BANNED USER: terrible poster who never improves
sliders1234
No bio...
User ID: 685
Banned by: @Amadan
"The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event."
Does placing a disclaimer before a show give you unlimited ability to then defame a person? Yes I am talking about Law and Order. And specifically the episode that aired last night “Facade”. Airing March 21, 2024.
The first 45 minutes or so fairly accurately portray the case of Daniel Perry who using a chokehold caused the death of Jordan Neely a homeless man who frightened passengers on a NYC subway.
Spoilers now so watch the episode or just read. The last 15 minutes show that he’s every leftist fantasy of what a white male really is. Turns out while doing the chokehold he said “blood and dirt” an obvious reference to Nazis and “blood and soil”. Furthermore the gym he goes to is ran by an undercover cop investigating white supremacists. He’s actually a full fledged Nazi collecting weapons to plan another very violent January 6. Non of this can be presented at trial because the white supremacists investigation is more important than convicting him at trial of murder.
Where am I going with this? This feels like defamation to me. There is no evidence that the real life Daniel Perry has any ties to actual Nazis.
I completely think art needs to have an ability to show real events. And I liked Law and Order back in the day. But there is a real life Daniel Perry and if I loosely followed the news I would 100% know the episode is referring to him. They followed the facts in the case accurately for 45 min. The last 15 min he is a terrorist Nazi. I would assume the last 15 min are referencing something in his background and he has some ties to real Nazis.
Without ruining the entire genre and making it impossible to do this feels like defamation to me. A midtwit would be under the impression it’s about him and he’s a real Nazi. But the real Daniel Perry is not a Nazi.
This leads to two questions for me. The lawyers can comment on the actual legal line here. The non-lawyers can discuss whether he’s damaged any differentially than if CNN just ran a bunch of made up stuff he was a Nazi. He’s a real private person and I think I can fairly say a lot of people would watch the episode and assume he has real Nazi ties.
There is one more element of art depicting reality. The FBI has instigated and put under covers in against normie Republicans and Pro-Life people on the grounds they are a national security threat but they probably aren’t in those cases full fledged terrorist.
If I were Daniel Perry I would try to sue. I feel like his reputation was damaged and he has real damages but not a lawyer to know the legal lines and I would assume NBC has lawyers but I still feel like he has a real reputational damage. Plus he’s going on trial and a juror who saw the episode would now think he has undisclosed nazi ties.
There is probably some who is the bad person thing here. In their fictional depictions from episodes 20 years ago I probably didn’t care when they added some negative stuff to a black character etc. But now that white people are bad I get upset when they add he was a Nazi about to commit 1/6 or 9/11 to their fictional portrayal of real events.
In summary his obvious fictional portrayal of his actions added a whole he’s a real Nazi plot line but they began the episode with a disclaimer it’s fictional.
Edit: I would be curious if anyone else watched the episode. Or if everyone is assuming I am appropriately representing the episode as they portrayed him as a “full-fledged nazi with a desire to kill black people” as accurate. And that exaggeration is expected now.
sliders1234
1yr ago
They reneged after a full intifada was started. That is how things work in peace processes your stop when the other side breaks promises.
At this point it would be perfectly fair for Israel to expel Palestinians completely. That is how these things work.
The Oslo Accords ended because of suicide bombings and the start of the Oslo Accord. Obviously Israel stop withdrawing when the bombing started. That was intentional dishonest (there was also a Jewish shooter).
Sorry you are just behaving in bad faith. When your very first paragraph leaves out very key details it’s not worth discussing things at all with you.
I meant the Palestinians as Nazis trying to kill ethnicities they don’t like to remove them from land.
80-100k Jew in Palestinian Mandate. They were both there but both in very low population.
sliders1234
1yr ago
I think it’s useful to put boundaries on things when people hyperventilate.
“Impoverish” feels to me like it’s doing that.
