19 votes

Twitch Suspends Popular Leftist Streamer After Controversial 9/11 Comments

40 comments

  1. [13]
    Eva
    Link
    Crenshaw went on to argue against the idea that the United States’ destabilizing foreign policies had sowed the seeds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In response to Rogan’s comments that people in...
    
    Crenshaw went on to argue against the idea that the United States’ destabilizing foreign policies had sowed the seeds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In response to Rogan’s comments that people in other countries now dislike us because they’ve watched civilians die en masse to U.S. drone strikes and other military ventures, Crenshaw suggested that “millions” of people in countries like Yemen and Iraq are actually “begging” for the U.S. to establish a bigger military presence and restore order. Ultimately, he concluded that if the U.S. was to pull out of many of the 100-plus countries it is currently occupying in various forms, worse actors would “100 percent” fill the power vacuum.
    
    “We fucking totally brought it on ourselves, dude,” he then said. “We fucking did. Holy shit. Look at the way that this dipshit is running his fucking mouth, justifying genocide right now.”
    
    Piker’s Twitch chat did not react well to this statement. Responding to the sentiment in the chat he brought up the fact that the U.S. sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, which had likely helped fund 9/11. “How is anything I’m saying controversial?” he said. “We fucking fund the people who did 9/11—still, to this day. Donald Trump literally went on national television and said, ‘They bought $10 billion worth of weapons,’ so if they chop-chop-chop an American legal permanent resident, it’s OK.” (It was actually $8 billion worth of weapons split between Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.)
    

    Okay, but he's right. What's the issue here? Crenshaw's being an idiot (though that's more or less his entire act, so no surprise there); of course the US dropping out of Yemen & the countless other places the US has so gracefully groped with the hands of Democracy and Liberty right now would harm them. Just because we caused significant problems for them that've now destabilised them to the historical extent that the United States are famous for doesn't mean we should have been there in the first place.

    Am I justifying terrorism? No, not at all. But what other outcome was to be expected?

    The States have hardly found themselves in a justifiable war since the second World War despite having countless ones officially & unofficially going on during virtually every second since.

    You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes, and God, the States are gaming addicts.

    It's not the people's fault that the State's betting their lives.

    Warmongers like Crenshaw are incredibly dangerous to the country and the world at large, and any chance given to anyone to discredit or otherwise quiet him should be rewarded with a medal.

    29 votes
    1. [4]
      Emerald_Knight
      Link Parent
      Just a small formatting suggestion, but using > [your text here] instead of enclosing in triple backticks might be more readable (it should get rid of the horizontal scrolling). Not strictly...

      Just a small formatting suggestion, but using > [your text here] instead of enclosing in triple backticks might be more readable (it should get rid of the horizontal scrolling). Not strictly necessary, just something to consider :)

      40 votes
      1. [2]
        crowbahr
        Link Parent
        On mobile it's entirely unreadable basically. Endless scrolling.

        On mobile it's entirely unreadable basically. Endless scrolling.

        25 votes
        1. Octofox
          Link Parent
          Its unreadable on desktop as well

          Its unreadable on desktop as well

          22 votes
      2. psi
        Link Parent
        For the convenience of others:

        For the convenience of others:

        Crenshaw went on to argue against the idea that the United States’ destabilizing foreign policies had sowed the seeds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In response to Rogan’s comments that people in other countries now dislike us because they’ve watched civilians die en masse to U.S. drone strikes and other military ventures, Crenshaw suggested that “millions” of people in countries like Yemen and Iraq are actually “begging” for the U.S. to establish a bigger military presence and restore order. Ultimately, he concluded that if the U.S. was to pull out of many of the 100-plus countries it is currently occupying in various forms, worse actors would “100 percent” fill the power vacuum.

        “We fucking totally brought it on ourselves, dude,” he then said. “We fucking did. Holy shit. Look at the way that this dipshit is running his fucking mouth, justifying genocide right now.”

