Can you provide the actual links, actual evidence, of any of that, in its full original context?
Certainly we could not expect anyone on youtube or twitch to ever clip or edit something into seeming far more nefarious than it actually is, heavens no.
I can but I have moved on. If you are interested you can find these with a simple search. I think the Google AI summary covers most of them with references.
Watch the material available and make up your own mind.
And surely, surely we can trust an LLM AI to get all the details correct, especially on a recent event, especially centering on a pretty generally controversial public figure.
Ok then.
Anyway, analysis of at least one clip about this incoming in another part of this thread, thanks for literally nothing.
this guy does go over a lot of clips and context about hasan’s apparent stance on these things before the incident, i don’t get anything out of trying to break anything down further for anyone, but i know how i feel about it, unfortunately it does take time to form your own opinion esp if you’re insistent on also having it spoonfed to you
Its basically a guy trying to follow the evolution of the … collective narrative about the whole thing.
Really doesn’t help that he meanders and imprecisely restates and misquotes all over the place, makes 0 attempt to distinguish between objective and subjective claims.
Anyway, the original thing I asked for, was evidence of:
he absolutely either shocked the dog there on camera
or trained the dog to associate pain with vibration by shocking alongside the vibration.
He has old footage calling the a shock collar highly effective.
The model he showed after the incident was modified and further investigation shows it does have a shock function.
The video you here linked has evidence of only this last one, and specifically notes that there is no way to know whether or not the collar was modified prior to or after the inciting incident.
It has LonerBox giving a likely model of the collar, and noting that it looks like the variant that can shock, but can also have the prongs removed and just vibrate.
Then the presenter here says well, it could be that those prongs had been removed for a while, covered up by electrical tape, and that people are just assuming that that was done after the fact.
It then has a video of Hasan saying… that dog training from this particular trainer, will result in the dog being able to follow commands while off leash, motioning to his neck while he does this.
The trainer says it involves a shock collar. Hasan doesn’t say that though. Hasan also doesn’t challenge it.
That’s not definitive proof of anything other than maybe at one point the shock collar was used in Kaya’s training, these guys are all stumbling over each other for their turn to speak in a crowded environment, this isn’t a very clear conversation.
So… what, are we shifting now from… Hasan shocked his dog, live, while streaming, for the crime of trying to move!
… to…
Hasan may have used a shock collar at some point earlier in Kaya’s training/life.
???
These are different things, but… this presenter just keeps conflating a whole bunch of concepts and keeps going with it.
Then we get to a totally unenvidenced claim, that there is no clip for, at least not yet that I have seen, where presenter says that Hasan intially said Kaya wasn’t wearing a collar at all.
After this, the entire narrative shifts again, to… why did Hasan lie? Why didn’t he explain why he shocked the dog on camera?
But there’s no evidence he is lying, there’s no evidence that he ever said the dog was not wearing a collar.
What I have seen is people cut a clip of Hasan saying that Kaya wasn’t wearing ‘that’ collar… you know, as in, one of many possible different kinds of collars.
But thats not even in this video, and this presenter just… states it as true, with no evidence.
… I still have not seen any definitive evidence that the clip of the inciting incident was him shocking Kaya… and there is a very plausible alternative explanation for why she yelped, that I have already outlined, that … is also the immediate thing Hasan said was what had happened.
But we are all being told, without evidence that I have seen anywhere, that he has been lying from the start, to frame this entire discussion.
So… what… is everyone mad about, exactly?
The actual facts of the inciting incident now seem to no longer be the topic.
Remeber how I asked for evidence about that, specific evidence to establish the veracity of facts, and you claimed to provide that?
This is a gigantic drama fest of every single internet personality trying to jump on latest trending topic, which creates a massively confusing, but more engaging and dramatic narrative experience that you can parasocially be a part of! Wheee!
That’s not how an actual investigation works.
This is how groupthink, gossip, and mob justice work.
i’m just another fuck on the internet enjoying a lovely breakfast this morning. any thoughts on the tail pulling or the kaya cagematch? has anyone provided any definitive evidence that the dog even has a dewclaw?
I never agreed to be your sherpa. And I was more saying the references provided by the LLM could help you since you seem to have trouble navigating the Internet on your own. Test your reading comprehension on my first comment sweetheart.
I agree with your distrust for LLMs. You just seemed like the target audience.
I asked you for evidence, you told me to find it myself, and you also said that you could provide the evidence, but you choose not to.
This is basically textbook ‘trust me bro’, and you seem to think that makes me look stupid, and you not look like a gossip monger, because It is known.
I told you to look for yourself because I don’t care one way or another what you decide. I didn’t tell you to trust me. I said I wasn’t interested in debating it. I told you to decide for yourself. How dense can you be? Someone else posted an hour long break down for you. Did you find everything ok or do you need a map and a foot rub?
Got it, you are obstinate and unwilling to admit you have an opinion you can’t defend, but you will keep insulting me for pointing out that… you cannot justify your opinion.
But you also keep reengaging, keep trying to reframe the discussion… the discussion you are apparently not interested in having…
Remember when you said “I can [provide evidence], but I’ve moved on.”?
I guess not.
…and you’re also double teaming me with your 2ish month old alt account that has only 13 comments, to try and falsely make this into a 3 way conversation, so that you can have two different ‘people’ to split your rhetorical approaches between.
Can you provide the actual links, actual evidence, of any of that, in its full original context?
Certainly we could not expect anyone on youtube or twitch to ever clip or edit something into seeming far more nefarious than it actually is, heavens no.
