Open reply to 'THE GREATEST BRIEF EVER FILED' by LegalEagle

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...

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}

{The Spoof}

{The Daily Mash}

{NewsBiscuit}

 
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.

,
,
,

No, They're Not Just Clothes (Indoctrination By Silly Hat, On The BBC)

Date started: 02/07/18                      Date completed: 02/07/18                   Date first published: 02/07/18


Yesterday morning, i turned on the TV, and accidentally caught some live broadcasts before checking on the previous night’s recordings. And i was horrified by what i saw: a woman, with a class of single-figure-aged children, telling them that they must respect diversity, and encouraging them to embrace and enclothe themselves in the attire dogmatised by various malevolent ideologies. [1]

I shall clarify that i had, and still have, no reason to believe that she was a BBC employee, nor that she was doing this under BBC instructions. However, it is still the responsibility of a broadcaster to smother deceitful material in caveats, to make sure the audience isn’t deceived into thinking: 1) that the deceptions are true, 2) that the broadcaster condones the deceptions.


The woman in subject was giving them a rather stereotypically fake-progressive speech about embracing diversity, so you can probably use your imagination to effectively fill in the gaps (though she didn’t have blue/red hair) of what the scene looked like. Kids sitting on the ground. Deluded moron standing. Leaning over them, and talking patronisingly. Lots of silly hats in a box, as props. Her telling the kids that all the silly-hat wearing is just fun and frolics. And then getting the kids to wear the silly hats themselves. Indoctrination out of the 101 book, basically.

This is a common and generic method of indoctrination: 1) lies by omission, in leaving out the crucial details that might lead to the audience making an informed decision, in which they will avoid that superstition as far as they can afford to; and 2) ridiculous happy-clappy attempts to associate the superstition with happy thoughts, so even in the face of evidence of harm, the indoctrination victims will still embrace the perpetrators of said superstition, because it makes them happy to do so.


I do not object to acknowledgements of diversity. And i do not object to embracements of diversity, when there is evidence that that diversity is beneficial. Biodiversity, for example, is excellent for mitigating the spread of disease – all of the massive pandemics of the last century have been fomented in homogeneous environments – Spanish Flu, that killed more people than WWI, evolved in the trenches, where there were only young men and rats; various avian flus have evolved in the bird markets of the orient, where birds are stacked high, in cages; and swine flu evolved in the sprawling pig farms of Mexico.

And then there’s the species itself – sapiens – every one of the 7.5 billion humans who live now, is a descendent of the humans who lived during a populationary bottleneck, just thousands of years ago, when there were only 3000 humans around. In other words, this species is highly inbred, and so people should be encouraged to embrace other people, with markedly different ancestries to themselves, for breeding purposes! It’s not just pretty – it could be a saviour of our species.

But there is a big problem with embracing diversity, when that diversity is destructive. It remains a fact, that there is almost always only one answer for every one question.[2] All of the others are wrong. Wrong. That means incorrect. And it doesn’t matter how obstinately you insist upon it, if your ‘explanation’ does not agree with reality, then you are wrong, and your actions based upon those beliefs will not have the beneficial effect that you intend them to have.

This is the same with any superstition, whether it dogmatises clothing or not. What’s the harm? Whatstheharm.net

The vast majority of evil perpetrated by the species that calls itself ‘sapiens’ is as a result of good intentions, that motivate the application of superstitious beliefs. Writ short: superstition causes suffering.


And it is with this acknowledgement, that i find the wholesale indoctrination of primary school age children so horrifying. Plus, the awareness that this kind of child abuse has still not been stamped out. To tell kids that superstition is all fun and frolics, is a dangerous lie. And to tell kids that the items of clothing that are dogmatised by those superstitions are only indicators of fun and frolics, is also a dangerous lie.

The items of clothing were not limited to: a rasta hat, a hijab, a kippa, and a turban. Rather conspicuously, there was no big pointy white hat with a burning cross motif. Oh no! Because they couldn’t be that stupid? No – because they were more than sufficiently superstitious. And not smart enough to see the commonality of motive by which they are worn – ideological.


All of the items of clothing kept in that woman’s box are not mere items of clothing. They are not saris, clogs, or anoraks. They are not worn to keep cool and safe in the summer sun, or to keep your feet dry. They are items of clothing deliberately worn by superstitionists, in order to declare to the world that they are ‘a believer’ of those respective superstitions.

Do you recall that mantra popularised a decade ago, when the exposure of the RC Church was commencing? It goes like this: “Treat your religion like your penis. Don’t get it out in public, and don’t shove it down children’s throats”

But what is the point of a rasta hat, a hijab, a kippa, a turban, or a dog collar? The purpose of a dog collar is to make known to all and sundry, regardless of context, that you are a professional god-botherer, and a paid-up member of a set of sects of a faction of one form of factionalistic superstition.

