Support NeoGAF

[Chumley]

By all means, hate Chuck. But hate Chuck the actual character depicted in the show, not Chuck the Baby Eating Demon.

Didn't you just say you don't care whether or not he's a good person? Yet you're trying to police how much we dislike him?

Stop trolling.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

Damn, sucks. Though I will watch the shit out of an HBO Jim Jones docudrama.

Oh no. Vince Gilligans characters in a situation where almost everyone dies horribly. Should be positively gut wrenching.

 

[Veelk]

Didn't you just say you don't care whether or not he's a good person? Yet you're trying to police how much we dislike him?

Stop trolling.

I care about people behaving rationally, yes.

In fact, the two things you just said don't have anything to do with one another. Hate him, by all means. Just have an accurate view of the thing you hate. Are you saying that's impossible, that you can only hate what you distort? if you believe that, then...yeah, I guess I am saying don't hate him. But I think it's possible to hate things you have an accurate view of.

 

[Chumley]

I care about people behaving rationally, yes.

In fact, the two things you just said don't have anything to do with one another. Hate him, by all means. Just have an accurate view of the thing you hate. Are you saying that's impossible, that you can only hate what you distort? if you believe that, then...yeah, I guess I am saying don't hate him. But I think it's possible to hate things you have an accurate view of.

The last person who should claim to know the accurate view on a fictional character is someone who just said that they don't care about said characters morality. You're not the authority on rationally observing a character on this show.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Prove it.

Edit: I actually DO think there is a time where he broke his own rules a little bit, but I'm interested in seeing if people spot it.

.... you do know that you're not the showrunner, right?

And that it's just a TV show?

 

[RecRoulette]

You either believe Chuck truly thinks he's helping Jimmy by concocting this elaborate scheme, or he's a hypocrite.

I mean, this nuance went out the window last season when he took Mesa Verde back from Kim.

 

[Veelk]

The last person who should claim to know the accurate view on a fictional character is someone who just said that they don't care about their morality.

Why? I don't mean "I am indifferent to their wrong doings", because...well, I'm not. I'm emotionally invested in the show, after all. Invested in the characters, so if they're wronged and I don't care, the show wouldn't be compelling to me.

I mean in terms of writing quality. You can write a moral character, immoral, that doesn't matter. What matters is that they're well written with nuance and depth, that they have their own worldview, that they're written as actual people. It's in that sense that morality is irrelevant, not that I, myself, am amoral.

Either way, it's just a hobbled way of interpretting the show imo. You're not watching to expand your understanding and empathy of different kinds of people, you're watching to be judgmental of a fictional character. I'm not saying that's a morally wrong way to watch a show, just one that doesn't get you nearly as much satisfaction as watching it in trying to look for depth.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I do think Chuck truly believes he is helping - hence his shock at Jimmy's reaction - but he's also a hypocrite for setting this trap in the first place instead of simply taking Jimmy to court.

Or taking it to the head of Mesa Verde.

 

[Veelk]

.... you do know that you're not the showrunner, right?

And that it's just a TV show?

And what does that have to do with anything?

I'm asking you to prove your statement.

Or are we just making things up entirely now? If someone came in and said something that blatantly didn't happen, like "I can't root for Jimmy anymore after he beat up Kim", in what way would you engage that person in discussion if not "When did that happen?"

I do think Chuck truly believes he is helping - hence his shock at Jimmy's reaction - but he's also a hypocrite for setting this trap in the first place instead of simply taking Jimmy to court.

Or taking it to the head of Mesa Verde.

To court where he knows the case will be tossed out because it's based on lack of evidence, where it'd basically tank any chance of bringing Jimmy to justice?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Hatred is only useful to the extent it doesn't blind you from the truth. When it does, it's a baaaaaaaaad thing. And maybe in the context of a fictional show made for entertainment, it's harmless enough, but people carry this practice over into real life....well, have you SEEN what conclusions people have drawn of Hillary's character based on their illdefined subjective dislike of her? Personally, I prefer to discourage it where I can.

By all means, hate Chuck. But hate Chuck the actual character depicted in the show, not Chuck the Baby Eating Demon.

Um what? People have listed tons of examples that showed Chuck to be a legit piece of shit, and gave more than enough explanation. This has nothing to do with an "ill-defined dislike" (that applies far more to Skyler, actually).

 

[Chumley]

Why? I don't mean "I am indifferent to their wrong doings", because...well, I'm not. I'm emotionally invested in the show, after all. Invested in the characters, so if they're wronged and I don't care, the show wouldn't be compelling to me.

I mean in terms of writing quality. You can write a moral character, immoral, that doesn't matter. What matters is that they're well written with nuance and depth, that they have their own worldview, that they're written as actual people. It's in that sense that morality is irrelevant, not that I, myself, am amoral.

Either way, it's just a hobbled way of interpretting the show imo. You're not watching to expand your understanding and empathy of different kinds of people, you're watching to be judgmental of a fictional character. I'm not saying that's a morally wrong way to watch a show, just one that doesn't get you nearly as much satisfaction as watching it in trying to look for depth.

You should probably stop telling other people what is and isn't a satisfactory way of watching something. I'm not going to get into how and why you watch something with an amoral point of view since I don't know you, but getting into "this is the right way to watch something" is a bad idea.

