17
votes
Who's afraid of Hasan Piker?
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- He's Hot. He's "Dangerous." He Never Stops Talking. Is the Answer to Trump Hiding in Plain Sight?
- Authors
- Luke Winkie
- Published
- Feb 18 2025
- Word count
- 5530 words
Most people in this thread seem to have no idea of who Hasan Piker is and seem to have not read the article.
Hasan has done more than entire populations when it comes to upholding LGBT rights, civil liberties, women's rights, and covering human rights violations committed often by western powers which is almost never covered in western media--certainly not to the extent it should be.
People who don't really know him and hate him are usually people who have only ever seen his out-of-context clips or quotes, while people who do know him and hate him are usually far right nut cases and/or pro-Israel/zionist folk. Notice I didn't say Jewish people, because Hasan has been fighting antisemitism throughout his career and has a number of anti-zionist Jewish viewers.
Owen Jones and HasanAbi are my go-to when I want to see decent takes on many areas including Gaza.
I listen to his podcast, Fear&, and +1 agree with what you say here. The amount he's raised even just for Gaza was staggering, i think it was like 500k within a couple of days. I also follow his Instagram, he's one of the very few influencers I do follow on IG and he recently shared his Tiltify stats which I think got to 1.5 million lifetime or something crazy like that. For a single creator that's definitely a lot.
I think I get put off sometimes by his loudness and sometimes drilling in "the bit" a bit too hard, but I think Hasan in general does his best. His heavy sarcasm definitely doesn't help that out of context clipping/quotes thing (famously his "America deserved 9/11" take I feel like was the most egregious, but also a lot of people like bringing that up, and for someone working in politics for as long as he has, is pretty good that that's most people's only gripe with him imo)
Totally agree with you an all these. Especially the loudness part, haha
Honestly, a positive comparison with Owen Jones may be the most damning criticism of him in this thread. He's so deeply insufferable, and doesn't seem to have an original thought in his head. I mean, the same can be said of a lot of his communist brethren, but his brand of generic outrage-bait always seems to wind me up the most.
If Hasan is anything like that, then I seem to have done well to avoid him.
I don't follow the guy, and I've not watched him intentionally but since there seems to be confusion, he's a leftist. I haven't seen anything other than him doing the hat bit, and it's as a bit, to suggest otherwise.
Now, disliking him personally or not liking the media coverage makes sense, but I don't get the "he owns a hat that he uses as a bit" or "younger Trump lunatics" concerns.
It'd be far more useful for those of us out of that loop to know what makes him so objectionable. Just that he's an asshole?
If you have an hour and 42 minutes to burn I recommend watching the video I posted. He promotes terrorist propaganda and interviews terrorist propagandists in his videos. Presumably he follows the logic chain of: Israel is bad for its treatment of Palestine -> Palestine is good -> Arab countries that support Palestine are good -> Military groups in those countries are good.
Got it, and no, I have zero interest in watching nearly two hours of video (I rather loathe the idea that I must commit hours to a video of things I could read in much shorter time and it's the thing I dislike the most about modern discourse.) But the criticism was simply conveyed.
I've always been a slow reader, so perhaps the tradeoff isn't as bad for me.
That's fair, and I do watch long form videos but 90+ min is not conducive to a conversation vs a quick read (or even a screen reader reading an article aloud will be much faster than a vid)
Agreed, but at times 2x speed on YT has gotten me through something I wish I could have just read.
Not saying that should or should not be done with this video, just a general very occasionally useful trick.
I'm aware, but I wouldn't watch a 45 minute video for an internet argument/discussion either. It's just an unreasonable ask of a conversation partner IMO
That is fair. I always get recommended Angela Collier vids for physics stuff (or Star Trek), and I just can't do a 2-3 YT vid even on 2x lmao.
30 minutes is kind of the limit, unless it's something for falling asleep to.
The word terrorist has lost its meaning at this point.
If you're anti US or its allies, you're terrorist. If you criticize the US or its allies, you're a terrorist sympathizer.
As a result of the bias in western media, we've collectively been so desensitized to the atrocities committed by western powers that we're looking at decades of apartheid, settler colonialism, and now pretty much ethnic cleansing, and still managing to label a sliver of sympathy towards the victims of the said events as terrorist sympathy.