-
They were doing nothing close to starvation level fertility decline
-
They are likely doing as well as any other situated Arab group that isn’t an elite sitting on oil money. Better than many
-
If Israel never existed I have extreme doubt they would have been wealthier than they were under current arrangements
-
They are much poorer than they would be if they were Jew loving, eliminated any desire to harm Jews, and worked with the high HBD and foreign money Israel for economic development
sliders1234
1yr ago
The first paragraph is false, they have been offered numerous peace deals with self-rule. Turned them down. Everything you have said they want they have been offered.
You are really making it sound like they are just Nazis. Nazis too could have just had Germany but wanted other peoples land and more. Palestinians want Israel not to exists and remove them from the Arab world.
All the people now living in Israel and Palestine weren’t even there when all this started. It was mostly uninhabited land. In 1922 a total of 757k people live in Palestine Mandate of which 78% were Muslim. Nobody living there today can claim ownership on what was essentially abandon land.
Also it’s false that the rest of the Arab world hates them. SA sees them as a key ally in the development of the country and essential to their long term plan of not being just an oil state.
I want Leonardo DiCaprio’s gf, that doesn’t mean I get to kill him and kidnap her and lock her in my basement as a reasonable demand.
As long as Palestinians demand is the removal of Israel then Israel has a valid claim to fully evict Palestinians.
If that demand changes Palestinians have legal claims to reasonable divide of territory.
And you did a lot of bad whataboutism comparing Palestinians to other conflicts. The Palestinian claim to all of Israel is much more like the Russian claims to Ukraine that the people on those lands centuries ago were more like themselves and therefore it’s still their land.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Israel doesn’t have a mandate to kill Jew loving Palestinians. They would be forced to make peace immediately if Hamas rebranded to Jew loving Palestinians and the first step in that direction would be to release the hostages.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Palestinians have had very healthy birth rates and population has grown faster than Israel. It’s a very big stretch to say they are impoverished. Impoverished perhaps relative to Western Society. Not impoverished by their ethnic cohort in other nations.
If you take possession of Gazans then you are now seen as responsible for anything that goes wrong. If Hamas is in possession then they are responsible.
I also found this tweet interesting
White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has a message for the 'Ceasefire Now' people and its 🔥🔥🔥
“One of the things that I have found somewhat absent from the [media] coverage is that what we are talking about in the first phase is women, elderly, and wounded civilians.
Those who would like to see a ceasefire in Gaza. A ceasefire is on the table today for six weeks to be built on into something more enduring if Hamas would simply release women, wounded, and elderly.“
https://twitter.com/avivaklompas/status/1767692156179726699?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
So when things are real this administration seems to know what a women is?
I believe it’s Hanania who has made comments that if you take a liberal woman and asks her beliefs on a host of woke topics she will answer correctly. But then make a comment about her weight and she will become upset and apparently all women aren’t beautiful, etc.
And for the record I 100% think women should get special treatment in times of war.
I had to look up Yass again to figure out why he was so involved in Tik-Tok being that I knew he was already rich from SIG. Turns out he has $7 billion from SIG but Tik-Tok is another $21 billion so I can see why he’s fighting for it.
I lean towards banning Tik-Tok but admittedly haven’t made up my mind.
I have an acquaintance who was sued by SIG when he left. I’ve read the lawsuit and it’s basically they put Nasdaq/SP500 on a tablet and used it trading on the floor. Sounds so basic now.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Need a trust fund kid in the group. I’ve also gained respect for Saudi political history and building a stable society in the Arab world. MBS has also been aggressive on reform from the day he started. He fills a rich kid spot but I also think he likely has some interesting ideas and strategies.
sliders1234
1yr ago
I thought about this but if I created my crew it would be something like Elon Musks, Michael Jordan, Milton Friedman, MBS, Milei. Visionary people with a lot of accomplishments.
sliders1234
1yr ago
You just go too far saying men would have to hate women.
A simple thought experiment for me is if I were the coolest guy in the world and anyone who I wanted to be my friend would gladly be my friend and I then I got to pick 5-10 people as my crew all the people I would choose would be male.
Now if I lowered the standards to those who would be my friend as I am now and not picking from my betters a few women would make the cut.
sliders1234
1yr ago
I love women and it’s far more than just wanting to Fuck.
