(The title is a reference to a previous blog post of mine: Captain Disillusion chose the blue pill.)
LegalEagle is a YouTube channel run by a lawyer in New York. It consists of him reviewing legal dramas, and other movies and shows where legal proceedings happen, and grades them on their legal accuracy. He sometimes also makes other kinds of videos commenting on some famous legal case currently in the news. He also has a series where he takes some movie or TV show, and simply points out (mostly in a tongue-in-cheek fashion) all the crimes that are being committed (and details on why they are crimes).
These videos are very interesting and didactic. They are a great way of learning what kind of mistakes and shortcuts most movies and TV shows make when it comes to legal proceedings, court cases, and so on, and how the same scenario would have happened in real life in an actual court case. It's also interesting when he points out when a show actually gets something right (which might sometimes be something that one doesn't even pay attention to).
I haven't seen all of his videos, but from the ones I have seen, he has never expressed any personal political opinions of any kind. (He might have, but if he has, I have not seen those videos.) He has always kept out of it.
Which, incidentally, is something I think a good lawyer should do, especially when dealing with legal matters (even if it's just for entertainment). The law is completely neutral and non-partisan, and so should, in my opinion, lawyers too, when it comes to discussing legal matters. Obviously he's perfectly well entitled to his personal political opinions and stances, but I think a good lawyer should not mix them with legal matters, not even when he's just commenting on the law and delivering his legal knowledge to the viewers.
He recently made a video commenting on the deleted scene from the Captain Marvel movie, which became quite infamous (and which I myself have commented on here) from a legal perspective. "Well, this should be interesting", I thought.
To my dismay, completely out of the blue, he went full SJW with it.
He comments on how some men have had issues with that deleted scene (completely ignoring the fact that many female commentators have also criticized the scene, for the same reasons), and he proceeds during the video to use SJW rhetoric, like "mansplaining". He takes issue over the critics calling her a villain, and he completely distorts what the actual reasoning for this is. He concentrates on the actual self-defense assault by Captain Marvel, and completely glosses over the actual crime that's being committed in the scene, ie. Captain Marvel stealing the man's property using the threat of violence. He only mentions the actual theft very briefly and in passing at the end of the video (and doesn't even comment on its legality.)
He shows short clips of several youtubers criticizing the scene (all male, of course), and later in the video implies that they are sexists. The scene in question is a homage to a similar scene in Terminator 2, where the terminator steals a man's clothes and bike in a very similar manner. He accuses the critics of considering Captain Marvel a villain only because she's a woman, while not considering the terminator a villain, because he's a man. He shows absolutely no evidence of the opinion of those critics on the Terminator 2 scene. He just assumes that they consider it non-villanous, and moreover he quite explicitly assumes that they consider it non-villanous because he's male.
Let that sink in for a moment: Here we have a lawyer who is accusing people of sexism, with zero evidence to back that up.
This all is eerily similar to that Captain Disillusion video I commented on that other blog post in that it came completely out of the blue, and is completely superfluous. He could have perfectly well left all that SJW rhetoric and all those accusations out of the video, and nothing of any importance would have been lost. (In fact, the video would have become much better and interesting.)
Why did he have to break his neutral stance towards politics all of a sudden? I don't get it. Apparently he couldn't just keep it in anymore, and he had to butt in, and virtue-signal.
Oh well. I have been trying to shorten my YouTube subscriptions list anyways. I watch way too much YouTube, and I have been cleaning up my subscriptions. One less isn't going to hurt. A pity, but that video just left such a bad taste in my mouth that I can't even watch him anymore. No more LegalEagle videos for me.
LegalEagle is a YouTube channel run by a lawyer in New York. It consists of him reviewing legal dramas, and other movies and shows where legal proceedings happen, and grades them on their legal accuracy. He sometimes also makes other kinds of videos commenting on some famous legal case currently in the news. He also has a series where he takes some movie or TV show, and simply points out (mostly in a tongue-in-cheek fashion) all the crimes that are being committed (and details on why they are crimes).
These videos are very interesting and didactic. They are a great way of learning what kind of mistakes and shortcuts most movies and TV shows make when it comes to legal proceedings, court cases, and so on, and how the same scenario would have happened in real life in an actual court case. It's also interesting when he points out when a show actually gets something right (which might sometimes be something that one doesn't even pay attention to).
I haven't seen all of his videos, but from the ones I have seen, he has never expressed any personal political opinions of any kind. (He might have, but if he has, I have not seen those videos.) He has always kept out of it.
Which, incidentally, is something I think a good lawyer should do, especially when dealing with legal matters (even if it's just for entertainment). The law is completely neutral and non-partisan, and so should, in my opinion, lawyers too, when it comes to discussing legal matters. Obviously he's perfectly well entitled to his personal political opinions and stances, but I think a good lawyer should not mix them with legal matters, not even when he's just commenting on the law and delivering his legal knowledge to the viewers.
He recently made a video commenting on the deleted scene from the Captain Marvel movie, which became quite infamous (and which I myself have commented on here) from a legal perspective. "Well, this should be interesting", I thought.
To my dismay, completely out of the blue, he went full SJW with it.
He comments on how some men have had issues with that deleted scene (completely ignoring the fact that many female commentators have also criticized the scene, for the same reasons), and he proceeds during the video to use SJW rhetoric, like "mansplaining". He takes issue over the critics calling her a villain, and he completely distorts what the actual reasoning for this is. He concentrates on the actual self-defense assault by Captain Marvel, and completely glosses over the actual crime that's being committed in the scene, ie. Captain Marvel stealing the man's property using the threat of violence. He only mentions the actual theft very briefly and in passing at the end of the video (and doesn't even comment on its legality.)
He shows short clips of several youtubers criticizing the scene (all male, of course), and later in the video implies that they are sexists. The scene in question is a homage to a similar scene in Terminator 2, where the terminator steals a man's clothes and bike in a very similar manner. He accuses the critics of considering Captain Marvel a villain only because she's a woman, while not considering the terminator a villain, because he's a man. He shows absolutely no evidence of the opinion of those critics on the Terminator 2 scene. He just assumes that they consider it non-villanous, and moreover he quite explicitly assumes that they consider it non-villanous because he's male.
Let that sink in for a moment: Here we have a lawyer who is accusing people of sexism, with zero evidence to back that up.
This all is eerily similar to that Captain Disillusion video I commented on that other blog post in that it came completely out of the blue, and is completely superfluous. He could have perfectly well left all that SJW rhetoric and all those accusations out of the video, and nothing of any importance would have been lost. (In fact, the video would have become much better and interesting.)
Why did he have to break his neutral stance towards politics all of a sudden? I don't get it. Apparently he couldn't just keep it in anymore, and he had to butt in, and virtue-signal.
Oh well. I have been trying to shorten my YouTube subscriptions list anyways. I watch way too much YouTube, and I have been cleaning up my subscriptions. One less isn't going to hurt. A pity, but that video just left such a bad taste in my mouth that I can't even watch him anymore. No more LegalEagle videos for me.
Comments
Post a Comment