this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
624 points (99.1% liked)
Not The Onion
18203 readers
347 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In the definition for "legal precedent"...
Because that's the specific legal term in the legal system...
The settlement wasn't a "legal precedent" because it was a settlement.
But, it was literally a precedent and why he's pushing this now
You cave to a fascist/bully once, it sets the precedent that you will cave and they will press you again.
I legitimately don't understand why people aren't getting the distinction....
It’s because you aren’t understanding the distinction. Settlements are not part of a legal preceding. They are by definition the parties agreeing to arbitrate outside of the legal system. There is no more precedent set by a settlement than any other random two assholes making a deal in private.
Yes, but clearly this person is referring to the other meaning of precedent. As in "he has learned that if he acts like it's illegal and sues, media companies will roll over and give him money without going to trial". It's happened before and he sees no reason for it not to keep happening
Im talking about both definitions. As I said to the other person; arriving at a private deal does not set precedent for other private or public deals even if it sets an expectation in the mind of a certain dumbass. It would only be a precedent legal or otherwise if we now are okay with future presidents doing the same thing.
Yes ...
So when talking about "precedent" why are you insisting that there's an understood "legal" and what was meant was "legal precedent"?
Which we both agree doesn't apply to a settlement.
Instead of thinking I meant "precedent" as a common term which is literally what was said?
I dunno, I'm over explaining it. I'm just fascinated with why you all aren't able to understand.
Quick edit:
Are you thinking of it like there's "precedent" of which there are "legal precedent" or "illegal precedent"?
Is the issue that people don't understand it's two distinct and separate things and not just the same thing but one has an adjective?
It's gonna bug the shit out of me until I figure out where the disconnect is.
Again. If two people make a deal in private it doesn’t set a precedent for another private or public deal. That’s it.
It does...
That's literally what the word "precedent" means.
If you give your dog a treat at 3pm every day, it sets that precedent. You and your dog in private have reached a deal which results in further expectations.
There is no legal system in place there.
But if you give the treat early, you set another precedent that early is an option and the timeline is negotiable, so your dog will ask early
Like, "precedent" is a psychological concept ...
Does that make sense now?
Was the only time you've heard that word in the context of "legal precedence"? That would explain all of this.
If I give my dog a treat every day at the same time that doesn’t mean somebody else has to give their dog a treat at that time which what you are implying.
Does that make sense now?
I'd think the clear analogy would be multiple dogs in the room...
But it's clear no progress is getting made here, have a good one