International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   MAGA brats mock Native American with "build the wall" chants (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334324)

Trebuchet 7th September 2019 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12812134)
Yes, what you just said is deeply fallacious.

I don’t think Trump is a white supremacist. My reasoning does not fall anywhere near along the lines you’ve laughably outlined above. Trump is a 73 year old product of the culture and the time period he was raised in. You can say he’s racist and I won’t argue with you. But to say he’s a white supremacist is to say that he’s espoused a certain world-view that there’s no evidence that he actually has.



I’m sure this is true but not universally. I see no need to tar all white people with the same brush.

Trump's "world-view" is me, me, me, me. That's as far as it goes, although it doesn't stop him from hating brown people.
Meanwhile, I'm a 71 year old product of the culture and don't agree with him on anything.

Foolmewunz 8th September 2019 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12811698)
Could you provide evidence for your claim "Besides, I was always told by liberals here that patriotism is bad. "?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12812061)
I have time for two examples.

One...




Two...not so bad...




If you require more let me know, these are both from the same thread. I'm really not inclined to look any harder because this will fall on deaf ears anyways and it really isn't that important to me.

But there ya go - evidence..

As "evidence" goes, you'd be laughed out of court. Both quotes are describing a type, or brand if you will, of "patriotism". Neither is blatantly claiming that patriotism is bad. The latter "evidence" actually specifically mentions "excessive patriotism".

If you think a little social drinking is okay, it's not a contradiction to rail against excessive drinking which can be harmful and even destructive. Excessive patriotism and various forms of flag-waving, including the infamous "My Country, Right or Wrong" are what is being condemned or warned about.

Far better you'd have admitted that you were hyperbolizing or straw-manning, 'cuz this doesn't really stack up as evidence. It's what you wish that we were saying. It's the kind of straw man lie that Trump and his minions put out every day. "The Dems want open borders".. "They're coming for mah gunz"... I guess we can add "Liberals hate patriotism". Well done.

Darat 8th September 2019 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12812061)
I have time for two examples.



One...









Two...not so bad...









If you require more let me know, these are both from the same thread. I'm really not inclined to look any harder because this will fall on deaf ears anyways and it really isn't that important to me.



But there ya go - evidence..

But not evidence of what you claimed....

Stacyhs 8th September 2019 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 12812443)
As "evidence" goes, you'd be laughed out of court. Both quotes are describing a type, or brand if you will, of "patriotism". Neither is blatantly claiming that patriotism is bad. The latter "evidence" actually specifically mentions "excessive patriotism".

If you think a little social drinking is okay, it's not a contradiction to rail against excessive drinking which can be harmful and even destructive. Excessive patriotism and various forms of flag-waving, including the infamous "My Country, Right or Wrong" are what is being condemned or warned about.

Far better you'd have admitted that you were hyperbolizing or straw-manning, 'cuz this doesn't really stack up as evidence. It's what you wish that we were saying. It's the kind of straw man lie that Trump and his minions put out every day. "The Dems want open borders".. "They're coming for mah gunz"... I guess we can add "Liberals hate patriotism". Well done.

For far too many, it's "My Country Is Always Right, Never Wrong". The other 'patriotism' that I abhor is the "Love It or Leave It" type. As if we have to love and support everything it does no matter what or get out.

Hellbound 9th September 2019 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12812983)
For far too many, it's "My Country Is Always Right, Never Wrong". The other 'patriotism' that I abhor is the "Love It or Leave It" type. As if we have to love and support everything it does no matter what or get out.

Especially considering the country was set up with specific and explicit methods to change it if you don't Love It, and can get enough people behind you.

BStrong 9th September 2019 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 12812231)
Trump's "world-view" is me, me, me, me. That's as far as it goes, although it doesn't stop him from hating brown people.
Meanwhile, I'm a 71 year old product of the culture and don't agree with him on anything.

All he needs is wings and he could play a seagull in "Finding Nemo"

mgidm86 9th September 2019 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12812449)
But not evidence of what you claimed....


I did exactly as you asked...

Quote:

Could you provide evidence for your claim "Besides, I was always told by liberals here that patriotism is bad. "?

I answered your question. I didn't expect you and foolmewunz to suddenly agree with me and it really isn't that important to me that you do. If I dig up more will you suddenly agree? No, you won't.

Roboramma 9th September 2019 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12814052)
I did exactly as you asked...




I answered your question. I didn't expect you and foolmewunz to suddenly agree with me and it really isn't that important to me that you do. If I dig up more will you suddenly agree? No, you won't.

The quotes you supplied weren't actually evidence of the claim you made.

Ziggurat 22nd November 2019 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plague311 (Post 12771547)
So the same judge is presiding over a case where Sandmann is suing NBC. Apparently NBC just asked to have the case thrown out, so I'm assuming it's going to end the same way.

