Someone in this very thread was talking about their use of a shock collar. Check the modlog.
Using a shock collar is, even on the left, relatively minor of a “crime” and Hasan would probably have little trouble maintaining the same audience numbers if he was openly using a shock collar.
I’m not giving “credibility” to anyone beside the video itself. When you hear a liar speak you ignore them, not actively believe the opposite. We can stop talking about which liars said it first because I’m not relying on their word for anything.
Someone in this very thread was talking about their use of a shock collar. Check the modlog.
Alright, let me update what I said: One person.
Using a shock collar is, even on the left, relatively minor of a “crime” and Hasan would probably have little trouble maintaining the same audience numbers if he was openly using a shock collar.
Nonsense. While Hasan himself has said in the wake of this that a shock collar typically isn’t as bad as it sounds, that it just makes a tingling feeling (he has some experience with these in the past, though he says he never personally used one with a dog of his own), people would be at least a little upset at him for using one, somewhat more upset at doing so secretly, and incomparably more upset at him for lying about it, which is what we would need to conclude now with him explicitly and extensively denying these claims. He had several less-damaging offramps, so the assumption here is that he is using a shock collar, which is a mild brand risk, in secret, which mitigates that risk, but then flagrantly revealed the secret, creating a bigger risk, and is now denying it despite the shock collar (supposedly) being clearly visible on camera in addition to flagrantly using it, inviting a huge degree of risk to his personal credibility. It doesn’t make sense. It requires believing that he basically made a perfect catastrophe of wrong decisions over the course of days and possibly years to do the most damage to his reputation with the smallest extra-social infraction.
I’m not giving “credibility” to anyone beside the video itself. When you hear a liar speak you ignore them, not actively believe the opposite. We can stop talking about which liars said it first because I’m not relying on their word for anything.
But how substantive is that claim really when you’re in here having the discussion they want you to have and shrugging at refutations? How can you act like you’re ignoring them when you are treating their plainly implausible claim as comparably plausible to the alternatives? This is only a real possibility to you because they started saying it, and now we’re just playing a game of endless excuses because the claim ultimately cannot be falsified and there can always be some way of lining up counterfactuals to reach the conclusion that the liars want. Actually ignoring them, if ignoring was what you wanted to do, would be to retain the mindset you had before they said anything, which I really doubt you have. What I recommend, when one is forced to talk about this shit because I agree that ignoring is usually the better option but social circumstances like this sort of prevent it, is critically examining the claim to see how completely flimsy it is and, even if it’s not literally physically impossible, dismissing it as the less plausible explanation because a bunch of liars gassing it doesn’t make it more valid than when it was a non-idea before. It never had any substance and there are explanations that make more sense, that’s all there is to it.
I always assumed that people on this board had a similar level of experience with dealing with conspiracy theorists, but I’m beginning to think that that’s not true.
I am now convinced it’s a shock collar. The following picture is only to show the piece of tape and what I claim it’s covering.
I’ve played around with stills from this clip in my own image editor to my satisfaction. There is without any doubt a piece of electrical tape on the bottom of the black box, obscuring the two holes where the prongs were either unscrewed or cut off. You can easily see the impression of them for yourself if you crank up the brightness and contrast.
I am not making any claims about whether he used it in the clip he’s accused of using it in. The dewclaw getting caught explanation sounds reasonable to me. It’s definitely a shock collar though.
I am probably just personally bad at interpreting blurry images, because I don’t see what you mean. I see the little button-looking thing at the top, but that doesn’t seem to be what you mean, and it’s not obvious to me at all what is under the tape. It looks like the tape is just a covering over a flat surface and we can’t really say what is under it besides obviously there not being a protrusion.
I also kind of need to ask what the point is of a shock collar that doesn’t shock. Like, vibrating collars also have two little contact points, usually, or is that what the button at the top is here?
The round thing at the top is a barrel jack you use to charge the device.
The prongs of the shock collar have been unscrewed prior to the picture being taken, then the holes covered with electrical tape.