        Piker’s Twitch chat did not react well to this statement. Responding to the sentiment in the chat he brought up the fact that the U.S. sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, which had likely helped fund 9/11. “How is anything I’m saying controversial?” he said. “We fucking fund the people who did 9/11—still, to this day. Donald Trump literally went on national television and said, ‘They bought $10 billion worth of weapons,’ so if they chop-chop-chop an American legal permanent resident, it’s OK.” (It was actually $8 billion worth of weapons split between Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.)

        17 votes
    2. [8]
      vegai
      Link Parent
      I found it amazing how Piker managed to justify genocide while calling someone out for justifying genocide, in so few words!

      “We fucking totally brought it on ourselves, dude,” he then said. “We fucking did. Holy shit. Look at the way that this dipshit is running his fucking mouth, justifying genocide right now.”

      I found it amazing how Piker managed to justify genocide while calling someone out for justifying genocide, in so few words!

      3 votes
      1. [4]
        frozenplums
        Link Parent
        Maybe look up what genocide actually is

        Maybe look up what genocide actually is

        5 votes
        1. [3]
          vegai
          Link Parent
          Oh, right. Then I have no idea what Piker is talking about, since I don't think the west is committing genocide anywhere. Am I wrong in that?

          Oh, right. Then I have no idea what Piker is talking about, since I don't think the west is committing genocide anywhere. Am I wrong in that?

          1. [2]
            no_exit
            Link Parent
            A million dead Iraqi citizens isn't good enough for you?

            A million dead Iraqi citizens isn't good enough for you?

            2 votes
            1. vegai
              Link Parent
              Genocide implies intentional destruction of a people. Iraq is a fuck-up, not a genocide.

              Genocide implies intentional destruction of a people. Iraq is a fuck-up, not a genocide.

      2. [3]
        mike10010100
        Link Parent
        I'm confused, what genocide did Piker justify?

        I'm confused, what genocide did Piker justify?

        1. [2]
          vegai
          Link Parent
          Well, the genocide (that is not actual genocide, but as I said, I got confused since Piker seemed to be referring to a genocide that wasn't a genocide) of 9/11.

          Well, the genocide (that is not actual genocide, but as I said, I got confused since Piker seemed to be referring to a genocide that wasn't a genocide) of 9/11.

          1. mike10010100
            Link Parent
            Oh, rofl. Yeah nah I didn't interpret his statement about 9/11 as being anything about a genocide.

            Oh, rofl. Yeah nah I didn't interpret his statement about 9/11 as being anything about a genocide.

  2. [8]
    tunneljumper
    Link
    I see a lot of older people say stuff like this all the time, and it is extremely biased and egotistical thinking -- bin Laden is as much of a person as you or me or Crenshaw or anybody else, he...

    Near the start of the interview, Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who served in Afghanistan, had made the assertion that prior to 9/11, Bin Laden had no reason to hate America except our “Western ideology,” describing that hatred and the acts that followed as “irrational.”

    I see a lot of older people say stuff like this all the time, and it is extremely biased and egotistical thinking -- bin Laden is as much of a person as you or me or Crenshaw or anybody else, he has motivations and ideals behind his actions just like everyone else. I'm not defending what he did, but labeling him as some sort of "other" is just ignorant.

    Ultimately, he concluded that if the U.S. was to pull out of many of the 100-plus countries it is currently occupying in various forms, worse actors would “100 percent” fill the power vacuum.

    Again, egotistical thinking, in that he's assuming the rest of the world needs more FREEDOM in their lives and the United States of America is the only one to provide it. It's not like those are real people that can govern and decide for themselves what is best for their communities, no, they're just a bunch of savages with no concept of civilization. /s

    9 votes
    1. [6]
      JamesTeaKirk
      Link Parent
      It's not really about the people. It's about the terrorist factions in the region that do take control of areas as we pull troops out of them. While I think Crenshaw is being willfully ignorant...

      It's not really about the people. It's about the terrorist factions in the region that do take control of areas as we pull troops out of them. While I think Crenshaw is being willfully ignorant about how the U.S. has contributed to the current situation, I don't think he's necessarily incorrect about his larger stance against pulling troops out.

      8 votes
      1. [3]
        NaraVara
        Link Parent
        That's because we don't actually establish durable governance structures with buy in from the locals. If the only tool you have is a military and a bunch of rapacious multi-national resource...

        It's about the terrorist factions in the region that do take control of areas as we pull troops out of them.

        That's because we don't actually establish durable governance structures with buy in from the locals. If the only tool you have is a military and a bunch of rapacious multi-national resource extraction companies that follow them, then all we functionally are is the biggest and strongest warlord faction.

        We're not doing anything about warlordism as a governance paradigm aside from pretending that we can say "freedom" and "democracy" a lot and magically manifest a more just order through the power of saluting the flag hard enough. So it shouldn't be surprising that the warlordism continues after we leave. (Note: I used the word "continues" rather than "resumes" for a reason.)

        8 votes
        1. [2]
          Amarok
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Yeah, that's been my issue with how US interventionism plays out for a long time. It's about bringing external forces and corporations into a place that's had a failed government. What do these...

          Yeah, that's been my issue with how US interventionism plays out for a long time. It's about bringing external forces and corporations into a place that's had a failed government. What do these corporations do? They pillage everything in sight.

          The goal should be to help create a stable middle class economic bloc. You don't import cement from Haliburton at obscene pricing rates. Instead you start up a locally owned and operated cement company and get people to work there. Rebuild the businesses and economy from the ground up. Right now that line of thinking is antithetical to multinational corporations - why would they help create competition against themselves?

          Once you have those local industries and functioning economics, the people living there now have something to lose, and something to fight for, and some hope that they'll be able to make things better for themselves in the future. That'll bring some stability to the region. If it's owned by the people who live there, rather than imposed on them by a foreign power, they'll be far less likely to chafe against that new economic/government model.

          As far as the consequences of pulling out causing these places to fall back into chaos, that's a very real effect. There's a solid solution to that problem out there, though. We haven't built a multi-national peacekeeping force yet, and that's probably what it's going to take to be able to stabilize these war torn regions.

          6 votes
          1. NaraVara
            Link Parent
            For the record, this is functionally what USAID and the World Bank are supposed to do. But they keep staffing the agencies with veterans of the military-industrial complex so they just become arms...

            The goal should be to help create a stable middle class economic bloc. You don't import cement from Haliburton at obscene pricing rates. Instead you start up a locally owned and operated cement company and get people to work there. Rebuild the businesses and economy from the ground up. Right now that line of thinking is antithetical to multinational corporations - why would they help create competition against themselves?

            For the record, this is functionally what USAID and the World Bank are supposed to do. But they keep staffing the agencies with veterans of the military-industrial complex so they just become arms of the military.

            2 votes
      2. Litmus2336
        Link Parent
        It's one of those things where we can't turn back the clock, so in a way he's right. On everything else he's wrong.

        It's one of those things where we can't turn back the clock, so in a way he's right. On everything else he's wrong.

        2 votes
      3. mike10010100
        Link Parent
        Oh yeah, pulling out immediately is almost as bad as continuing these pointless wars. That's why a slow transition period that allows for the local governments to take over defense is needed....

        Oh yeah, pulling out immediately is almost as bad as continuing these pointless wars.

        That's why a slow transition period that allows for the local governments to take over defense is needed.

        Which is what Obama was doing before Trump smashed it to smithereens.

        1 vote
    2. mike10010100
      Link Parent
      It's not just ignorant, it's purposeful. So long as they can "other" people, they can paint Americans as "rightful". It's how we've managed to keep these wars going for so long.

      but labeling him as some sort of "other" is just ignorant.