NBC did get a dismissal just like WP and CNN, as expected. But that wasn't the end. The judge subsequently reinstated the case on a limited basis (meaning some of the complaints remain dismissed but some of them can proceed). That reinstatement happened for WP and CNN previously, and has now happened for NBC as well. So the case is back on.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-nbcuniversal/

Note that the judge has reversed his own decision, he hasn't been overruled on appeal.

Joe Random 22nd November 2019 01:48 PM

There has to be more detail to the law in question than the tiny snipped quoted here :

Quote:

Under Kentucky law, a communication is considered defamatory if it brings a person into “public hatred, contempt or ridicule,” or causes the person to be “shunned or avoided,” according to the ruling.

That sounds seriously over-reaching if there aren't some sort of limitations in place. Not saying for this case specifically (FTR I'm coming down on the side of MagaHatBoy, just probably not to the dollar amount they're after). Generally speaking it sounds like Twitter would be a rich field for litigation in that state.

Ziggurat 22nd November 2019 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Random (Post 12901535)
There has to be more detail to the law in question than the tiny snipped quoted here :




That sounds seriously over-reaching if there aren't some sort of limitations in place. Not saying for this case specifically (FTR I'm coming down on the side of MagaHatBoy, just probably not to the dollar amount they're after). Generally speaking it sounds like Twitter would be a rich field for litigation in that state.

Yes, there’s more to it. Most importantly, the communication must be false in order to qualify as defamation.

Chris_Halkides 25th November 2019 04:59 AM

a discussion from last January
 
Link to an older discussion of libel law and the Covington case by a professor of law, Eugene Volokh.

"If the poster refuses to take down the post even then, can the plaintiff argue that keeping the post up is negligent, or does it matter only whether the defendant was negligent when he initially posted?

Surprisingly, that is not a well-settled question; the cases are split, and there are good arguments on both sides."

Link to a recent post critical of one of the suits. "Basically, it made them look like jerks. And maybe that portrayal was unfair based on incomplete footage. But these lawsuits are a different story; they look like the reactions of children trying to punish those who have called out their bad behavior."

As my comments in this thread make clear, I think that the author (also a professor of law) is wrong about the confrontation. She also failed to discuss the poor quality of the early journalism covering the incident. One presumes her legal views are better founded.

Chris_Halkides 30th December 2019 04:38 PM

crying Wolfe
 
At The Atlantic Caitlin Flanagan wrote, "The full video reveals that these kids had wandered into a Tom Wolfe novel and had no idea how to get out of it." I don't recall reading her article previously, but I thought that this was a very satisfactory one-sentence summary of the incident.

Near the end of her opinion piece she wrote, "How could the elite media—The New York Times, let’s say—have protected themselves from this event, which has served to reinforce millions of Americans’ belief that traditional journalistic outlets are purveyors of “fake news”? They might have hewed to a concept that once went by the quaint term “journalistic ethics.” Among other things, journalistic ethics held that if you didn’t have the reporting to support a story, and if that story had the potential to hurt its subjects, and if those subjects were private citizens, and if they were moreover minors, you didn’t run the story. You kept reporting it; you let yourself get scooped; and you accepted that speed is not the highest value. Otherwise, you were the trash press."
EDT
I see that portlandatheist already cited this article in a previous comment.

plague311 7th January 2020 03:51 PM

Looks like he's starting to get paid:

Quote:

CNN agreed Tuesday to settle a lawsuit brought by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann.

Sandmann sought $275 million from CNN over their coverage of the confrontation he and his classmates had with an elderly Native American man while visiting Washington, D.C. on a school trip in January of last year. The amount of the settlement was not made public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Covington on Tuesday, according to a local Fox affiliate.
According to the article he still has a few more outstanding lawsuits. Should walk away with a healthy sum it would appear.

Ziggurat 7th January 2020 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plague311 (Post 12946430)
Looks like he's starting to get paid:



According to the article he still has a few more outstanding lawsuits. Should walk away with a healthy sum it would appear.

It looks like CNN didn’t want to go through with discovery. Others may follow their lead.

applecorped 8th January 2020 07:07 AM

lol

portlandatheist 8th January 2020 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plague311 (Post 12946430)
Looks like he's starting to get paid:



According to the article he still has a few more outstanding lawsuits. Should walk away with a healthy sum it would appear.

good for him. I hope he goes to college and meets lots of great people from different walks of life and politics than his own.

Giz 9th January 2020 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portlandatheist (Post 12947743)
good for him. I hope he goes to college and meets lots of great people from different walks of life and politics than his own.

Seems like it’s CNN et al who need to learn to respect people from different walks of life, not the kid.

Stacyhs 9th January 2020 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portlandatheist (Post 12947743)
good for him. I hope he goes to college and meets lots of great people from different walks of life and politics than his own.

According to at least one member here, he'll not only meet people from different walks of life, but he'll get "indoctrinated" in those filthy liberal ideas. :rolleyes:

Stacyhs 9th January 2020 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
good for him. I hope he goes to college and meets lots of great people from different walks of life and politics than his own.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12949199)
Seems like it’s CNN et al who need to learn to respect people from different walks of life, not the kid.

We must be reading different posts. I can't see where portlandatheist said a single word about the young man needing to "learn to respect people".

Giz 9th January 2020 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12949209)
We must be reading different posts. I can't see where portlandatheist said a single word about the young man needing to "learn to respect people".

(Rolls eyes)

Why else would he hope he “meets lots of great people from different walks of life and politics than his own.”?

Stacyhs 9th January 2020 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12949217)
(Rolls eyes)

Why else would he hope he “meets lots of great people from different walks of life and politics than his own.”?

Isn't going to college supposed to include meeting lots of great people from different walks of life and politics other than one's own? It's part of a good education. It's like travelling...expanding your world. Or so I always thought. I suppose if one prefers to only meet people just like oneself and with only similar views, one could attend a college with a very limited student body diversity and belief system. But it's interesting that you assume "why else".

Trebuchet 9th January 2020 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12949224)
Isn't going to college supposed to include meeting lots of great people from different walks of life and politics other than one's own? It's part of a good education. It's like travelling...expanding your world. Or so I always thought. I suppose if one prefers to only meet people just like oneself and with only similar views, one could attend a college with a very limited student body diversity and belief system. But it's interesting that you assume "why else".

That's why some conservatives want it banned.

Giz 9th January 2020 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12949224)
Isn't going to college supposed to include meeting lots of great people from different walks of life and politics other than one's own? It's part of a good education. It's like travelling...expanding your world. Or so I always thought. I suppose if one prefers to only meet people just like oneself and with only similar views, one could attend a college with a very limited student body diversity and belief system. But it's interesting that you assume "why else".

Yes, it should expand ones horizons. However, as I said, it appears that CNN et al need that far more than the kid does.

Stacyhs 9th January 2020 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portlandatheist (Post 12947743)
good for him. I hope he goes to college and meets lots of great people from different walks of life and politics than his own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12949199)
Seems like it’s CNN et al who need to learn to respect people from different walks of life, not the kid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12949240)
Yes, it should expand ones horizons. However, as I said, it appears that CNN et al need that far more than the kid does.

Portlandatheist made no mention of CNN in his post or 'the kid' needing to learn respect. That was your misassumption and, apparently, still is.

Giz 9th January 2020 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12949251)
Portlandatheist made no mention of CNN in his post or 'the kid' needing to learn respect. That was your misassumption and, apparently, still is.

Have fun pretending to be obtuse.

Stacyhs 9th January 2020 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12949283)
Have fun pretending to be obtuse.

If that's your best defense, you've lost the argument.

SuburbanTurkey 13th January 2020 08:03 AM

The lawyers are slap fighting each other:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/coving...ney?ref=author

Nick Sandmann, the most prominent of the MAGA hat kids, hired a real attorney. Other unnamed MAGA kids have enlisted the aid of right-wing internet personality Robert Barnes, best known for his legal work with Infowars.

Sandmann's lawyers are threatening to sue Barnes for falsely implying publicly that he is representing Sandmann.

It's right wing grifters all the way down!

theprestige 13th January 2020 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 12952491)
The lawyers are slap fighting each other:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/coving...ney?ref=author

Nick Sandmann, the most prominent of the MAGA hat kids, hired a real attorney. Other unnamed MAGA kids have enlisted the aid of right-wing internet personality Robert Barnes, best known for his legal work with Infowars.

Sandmann's lawyers are threatening to sue Barnes for falsely implying publicly that he is representing Sandmann.

It's right wing grifters all the way down!

What would you say is Sandmann's grift?

The way the lawsuit is going, it seems like he's the victim and CNN is the grifter.

Ziggurat 13th January 2020 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 12952491)
It's right wing grifters all the way down!

Barnes has a way to go before he gets to Avenatti status, but if he keeps it up he might get there.

Puppycow 13th January 2020 11:28 PM

All we really know is that CNN and Sandmann reached a settlement. Terms of that settlement, including amounts of money that might have been paid, have not been made public, to my knowledge.

Ex-CNN host 'likely' to be sued over now-deleted 'punchable face' tweet: Sandmann attorney
The tweet in question said:
Quote:

Mr. Aslan, who hosted CNN’s “Believer” series until it was cancelled in 2017, tweeted on Jan. 19, 2019, “Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?”

The tweet, which showed a photo of the January 2019 standoff between Nicholas and elderly Native American activist Nathan Phillips, was removed last week, the day after CNN settled the $275 million lawsuit filed by the Sandmann family for an undisclosed amount.