What I will say is that you're making less and less sense as you go on, and I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish anymore other than some weird attempt at policing discussions.

 

[Veelk]

Um what? People have listed tons of examples that showed Chuck to be a legit piece of shit, and gave more than enough explanation. This has nothing to do with an "ill-defined dislike" (that applies far more to Skyler, actually).

I feel it is, since most of his asshole moments are undercut by validity to his statements that people want to conveniently ignore so they can hate him more. People in this thread don't even want to consider the possibility that he legitimately believes the law is sacred and is doing what he's doing to protect people because "He just wants to fuck Jimmy" is the simpler, easier, and more condemn-able interpretation.

Skyler had it far worse for far less, but I'm seeing a similarity in nature, even if it's a difference of degree.

You should probably stop telling other people what is and isn't a satisfactory way of watching something. I'm not going to get into how and why you watch something with an amoral point of view since I don't know you, but getting into "this is the right way to watch something" is a bad idea.

Why? I did mention that it's just my opinion that it's a less satisfactory. I get that many people have different tastes and maybe they genuinely do enjoy a simpler interpretation of it. But I feel it's valid to argue the merits of looking at it with nuance and depth over looking at it simplistically. Again, I cite the last election as a way of how personal dislike can lead to an inaccurate interpretation of real people and how damaging that can be. That and I just like complexity.

And I'm not sure you quite understand what i mean by watching something the way I do. It's not about amorality, it's more about lack of judgementality.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

If someone came in and said something that blatantly didn't happen, like "I can't root for Jimmy anymore after he beat up Kim", in what way would you engage that person in discussion if not "When did that happen?"

Okay.

Dude, look, we're discussing something that is subjective.

If Jimmy hit another character, that wouldn't be.

People in this thread don't even want to consider the possibility that he legitimately believes the law is sacred and is doing what he's doing to protect people because "He just wants to fuck Jimmy" is the simpler, easier, and more condemn-able interpretation.

This thread has reached Gaming Side levels of hyperbole, holy shit.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

The way you're describing him does make him a one dimensional character. Just a spiteful little gremlim for who is out to ruin his brother's life.

And the dumb thing is that I don't disagree with you. He does treat people like crap. He's rude to Ernie without even recognizing it, he's patronizing to Kim without seeing it, he has insecurities with his wife.

But his view on the law is also important because the fact that he places such importance on it is an insight into why he is the way he is. It's very much informs us on his character because it's what he deems important.

And I think one dividing difference between us is that you look at all this and try to judge him as a (moral) person. I don't disagree with the idea that he's not a good person. I just also don't care. I'm judging him in his strength as a narrative character. And my argument is that you're judgement of him in terms of his morality is making you blind to aspects of him as a character. He's an asshole, but he's got nuance and depth. The latter part of that is way more important than the former.

That's why I say you're wrong. You came to the conclusion that he's an asshole...and that's not a sentiment I disagree with.... but you're letting that conclusion dismiss the subtleties of his character, instead caricaturizing him into something he's not. Since he does shitty things, every aspect of him must be also shitty. No, he's more interesting than that. He's a modern templar knight, trying to do the right thing, and arguably doing the right thing, but blinding himself to his own faults and how he interacts with others. That's his character.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Chuck has depth. Nor is anyone going to bat for Jimmy as if he's a saint.

But there is disagreement in how his view of the law reflects and affects his character. Yes, he likely grew with a strong moral code that solidified into law and procedures being what they are, and exactly as they are. He also seems to expect loyalty, though with the caveat that it's him at the center and not others.

The thing however you seem to deny is that most of Jimmy's actions are because of Chuck's actions drive by the hatred of him. Slippin Jimmy was largely absent throughout Season 1, at least until he learned the truth that Chuck was actively preventing Jimmy from moving anywhere despite toeing the straight and narrow as far as the law was concerned. That drove Jimmy to Cicero, where the old persona resurfaced. With HHMia and Kim, that likely may not have taken place. With Chuck, there was no other way to move except under and out the other side.

And in the end, it demonstrates that Chuck's values are hollow. A mask. The law, on paper, doesn't favor or disappoint. It's a stable foundation to rely on that will never leave or discriminate. He leans on it as if it's air he breaths. And he loves it to where he will abuse it (within the line and to each letter of course) to exact his pain that Jimmy was loved despite having hurt and potentially destroyed the family business. That his own wife favored Jimmy in company. That everything seemed to come with little effort to him, which he either spent years himself working towards or never could. This is overbearing to the point where Chuck actually accomplished his stated purpose of bringing Jimmy around by the time of the dinner taking place, and then cracked the glass, that in the conclusion of Season 1 would shatter, by denying Jimmy a place in the light.

In the end, Chuck isn't bad because Jimmy is good, or vice versa. Neither are blameless, and both have done and will continue to do terrible things. But one party is clearly a malevolent force despite all the aluminum tailored dressing on it. No amount of sublety or layering changes or softens that. In the end, Chuck seems to be the one who will ultimately design the individual Saul Goodman, both directly and otherwise.

Edit: You seem to take his words more seriously than his actions. Even if the law was sacred in his mind, I think it is a warped belief in Jimmy's presence and all manners pertaining to him. Howard seems to hold the sacred mindset as well, if not from a more business oriented standpoint, but the contrast between him and Chuck are pretty clear. While his actions against Kim were extreme, they were a calculated reaction. Not a proactive campaign.

