"You don't have the qualifications to call Legal Eagle an idiot."
"Something can still contain valuable information even if it uses a clickbait headline."
Mar-A-Lago Raid
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
"Something can still contain valuable information even if it uses a clickbait headline."
Since I don't know if Legal Eagle is trustworthy (as I said, his videos tend to bore me, so I haven't watched many of them), I did a bit of googling to see what others are saying:
source: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/criminal-indictment-trump-what-matters/index.htmlCNN said:
source: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/trump-indictment-in-classified-documents-case/Boston legal said:
source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-legal-perils-mean-for-his-2024-bid-quicktakeBloomberg said:
source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...s-it-mean-what-happens-next-explainer-chargesThe Guardian said:
source: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/...-classified-documents-what-to-expect-00101159Politico said:
source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ment-whats-next/#7S54DNGPENFIRBSFIQBYTLW36E-5Washington Post said:
source: https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/6...riminal-indictment-explained-espionage-cannonvox said:
I mean, it more simple than that. They, and I, agreed with Tstorm. It was click bait
They were just confused that since EVERYONE does click bait, why this one person was a liar because used clickbait
All we kept getting back was that it was click bait which people weren't disagreeing with
If honest people and liars both used click bait, it might not be a measure of honesty. Similarly, every single video has incorrect statements in it. I'll say it again. No video ever has been completely truthful. It might not be a great measure of honesty either
Let's just take the first article, which is based on how people escaped jail time
Bush pardoned Reagan solely based on his 'mental health' before he could be indicted on his crimes
Now I could call that article title very click baity. Anytime the headline has a question mark in it, you KNOW, based on experience, that the answer is always no. They write it that way to get you to click on it. Also, they weren't completely factual
So, that MUST make this article untrustworthy, right?
Edit: Sorry, you got the segment title... I don't if you count that as a headline
Only you have made the argument that "everyone uses clickbait". You also cited that Joe Rogan, Tim Pool and Prager U as examples. I have limited experience with Tim Pool and some experience with Prager U, and as to the latter I've found that I'm a less informed person by watching their content since their selection process in what they choose to cover and how they choose to cover it seems more driven by agenda. Even as I acknowledge that it can be useful in finding out how other people reason. So if the argument is "What about Prager U?" my response is "Oh, THOSE deceptive guys? Don't bother with them, they're not out to inform me.". And my read is that tstorm's argument was that LegalEagle was already deemed untrustworthy, the fact that the title of the video was clickbaity was just an incidental comment due to being prompted to watch someone he'd rather not.
I assume you meant "I don't know if you count that as a headline". And honestly, no, I don't consider that article to be clickbaity at all. The analysis might be faulty, but I see no deceptiveness.
If you are talking about how Reagan was pardoned, you say it was "solely based on his 'mental health' before he could be indicted on his crimes ", CNN said " Top officials accused of wrongdoing have historically found a way out of jail." without mentioning Reagan. I see no contradiction in these two statements.
I wanna go with: "you were mean to someone saying things that I like. Now I'm gonna wet my pants about it." But that isn't a super productive response.
Like, we haven't even really addressed my original comment in any particular way. Someone asked why I thought he was an idiot, I answered the question, and then we went off into the weeds about the definition of clickbait. To be fair, I do love being off in the weeds.
Legal Eagle's gimmick that made him a hit was over serious legal analysis of pop culture law references. The humor was in an actual law expert applying real law analysis to unrealistic tv and movie scenarios. Then he started to dip into political commentary with takes like "it's worse than collusion with Russia, it's a conspiracy" and "there's no possible way to read the phonecall with Zelenskyy than Trump forcing them to attack Biden", and suddenly it's clear that he is a deeply unserious person. So now when I see him pop-up, the humor has changed. Instead of being a serious response to unserious content, it's a deeply unserious person trying really hard to seem serious and professional. Which I enjoy laughing at.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Not very productive but still a very accurate descriptive of your stance.
Getting all pissy for a clickbaity video title hyperbole, just because said clickbaity video title hyperbole touches your messiah, all while constantly applauding the avalanche of lies and unhinged propaganda from your side and openly stating in these forums your contempt for logic and ethics. That's nothing else than your usual hypocrisy and double standards. That people keep validating and encouraging by answering you as if there was something serious and honest to answer to.
You raise an excellent point; the title of the video we've been debating is "How Long Will Trump Go To Jail?"
How is a question a "lie?" Because along with all the facts discussed within the video that merely present potentialities and legally-based reasoning, a highly possible answer to the question in the title is "no time at all." So posing an intriguing question that engages people (i.e.: entices them to click and examine informed and fact-based content, "clickbait" in its most benign form) is lying? C'mon...
This debate has gone on at least two times with Tstorm already. He expects a title / headline to be completely 100% factual and representative of the article's body. He's perfectly welcome to hold this preference, it's just most of the rest of us wouldn't go so far as to call the title/headline a "lie" if it doesn't meet such strict criteria.
Let's be completely open here. Tstorm only has that expectation when he is trying to uncritically dismiss articles/videos he disagrees with. It's not an actual principle; it's just an excuse.
Naw, they don't have any preference or position. Its just the usual strawman shapiro shit. Any excuse to turn a discussion into an irrelevant debate.
Questions can be lies. The classic go-to example is "have you stopped beating your wife?", the question includes an implied accusation that the person being asked has beaten their wife, with the bonus trick that both "yes" and "no" equally seem to confirm the accusation.
"How long will Trump go to jail?" presupposes that Trump is going to jail.
The problem with your theory is that I'm not the driving force behind that irrelevant debate. I've explained my perspective on Legal Eagle twice now, nobody is actually engaging with it, they're all focused on the word click-bait for some reason. I don't think you can really blame me for this tangent.
There's a very important difference between a "lie" and a "loaded question;" your example is damn-near the textbook definition of the latter. The important difference being one is an overt falsehood intended to deceive, and the other a statement that garners further discussion, clarification, and investigation of the details and facts by all parties involved... which is what happens in/is the purpose of the video. Is the title a loaded question (clickbait)? Yes. Is it a lie? No.
A presupposition, even implied for the purposes of getting people to engage with your content, isn't a lie.
You misunderstand the logic here: it's not that the question is a lie because it has a presupposition, it's that the presupposition is itself a lie. If the video was titled "Trump is Going to Jail", would that be an honest title? I don't think Legal Eagle could honestly say that, it would be a lie. Hiding the claim within the premise of a question does not change that.
Oh my God, where are the goal posts now? You're now literally basing your argument behind what Legal Eagle COULD have titled the video? Ok, good faith is out the window; keep blaming others for perpetuating an argument fueled by your willing misinterpretation of the facts, from the title to the content. I've nothing else to offer in this discussion.
Tittiestorm does not argue in good faith, I recommend for your mental health's sake to never take him seriously.
How does a person make a post like this and not feel any sense of embarrassment?
Those aren't all the reasons a loaded question may be asked. Loaded questions are also sometimes intended to mislead. A loaded question may not be a lie, but it can imply to the reader that the presupposition is confirmed and true, depending on context.
Now, I don't think Legal Eagle's loaded question title is intended to mislead. Video titles are short by practical necessity, and I think there's an understanding that anyone watching the video is smart enough to know that a possible answer to the question is, "no time at all". But it should've been titled something else (though I hardly think this is a significant issue).