Comment

I was clarifying my point, not moving goalposts. I can’t help if you assumed the goal was in a different place and argued based on that false assumption. That’s why I clarified my point since you seemed to have consistently missed it.

My point has not changed nor has the context in which I made it.

source

Sort:hotnew top

forrgott@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

Can’t sue for defamation…

…I was speaking with the understanding that frivolous lawsuits can be ignored.

…they can be ignored when discussing statistics and viable law.

source
- DokPsy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  You cannot win a defamation case if they used truthful statements or statements they had reasonable belief of it being true. Sorry I used “can’t sue” as a layman way of saying “can’t win” because it’s obvious that anyone can physically sue for any reason and it’s equally obvious that anyone who is being sued must go through the court system no matter the suits legitimacy.
  
  The fact that I had to spell all that out explicitly is wild. They should be taken as contextually assumed so we could discuss more interesting bits instead of “but what about obvious thing? And other obvious thing?”
  
  source
  - forrgott@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    So you agree with me? 🙄
    
    source
    DokPsy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Bruh. I don’t even know what your point is. All you’ve done is “well actually”'d through this whole back and forth while I’ve clarified my point.
    
    It’s like I said the sky is blue and you came back with well it’s really clear but the defraction of sunlight through the atmosphere disperses the color blue more than other colors due to its shorter wavelength making it look blue. It’s a net zero contribution to the conversation other than to make you feel smarter for saying it that way
    
    source
    -> View More Comments