 

[Veelk]

Okay.

Dude, look, we're discussing something that is subjective.

If Jimmy hit another character, that wouldn't be.

Eh...sorta. Motivation is intangible, so it can't be visually demonstrated directly like a physical action can, sure, but that doesn't mean actions that imply motivation can't be proof.

Okay, another example. Someone comes in and says that Jimmy secretly hates Chuck becasue he is prejudiced against balding people. How do you engage that person if not "What scene in the show depicts that?"

 

[Chumley]

I feel it's valid to argue the merits of looking at it with nuance and depth over looking at it simplistically. Again, I cite the last election as a way of how personal dislike can lead to an inaccurate interpretation of real people and how damaging that can be. That and I just like complexity.

First part - everyone here is looking at this show with nuance and depth.

Second part - What the fuck are you talking about

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

Eventually all discussions will lead toward blaming something for Trump getting elected.

 

[Einchy]

Eventually all discussions will lead toward blaming something for Trump getting elected.

Disliking Chuck for being a shit person was the reason Trump won. D:

 

[Chumley]

Disliking Chuck for being a shit person was the reason Trump won. D:

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Disliking Chuck for being a shit person was the reason Trump won. D:

LOL, thanks for this

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Disliking Chuck for being a shit person was the reason Trump won. D:

Chuck is the Nazis.

 

[danm999]

I feel it is, since most of his asshole moments are undercut by validity to his statements that people want to conveniently ignore so they can hate him more. People in this thread don't even want to consider the possibility that he legitimately believes the law is sacred and is doing what he's doing to protect people because "He just wants to fuck Jimmy" is the simpler, easier, and more condemn-able interpretation.

Skyler had it far worse for far less, but I'm seeing a similarity in nature, even if it's a difference of degree.

So sacred he manipulated an employee of his into possibly breaking attorney-client privilege?

 

[Cornballer]

- Podcast for this week is up (audioboom link)

It's also available on iTunes and the usual places.

All the usual suspects are there plus another Jonathan Banks appearance as well as writer Tom Schnauz.

 

[Veelk]

Eventually all discussions will lead toward blaming something for Trump getting elected.

Well...I mean, are you saying that Hillary's perception problem vs her actual character wasn't an element in the election?

All I'm just saying here I never had patience for hatred coloring perception to the point of inaccuracy before the election and you can find posts I made about Chuck similar to the ones I write now if you want to look through my history. But back then, it was only annoying and irrational. Now we have a situation where that kind of thinking cause actual damage to the country.

So my distaste of that kind of thinking has heightened since then. That's the only point I'm making with that. That it's dangerous to abandon reality to indulge in hatred. I hope that's a reasonable enough position for those scoffing.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Chuck has depth. Nor is anyone going to bat for Jimmy as if he's a saint.

But there is disagreement in how his view of the law reflects and affects his character. Yes, he likely grew with a strong moral code that solidified into law and procedures being what they are, and exactly as they are. He also seems to expect loyalty, though with the caveat that it's him at the center and not others.

The thing however you seem to deny is that most of Jimmy's actions are because of Chuck's actions drive by the hatred of him. Slippin Jimmy was largely absent throughout Season 1, at least until he learned the truth that Chuck was actively preventing Jimmy from moving anywhere despite toeing the straight and narrow as far as the law was concerned. That drove Jimmy to Cicero, where the old persona resurfaced. With HHMia and Kim, that likely may not have taken place. With Chuck, there was no other way to move except under and out the other side.

And in the end, it demonstrates that Chuck's values are hollow. A mask. The law, on paper, doesn't favor or disappoint. It's a stable foundation to rely on that will never leave or discriminate. He leans on it as if it's air he breaths. And he loves it to where he will abuse it (within the line and to each letter of course) to exact his pain that Jimmy was loved despite having hurt and potentially destroyed the family business. That his own wife favored Jimmy in company. That everything seemed to come with little effort to him, which he either spent years himself working towards or never could. This is overbearing to the point where Chuck actually accomplished his stated purpose of bringing Jimmy around by the time of the dinner taking place, and then cracked the glass, that in the conclusion of Season 1 would shatter, by denying Jimmy a place in the light.

In the end, Chuck isn't bad because Jimmy is good, or vice versa. Neither are blameless, and both have done and will continue to do terrible things. But one party is clearly a malevolent force despite all the aluminum tailored dressing on it. No amount of sublety or layering changes or softens that. In the end, Chuck seems to be the one who will ultimately design the individual Saul Goodman, both directly and otherwise.

Well, first let me thank you for taking the time to actually engage with my argument to offer counter points. That's what I'd like to see more of, and I appreciate you doing it.

My argument isn't that Chuck's hatred of Jimmy don't drive his actions, but rather that they don't drive his actions alone. To boil down the motivation to one single thing is, if nothing else, not the style by which the writers of the show write their characters. They always have characters doing for a stated reason, and one or more implied reasons, and it's ambiguous to which is more legitimate.

I'd also like to point out that Slippin' Jimmy surfaced multiple times in season 1 before Chuck made his reveal. Jimmy tries to solicit clients with unethical business practices multiple times, as early as the first episode where he nearly gets two guys killed because he decided to scam the wrong old lady. And even in cases where no one got hurt, he moves in shady ways, taking a bribe and staging a crisis for a commercial.

Which is why I think describing Chuck as a 'malevolent force' is overstating things a bit. If Jimmy is an unintentionally destructive force in the legal world, which I think we can factually say he is given all the shady practices he does, then isn't Chuck trying to take him out, even if his actions are tinged by bias, not defendable atleast on the level that an ethical person would try to bring Jimmy to justice?

So sacred he manipulated an employee of his into possibly breaking attorney-client privilege?

Well....he didn't really do that. He had him listen to something, and told him not to do share it. Manipulation is only really actionable if it removes a person from being able to make their own decisions.

The worst you can say is that it's underhanded, but as far as I know, he hasn't done anything illegal.

Like, I never said he was an absolute moral paragon. I'm just saying he's not a hypocrite, and using reverse psychology isn't a crime.

 

[the_firewithin]

Chuck the biggest piece of shit in this breaking universe

 

[RecRoulette]

Well, someone managed to drag Clinton and Trump in here. I'm now officially on team Fuck Chuck.

Edit: Wow, that video was made all the way back in season 1 after the reveal that Chuck blocked Jimmy from becoming a lawyer at HHM.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Well...I mean, are you saying that Hillary's perception problem vs her actual character wasn't an element in the election?

.... Veelk, did you honestly just run with a "people are calling chuck trump" joke post?

 

[Veelk]

.... Veelk, did you honestly just run with a "people are calling chuck trump" joke post?

I'm just clarifying my stance on why the election made me heighten my distaste for people's hatred for someone coloring their perception past the point of rationality. Before, it was just an annoyance, but now that kind of thinking has caused actual damage to real lives, so I dislike it even more. Again, I hope that's not too insane a position to take.

Beyond that, no, BSC has nothing to do with the election.

 

[Dark_castle]

Well, someone managed to drag Clinton and Trump in here. I'm now officially on team Fuck Chuck.

Edit: Wow, that video was made all the way back in season 1 after the reveal that Chuck blocked Jimmy from becoming a lawyer at HHM.

My heart sank in that episode. The look on Jimmy face, the moment when he said he's done with Chuck.

 

[Abelard]

Well this thread escalated quickly. Quick! Abelard's law (think Godwin's law):

"As an online discussion grows longer, the more likely a comparison involving President Donald Trump or his election. "

 

[danm999]

Well....he didn't really do that. He had him listen to something, and told him not to do share it. Manipulation is only really actionable if it removes a person from being able to make their own decisions.

The worst you can say is that it's underhanded, but as far as I know, he hasn't done anything illegal.

Like, I never said he was an absolute moral paragon. I'm just saying he's not a hypocrite, and using reverse psychology isn't a crime.

Ah so the bar has lowered to "considers the law sacred" to, "didn't do anything illegal". To be clear, he didn't just say don't share it, he told Ernesto there would be consequences under law for both of them.

Depending on the illegality of Ernesto sharing that information with Kim and Jimmy, Chuck either knowingly engineered a situation where someone would break the law to get some bad evidence admissible, or he misrepresented the law to an employee in order to trick them to the same end.

While the latter might not be illegal, they both preclude an attitude of someone who considers the law sacred, and who desires to protect people. Chuck clearly considers the law and people around him as means to an end.

I mean, if you're using the boogeyman of the law to scare people into doing what you want, you're already a con artist.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Chuck the biggest piece of shit in this breaking universe

Chuck is a selfish individual with self-worth issues, but he is nowhere near Walter. Best thing I can say about WW was that by the end he was open about what he was.

With Chuck I can maybe throw a few more bones. As an individual separated from his business/skills anyway. Obviously bloodsucking lawyer is better than meth kingpin/car washer.

 

[RecRoulette]

Well, we got the reveal that Rebecca left Chuck, so that rules out Jimmy or Chuck accidentally electocuting her, or whatever weird theories came out around that time that ended with her dead.

 

[Veelk]

Ah so the bar has lowered to "considers the law sacred" to, "didn't do anything illegal".

The bar has always been at "Is not a hypocrite".

Depending on the illegality of Ernesto sharing that information with Kim and Jimmy, Chuck either knowingly engineered a situation where someone would break the law to get some bad evidence admissible, or he misrepresented the law to an employee in order to trick them to the same end.

While the latter might not be illegal, they both preclude an attitude of someone who considers the law sacred, and who desires to protect people. Chuck clearly considers the law and people around him as means to an end.

I'm legitimately curious about this. If the latter is true, then yeah, he misrepresented the law, which I think is illegal for a lawyer to do.

But if it's the former, no, I disagree. Again, no one argued he was an angel, so I totally buy him engineering a situation like htat. But I don't think that's illegal, or even immoral really. Telling someone "This is a crime, don't do it" with the expectation they will anyway is not in any way entrapment or baiting someone or....anything. Ernie is still acting fully within his own power, so he's culpable for his own actions. Even morally, you can't really argue "It's not my bad because someone told me not to do it but thought I really would so I did". Ernie telling Jimmy (or in his case, Kim) is pretty much all on him regardless of what Chuck did. We're culpable for our own actions regardless of others except in particular situations, and I don't think this qualifies.

Essentially what Chuck did was correctly assume that Ernie would alert Jimmy of the tape despite his insistence that it would be illegal for him to do so, which would result in Jimmy breaking and entering to get it. But even calling that manipulation is flimsy, since he didn't push Ernie to react in that particular way and was infact pushing him the opposite direction.

I mean, if you're using the boogeyman of the law to scare people into doing what you want, you're already a con artist.

But he's trying to scare him into NOT doing that. Which was obviously more about completing the illusion that this was an accident on Chuck's part, but no, I don't see that as a con at all, especially if he's being accurate.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I'm going to assume that Veelk is trolling at this point. It's the only way for me to stay in the thread. I'm fine with debate, even heated debate. But Veelk, you for some reason seem like you are taking this personally.

 

[Veelk]

I'm going to assume that Veelk is trolling at this point. It's the only way for me to stay in the thread. I'm fine with debate, even heated debate. But Veelk, you for some reason seem like you are taking this personally.

You just don't know me very well then. I'm just obsessive about narrative analysis. I make super long posts of a bunch of different series. Been doing it for years. I'm not saying it's a healthy obsession, it is what it is.

 

[danm999]

The bar has always been at "Is not a hypocrite".

If you claim the law is sacred and then either:

1) Break it or
2) Misrepresent it to people to manipulate them;

you're a hypocrite either way.

I'm legitimately curious about this. If the latter is true, then yeah, he misrepresented the law, which I think is illegal for a lawyer to do.

But if it's the former, no, I disagree. Again, no one argued he was an angel, so I totally buy him engineering a situation like htat. But I don't think that's illegal, or even immoral really. Telling someone "This is a crime, don't do it" with the expectation they will anyway is not in any way entrapment or baiting someone or....anything. Ernie is still acting fully within his own power, so he's culpable for his own actions. Even morally, you can't really argue "It's not my bad because someone told me not to do it but thought I really would so I did". Ernie telling Jimmy (or in his case, Kim) is pretty much all on him regardless of what Chuck did. We're culpable for our own actions regardless of others except in particular situations, and I don't think this qualifies.

Chuck straight up says there would be legal consequences for both of them.

So if Chuck is being honest in this scene, that means Chuck simply sharing the information, even inadvertently (which we know he didn't do) with Ernesto breaches the law and what he was telling Ernesto to do wasn't stopping him from committing a crime, it was stopping him from compounding Chuck's crime.

There's really no getting him off the hook here.

Now I actually think Chuck was bullshitting him, I don't think he'd actively break the law on a long shot like that. I do absolutely think he'd misrepresent it to con someone.

 

[rekameohs]

Watched the episode again. Jimmy gets a dollar in change from Los Pollos Hermanos, then goes back to work at his firm, where he doesn't have a dollar for Kim.

Gilligan! 😫

 

[Veelk]

If you claim the law is sacred and then either:

1) Break it or
2) Misrepresent it to people to manipulate them;

you're a hypocrite either way.

Chuck straight up says there would be legal consequences for both of them.

So if Chuck is being honest in this scene, that means Chuck simply sharing the information, even inadvertently (which we know he didn't do) with Ernesto breaches the law and what he was telling Ernesto to do wasn't stopping him from committing a crime, it was stopping him from compounding Chuck's crime.

There's really no getting him off the hook here.

Now I actually think Chuck was bullshitting him, I don't think he'd actively break the law on a long shot like that. I do absolutely think he'd misrepresent it to con someone.

I rewatched that scene. First, no, his phrasing was that there could be, not would be, which is speculative and perfectly possible. And I don't believe he mentioned legal consequence, just "terrible" and "life changing". Him being fired from HHM could be a terrible and lifechanging for him, but nothing legal. He left his phrasing deliberately vague so Ernie wouldn't know what he was talking about, since he didn't even say what the connection between client confidentiality (who is the client in question here?) has to him sharing that tape.

Not to mention that he was never planning on going to court with that tape in the first place, and that recording is his personal property, so he's actually free to share it with anyone.

Someone who knows law better than me could probably make better legal sense of what is going on, but you're interpretation seems to rely on Chuck saying things he didn't actually say. For me, the least legally palpable thing chuck seems to have done is put the fear of the law into Ernie while not informing Ernie of what he might actually do wrong. But since he did that to run COUNTER to Ernie telling Jimmy about the tape, I don't think it would hold any water in an argument that Chuck manipulated Ernie to tell him.

 

[danm999]

I rewatched that scene. First, no, his phrasing was that there could be, not would be, which is speculative and perfectly possible. And I don't believe he mentioned legal consequence, just "terrible" and "life changing". Him being fired from HHM could be a terrible and lifechanging for him, but nothing legal. He left his phrasing deliberately vague so Ernie wouldn't know what he was talking about, since he didn't even say what the connection between client confidentiality (who is the client in question here?) has to him sharing that tape.

Not to mention that he was never planning on going to court with that tape in the first place, and that recording is his personal property, so he's actually free to share it with anyone.

Someone who knows law better than me could probably make better legal sense of what is going on, but you're interpretation seems to rely on Chuck saying things he didn't actually say. For me, the least legally palpable thing chuck seems to have done is put the fear of the law into Ernie while not informing Ernie of what he might actually do wrong. But since he did that to run COUNTER to Ernie telling Jimmy about the tape, I don't think it would hold any water.

This just defaults us back to misrepresenting the law then. If the tape was Chuck's personal property and he was free to share it with whoever he chooses he misrepresented the law to Ernesto. He misrepresented Ernesto's responsibility.

And if he wasn't talking legal consequences...fuck implying someone could get shitcanned at your company for playing a tape you made them play is straight up egregious too and would be horribly hypocritical and unethical. Might even be illegal on top depending on New Mexico employment law.

You are bending into a pretzel here to defend Chuck and it's kind of funny.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

Well...I mean, are you saying that Hillary's perception problem vs her actual character wasn't an element in the election?

What the fuck are you talking about man? How you get that from my post? I'm saying "Trump" is an overused analogy to try and disarm an argument. I've seen someone else say that complaining about whitewashing is why we got Trump elected. It seems like nothing can be discussed without someone saying "this is why Trump got elected." Not even a TV show.

And Chuck doesn't have a perception problem. Everything we see of him is what the showrunners and writers have decided we should see. They're not character assassinating him because that is his character as written on the page. And if people see all that and make a judgement that they hate him, then it's totally fair.

 

[Veelk]

This just defaults us back to misrepresenting the law then. If the tape was Chuck's personal property and he was free to share it with whoever he misrepresented the law to Ernesto.

And fuck implying someone could get shitcanned at your company for playing a tape you made them play is straight up egregious too and would be horribly hypocritical and unethical. Might even be illegal on top depending on New Mexico employment law.

You are bending into a pretzel here to defend Chuck and it's kind of funny .

I didn't say that Chuck implied Ernie getting fired. All he said is "Terrible consequences. Life changing consequences." And that's vague enough for Ernie to imagine whatever he wants. I was just throwing that he might say he meant that Ernie gets fired (legally) or....well, it could mean anything, really. And as far as HHM treating their employee's unethically, that's nothing new. Remember how Howard relegated Kim to the "cornfields" because she lost the Kettlemen's without it being her fault and she actually got them a great deal? Or how they punished her for Jimmy's commercial? HHM love for their employee's is highly conditional. But legal, I'm guessing.

And again, I'd like someone whose more well versed in legal language to clear up if what Chuck even did was misrepresent the law, because I don't know if "Client confidentiality binds us. Don't tell anyone. There could be consequences" qualifies, if only because it seems too vague to not be true. He's scaring Ernie with the law, but I don't think he's misrepresenting it. They DO have client confidentiality binding them, and there COULD be terrible, life changing consequences that can come out of Ernie telling someone about the tape.

Can I offer my own counterpoint to my argument? Because there is a situation where Chuck DEFINITELY did something illegal, but no one has brought it up, mostly because it's petty.

Back when Jimmy did his commercial, he denied Chuck his newspaper so he wouldn't find out about it, so Chuck went out to get his neighbors. He left some money in it's place so he didn't just take it without giving back, but you can't legally do that. You can't take someone's property and leave money in it's place if the property owner hasn't consented to selling the property to you.

That's a definitive case of lawbreaking that would actionable if this neighbore gave a shit. But I don't know how actionable what Chuck did with Ernie is. I hope that proves I'm not so obsessed with defending Chuck so much as I just don't think you have a strong argument on your side.

What the fuck are you talking about man? How you get that from my post? I'm saying "Trump" is an overused analogy to try and disarm an argument. I've seen someone else say that complaining about whitewashing is why we got Trump elected. It seems like nothing can be discussed without someone saying "this is why Trump got elected." Not even a TV show.

I guess I misread the intent of htat post in particular, so I apologize. But if you read past that, it shows why I brought up the election. Not because Trump is analogous to Chuck, just why I have less patience for personal dislike coloring people's perception of people than I did before.

And Chuck doesn't have a perception problem. Everything we see of him is what the showrunners and writers have decided we should see. They're not character assassinating him because that is his character as written on the page. And if people see all that and make a judgement that they hate him, then it's totally fair.

From what I read, I disagree with people's reading insofar that every action Chuck ever takes against Jimmy can be reduced to Chuck wanting to take Jimmy down. I'm not saying that's not a part of it, just that it's not the only part, and people denying the other aspect, particularly his legal fervor, as legitimate motivation. And that I think is a misread of the situation.

 

[danm999]

I didn't say that Chuck implied Ernie getting fired. All he said is "Terrible consequences. Life changing consequences." And that's vague enough for Ernie to imagine whatever he wants. I was just throwing that he might say he meant that Ernie gets fired (legally) or....well, it could mean anything, really.

I mean, this is the tactic the mob uses to intimidate people. Also;

People in this thread don't even want to consider the possibility that he legitimately believes the law is sacred and is doing what he's doing to protect people

Lmao.

And as far as HHM treating their employee's unethically, that's nothing new. Remember how Howard relegated Kim to the "cornfields" because she lost the Kettlemen's without it being her fault and she actually got them a great deal? Or how they punished her for Jimmy's commercial?

Well they didn't dismiss Kim first of all (prolly cause they DIDN'T want to run into legal trouble with someone who actually knows the law), but yeah Chuck's company is also run by another asshole. So what?

And again, I'd like someone whose more well versed in legal language to clear up if what Chuck even did was misrepresent the law, because I don't know if "Client confidentiality binds us. Don't tell anyone. There could be consequences" qualifies, if only because it seems too vague to not be true. He's scaring Ernie with the law, but I don't think he's misrepresenting it. They DO have client confidentiality, and there COULD be terrible, life changing consequences that can come out of it.

Well first of all, if you're arguing the tape was Chuck's property and he was free to share it, saying there was even a client who needed their confidentiality protected in the first place is a pretty big misrepresentation of the situation to begin with, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Chumley]

I didn't say that Chuck implied Ernie getting fired. All he said is "Terrible consequences. Life changing consequences." And that's vague enough for Ernie to imagine whatever he wants. I was just throwing that he might say he meant that Ernie gets fired (legally) or....well, it could mean anything, really. And as far as HHM treating their employee's unethically, that's nothing new. Remember how Howard relegated Kim to the "cornfields" because she lost the Kettlemen's without it being her fault and she actually got them a great deal? Or how they punished her for Jimmy's commercial? HHM love for their employee's is highly conditional. But legal, I'm guessing.

And again, I'd like someone whose more well versed in legal language to clear up if what Chuck even did was misrepresent the law, because I don't know if "Client confidentiality binds us. Don't tell anyone. There could be consequences" qualifies, if only because it seems too vague to not be true. He's scaring Ernie with the law, but I don't think he's misrepresenting it. They DO have client confidentiality binding them, and there COULD be terrible, life changing consequences that can come out of it.

Can I offer my own counterpoint to my argument? Because there is a situation where Chuck DEFINITELY did something illegal, but no one has brought it up, mostly because it's petty.

Back when Jimmy did his commercial, he denied Chuck his newspaper so he wouldn't find out about it, so Chuck went out to get his neighbors. He left some money in it's place so he didn't just take it without giving back, but you can't legally do that. You can't take someone's property and leave money in it's place if the property owner hasn't consented to selling the property to you.

That's a definitive case of lawbreaking that would actionable if this neighbore gave a shit. But I don't know how actionable what Chuck did with Ernie is. I hope that proves I'm not so obsessed with defending Chuck so much as I just don't think you have a strong argument on your side.



I guess I misread the intent of htat post in particular, so I apologize. But if you read past that, it shows why I brought up the election. Not because Trump is analogous to Chuck, just why I have less patience for personal dislike coloring people's perception of people than I did before.



From what I read, I disagree with people's reading insofar that every action Chuck ever takes against Jimmy can be reduced to Chuck wanting to take Jimmy down. I'm not saying that's not a part of it, just that it's not the only part, and people denying the other aspect, particularly his legal fervor, as legitimate motivation. And that I think is a misread of the situation.

So now we're back to debating the legality of what Chuck did. As if that has any relevance at all to your original goalpost, that everyone here is a simpleton for hating Chuck.

Twisting yourself into a pretzel indeed.

 

[rec0ded1]

Screw it, I'm pulling a spicer

Fuck Chuck Period.

 

[Veelk]

I mean, this is the tactic the mob uses to intimidate people.

Yes, they do. They specifically word it like that because it's a legal way to threaten someone. Again, you keep coming back to this idea that I think Chuck is a good guy who wouldn't do unethical things, and my only point is that he's not a hypocrite in regards to following the law.

Difference between him and the mob though is that the mob is using legal phrasing to threaten something illegal. Chuck is using legal phrasing to threaten legal consequences, at worst.

Well they didn't dismiss Kim first of all (prolly cause they DIDN'T want to run into legal trouble with someone who actually knows the law), but yeah Chuck's company is also run by another asshole. So what?

So I'm trying to communicate that I am not defending Chuck's morality in total, just he is authentic in stated motivation that he thinks the law is the right way to do things and follows that through.

Well first of all, if you're arguing the tape was Chuck's property and he was free to share it, saying there was even a client who needed their confidentiality protected in the first place is a pretty big misrepresentation of the situation to begin with, wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps, but Chuck didn't say that. Again, his language is very specific. He says that he and Ernie are bound by client confidentiality (Not that there was a client, just that they were bound by client confidentiality, the law), which is a fact and that him telling someone about the tape could result in terrible, lifechanging consequences, which is speculation. He doesn't establish a connection between confidentiality, the tape, and the consequences. He says them in a frazzled, disjointed, almost non-sequitor sequence that doesn't make a lot of sense.

And again, this is all clearly intentional to communicate to Ernie "This is important and has to do with Jimmy and he could be in trouble, don't ask questions, panic panic panic" in big, neon sign letters.

But without him connecting the way this all would play out, he doesn't actually misrepresent anything. He just threw a random collection of facts in Ernie's face and let Ernie make bad connections between them.

Edit: I'm a little wrong here, actually. Just rewatched it again. He did say that because of client confidentiality laws, therefore Ernie can't tell anyone, so that is a connection and he implied it. But again, I don't know if that is actually a mispresentation of law.

So now we're back to debating the legality of what Chuck did. As if that has any relevance at all to your original goalpost, that everyone here is a simpleton for hating Chuck.

Twisting yourself into a pretzel indeed.

The original goalpost of the discussion with Damm is that Chuck believes in the law and is not a hypocrite, not that he never did a bad thing in his life. The original goalpost of this broader discussion is that Chuck is motivated by the idea of being an ethical lawyer, who does things for the good of the people, which involves proving that a felony occurred.

The moral argument was more about why Chuck is so obsessed with persuing Jimmy and evaluating Chuck's morality as a whole. He does what he does because he sees Jimmy breaking the law and considers it his duty to bring him to justice. That's a morally motivated goal that is not entirely without justification and that should be taken into account when evaluating Chuck's character. BUT! That doesn't mean he is the kind, considerate, or moral in everything he does, which involves things like the vague fear he put into Ernie.

This discussion about whether Chuck ever breaks the law (and is thus a hypocrite) is something different from the discussion of about how he frames his world view around being an ethical person (which is an element I feel is ignored whenever his resentment of Jimmy enters into discussion).

 

[stenbumling]

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, just wanted to say that I love it. Just goes to show how well realized these characters are.

Spoiler

Team Kim

 

[danm999]

Yes, they do. They specifically word it like that because it's a legal way to threaten someone. Again, you keep coming back to this idea that I think Chuck is a good guy who wouldn't do unethical things, and my only point is that he's not a hypocrite in regards to following the law.

It is in fact, not perfectly legal to intimidate someone just because you don't specify what you're going to do. I feel that's pretty remedial.

Perhaps, but Chuck didn't say that. Again, his language is very specific. He says that he and Ernie are bound by client confidentiality (Not that there was a client, just that they were bound by client confidentiality, the law), which is a fact and that him telling someone about the tape could result in terrible, lifechanging consequences, which is speculation. He doesn't establish a connection between confidentiality, the tape, and the consequences. He says them in a frazzled, disjointed, almost non-sequitor sequence that doesn't make a lot of sense.

There can't be client confidentiality without a client. I'm sorry you cannot have it both ways here. Chuck is full of shit.

 

[Veelk]

I decided to look it up. Quick, lazy google search yields:

https://www.thelaw.com/law/fraud-and-misrepresentation-civil-criminal-offenses.289/

Generally, many fraud laws require the presence of the following:

A person makes false statement concerning a material fact;

who knows or should know that the statement is false or has no knowledge of whether the representation of a fact is true or false;

which is made to a person who reasonably relies upon the false statement;

who suffers damages as a consequence of relying and acting upon the false statement.

Also, the examples it gives typically rely on some kind of security risk for finances or privacy. Meaning they have to enter in some kind of contract, or atleast put their personal security at risk.

As far as I can tell, just general lying about the law isn't necessarily illegal, and it seems to rely on the idea that the defendant suffers for having executed an action on the act of fraud.

The closest case that someone might have is that if HHM decides to actually punish Ernie for telling Jimmy, which will constitute damages. But if they let him off, Ernie suffers no damages, so no consequence for acting on fraud. But honestly, I think it's more the fact Jimmy being brought to court for his actions would not consistute "an unfair and unlawful gain" as the description says.

It is in fact, not perfectly legal to intimidate someone just because you don't specify what you're going to do. I feel that's pretty remedial.

I don't know what hte actual law is, but that's atleast the stereotype. Saying "it'd be a shame if something happened to it" isn't supposed to be actionable because the person isn't claiming to do anything. I don't know if they changed the law so that people can't get away with that or what, but my point is that Chuck is working around the law, like a mob would, by keeping his phrasing legal while doing something unethical.

But it doesn't matter anyway since I did make a mistake and he does actually imply there is a client. Never the less, that doesn't matter either because misrepresentation, as far as I can tell, doesn't work like we're speculating it does, atleast insofar as I can find. Maybe Chuck can flat out lie to Ernie, legally.

There can't be client confidentiality without a client. I'm sorry you cannot have it both ways here. Chuck is full of shit.

Technically, you can. If Chuck was referring to the client confidentiality law, in the abstract. Like, the policy they have in place as a legal firm. As employees of HHM, they are bound by that policy in general, even if they are currently clientless, that's the legal policy they have to abide by. But like I said, I fucked up, and Chuck did imply there was a client, or atleast a case in which a client was involved with the tape....but, as I said, I'm not finding any evidence that just flat out lying about that constitutes misrepresentation, legally speaking.





http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others.html

This says:

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person

This is the closest I can find, except Chuck isn't in the course of representing any client at the moment. The only case he had was Mesa Verde, and he lost them, so right now he's only working on Sandpiper(I think?), and nothing about that is relevant to Jimmy as of now. So I don't know if that qualifies. And the link that lead me there said not all states have adopted this rule.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...statements_to_others/comment_on_rule_4_1.html

This is slightly more elaborate

A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts.

Okay, so, if I understand this correctly, a lawyers is obligated to be truthful IF he's presenting himself on a client's behalf to others. Since Chuck isn't doing that (because a client currently doesn't exist and even if they did, I'm not sure lawyers represent their clients 24/7), it seems he has the freedom to lie to Ernie.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Subtle:



Slow down ... this is a dead end ... stop what you're doing ... it will lead to your death.

My man, I noticed that foreshadowing too.

And Ernie has a pretty nice whip for such a quiet unassuming guy

I thought the same thing. Shit, dude's got a bangin car for being on a paralegal's salary.

I believe it's Chucks car.