this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
75 points (67.0% liked)
memes
22488 readers
3707 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, you definitely proved you couldn't read for a 3rd time. You don't even understand when you've been refuted.
I've not called you stupid either, just that you're perpetuating right wing talking points which are, yes, stupid. I did call you a eurocuck betamale. Which, statistically, still holds and you didn't refute it so 🤷♂️
But yes, at the point, if you can't mount a response when you say shit like:
In the same statement as
I can't argue with stupid, you're right.
I stood on information, evidence, testimony, and the same clips you tried to say "just go watch bro." You've got nothing. Literally nothing.
Also, how much time have you wasted here? The video and articles contain much more information than what I've condensed down. But you're still here. I've got time so 🤷♂️ This "LLM" is certainly more evidenced and principled than you, but interestingly it's not giving in to your bs. Weird, how do you explain that one?
Holy shit the only thing you're trying to stand on is that you can't know for sure what he did off camera? Well what will it fucking be, he pushed a button on the remote to activate the collar. There have even been streams where the remote was in plain view. I found the clip, sadly it's from xQc who's a dumbass himself, but all we need is the video, or actually the thumbnail is enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f2LmnmI5sI
So we know there's a remote. Now how far fetched is it he used that remote, which in turn causes the dog yelp.
Yes, you have repeatedly called me stupid, or a "nicer variation" of it. At least stand by what you say.
Yes, because it's the cringiest shit you could've said and I didn't think it relevant to the discussion as it's yet another ad hominem attack. I also thought this alpha/betamale shit is something andrew tate and these other clowns are spouting, but funny to see it has seen use in your vocabulary aswell.
No you didn't lmao. Not a single shred of evidence.
You posted one news about ethan klein, one journalistic opinion without any evidence either and then referenced the violence towards hassan, which I have condemned myself, but doesn't change anything about the situation itself. There is no evidence here. Now, one might say I don't have any evidence either, which is certainly true, however, I think that my version of events holds up better if compared to the video. You think the dog just yelped for fun at that point in time?
Yeah, one by hassan himself, and the other by ethan klein, who's just guessing and I'm not sure how he gets to his conclusion, but mine is different.
You have not referenced the clip ONCE. All you have done is called me stupid, referenced completely irrelevant points on the side like my opinion on bodycams and when I said I'm not watching an irrelevant 23 minute video, you called me stupid again. Like, what are you even doing man.
Roughly 30 minutes I'd say, I'm just checking in every now and then during deadlock queue time.
Well, this LLM is certainly hallucinating like a champ, but that's the only thing you're doing well.
Literally no. That is what your argument did and still does stand on. Plausibility, not fact. You've proven a remote existed. Which is consistent with Hasan's testimony I shared (along with the clips you somehow refuse to admit that I referenced which are linked throughout the articles...mmmk).
Anybody catch the licensce plate of those goalposts? That's pretty far fetched from there being nothing "inonclusive."
The clips. The articles. The testimony. My whole point this entire time is that what you claim as inconclusive is not. You claim it is torture. You have no proof. You claim it was a shock collar. You have no proof. Get it through your skull. You're working backwards from your conclusion, literally saying "well how far-fetched of an idea is it?" That means you have to make a logical leap to get there, literally inconclusive, my god.
So you admit that I'm correct. You claim things as fact with no evidence. We got there. That's pretty far from "Hasan is an irrefutable animal abuser." Now it's "well, I think he is, and I have no evidence to back it up, but come on, I believe it so that must mean it makes sense."
My dog has yelped for seeming no reason before. He's also slipped on a step and yelped before. He's also gotten his nail stuck on his kennel before and yelped. Again. Inconclusive. We cannot know. But I guess you do with no evidence?
You've already admitted you're a bad faith actor. You admitted previously that no matter what Hasan says you will discredit it. You then try to claim "conclusive" evidence. Those contradict, for any evidence to be conclusive, you'd have to weigh it against the testimony of the "perpetrator" and it would need to hold up. Not "but c'mon bro, it's not that far fetched." You forfeited being worth taking seriously with that earlier.
So guessing is literally buying the collar you and others allege is doing the "torture" and testing it on himself. If you knew how to read, you'd be sure how he got there.
Sorry, I didn't realize it had to be spelled out explicitly. You see, when a camera films from a single frame of reference, there cam be an interpretation of events, but it is limited by what is in frame of reference and what is not. People have been imprisoned using bodycam footage, claimed to be "all you nees to reference, it's clear as day" only to be exonerated later with further evidence or different angles that tell a completely different story. In this exact case, you would be the police alleging that this man tortued an animal. A remote is there, the dog yelps, it's all connected. Then, something would come out, perhaps that the collar is not a shock collar for example, such as the testimony, which changes the story completely from what you believe and is equally as plausible. That is the definition of being inconclusive as both stories are plausible with all the evidence presented thus far. Does that help? A "but is it that far-fetched" doesn't suddenly make one more conclusive than the other. And attempting to treat claims as verified fact while these remain inconclusive is bad faith.
So 23 minutes to easily educate yourself, or even attempt to refute what I put forth, but you can't be bothered. That tracks. Half that on 2x. Same reasoning is used to "keep x country for x" currently around the world. Hence why we call you out as a rightoid which you've also not refuted.
Okay - so we know there's a remote. We also know he was reasonably angry at the dog, and we know he reached towards something, then the dog yelped. And you don't think that's enough "coincidences" to no longer be a coincidence? Are you just willfully ignorant at this point? Because if that's the case, any further discussion is indeed futile.
No, I don't, that's something you just pulled out of your ass.
With no direct evidence - yes. There's a difference between "no direct evidence" and "no evidence at all". But guess what - if enough coincidences come together, they form evidence. In most murder cases, you never know if the TRULY killed the person, but you have finger prints, you have a lack of an alibi, you have a motive etc. All that comes together as a case. It's not like if nobody sees you literally putting the knife into the chest, you're gonna be free.
There's a lot of things we know happened but aren't sure. Hell, we don't know for sure if the 1985 beirut bombing was truly a CIA op, as some later investigations considered. There's also no actual evidence of trump ACTUALLY fucking kids on epstein island - but (and that's one of the few things we agree on in this entire discussion) I think that all the coincidences and relations come together and form a pretty conclusive picture.
And I think that in the hassan case, there's just too much "coincidences" to still be considered coincidence.
The dog yelping in a vacuum wouldn't be a problem. Again - it comes together with hassan being angry with his dog AND him reach off screen. That's what forms the evidence.
I don't think I am. I barely knew about the guy before the dog incident, the only time I heard about it was because LTT was building a PC for him lol. But yes, you're right - I don't believe the word of the guy because of course he would try to defend himself to save his reputation.
I think, if we look at the entire situation and how it happened - it's fairly conclusive.
Okay, but where is that "something". There is no something. He claimed it was a "vibration collar", which has been debunked already because people found the exact brand of the device he was using, and it's a shock collar. And there has been no something since.
No, it's really not. The combination of multiple claims can be evidence, as I've stated multiple times by now.
However, tl;dr: I believe the video and the order of events in the video fit to him using a shock collar, you don't. Any further discussion regarding this topic is just kinda pointless as we're just going in circles. I will refer to the video, you will say: "Well we don't know what he did off camera.". I'm not sure if you are genuinely not sure and you want to give him the benefit of the doubt or you know damn well what he did, but that would make a big supporter of your political agenda look bad.
Whatever you do with this, have a nice rest of the day! :)
I do agree we're going in circles and you've now backtracked significantly from "it's irrefutable and conclusive, he's an animal abuser" to "well, there's a couple of circumstances where maybe this happened." You went from nothing being inconclusive to a few circumstances that line up. There's a legal distinction between evidence and circumstantial evidence for a reason.
So, one thing which I've been hammering on. You're now saying, again, we unequivocally know the exact model number of the shock collar. A claim without any proof. That's my point and has been the whole time. People online can claim whatever they want. Sometimes it's true. Most times it's not. Meanwhile, we've got an entire anti-vax movement based on claims like this. But we also all know Trump is a co-conspirator in the Epstein files. These are circumstantial as you've said based on what we have, but I'd lean to the anti-vax level of assertion because we needs lots of assumptions, which is what I've been saying.
Again, if you have irrefutable proof of what collar it was, please, share it. A screenshot from Hasan's stream with the model # visible, etc. (Though that also ignores the Ethan claim of it not being torturous like you claim, being mild at best) I'm sure you'd bring down Hasan at that point, similar to how actually credible accusations finally brought down Graham Platner. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but I won't stand on faulty ground and claim facts based on assumptions. That was my whole point this entire time. And you're right, based on what's available, I don't believe it. You do. That's fine. I'm just pointing out how incredibly shaky your "irrefutable, evidence based judgement" really is and how you've retreated multiple times to more defensible positions.
So, if you'd like to pull out, feel free. My points stand solidly as I haven't had to retreat this whole time.