If you made me gay or asexual I do not see any reason to ever talk to a women again. I can barely think of any women with any capability to be interesting. There are no female Elon Musks. No female econ writers I’ve ever read. The only fintwit personality I follow ended up being tran. Ruxandro Teslo is the only female writer I’ve found that has said interesting things. Jane Fraser is the only female executive I know of who seems to be talented. I feel like I’ve looked for smart females they are just very hard to find. When you remove the female energy and traits there just aren’t many doing anything.
I don’t believe I’m discriminating and setting a higher bar for female writers and thought leaders but it seems statistically significant of the two twitter “females” I found worth a follow on Twitter one ended up being a man.
The people you claim are saying “fuck black people” made their black neighbors the wealthiest black community in the world and regardless of race one of the most influential global cultural communities.
If that’s getting fucked sign me up for a good fucking.
You also seem to be overgeneralizing. And missing the dogs that don’t bark. Are they anti-Italian? Or have those people assimilated and function in society now so there is no issue? Are they anti-Asian? Anti-motorcycle Aficianados?
sliders1234
1yr ago
He felt like a chatbot to me lately. Where people would give counter arguments and instead of dealing with them he would claim no one is presenting the opposition. Sort of like if you keep telling a chatbot to show your a picture of a Viking raid party that is historically accurate and it keeps presenting you with black and Asian Vikings.
I found him unreadable lately and was close to blocking while trying to just skim. I don’t think it’s productive to just have people talking past each other and leads to clutter. Not sure if that’s permaban worthy but it did make the site less useful.
sliders1234
1yr ago
-
The academics write books for the lay people and don’t make these points and are perfectly fine letting the layman think what they mean is the bad vernacular racism. I feel like Feynman would have a field day with an academic writing in ways that no one understands what their meaning and consider these academics you are referring to as idiots. We are also NOT talking about how physicists talk about physics amongst themselves but how sociologists talk to the general public.
-
This system just doesn’t work. It just means people need to find a way to redefine themsleves as the oppressed group. Which for the way you’re talking about this we do see the results you would expect from this theory. We do in fact have lgbtqihdtv++ or whatever it is now. And fake native Americans. And we of course could never just have BIPOC (or whatever it is now) but would need to have 100 flavors of Asian and white etc. Which for equal representation would never work having 100 Supreme Court Justices so no sub group of sub group is left out.
-
Even thinking about these things makes my hard hurt and it just feels simpler to remove these people from society. They really do turn me into a dictator supporting right-winger and the easiest solution seems to be just to put them all in jail. Then the normies and the meritocracy and everything that made America great can keep doing it’s thing.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Something about reading school vouchers as far-right just rubs me the wrong way. Though I agree it comes from people generally associated with the right the actual policy feels very liberal to me. Politics have strange coalitions I guess where certain policies become coded to a tribe.
On one hand you have “Individuals get to choose what and how their children are taught in school while selecting an environment that best fits them as an individual” versus a “top down the government decides what and how children are taught”.
The origional purpose of public schools was a bit of let’s teach kids to read and do arithmetic plus a lot of we are a new nation state and public schools will uniform our language, memes, national Origen mythology and become good citizens within the territory we have won thru war and declared a unified political authority. The building of a nation-state or the process most formed thru feels very right-wing.
Perhaps, initial America founding was a little left wing but public schools also served a purpose in American history of taking Irish/Italian/Polish/Hispanic immigrants and turning them into nice little Protestant value Americans or as close as they could.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Except we live in a Democracy. One person/group wrote the word “Insurrection” and one group of people voted on the word “Insurrection”. It therefore must have only one meaning by the people who wrote and voted on it.
As voted on it can only have one meaning. If today the definition of Insurrection has an interpretation by the Feds and an interpretation by Colorado it means there are now two definitions of Insurrection. But the word could only have 1 meaning as voted on. If you now have 2 meanings but when passed you had 1 meaning it now means one of the 2 current meanings is an imposter and was never Democratically voted on and therefore is NOT law.