I can but I have moved on. If you are interested you can find these with a simple search. I think the Google AI summary covers most of them with references.
Watch the material available and make up your own mind.
Ok, so, no, you can’t and won’t, got it.
And surely, surely we can trust an LLM AI to get all the details correct, especially on a recent event, especially centering on a pretty generally controversial public figure.
Ok then.
Anyway, analysis of at least one clip about this incoming in another part of this thread, thanks for literally nothing.
https://youtu.be/FZLQXJFVMoU?
inb4, didn’t watch, too long
this guy does go over a lot of clips and context about hasan’s apparent stance on these things before the incident, i don’t get anything out of trying to break anything down further for anyone, but i know how i feel about it, unfortunately it does take time to form your own opinion esp if you’re insistent on also having it spoonfed to you
K, watched the whole thing.
Its basically a guy trying to follow the evolution of the … collective narrative about the whole thing.
Really doesn’t help that he meanders and imprecisely restates and misquotes all over the place, makes 0 attempt to distinguish between objective and subjective claims.
Anyway, the original thing I asked for, was evidence of:
The video you here linked has evidence of only this last one, and specifically notes that there is no way to know whether or not the collar was modified prior to or after the inciting incident.
It has LonerBox giving a likely model of the collar, and noting that it looks like the variant that can shock, but can also have the prongs removed and just vibrate.
Then the presenter here says well, it could be that those prongs had been removed for a while, covered up by electrical tape, and that people are just assuming that that was done after the fact.
It then has a video of Hasan saying… that dog training from this particular trainer, will result in the dog being able to follow commands while off leash, motioning to his neck while he does this.
The trainer says it involves a shock collar. Hasan doesn’t say that though. Hasan also doesn’t challenge it.
That’s not definitive proof of anything other than maybe at one point the shock collar was used in Kaya’s training, these guys are all stumbling over each other for their turn to speak in a crowded environment, this isn’t a very clear conversation.
So… what, are we shifting now from… Hasan shocked his dog, live, while streaming, for the crime of trying to move!
… to…
Hasan may have used a shock collar at some point earlier in Kaya’s training/life.
???
These are different things, but… this presenter just keeps conflating a whole bunch of concepts and keeps going with it.
Then we get to a totally unenvidenced claim, that there is no clip for, at least not yet that I have seen, where presenter says that Hasan intially said Kaya wasn’t wearing a collar at all.
After this, the entire narrative shifts again, to… why did Hasan lie? Why didn’t he explain why he shocked the dog on camera?
But there’s no evidence he is lying, there’s no evidence that he ever said the dog was not wearing a collar.
What I have seen is people cut a clip of Hasan saying that Kaya wasn’t wearing ‘that’ collar… you know, as in, one of many possible different kinds of collars.
But thats not even in this video, and this presenter just… states it as true, with no evidence.
… I still have not seen any definitive evidence that the clip of the inciting incident was him shocking Kaya… and there is a very plausible alternative explanation for why she yelped, that I have already outlined, that … is also the immediate thing Hasan said was what had happened.
But we are all being told, without evidence that I have seen anywhere, that he has been lying from the start, to frame this entire discussion.
So… what… is everyone mad about, exactly?
The actual facts of the inciting incident now seem to no longer be the topic.
Remeber how I asked for evidence about that, specific evidence to establish the veracity of facts, and you claimed to provide that?
This is a gigantic drama fest of every single internet personality trying to jump on latest trending topic, which creates a massively confusing, but more engaging and dramatic narrative experience that you can parasocially be a part of! Wheee!
That’s not how an actual investigation works.
This is how groupthink, gossip, and mob justice work.
yup, you’re just as braindead as the rest of us, mate. glad to take up so much of your time though :p
also, the dewclaw thing is pretty bullshit imho
Ah, compelling arguments, you have swayed my opinion greatly.
i’m just another fuck on the internet enjoying a lovely breakfast this morning. any thoughts on the tail pulling or the kaya cagematch? has anyone provided any definitive evidence that the dog even has a dewclaw?
Thanks for the assist. Im sure when provided with information contrary to their belief they will think critically. :p
I find listing sources to be incredibly helpful but this is one of those cases where all the primary are biased anyway so why bother.
I never agreed to be your sherpa. And I was more saying the references provided by the LLM could help you since you seem to have trouble navigating the Internet on your own. Test your reading comprehension on my first comment sweetheart.
I agree with your distrust for LLMs. You just seemed like the target audience.
I asked you for evidence, you told me to find it myself, and you also said that you could provide the evidence, but you choose not to.
This is basically textbook ‘trust me bro’, and you seem to think that makes me look stupid, and you not look like a gossip monger, because It is known.
Ok then!
I told you to look for yourself because I don’t care one way or another what you decide. I didn’t tell you to trust me. I said I wasn’t interested in debating it. I told you to decide for yourself. How dense can you be? Someone else posted an hour long break down for you. Did you find everything ok or do you need a map and a foot rub?
Got it, you are obstinate and unwilling to admit you have an opinion you can’t defend, but you will keep insulting me for pointing out that… you cannot justify your opinion.
But you also keep reengaging, keep trying to reframe the discussion… the discussion you are apparently not interested in having…
Remember when you said “I can [provide evidence], but I’ve moved on.”?
I guess not.
…and you’re also double teaming me with your 2ish month old alt account that has only 13 comments, to try and falsely make this into a 3 way conversation, so that you can have two different ‘people’ to split your rhetorical approaches between.
Very normal and healthy internet behavior.