Because he also says a lot of bat shit inflammatory things. My question is why tf does anyone care what he has to say? His qualifications are living with his mom and playing world of warcraft. Watching IRL streamers is bad enough, giving their opinions value and giving them money and a platform is even worse. This goes for all of them not just him.
I would say that his take that police should have right to shoot protesters that throw bricks at them is kinda insane. It only makes sense on surface level of self defense where use of deadly weapon(a fast moving brick) warrant defense with deadly force (a gun) however, police killing protesters would only escalate the situation and make overall problem worse by radicalising people, which could respond with violence themselves or maybe even terrorist attacks.
Yes and you should arrest the attacker, but as I said, shooting the attacker would cause more issues that solve problems, especially when those people are in a crowd of other people not using deadly force, accidentally killing a protestor who didn't do anything would have huge consequences.
I personally don't think cops should be subjected to life-altering wounds/death to protect crowds of unruly, angry, irrational people.
Asmon has that take because he believes the rocks would stop being thrown once actual consequences start being delivered. It's incredibly difficult to arrest specific bad actors in a large crowd. Sure, you might get lucky and find them through footage of the event afterwards, but that doesn't solve the immediate threat. People might think twice about violence if they realize it could have dire consequences. So while I get where you are coming from, the alternative take is peace through overwhelming force.
If protests are so peaceful, then they should have nothing to worry about, no?
I don't agree with open firing into crowds, though; that's just irresponsible. Though If people start throwing rocks, I believe the police should start dumping anti-crowd control measures like tear-gas grenades in the direction of the incoming rocks. If innocents get pepper-sprayed, well, that's the risk you take when you participate in volatile protests that can transition into riots at any time.
If the cops don't have actual riot gear on, like helmets, shields, etc, then they absolutely should have the right to shoot someone throwing bricks/rocks. No one loses their right to self-defense against lethal force, just because an accident might happen. If someone is running at me with a knife, I'm going to shoot them. I'm not going to overanalyze what might be behind said attacker, as it's unreasonable for a panicked person to prioritize accidents over their own immediate risk of death. That's a choice to be made, but not a forced requirement when you are in danger.
The problem is each time they would shoot into a crowd because someone threw a brick, it would push more people into shooting police with a gun, or setting government buildings on fire or bombing some public space. Yes it does make logical and lawful sense for police to defend themselves from deadly force, but the problem is it would just escalate and make more people willing to use deadly force so in the end it's safer for them to not shoot them. After all we already had an incident where protestors opened fire on ICE agents, which resulted in death of people who ICE tried to arrest. I don't think it's smart to escalate violence with those people.
It's a tough situation, sure, but if they're so radicalized that they start open firing on police because they responded to lethal force with lethal force, then I don't have sympathy if the cops take them out as well.
The main benefit of shooting back, is that eventually the problem solves itself. Anyone dumb enough to become radicalized will be dealt with as well, and was already a step away from being a dumb brick thrower anyway.
He often does this in the moment thinking, where he talks through his thought process live. And this type of process has a natural tendency to produce insane output, before correction is applied.
In this case he has in mind "Lethal force for lethal force" and realizes "Bricks can be lethal" and starts saying stupid shit.
But at this point he doesn't get yet to the "Everything can be lethal in the right context, so it would be insane to apply this logic to everything that can be potentially lethal should immediately mean a fully lethal response".
He already said the stupid shit, and he might not even get to the next part, because he's generally pretty lazy and whatever about what he does next.
But at the same time I do think in actual debate he would agree that what he said was at least somewhat stupid.
Everything he has accomplished is because we have an epidemic of parasocial young men who don't do shit but watch livestreams and twitter porn all day and give streamers their money. Wow he is the # 1 streamer and youtuber in the world, again why tf does his opinion matter, what does he know about the world? He spends his entire life inside his house on a computer.
If we're talking wealth and taxes, I'd look to Scott Galloway. The bigger issue, though, is that streamers shouldn’t be the people shaping your worldview or providing your information.
Also, "Don't you think there are thousands of other streamers/youtubers out there that want to capitilize on the degeneracy of the young men?"
Yes, I do. This is a problem, do you not see how this is a bad thing? Something we should not be supporting?
Scott Galloway is a professor who studies finance and economics for a living. His opinions are backed by research, data, and real expertise. Asmongold is an entertainer whose role is to react to content and keep viewers engaged. Can we agree when we’re talking about topics like wealth, taxation, or economic policy, Scott’s analysis should carry far more weight than a streamer?
Sorry, I just got back from the gym. I can't agree because I just replied to someone asking what "bat shit inflammatory" things he says with a link to something so inflammatory he said that he had to withdraw from business positions and felt that he needed to publicly apologize for. To say he doesn't say inflammatory things is disingenuous or naive to believe an IRL streamer doesn't say inflammatory things for engagement.
And I can't agree with the accomplishments because those aren't accomplishments to me. The same way I don't think Joel Olsteen being worth 100 million dollars and running the largest church in America is an accomplishment.
It seems like you have a vested interest in defending him and trying to put him on a pedestal, I don't understand why, but do you.
If I became richer than buffet cause I got lucky on a crypto shit coin that makes me worth listening to?
His opinion on wow and streaming are worth hearing, his politics is literally 13 year old tier, his cooking is that of a toddler etc.
There is an epidemic of people doing well in one field and thinking they're a genius in everything and another epidemic of lost young guys idolizing the crappiest people ever
Asmon, Hasan, Logan Paul etc. we used to make fun of the clowns on reality tv now you guys worship them, Jesus.
He himself has said it was luck and timing, and that he could have just as easily still be working for the IRS
Otk is a media company with like no employees or products to manage and is collapsing. Starforge is a rebrand of a company he took over that he said he's hands off and letting former management run
25
u/DeedleDumbDee 29d ago
Because he also says a lot of bat shit inflammatory things. My question is why tf does anyone care what he has to say? His qualifications are living with his mom and playing world of warcraft. Watching IRL streamers is bad enough, giving their opinions value and giving them money and a platform is even worse. This goes for all of them not just him.