There’s a strip of electrical tape across the bottom of the black box, and if you get the contrast ratio right you can even make out the little depression in the tape where the prong holes are. You can make out the tape as it’s moving in the unedited clip as well since it has a matte finish and the plastic around it is shiny. There seem to be a couple dog hairs stuck in the sides of the strip of tape. While it’s possible that the tape was there the whole time, it doesn’t look like a place where the thing would crack, and it isn’t applied in such a way that it would hold anything together. I can’t see any other purpose for it than to cover the prong holes in hopes the camera wouldn’t pick it up, which it very nearly didn’t.
Is there no tape? In the picture it looks like tape. Hopefully it’s clear that I’m being completely sincere in this, since you can see I spent an unhealthy amount of time in this thread arguing against the “Kaya was shocked” interpretation of events.
I am pretty certain dog hairs would be caught in the tape over time normally, and it seems possible that there was just a crack or something, e.g. the collar got caught on something that scraped it, so the tape is there to prevent the scrape from scraping Kaya or something (since abrasions to rigid surfaces can themselves be hazards in that way). You also didn’t mention about if they could be the little nodes for a vibration collar, since he says that’s what it is and I don’t see where else it would have the nodes (though I assume on a shock collar that also vibrates, the same prongs do both).
I’ve never used a collar with electronic parts, if it wasn’t clear, just mechanical kinds.
It’s unlikely it got caught on something since the scratch would be on the inside edge, against her neck. I’ll admit I haven’t heard of a vibration collar having nodes on it. I don’t know what they would be for, besides replicating the feeling of a shock collar if you have a dog who has been trained to only listen when they think they’re wearing one.
Looking at the options on Amazon I don’t see any vibration only collars with prongs, and the vibration only collars seem to be generally much slimmer than the shock collars, which stick out more, similar to Kaya’s.
I also see a lot of very bad remote design decisions, where the shock button could be easily pressed by mistake, and the intensity dial could easily be adjusted unintentionally. That could be one explanation for the “yelp” clip, but the dewclaw explanation is reasonable as well. I certainly don’t think he’s willfully tazing his dog all the time. I do believe it’s a shock collar though.
Why would he not remove that tape, and hold the thing up to the camera, so as to remove any doubt? He even seems a bit sheepish in the clip where he shows it off. Showing us a closeup of the model number would be ideal.
Someone in this very thread was talking about their use of a shock collar. Check the modlog.
Using a shock collar is, even on the left, relatively minor of a “crime” and Hasan would probably have little trouble maintaining the same audience numbers if he was openly using a shock collar.
I’m not giving “credibility” to anyone beside the video itself. When you hear a liar speak you ignore them, not actively believe the opposite. We can stop talking about which liars said it first because I’m not relying on their word for anything.
Alright, let me update what I said: One person.
Nonsense. While Hasan himself has said in the wake of this that a shock collar typically isn’t as bad as it sounds, that it just makes a tingling feeling (he has some experience with these in the past, though he says he never personally used one with a dog of his own), people would be at least a little upset at him for using one, somewhat more upset at doing so secretly, and incomparably more upset at him for lying about it, which is what we would need to conclude now with him explicitly and extensively denying these claims. He had several less-damaging offramps, so the assumption here is that he is using a shock collar, which is a mild brand risk, in secret, which mitigates that risk, but then flagrantly revealed the secret, creating a bigger risk, and is now denying it despite the shock collar (supposedly) being clearly visible on camera in addition to flagrantly using it, inviting a huge degree of risk to his personal credibility. It doesn’t make sense. It requires believing that he basically made a perfect catastrophe of wrong decisions over the course of days and possibly years to do the most damage to his reputation with the smallest extra-social infraction.
But how substantive is that claim really when you’re in here having the discussion they want you to have and shrugging at refutations? How can you act like you’re ignoring them when you are treating their plainly implausible claim as comparably plausible to the alternatives? This is only a real possibility to you because they started saying it, and now we’re just playing a game of endless excuses because the claim ultimately cannot be falsified and there can always be some way of lining up counterfactuals to reach the conclusion that the liars want. Actually ignoring them, if ignoring was what you wanted to do, would be to retain the mindset you had before they said anything, which I really doubt you have. What I recommend, when one is forced to talk about this shit because I agree that ignoring is usually the better option but social circumstances like this sort of prevent it, is critically examining the claim to see how completely flimsy it is and, even if it’s not literally physically impossible, dismissing it as the less plausible explanation because a bunch of liars gassing it doesn’t make it more valid than when it was a non-idea before. It never had any substance and there are explanations that make more sense, that’s all there is to it.
