Rendered at 23:50:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
alexpotato 1 days ago [-]
I'm always fascinated by these tricks of game theory.
e.g. in business school, the dean of the undergraduate school had this story:
"When I was a practicing lawyer working on wills and estates, people would often ask me to cut someone completely out of their will.
I would always say that a better option was to write something like 'To my daughter Susan, I leave $1,000. She always said that she wanted to be financially independent from me so this is an amount to show her I lover her.'
Clients would always think this would send the wrong message and I would replay:
'No, no. If Susan fights the will and says she should have gotten more, the judge will say: but she clearly left you something and pointed out that she loved you AND took your wishes into account' "
I wish there was a book or collection of these types of tricks to study.
keane 1 days ago [-]
There’s A Hacker's Mind: How the Powerful Bend Society's Rules, and How to Bend Them Back by Bruce Schneier
My estate lawyer told me that, to prevent challenges, he advised clients to add a clause directing that anyone contesting the will would be excluded completely from the estate.
spython 14 hours ago [-]
Would that be enforceable? Can people be excluded from the right to a legal dispute? It seems that otherwise any contract would include a clause that it can not be contested - which it sometimes does with mandatory mediation.
thomascgalvin 12 hours ago [-]
Forced arbitration seems to be legally enforceable, and I don't see why this would be any different, but IANAL
red-iron-pine 10 hours ago [-]
the clause comes after the "we leave her $2000000.00" section.
she is not excluded at any point; she gets $2M. (or $0.02, whatever)
Or nothing if she wants to fight cuz she thinks she deserves $10M, etc. etc.
arijun 1 days ago [-]
Wait I thought standard practice was to leave $1 to show that they were considered and purposefully removed from the will? Does that fail in court?
teddyh 1 days ago [-]
“To my loyal butler ‘You There’, for his decades of service, I leave a pittance, to be paid in 20 equal installments of 1/20th of a pittance each.”
Multiple times in my life, a potential romantic interest asked how big it was, and I told them it was tiny. This led them to believe that it was large, because what guy who is tiny would say it was tiny?
Suffice to say they were a bit disappointed when expectations met reality
didntknowyou 23 hours ago [-]
idk if that would work in real life. there are cases where one sibling gets less than another and judges still rule things have to be split equitably and children should be provided for.
Eddy_Viscosity2 23 hours ago [-]
Depends how old they are. For young kids maybe, for adult children I think the will would speak for itself.
port11 12 hours ago [-]
I guess it depends on the country and how much the will deviates from reasonable clauses?
I’m looking into making one now, and a notarised will has to have reasonable clauses straight away; an enclosed will that is open later can say whatever you want, but might be contested if it’s unreasonable.
snapplebobapple 6 hours ago [-]
Wouldnt it just be better to have a lefal system that enforced the contract without extra bs? Lawyers would be unhappy as their wages normalized but that would be a large benefit to society as well
An example might be some person A saying "only an idiot with this set of very specific negative attributes would do this thing". And then person B came out in the public saying they had been slandered by person A, thus indirectly admitting to having those very specific negative attirbutes.
Basically if person A invokes something like the small penis rule, it's often better for person B to stay quiet to avoid 對號入座.
boho_derogatory 1 days ago [-]
That example doesn't express this at all. A better one would be saying "Jane and I partied all night," and Jane's murderer blurting out, "That's impossible!"
jr_isidore 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
torginus 1 days ago [-]
> For a fictional portrait to be actionable, it must be so accurate that a reader of the book would have no problem linking the two
Sorry this argument makes no sense. If I (or any average reader) read a passage dissing a public figure (not me), which describes them with a small penis, I wouldn't consider the description as not fitting - I have no way of telling how big their penis is.
If the public person in question came forward, and read the passage, he could successfully argue, that readers of the book would have no information about the size of his package, and thus that would be irrelevant to the argument. So him suing the author based on this would not mean he admits his dong is small.
chistev 18 hours ago [-]
Maybe it doesn't have to be a literal small penis? Maybe it could be describing the person in such a way that it's clear they are the one being described, but then including something about the character that they wouldn't want to risk people thinking is true.
conartist6 1 days ago [-]
I'm sure South Park had no idea about any of this
khurs 1 days ago [-]
It's pretty amazing that South Park hasn't been sued (or lost?)
