Dude it’s 2020. Only white people can be racist. Duh.

You're up there for most ignorant post on 2p2 in 2020 so congrats on that. Maybe search "why is blackface offensive" and learn something. Then think about why those two dressing up as White Chicks isn't offensive in the least.

thanks carl for ruining another thread, this thread is now worse than dnegs

enoch crawl back 2 your cave pls.

utter **** this last page. uneducated people is just sad.

gg threadh.

1) Danny in blackface was hilarious
2) Danny’s recent outbursts were hilarious
3) srys recent video also hilarious

And I’m glad I’ve been able to watch them all, ppl getting to damn sensitive these days.

Also Danny being a liberal doesn’t mean anything....

I have visited three threads in the past six years and Carl is angry in 66% of them.

I’m usually only arguing with the introverted nerds.
I’m actually pleasant to play with at a table, and usually get the table talking and have fun. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever had any bad encounters worth remembering while playing, or even in life in general.

It’s just the mob mentality here, or any other forum... where people feel courageous and strong and like to try and gang up on people. It’s why most people are afraid to comment or start their own threads.

Seeing as I don’t hide who I am, the cowards who talk ****still have never said a word to me in person,, and never would.

I just assume the haters are running low on UI, and are mad they are stuck inside their houses with mom and dad.

All the best.

Except the millenial "outrage mob" has conflated playing a real character with what Blackface historically actually is, a caricatured version of black people in general. Blackface goes back to turn of the century, and for you millenials, I mean 1900's. It was a caricature of black people in general.

This is different then say Kimmel in makeup playing Karl Malone, that is not what Blackface is, as much as the outrage mob would like to conflate it as such. And I'm no fan of Kimmel and his bs political ramblings by the way just fyi.

Daniel sure brings out the best of 2p2, doesn't he?

best meaning worst then i agree

What you write there is actually very funny and false of course.
I think Tom cruise got awarded 10 million just because some director said he had an affair with him.

Check this out: ( and it's literally the first hit I got on my search. I'm sure there is endless more.
Google celebrities sued for defamation

https://m.ranker.com/list/celebritie.../jacob-shelton

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune...efamation/amp/

"This list of cases won will surprise you!"
https://www.jdjournal.com/2017/10/01...prise-you/amp/

He is not only slandering Daniel pretty hard. Also is he slandering gay people. If you do not believe that is homphobic I can't help you. In legal terms it certainly is.
Slandering him as a homophobic is what? Hypocracy?

If gg dropped him because of the video.

How much can you get for a defamation lawsuit?
For example, if a person was working a $100,000 job and the slander caused him or her to be fired and to be ostracized from the position and was only able to earn $50,000, the annual amount of damages would start at $50,000.

In other words If daniel gets an annual salary of 3m from gg and this video somehow ruined his reputation and job. He could sue for 3m per year.

And I believe there is people that got successfully sued just for something they wrote on Twitter or other social media.

This tangent is quite possibly the most important tangent in tangent history. At the very least, the group of 3-4 women between the ages of 35-40 who fight over who gets to sing Celebrity Skin whenever we go to karaoke would have something to say about the original comment.

It is a very creative and well made video but I think a very unwise one from a legal perspective and I think Doug Polk and SrslySerious (assuming they are the co-creators, they may not be) have lost their minds by putting it out. Their temporary period of elation could be vastly reversed by a lot of legal problems, particularly when the person targeted by the video is one of wealth and resources.

I have never been called to the bar in England, apart from for a drink, but the extreme nature of the video I think has definite potential for its creator(s) to be sued for defamation.

"Fair usage", "he defamed himself", "they were his own words", "it's satire". Sure these are all factors, but there is still a threshold if/when crossed where it is defamation and would not be seen in law as otherwise.

The question is whether DNegs could be bothered to go down the route of legal action, with all the hassle, time, energy, stress, and potential legal costs it might cause, but if I am right that there is a strong case for defamation then he could destroy or severely damage his arch enemy(ies), at least financially, by taking legal action.

The HU 4 Rollz if it ever happens is just immature kids stuff that won't resolve the beef.

There will be a line of plaintiffs waiting at the Courthouse door the morning Mr. Trump leaves office.

In this video you can see 4 famous black artists talk about Jimmy Fallons case which is exactly the same case. It was a blackface sketch and they are unanimously for it was ok.

You know the man ain’t playing around when he don’t offer you best wishes.

IRT Daniel, when I left poker six years ago he was like the good guy ambassador, a poker playing Christian from the good ol north. Maybe not Canada’s most famous lump of coal, but not far from it.

Now he’s impersonating Fisher Stevens on the reg, perhaps belongs to a cult and is threatening to feed a man his teeth via his anus because the guy insulted his current wife?

The world is upside down I tell you.

I can't tell who is leveling whom in this thread, so it's quite possible I'm falling for a big one here.

For starters, to those claiming defamation, please stop until you first understand the actual laws around it. And no, none of those articles apply to the Srsly's Negreanu video because each of the famous celebrity cases involve people who had falsehoods purported to be facts.

I swear, defamation is part of a Triple Crown of criminal justice terms that people continually misunderstand/misuse, along with "hearsay" and "entrapment."