      It's not just ignorant, it's purposeful. So long as they can "other" people, they can paint Americans as "rightful". It's how we've managed to keep these wars going for so long.

  3. [18]
    Bullmaestro
    (edited )
    Link
    Twitch banning a leftist? That's new. I thought Twitch was a really left-leaning streaming platform, considering that they did more to purge people like TrainwreckTV for their rants about camgirls...

    Twitch banning a leftist? That's new.

    I thought Twitch was a really left-leaning streaming platform, considering that they did more to purge people like TrainwreckTV for their rants about camgirls invading the site, or banning people because someone typed a racial slur, rather than targeting the actual camgirls who either border or go straight into violating the site's terms of service.

    Honestly, people need to start taking Mixer seriously. Online streaming needs some serious competition and I really don't think Twitch and YouTube are up to the task.

    4 votes
    1. [2]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      Right-wingers just have a stronger tendency to get banned. Why do people look for political bias and explanations in decisions like these?

      Right-wingers just have a stronger tendency to get banned.

      Why do people look for political bias and explanations in decisions like these?

      28 votes
      1. mike10010100
        Link Parent
        Because it allows them to feel like the victims without their needing to analyze the reasons why right-wingers tend to get banned more. It's almost like an ideology based on shows of strength and...

        Because it allows them to feel like the victims without their needing to analyze the reasons why right-wingers tend to get banned more.

        It's almost like an ideology based on shows of strength and in vs. out groups leads to toxic behavior that violates community rules more often.

        4 votes
    2. [13]
      knocklessmonster
      Link Parent
      They ban controversy. These platforms turn on everybody who says something that could lose them money. Right wingers tend to say more offensive stuff, yes, but "the US deserved 9/11," even if it...

      They ban controversy. These platforms turn on everybody who says something that could lose them money. Right wingers tend to say more offensive stuff, yes, but "the US deserved 9/11," even if it is a provable concept given the history leading to it, is a highly controversial statement because it is read as thousands of Americans deserved to die.

      17 votes
      1. [12]
        papasquat
        Link Parent
        It's by definition not provable. It's a subjective judgement call. It's an inflammatory, outrageous opinion, but even the statement "the US didn't deserve 9/11" isn't provable either. Whether...

        "the US deserved 9/11," even if it is a provable concept given the history leading to it

        It's by definition not provable. It's a subjective judgement call. It's an inflammatory, outrageous opinion, but even the statement "the US didn't deserve 9/11" isn't provable either. Whether someone deserves a certain kind of treatment or not is entirely subjective.

        I think it's obviously a stupid thing to say though. The people that were killed in terrorist attacks didn't order secret wars or meddling in the middle east. They were just innocent civilians going to work. Saying that they deserved to die smacks of either not actually having thought it through whatsoever, or just intentionally trolling.

        5 votes
        1. [10]
          VoidOutput
          Link Parent
          No one said that every person who died in 9/11 personally deserved it, where do you get that from? There's a difference between a country's government and a country's citizens.

          No one said that every person who died in 9/11 personally deserved it, where do you get that from? There's a difference between a country's government and a country's citizens.

          10 votes
          1. [9]
            papasquat
            Link Parent
            You'd maybe have a point if this was an insurgent attack against a military installation, or key infrastructure, but it was a deliberate attack to try to kill as many innocent people as possible....

            You'd maybe have a point if this was an insurgent attack against a military installation, or key infrastructure, but it was a deliberate attack to try to kill as many innocent people as possible.

            The US government didn't die in 9/11. It wasn't even wounded. Most people who lived or worked in NYC at the time know someone who either died, or had a family member that died in that attack. Normal people were its victims, so to say that "The US deserved 9/11", you're saying that innocent people deserved to die. It doesn't matter if that was the intention or not, that's what the statement literally means. Maybe that misunderstanding is why I see some people downplaying what this guy said. It's a really shitty, disgusting thing to say, even if you're just trying to be an edgelord.

            4 votes
            1. [8]
              unknown user
              Link Parent
              Nope, that is just how you want to understand it. It could easily be interpreted as "the US brought it onto itself, and the terrorists chose the easiest way they could attack the West and cause...

              Normal people were its victims, so to say that "The US deserved 9/11", you're saying that innocent people deserved to die.

              Nope, that is just how you want to understand it. It could easily be interpreted as "the US brought it onto itself, and the terrorists chose the easiest way they could attack the West and cause the biggest damage". It is totally possible that they did not really care about the innocents or even had some sort of sympathy and that their only target in their mind was the US. It is even logical to an extent: hitting huge towers with kidnapped planes is way easier than say attempting the life of a president or attacking a military base that belongs to the most powerful military in the entire freaking known universe.

              Things become way easier when you separate the sorrow for the victims and an objective consideration of the facts and events. But we have some weird sort of appetite for outrage and provocative rhetoric, so we keep missing the forest for the trees.

              9 votes
              1. [7]
                papasquat
                Link Parent
                But he didn't say that. He said that the US deserved 9/11. There's a mile long gulf between what you wrote, and what he actually said. If an innocent person gets murdered, and you say they...

                "the US brought it onto itself, and the terrorists chose the easiest way they could attack the West and cause the biggest damage"

                But he didn't say that. He said that the US deserved 9/11. There's a mile long gulf between what you wrote, and what he actually said. If an innocent person gets murdered, and you say they deserved it, there's no other way to interpret it.

                It is totally possible that they did not really care about the innocents or even had some sort of sympathy and that their only target in their mind was the US.

                No, it's not even remotely possible. Terrorism only works when you kill innocent people. The goal of 9/11 was to kill as many innocent people as possible in the most spectacular way possible. If they blew up an unoccupied building or a bridge, no one would care.

                2 votes
                1. [3]
                  unknown user
                  Link Parent
                  I know a thing or two about terrorism, given my country is ridden with it. Things are not that simple, but you're not open to discussion, so I'll be silent instead.

                  I know a thing or two about terrorism, given my country is ridden with it. Things are not that simple, but you're not open to discussion, so I'll be silent instead.

                  7 votes
                  1. [2]
                    Micycle_the_Bichael
                    Link Parent
                    I haven’t been a part of this discussion, don’t have any real specific questions, and agree with what you’ve said. If I remember usernames correctly you’re from Turkey, correct? If you wouldn’t...

                    I haven’t been a part of this discussion, don’t have any real specific questions, and agree with what you’ve said. If I remember usernames correctly you’re from Turkey, correct? If you wouldn’t mind I would love to hear your opinion/thoughts on this situation or the general subjects Piker brings up. That is, if you’re interested and don’t mind.

                    1 vote
                    1. unknown user
                      Link Parent
                      Yes, I'm from Turkey. I'm actually not a part of the discussion either, i.e. did not read the article and was only perusing; wanted to respond to papasquat because I did not agree with the...

                      Yes, I'm from Turkey. I'm actually not a part of the discussion either, i.e. did not read the article and was only perusing; wanted to respond to papasquat because I did not agree with the connections and conclusions they made.

                      W.r.t. Piker, it looks like he's of Turkish origin, but I don't know much about him. But if I talk about terrorism, it is a beast that feeds off of resentment, true, just, understandable resentment. In Turkey the two main long-term terror organisations are ASALA and PKK. The former was an Armenian organisation that does not exist anymore, and it targeted Turkish diplomats. It, expectably, was born out of resentment for the genocide. Which is totally valid, the resentment, but it lead on to terrorist attacks, and that's not acceptable. But that result does not render the cause invalid. PKK is a Kurdish terrorist organisation, and it was born out of resentment for assimilatory and fascist policies against Kurds, especially intensified after the coup of '80 (which has fucked up Turkey in major ways and has planted the power structures and some of the societal mental illnesses that brought about the current ruling bloc to power). Again, totally valid reason, but totally unacceptable outcome. Southeastern Turkey is vastly underdevelopped region. Almost no industry. Education and other public services do not penetrate that area enough. On top of this, there is racist oppression with the goal of total assimilation since decades. It is basically our own mini-colonialism at play (Ottoman Empire was basically the huge colony of the Ottoman Dynasty, glory only existed in the palaces of sultans and high-rank officers of state and military). It is a vicious cycle that only produces corpses of innocent youth fooled by either the state or the PKK with mainly nationalistic narratives.

