Okay, IANAL (and also, I'm not a lawyer) but I see a lot of people in comments reacting to the filing's description of allegations as "facts" and "factual" as though they constitute an admission that the allegations are true, and I'm afraid this is overly optimistic.
"I'm just sharing my opinion on your character" is a pretty good defense against defamation in the land of the free and the home of the et cetera. Free speech is protected after all, and everyone's entitled to their opinion.
So if you're saying, "Just my opinion, but I think he's a scumbag in my opinion because he spiked my drink and tried to take me home, and that's my opinion" and the scumbag's lawyer says you're making factual statements, they mean "statements as to what the facts are".
Meaning, you can call him a scumbag and that is well and truly your opinion, but as soon as you explain that it's because he spiked your drink you have made a claim about what the facts of the matter are, and that's less categorically protected.
To make it clear - I'm not disputing that it happened and I'm not talking about statements by Chris or his lawyers that agree specific incidents happened. I'm referring to people posting screen shots of "she said this as a statement of fact, not opinion", read as an admission.
I man, multiple of the statements singled out as "factual, not opinion" also have notations that he has what he considers to be evidence the speaker is lying, so they're definitely not conceding that these factual statements are tru.
And I'm not going to spend all day on this, as I have a strict rule about not doing PR for horrible people for free. I'm not Crisp Abalone's lawyer's communications team! I think this is a case where the plain-language meaning is leading us astray from the legal use of words.
Muting this thread. I'm not arguing the facts of the case, Abalone's overall chances or the wisdom of his legal strategy, or anything else. I'm talking specifically about what it means when a legal filing says someone made a statement of fact. That's it. Nothing else.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ancillary thread spilling off my Discworld one gave me a shot of perspective on something I've always felt and couldn't put into words why until now:
Bugs Bunny dressing up as a woman to fool men never feels like the typical "man in dress" transphobic pantomime farce to me.
I mean, right on the face of it, it's a stock transphobic comedy trope: man in dress coming onto presumed straight man, fooling him for antagonistic purposes, sometimes to the point of a wedding.
I think the reason it doesn't feel the same to my (and I'm not arguing with anyone who doesn't like it or has a stock rule of "cis guys in dresses for a joke is always transphobic and I'm never down with that"; that's entirely valid) is... well, that'll be in the next tweet now.
I regret to inform you that I can explain exactly how TERFs read Discworld as an anti-trans text, because of course I can.
If you post as to debate these points, I may block you if it comes off like you think I'm defending/agreeing with them.
Short answer: we're the dwarves.
In the tervish reading of Discworld, the dwarves are a logical endpoint of a "transhuman" cult in which gender replaced sex and then everybody opted to be male because patriarchy. Cheery isn't a trans icon to them; she's an Adult Hu... er, Dwarven Female who recognizes biology.
Since the Dwarves who "recognize biology" (though we have no more idea what's under Cheery's skirt than we know what's going on with any dwarf deep down) are presented as sympathetic and the Dwarves who "replace sex with gender and abolish womanhood" are not...
The Alexandra Meal at McDonald's is enough boxes of McNuggets to be four more than you can actually comfortably eat, a milk shake, and a thing of fries you don't actually enjoy because you forgot they got rid of the trans fats in a move that is both transphobic and fatphobic.
Also sometimes you get the warm, fresh chocolate chip cookies and think about how much you miss those really crisp boxes of prepackaged chocolate-ish chip cookies they used to sell, which probably also had partially hydrogenated oils in them.
Any more than four and it's another meal for later. Any less than four and it's too easy to push on and finish them anyway. It's just dead center of the awkward in-between zone.
If I could do just one episode of Lower Decks, it would be about washing hands and other hygiene issues, with a soupçon of the implications of superscience on medical technology.
The two things that convinced me that the Lower Decks people are deeply in touch with the Star Trek lore were a throwaway reference to handwashing and Boimler angsting over the idea of washing out and being shipped off to a research asteroid.
Wild how many of these out-of-nowhere allegations of child trafficking involve little blonde white girls in the company of relatives who are people of color or ethnic minorities. It's a pattern that predates QAnon but I wonder how much all the QAnonsense exacerbates it.
To believe in QAnon is to believe that millions of children are being trafficked, all the time, everywhere, in plain sight, to the point that it's probably not a question of "Is it happening on my flight?" but "Who on this flight is trafficking, and who is being trafficked?"
I don't want to erase the racism here; to see a pale little blonde girl with a Black woman and think, "Obviously the child doesn't belong with her and obviously she is dangerous to the child" is racism from start to finish, and inventing crimes to excuse that reaction is, too.
So she's not satisfied with the number of people her vaccine fearmongering will kill directly. She's trying to encourage some random homicides on top of that.
Honestly, when it comes to Marjorie The Gathering, I would imagine that the death of government representatives by gun-wielding "patriots" is not an unforeseen consequence but her best case scenario.
Because first of all, it's going to spark an anti-gun backlash, which always makes for good business for gunthumpers like the NRA and her.
And second of all, it helps her spin the outreach program as evil and coercive: why would people open fire if they were just talking?