In short: its purpose is to shove your superstitious beliefs down people’s throats. Including children’s. That’s what it’s for. It’s not just fashion. Do you think Churches would be happy if a bunch of hipsters started going around with dog collars on, because they thought it looked cool? And where do you think the motive comes from, to censor film genres such as Nunsploitation? [3]

“Nuns in films, right? That’s cool, isn’t it? We’re getting ‘represented’ aren’t we? Oh no, wait – they aren’t believers at all! Censor it. Censor it, i say” – a hypothetical nun


All of these items, so credulously presented as symbols of fake-love and fake-peace and fake-harmony, are worn through political motivations. Which prompts an important question, that simultaneously asks a deeper question about your respect for your own autonomy: if you do not approve of the manifestation of that respective superstition in the world, then why are you wearing it at all?

If you don’t agree that ritual genital mutilation is a good thing, then why wear a kippa? If you don’t approve of glorification of violence, then why wear a turban? If you don’t agree that women should be executed for having been raped, then why wear a hijab? Or a niqab? Or a burqa? If you don’t agree that the systematised sexual abuse of vulnerable people left in your cohorts’ care counts as ‘pastoral’ then why wear a dog collar? [4]

And if you don’t agree that Whites are a put-upon minority, that’s been subject to extensive crimes of violence and corruption, and that their culture is being wiped out by a 'system of oppression', and so on and so forth, then why wear a pointy white cone hat? And why sign your tweets off with #whitelivesmatter?

It’s not just clothes. They aren’t designed that way to serve a utilitarian function. Not to keep you cool, not to keep you dry, not to keep you safe when the arrows start to fall – they are designed that way in order to brazenly broadcast to the world that you are an advocate of a particular form of superstition.

If you don’t agree with it, then DON’T DO IT. Do you not value your autonomy?


And more than that, there is danger for any kid (or adult) who wears those garments without being an affiliate of those ideologies. Many superstitionists are prompted to be spiteful about ‘abuse’ of ‘their’ silly hats. It actually puts kids in danger, to encourage them to play around with symbols of superstition, because the believers might not be ‘happy’ with the way the kids are treating them.

Remember the school teacher who was subject to imprisonment and a murderous mob, under charge of blasphemy, because her class of 6-year-olds had voted to call its teddy bear mascot ‘muhammad’? It can be that mad. And it very often is. [5]

If you think that’s an unreasonable expectation of superstitionists, then remember this: it’s intrinsically unreasonable to be superstitious. By hoping that superstitionists won’t behave like this, you’re just crossing your fingers and hoping that they don’t really believe it. Or don’t believe too much of it!


An excuse that i would accept, for wearing politically-motivated clothing, despite not believing it, is if you genuinely feared reprisal, ostracism, bullying, or even worse, if your peer group – friends, family, colleagues, and so on – were to find out that you didn’t really believe the things that your chosen outfit suggests you do.

But even this excuse must have its limits, because all the time you’re doing this, you’re saying to other people “i approve of this” and are thereby peer-pressuring them into doing the same. Humans are a social species – they spontaneously mimic each other. They don’t like to be left out. And they will mimic the delusions of their peers, if they fear isolation from not doing so.


This feeds into a wider point that can be made on this subject.

Humans, in general, are far too willing to sign up to movements and the ideologies that motivate them. It’s always bad news to get involved with a superstitious movement, because even if you agree with some of its notions, there’s no guarantee of any kind that any of your company will continue to do so. Superstitions are horrendously fickle.

Fuelled with self-deluding self-righteousness, superstitionists will wholeheartedly make anything they touch worse, with no regard for effect. If they cared about the effects that were evident, then they’d care about evidence. And if they did that, then their movement wouldn’t exist at all.

This is why the majority of people, who casually pin their flags to other people’s metaphorical poles, and say “I’m up for that”, are so willing to condemn the owners of the flagpoles, to which they have pinned their flags, as ‘fundamentalists’ or ‘radicals’. What they’re saying is “how dare you believe more of your superstitious ideology than i do? I insist that being less enthusiastic about your movement, is better than being more enthusiastic about it” which is absolutely mentally-bonkers!


So my advice to you, dear reader, is this:

Don’t sign on the metaphorical dotted line until you really know what you’re dealing with.
 
Don’t believe any of the claims you hear, until you’ve put in sufficient effort to expose any tricks that might have been played on you. (Deliberately or accidentally)
 
Don’t regard acquaintances as allies.
 
Don’t get the pin badge.
 
Don’t pledge your heart and soul to the cause.
 
Don’t pay the direct debit.
 
And whatever you do, don’t wear the silly hat.



[1] For clarity, i shall state here that the advocation of diversity was limited to political garb - it was not about racism, sexuality, or anything else like that. It was just about the clothes in her box.
[2] There are exceptions. Take the Maths example of resolving the equation (x+3)(x-2)=y. When drawn as a graph, the curve passes through the x-axis at the values -3 and 2 so both answers, in that context, would be correct. Or the wave-particle duality of light, in which light behaves both as a wave and as a particle, with each model getting the right answer depending on context. For most questions, there is only one ‘right’ answer, or one ‘best’ model.
[3] https://www.grindhousedatabase.com/index.php/Nunsploitation
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Sikhism#Violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case