Free speech absolutists everywhere rejoice.
Sandmann told to pound sand, man.
y’know, I’m perfectly willing to accept things didn’t actually happen as the initial outrage claimed they did.
but man, that kid is in possession of one hell of a backpfeifengesicht. If I had a kid who smirked at me like that, I’d find it hard to resist the urge to pop him a good one.
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.
He’ll probably be a regular guest contributor on Hannity or Tucker Carlson
So how should the typical teenager react to a random stranger pushing up into their face while chanting and banging a drum?
I suppose most would be disturbed or at least flustered by such an experience.
But you don’t develop a face like that in response to one close encounter with a Native American. This kid really does have a potential future on FoxNews.
Not a “close encounter with a Native American”–a random adult getting up in a teen’s face while chanting and banging a drum. The expression everybody is trying to call “smug” could just as easily be perplexed nervousness.
Anything’s possible. Interpreting facial expressions clearly involves subjective judgment.
But people are going to trust their own subjective judgment. That can’t be argued away.
Also: suing newspapers for “implying” something is an iffy business at best. The Post accurately quoted one of the principles in the encounter; Sandmann didn’t like what the guy said. Punishing a newspaper for printing an accurate quotation would have been a ridiculously-fascist judgment by any American court. Thank all that’s holy that we’re not there yet.
IMO the purpose of the lawsuit was not to win damages, but to prolong the kid’s exposure as an official victim of political correctness and the liberal media, in hopes of getting him a career in right-wing grievance media.
Just spitballin’ here . . . is walking away totally off the table?
CMC fnord!
The kid has an obnoxious, shit-eating grin for sure. He’s probably a cheeky little shit, if for no better reason than he’s a fifteen year old boy and most fifteen year old boys are cheeky little shits. I know I certainly was.
But now he’s in the news again it’s worth reiterating that he didn’t do anything wrong, and that the progressive left massively, and shamefully over-reacted and lost their collective minds because he was wearing a MAGA hat.
I feel sorry for the kid, because why won’t his parents just LET THIS DIE FFS? It’s like picking at a zit - what would have gone a way with a bit of discomfort in a few days turns into a massive crater that scars you for life
Good old wingnut welfare. They’re crying all the way to the bank. I bet he goes to college for free at the very least. Edit: That one’s already on its way.
His family filed a $250 million lawsuit against a newspaper for reporting the facts and you think the left overreacted?
I know I’m an idiot but this sentence from the article :
had me chuckling. Did not know about lawyers giving blowjobs, or blowjobs being considered “argument”
(yes, I know. But once you’ve said “heard” you don’t need to specify “oral”. Y’can’t fukken well hear a written argument, can you ?)
Yes. The fact that Sandman’s parents filed a ridiculous lawsuit doesn’t have anything to do with the genuinely unhinged reaction of the progressive left.
Didn’t we used to have a barfie smiley round here? I feel like I need a barfie smiley
The smirk was just a prelude to his magic beam.
It may seem somewhat redundant to “hear oral arguments,” but it’s a common phrase in the legal profession because written arguments are much more common and there are even proceedings that are sometimes thought of as being “written hearings.” So “oral argument” has become a somewhat set phrase and that leads to “hear oral argument” as another set phrase.