                      It is really hard to understand the opressed when you're born as part of the oppressors. It took me years of reading and some happy coincidences. For the average Turk, it requires lots of effort to come to learn, let alone break the prejudices---both nationalistic and religious---taught since childhood and sympathise with, the suffering of ethnic minorities of Turkey. Since time immemorial, up until 1923, this area has been ruled by empires. Everybody suffered. But for the last few centuries, Muslims were priviledged in everything, and non-(Sunni-)Muslims were opressed. That situation carried well into the Republic, with the added ethnic tensions with the introduction of the Turkish identity (which was blurred or absent up until the second half of XIXth century).

                      Almost all terrorism is born out of some oppressed group having no other means to express their discontent and also often of systematic statal abuse of such group. Colonialism was one such force. I can only imagine what it did to places it actively pillaged for centuries. Apart from some petrol-rich cities, the Muslim world is poor and is still trying to deal with Colonialism. There's resentment, again valid, against the West. The way it is expressed in terrorism stems from organisations that exploit such resentment, terrorist organisations. But it is the same thing: resentment, and divide between the groups terrorist recruit from and target: when you don't know the Other in person, it is easier to hate on it and dehumanise it.

                      It is not much different from Nazis: almost none of the commanders or SS were raging psychopaths, they were mostly normal people. It was quite easy to recruit people because Treaty of Versailles (or whatever it was after WWI, I'm not good at retaining names) brought a lot of humiliation, suffering, hunger and poverty, and consequentially resentment.

                      These people don't think of their actions as murders or against the individuals (maybe bar ISIS, which is not really a terrorist organisation but some kind of pirate army whose aim is to pillage the world and feed the leaders); they think of it in terms of some (obviously bullshit) methodology. The attack on the towers have two sides to it: yes, it is horrible, inhumane, unacceptable; but it is also an expression of something and an attack on the abstract existence of the US. That there is an ideological background to it does not lessen the crime against humanity it was, but if we delete in turn the situations and complex historical phenomena it feeds off of, we can't go further than killing terrorists and hating on immigrants of darker skin tones.

                      And in the end, it is just one incident. In this part of the world, literally thousands of lives has been lost to terrorism since decades. ISIS alone caused hundreds of deaths, in Reina in Istanbul, in Ankara, in Urfa. Almost all civilians. PKK has been killing low-ranking soldiers since decades. At some periods it was a daily occurrence that a few soldiers were killed. But of course it is not the USA, so it is invisible. The USA has one terrorist attack, and it leads on to a twenty year war on many countries in Southern Asia and Middle East fucking up lives of millions of people that had nothing to do with it.

