Dear Erika Kirk,

Your late husband was a scourge on the world and he died a death too clean for his own good. We’d say it’s disgusting you’re using your husband’s death as a platform to spread more misinformation and hate, but we suppose it’s fitting that his memory is besmirched by your fucking lunacy. We wish you all the worst save perhaps your late husband’s fate you pathetic pathetic excuse for a human being.

Sincerely,

Most of The United States Population

I won’t lie, and I’m sure some would have some criticisms, but that sounds like a good enough cure to me.

I agree. I think there’s just this constant perceived pressure by employers, customers, and friends/family to always be available. Whether this perception is accurate or not is situation dependent, but ultimately I think we’ve all been traumatized into keeping notifications on for every communications related app. That said, keeping notifications on for something like Signal does strike me as a bit counterintuitive.

Well there’s always this more “humane” take:

It’s good…and bad. I dunno. I asked ChatGPT to update some basic CRUD functions in client side javascript a couple days ago so that it followed a UML schematic more accurately… and it just took my entire code base and wrapped it in a single class…and that was it.

So then I was like no, here’s some sample classes from the UML and here’s some properties and how these methods map to these functions I wrote before, get it?

And then, yeah, it did the thing I wanted…so…cool? I mean, sure, you can call it skill issues with prompting, but man, I’ve been coding with this thing for some time now, and sometimes I’m just like, “I miss stack overflow man”…and shit…I never thought I’d ever say that.

Sure, coding was slower, and maybe you didn’t find the thing you needed to fix your problem, but that friction taught you so much and you made friends (and enemies) as you tried to get an answer to your problem. Now we’re all missing out on that and just making the AI sort of kind of not really better.

Must have been some Mad Honey.

Ive been running Linux for close to a decade now and one thing that I’ve noticed is rarely brought up in Linux circles is that Linux Kernel Development is heavily funded by major big tech corpos. Examples include Microsoft, Google, Oracle, and IBM.

There is a vested corporate interest in keeping Linux well maintained as it is the OS that underpins the vast majority of corporate server architecture and infrastructure.

I’m not saying Linux development wouldn’t exist without them, but imho, Linux certainly wouldn’t be as ubiquitous as it is today without this corporate backing. Thusly, it is worth noting that in many ways, we Linux users have not escaped corporate influence simply from switching from Windows or MacOS to Linux.

We’ve maybe lessened it to some degree, but to think we are somehow immune to the misguided mandates from state governments, like the latest recent age verification laws, is misguided.

And I think we can bring this back to cultish behavior as per the OP’s shower thought. Regardless of how one feels about Hasan’s treatment of his dog, its hard to navigate who is coming to this argument in good faith around animal abuse, and who are angry with Hasan for unrelated reasons and simply want to tear him down due to numerous other unrelated grievances (i.e.. blind faith in a leader and blind condemnation of any criticism of said leader).

If Hasan was a virtual nobody in terms of fame and had posted the same video, I doubt it would have received as much scrutiny or ire, and thusly the perception around those who still came to discuss the video would be that of people talking in good faith (and not just trying to smear someone’s reputation).

I will admit I am increasingly frustrated that cult mentality creates a sort of fog around these discussions, as it’s hard to tell who wants to have a genuine discussion and who just wants to tear down the reputation of someone with whom they have a grudge. And sadly this pervades many disagreements online like this one you and I have.

Neither of us can tell if one is sincere or not. And perhaps even worse, even if we both are sincere in our convictions (which I believe we are), its incredibly difficult if not impossible for us both to devote the time and effort to have a nuanced discussion on the topic, let alone change laws about it. But the positive side is that our discussion here still has the small potential to influence people’s minds on the topic, so at least there’s that.

As an aside, I am only vaguely aware of the various other dramas around Hasan.I followed his drama with Ethan Klein for a time and admittedly came out favoring Hasan’s side of the story on that one. The rest of it I only occasionally tune into.

Anyways, I think you and I have at least come to a mutually respectful disagreement, and unless you wanted to continue this discussion further, I’m content to conclude it here.

Fair enough. And I’ll at least concede its unlikely we’d come to a satisfying meeting of the minds here. Animal Abuse and what constitutes it is admittedly a somewhat complex topic that is still and probably will forever be evolving.

And it’s not like I don’t get the emotional aspect to this. I’ve had life long pets (cats, not dogs), and I hate the thought of abusing any animal. But the debate around what constitutes animal abuse ranges from people wanting to grant human rights to some/all animals all the way to poachers not giving any fucks about any animal’s well being.

This is why I do default to experts. And yeah, its some expert on the internet that I simply perceive as having put in his two cents in good faith, but I just value that opinion over so many in the debate bros space because its just an endless sea of bias in that sphere. Ironically my bias against that corner of the internet means I have a bias towards others outside of that world.

That said, I’ll still stand by my belief that an expert opinion has more value than a non expert, but that doesn’t negate your opinion that an expert’s opinion isn’t consensus and one’s individual conscience shouldn’t be considered in the discussion.

Again, all fair enough.

Look, you can find Hasan’s use of his dog as a prop for his streams distasteful. Heck, I’d agree with that sentiment.

But saying someone inflicted animal abuse is a serious accusation that has legal ramifications should it have occurred.

According to one account of a single expert which I provided, Hasan has not committed what I can only assume many in his field would be considered animal abuse.

You can question his credentials, you can question his legitimacy, you can question your own society’s definition of what constitutes animal abuse. Heck, you can even push your lawmakers to change the definition of what constitutes animal abuse.

But as it stands currently, it does not appear, from my admittedly very limited point of view, that Hasan committed animal abuse as it is currently defined in the laws surrounding it in the United States.

Look, I am even sympathetic to your argument, but when an expert in dog behavior is telling me this is acceptable forms of disciplining your dog, and I perceive that they are presenting their expertise in good faith, then I simply value their definitively expert opinion over the emotional reactions of overly hyped fans of one side or another in what I consider to be a toxic soup of debate bros accolades.

If you at least cannot see why I might think that, then I don’t know what else I can say to you other than I’m sorry that you feel that way.

EDIT: grammar, removal of double negative.

Ugh. Okay man, the expert’s opinion doesn’t matter. You win, lol.

Like I say, I’m not a fan of Hasan, as I find debate bros culture kind of distasteful, but the only way you can convince me that Hasan definitely abused his dog is to provide me with a contrary argument provided by someone who is an expert on dog training.

I’ll wait dude, seriously. Just provide me with any evidence that has a shred of credibility.

Not according to any dog trainer you’d speak to. Sorry dude, I default to experts in their fields when considering things, not just my emotional gut reaction.

But if you’re a certified dog trainer, I’d be willing to give your opinion equal consideration.

I don’t know, I saw a YouTube video of a dog trainer who watched the video and basically said Hasan wasn’t likely to be abusing his dog, at least based off the specific video in question.

I’m not a fan of Hasan. I agree with a lot of what he has to say in regards to political matters, but I’m just not into the drama that surrounds debate bro culture in which he is a major figure.

That said, this issue with his dog is potentially a smear campaign, and there seems to be at least some credible evidence to suggest it is.

Here is the dog trainer in question. He claims to not have any political or social affiliation with Hasan, which I take at face value, but you can ascertain for yourself whether or not to believe him.

EDIT: slight wording change.