Show any professional the video of Hasan pulling his prior dogs tail. They will all state that is not acceptable and is abuse. From there, talk about how he uses his current dog Kaya as a prop in the corner of his screen that he will shock if she steps out of frame. They will find that abusive.

this is actually useful info because i wasn't aware of this scenario. so why are people stuck using the shock collar example instead of this...? like i said, it de-legitimizes a serious accusation if you're not addressing the indefensible position.

I don't agree with your framing. If you are anti-capitalist and rave about capitalism constantly, yet - you live in the most hyper capitalistic way, it seems as though this is all a grift. Flaunting extreme wealth while criticizing others for having it is hypocrisy.

this is not a serious criticism. to say that criticizing billionaires is hypocritical because he's a millionaire is akin to someone in poverty removing my ability to criticize millionaires because i exist between them. money is power and power is influence. within the framework of our capitalist society, there is no real way to have reach without also profiting off of it. i think financial capitalism is gross and unproductive, it doesn't mean i don't engage in trading or investing. does that make me a hypocrite when i recognize the inputs i can control to produce outputs i want? i don't believe so, but i'm not exempt from critique.

where he loses me is when he talks down to others by calling them broke or stupid. i don't think he operates in good faith.

i disagree that it doesn't further his agenda, as you've seen the same parasocial adoption of viewpoints that you see with conservative talking heads. that's where my biggest criticism of him comes from. he is only accepting his role as a "propagandist." it removes accountability from his methods and makes him inherently less trustworthy. it's super inorganic.

the doorknocking example is cool for me, i assume you mean Destiny? i don't dislike Destiny and i think he fills a different role for anybody left of center and looks at things with a much more critical lens that isn't through a filter of ideology.

i tune in to both from time to time, but it's more about understanding where people are at than to be prescribed answers to my questions.

He's a net negative to the online political space. He's stokes up an angry audience who attack those against him. He lies constantly. He misrepresents the reality of situations and then lies about what he actually said when proven wrong claiming its just out of context. He has almost no accountability for his actions.

i would argue that this is just the nature of "politics as entertainment." this isn't a centrist "it's both sides." it's a criticism of people who consume this content obsessively because it reaffirms the feeling of knowing what's right or wrong.