Secondly, I found the "I'll break your teeth and feed them to you anally" pretty damn funny, to be honest. Sure, not a good move in terms of representation for a company, so it wasn't exactly a graceful moment on DNegs part. But in terms of a threat? Brilliant. Wonderfully specific.

Up there with the exchange in The Nutty Professor. Instead of merely saying "I'm gonna kill you," Larry Miller says something like "I'm going to strangle you and choke off your air supply until you simply pass away."

Sort of reminds me of a time when I nearly got into (and ultimately out of) a confrontation with some douche. Hard to explain, short version is that I sprained my ankle and some clown thought it was hilarious. In a very calm voice, I told the guy, "If you find this funny, I will sever your arm at the shoulder, then sodomize your wife with it*." Scared the hell out of him. I think it was the overall explicitness of the statement, or maybe the deadpan delivery. If I had yelled "I'M GONNA KICK YOUR ASS," and acted like I wanted to throw down, it would have been seen as faux macho tough-guy fronting, and I would have gotten my ass kicked. Instead, he just started telling me to calm down, saying how sorry he was, he didn't mean it, etc.

(*I often regret not replacing "it" with "humeral head." It's just more graphic. But ambiguous pronoun use remains one my great weaknesses as a writer, still trying to be better.)

Finally, as for Negreanu's blackface, not surprising he has never shown any contrition for it. He doesn't think he did anything wrong, as he detailed in this 2007 blog post. (Most people on here have probably seen that by now, but the link is for those who haven't.) Should he apologize? I'll probably get excoriated for this, but I both understand his point of view and find his take tone-deaf at the same time.

Ultimately, my stance is similar to justcalll above: apologies are fine, even noble, if the person is genuinely remorseful. But in many situations – like this – apologies accomplish nothing. Those who think Negreanu is in the clear will say he didn't need to apologize, those who were offended won't believe one word of it anyhow, and both sides will just accuse him of CYA.

And we all know the one person in this who might think about protecting his A...

Im sorry pal but if you dont understand the difference between me claiming “I had a gay affair with Daniel Negreanu” and me making a funny video of dildos pouring out of his mouth then Im the one who cant help you.

Again - there are few limits to satire and parody in this country. And yes, one of us (not you) went to law school and practices law.

Relevant why?

In legal terms he can at least stop them from spreading it right? I mean would you want a video of you circeling the internet with a Dick in your mouth? Are you sure that is legal? How come we don't see it anywhere else?

I have to admit it was funny because he said cock all time. Yeah it was funny...

I can feel the banhammer hovering over my hat if you are correct and I'm not so sure if I deserve it this time.

Daniel is putting himself out there. And with very few controversies. And Doug is bored obviously.

if Hockey it's gretzgy and lemiouex

I believe there is a *possible* case to answer of defamation and consequential loss of or damage to earnings, plus a possible case to pursue for the makers of The Masterclass.

Some points that DNegs counsel might argue if there were ever a legal case:

* How is a casual viewer of the video supposed to know that the end part of the video is a meme of DNegs making that motion? (I think with thin air or with a drink, I don't remember which) rather than the objects that have been skillfully software imaging added to the sequence.

* Also one of the main thrusts of the video appears to be (I personally think obviously is) to suggest to the viewer the nature of DNeg's sexual orientation. While this suggestion might be a well known one as a possible long standing joke around some of the poker community, it is not well known as just a possible joke among a lot of the poker community or among the wider general public. Even if his sexuality is as inferred, it is for the person themselves to decide if they want to go public about it, not for it to be bullied out of them.

* Then there is the parking in the disabled parking space. This appears to be confirmed by posters ITT and I believe by DNegs himself as parking within an enclosed private area for trailers, so unless it can be demonstrated that it was denying a disabled parking permit holder parking within that private area then there appears to be little or nothing done wrong by DNegs. Also, without any context at all, the image showing in the video of it suggests a flagrant parking violation within a disabled parking bay, which it seems it was not.

Regarding the makers of The Masterclass:

* Well their counsel may have a case in claiming that although some of the content of the video is fair in so far as it shows DNeg's behaviour being the opposite of what he is teaching in the Masterclass, much of the rest of the content of the video and the way it is stitched together to show DNegs in a very poor light, questioning his very integrity, and inferring that he has racist tendencies, all of which has no context given, is damaging to their revenue and to their overall brand.

I personally think that DNeg's claim of defamation and related loss of earnings would have the greater chance of succeeding because the attack is a personal one on him, that happens to use the Masterclass footage as a vehicle and a framework to build it with, whereas the Masterclass company are indirect victims, if in fact legally they are victims of anything.

wisdom,

you left off the choice center!

Yes you are right, it could be an infringement of Choice Centre's trademark, let alone the fact that it's been used as an overlay on a sequence showing a representation of a sexual act.

As I said, IMO the creators have lost their minds. It's almost as if they have reacted like over excited schoolboys to DNeg's live stream blow ups and forgot that you can't just create and publish absolutely any content you want to, on the basis that it's just satire, there are still acceptable limits and various laws that may apply.

If you spent half as much time looking up case law as you did typing out your post you would have never typed out your post. You have a deep misunderstanding of what represents defamation and what threshold is required to even have a fighting chance in winning a defamation suit.