Lol @enoch. Making out is definitely not on the agenda.

And yes, sadly, stupid laws on slander and liability exist. Just like stupid laws exist elsewhere. They are crap and garbage. But if we can go to war over faulty intel, surely our elected officials are dumb enough to let faulty slander go unpunished.

At least insofar that words have little consequences, you can see that by the content I posted right? Where the rapper threatens his wife, an FBI agent, and school children, and gets off without a record (which I forgot to include the children.)

Passing along information goes like this. Is it reasonable to suspect someone is who they claim on the internet? Kind of (Because the internet is impossible to verify ANYONE.) This is important because the "woman" was claiming to be 13, felt sexually harassed in her vulnerable years, etc. It is therefore the child who is calling the harasser a pedio, and the feminist bitch simply repeating a "reasonable-to-believe" statement. Or some such. The offended would have to prove that the comments were A-Factually known by the repeater as inaccurate and B-Damaging, and C-Not made in satire (Go back to the rap video for proof that stupid arguments can be made.) Even the damage could be argued, as what "damages" were caused by that particular comment?

News does this ALL the TIME for effect. A lot of the time they preface comments with such statements as "According to an eyewitness" or "Allegedly" or some other bullshit. But that does little to mitigate false information's impact on people.

A man posted rap lyrics of killing his wife after a break up. She said fuck, he is threatening. Supreme court laughed, ex-husband laughed, wife cried. So to answer your question. Probably not liable for slander. Kind of like how pols can call Obama Muslim, or Hilary a whore.

Edit Added later:

Oh, and that comment pedophile comment could be easily construed as satire, which is protected. He would have to risk a lot of money to succeed...

Oh, and more. The content could be argued that it was in good faith because someone else called him it and it was reasonably believable. (That a 13 year old girl called him out on sexual harassment.) That the source was unverifiable is inconsequential. Even when they found out the woman was over age, they have no obligation for wasting time on the issue through apologies.

Blame the law, but yeah, there is that.

Is that supposed to be satire? I can't find the humor.
Otherwise it's just the weirdest kind of paranoia I've ever witnessed.

To be fair, SouthPark has never hesitated to bite any hand it sees necessary, even the ones feeding them. It's a good habit I think, but it's hard to tell when it's satirical or smokescreen.

Semi-related, I'm playing Just Cause 3 right now, a game that requires Steam, and is getting a lot of heat because it uses some "Denuvo" tech, which is being labeled DRM. At the same time, in the game, the primary enemy that the player is fighting against, all throughout, is the DRM army. No joke. It's such a juxtiposition that isn't clear if you're experiencing someones idea of satire or complete, corporate dickishness.

Isn't it sad to live in a society where you can't be sure if that is satire or not?
How depressing.

Either it's real or he's the greatest Poe ever.

Honestly though, even if it was satire, I feel like he's strayed into "Mother Night" territory and that any good done by satirising these beliefs is ultimately eclipsed by espousing them in the first place.

NNNAAWWWWW... Nooooo... Even in that second video, it's really hard to not see it as complete satire, which I blame on how ridiculous it is.

He's really gunning to be the Limbaugh heir, isn't he? He's even got the speaking pattern down. I cannot believe that's real.

I thought he was joking. I was told this dude was being satirical and sarcastic in his last video, and people just took him seriously. Is he not actually a sarcastic youtube funny-man?

EDIT: yeah I'm pretty sure this is a joke.

These really are moving beyond satire into genuine criticism.

"What if I told you that tickling them was like torture?"

Then I'd say: "please explain why this is and how you worked it out so I can contribute meaningfully to the issue."

Genuinely had to check after watching that this wasn't a hoax/satire. I'm not sure it could have come across as much more patronising and manipulative if they had tried.

Really reminded me of G.E.F.A.F.W.I.S.P. thing from brasseye in it's style and presentation. (Poe's law etc.)

Not that I disagree with the underlying point being made (most exotic pets have massive hidden costs to the animals well being), but I think they made it very poorly indeed.

If tickling is indeed torturous to them, then maybe make the flagship advert for your campaign do more than glibly announce "they don't like it!" whilst showing a video of what, to uneducated human sensibilities, appears to be joy/pleasure.

I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but even their website provides no materials or evidence to back up what they are saying. With a term as emotive and loaded as "torture", that comes across as rather disingenuous and makes me naturally somewhat suspicious as to their motives.

i.e. that they are likely ideologically opposed to most/all animal trafficking already and will happily muddy the facts & manipulate emotions if it furthers their higher purposes.

^ I don't want the above to come across as support for the Slow Loris pet trade, their unsuitability to domestic life and the need for pretty specialised knowledge to keep them healthy is reason enough (same as the vast majority of exotics). Chris Packham is one of the supporters and I have a great deal of respect for the guy's knowlage on such subjects.

But this, if anything, makes that advert seem all the more distasteful. YOU HAD EXPERTS! Persuade me better!

I also don't want to come across as suggesting that tickling definitely isn't deeply unpleasant for them for whatever reasons, but a cursory google and inspection of their own campaign site yielded nothing of any substance on the subject either way. (maybe my search-fu was lacking today?)

Again, I'm willing to accept the premise. If it will stand on it's own merits then I would like to understand. I will even advocate for the movement myself! But I'm not going to endorse anything I either can't or don't yet properly understand myself.

For every level headed campaigner with a basic sense of discernment and empathy for other creatures, there seems to be a mob of authoritarian ideologues eager to beat us around the head until we see things exactly their way and deny and semblance of nuance (i.e. PETA).

This is how he is every night, no? Are you confusing 'Colbert Report' with the 'Late Show'? 'cause on the Colbert Report everything he said was through the filter of the right-wing talking head character he was playing. Now that he's hosting the Late Show the character is dropped it's just him, which is nice because some people don't get the satire and he has some important things to say;)

I'm guessing you do know that, but there you go.

Oh sorry, I used the word ridicule to describe the piece.... oh wait a minute: ridicule is a verb meaning; to make fun of, poke fun at, make jokes about, etc.

Like I wrote. The meaning of the video is clear. You have written nothing that I didn't already know.

But somehow you don't seem to be able to get over the fact that I didn't address the video's main theme (satire) and instead addressed a side issue that is important (at the very least) to me. People are not obliged to only address a topic's main theme and not side issues. You need to check yourself.

I hope you have an incredibly high IQ and perfect recall of all facts because if you don't, someone might be saying the same thing to you one day. In other words, there is always someone smarter than you, and you're always wrong about something.

You have a good day mate. It's getting a little boring explaining stuff. I might come back to it in a few weeks (or I might not).

Or Voltairian. Why can't we use that word anymore?

I fancy a good satirical polemic, especially in regards to flippant condensers of classic literature, who hide behind simplistic animations aflutter of Lovercraftian connotations. Such balderdash! Give me a Byronic hero any day, over the snide Youtubian objectivist...

Rubbish. The song section at the end alone makes it eminently Sift-able. Bob is just butthurt at seeing his idols satirized. Fortunately his opinions alone do not determine what makes it through the Sift, thank fuck