For context: People are claiming that Hasan Piker shocked his dog with a shock collar on stream for basically no reason and got very mad at him. He put out a video showing her collar for 0.001 seconds in the world's most awkward hand grip and saying it was clearly a vibration collar and his enemies are trying to ruin his life as they always do. People including myself are still suspicious.
I looked at the allegations in this video myself a little, and I won't swear to the model numbers or anything but it all sounds right to me. You may need to pause the video to look at his images, he scrolls past them irritatingly quickly. There does however definitely look to me to be tape on the back of that thing. This is from Hasan's explanation stream where he showed the collar:
Click to see the raw image and zoom it, and you'll see pretty clearly that most of the box is shiny dark black plastic with bright white highlights, and then there's a clear off-kilter rectangle of something that's matte dark grey instead, without much in the way of highlights. You can also see vague shadows of two little circular things that could be prong sockets covered by tape or could just be weird compression artifacts or something.
Here it is with contrast adjusted:
You can see the rectangle of the tape, and then some kind of distortion at the top that might be a prong socket, and a pretty clear circular shape at the bottom that definitely looks like it could be one.
In another part of the video you can see that circular part under the tape even more clearly. Look between his fingers to see the clear circular shape, you can even see wrinkles in the tape around the circular protrusion:
Yes, I'm already aware that the Hasan stans will say I'm making all this up and it's not there and they don't see anything. Anyway, that's what it is. If I did my math right, those frames are from https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2586575954 and the timestamps are, respectively for the three images:
- 43:58.396
- 44:09.292
- 44:09.333
Somebody inform reddit, the drama must flow.
It also doesn't make the conclusion of abuse any less spurious.
If you want to debunk the actual claim rather than the person it comes from, we're all ears.
Which claim? That his dog wears a shock collar? That he used it during a stream? Or that (granting the two previous claims) this stands as evidence that he abuses his dog?
I'm far more interested in why some people are so eager to litigate a political commentator's relationship with his dog when the bulk of his commentary is pointed at western-backed genocidal apartheid states.
Because most people conscously or subconcously expect better treatment towards pets than other fellow humans. It's like children. Unless you're an Israeli or conservative looking at a brown child, nobody stans child abusers.
"Why are people eager to litigate this incident?"
Yes, that's the motivation i'm pointing to.