Devin James Stone is an American Civil and trial lawyer. His YouTube channel is about the law, its implications, and other themes which are affected and intertwined with law. Although he never...
Devin James Stone is an American Civil and trial lawyer. His YouTube channel is about the law, its implications, and other themes which are affected and intertwined with law. Although he never hides his non-conservative and non-right bias, his content is always rooted in some legal theme and understanding. That is the context of all his content, channel, and public persona. With 3.5 million subscribers, LegalEagle is arguably one of the most popular YouTube channels in the world that are exclusively about law and its ramifications.
I don't have any knowledge in law, American or otherwise. So I can't really evaluate legal arguments in full. That said, I always find Devin to be a competent and compelling reasoner given the premises he states and the conclusions at which he arrives.
I wish this video was better. I think he's a very useful resource in evaluating serious legal issues, but I also feel like there's really too much in this that's more for those who are already...
I wish this video was better. I think he's a very useful resource in evaluating serious legal issues, but I also feel like there's really too much in this that's more for those who are already voting Harris rather than those who are considering trump/not voting.
I don't know. The criminal vs prosecutor theme is a very smart choice and really shows Devin's rhetorical chops. That's precisely the one comparison that could translate to a fair, morally, lawful...
I don't know. The criminal vs prosecutor theme is a very smart choice and really shows Devin's rhetorical chops. That's precisely the one comparison that could translate to a fair, morally, lawful conservative. Which is pretty much the only audience Devin can hope for.
I don't think it's enough, and I find it mildly ironic since Devin himself is (correctly) mistrusting of prosecutors. There are plenty of people on the fence who feel much the same, and...
I don't think it's enough, and I find it mildly ironic since Devin himself is (correctly) mistrusting of prosecutors. There are plenty of people on the fence who feel much the same, and unfortunately I think some of the strongest points (Trump literally suggesting violence against his opponents) are not actually shown with any evidence. If you already are willing to take someone like Devin at their word, I doubt you aren't aware of this.
I do not take anyone "at their word". I fully expect all public figures to disappoint me at all times. I merely watch and read discourse, and a sequence of discourse that I consider to be of high...
I do not take anyone "at their word". I fully expect all public figures to disappoint me at all times. I merely watch and read discourse, and a sequence of discourse that I consider to be of high quality makes me anticipate more high quality content from that source. I have no input on Devin James Stones true beliefs, thoughts, and motivations. And, to some extent I don't really care. I don't have a moral crystal ball, but I have an elementary social, linguistic, and logical ability that allows to have an idea of what is good content and what is not.
I'm not saying you are. I'm pointing out that if you're coming into this video as someone skeptic of the claims against trump, Devin does not actually present evidence to back up his arguments, so...
I'm not saying you are.
I'm pointing out that if you're coming into this video as someone skeptic of the claims against trump, Devin does not actually present evidence to back up his arguments, so why would this change their opinion?
Maybe they haven't heard about the threats of violence or what not, but now there's some stranger on youtube saying they exist. That's not enough.
I truly believe you are underestimating the efficient use of rhetoric. Devin makes a living of convincing random groups of people that his clients are not liable. And I don't believe it was the...
I truly believe you are underestimating the efficient use of rhetoric. Devin makes a living of convincing random groups of people that his clients are not liable. And I don't believe it was the point of the video to inform anyone. Devin has 100 factual videos like that. It doesn't work.
This video was meant to appeal to the emotions of a very specific kind of Trump voter. He chose to focus on that entirely, reinforcing the theme of prosecutor VS criminal. This is not meant to present evidence. Devin knows evidence is not persuasive for that audience, but emotion is. Making a conservative feel uncomfortable by voting against criminal justice may persuade very small part of a real demographic. Given the circumstances, that is the most one can expect.
Facts have some force on Tildes, but certainly not on every subject. It is misguided to expect evidence to have force elsewhere, even more so among Trump voters. That is just another bias. I am confident that anything even remotely evidentiary on this video is only there so Devin can reiterate the "prosecutor vs criminal" theme in different ways, leading a potential conservative viewer to an emotional state that is progressively more uncomfortable.
Do I firmly believe that video will have a huge effect on people, or at all? No, of course not. Neither does Devin, I assume. I do believe it was a fair shot though. Certainly better than flooding Trump voters with incontrovertible evidence.
I think there's something to be said for this line of reasoning: If you're someone who's deep enough in the MAGA cult to know the specific claims against Trump and still not believe them, you're...
I think there's something to be said for this line of reasoning:
If you're someone who's deep enough in the MAGA cult to know the specific claims against Trump and still not believe them, you're beyond reaching. This video is for low-information voters who acknowledge that Trump might be a bit shady but are voting on policy, be it the economy or trans panic or what have you. The point is to lay out in one place all of Trump's criminality and all the signs that he is a danger to the Republic, to throw into relief just how frightening the prospect of his reelection really is. Basically, it's to scare people straight into voting against him.
