I just don’t see how Saltman is related to anything I’m writing about, unless all criticism of Hasan Piker is considered related to Saltman?
To draw a relevant parallel to what that text writes about; that seems equivalent to conflating all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
If I’m just being incredibly dense (which happens), then I’d appreciate further clarification, if you’re willing.
Care to elaborate? I don’t really see them referenced or connected in anything I write.
My personal favourite right now is:
Add together in a bowl, mix and serve.
It’s a super quick side that goes well with nearly any of my regular dishes, and I eat it several times a week.
This is anecdotal of course, but that was absolutely my journey.
I went from a meat heavy diet to not eating meat the majority of the days, and still trying to gradually lower it further.
For some people (like me) the barrier to lowering their meat consumption has more to do with having to learn a whole new paradigm of cooking, than being super invested in meat itself.
In case like mine it really helps to do the changes little steps at a time, where you make just one relatively small change at a time, learn how to cook with that change in mind, and then move onto the next relatively small change. It allows me some time to learn to cook with the new ingredients/new allocation of ingredients, and make food I actually want to eat in the long run, so it becomes way easier to keep it up.
Can you give some substance other than your opinion?
Here’s one source that does bring evidence to the table to support the conclusion that Hasan used a shock collar.
It also highlights that Hasan has been borderline, if not actually, abusive to his previous dog.
Probably not intentionally, mind you, as I think he believes he is using actual training tools and training for results that are reasonable, but what he believes does not change the fact that these are abusive (and ineffective) training methods.
Which specific negative (or positive, for that matter) do you believe to be untrue?
I tried to temper some of the negatives and positives both with what I consider relevant counter weight, but I didn’t always have one I deemed relevant or that I could find substantiation for.
I would also argue that I treated both the negatives and positives as factual, because I believe they both are. I find that there’s a little good in the bad and a little bad in the good, so I try to add that nuance when I believe I can see proof of it.
I’m happy to be corrected if you think any of the statements are untrue.
I disagree.
I tried to point out both positive and negative actions of his, while also encouraging independent, critical research and thinking.
I don’t dismiss the good he does, nor do I overlook the bad.
He’s a flawed character, just like the rest of us, and his reach magnifies both his flaws and his virtues, as well as their impacts on the world. Just like any public figure.
I think everyone who knows some about him will have an opinion on him - I’d call him divisive. I’ll try to give a relatively neutral rundown - I’m not a historian or researcher on this subject so my knowledge is likely to have holes.
I don’t have time to treat this like a dissertation or adding citations, but I’ll try to present things as neutrally as I can and then you (or anyone else reading) can decide to further research any of the points as you see fit. I am not the final authority on this, just someone who’s dug a little more into this than the average person, and who has no strong feelings for or against the person in question.
He is a political twitch streamer. He ties himself to, and uses the language of, the far left and related candidates. He backs and campaigns for progressive candidates which often raises awareness and donation for them, but the effect seems to be limited - some candidates he backs does well and others do not. He also seems to make plenty of statements that directly contradicts the candidates he backs and campaign for, causing some of them to try to distance themselves from him.
He appears to be well-versed in U.S. electoral politics, media framing, and progressive political arguments, which tracks with his bachelor’s degree in political science and communication studies from Rutgers from 2013. Being a streamer he ends up talking about a lot of related subjects, in which he often has to give off-the-cuff opinions and takes, which can often fall well-short of informed or accurate.
He says his end goal is communism. He got his start as a content creator in his uncle’s online news channel (The Young Turks), before later splitting off from them and doing his own streaming business. He is from a very affluent family, personally earns a lot of money and he clearly lives an affluent lifestyle. He claims to thrift for designer clothes but when pressed appears to reference outlet stores and similar. Initially he claimed that he doesn’t want his regular thrift stores to get raided by fans, although his fans might be less affluent than him and therefore better served by access to these stores. He has done several very successful charity streams that amassed large amounts of money for good causes. He claims to donate great amounts of money to charities, although the amount of donated money that can be tied to him is very low for his level of wealth, somewhere between 77.000 - 80.000 USD total (0,5-1%) of his estimated wealth, which is 8-14 million USD. While he does not appear to put his money where his mouth is, he does spend some of his time on popular fundraising, which drives a lot of attention to both him and the causes he fund-raise for.
He is often abrasive in his communication, although he will excuse that with passion for the subjects he talk about. He has a large audience that aggressively attacks dissenters or people Hassan expresses dislike for or disagreement with. The harassment from his fan base appears to be significantly above and beyond the norm for the space, and while he comments to the contrary it would be hard to believe that he is unaware of the dynamic between him and his fan base. From what I can tell he has taken no steps towards solving this dynamic beyond disavowing some instances of the harassment, while condoning other instances. He does not appear to have a problem with lying about people or broadcasting random people (even known malicious actors, that he himself states to be malicious) on twitter or twitch if it fits his narrative.
He often breaks the rules of his streaming platform (twitch) but receives special treatment, although I am unsure if that is due to personal popularity or personal relationships with the owner of twitch.
He denies using a shock collar on his dog, but looking at the evidence gathered through old videos, still frames from new videos, and from people who personally interacted with the dog would suggest that to be a lie. I do not know if he still uses a shock collar on his dog since the latest controversy.
As said, feel free to research each of these points, but do be critical of the sources of information and try to just find the actual evidence of what was done or said, rather than peoples’ conclusions. He is divisive so when people give their take they usually either dismiss all the criticism and focus on the things he does well, or dismiss the things he does well and focus on the criticism.
Find all the evidence you can and make up your own mind.
Sorry, very late - I completely missed your message until now. Apologies for that.
I’ll try to find the time to answer you in-between work to give some quick evidence to each claim.
I don’t have it at hand, and most of my research is weeks, if not months, old at this point. I didn’t expect to spend time debating it with people online, so didn’t put together a whole dossier on it.
That is also largely why I left the door open for others to reach their own conclusions via their own research.
But I’ll try to compile something for you.
Edit:
Also, the reason I say “uses the language of” and “he says” is because I’m avoiding making a judgement call on it. It’s unfortunate if it comes across as biased. I don’t believe I hold any bias in those, but I do understand that perhaps those phrases have occasionally been co-opted by partisan outlets, but it’s neutral phrasing and just because some actors use it in bad faith doesn’t mean it is bad faith by default.