Legal Eagle

From my perspective, almost every ad is a malicious one, or an insulting one, given how they're often for products that I probably would never use or have access to. And with Youtube sponsorships becoming more and more invasive, I don't feel bad for installing a sponsorblock for Youtube either. And I almost never have any respect for websites who try to guilt the viewer into disabling adblock either. Tv Tropes, being such an amazing website, was the sole exception and probably the only reason why I subscribed to a premium account, but even then, I was thoroughly disappointed that it had to resort to this.

If a product wants to get more attention, it should focus on being a good product. Let those who are interested find out for themselves rather than shoving it into everyone else's faces.

If there was a way to say "I don't want to see this ad, ever", I wouldn't have resorted to this.

Edited by RainingMetal on Jun 25th 2020 at 10:18:25 AM

Again, it doesn't work that way. TV Tropes, like all websites, needs money to operate. That means you pay for it directly, via subscription or donation, or indirectly, via ads or subsidies. No money, no TV Tropes.

Now, that "offer a quality product" thing is interesting, because most content on the Internet is funded by advertising in some form or another, so the real product websites are selling is not a positive user experience per se, but content that advertisers get lots of views/clicks from and thus revenue. They are selling your eyeballs to advertisers.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but being annoyed by something doesn't pay the bills. Also, this is off topic.

I think this guy deserves his own video. He hosts a show and teaches us something. It's like a Youtube Lawyer version of Bill Nye. We have several talk shows and edutainment pages on this website that makes it valid, don't you think?

Reminds me of how I've heard complains from women about how internet adds keep advertising baby supplement and other family planning stuff regardless to them being not interested in kids or aromantic or otherwise not interested in those adds

You mean Legal Eagle, and how he deserves a Tv Tropes page?

His content is non-fiction and doesn't present a fictionalized version of himself, so there's very little to trope.

... honestly pretty just the Shaggy Defense episode is fully tropable, though a lot of the "A Real Lawyer Reacts to Law in Movies" could be troped, if for nothing else but discussed examples of Hollywood Law and Common Knowledge.

I have long held that merely discussing tropes is not enough for a work to qualify as tropable. It must employ them itself in some way. Illustrating tropes is fine; just talking about them is not.

If someone wants to make an article under WebVideo.Legal Eagle, go right ahead, but try to make it tropable.

Edited by Fighteer on Jun 25th 2020 at 5:19:09 AM

Apparently, he's suing The White House:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sazcZ8wwZc

It's already been posted. It's not even his most recent video. Didja not read the thread :-P

To celebrate a million subscribers, here's Legally Blonde.

(I've never seen this movie.)

He says "that joke does not age well," but I'm not sure it was a whole lot less dark then.

Laptops in class? I didn't think that was a thing in those days. In fact, several years after this film, because I was thought to be a bit autistic, they got a letter suggesting I be allowed to use a laptop and balked.

I'm not sure Elle actually commits unauthorized practice of law when he says she does (unlike Elle, I am not even a law student; I could never pass character and fitness). She just throws out a bunch of legal jargon and asserts the woman's rights (which she probably doesn't actually have; as I understand it, cohabitation isn't a common law marriage unless you both want it to be). She never claims to be a lawyer, at least not in the clips he shows.

Edited by TwinBird on Jul 4th 2020 at 4:07:33 AM

She identifies herself as her friends attorney, which is a bit of a no-no

About the accusations of financial fraud against the head of NRA.

Could it be dissolved? Not a given, but not entirely impossible apparently.

Interestingly, reading the comments below it seems like even gun lovers aren’t particularly fond of the NRA nowadays…

Edited by Lyendith on Aug 19th 2020 at 2:48:50 PM

There are a lot of people realizing that what the NRA used to be back in the 70s (a group focused on responsible gun ownership that regularly ran safety classes and organized hunting trips to teach anyone who wanted to learn) is no longer what it is (a lobbying group funded by 3rd percenters and the firearms industry with the singular goal of preventing any law ever being even tangentially related to guns)

How did it change even? I assume Reagan-era deregulation is to blame, but I'm not knowledgeable in that part of American history.

It doesn't help that the NRA has pretty much exclusively been characterizing themselves as overly sensitive gun nuts.

Not sure about how the NRA became increasingly insane, and it might have been due to Reagan. Ironically, Reagan himself actually passed one of the 'largest' pieces of gun-banning legislature in the US, outlawing private ownership of fully-automatic weapons without going through quite a bit of red tape.

The main change in the NRA policies occurred with The Revolt in Cincinnati, a major change in leadership following the 1968 Gun Control Act. In short, a minority group angry at the new restrictions took control of the association and never let go.

If the NRA does get dissolved from this...I won't miss them too much.

Nor will most people.

Including most responsible gun owners.

Hell, especially most responsible gun owners. The NRA is to gun ownership as PETA is to vegetarianism.

Do we even need the NRA, tbh?

In which our favorite lawyer tackles some bad r/legaladvice, and along the way reveals the amount of chill he has for certain states and senators is absolute zero.

Edited by TheAirman on Sep 21st 2020 at 11:55:50 AM

Laws Broken in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".