I feel like I’ve seen mixed conflicting things about him and am unsure.
I get that, but based on the circumstances and the evidence I brought up, I think this is a pretty unique situation that deserves being looked into more closely.
The imperialists definitely aren’t above doing something like this to discredit an enemy or lead them into a position where they could be extradited and tortured. It reminds me a bit of the whole “Uyghur genocide” thing in that questioning the narrative they push is itself socially unacceptable because of the nature of the accusation. It feels gross to argue it, and most reasonable people wouldn’t bother, but that UN report was pretty shocking.
in that questioning the narrative they push is itself socially unacceptable because of the nature of the accusation
slightly off-topic, but it reminded me of this:
The small penis rule is an informal strategy used by authors to evade libel lawsuits. It was described in a New York Times article in 1998:
“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,” said Mr. Friedman. Thus, he continued, libel lawyers have what is known as “the small penis rule”. One way authors can protect themselves from libel suits is to say that a character has a small penis, Mr. Friedman said. “Now no male is going to come forward and say, ‘That character with a very small penis, that’s me!’”[1]
The small penis rule was referenced in a 2006 dispute between Michael Crowley and Michael Crichton. Crowley alleged that after he wrote an unflattering review of Crichton’s novel State of Fear, Crichton included a character named “Mick Crowley” in the novel Next. The character is a child rapist, described as being a Washington, D.C.-based journalist and Yale graduate with a small penis.[2]
lol
