4 ms·

Thanks for the link, but as you said the value is about 3 seconds. Who’s this source? What are their biases? Are the summaries accurate? What id prefer is a li

Thanks for the link, but as you said the value is about 3 seconds. Who’s this source? What are their biases? Are the summaries accurate? What id prefer is a link to a video or post or something where he makes one of these comments so that I can understand what he’s saying myself, or a link to someone I trust making a statement on it. I will go and watch some of the linked clips, but you can understand that this is a much higher time investment and not something I really want to do for every comment I read online. Id much rather see evidence and links provided by the person trying to make the point.

elefanten 1y ago
Fair enough and sorry for the snark. Certainly it's worth aiming for, but I don't think the standard here is that every claim has to be cited. A better version of my post would be to point out that it took 3 seconds to get some initial info with which to do a quick pass of self-assessing the claims. I agree with your original point that rhetoric gets stretched a lot on these contentious topics. Browsing some of the clips myself, I think it's a bit less than a slam dunk on the narrowest interpretation of the streamer "supporting" various groups... but a pretty convincing display of a strong bias wrt said contentious topic. And to zoom back out to the context of the original comment vis a vis the posted article, it provides some useful context about why this person might be targeted for additional screening by domestic security organizations -- regardless of what one thinks about the validity or wisdom of those particular decisions. Edit: And to your original framing, I think it's very easily apparent that this streamer is not a simple case of "concern for civilian deaths" -> "endorses Hamas". He's very consistently making the claim that they (and others) are emancipatory groups which are being maligned as terrorist.

elefanten 1y ago

Fair enough and sorry for the snark. Certainly it's worth aiming for, but I don't think the standard here is that every claim has to be cited. A better version of my post would be to point out that it took 3 seconds to get some initial info with which to do a quick pass of self-assessing the claims. I agree with your original point that rhetoric gets stretched a lot on these contentious topics. Browsing some of the clips myself, I think it's a bit less than a slam dunk on the narrowest interpretation of the streamer "supporting" various groups... but a pretty convincing display of a strong bias wrt said contentious topic. And to zoom back out to the context of the original comment vis a vis the posted article, it provides some useful context about why this person might be targeted for additional screening by domestic security organizations -- regardless of what one thinks about the validity or wisdom of those particular decisions. Edit: And to your original framing, I think it's very easily apparent that this streamer is not a simple case of "concern for civilian deaths" -> "endorses Hamas". He's very consistently making the claim that they (and others) are emancipatory groups which are being maligned as terrorist.