Actually, it also does that for left-leaning voters who dislike Kamala, or apathetic people who might otherwise not vote at all.
Also, studies have shown that evidence is not always a primary factor in belief.
I've re-shared on social media, a thing I almost never do. Here's my template, feel free to copy and/or provide feedback:
I've re-shared on social media, a thing I almost never do. Here's my template, feel free to copy and/or provide feedback:
A helpful reminder that election day is November 5th.
Here is where you can double check your polling location:
<Insert your state's polling location lookup link here>
And here is a succinct summary of why this election is the most important one of our lives, from a lawyer, arguing purely on the basis of rule-of-law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bTpbDL5dcg
Feel free to message me if you need assistance getting to your polling location.
Devin James Stone is an American Civil and trial lawyer. His YouTube channel is about the law, its implications, and other themes which are affected and intertwined with law. Although he never hides his non-conservative and non-right bias, his content is always rooted in some legal theme and understanding. That is the context of all his content, channel, and public persona. With 3.5 million subscribers, LegalEagle is arguably one of the most popular YouTube channels in the world that are exclusively about law and its ramifications.
I don't have any knowledge in law, American or otherwise. So I can't really evaluate legal arguments in full. That said, I always find Devin to be a competent and compelling reasoner given the premises he states and the conclusions at which he arrives.
I wish this video was better. I think he's a very useful resource in evaluating serious legal issues, but I also feel like there's really too much in this that's more for those who are already voting Harris rather than those who are considering trump/not voting.
I don't know. The criminal vs prosecutor theme is a very smart choice and really shows Devin's rhetorical chops. That's precisely the one comparison that could translate to a fair, morally, lawful conservative. Which is pretty much the only audience Devin can hope for.
I don't think it's enough, and I find it mildly ironic since Devin himself is (correctly) mistrusting of prosecutors. There are plenty of people on the fence who feel much the same, and unfortunately I think some of the strongest points (Trump literally suggesting violence against his opponents) are not actually shown with any evidence. If you already are willing to take someone like Devin at their word, I doubt you aren't aware of this.
I do not take anyone "at their word". I fully expect all public figures to disappoint me at all times. I merely watch and read discourse, and a sequence of discourse that I consider to be of high quality makes me anticipate more high quality content from that source. I have no input on Devin James Stones true beliefs, thoughts, and motivations. And, to some extent I don't really care. I don't have a moral crystal ball, but I have an elementary social, linguistic, and logical ability that allows to have an idea of what is good content and what is not.
I'm not saying you are.
I'm pointing out that if you're coming into this video as someone skeptic of the claims against trump, Devin does not actually present evidence to back up his arguments, so why would this change their opinion?
Maybe they haven't heard about the threats of violence or what not, but now there's some stranger on youtube saying they exist. That's not enough.
I truly believe you are underestimating the efficient use of rhetoric. Devin makes a living of convincing random groups of people that his clients are not liable. And I don't believe it was the point of the video to inform anyone. Devin has 100 factual videos like that. It doesn't work.
This video was meant to appeal to the emotions of a very specific kind of Trump voter. He chose to focus on that entirely, reinforcing the theme of prosecutor VS criminal. This is not meant to present evidence. Devin knows evidence is not persuasive for that audience, but emotion is. Making a conservative feel uncomfortable by voting against criminal justice may persuade very small part of a real demographic. Given the circumstances, that is the most one can expect.
Facts have some force on Tildes, but certainly not on every subject. It is misguided to expect evidence to have force elsewhere, even more so among Trump voters. That is just another bias. I am confident that anything even remotely evidentiary on this video is only there so Devin can reiterate the "prosecutor vs criminal" theme in different ways, leading a potential conservative viewer to an emotional state that is progressively more uncomfortable.
Do I firmly believe that video will have a huge effect on people, or at all? No, of course not. Neither does Devin, I assume. I do believe it was a fair shot though. Certainly better than flooding Trump voters with incontrovertible evidence.
I think there's something to be said for this line of reasoning:
If you're someone who's deep enough in the MAGA cult to know the specific claims against Trump and still not believe them, you're beyond reaching. This video is for low-information voters who acknowledge that Trump might be a bit shady but are voting on policy, be it the economy or trans panic or what have you. The point is to lay out in one place all of Trump's criminality and all the signs that he is a danger to the Republic, to throw into relief just how frightening the prospect of his reelection really is. Basically, it's to scare people straight into voting against him.
Actually, it also does that for left-leaning voters who dislike Kamala, or apathetic people who might otherwise not vote at all.
Also, studies have shown that evidence is not always a primary factor in belief.
I've re-shared on social media, a thing I almost never do. Here's my template, feel free to copy and/or provide feedback: