Faticati
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2019
Lenord has good lefty cuck analysis but is as interesting as a saltine. One thing I really find distasteful is when Nick will say something with an obvious menaing like "put them on the wall" and then pretend it has some special meaning in his head that is divorced from common understanding and the context which he used the term.His reputation was previously as a man who put a tremendous amount of effort into helping a man who was a stranger to him because he thought what was happening to him was a terrible injustice. That's why he was admired, even if he (pretty openly and candidly) was also profiting from the media he created while raising over $300,000 for a stranger.
However badly that turned out, it was a noble course of action and he got a lot of reputation out of it.
Now he's besmirched even that to some degree because of how hypocritical a lot of the accusations and criticisms (however valid) he made about people like Chris Sabat and Ron Soye and the shoe-eater apply just as much to him as to them.
I enjoyed his show because he made "lawsplaining" actually fun, when it is usually painfully boring. Someone like Leonard French can be very informative about the arcana of intellectual property law (and is probably who I would pick over Randazza at least for a normal IP case as opposed to the flashy shit Randazza generally gets involved in), but let's face it, that stuff is dull as dishwater. It's just the subject area. I mean I find it fascinating but I'm a weirdo. Most people don't.
Another reason I like his commentary is that while he is fairly lazy on prep, he actually, contrary to most criticism, generally has a good head on his shoulders on legal topics and I usually agree with him. He has a few kooky fringe opinions (like on Marbury v. Madison) but when he does air them, he's candid about the fact that he knows he's outnumbered and explains the normie legal position as well. He also has a tendency to shoot from the hip (which I share) and occasionally get things not quite right, but he usually corrects it when he does (which I also try to do).
However, it's not really his opinions and legal conclusions I need. I can make up my own mind what I think about a legal document and its merits. It's that he doesn't take things out of context and specifically, actually contextualizes the documents he goes through in their entirety. He doesn't seem to want to do that any more, which is no big deal. While I liked that, I'm not going to die without it or anything.
And finally, perhaps his best trait was talking about law like a normal person. Most lawfags do not do that at all. Instead of just stating a basic legal principle in a sentence and moving on, we tend to state the basic principle and then go on for several paragraphs about exceptions and "but in Louisiana" and other shit that makes people's eye glaze over. Worse, this kind of shit can cause someone to end up even more confused about what the actual general principle is than they were beforehand (because of the way law school teaches you to write if you go through a dense patch of legalese you should go to the beginning and there is probably a short and simple statement in there somewhere and if there is not you are reading something from an idiot).
Anyway all this stuff earned Nick a good reputation at the top tier of "LawTube" (if I must use this horrible word), and indeed, he was a much better legal streamer than people who are definitely better lawyers than he is, but often horrible speakers.
I think he made a mistake burning himself out on legal topics with endless streams on various fairly arduous trials and now he can't stand what was his bread and butter any more. Frankly, I think he should have sucked it up and taken a break, then moved forward at a less mind-bending pace and maybe mixed in some of the racier content that is now all he does, with some sense of decorum about it.
But whatever, we lost a legal commentator and gained a lolcow. There but for the grace of God etc.