Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Afroman found not liable in defamation case

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 798 posts

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#651

Post by fc417fc802 »

Retric wrote: post #501
fc417fc802 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no obligation in either direction in this context (idle chitchat) unless of course you care to convince someone of something. He objected to what was provided and you accused him of ignoring evidence. I'm voicing agreement with his objection. The original claim was one of a statistical nature. Thus any purported evidence should be expected to match.

> of a statistical nature. (True) … should be expected to match. (False) If a group is more likely to be X than the average population then being a member of that group is statistical evidence you are X. Really when referring to statistical evidence here it’s an indication the evidence is of a very low standard not a high one. He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists which doesn’t actua…

> He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists

This is the crux of the matter. I don't agree with that statement. I believe the provided evidence does not support that claim in any meaningful sense.

I would at least agree that it suggests to seriously entertain the possibility though.

I'm not sure what to make of your true/false response. Suppose I claim that apples have a higher chance of poisoning you than oranges. Evidence that someone at some point made an effort to put poison into the apple supply does not directly support that claim. However if credible it is certainly cause to entertain the possibility.

More generally a claim about a possibility (discreet) can be supported by an event but a claim about averages (statistical) requires population data. Further, a claim that X is more likely than Y is a claim involving multiple populations.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#652

Post by edm0nd »

smt88 wrote: post #591
nazgulsenpai wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if this were true, are we really so far gone in the political discourse that we can't appreciate a win as Americans because of the perceived political orientation of the recipient? I think the answer is yes, but I still naively hold out hope that we can eventually move beyond this.

I didn't say I don't appreciate a win. I was saying that Afroman isn't a crusader for freedom or anything of the sort. We can appreciate the win without glorifying the victim of the case beyond the scope of the case.

> I was saying that Afroman isn't a crusader for freedom

Sure he is, he literally just won this case as a crusader for freedom :)

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#653

Post by philwelch »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #464
embedding-shape wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but a reasonable person might assume these rumours to be true From all the claims Afroman made, it seems the cop sued because of the whole "He claimed he had sex with my wife, which reflects poorly on me", presumably because he only has a chance to win the suit if there is actual lies. The same video seems to have texts about how he crashed into civilians, stealing pills/money and more, but none of that was brought…

Although funnily enough, when one of the questioned about if his wife had an affair with afroman he was like "I dunno". If he doesn't know it's a lie, kinda defeats the point of the defamation suit

To be fair, this raises an interesting question of epistemology. Can any man know for sure that his wife has never had sex with Afroman? It's almost always possible, however unlikely. One can and probably should trust that his wife hasn't had sex with Afroman, but it's rarely possible to be absolutely certain.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#654

Post by edm0nd »

hollywood_court wrote: post #75
embedding-shape wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't cops by default public figures? They're the de facto face of the police for the ordinary citizen, not sure they should be the type of individual who cries because someone calls them fat, lesbian or whatever. These people have the legal right to essentially execute you in public, I think we should set the bar a bit higher on who should be allowed to be a police officer in the first place.

I was raised by LEOs. My mother and all four of her husbands were career long LEOs in the South. Of course this is just based on my anecdotes, but LEOs have some of the thinnest skin imaginable. The first time I fought a grown man was when I was 13 and I had to fight my mother's fourth husband. He was a Deputy Sheriff and combat veteran and that dude had the emotional strength of a 12 year old girl who didn't get ask…

>My mother and all four of her husbands were career long LEOs

how many of them physically abused her? the stats say 3 out of 4 did.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#655

Post by mothballed »

VHRanger wrote: post #640
mothballed wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ah, some egregious misuse of statistics! Murder is a byproduct of crime. Crime is, largely, downstream of economic conditions with some obvious caveats. New Hampshire has the 2nd lowest crime rate of the USA states. You could make the same argument for, say, Switzerland (high gun ownership but no crime/murder). But no one would be surprised if you had high gun ownership in Monaco. Similarly for the ethnic argument yo…

Ah it seems you finally understand the point. Blaming the skin pigment is as silly as blaming the gun.

Murder rates in US have very little to do with gun law, and they have very little to do with skin color, even though they're heavily correlated to the latter and weakly correlated to the former.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#656

Post by philwelch »

embedding-shape wrote: post #647
fny wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a playlist that includes them: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcopJNj12opkoEDaj5lwP...

With some strange commentary, ended up watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ozZIWy7OWk from that playlist and I'm not sure it's AI or what's going on, at one point she said Afroman called one of the police officers a "PDF" which is the first time I heard, doesn't seem Afroman actually said something like that, and I also don't understand at all what's that's supposed to mean. Doesn't seem to be a typo either?

"PDF" is a zoomer euphemism for "pedophile".

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#657

Post by mothballed »

Hikikomori wrote: post #635
mothballed wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A map over poor people would likely look the same.

Which shows how ridiculous it is to assign that as the cause, doesn't it? It's almost as if pointing to a lot of guns or black people in one spot doesn't show that's why murders are happening, only allows you to tie statistical correlation.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#658

Post by mothballed »

tverbeure wrote: post #561
mothballed wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pulling a percentage out of my ass that can't be terribly inaccurate, 99% of police encounters with guns drawn the police are under 21 ft away, at which distance a knife is as dangerous as a gun. If someone is less than 21 ft from you and they are going to be using a knifes against you, then you should still draw a gun just as often as if they had a gun. So at <21 ft you think guns should be drawn less because they h…

And one way or the other, none of that is a problem is other countries.

I don't dispute that. But in most those 'other countries' literally anyone could be hiding a knife as easily as someone in US could be hiding a gun. So it appears in the vast majority of the cases where people are already right next to each other where both a knife or gun could kill someone, whether it is a knife or a gun is almost a moot point. It's only at a distance that you can treat a knife as a less lethal threat. Therefore the problem lies with the police, by vast majority.

Re: Afroman found not liable in defamation case

#659

Post by AngryData »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #274
garciasn wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 - He's Black. #2 - That's how the police in America operate now; even for the most common interactions w/the public. I know this may sound like I'm being an asshole, but I'm not.

> That's how the police in America operate now; even for the most common interactions w/the public. You cannot generalize police forces across the entire country that way. I've never had such an interaction with a police officer, presumably because the police department in my city is run better than that.

Its more likely because affluent people live in that area who can afford to drop $100k on a lawyer and sue the department. If you are in an area where people are poor and can't drop that kind of money on a lawyer and get the case pushed to state or federal courts the cops know they won't get in trouble for being pieces of shit and see citizens as an easy source of funding to exploit.
Post reply on HN