No, as far as I see, Hasan is not an antisemite and does not support Hamas or adjacent militant groups.
People have been throwing the same or similar sorts of accusations at him since the get-go. I'm happy to see that his influence only grew for as long as he's been a political commentator.
His help to the Palestinian cause has been nothing short of amazing. I, for one, would have still been more or less blindly defending Israel if I hadn't watched a few of his videos on the topic since October 7.
Terrorist still has the same meaning it always has, its just a useful term for someone to intentionally misuse.
A terrorist is someone outside a conventional government who attacks civilians to further political goals.
So the people the US was fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the most part? Not terrorists. They attacked US or ISAF military targets. Those would be insurgents.
The IDF members that killed civilians? Not terrorists. Those are war criminals.
Most Hamas members are probably not terrorists, technically, but many of them definitely fit the definition.
The US is guilty of labeling anyone they don't like a terrorist. That doesn't change the definition though. The Russian military aren't terrorists. The Iranian secret police aren't terrorists. The North Korean army aren't terrorists. There are words for what those groups are, just not "terrorist".
Hamas, the Houthis, ISIL, the IRA, and Al Quaida are pretty clearly terrorist organizations. That's not to comment on whether any of their causes are just, it has to do with the type of attacks they carry out (intentional attacks against civilians to further a political goal), and the type of organization they are (outside the auspices of an internationally recognized government or state).
Thanks for your detailed write-up.
If we put aside the note about government, the distinction between large state armies killing journalists, aid workers, children, or otherwise non-militants, and smaller militant groups doing the same becomes the ratio of militants vs civilians killed, which would allow the quantification of a terrorist percentage, e.g. army X is 63% terrorist.
Seeing as Hamas is fighting to liberate Palestine from an apartheid regime, there's an argument to be made that it's not a terrorist organization. Fuck Hamas AND the IDF. I think we have to hold both to more similar standards, though.
If you ignore the part about government and just talk about what they do, I think it’s pretty clear that both sides spread terror by attacks on enemy civilians? They do it pretty openly and unapologetically.
I don’t see any way around that unless you make excuses for government entities.
The reason this is so contentious is because how loaded the word terrorist is, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. For most English speakers, a terrorist is evil incarnate, in a way that "war criminal" is not.
Even though both sides are furthering political goals by killing civilians, one is a conventional military while the other is a loosely organized band of irregulars, so one are terrorists, while the other are war criminals.
It's not a judgement call, just what the widely accepted definitions of both words mean.
It doesn't matter why you're intentionally killing civilians to further a political goal, just that you're doing it. The IRA were terrorists when they were killing civilians to end English rule of Ireland, Aum Shinrikyo were terrorists when they killed civilians in Tokyo to try to achieve their off the wall political goals and so on. You could have the most righteous political cause there is, if you're intentionally targeting and attacking civilians to achieve it, you're a terrorist, even if you feel that the moral calculus works out so the ends justify the means.
There is also almost always a distinction made here between states that kill civilians and non-state actors that do so. States are (usually) not labeled terrorist.
I am not saying he's on the right of the political spectrum. I'm saying hes a dishonest extremist with next to no morals and is likely dangerous. Like trump. The actual positions he holds on something like gay marriage basically don't matter because I don't think he cares in reality.
Edit- to be clear I can see why you arrived at that conclusion given other comments, but I hadn’t read that much yet. Just trying to clarify my stance as I think the difference between these twitch influences and musk/trump is list that they’re going to prey on later generations
His true feelings towards gay rights aside--which, proving conclusively whether a public figure cares about something is not only difficult, but also useless--his support to LGBT rights has been tremendous and came in various forms.
If a person, who has been leftist, pro-LGBT, pro-women's rights, and anti human rights violations throughout their career, is labeled "dangerous" due to the rather unrealistic possibility that they would one day become Trump is bizarre. If such people are brushed off for being "dangerous", we'd be left with nothing but right wing grifters, who will unapologetically continue to steer more and more of the population towards the far right.
It was more a total lack of information provided, and just confusion on my part since I didn't know the guy other than having seen his name tossed around so I appreciate the clarity
For my money, and my opinion, "jokingly" owning a symbol of racism and hatred is very, very suspect. Particularly when his family has a history of being left-wing ... Until they aren't.
But like you, I don't follow him, I know nothing about him, other than that this article seems to be falling over itself with hero worship over him. And, he owns and displays, even occasionally wears, a MAGA hat.
Oh for certain, it's suspect, but it wouldn't be the first tasteless bit I've seen and while I came into this wary of the guy and not a fan, I just think it's more useful to actually criticize specifics or at least point to something (that isn't 90+min of a video) to give others context.
Like idk what you mean about his family either for example. (I did not read the full article either, usually I do, but I did feel the vibes were weird.)
I'll probably just scroll through the Wikipedia summary to save myself some time and everyone else the bother.
His uncle is Cenk Uygur, famously the founder of The Young Turks.
Cenk is (was) a progressive leftist. Now, not so much.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cenk-uygur-signals-optimism-trump-153418686.html
I understand that Hasan is not Cenk, and this is damning by association rather than by deeds. That said, there's a fair number of leftists out there that twisted themselves right into right-wing grifting.
Again, the dude owns a MAGA hat.
If someone has a klan hood, we don't assume they're joking. If someone has Nazi memorabilia, we give them the side eye. At some point there is no difference between doing something "to be edgy" and doing it because you earnestly believe in what you're doing. The damage is done regardless of intention.
As I said, owning it is absolutely suspect, but it's not really particularly useful criticism by itself in the face of everything else said about his beliefs. If he's being "ironically" racist or misogynistic I'd certainly have an even sharper eye. Part of owning historical memorabilia is that it's harder to get ahold of, I'm not sure how that translates to modern hat, but I'm not arguing that it means nothing, just that I need follow up for "suspect" to mean "actually the thing"
I'd say his uncle is a similar "not useful" for me, but the details are at least more helpful. I appreciate them, thanks
It's gross to me that people think this asshole has much of anything useful to say, and even worse that anyone thinks this is the future of any party. If we're just going to find younger trump lunatics then whatever, I guess that's the meta or what not, but dear god I hope we don't.
Edit-
Also wtf is this article? Even if you like the guy this is literally describing him as some sex demi god figure or something? Am i just "not with it" and this is all relatable or are they literally just doing their best to worship this stranger from the gate.
I don't like Hasan. I don't really have any rational reason---just, something about his vibe puts me off. But I heard it said recently, and it stuck with me, that a successful political movement needs to be broad enough to include some bad people. Am I willing to be in coalition with Hasan? Kind of, yeah, as long as Trump-style politics is an active threat. The liberal left is dangerously close to complete collapse. We need to be finding friends wherever we can. And Hasan is the only left-of-center voice on the Internet that comes close to matching the big boys of right-wing new media in terms of influence.
This is all assuming he'd consider himself "in coalition" with me, which I somewhat doubt. My understanding is that he's nearly as critical of liberals as he is of the right (or perhaps even moreseo?), which would kind of make it impossible to form a coalition with him. One can imagine a future where he softens his rhetoric, but it would probably only happen if he could see himself gaining personally from the bargain. Well, the Dems might just have to do it. Like you say, as much as we may hate it, it might just be "the meta". Or, to quote this article, which was posted here recently:
The left is far more concerned with ideological purity than actually forming a coalition and fixing actual problems.
I consider myself to be on the left, though I'm not sure where I lie. But I don't share some things about my beliefs because they wouldn't pass the purity litmus test and I'd be branded a troll or a "far right agitator."
I tend to distance myself from leftist spaces for this reason.
I completely agree. A lot of the arguments going on in this thread prove it as well.
Frankly, we will never make real progress until we learn what conservatives learned a long time ago: you must gain political power if you want to make any changes, and that involves aligning yourself with people who don't necessarily agree on everything with you. Having the "correct" opinions is borderline useless if we can't do anything. There's a reason conservatives have focused on slowly gaining political power, starting from small local positions like school boards.
As horrible as they can be, at the end of the day, they generally tend to coalesce together in some sort of unholy union that allows them to push their policies and wield political (and social) power.
Are you suggesting that Hasan is a Trump lunatic? Have you read the article?
I already clarified this elsewhere but in short, no he is not literally a trump supporter. He is just the extremist leftist version of the same kind of grifter/extremist that trump is.
I think the size of his audience pretty clearly shows you're not 'with it'. That doesn't make your dislike of him necessarily unfounded (though I disagree with your characterization entirely), but for the question you specifically asked? Yeah, you're definitely not in touch with the broader young male internet culture.
Ugh, all of these streamers are going through my head. I don't even know any of these people - Destiny, H3H3, Hasan, Asmongold. It all becomes slop when you just see the drama related to them proliferate.
I think the funniest part of this all is that these people are streamers. Like they're not even intellectuals or academics, they kinda just say vile and disgusting garbage to get younger people to agree with them. I saw a 1 hour video of Destiny arguing with Norman Finklestien and Benny Morris and he was just yelling and repeating very basic talking points against two people who were well above his grade. It's an embarrassment that people consider these commentators actually worth listening to.
It's not even that, people like H3H3 have kinda bled off of youtube popularity by the end of the 2010s and they're only relevant because they post whatever dumb thing Hasan is saying. Like all that dude talks about is Hasan this, Hasan that.
I know this comes off as a long-winded rant but I'm genuinely tired of what I see as an extension of terminally-online drama. Also to answer the question of the title in the article I guess that wouldn't be me.
I think the nature of any popular streamer is that there's so much footage of them to cherrypick to support a point - good and bad - that their public perception is doomed to be highly polarised. The result is conversations like this thread: unusually emotional (by Tildes standards, by internet standards still quite civil), and full of people talking past each other, bringing up good things or bad things and mostly unable to engage with the opposite points. Because there would be just so much footage to go through to prove or disprove anything!
I really like this take. I've been on Tildes more or less daily since the Reddit API changes, and up until this post have only commented a few times.
Just today, though, I've spent at least 2 hours writing and reading comments on this post. It's like you said, the discussions aren't fruitful and no parties, for the most part, are changing their minds.
Time for me step back a little. Cheers
It's bizarre to me how heated the comments on this post are getting. Somehow people seem more upset about a streamer promoting left wing viewpoints in a way they don't like than many of the objectively far worse things going on in the world right now.
This is just my speculation, but I think parasociality has many indirect effects like this on discourse. Discussion of political objectives turn into discussions about some guy's personality. There are good points too, but they're not on display in this thread.
That's a good point. Combine that with increasing loneliness and social isolation, and you have a recipe for a dangerous self-perpetuating and self-exacerbating cycle.
This is going to be a bit of a rant because I absolutely hate slop political reaction streamers like Destiny, H3H3 and especially Hassan.
And I usually get flack making these points in some forums because "they do so much for leftist issues." And my counter point is that based on how things are going, they clearly didn't do enough. (I'd argue they make it worse for leftist voices but that's its own can of worms).
The issue with "political" streamers spesifically is that there are 3 versions of them. There's the version thats just some vague concept to most people and the version that occasionally makes it on a mainstream stage. That's just like any other commentator and in those few caeses, I'd say they do a fairly good job repping their side. Especially in right wing circles and against older and out-of-touch people. Also, I really do enjoy it when these people are out at conventions or events and interacting with real people. I did not completely hate Hassan covering the LA fires.
The issue is the streamer version that do nothing but spew crap for almost 85 hours a week. Most of these people can't work as consultants, strategists or academics. They've never worked in government or practiced meaningful journalism or have any credentials/journals under their belt. Imagine the highlight of your resume being view counts and subsriber numbers. Yes, those numbers are impressive, but they loose luster when you realize that is mostly outrage bait and low effort reaction content.
Animators, musicians, sketch comics, film makers, tech support, writers, chefs, high effort reviewers, education, makers and even essayists. Even if content creation or streaming is the primary money maker, their skills can still exist without the algorithm. Hell, I know of vtubers that work as advisors, mo cap and VO artists while the highest level gamers/speedrunners can offer a wealth of knowledge to game studios and designers or coach the next generation of players. Even just pure entertainment creators like let's players and asmr channels need to hone and reinvent their craft to stay relevant.
Commentary and reaction channels are 100% algorithm. The only way they can grow is to "react harder". I genuinely believed the reason Asmond was decaying into his own filth was because he had no need for self improvement. Literally look at a screen for 12 hours and make money.
The reason they seem to fall off so hard and fast after 5-7years of relevance is because their audience grows up and moves on. Think of your iDubs, Drama Alert, Scarce, H3H3, xQC, Shane Dawsons and the like.
And if you follow algorithm trends, you'll know that keeping up is not healthy or sustainable. The one way to do it is blatent trend chasing which homogenises the platform and pidgen holes you as a creator. And for streamers that can't spend a day churning out their own slop, they just steal everyone else's en mass. A practice which has been proven to be worse for the original creator. (There are exceptions when it's with the creators consent, but a socialist like Hassan doesn't need to properly attribute or make dozens of requests or calculate fair rev share when his stream and reaction VoDs all outperform the original video.)
The other strategy is escalation. Used to be pretty bad on YouTube and until recently it was shockingly bad on Twitch. The logical end is someone like Jhonny Somali but there are plenty of harassment and explicit streamers that dangle problematic behaviour behind donation rewards. It'd almost be funny until you realize who the audience was.
And to keep up with the insanity Hassan and Asmond, who have no skill/talents/assets worth showcasing, could only resort to more extremist rhetoric. And not just the platforming of problem figures and overtly rasist language. They end up flirting with overt harassment, celebrating their own problematic behaviour or peddling outright falsehoods.
And I don't even think it's intentional. Hassan has streamed over 650hrs in the last 3 months alone. He has 2 years of uninterrupted stream time under his belt and he's going to need to need a lot more with the way his view counts have plateaued. And because he's a slave to the algorithm, all he can do is feed into it more and more. So he has to be the most left. The most inflammatory. The most militant. The one who's not afraid to say what needs to be said. All from his mansion while safe from any repercussions.
And because Hassan is Twiches golden boy for some reason, every other left wing voice needs to play nice and follow his lead. And so you end up with one person controlling the narrative for progressive politics. And that's a pretty big problem when it come to progressive, collectivist movement.
Even if he supports issues that you are passionate about, he ties it to ideas that are far more problematic or even dangerous. And that has the double hit of not just weakening your own position, but also alienating people who would tend pregressive but have reasonable, non-political beliefs. Like if you're a young Jewish person that is conflicted about Gaza, and you go online to see all the biggest leftist voices all using antisemitic slurs. Or if you're someone disillusioned after supporting republican party but find out that leftist were celebrating the death of the guy that was shot it the Trump rally.
Maybe I'm missing some key context by not being a streamer or from the US. But these left wing streamers are no better than all the right wing grifters. They don't actually represent or promote any progressive values, but build a healthy profit by promoting some extremeist, isolationalist fantasy version of it.
Yeah you basically hit the nail on it's head here, these people are absolutely useless to society and they're defended because they serve a "cause". It's not like they're forever useless, but they choose to do pointless things like streaming. Sure, Hasan is very vocal about the Palestinian cause and is devoted to it, but he's not a scholar on the issue. Norman Finklestien, Noam Chomsky, and even Benny Morris have contributed way more to the discussion on the Israel-palestine conflict, Hasan isn't saying anything new. There are hundreds of intellectuals who champion left-wing values far better than Hasan. These people are at the end of the day, grifters who latch onto whatever hot topic comes their way. The other thing is that they latch onto bad faith arguments, for instance Destiny basically whitewashes anything Israel does as good and centers it around this extremely detached worldview which only makes sense if you go on reddit. Hasan on the other hand does the same with groups which are literally designated as terrorist organizations, and Asmongold said that he didn't give a shit about the extermination of the Palestinians because they had an "inferior culture". The cherry on top is that Asmongold doesn't even bathe or practice good hygiene, it's like the joke writes itself...
Pretty much, I used to watch Idubbz (kickstarter crap is pretty good btw), H3H3, and Leafy in Highschool. That era is long gone, with the other thing being that they were barely political even then. Ethan and Hila barely got into Israeli politics up until Oct 7th happened, and now they've gone down the rabbit hole.
Having a passing familiarity with Hasan’s work through other people, I can say that I do think this guy represents one of the inevitable futures of the left and is a strong contender as a voice for what will soon be the new potential majority or mainstream of left-wing politics.
I also believe it will be along the fault lines of certain beliefs he espouses where the left will face a massive internal schism of the sort the right has already experienced as the more strident, more dogmatic strains of the core ideology seek to purge the rest. The sway this guy has over younger leftish people is something else; they’re listening and building whole value systems based on what he says, which cannot be ignored or denied.
Personally, I’m of two minds about this: That I don’t agree with a lot of his opinions, but whatever fires up a bunch of people who otherwise wouldn’t care about what is happening now is important. And that I actually cannot stand being around people who listen to this guy in the same way as I used to avoid those listeners of Rush Limbaugh.
There’s just too little flexibility of thought, too little tolerance, too little pragmatism for me to not feel slightly on edge about where such thinking ends up. What’s the conclusion they’re racing towards here? I don’t like it; I also know exactly why people who follow reasoning like Hasan’s don’t like or agree with my opinions, as well.
If the right has “RINOs”, then I wonder what we’ll be calling their equivalent on the left. As is, I’ll most likely fall into that camp.
I think the "he's not necessarily (or maybe generally) wrong but he's an asshole" seems to fit what I've since read about him. Which tbf is what drove me away from Bernie for example (his supporters not him). I consider myself a leftist, I suspect he wouldn't think I'm leftist enough though I don't know if he's a purity test sort of guy or not. I grapple with some of the more extreme views he's expressed - what is the line between terrorist and freedom fighter? Who decides? Is collateral damage in war to be accepted universally or condemned universally or both?
Ultimately I think my biggest criticism of him again as a non-watcher, would be his journalistic ethics, that he seems like he's probably an asshole, and that I don't think any one person should be watched 8+ hours a day by anyone.
I've read a lot of your comments over the past few months and I've always had trouble understanding your apprehension towards Bernie and others on the left wing.
I watched Hasan for a bit back during the pandemic, but I don't really have the time for it anymore with my work schedule. Plus, I'm more of a Majority Report guy anyway as I'm not really into the weird parasocial thing, the drama, and wild side quests that happen in streaming. That said, I've seen a bit of Hasan here and there since the election, and he was one of the few people that really articulated a lot of my feelings about American politics and the direction that the Democrats should go moving forward. I know you said you aren't a video person and you prefer reading something, but I highly suggest you give his Pod Save America episode a listen. You are like the exact type of person that I want to hear from after that conversation.
My issues are with his supporters doing things like harassing female officials and journalists on Twitter calling them C***s and making the online spaces where I was trying to engage very unwelcoming to me. It's everything I hated about MAGA folks' behavior (before it got even worse). It was not just isolated instances but the general overall "fight me bro" yelling. It was not a place I could engage safely or productively.
My only issue with Bernie really is that I don't think he tried particularly hard to rein them in. It's possible he did more than I was aware of at the time. I probably agree with him more now than then, but I also don't think yet another old guy can save the left. His views are great but someone else has to step up.
I don't think a streamer is that person either. I would rather have someone who does have more journalistic ethics, attention to nuance and separation from the gotta be outrageous content click mill that streaming is than.
(I don't mind videos or podcasts, I just refuse to have to absorb an hour + of content instead of talking about specifics. It's the Jordan Peterson supporter stereotype of a response. I'll listen or watch things for my own knowledge, and I'll look at the podcast, but what you did was quite different than link drop and expectation of committing a ton of time before further conversation can happen. This is an unpaid pastime, ya know?)
Related: Content Nuke - Hasan Piker
I'm not going to watch a 2 hour video by H3 that I'm positive consists of nothing more than the usual gotchas.
For those who have no idea who Hasan is, I'd suggest that the first video you watch of him not be from an increasingly right wing, soon-to-be a grifter creator.
This guy's downfall has been so interesting to see. Went from THE guy that fought for fair use on YouTube to issuing DMCA takedowns to subreddits making fun of him.
That comment of mine looks uncharitable. Let me provide more context. I already watched Hasan's response to it a few weeks ago and I do mean that there is nothing new in it for me. I've also watched H3's last podcast episode with Hasan. I follow Hasan and know his takes. I've seen everything the video quotes or refers to live. Therefore, I know there's nothing new in that video for me.
If I had to watch every video throwing shade at Hasan (of which I've seen a few), I'd need to make it my full-time job.
Given the lack of context in that comment of mine, I think you're justified in calling it that. Let's keep things accountable, though, shall we?
While Hasan has objectively had immense positive influence on:
You, without reading the linked article, called him an asshole whose views aren't worth shit. As far as charitability goes, you're bankrupt here.
You keep claiming this, and are incorrect. I read the article right after I commented, but had not yet read the comments. It's why my very first edit is confused as to why they're referring to his bulge
Edit:
And to be clear, despite the serious claims from multiple directions, and your knowledge of the subject, you don't feel that maybe some rebuttal from your point of view might deliver some clarity on this discussion?
My apologies. This was a misunderstanding on my end.
I don't understand. Please elaborate
Sure. As i'm sure you're well aware this subject is not knew and was going on to some level before 10/7 and exploded pretty shortly after.
Given that:
wouldn't an explanation of why this is the case at least serve the discussion better than "oh yeah that's nothing". Why not at least summarize your take on Hasan's rebuttal?
Counterpoint: Ethan Klein is a Weaselly Little Liar (this is not a Hasan video, fwiw)
I don't think Ethan Klein is the person you want to push, given how he reacted to a creator going through the "content nuke".
Yeah this is what drives me nuts about all the content creator "political pundits" and their feuds. It's just a nightmare of nonsense all the way down but the fanbase locks onto one as god and the other as satan and follows lockstep from there.
It's a terrible way to get information, and the worst ones are in that worshiping parasocial relationship territory that's absolutely not healthy. The most charitable take I can give for any of them is they're not totally responsible for the unhealthy extremes significant chunks their fanbase winds up in, but they sure don't seem to mind profiting from it.
Hi, I know it's been a while since you posted this. I had already seen at the time, but I didn't want to drive the discussion away from the article in question. Not to mention the fact that it would be unreasonable for us to go through every point raised in the video.
I am a longtime H3 fan, dating back to the pre-Vape Nation days. He was actually the first youtuber I ever subscribed to. Coincidentally, Hasan was the first Twitch streamer I ever subscribed to. It was like a dream come true when the two joined forces after the brilliant "Oh my god, it's Sam Seder! What a fucking nightmare!" moment. I was really sad to see them part ways after 10/7, but I understand that this is a very personal issue for Ethan. And while I think he is misguided in both his perspective on Gaza and his constant attempts to go after Hasan, I still think he is a decent person at his core. I would love to see this squabble end and H3 go back to it's old ways or set his sights on a more worthy opponent.
The Hasan Piker Nuke is a very well-produced video. I disagree with the premise and most of the content in the video, but the H3 fan in me was happy to see that he still has his fastball. As I mentioned before, going through roughly two hours of twitch clips and addressing them one-by-one is an incredibly daunting task. But if you are truly interested in examining this a little further and seeing an alternative perspective, I highly recommend this video by Noah Samsen. It's not a point-by-point recounting or rebuttal of the H3-Hasan debacle, rather, it addresses the overall thesis of the content nuke. Noah also provides links to a playlist that goes more in-depth on the points brought up in H3's video, but I think his video is better. I'd love to read your thoughts on it.
I watched your video and then rewatched much of the original content nuke (just in the background while working).
The video you linked is mostly about the general white-washing of Israel's behavior but it does talk a bit about Ethan's video. I think it's correct of them to highlight Ethan is biased and omits facts that he could have engaged with while still pointing out Hasan's issues. Ethan does clearly state that he considers Israel's occupation of the West Bank a genocide, although I don't believe he does the same for the destruction of Gaza. However, given that he is able to say one of those two is a genocide I think he would or could say the same for Gaza. From what I see this makes him more ethically aligned than the Jewish people of Israel. I believe we need to engage with whatever gradient exists and move people like Ethan to be more critical of Israel's government.
I still think that the people roasted in the content nuke aren't good role models. Even if it's your job to tell people about the Gazan genocide you don't need to laugh along with terrorist propaganda. Hasan and his moderator that Ethan focuses on both seem like insufferable people even though they are on the side of the oppressed.
