619
submitted 16 hours ago by ooli3@sopuli.xyz to c/til@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago

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.

[-] SarahValentine@pawb.social 1 points 9 hours ago

I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence.

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.

Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.

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.

The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it.

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.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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.

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.

And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings?

. . . Okay, look, nevermind.

[-] SarahValentine@pawb.social 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

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.

Meaningless excuse.

. . . Okay, look, nevermind.

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.

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
619 points (98.7% liked)

Today I Learned (TIL)

9200 readers
898 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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS