u/Arvydas_Saboner

>Hard pass. This broad is a stinker >>How so? >>>Women are not funny in general. >>>>Feeling edgy today are we. >>>>>Feeling truthful. >>>>>>Hey, I get it honest Abe. Live your truth sister. If the only thing that can get you to chuckle is a man then that's the honest truth. No women can make me feel the joyful feeling of laughter, that's gay as hell! >>Why? >>>I just dont find her funny. Her comedy is typical relationship stuff that I just dont laugh at lol >>>>I don’t think you’ve actually seen her stand up if that’s your takeaway lol. Also it’s okay for dudes to do that in stand up but not for women— not that Taylor’s stand up is even that way. >>>>>if her stand up is anything like her performance on this pod, I'm out. >>>>>>if her stand up is anything like her performance on this pod, I'm out. >>>>>>>Dude she was navigating Foley’s relapse and awkwardness. She deserves a damn medal. >>>>>>>>They deserve a funnier guest. >>>>>>>>>I don’t like all the guests they have. I just move and don’t leave 50 comments about how I don’t like the guest. That’s what normal people do. >>>>>>>>>>Sounds like you love commenting on Reddit. >>>>>>>>>>>Sure. But I’m not responding to every comment about how much a hate a guest. That’s just weird. >>>>>>>>>>>>You love responding to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, I’m also not telling everyone how much a guest sucked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am telling everyone how bad a guest is. Congrats on figuring out how our comments are different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah you can leave one comment about it. Not everyone needs to know what you think.

.

>I heard she’s a real c u next Tuesday off stage. Hard pass. >>I have worked in a middle of nowhere comedy club that Taylor has performed in over the past ten plus years. She has been nothing short of the kindest performer to come through every single time. How she is on stage and on pods/interviews is how she is with everyone. >>>thanks - as if I needed another reason NOT to watch her standup. >>dons't surprise me at all. You can definitely tell from this pod she sucks.

.

>good get, she is funny >>funny how? She didn't say a single thing on this ep that was funny. She gave David Cross a run for his money on the worst guest ever. >>>Bro you're replying to everyone on this thread about how you didn't like her. Relax dude. It'll be ok >>>>Glad my message has been conveyed >>>>>Your message of being a weird incel has been conveyed. >>>>>>What?! I’m not an incel!

.

>Taylor is so hilarious and down to earth. And she was the kindest person to be on for Foley’s relapse. >>tell me which moments on this pod did she make you laugh out loud? I'd like to know if I missed something. >>>I’m not explaining anything to you lol. I’ve watched it twice and it’s funny. Sorry you hate women and don’t have a sense of humor 🤷🏻‍♂️ >>>>Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said I hate women?? >>>>>Me. I said it. >>>>>>Omg. I had no idea saying a comic was unfunny would mean I hate women. Wow. Oh but, David cross was a disaster too. Does that mean I hate men too?!? Do I hate all genders!?! >>>>>>>David Cross is a disaster on most pods and was years ago. That’s the best you got? Love how you couldn’t name a woman that’s been on the pod that you liked and instead named a male guest from years ago. >>>>>>>>Bert, Tom, Schultz, schaub, Joey Diaz. I can go on if you want. >>>>>>>>>Still didn’t name a woman you liked on the pod bozo lol. You’re proving my point so well. >>>>>>>>>>Why would I have to? I already told you hate both male and female comics. How does hating one woman guest equate to me hating all women guests? Make sense of that reasoning for me. >>>>>>>>>>>You can’t name one female guest you’ve liked lol >>>>>>>>>>>>You can’t explain your reasoning. You have to be able to make sense of an argument you keep on trying to convey. We can all just say words and pretend they have meaning. So let me ask you one more time, how do you know i haven’t thought any female guest was funny? >>>>>>>>>>>>>You literally can’t name one female comic you found funny. That’s all the reasoning I need lol. And at this point I wouldn’t believe you if you named someone because it’s been so many callouts and you still couldn’t name one. If you can’t understand how ridiculous that is, not sure what else to tell you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have the logic of a 3 year old. How do you survive the world?

.

>Nice! Looking forward to this one! >>spoiler alert, it sucked >>>women- first they won’t let you touch them then they think they can do comedy- booo!

>>>I was gonna make about a dozen comments on this post trying to convince people she’s not funny but looks like you beat me to it, thanks brother!

.

>early? she made it a bad ep the entire time >>Dude are you commenting on every single comment? Are you okay lol? >>>Yup. Just trying to quell anyone’s delusions that this was a good ep and good guest. >>>>Think people could make that decision for themselves without commenting on all the replies? I get that you don’t like women. >>>>>Not sure they can because this ep was obviously a sad disaster. >>>>>>You seem to be one of the few who thinks this way but think you can make up for it by replying to every comment >>>>>>>It’s almost like AYG Reddit will like anything they put out. Including disaster shows like this one. You stick a wet mop in the guest chair and you guys will love it. Fucking imbeciles. >>>>>>>>I don’t like every episode. I even leave a comment when I don’t like the guest. Key thing is one comment— not replying to every comment about how much I don’t like the guest. >>>>>>>>>That’s great. Thanks for the update.

FULL COMMENTS

.

>If you're trying to prove that you didn't have sex with someone without their consent, revealing that you have taped or recorded sex with them without their consent seems like a terrible idea.

> Also, this sounds like blackmail, which is also illegal.

>>If there is reason to believe the tape would not help my defense, why would I reveal it? That just sounds like a bad idea from a self-defense point-of-view. Even if I did reveal it, it's not like I'll get into legal trouble for it (assuming you live in a one-party consent state, which is the majority of America)

>>I would much rather risk adding in a blackmailing charge to the rape charge in exchange for potentially not having to deal with the rape charge in the first place. Even better, replacing the rape charge with a blackmailing charge will do a lot less damage to your life than a rape charge (for ex: not being put on the sex offender list). If you're already being charged with rape, adding in an extra charge isn't as big of a deal because your life is already more or less completely ruined.

>>>Let me clarify: you are mistaken about whether or not revealing such a tape would help your defense. It would make you look like the kind of person who tapes his sexual partners without their consent or knowledge (which, you know, you would be), and this will hurt you more than what the tape actually shows will help you.

>>>So you're saying it's better to be charged of a crime of which you are definitely guilty, than to be charged with (not convicted, charged with) a crime of which you are not guilty? That doesn't make any sense.

>>>EDIT: Also, and I can't believe I have to emphasize this - if you're admitting that the tape only helps you in the sense that you can use it as blackmail, then you are both admitting that the tape doesn't really help you the way you've said it does, and you're saying that it's okay to blackmail someone to get what you want.

>>>>Your lawyer can help you make the decision on whether or not it is a good idea to reveal this tape to the courts. By at least having the tape, it gives you at least that much more control over the situation than if you didn't have the tape. At best, the tape will help your case out. At worse, you don't reveal the tape and now you're in the exact same situation as you would've been without it.

>>>>Yes, because a rape charge (not even a conviction) is still extremely detrimental to your reputation. A blackmail charge would be too, but not nearly to the same extent due to how society views the severity of these charges. Also if blackmailing the truth gives me a better chance of avoiding a rape conviction, that's still a good deal even if it's not ideal. Your life will not be necessarily ruined to the same extent as with a rape charge (for ex, you won't be on the sex offender list). Even if you do end up with both convictions, the blackmailing conviction will probably be the least of your worries.

>>>>No. Even if you don't use the tape in court or blackmail with it, you could show it to your lawyer so that he gets an exact understanding of what happened and that knowledge would help him come up with a better argument in court thereby increasing your chances of being found non guilty.

>>>>>How would showing your lawyer a tape which he wouldn't be allowed to use at all in your defense going to help your defense?

>>>>>>I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure about the details. Perhaps he can grill the prosecution about certain details that the prosecution would not be aware of but the girl is and not telling that to anyone to protect her lie.

>>>>>>My point is that giving your lawyer more concrete information of what happened is always better that not giving him enough accurate information. How your lawyer will use that information will vary between cases and the exact contents of the tape.

>>>>>>Having a tape gives you an extra option or control over your self-defense. If the tape is not useful, then you're stuck in the exact same situation as if you had never taped it. By having tape, you get to increase your chances of being able to prove your innocence. It may not help in every single false rape case out there, but it doesn't hurt to have it and talk about it with your lawyer.

>>>Witness tampering is a felony that will get you prison time. So is extortion. You don't want to threaten someone who has legal consultation or is already talking to the police, that's twice as stupid as recording someone without their consent for the purposes of intimidating them. Not to mention the Reddit post discussing your intent.

>>>Essentially you're talking about committing a crime that will put you away in order to not be prosecuted for a different crime that will put you away. Accuracy versus precision in a nutshell.

>>>>My view for legal recordings in one-party consent states and submitting that tape to my lawyer and/or the courts still stands

>>>>>You wouldn't have to use the tape for blackmail though. If it showed you were innocent and present it to the prosecutor they won't prosecute. It's also most likely admissible

>>>>>>>You can't film a person during sex without that person consenting.

>>>>>>>You would be showing the prosecutor evidence of you committing a felony.

>>>>>>>Which isn't not a smart thing to do.

>>>>>>>>It's a felony where people don't get more than a few months in prison. People who get prosecuted tend to be the people who post the videos on porn websites and they only get months not years in prison. A rape sentence is a lot worse.

>>>>I'm sure prison time for blackmailing is less than for rape. Also with blackmailing, I won't be put on the sex offender list. Either charge would suck but blackmailing will suck a lot less.

>>>>However, and I should have mentioned this in my OP, the first person who ever sees or hears that tape should be your lawyer. He can offer guidance on how to best use the tape to help your self-defense even if the tape itself is inadmissible in court

>>>>>Well blackmail is not a crime. Extortion, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice are crimes and you're talking about your intent to commit them online.

>>>>>I think you overestimate how hard it is for a rape conviction to go through. If there's no physical evidence and it's just hearsay, you're probably not going to jail even if you're guilty. Seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

>>>>>Or here's a thought, instead of spending a bunch of money, breaking the law, and having a backup plan in case some crazy girl says you raped her... don't have sex with random, crazy people who will say you raped them. It's not that hard to judge a person's character before you fuck them.

.

>I'm not a legal expert, but I imagine filming someone having sex without their consent would be seen very badly in court. And, like a rape accusation, it would definitely damage your reputation. Also, evidence gathered illegally is inadmissible in court, so you couldn't even use it against a rape accusation.

>You talk about risk in #2, and talk about wanting to prevent yourself from even the 1% chance that you experience a false rape accusation. What about the huge risk you open yourself up to by filming every sexual encounter? There's a huge potential you get caught by one of your sexual partners, at which point you suffer the exact ruin of reputation and legal consequences you're so afraid of.

>Finally, you don't consider this immoral, but I think you should consider how horrifying, invasive, and creepy this is for everyone else involved. I'm reminded of a case in my hometown where a man was prosecuted for setting up cameras in the bathroom and watching his daughter's friends shower. You can say this is different than child porn, but your logic seems to be "I'm willing to invade someone else's privacy for my own self-gain/what they don't know won't hurt them." That's pretty uncool.

>>Your lawyer can help decide whether the evidence in the tape outweighs this negative perception. Worst case, you don't use the tape and you end up in the same position as if you had not recorded in the first place. Best case, the tape proves your innocence.

>>Why would I experience legal consequences if I live in a one-party consent state. Not doing anything illegal.

>>Self-gain? If the other person is falsely accusing me, I'm using the tape to self-preserve my life. If it's a question of my life vs their privacy, my life will always take priority and I'm sure the vast majority of people will feel the same way

.

>Regardless of whether or not you are in a one-party or two-party consent state, 18 U.S. Code § 1801 makes it illegal on a federal level to "capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy".

>Now you're doing this because you believe that a person accused of rape will have their reputation tarnished, even if they didn't do it. Isn't it also the case that people who capture images of naked people without their consent also have a tarnished reputation? Don't you think that it's extremely feasible that your employer would fire you if they found out you'd been illegally filming other people during sex? If I found out someone I knew was doing that, then I'd think they're a creep.

>If you're so concerned, then explicitly ask your partners if you can film. If they say no, then don't sleep with them. That way you're safer from both rape accusations and filming without consent accusations.

.

>I assume these women wouldn't have consented to having sex with you if they knew you were filming them.

>You're right, they won't be able to falsely accuse you of rape if you go through with this plan.

>>The law doesn't factor in what if's. Either consent was given or it was not.

>>As an extreme example, if I was a girl, that would be like me saying I consented to sex but wouldn't have had I known you don't like to eat pizza. Therefore you raped me. Makes no sense.

>>>Yes it does

>>>>What state laws apply? Wikipedia isn't a real source.

>>>>>Then click the links to cited sources?

>>>>>>Bull. It's not my job to wade through wikipedia hoping to fine something that might justify that user's assertion. You make the claim; you provide a legit source or you stay silent. That's how it works.

>>>>>>>In Norwalk, California, on February 20, 2009, Julio Morales snuck into a sleeping 18-year-old woman's darkened bedroom after he saw her boyfriend leave. The woman said she awoke to the sensation of someone having sex with her and assumed it was her boyfriend. When a ray of light hit Morales's face, and the woman saw he was not her boyfriend, she fought back and Morales fled. The woman called her boyfriend, who then called the police. Julio Morales was convicted of rape under two concepts. He was guilty of rape because he began having sex with the woman while she was still asleep and, therefore, unable to consent. He was also guilty of rape-by-fraud because he had impersonated the woman's boyfriend in order to gain her consent. However, an appellate court ruled that the lower court had misread the 1872 law criminalizing rape-by-fraud. The law stated a man is guilty of rape-by-fraud if he impersonates a woman's husband in order to get her consent. The woman in this case was not married, and Morales had impersonated her boyfriend, not her husband. Because of this one technicality, the appellate court overturned Julio Morales's rape-by-trickery conviction in People vs. Morales in 2013. To close this loophole in California's rape-by-fraud law, Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian (R-San Luis Obispo) – who tried to introduce a similar bill in 2011 – introduced Assembly Bill 65 and Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) introduced Senate Bill 59. The two bills quickly passed both houses without one dissenting vote, and were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 9, 2013. Morales was later re-tried on the basis that the woman was asleep and re-convicted to three years in a state prison, which he had already served.

>>>>>>>Happy?

>>>>>>>>What point are you trying to make here? The context link only provides three comments back in the thread and I'm not willing to fish around for a 4 day old conversation.

>>>>>>>>>The point I'm making is you're a contrarian who argues points for the sake of arguing them.

>>>>>>>>>>Ok, ok, but what specific point are you trying to make/refute with your quote? In what way was it supposed to show that I am a contrarian?

.

>What will a recording prove? That she didn't resist? What if she resisted/said 'no' prior to the recording? Now you have a creepy, nonconsensual sex tape to go along with her accusation of your creepy, nonconsensual sexual encounter. Seems to me it makes you look worse.

>>Glad you asked!

>>If you had a video recording, you can take a look at both people's body language to see if the sex is consensual or not. If the girl is smiling and thrusting her hips into the guy herself, that's pretty good indication the sex is consensual. You can also see if the girl is initiating any other actions, such as pulling the guy in to kiss him or taking clothes off herself.

>>I doubt a girl actually being raped would say or scream things like "fuck me harder" or "I like that" or "Do you want to try this position?"

>>If there is video (or even just audio) of casual after sex conversations or cuddling, that's another indication the sex was consensual. Do you really think a girl who was raped would willingly have a conversation about random topics and cuddle without showing some form of resistance with her rapist?

>>If the girl sleeps overnight in the guys bed without the guy holding her down or the girl trying to escape, that points towards not rape.

>>As a guy you can verbally get consent from the girl that would be captured in the audio recording. For example, before penetration you could say "Do you want me inside of you" or "Should I grab a condom". If a girl says "yes", that's reasonable consent. After sex the guy could ask the girl how she liked it or if she enjoyed herself. If the girl responds positively, that would show the sex was consensual the whole time.

>>These are just a few examples, I'm sure I could probably come up with a lot more if I really thought about it

>>>She could just say you coerced or threatened her before the recording and use the recording itself as evidence that you do things creepily without consent. No matter what, filming sexual encounters without consent makes you look like a pervert and a rapist, so it actually hurts you.

>>>>Your lawyer can help advise whether or not to show the tape to the courts by showing it to him first.

>>>>Even if you don't use it in court, it will give your lawyer an exact understanding of what happened and that knowledge will help him better prepare your case.

>>>Or that she was forced to convincingly please you. "You better have sex with me or else, and it better be good." Or "You better have sex with or else and I'm taping it so make it convincing."

>>>And if she doesn't say any of this and is a dead-fish? Now its evidence that you did rape her.

>>>She could claim she was drunk and that she couldn't have consented.

>>>She could claim that she just wanted the whole thing over and that it was going to happen anyways and a condom would protect her from STD/pregnancy.

>>>>Unless she's a professional porn star, I highly doubt someone would be fooled even if the girl was trying her hardest because it's not genuine. You can get a lot of information from subtle cues that the girl won't be thinking about if she was faking everything while getting raped

>>>>Saying things like "Do you want me inside of you?" or "Should I get a condom?" should be sufficient to prove initial consent if the girl responds positively

>>>>To prove she didn't withdraw consent (which if she did, that attempt would be recorded in the camera), you ask her after sex "How was that?"

>>>>If she was too drunk to give consent, that would be clear in a recording. Slurred speech, lack of coordination, randomly passing out, etc

>>>>Guy can ask her afterwards "How was it?" and the court can decide how genuine her answer is

>>>>If everything fails and it's some weird circumstance where you honestly cannot tell if the sex was consensual or not, you still haven't lost anything by making a recording. If the accusation gets legally escalated, you and your lawyer still have the ability to choose whether or not to reveal this tape to the courts.

We get a fair number of questions here that are some variation of:

"I'm an influencer/content creator. If I make a video about [vacation/clothes/car/restaurant/gym/whatever], can I write it off?"

Well, the Tax Court has finally given us an actual influencer case to talk about.

Meet Suleiman Sami, the taxpayer in Sami v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-69. The Tax Court case can be seen at:

https://dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/case-detail/8834-23

(Item number 73 is the opinion.)

Mr. Sami had a regular job as an IT manager, but he also operated a small marketing firm as a side gig. His side businesses included transportation services, ticket reselling, and social media influencing. His social media content focused heavily on celebrities, athletes, and entertainers.

And Mr. Sami was apparently willing to spend some serious money creating content.

Among other things, he spent thousands of dollars on celebrity experiences, including Grammy tickets, Emmy tickets, and experiences involving Benedict Cumberbatch, Matt Damon, and Mark Ruffalo. He then posted content from some of these experiences on social media.

The argument was essentially that these were marketing expenses. Meeting celebrities created content, content attracted followers, followers helped build his brand, and therefore the expenses were related to his business, and even helped expand his business.

There is some logic to that.

The Tax Court was not particularly impressed with that logic. The Court found that the primary purpose of these expenses was personal. The fact that Sami subsequently used the experiences to create social media content didn't magically transform them into ordinary and necessary business expenses under §162 (section 162 is the section of the tax code that deals with deducting business expenses).

So what should influencers and content creators take away from this?

Making content about something doesn't automatically make it deductible. If you take a vacation, buy clothes, attend a concert, eat at a restaurant, or do something else primarily for personal reasons, filming it and putting it online doesn't necessarily turn it into a business expense.

Otherwise, I'm starting a YouTube channel devoted exclusively to reviewing Caribbean resorts.

“Marketing” isn't a magic word. There needs to be a bona fide business purpose for the expense. What was the primary reason you spent the money, and how does it relate to actually carrying on your business? Is it ordinary and necessary for your business (something may be ordinary and necessary for a roofer or chef that is not ordinary and necessary for a courier or doctor)?

Keep meticulous records. Sami also had significant substantiation problems. Bank and credit card statements prove you spent money. They don't necessarily prove why you spent it. Keep receipts, separate business and personal expenses, and document the business purpose while you can still remember it.

Influencer expenses absolutely can be deductible. The Court did allow some expenses. The rule isn't that influencers don't get business deductions. It's that influencers are subject to the same basic rules as everyone else: the expense has to actually qualify as a business expense, and you need to be able to substantiate it.

A personal expense doesn't become a business expense just because you posted it on social media.

If you're a content creator, ask yourself why the business needed to incur the expense, then keep the records that will let you answer that question if the IRS asks three years from now.

Because “but I got 17,000 views!” is probably not the substantiation your examiner is looking for.

Also, shout out to u/GoatEatingTroll who has a great reply that I always link in influencer threads:

https://www.reddit.com/r/tax/s/c753Yv9Mw9

The entire clip is pretty funny, but the context of the Marc anecdote starts at about the 6:13 mark if the timestamp doesn't work.

Definitely caught me off guard and got a chuckle out of me.