I always assumed that people on this board had a similar level of experience with dealing with conspiracy theorists, but I’m beginning to think that that’s not true.
Also that one person got banned. I thought this Grinch person was the same user at first.
I am now convinced it’s a shock collar. The following picture is only to show the piece of tape and what I claim it’s covering.
I’ve played around with stills from this clip in my own image editor to my satisfaction. There is without any doubt a piece of electrical tape on the bottom of the black box, obscuring the two holes where the prongs were either unscrewed or cut off. You can easily see the impression of them for yourself if you crank up the brightness and contrast.
I am not making any claims about whether he used it in the clip he’s accused of using it in. The dewclaw getting caught explanation sounds reasonable to me. It’s definitely a shock collar though.
I am probably just personally bad at interpreting blurry images, because I don’t see what you mean. I see the little button-looking thing at the top, but that doesn’t seem to be what you mean, and it’s not obvious to me at all what is under the tape. It looks like the tape is just a covering over a flat surface and we can’t really say what is under it besides obviously there not being a protrusion.
I also kind of need to ask what the point is of a shock collar that doesn’t shock. Like, vibrating collars also have two little contact points, usually, or is that what the button at the top is here?
The round thing at the top is a barrel jack you use to charge the device.
The prongs of the shock collar have been unscrewed prior to the picture being taken, then the holes covered with electrical tape.
Thanks for explaining what the jack is. I still don’t understand how you’ve coming to that conclusion about there having been prongs. Am I just blind?
There’s a strip of electrical tape across the bottom of the black box, and if you get the contrast ratio right you can even make out the little depression in the tape where the prong holes are. You can make out the tape as it’s moving in the unedited clip as well since it has a matte finish and the plastic around it is shiny. There seem to be a couple dog hairs stuck in the sides of the strip of tape. While it’s possible that the tape was there the whole time, it doesn’t look like a place where the thing would crack, and it isn’t applied in such a way that it would hold anything together. I can’t see any other purpose for it than to cover the prong holes in hopes the camera wouldn’t pick it up, which it very nearly didn’t.
It’s not even electrical tape, it’s literally just the collar
Is there no tape? In the picture it looks like tape. Hopefully it’s clear that I’m being completely sincere in this, since you can see I spent an unhealthy amount of time in this thread arguing against the “Kaya was shocked” interpretation of events.
I am pretty certain dog hairs would be caught in the tape over time normally, and it seems possible that there was just a crack or something, e.g. the collar got caught on something that scraped it, so the tape is there to prevent the scrape from scraping Kaya or something (since abrasions to rigid surfaces can themselves be hazards in that way). You also didn’t mention about if they could be the little nodes for a vibration collar, since he says that’s what it is and I don’t see where else it would have the nodes (though I assume on a shock collar that also vibrates, the same prongs do both).
I’ve never used a collar with electronic parts, if it wasn’t clear, just mechanical kinds.
It’s unlikely it got caught on something since the scratch would be on the inside edge, against her neck. I’ll admit I haven’t heard of a vibration collar having nodes on it. I don’t know what they would be for, besides replicating the feeling of a shock collar if you have a dog who has been trained to only listen when they think they’re wearing one.
Looking at the options on Amazon I don’t see any vibration only collars with prongs, and the vibration only collars seem to be generally much slimmer than the shock collars, which stick out more, similar to Kaya’s. I also see a lot of very bad remote design decisions, where the shock button could be easily pressed by mistake, and the intensity dial could easily be adjusted unintentionally. That could be one explanation for the “yelp” clip, but the dewclaw explanation is reasonable as well. I certainly don’t think he’s willfully tazing his dog all the time. I do believe it’s a shock collar though.
Why would he not remove that tape, and hold the thing up to the camera, so as to remove any doubt? He even seems a bit sheepish in the clip where he shows it off. Showing us a closeup of the model number would be ideal.