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.
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.
Calling someone a pussy and implying that they had a poor upbringing because they don’t escalate confrontations; toxic masculinity.
Well, there is that, since this is a country where any nutcase can get a gun, your advice gets people killed.
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.
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
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.
Good thing I never advised anyone to do that then, isn’t it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
99.999% of people who have a Native American play a drum near them walk away with even less.
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.
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)
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.
People who shame people for not standing up to bullies are bullies.
In his defense, at least one of his parents was kind of an asshole.
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.
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):
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
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.”
That person is you. Everyone can see it. It oozes out of each of your posts.
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?