Thank you so much for taking the time to watch the video and write out a thoughtful reply.
I can't speak to Frogan's content since I am not one of the ~200 people that watch her, but as a longtime Hasan subscriber, I would encourage you to examine some more of his content beyond the handful of out of context clips that were presented in the video and decide for yourself. He is one of the few voices on the internet that consistently advocates for progressive politics across the board and promotes a healthy version of masculinity in a space that is riddled with Andrew Tate clones. His massive library of content unfortunately provides opportunities for people to twist brief moments of his stream and turn it into something it is not. For example, I could post parts of this clip from the election season alongside countless jokes or brief moments of irony and make it seem like he is a Trump supporter while ignoring the thousands upon thousands of hours where he is criticizing conservatives. I think that if you are as charitable towards Hasan as you were towards Ethan, you'll be able to see that there is a lot more depth to his commentary than what was presented in the content nuke.
Okay I've watched some Hasan streams and "response" videos to his content nuke. Now I feel like Ethan is trying to straddle a divide that can't be straddled. He wants to be anti-genocide (by words only) while still being pro-Israel.
Mirror: https://archive.is/fZZYs
I don't think "the answer to Trump" is someone with a MAGA hat.
Can you elaborate? Not sure what you're referring to.
Hasan Piker has a MAGA hat.
It's a comedy prop to lampoon how conservative viewpoints are more tolerated than actual left-wing (not liberal) viewpoints. Whenever he wants to say something controversial, he sometimes puts on the hat to highlight that a lot of out and about full-on Trump supporters say even worse shit and get away with it. Hate to break it to you, conservatives with MAGA hats and MAGA beliefs have gotten less flak on even this website than this guy.
To dismiss him as a "MAGA hat owner" and not engage with what he's actually saying is disingenuous and makes me suspect an overriding motivation.
You can suspect all you want. I, personally, do not trust anyone that willingly dons racist, hateful paraphernalia.
"It's just a joke, bro" stopped being a compelling argument decades ago, which based on what you've posted here is evidently what Hasan does.
You can say the stuff that the fascists say without dressing like them.
The other night on SNL, Tom Hanks wore a MAGA hat and parodied Trump supporters to widespread applause and MAGA fury. Parodying people by dressing up like them is a storied tradition and either you have like, a personal problem with that or you just hate the guy and found the most convenient angle of attack.
I do, in fact, have a problem with Tom Hanks wearing a MAGA hat. Just like I have a problem with Hasan wearing one. Just like I have an issue with klan hoods.
I have no problem with parody, generally. It starts to become a problem when that parody can be interpreted as earnest belief.
When I was still on Facebook, some mutual friends knucklehead made a comment about the "Kung Flu" back in 2020. This guy swears up and down that he's a leftist, a progressive, an ally - and he whips out racism that directly harms my family. I told him that shit isn't funny, and the reasons why - and he insisted
So yes, when people are "jokingly" racist, I do find it personally offensive. I am under no obligation to extend grace towards someone who willingly wears symbols that promote hatred towards my family.
Just saying, if someone claims to be your ally, and they also wear symbols that suggest otherwise - then maybe they aren't the best ally.
Then you're morally consistent at least. I personally do not share this belief, I think it should be fine to parody fascists when every other thing you say deplores them, but it is your right to not agree with me on this.
I think at this point you're digging in your heels out of principle, but you can't convince me you think Mitchell & Webb's "Are we the Baddies?" sketch is "jokingly" racist instead of just jokingly racist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
Satire has been used for centuries to lampoon hostile establishments and ideologies. The difference here is intent. This sketch is clearly meant to be satire, while your example of the Facebook friend is common with people being crypto-racist. It's up to you to identify which is which, and to be clear I'm not sure where I stand on Hasan regarding this, but there are certainly cases where you can be parodying an ideology and using their paraphernalia and still be firmly in another ideological camp.
It's not "it's just a joke, it's "it's just a costume".
For instance, the guy who made "Checkmate, Lincolnites!" clearly owns (and uses) a Confederate uniform, but accusing him of being pro-South would be ludicrous.
His popularity worries me, I'll just say that.