this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
305 points (97.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40966 readers
941 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 117 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Simple answer is they are careful about what they say and have good lawyers that review it.

A few examples.

Calling Tom Cruise a fudge packer in the context of him being in a bathhouse could eaisly open them up to liability for calling him gay. But doing it in a fudge factory while showing him putting fudge in a box gives them a clear defense that they meant it literally.

Simmaraly telling him to come out of the closet while he is actually in a closet provides cover.

Making things so absurd that a reasonable person wouldn't believe it and know it's a joke also works. So having Barbara Streisand aquire an artifact that makes her into a giant robot monster works but something plausible wouldn't.

Having Kanye open up and admit he is a gay fish is absurd enough to provide protection. However they probably couldn't get away with him simply coming out as gay.

Of course the genius of south park is they use these legal protections in ways that make the story funnier and not just for cover.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

It's a very fine line they would have to walk. It must be believable to the average person that the claims are true. It must not actually be true. It must be done with (the appearance of) malice. It must not be done as a criticism/satire of the target and their actions.

And on top of that, their publicist/PR must think a lawsuit will get them more than they lose. Once it's aired, it is out there forever. It could then be the one that everyone seeks out and shares with friends, as "the one that Tom Cruise sued to get rid of". This is known as "The Streisand Effect".

[–] [email protected] 104 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Reminds me that Scientology sent "private investigators" after Matt and Trey to find dirt on them, but ended up with nothing

https://www.avclub.com/scientologists-spent-a-long-time-investigating-south-pa-1798228087

[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 year ago

You can't damage the credibility of people who don't claim to have any. And, in attempting to do so, you can only increase their credibility.

Matt and Trey don't claim to be any more than a few jackass comedians with a TV show. Scientology's MO really doesn't work against guys like that.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They demolished Scientology, before people were "afraid" of them.

This video talks about the whole story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMrN5nWuh_s

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are all youtube videos so epileptic nowadays? Does this appeal to people? Am I out of touch?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Am I out of touch?

No, it's the children who are wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What do you mean by epileptic? It's a video essay, the majority of the substance is the words spoken by the guy making the video. And yes, I occasionally watch and enjoy this kind of video, and I even saw this one about s month ago and liked it. It tied up some loose ends in my head and gave me context I wouldn't otherwise get.

The term video essay is really a perfect description for this.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think they mean the intro with the "music" playing at about 400 bpm and peaking horribly?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 164 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Parody is protected under US law.

People can (and do) sue, but they lose every time because it's easy for their well resourced corporate legal team to prove the show is (obviously) parody and thus, protected free speech.

[–] [email protected] 90 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Also public figures have to prove "actual malice" in a defamation or libel case. Actual malice is an incredibly hard thing to prove.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I imagine if it were easier, there would be like another couple hundred of thousand lawsuits against Trump lol

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And by Trump, too. He'd definitely try and cash in if it were possible.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›