610
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
610 points (98.9% liked)
Today I Learned (TIL)
9200 readers
861 users here now
You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?
/c/til is a community for any true knowledge that you would like to share, regardless of topic or of source.
Share your knowledge and experience!
Rules
- Information must be true
- Follow site rules
- No, you don't have to have literally learned the fact today
- Posts must be about something you learned
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Are you going to explain what specific audiovisual component might, if seen, lead someone to conclude that Michael Jackson shouldn't have been acquitted? Or is this just some vague allusion to nonexistent super-important context that invalidates all the legal proceedings so you don't have to actually make a solid case for your accusation?
What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.
The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You're making a claim here, you back it up.
And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings? Is it because a stranger on the internet went "nuh-uh!" and told you to go watch a documentary? Be honest.
Sure, sure, and if you didn't vote for Joe Biden you ain't black. These are awful fallacious arguments you're making. Just awful.
The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.
. . . Okay, look, nevermind.
Meaningless excuse.
No, let's mind it. You know Dred Scott was bad because the law and the evidence actually agreed with the plaintiffs, and the decision made against them was demonstrably motivated by racism. It's a bad comparison to make. The circumstances do not match up. You're making nothing but bad faith arguments here and this is the last I'll hear of it. Toodle-oo.
Okbye