Progressive Twitch streamer Hasan Piker filed a defamation lawsuit against conservative CNN commentator Scott Jennings on Tuesday, accusing him of falsely claiming Piker advocated for lynching Blac…
I’m not really going to speak to vanity or narcissism - I’m not sure I know where to begin validating that, or what my standard of evidence would have to be for that, especially for someone like Hasan who spends so much of his time in front of a live audience.
The shock collar however does seem very well-documented, or at least as well-documented as it gets without Piker himself coming out and fully admitting to it.
I don’t know why that one is so hard to accept for someone who is a fan of him.
I don’t understand why we should only
acknowledge the good people do, and not the wrong.
I think because unfortunately this extends beyond fandom and more into the realm of (a) zealotry, (b) fan-craze / simping / lusting, and/or ( c) Astroturfing bot networks intended to amplify support and suppress dissent. People like Piker are useful to certain groups to advance their own agenda. No different than the likes of Charlie Kirk or Tucker Carlosn or Asmongold, just for different people.
If you’re in one of these groups, then ceding any ground whatsoever is a non-starter.
Perhaps there’s an intersection between several of those elements.
There certainly seems to be some level of ideological capture going on, and, I’d argue, some cult of personality elements to it as well.
I’ll admit, I’m not as versed in the political aspects of it all. I’m not entirely sure who supports which groups and what exactly each of their stated or unstated goals are, but it seems clear to me that there’s some level of intentional narrative being spun and manipulated, even if I don’t know by who or for what. It’s just too aggressively managed and curated to not be entirely intentional.
Maybe I’ll have to look more into it at some point.
Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson both so seem to have/had people they are/were beholden to, but I’m also certain they mostly do what they do to further their own wealth and influence.
Asmongold I’m only peripherally knowledgeable of, but he just seems like he’s bottoms-upped whatever isolationist and xenophobic koolaid he found.
I know he was a game streamer originally but it seems like he’s well into far-right political ideology now, is that right?
I’ll admit, I’m not as versed in the political aspects of it all. I’m not entirely sure who supports which groups and what exactly each of their stated or unstated goals are, but it seems clear to me that there’s some level of intentional narrative being spun and manipulated, even if I don’t know by who or for what. It’s just too aggressively managed and curated to not be entirely intentional.
What are you even doing in threads like these then?
You’re here only to spread baseless misinformation about Hasan? Interesting.
This thread isn’t political in nature. It’s about Hasan Piker suing Scott Jennings - which is not a political but a judicial issue. You could call it tangential if you want, given that Hasan Piker is mostly known for political streaming.
I was interested in what that was about, so I read up on it and decided to look into it and then came back to read comments, including the one asking who Hasan Piker is. Given that that is something I happened to have already answered elsewhere, I copied my previous answer.
I don’t believe I’ve given any false or inaccurate information, nor is it baseless as I do try to add proof when requested, even if I don’t front-load it in every reply as that would take an age especially considering nobody else does so either, but feel free to bring evidence if you find any contradicting any of my points.
Did I also spread misinformation when I wrote that Hasan Piker seems to have it right with the facts of his lawsuit?
You can try to discredit me baselessly, but that would be misinformation, bordering on disinformation.
We’re in the politics community. Coming in to threads like these with an AI summary of Hasan and claiming that you don’t know his politics is weird. It’s weird.
nor is it baseless as I do try to add proof when requested,
Really? There’s 0 sources in your original comment:
that would take an age especially considering nobody else does so either,
I pull sources all the time, it’s not nearly as hard as you’re trying to make it sound.
You can try to discredit me baselessly, but that would be misinformation, bordering on disinformation.
I don’t need to discredit you baselessly, you discredited yourself when you straight lied that you couldn’t find a link between Dan Saltman, Destiny, and Hasan. That’s pure bullshit.
Yes, politics community, but would you can slander political in nature, or lawsuits? Can they overlap; sure but do they necessarily?
Nothing I wrote was AI. Painstakingly hand-typed. I’m generally not a fan of AI as I think it gets too much wrong too often - and they really will insist on things that are just factually wrong.
So nope, none of that.
I’m saying that I’m not well-versed enough in his politics to argue what he thinks, politically, so i won’t.
That’s also why I tend to just say what he says his political beliefs are, and only highlight facts that might contradict his own statements where I find them.
I’d say that’s pretty intellectually honest. I’m sure citing sources would have been better.
It’s fine if you find out weird. I’m sure I am.
It’s true that there’s no proof in my ordinary comment, hence why I tried to add some here and there when someone engaged with the substance of anything I wrote. You can go through my comments if you want and see, it’s limited for now but I’ll add more as soon as I can.
I’m not saying it’s hard at all, I’m saying it’s time-consuming.
I’m fine with hard but I have little time available to dig through and redo research from weeks and months ago, so I’ll only do that if it’s worth the time and I feel someone is actually intellectual engaging with the subject.
This isn’t my job and I don’t really get a whole lot out of this, so I try to keep the actual time investment low, and focus on the parts that are worthwhile. Generally I’ll try to mirror the level of investment I’m given.
Someone asked questions about someone I happen to have written about before, and copying that message was a low time investment.
I don’t believe I said there was no link between Dan Saltman, Destiny and Hasan, just that neither of those two had anything to do with the evidence I’ve seen, nor do I care about them.
The evidence I’ve presented (in another comment mind you, so if you want it here you’ll have to wait until I have time) does not rely on them or anything they’ve brought forth.
So I see no link to anything I have written about and I’m being consistent with that.
Feel free to quote me if I wrote anything to the contrary, and we can examine that, my fundamental position is unchanged.
Sorry for the slightly disjointed formatting, it’s a bit too time-consuming to do that better on a phone, I find.
I’m not saying it’s hard at all, I’m saying it’s time-consuming.
So is “painstakingly hand typing” out a huge block of information about a person whose politics you aren’t sure about. Why wouldn’t you take the time to back up your claims with sources if you’re already spending so much time typing it up?
And it would take much longer to go back and re-find my weeks and months old sources, I don’t see what makes so little sense about that.
And that is not the standard of communication around here, which is the same standard you’re adhering to.
I’m not really going to speak to vanity or narcissism - I’m not sure I know where to begin validating that, or what my standard of evidence would have to be for that, especially for someone like Hasan who spends so much of his time in front of a live audience.
The shock collar however does seem very well-documented, or at least as well-documented as it gets without Piker himself coming out and fully admitting to it.
I don’t know why that one is so hard to accept for someone who is a fan of him. I don’t understand why we should only acknowledge the good people do, and not the wrong.
I think because unfortunately this extends beyond fandom and more into the realm of (a) zealotry, (b) fan-craze / simping / lusting, and/or ( c) Astroturfing bot networks intended to amplify support and suppress dissent. People like Piker are useful to certain groups to advance their own agenda. No different than the likes of Charlie Kirk or Tucker Carlosn or Asmongold, just for different people.
If you’re in one of these groups, then ceding any ground whatsoever is a non-starter.
Perhaps there’s an intersection between several of those elements. There certainly seems to be some level of ideological capture going on, and, I’d argue, some cult of personality elements to it as well.
I’ll admit, I’m not as versed in the political aspects of it all. I’m not entirely sure who supports which groups and what exactly each of their stated or unstated goals are, but it seems clear to me that there’s some level of intentional narrative being spun and manipulated, even if I don’t know by who or for what. It’s just too aggressively managed and curated to not be entirely intentional.
Maybe I’ll have to look more into it at some point.
Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson both so seem to have/had people they are/were beholden to, but I’m also certain they mostly do what they do to further their own wealth and influence.
Asmongold I’m only peripherally knowledgeable of, but he just seems like he’s bottoms-upped whatever isolationist and xenophobic koolaid he found.
I know he was a game streamer originally but it seems like he’s well into far-right political ideology now, is that right?
What are you even doing in threads like these then?
You’re here only to spread baseless misinformation about Hasan? Interesting.
This thread isn’t political in nature. It’s about Hasan Piker suing Scott Jennings - which is not a political but a judicial issue. You could call it tangential if you want, given that Hasan Piker is mostly known for political streaming.
I was interested in what that was about, so I read up on it and decided to look into it and then came back to read comments, including the one asking who Hasan Piker is. Given that that is something I happened to have already answered elsewhere, I copied my previous answer.
I don’t believe I’ve given any false or inaccurate information, nor is it baseless as I do try to add proof when requested, even if I don’t front-load it in every reply as that would take an age especially considering nobody else does so either, but feel free to bring evidence if you find any contradicting any of my points.
Did I also spread misinformation when I wrote that Hasan Piker seems to have it right with the facts of his lawsuit?
You can try to discredit me baselessly, but that would be misinformation, bordering on disinformation.
We’re in the politics community. Coming in to threads like these with an AI summary of Hasan and claiming that you don’t know his politics is weird. It’s weird.
Really? There’s 0 sources in your original comment:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/69052562/28178535
I pull sources all the time, it’s not nearly as hard as you’re trying to make it sound.
I don’t need to discredit you baselessly, you discredited yourself when you straight lied that you couldn’t find a link between Dan Saltman, Destiny, and Hasan. That’s pure bullshit.
Yes, politics community, but would you can slander political in nature, or lawsuits? Can they overlap; sure but do they necessarily?
Nothing I wrote was AI. Painstakingly hand-typed. I’m generally not a fan of AI as I think it gets too much wrong too often - and they really will insist on things that are just factually wrong. So nope, none of that. I’m saying that I’m not well-versed enough in his politics to argue what he thinks, politically, so i won’t. That’s also why I tend to just say what he says his political beliefs are, and only highlight facts that might contradict his own statements where I find them. I’d say that’s pretty intellectually honest. I’m sure citing sources would have been better.
It’s fine if you find out weird. I’m sure I am.
It’s true that there’s no proof in my ordinary comment, hence why I tried to add some here and there when someone engaged with the substance of anything I wrote. You can go through my comments if you want and see, it’s limited for now but I’ll add more as soon as I can.
I’m not saying it’s hard at all, I’m saying it’s time-consuming. I’m fine with hard but I have little time available to dig through and redo research from weeks and months ago, so I’ll only do that if it’s worth the time and I feel someone is actually intellectual engaging with the subject. This isn’t my job and I don’t really get a whole lot out of this, so I try to keep the actual time investment low, and focus on the parts that are worthwhile. Generally I’ll try to mirror the level of investment I’m given.
Someone asked questions about someone I happen to have written about before, and copying that message was a low time investment.
I don’t believe I said there was no link between Dan Saltman, Destiny and Hasan, just that neither of those two had anything to do with the evidence I’ve seen, nor do I care about them. The evidence I’ve presented (in another comment mind you, so if you want it here you’ll have to wait until I have time) does not rely on them or anything they’ve brought forth. So I see no link to anything I have written about and I’m being consistent with that.
Feel free to quote me if I wrote anything to the contrary, and we can examine that, my fundamental position is unchanged.
Sorry for the slightly disjointed formatting, it’s a bit too time-consuming to do that better on a phone, I find.
So is “painstakingly hand typing” out a huge block of information about a person whose politics you aren’t sure about. Why wouldn’t you take the time to back up your claims with sources if you’re already spending so much time typing it up?
And it would take much longer to go back and re-find my weeks and months old sources, I don’t see what makes so little sense about that. And that is not the standard of communication around here, which is the same standard you’re adhering to.