
His family filed a $250 million lawsuit against a newspaper for reporting the facts and you think the left overreacted?
It's ALWAYS the Left's fault. Even when it isn't.
  #290  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:46 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Is there ever going to be a time when the right doesn't use identity politics as a shield for their own inadequacies and transgressions?
Don't hold your breath.
  #291  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:52 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Anyone could be mentally ill and anyone could be armed. What you’re proposing is nothing more than a recipe for never standing up for yourself, and allowing any random bully to just walk all over you. Seriously, that’s no kind of life.
Ya know, there IS a thing called "picking your fights".

Some things are worth it, and some are just fucking stupid.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017