I wonder if Peter Thiel took umbrage at how South Park portrayed him recently [0] and is lurking in the shadows planning Gawker v2 [1]
> Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
to11mtm 1 days ago [-]
And indeed South Park has always made a point to have extreme satire that is implausible to help establish that such is parody. [0] The episodes in the last year have gone to extreme lengths to help make the distinction as clear as possible.
[0] - We can go back as far as, I don't think it has been established that Barbara Streisand can in fact turn into a robot...
BuyMyBitcoins 1 days ago [-]
I am in no way a public figure, and will likely never be one, but if the South Park writers decided to go after me my strategy would be to hunker down and just hope the episode isn’t good.
Traubenfuchs 18 hours ago [-]
They certainly went easy on his demonic looks.
rsstack 1 days ago [-]
A Jewish comedian made a joke about how jews (only in the US*) were offended that Ferengi in Star Trek were based on them - "why would we assume these ugly greedy people are _us_?"
*Outside the US, it looks like the Ferengi are mocking American capitalist culture.
torginus 1 days ago [-]
Sidestepping your original premise - how do the Ferengi even make sense in Star Trek? Its supposed to be a post-scarcity society, at least on an individual level - and an imperialist one on a civilization-scale, the latter being a step back even from how the modern world works.
rsstack 24 hours ago [-]
Not everything is post-scarcity, mostly food and clothes. Land, fuel, weapons, art, fame, and labor are still limited resources in the Star Trek world. Also, not everywhere is post-scarcity, as we see many "poor" or restricted societies. The post-scarcity bit is mostly about a social safety net for individuals in the Federation.
krapp 23 hours ago [-]
Even within the Federation, colonies can collapse and fail, experience famine, plague, etc. Tasha Yar came from one such colony that had regressed into violent anarchy.
The Federation is a post-scarcity utopia until the writers want something interesting to write about. Then the Federation gives some colonies to the Cardassians and you get the Maquis.
ahartmetz 12 hours ago [-]
> The Federation is a post-scarcity utopia until the writers want something interesting to write about.
Similar to Iain Banks' Culture novels. The Culture is so utopian that there is no interesting conflict, so all of the action is driven by contact with less developed civilizations.
(You talk about the Federation itself, but IIRC Star Trek also often deals with external forces - in any case, "everything is great" isn't interesting for long)
Thraway198 23 hours ago [-]
The Ferengi don't exist as part of the Federation. Their culture isn't built on egalitarianism, so not everyone gets access.
beAbU 18 hours ago [-]
Ferengi is not part of the Federation AFAIK
red-iron-pine 9 hours ago [-]
genetic imperative for latinum
cwmoore 1 days ago [-]
Wish you’d been more specific, “a Jewish comedian” sounds like the setup for a joke.
rsstack 1 days ago [-]
I tried to Google his joke, but couldn't find it quickly enough. It might have been part of a longer special.
Thraway198 23 hours ago [-]
The Ferengis do have a lot of superficial similarities to Jewish caricatures.
netsharc 1 days ago [-]
When being defensive about the genocide, some people invoke against the protesters, e.g. "Where were you when the atrocities in Sudan were happening?", admitting that the genocide being committed is as bad as the Sudan conflict...
uddnbrbf 18 hours ago [-]
No?
sillyfluke 9 hours ago [-]
I never knew about this complaint either, the connection never occured to me at the time as the capitalist cristicism seemed par for the course for a post-scarcity Federation. I don't understand this knee-jerk self -owning behavior. It's like that bizarre tweet by the Israeli government about the photo of an IDF soldier destroying a Christian ornament. The gov. official insisted that the physical features of the soldier contained so many antisemitic tropes that it had to be AI. Thus, the guy was inadvertantly described as the ugliest person on the planet in excruciating detail by his own government.
secondcoming 1 days ago [-]
Is it true that the Ferengi were based on Jews? I suspected so, but then I also considered they may have been influenced by the Chinese.
rsstack 1 days ago [-]
> Armin Shimerman addressed the issue when asked at a question-and-answer session at a Star Trek convention. He stated that:
> In America, people ask "Do the Ferengi represent Jews?" In England, they ask "Do the Ferengi represent the Irish?" In Australia, they ask if the Ferengi represent the Chinese ... The Ferengi represent the outcast ... it's the person who lives among us that we don't fully understand.[30]
ryanmcbride 1 days ago [-]
No, it's cultural-other pareidolia
cwmoore 1 days ago [-]
Mixed with a little synesthesia. It’s only natural.
to11mtm 1 days ago [-]
... Depends on where we are looking at in the real-world episode production timeframe.
TNG did still resort to 'caricatures as a default', If we are to be a tiny bit bold and look closer at DS9 and how, if you look at a lot of the other stuff outside 'Far Beyond The Stars'.
What you find is that DS9 is very much about people facing pressure from their culture or background and over time learning there's a better way to do things. So many major and minor characters change over the course and part of it is seeing how hard it is and what it takes for each of them to change. I do think they 'over-used' the Ferengi for this but I get they were trying to target a general level of audience.
IMO it really was a hopeful attempt to recognize cultural versus racial problems. You can't just do a single speech and never visit the hat planet again; you are next to one of the hat planets and instead get a deeper look into their world.
.....
DS9 did over-emphasize the Ferengi change arcs, and while the end fits with other 'themes' (i.e. Bell Riots) it like most other hat changes didn't have huge implications till after what we the viewer would see.
But also I kinda get that whole thing. At the end of the day the Ferengi (whether originally intended or not) became something meant to symbolize extreme laissez-faire capitalism with perhaps a pinch of twisted reversal of other cultures/religions[1] because yeah I'm gonna blame that bit on whoever was in charge or TNG at the time (Was it Rick Berman?)
[0] - To be clear I mean for the sake of this topic; those episodes themselves with the original ending to DS9 frankly capture a lot of the 'hope' that was trying to be conveyed in the face of all the strife...
[1] - The most easy way to lampshade 'required clothing' is to instead do 'required non-clothing'
bitwize 1 days ago [-]
Given that DS9 showrunner and co-creator Michael Piller was in fact Jewish, I highly doubt that the Ferengi are some sort of stealth Nazi propaganda. They're either a mockery of the "happy merchant" stereotype beloved of anti-Semites, or (more likely) just a critique of greed and capitalism itself.
What's funny is that Leonard Nimoy (Jewish) based his portrayal of Spock on the idea that the Vulcans were the space Jews. This idea kind of comes to a head in the 2009 movie, in which a guy named after a Roman emperor destroys Vulcan, causing a Vulcan diaspora...
arijun 1 days ago [-]
I think that is a bad example. I haven't heard of Jewish people being offended by Ferengi, but anti-Semitic depictions are very often exactly "ugly, greedy people" (just look at any Nazi propaganda). Once it becomes a common thread it works less as a defense.
I imagine "small hands" would similarly work poorly as a defense against a defamation suit from Trump: he doesn't have to claim he has small hands, only that he is often depicted as having them.
krapp 1 days ago [-]
In the case of the Ferengi, "ugly greedy people with big noses," specifically greedy for an in-universe gold analogue, short, always cheating people; the analogues with common anti-semitic stereotypes are certainly there.
Then again Armin Shimmerman, who played Quark and is Jewish himself, has said that people in different countries see different stereotypes in the Ferengi - such as the Chinese or the Irish - so it probably depends on one's own own cultural indoctrination.
I think a better case could be made for the Klingons being racist caricatures, since in TOS their look was intentionally based on Asiatic and Mongol people in order to make them seem more frightening and villainous.
to11mtm 1 days ago [-]
> I think a better case could be made for the Klingons being racist caricatures, since in TOS their look was intentionally based on Asiatic and Mongol people in order to make them seem more frightening and villainous.
In my head-canon TOS Klingons are Russia and Romulans are China.
Reasons for this;
- Star Trek 6 (The whole thing is an allegory for the end of the cold war, right down to Praxis being a stand-in for Chernobyl)
- That fight scene in 'The Trouble with Tribbles' that strikes me as 'feels like a rehashed tale about a barfight between Allied and Soviet soldiers in pre-split post WW2 Germany'
- Romulans being more 'secluded' and more about political and legal intrigue than violence (If we consider Klingon direct violence a stand-in for USSR/Russian 'maybe put in house arrest before we assasinate' vs China's 'throw the rigid legal book at them')
1 days ago [-]
jancsika 1 days ago [-]
I wonder if the Catch Me if You Can guy counts. He apparently lied about a lot of his adventures as a scam artist, making him more of a fabulist.
However, if anyone taken in by his stories were to complain publicly (say, a book publisher or something), they'd be admitting not only to being a rube, but a rube to a liar who had already claimed publicly to be a scam artist. Even worse, that scam would be real and count as a success, restoring the scam artist's tarnished reputation from fabulist back to bona fide scam artist.
1 days ago [-]
comrade1234 1 days ago [-]
If you accuse someone (not me) of having a small penis (I don't) they (not me) don't have to show that they (not me) have a large penis (like me). Just the accusation they made (to you, not me) is slander enough. But I'd gladly drop-trousers in a court.
baobabKoodaa 1 days ago [-]
This is not the point. The point is about deterring lawsuits. The point is not about defending lawsuits. This is very clearly explained in OP.
IshKebab 5 hours ago [-]
It also makes zero sense. You don't have to admit that you have a small penis to take legal action against someone that writes an insulting version of you with a small penis. People are not identified by their penis size.
comrade1234 1 days ago [-]
Sounds very small-penis.
arijun 1 days ago [-]
I don't think it would be me accusing you of having a small penis (since of course you don't). It's me accusing someone named romcade4321 of being a generally shitty person, and also having a small penis. If you think romcade4321 is a reference to you, you would have to prove the similarity between them and you (maybe by dropping your trousers in court?)
cwmoore 1 days ago [-]
I don’t think you’d get to use the courts anymore.
jona-f 19 hours ago [-]
Yes, only men with small penises are allowed to court.
z_open 1 days ago [-]
I can't imagine judges would normally except this especially since it seems to be a known way to skirt law.
nfw2 1 days ago [-]
It's not a legal defense strategy, it's a social engineering strategy
steego 1 days ago [-]
If nobody brings forward a lawsuit in the first place, why would there be a judge?
kelnos 1 days ago [-]
The judge doesn't accept it, and the Wikipedia page points out that this isn't a good legal strategy for that reason.
But it can be a good social-engineering strategy: the "rule" is based on the hope that the person on the other end of it won't bring legal action in the first place, for fear of socially confirming their association with a small-penis'd character.
tarpitt 1 days ago [-]
I think the point is that you can apply it to any shameful-enough aspect of the libel/parody.
fragmede 1 days ago [-]
Then again, money.
> A jury in New Mexico awarded $412 million to a man who sued over what he said were unnecessary erectile dysfunction shots that decimated his penis
On the one hand, now you're famous for having a dick that doesn't work, on the other hand, $412 million.
The defendant fears that the news coverage of his case means that no woman would ever be interested in him again. Once the judgement and the payout is announced he finds himself being constantly approached by gorgeous women.
bellowsgulch 1 days ago [-]
$412 million in actualized damages?
That’s international dynastic money over a penis.
altmanaltman 1 days ago [-]
No they did not give him 412 million dollars. They appealed the judgement and will fight it out for years. The man is 72 years old. Of that 412, most of it is punitive damages which will be fought over. Interest would acrue and if the clinic loses, they could be on the hook to pay $500 million+ but that's really very unrealistic.
cwmoore 1 days ago [-]
Justice is so rarely poetic.
draw_down 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
brookst 1 days ago [-]
Sigh. Reductionist thinking again. Yes, of course, if you literally say “small penis” the plaintiff would rightfully cite this history.
But it’s not meant to be taken literally, like those are magic words. You say “he failed upwards, funded by family wealth and connections, despite everyone thinking he was an idiot who could barely string a sentence together”
The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.
genxy 1 days ago [-]
It isn't the size of your tort, it is how you use it.
Also, are men this easily manipulated?
Yes.
PaulHoule 1 days ago [-]
Where's @Cindy when you need her?
embedding-shape 1 days ago [-]
Didn't know we could summon him/her/it, but seems it worked. Strangeness all around.
PaulHoule 10 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure if you can, but I certainly can.
cindyllm 15 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
cindyllm 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
cindyllm 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
zephen 1 days ago [-]
Yes, I see you have produced a very small (re)tort, but arguably have used it well.
projektfu 1 days ago [-]
What's the smallest retort that can be blown? I wonder.
zephen 1 days ago [-]
> I wonder.
I didn't, and still don't, but now I wonder why you wonder.
genxy 8 hours ago [-]
This whole thing has been a wonderful string of tort jokes.
to11mtm 1 days ago [-]
> The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.
Or, to cite other potentially preemptive design, add enough other absurdity where someone can just say something like "It is obvious nobody would think the real would %person% impregnated Satan".
This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that some with a small penis would say ...
sebastianconcpt 1 days ago [-]
Another day in Everything is About Mate Suppression
strathmeyer 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
varispeed 1 days ago [-]
Where are the pictures to see what exactly is the problem?
stephbook 1 days ago [-]
Right in the article. On Windows, use "Magnifying Lens"
thih9 1 days ago [-]
This time text is the better medium - it’s not easy to see the problem.
While I say “not easy”, others might say “hard”. Both are fine - for all we know the problem might be both hard and not easy to see.
sunaookami 1 days ago [-]
Try a mirror
/s
tangenter 1 days ago [-]
After Rick Beato recently twisted the blade hard on how musically inept the NYT music review panel is, this level of legal ignorance pales in comparison.
e.g. in business school, the dean of the undergraduate school had this story:
"When I was a practicing lawyer working on wills and estates, people would often ask me to cut someone completely out of their will.
I would always say that a better option was to write something like 'To my daughter Susan, I leave $1,000. She always said that she wanted to be financially independent from me so this is an amount to show her I lover her.'
Clients would always think this would send the wrong message and I would replay:
'No, no. If Susan fights the will and says she should have gotten more, the judge will say: but she clearly left you something and pointed out that she loved you AND took your wishes into account' "
I wish there was a book or collection of these types of tricks to study.
https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393866667
she is not excluded at any point; she gets $2M. (or $0.02, whatever)
Or nothing if she wants to fight cuz she thinks she deserves $10M, etc. etc.
Suffice to say they were a bit disappointed when expectations met reality
I’m looking into making one now, and a notarised will has to have reasonable clauses straight away; an enclosed will that is open later can say whatever you want, but might be contested if it’s unreasonable.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B0%8D%E8%99%9F%E5%85%A5%E...
An example might be some person A saying "only an idiot with this set of very specific negative attributes would do this thing". And then person B came out in the public saying they had been slandered by person A, thus indirectly admitting to having those very specific negative attirbutes.
Basically if person A invokes something like the small penis rule, it's often better for person B to stay quiet to avoid 對號入座.
Sorry this argument makes no sense. If I (or any average reader) read a passage dissing a public figure (not me), which describes them with a small penis, I wouldn't consider the description as not fitting - I have no way of telling how big their penis is.
If the public person in question came forward, and read the passage, he could successfully argue, that readers of the book would have no information about the size of his package, and thus that would be irrelevant to the argument. So him suing the author based on this would not mean he admits his dong is small.
I wonder if Peter Thiel took umbrage at how South Park portrayed him recently [0] and is lurking in the shadows planning Gawker v2 [1]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfSOC6-G044
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/06/21/peter-thi...
they've been sued a bunch. But they make comedy central boatloads of money and have free speech protections on their side (for now...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
tl;dr:
> Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
[0] - We can go back as far as, I don't think it has been established that Barbara Streisand can in fact turn into a robot...
*Outside the US, it looks like the Ferengi are mocking American capitalist culture.
The Federation is a post-scarcity utopia until the writers want something interesting to write about. Then the Federation gives some colonies to the Cardassians and you get the Maquis.
Similar to Iain Banks' Culture novels. The Culture is so utopian that there is no interesting conflict, so all of the action is driven by contact with less developed civilizations.
(You talk about the Federation itself, but IIRC Star Trek also often deals with external forces - in any case, "everything is great" isn't interesting for long)
> In America, people ask "Do the Ferengi represent Jews?" In England, they ask "Do the Ferengi represent the Irish?" In Australia, they ask if the Ferengi represent the Chinese ... The Ferengi represent the outcast ... it's the person who lives among us that we don't fully understand.[30]
TNG did still resort to 'caricatures as a default', If we are to be a tiny bit bold and look closer at DS9 and how, if you look at a lot of the other stuff outside 'Far Beyond The Stars'.
What you find is that DS9 is very much about people facing pressure from their culture or background and over time learning there's a better way to do things. So many major and minor characters change over the course and part of it is seeing how hard it is and what it takes for each of them to change. I do think they 'over-used' the Ferengi for this but I get they were trying to target a general level of audience.
IMO it really was a hopeful attempt to recognize cultural versus racial problems. You can't just do a single speech and never visit the hat planet again; you are next to one of the hat planets and instead get a deeper look into their world.
.....
DS9 did over-emphasize the Ferengi change arcs, and while the end fits with other 'themes' (i.e. Bell Riots) it like most other hat changes didn't have huge implications till after what we the viewer would see.
But also I kinda get that whole thing. At the end of the day the Ferengi (whether originally intended or not) became something meant to symbolize extreme laissez-faire capitalism with perhaps a pinch of twisted reversal of other cultures/religions[1] because yeah I'm gonna blame that bit on whoever was in charge or TNG at the time (Was it Rick Berman?)
[0] - To be clear I mean for the sake of this topic; those episodes themselves with the original ending to DS9 frankly capture a lot of the 'hope' that was trying to be conveyed in the face of all the strife...
[1] - The most easy way to lampshade 'required clothing' is to instead do 'required non-clothing'
What's funny is that Leonard Nimoy (Jewish) based his portrayal of Spock on the idea that the Vulcans were the space Jews. This idea kind of comes to a head in the 2009 movie, in which a guy named after a Roman emperor destroys Vulcan, causing a Vulcan diaspora...
I imagine "small hands" would similarly work poorly as a defense against a defamation suit from Trump: he doesn't have to claim he has small hands, only that he is often depicted as having them.
Then again Armin Shimmerman, who played Quark and is Jewish himself, has said that people in different countries see different stereotypes in the Ferengi - such as the Chinese or the Irish - so it probably depends on one's own own cultural indoctrination.
I think a better case could be made for the Klingons being racist caricatures, since in TOS their look was intentionally based on Asiatic and Mongol people in order to make them seem more frightening and villainous.
In my head-canon TOS Klingons are Russia and Romulans are China.
Reasons for this;
- Star Trek 6 (The whole thing is an allegory for the end of the cold war, right down to Praxis being a stand-in for Chernobyl)
- That fight scene in 'The Trouble with Tribbles' that strikes me as 'feels like a rehashed tale about a barfight between Allied and Soviet soldiers in pre-split post WW2 Germany'
- Romulans being more 'secluded' and more about political and legal intrigue than violence (If we consider Klingon direct violence a stand-in for USSR/Russian 'maybe put in house arrest before we assasinate' vs China's 'throw the rigid legal book at them')
However, if anyone taken in by his stories were to complain publicly (say, a book publisher or something), they'd be admitting not only to being a rube, but a rube to a liar who had already claimed publicly to be a scam artist. Even worse, that scam would be real and count as a success, restoring the scam artist's tarnished reputation from fabulist back to bona fide scam artist.
But it can be a good social-engineering strategy: the "rule" is based on the hope that the person on the other end of it won't bring legal action in the first place, for fear of socially confirming their association with a small-penis'd character.
> A jury in New Mexico awarded $412 million to a man who sued over what he said were unnecessary erectile dysfunction shots that decimated his penis
On the one hand, now you're famous for having a dick that doesn't work, on the other hand, $412 million.
https://amp.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article296...
The defendant fears that the news coverage of his case means that no woman would ever be interested in him again. Once the judgement and the payout is announced he finds himself being constantly approached by gorgeous women.
That’s international dynastic money over a penis.
But it’s not meant to be taken literally, like those are magic words. You say “he failed upwards, funded by family wealth and connections, despite everyone thinking he was an idiot who could barely string a sentence together”
The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.
Also, are men this easily manipulated?
Yes.
I didn't, and still don't, but now I wonder why you wonder.
Or, to cite other potentially preemptive design, add enough other absurdity where someone can just say something like "It is obvious nobody would think the real would %person% impregnated Satan".
While I say “not easy”, others might say “hard”. Both are fine - for all we know the problem might be both hard and not easy to see.
/s