Ethan Klein investigates shock collar controversy surrounding Hasan Piker
Image: Twitch
Ethan Klein, host of The H3 Podcast, recently delved into the heated controversy surrounding streamer Hasan Piker's alleged use of a shock collar on his dog.
The incident, which went viral, prompted Klein to conduct a hands-on experiment to assess the validity of the claims.
During a recent podcast episode, Klein showcased the same model of shock collar that Piker was accused of using.
The device, equipped with a remote control and metal prongs, is designed to deliver electric shocks to train animals.
Klein, dressed in traditional Bavarian attire, set up the experiment in a radio studio, aiming to determine whether the collar could cause the distress attributed to it.Klein's test involved activating the collar at various intensity levels, starting with mild vibrations and progressing to higher settings.
The footage captures his reactions, which revealed that the initial settings produced only a slight sensation, far from the painful shock many had assumed. Even at higher intensities, Klein described the discomfort as manageable, suggesting that the device was not intended to inflict severe pain.
Ethan Klein bought the shock collar Hasan Piker is accused of using and tried it on himself.
He immediately discovered the collar isn't designed to be painful and likely isn't what made Hasan's dog yelp.
Hila tries to get Ethan to say it was painful, but he admits it wasn't. pic.twitter.com/kWZHGsvSqrThis finding contradicted the narrative that Piker had used the collar cruelly, as Klein's co-host, Hila, questioned the pain level, only for Ethan to insist that the sensation was not as intense as expected.
This exchange highlighted the podcast's focus on evidence-based reporting.Klein's experiment has reignited discussions about the ethics of shock collars in pet training.
While some argue that these devices are effective training tools, others contend that they can cause unnecessary stress and fear.
Klein's demonstration suggests that the controversy might be more about perception than reality, as the device's impact appears less severe than initially thought.