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…
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.
And that is not the standard of communication around here, which is the same standard you’re adhering to.
It should be.
Why the fuck would anyone just believe you? You’re just one person on the internet spreading lies about a political activist in an effort to discredit his messaging.
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.
It should be.
Why the fuck would anyone just believe you? You’re just one person on the internet spreading lies about a political activist in an effort to discredit his messaging.
No one should. That’s why I wrote that they shouldn’t believe me but do their own research in addition.
I don’t know who you think you’re arguing with here if you missed that.
You don’t know how to search for and verify information on the internet?
Go ahead and prove that.
You proved it for me already :)