                      That the "US deserves it" is a bit harsh, but what it wants to express is that the USA as an institution has done everything to bring it on to itself. Yes, innocent individuals had nothing to do with it, but neither those in these war-torn countries. Individuals get radicalised because of colonialist oppression and a constant presence of violence around them. But that's invisible to colonialist oppressors just like what Armenians and Kurds experience is totally invisible to your average Turk: they are marginalised, remote, and squished under governmental and military apparati that are almost invincible. There isn't much other way to express that resentment. That is unless the oppressors stop oppressing and try to sympathise with these peoples, communicate and deal with it as equals. Conflating what US did with the individual citizens' life or what terrorists did to individuals with what they wanted to do to the state itself blinds us more to it. I don't say any of this justifies the actual terrorist attacks, none of them anywhere in the world, but there are concrete reasons why they happen, and there is exploitation of resentment in how it happens. So we should see and understand the (often valid) resentment and treat it before exploited. Western colonialism fucked up the lives of millions, billions of people. The West needs to deal with it humanely (and sending troops don't do that), or terrorism will only grow. Similarly, in Turkey, if we don't deal with PKK and the newfangled religious orgs in humane ways, it'll only grow. When the state kills your brother, it becomes really hard to sympathise with the narrative it brings to the table. Turks or Americans don't deserve terrorism, but the systems we participate in have voluntarily created vicious in which violence, resentment and terror thrives. We should draw the fine lines the situation asks for, and build an exit for these people, for the fact that we built the tall walls around them.

                      What I wanted to get at was a rhetorical call to emotions to blur all those lines and brush under the carpet the human condition on the other side of things. It is a huge lack of nuance and genuinity when people take objective and constructive looks into these violent events as justification or condoning them. One can both sympathise with and be sorry for the victims of 9/11, and hold the view that the USA as the state has been involved in colonialism and creating environments in which terror thrives which was the reason 9/11 happened.

                      6 votes
                2. [3]
                  no_exit
                  Link Parent
                  Nonsense. Take the screeching over Willem Van Spronsen torching a couple vans at an ICE facility, or whatever example of minor property damage you can think of from the past several years.

                  If they blew up an unoccupied building or a bridge, no one would care.

                  Nonsense. Take the screeching over Willem Van Spronsen torching a couple vans at an ICE facility, or whatever example of minor property damage you can think of from the past several years.

                  3 votes
                  1. [2]
                    papasquat
                    Link Parent
                    Alright, now compare any of those events to 9/11

                    Alright, now compare any of those events to 9/11

                    1. no_exit
                      Link Parent
                      9/11 obviously had a greater effect, but the response to 'terrorism' where no one is killed is not nothing. The government is taking strides to criminalize dissent specifically as a response to...

                      9/11 obviously had a greater effect, but the response to 'terrorism' where no one is killed is not nothing. The government is taking strides to criminalize dissent specifically as a response to events like Van Spronsen's attack and J20.

        2. knocklessmonster
          Link Parent
          I definitely could have phrased that better. I have limited knowledge of Hassan Piker, but from what I saw in one video, he seems like the sort of guy to run his mouth and see where that takes...

          I definitely could have phrased that better. I have limited knowledge of Hassan Piker, but from what I saw in one video, he seems like the sort of guy to run his mouth and see where that takes him, which in turn will generally lead one to go on a roll of oversimplifying complex situations, so I'm putting it in the "not actually having thought it through" part. I'm guilty of doing the same thing sometimes IRL, and even commenting. This was, I'd guess, one of those moments even if I don't feel I can accurately describe it as such.

          1 vote
    3. [2]
      mrbig
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I find it amusing how some people attribute most actions against right wingers to the fact that they’re right wingers, when it’s very clear that currently they simply have a higher tendency to do...

      I find it amusing how some people attribute most actions against right wingers to the fact that they’re right wingers, when it’s very clear that currently they simply have a higher tendency to do and say things that go against the rules of the platforms they use.

      11 votes
      1. Loire
        Link Parent
        Being offensive is an explicit part of the right-wing platform at the moment.

        Being offensive is an explicit part of the right-wing platform at the moment.

        12 votes
  4. Thunder-ten-tronckh
    Link
    Label-obsessed political tribalism and drama-hungry media add to our collective psychosis each and every day... This whole situation shouldn't even be on anybody's radar, but it is. And that's why.

    Label-obsessed political tribalism and drama-hungry media add to our collective psychosis each and every day... This whole situation shouldn't even be on anybody's radar, but it is. And that's why.