Now if Colorado passed a law that no Insurrectionists can hold office and the Feds passed the 14th Amendment then you would have 2 definitions of insurrection that were passed thru a Democratic process. You could have a definition of Insurrection according to the Colorado state legislature and a definition of Insurrection as passed thru the US amendment process.
This is the core of the rule of law in a Democracy. A word must have a defined meaning as it is voted on. If the meaning of words can change then that means laws as used were never voted on. You would now be implementing laws that were never voted on.
I have no problem with States and Feds having different powers and the ability to govern issues separately within their jurisdiction. Democracy though requires voting on laws. When only one law was passed but two laws are being implemented it means that one of the laws was never voted on. 2 does not equal 1.
2 bills being passed and 2 laws being implemented would be fine since 2 does in fact equal 2.
This almost feels propaganda to me and poorly defined. I agree with the other comment that $150k isn’t elite. Maybe 20 years ago. It feels like propaganda because they keep quoting “1%” and then use “150k” those are definitely not the same thing today. Then link them to top 12 colleges. It’s not a unified coherent group the way they are defining. I mean I know pool guys making $150k a year.
I think they are trying to confuse PMC which stretches down to like someone from a directional state school background making 150k a year with legitimate elites.
I also think they are doing a disservice to the 1%. Things break down at that level and people get a lot more weird. Still a blue tilt in the top 1% but a lot of more nuanced views and many more Elon/Ken Griffin types.
The top 1-15% seem to have a strong blue tilt and read the NYT. The 1% in IQ get bored with the NYT and just skim headlines for events.
Agree.
If I was going to be legally correct I would have basically deleted this section from the constitution. The reason it’s self executing and doesn’t have due process was because everyone knows Jefferson Davis is guilty. The statute is limited to Confederates. Since all Confederates are dead this section is dead.
This feels like a Roberts style decision of finding the best way to keep the system tapes together with judicial restraint even if it’s sort of incoherent.
sliders1234
1yr ago
This is why I think the court mostly led on pragmatism.
I think the best argument is he didn’t do insurrection.
If a politician with 50% popular support actually did insurrection (raise an army etc) we wouldn’t be talking about the Constitution or the Court. We would be talking about civil war or a Treaty creating two or more nations. We would be past the Constitution and creating a new sovereign by the ultimate law of power.
sliders1234
1yr ago
This seems so normalize today I don’t even see why it would be an issue.
And prostitute does feel to need to be a little clarified. Did she just create a sugar baby account and bang a few guys or was she renting a hotel room seeing 10 guys a day? The difference between the former and just a girl who ran around in her 20’s etc doesn’t even seem like a big difference.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Basically agree.
In 1870 what counted as insurrection was much more like are you 35 years old with a very defined meaning. In 1870 it meant were you a member of the confederate army.
Which I would tend to think the SC basically just deleted this part of the 14th amendment as no longer existing as we no longer have any confederate soldiers still alive.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Well I am taking it farther as self-executing seems bonkers to me but the Amendment feels as though that’s how it’s written.
I don’t even think it would be limited to States Attorney Generals getting the power to decide the matter. If it’s self-executing the Mayor of Houston or even a poll worker could just throw out a politician they don’t likes ballot.
Well worded. I feel like real Daniel Perry suffered reputational harm. And he has real damages. Someone who watched the episode would assume real Daniel Perry has some Nazi ties. But he doesn’t. And he’s a private person and not a public person like a celebrity.
I don’t want to kill the entire genre as I feel it serves a public purpose. Ripped from the headlines gives people something to talk about and discuss current events. But the real Daniel Perry I think has real damages. I guess I feel like if you are doing ripped from the headlines but fictionalized it needs to be close to the real events or far from the real events.
Law and Order has made a ton of money. If we did fictional damages like Donald Trump gets and Perry got 300 million I would be against it. But if they paid out 500k with a press release he’s not a Nazi I feel like he would be whole.
I of course also don’t like as a white male my media portrayal is I am literally a Nazi but that’s a different story.
More options
Context Copy link