I mean, unless you’ve got something better - it’s that or self-smug laughing in comment form. Again, those two videos are not “glazing” Hasan from what I can tell.
I get it you don’t like Taylor for some reason but what about the Leeja Miller video?
You got a better way to convince anybody of anything other than self-righteous performative lols?
I can imagine a lot, but unfortunately - it seems I need to have your imagination to satisfy some apparent minimum journalistic standard you will otherwise arbitrarily re-position because the checks notespublished writer for NYT and the WaPo and the lady with the law degree is apparently “chaotic slop.”
See - in “debate lord” tactics - this is known as “pinning you down.”
You will otherwise continue to refuse to allow for any cited source because you can then arbitrarily say it’s not up to your otherwise nebulous definition of what would be satisfactory.
As I’m asking you to give me something concrete, you instead will just continue defer to continue pretending I have not provided something sufficient.
Not a Hasan video ✅
large channel not directly affiliated ✅
one video from a credentialed published journalist ✅
another from a former practicing lawyer ✅
You can pretend I’m not being honest here, but anyone else reading is smart enough to figure out what you’re doing amounts to. 😅
I mean, unless you’ve got something better - it’s that or self-smug laughing in comment form. Again, those two videos are not “glazing” Hasan from what I can tell.
I get it you don’t like Taylor for some reason but what about the Leeja Miller video?
You got a better way to convince anybody of anything other than self-righteous performative lols?
To answer your question, yes this is deflection.
You linked to 40 minutes of content and went “see, proof”.
Just wall after wall of text and cherry picked character references and accusations of people that have nothing to do with Hasan.
All typical of a Hasan viewer though, so nice work.
OK, what other kind of proof can someone provide? 🤣 do I need a published peer reviewed paper or something or I mean - like what do you want?
So it’s either a published, peer reviewed paper, or this chaotic dump of slop?
Those are really the only 2 things you can imagine?
I can imagine a lot, but unfortunately - it seems I need to have your imagination to satisfy some apparent minimum journalistic standard you will otherwise arbitrarily re-position because the checks notes published writer for NYT and the WaPo and the lady with the law degree is apparently “chaotic slop.”
See - in “debate lord” tactics - this is known as “pinning you down.”
You will otherwise continue to refuse to allow for any cited source because you can then arbitrarily say it’s not up to your otherwise nebulous definition of what would be satisfactory.
As I’m asking you to give me something concrete, you instead will just continue defer to continue pretending I have not provided something sufficient.
You can pretend I’m not being honest here, but anyone else reading is smart enough to figure out what you’re doing amounts to. 😅
Again, neither of their credentials (or hackery) have anything to do with whether or not Hasan shocked his dog.
Like I said, your focus on this is deflection. Or since you want to use debate terms “appeal to authority fallacy”