I once drove through a suburban region which had a Civil War battlefield. Since I was curious, I looked up the actual map of the battlefield and overlaid it onto the modern roads. The modern park which has the battlefield was a tiny corner of the actual battlefield. Places where people fought and died are now covered in strip malls and fast food now. It's really incredible to see.
I'm somewhat familiar with this page only because two spergs (one of them literally identifying as such) brought it to a community help page ( Archive ).
Saikyoryu lashing out at more experienced editors.
This is slowly happening to Gettysburg as well. Used to go there a lot with dad and he'd always talk about how a lot of the surrounding area was rural countryside and only in the past 20 years or so has it been really built up with those fucking tumorous strip malls and shit.
He's there and dear feeder is not. I'm surprised at the latter
Louis Farrakhan, R. Kelly, Lyndon LaRouche...
Some reporter said that somebody said he was a cult leader, well that's airtight now isn't
But can't journalists be sued for saying false libelous things too? How does someone even objectively prove is someone is a cult leader or not? Who decides this?
The simple answer is that there is nothing a public figure can do to stand up to this shit. NYT v. Sullivan basically said that the media can smear people as aggressively as they want without reproach, since the "actual malice" rule means that plaintiffs are basically unable to do anything unless their lives completely and utterly ruined. Hopefully SCOTUS is able to justify taking the case on again and overturn it (Thomas and Gorsuch have both opposition to the ruling and want to revise it), but I'm not holding my breath.
Not so. Actual Malice demands proof that the person defaming you knew they were lying. Damage is immaterial. Ultimately, I agree with you. My thoughts on this:
Or with "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” It's a subjective standard, but reckless disregard can be inferred from conduct, such as, for instance, deviating from a fact-checking policy normally engaged in.
Wikipedia is really weird and inconsistent about anything to do with cults in general. For example, it classifies QAnon as a cult but not something like, say, Raelianism, which it instead places under the much more benign-sounding category of "New Religious Movement". So according to Wikipedia, Stefan Molyneux is a cult leader but this fucking guy isn't.
ults and Category:New Religious Movements you quickly notice a pattern that articles about more "right-wing" groups (fundamentalist Christian sects, for example) get put in the first category while groups with more a progressive or apolitical angle (like UFO-believing Kool-Aid drinkers) get placed in the latter, even if they're more harmful and more accurately fit the definition of a cult.
There's a whole group of corrupt cult apologist "scholars" who are subsidized by cults to spread that whitewashing term.
