16:40 "You'd have to be pretty dumb to think that the Facebook posts were real and also criminal" - LegalEagle
Caveat emptor. Unacceptable.
Date started: 08/11/22 Date completed: 08/11/22 Date published: 08/11/22
'THE GREATEST BRIEF EVER FILED' - LegalEagle (posted 02/11/22)
https://youtu.be/LxTWonQvXkw
What a horrendous failure to advocate for the innocent, that this video is. In sharp contrast, a staple of anti-fraud advocacy, is to remind potential victims, and especially those who gloat at victims, that anyone can be tricked. Even the great Jim Browning.
This video is a betrayal of all that we have worked for, in defending people from crooks. In it, LegalEagle sides with The Onion (a USAian satirical website) in defence of a man called 'Novak' (their surname) supposedly to defend satire/parody, by claiming that a 'reasonable' person would know that Novak were not the police department he was pretending to be.
The rest of this article shall be written as if a personal address:
It is simply not good enough, to shift the burden of responsibility onto the victims of deception. The man, Novak, deceived people - there was nothing available to indicate to a 'reasonable' man, that he were not a real police department in the USA.
I mean, let's face it - serial killing is one of the USA's national sports - of course they can have a "pedophile reform event", amongst the other things alleged by Novak. It's the USA. Do you seriously expect everyone in the world to have the same doe-eyed national prejudices as you?
Anyone in the world could read
what Novak said, and reasonably think "well, that concords with the
other things i've read/heard about America, therefore it's more genuine
horribleness. I hear they're serial killers of Blacks, therefore Pedo-s too".
What you call 'reasonable' in others is not a product of reason - it's convenient prejudice.
Your own video opened with a racist conspiracy theory that because most people in an area are racistly profiled as 'White' that therefore the authorities are deliberately segregating people. Do you actually believe that the universe is run by a hyper-competent cadre of Straight White Male Jews? Is believing that conspiracy theory, what you think 'reasonable' is?
The only way for a 'reasonable' man to always spot lies about the USA, would be for the term 'reasonable' to mean 'omniscient'. And yet you, an advocate for 'caveat emptor' as an excuse for parody/satire (which is not even a necessary excuse) are evidently not scient of the fact that people self-segregate.
The USA provides much evidence of that - be it racist self-segregation into so-called 'black communities' or sexuality-segregation into the 'pink quarter' of a city, or class-segregation to be with fellow golfers, or religious segregation to be with people who wear the right clothes on sunday, people float towards those they regard as kith. And yet you assume that the demographic heterogeneity of Cleveland must be the product of an Illuminati-esque design. "You'd have to be pretty dumb to think that the Patriarchy are real and also criminal" (not sic) or do you disagree?
Being a foreigner, i have no emotional attachment to the police of Parma, or anyone else The Onion has parodied or sided against. As a connoisseur of comedy however, i have some emotional attachment to The Onion (i find it easy to laugh at many of their articles - though not the ones based on peculiarly American beliefs) but their attitude that people should just know that parody is parody is not even close to being OK.
That is the defence of scammers, to say "You should have known. An intelligent person would have done" and then not to bother enunciating the follow-up of "You basically deserved to lose your life savings". I have no love for that sentiment, and no man can do so with reason.
All we can see of Novak is someone impersonating the police. There was no evidence to the contrary. Incredulity is not an argument! You might think that your incredulity is equivalent to being 'reasonable' but it is not.
All that you have called "jokes" are not jokes, without the framework of comedy in which a joke could exist. Without the basic framework of set-up lines and punchline, there is no joke - be it literary, auditory, or even sensory - for example, a dessert that looks like fruit, but tastes of bacon. Set-up: here's some fruit. Punchline: lawl, it's bacon. Expectations subverted. Laughter ensues.
If you are going to permit any deceitful, or doubt-manufacturing, content to be called 'a joke' then you set a dangerous precedent on the subject of propaganda. After all, there are myriad bigots who've retrospectively developed a sense of humour to excuse a recently-publicised remark/action that were too bigoted for them to get away with.
If it were legal precedent to excuse all dishonesty that were at the expense of other people, even strangers who know nothing of the motives of their slander/libel, on the grounds of a retroactive statement that "that was a joke" then no harrassment by so-called journalists (rumour mill merchants) could be challenged. No gaslighting by charlatans could be challenged. No governments could be held to account for lying about policies, as their promises could be dismissed with "Oh, that was just a joke - you'd have to be pretty dumb to think that we'd actually give you healthcare!" (again, not sic)
The natures of such statements are indistinguishable from the statements of Novak, based on available information. I implore you - don't pressure others to be worse - pressure parodiers to be better. Here is an example (from your video) of The Onion needing to be pressured to be better...
.png)
There is plenty of parody in the world that does not require explicit statements, in order for the audience to know that it is parody. Take a novel, for example. Pick a novel up, and you already have its fictional nature before your eyes. Go to see a stand-up comedian, and you know it's comedy - it's even written on your ticket, if you struggle to discern that from your environs, and need a hint.
Not all information is communicated explicitly, but some information must be communicated to allow others to discriminate between cases: sincere, or satire.
In The Onion's case they really should do so. Other parodiers have made explicit statements. What would The Onion lose by doing it? Their pride? Maybe they're not really pretending to be arrogant at all. Maybe you're gullible for assuming they're self-aware, because really they believe that they're the best news service in the world. Without evidence, you have nothing by which to realise their arrogance, or lack thereof.
Here are some examples of Britons showing you and The Onion how to be honest:
{NewsThump}
None of the people who run these web-sites have any difficulty being funny, while also being honest that their intention is to be funny. If you're not good enough at being funny to be honest at the same time, then get better!
I can see why The Onion's defending Novak - it's because they've made the same mistakes, so they feel like they're justifying themselves as well, and what they do for a living. They don't want to lose that living.
But on your part, instead of excusing the sociopathic abuse of 'caveat emptor' as a principle, you could be encouraging better practice in parody/satire, and you could be encouraging the communication of this essential information, which separates comedians from con-artists: the fact that you're joking.
Facts are established with evidence. Make that evidence count. Don't pretend you don't need it. Without evidence, you are indistinguishable from any slandering, libelling, con-artist, swindler, or gas-lighter.
My round-up of points to remember:
- It's a dangerous argument to make, that your assumptions are correct, because someone else is dumb.
- Anyone can be tricked.
- Reason is not the same as knowledge.
- Common Sense is a misnomer.
- Parody does not need to pretend to be sincere, in order to be funny.
- Without clarification, deception is just deception.
- Without respect for comedy, all propaganda will be excused as 'jokes'.
- Incredulity does not justify dishonesty.
- Make evidence count.
,
,