SuburbanTurkey 14th January 2020 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12952523)
What would you say is Sandmann's grift?

The way the lawsuit is going, it seems like he's the victim and CNN is the grifter.

I was more generally commenting on the greater "right wing outrage" machine. Sandmann's lawyers seemed to have had a fairly focused legal strategy and conducted themselves like real lawyers. The details of these settlements aren't public, but it is an indication of some success on their end.

Unfortunately for Sandmann, the right wing griftosphere has taken up the issue. You got Barnes suing everyone on the planet and repeatedly implying that he represents Sandmann, the most public face of this controversy. Bad faith lawsuits, misleading headlines, and other pointless inflammatory nonsense abounds.

It sucks to be an honestly aggrieved right wing figure because all the right wing grifters rush in like a shark that smells blood.

Chris_Halkides 14th January 2020 10:01 AM

Is the punchable face comment defamatory?
 
I don't see how the punchable face comment falls under defamation. I am not a lawyer, but the comment is opinion.

plague311 14th January 2020 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 12953862)
I don't see how the punchable face comment falls under defamation. I am not a lawyer, but the comment is opinion.

I agree, I doubt he'll get **** for it. I would bet it's dismissed but when you're throwing things at the wall to see if they stick, you might as well throw all of it against the wall.

theprestige 14th January 2020 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 12953862)
I don't see how the punchable face comment falls under defamation. I am not a lawyer, but the comment is opinion.

The linked article doesn't say whether it will be a defamation suit. I'm not sure what actual complaint fits best, but I hope there's at least one or two. It seems like there's an obvious incitement-to-violence problem with the tweet, that merits some sort of sanction.

plague311 14th January 2020 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12953926)
The linked article doesn't say whether it will be a defamation suit. I'm not sure what actual complaint fits best, but I hope there's at least one or two. It seems like there's an obvious incitement-to-violence problem with the tweet, that merits some sort of sanction.

I would easily say that Trump has lowered that bar by a significant margin. If saying someone has a punchable face is something you can take action on then Trump should be sued 10x over. I'll stand by my statement that this will get thrown out as being covered under the first amendment. He isn't asking anyone to punch the kid, just stating an obvious opinion.

I Am The Scum 14th January 2020 11:31 AM

According to the Opening Arguments podcast, the original "defamatory" article/video on CNN is still up. If you believe that Sandmann won big in this settlement, you have to believe that he got what he wanted while getting no apology nor any removal of the offensive material. That would be a pretty foolish inconsistency.

In all likelihood, Sandmann's lawyer made an offer slightly less than CNN's attorney fees.

Ziggurat 14th January 2020 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 12953971)
According to the Opening Arguments podcast, the original "defamatory" article/video on CNN is still up.

I can't find it. The lawsuit claims CNN made defamatory statements in its Jan. 19, 2019 TV coverage of the incident, and its Jan. 19 and Jan 20 online stories titled "Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial" and "Native American man confronted by teens speaks out" respectively. When I search for Sandmann, Covington Catholic, or Nathan Phillips, I get no results for those days. When I search for the article by those titles, I get no results.

Quote:

In all likelihood, Sandmann's lawyer made an offer slightly less than CNN's attorney fees.
Or maybe Opening Arguments is wrong. Can you find the original article?

ETA: The lawsuit provides an HTML link to the initial TV coverage. As you can see if you follow the link, "This video is no longer available".

plague311 14th January 2020 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12954033)
I can't find it. The lawsuit claims CNN made defamatory statements in its Jan. 19, 2019 TV coverage of the incident, and its Jan. 19 and Jan 20 online stories titled "Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial" and "Native American man confronted by teens speaks out" respectively. When I search for Sandmann, Covington Catholic, or Nathan Phillips, I get no results for those days. When I search for the article by those titles, I get no results.



Or maybe Opening Arguments is wrong. Can you find the original article?

ETA: The lawsuit provides an HTML link to the initial TV coverage. As you can see if you follow the link, "This video is no longer available".

Fairly sure the title was changed during an update on the story. This appears to be the original article, and it is still able to be found on CNN. It also lists the correction of Philips to denote the fact he didn't serve in Vietnam, so I'm pretty sure it's the original one. I can look for the other one, but the article dates change with any update.

ETA: I think the link I provided in this post also has the original video. Again, it's URL easily could have changed with updates to the article. That's fairly common.

Stacyhs 14th January 2020 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plague311 (Post 12953929)
I would easily say that Trump has lowered that bar by a significant margin. If saying someone has a punchable face is something you can take action on then Trump should be sued 10x over. I'll stand by my statement that this will get thrown out as being covered under the first amendment. He isn't asking anyone to punch the kid, just stating an obvious opinion.

I agree. It'll get thrown out.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.