With exception to the introduction which uses video evidence to set the stage for what they will talk about. Most of the video is framing the historical context with legal precedent (which would be better done with text imho) although they do use archival footage to exemplify the time periods being talked about. Watching the KKK march down the street is different than reading about it.
However, an important part of the video, the “We Are Not Powerless” chapter uses video examples and talks about them directly. This is similar to how one can use quotes in text but it’s a lot easier to do this in video when you are talking about a chaotic recording of a crime which has many small details in it. The speaker also talks about the importance of actually seeing what is happening and to not look away.
Personally, I think it’s a very well done and important video dispite the YouTube shilling and self promotion (which I auto skip with SponsorBlock) and worth a watch.
However, if you don’t have time to watch a ~30 min video. I’ll help you skip to the end.
TLDR: If the 5 words “of The United States or …” were added to the text of Section 1983, then people could sue “federal agents” for violations of their freedoms protected by the Constitution and it’s amendments.
PS, I think media literacy is more than just being able to read and understand text. Firstly, there are people with disabilities like dyslexia. Secondly, when you watch a movie like Casino (1985) and misinterpret it, you might end up like Stephen Miller.
“just watch the video, it’s fine if you use this third party app to remove the embedded ad” is not the ringing endorsement you think it is.
Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.
(While it’s stupid, offensive, and.un-american, ICE agents DO currently enjoy personal immunity for any acts done in accordance with ICE directives.)
Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.
how you gonna not watch the video then talk ignorant bullshit about what the video is supposed to be, and dont give me “i did watch the video” cuz if you had you wouldnt be able to talk that ignorant bullshit like you did. not in good faith anyway
Because that is how modern content is consumed these days. No one reads anymore, and that presumably includes this very message.
Edit: The pair of comments attached to this are kind of a case in point, and not doing anything to restore my faith in anybody’s literacy. Although perhaps this is intentional as some subtle form of satire.
Why do we need a video to share five words!?
Video is just another form of media.
With exception to the introduction which uses video evidence to set the stage for what they will talk about. Most of the video is framing the historical context with legal precedent (which would be better done with text imho) although they do use archival footage to exemplify the time periods being talked about. Watching the KKK march down the street is different than reading about it.
However, an important part of the video, the “We Are Not Powerless” chapter uses video examples and talks about them directly. This is similar to how one can use quotes in text but it’s a lot easier to do this in video when you are talking about a chaotic recording of a crime which has many small details in it. The speaker also talks about the importance of actually seeing what is happening and to not look away.
Personally, I think it’s a very well done and important video dispite the YouTube shilling and self promotion (which I auto skip with SponsorBlock) and worth a watch.
However, if you don’t have time to watch a ~30 min video. I’ll help you skip to the end.
TLDR: If the 5 words “of The United States or …” were added to the text of Section 1983, then people could sue “federal agents” for violations of their freedoms protected by the Constitution and it’s amendments.
PS, I think media literacy is more than just being able to read and understand text. Firstly, there are people with disabilities like dyslexia. Secondly, when you watch a movie like Casino (1985) and misinterpret it, you might end up like Stephen Miller.
Don’t even need those 5 words. Just need congress to enforce that the congressional record and the federal register are actually in agreement.
http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
That law was illegally amended, by a single secretary in 1884. Which is what has led to the QI crisis.
“just watch the video, it’s fine if you use this third party app to remove the embedded ad” is not the ringing endorsement you think it is.
Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.
(While it’s stupid, offensive, and.un-american, ICE agents DO currently enjoy personal immunity for any acts done in accordance with ICE directives.)
how you gonna not watch the video then talk ignorant bullshit about what the video is supposed to be, and dont give me “i did watch the video” cuz if you had you wouldnt be able to talk that ignorant bullshit like you did. not in good faith anyway
Specifically, why do we need a 25-minute long video to share five words?
Because the channel is a lawyer. They usually bill by the minute.
To monetize saying five words is my guess
Because that is how modern content is consumed these days. No one reads anymore, and that presumably includes this very message.
Edit: The pair of comments attached to this are kind of a case in point, and not doing anything to restore my faith in anybody’s literacy. Although perhaps this is intentional as some subtle form of satire.
deleted by creator
Upvote bate comment. Clever.