Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Fair enough and sorry for the snark. Certainly it's worth aiming for, but I don't think the standard here is that every claim has to be cited.

A better version of my post would be to point out that it took 3 seconds to get some initial info with which to do a quick pass of self-assessing the claims.

I agree with your original point that rhetoric gets stretched a lot on these contentious topics.

Browsing some of the clips myself, I think it's a bit less than a slam dunk on the narrowest interpretation of the streamer "supporting" various groups... but a pretty convincing display of a strong bias wrt said contentious topic.

And to zoom back out to the context of the original comment vis a vis the posted article, it provides some useful context about why this person might be targeted for additional screening by domestic security organizations -- regardless of what one thinks about the validity or wisdom of those particular decisions.

Edit: And to your original framing, I think it's very easily apparent that this streamer is not a simple case of "concern for civilian deaths" -> "endorses Hamas". He's very consistently making the claim that they (and others) are emancipatory groups which are being maligned as terrorist.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: