You’re asking for a formal, step-by-step evidentiary case. I’m offering a high-level critique of a rhetorical pattern. Those are different kinds of claims, and neither is illegitimate.

I’m not “declaring victory,” I’m describing how his style reads to a lot of leftists: moral preloading, reframing, and condemnation first, engagement second. That’s an interpretive claim, not a syllogism, and it doesn’t require me to footnote every instance to exist.

You’re right that if this were a debate, I’d need to walk through examples. But this isn’t a debate, it’s a comment thread. I’m explaining why many people react to him the way they do, not trying to prove a theorem.

If you don’t recognize that pattern, that’s fine. We just have different readings of the same content. But saying “there is no substance” because it isn’t presented in your preferred format is just another way of refusing to engage with the claim itself.

You’re shifting from “this isn’t true” to “this doesn’t exist unless you cite a clip.” Those are different claims.

I’m not arguing that one isolated moment proves my case. I’m criticizing a style of engagement that shows up across all of his content, where moral condemnation precedes analysis and critques/arguments are reframed instead of answered.

You’re free to disagree with that description. But dismissing it as “Jello” doesn’t make it go away, it just sidesteps what I am getting at.

I do watch his streams and clips every once in awhile, and I’m using “debates” loosely to mean adversarial political exchanges, whether that’s call-ins, panel arguments, reacting to critics, or sparring with chat/other creators.

My critique isn’t about frequency, it’s about style. The pattern I’m talking about, preloading moral conclusions, reframing opponents into caricatures, and using moral condemnation instead of engaging the actual claim, shows up in those exchanges too.

You can disagree with that assessment, but saying “you don’t watch him” doesn’t really address the substance of what I wrote.

Hasan constantly debates in bad faith, and is often closer to a left wing grifter than an activist. He doesnt argue " I think your analysis is wrong because xyz" rather he says “If you beleive this you are evil, stupid, or captured by propoganda.”

The worst part is his preloading conclusions to arguments and failing to accurately respond to his opposition, more often than not endlessly reframing/deflecting the argument to get to his own conclusion without adressing what his opponent has put forth. To anyone in the debate scene, its almost anti-dialectic.

Alot of his rhetoric is moral spectacle, filled with rage, absolutist rhetoric, and purity language. This not being paired with humility, mutual aid, or coalition-building makes critics see him as someone who cosplays revolutionary ethics while living like a celebrity pundit. Not because he is rich, but because he uses the aesthetics of struggle without practicing its discipline.

For many leftists, Hasan represents the worst of online politics. Moral grandstanding, idealogical bullying, and content-first ethics. His style trains people to perform righteousness instead of doing politics.

Also one of the nicest mtg pros out there.

Great platform with a ton of amazing creators. Definitely worth a subscription, but not a full replacement for yt. Revanced can at least get rid of the ads/improve ux.

Musk hacked vote tabulations

No he didn’t. Unfortunately, americans are just that stupid. Thats the same rhetoric conservatives were trying to use when they lied about dominion.

You should watch newer political debaters that invite average trump supports up on livestreams to argue on issues like this. A majority of them dont even understand due process.

Legislators? Sure. Constituents? Probably not.

Non paywalled version of article

Show me a single leftist calling to remove the middle class.

holy 5 months later batman…

I saw that I never posted a draft, lol.

It will always be more expensive to remove carbon from the atmosphere than to simply stop burning the fuels we have adequate replacements for.

Irrelevant, if companies and governments are willing/required to pay for it, then the cost does not matter. Also, pretending like the entire world can just not use fossil fuels is wishful thinking at best. If you think rationally for even a second, you would realize that is a nearly impossible task. Carbon capture will be one of many essential ways to offset emissions in areas where conversion to electric is infeasible

No one is suggesting we’ll have electric jets and shipping; but even industrial processes like steel foundries can go electric. Concrete too.

You are agreeing with my points here. My entire argument has been that shifting the onus to consumers for emissions is ridiculous. I have said multiple times that the manufacturing/energy production sectors are where we need to focus efforts rather than blaming inconsequential emitters like the consumers/ the FIA.

Furthermore, injection capture and other methods remain unproven for long periods - we don’t want a solution that blows up 200 years from now.

The problem with CC is not that it is unstable. It is that the current amount of capture is not sufficient for how much we emit.

You do you, but your sophistry about pets and killing all humans is unfounded and ridiculous. Akin to your premise.

It would be sophistic if you didn’t try to argue that anything that emits greenhouse gasses “needs to go.” I am simply pointing out how that logic is fundamentally flawed.

The realistic solution to all of this is a combination of everything. Transitioning away for fossil fuels where possible. Carbon capture can aid in sectors where that is infeasible. Offsets through companies like Wren have been proven to reduce emissions. (Yes, there are plenty of offset/credit programs that are not helpful, but that is a regulatory issue.) Increased public transportation options, more mixed use zoning, and more stringent manufacturing regulations, can also help. Change NEEDS to happen at a higher level before anything else can meaningfullly affect our course. And there a many intermediate steps we need to take before we can simply stop using fossil fuels altogether.

Carbon removal has been a viable solution for decades it just lacks the support necessary to scale. It has been proven to reduce the overall measued rate of c02 emissions here

Also, your entire argument is strangely pedantic. By your logic, anything that emits carbon needs to go, even if it’s neglible. We humans emit more carbon than we intake, so should we just kill everyone? The same goes for house pets. Should we just kill them all/make them illegal? Im genuinely asking because so far, your argument makes no logical sense.

That would hurt my feelings if I wasn’t a millennial lmao.

Seriously, though, your failure to even attempt to have a discussion tells me you have the discipline/intellect of a 14 y/o Ipad kid who learns everything from chatgpt.

Yes, because I have been an audio engineer for over two decades now. Show me someone who can reliably pass the iTunes test. Science does not care about your subjective personal experience.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/tax-the-rich-town-hall

Please elaborate

I highly doubt that. Do a proper ABx test (such as the one on digitalfeed.net) I have yet to meet someone who can pass the tests with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

If you have poe on the output end, there are repeaters that you could have buried along with the cable. Not a big enough signal difference in your case to be worth it probably but worth noting for other folks.

I dont see why you can’t just use the hdmi output on the camera + any capture card.

10 minutes. That’s one every 3 seconds…