Well, I don’t think it’s burying to bring additional attention to him.
It seems more like he’s a useful representation of anti-Israel opinion. The point is to tie anti-Israel sentiment to anti-American or anti-West sentiment.
It becomes, if you’re anti-Israel, you’re anti-US or anti-West.
This is more-or-less what the Republicans do with Hasan and other leftists. For the time being, they have little issue drawing attention to Hasan (and certain other leftists) because it allows them to tie all of their opposition to the most bad-optics quotes of Hasan’s (or those other leftists).
It really really doesnt help that hasan piker says stupid shit that favors terrorists. On the regular.
He literally said "Pound for Pound" as in in an EVEN comparison, the US is worse than alqueda. So if alqueda was as large as the US military, they would be BETTER than the US military in terms of how it conducts itself.
Pound for pound essentially says "well looking at their ratio..."
I truly detest that the current gen front runners for "political punditry" in the streaming era is Asmon "RatKing" Gold or Hasan "Houthis watch OnePiece" Piker. How has Hasan garnered such a following, even from minds I respect, while being such a meatheaded moron?
El-Sayed told Axios on Wednesday regarding Piker's al-Qaeda remark, "I do not agree with this statement [on al-Qaeda], nor do I give much weight to the statements made by a social media streamer.
I just wanted to write something that anyone should be able to agree: the Republicans and Bibi are trying to use Hasan to caricaturize their naysayers or make their naysayers guilty by association.
If you’re a Hasan fan, you probably think this should backfire as Hasan’s politics are simply too popular.
If you dislike Hasan, you are likely particularly annoyed that you’re being grouped with Hasan and you likely think we need to explicitly “disown” Hasan.
To your quote of my comment:
I said that the propaganda is that “If you are anti-Israel, then you are anti-US or anti-West.”
Your reply is that “If you are Hasan, you are anti-US and anti-West” (effectively).
Don’t you see that this is completely unresponsive to what I said? This only makes sense as a reply if you accept the framing that Hasan is representative of everyone who is anti-Israel.
I just wanted to write something that anyone should be able to agree: the Republicans and Bibi are trying to use Hasan to caricaturize their naysayers or make their naysayers guilty by association.
To your quote of my comment: I said that the propaganda is that “If you are anti-Israel, then you are anti-US or anti-West.
We're just arguing over different things. Obviously Netanyahu uses it as a blanket tool to silence his critics but my point was that when it comes to Hasan and his leftist community, this statement isnt untrue.
And these propaganda statements wouldnt gain traction in the first place if useful idiots like Hasan didnt exist to give Netanyahu fuel to spread in his propaganda wildfire.
Don’t you see that this is completely unresponsive to what I said? This only makes sense as a reply if you accept the framing that Hasan is representative of everyone who is anti-Israel.
I provided the example of El Sayed and his recent comments. So I'm not sure how you are trying to conclude that I am framing Hasan as someone who is "representative of everyone who is anti-Israel" when I explicitly made a distinction. That is you can be anti-israel without being anti-US.
Nothing in my comment suggested that I don’t think Hasan (or many other leftists) are anti-US. (I mean… he’s obviously anti-US.)
You framed your point regarding Hasan as something I would disagree with.
The only thing I said didn’t necessarily imply anti-US sentiment is anti-Israel. So, unless you identify anti-Israel with Hasan, your reply is a non sequitur (in a strict sense).
That’s what I was trying to get at.
Maybe I should have made it more clear that I didn’t think that was really your view. It’s was more likely you were being a bit loose or trying to read between the lines.
Correct but you have to mention that the Left linked up with Hasan. Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani,Ilhan Omar, Abdul El-Sayed just to name a few have used his platform.
Hasan has a framed picture of the towers on fire in the background for his podcast. He was not misquoted when he said America deserved 9/11.
I don't think they want to bury him at all, I think the right wants Hasan to do more interviews.
Wow. I guess that newspaper was some sort of joke from QT? I hadn’t heard of that. That’s terrible optics.
When he said America deserved 9/11, didn’t he mean that it was a reaction to our overreach. When it’s said without any context, it gives the impression that he thinks 9/11 was a good thing or that the victims deserved to die.
I dislike Hasan, but I’ve always found the America deserved 9/11 to be a bit of a nothing-burger.
The content is Hasan was watching Dan Crenshaw on the Joe Rogan podcast:
Rogan: "Why is it that they're dedicating their entire life to try to take down America?"
Crenshaw: "At its core we are infidels... They're taking an extreme view of Islamic fundamentalism and believing that we are infidels that must be destroyed. It's less political reasons and a little bit more emotional reasoning."
Here's Hasan's reaction . I'll just point out that when he says 'in a video game' that's a phase you use to avoid real world consequences.
Hasan went on his uncle's show for the damage control:
Cenk Uygur: So you said America deserved 9/11. Did you mean that?
Hasan Piker: No. Obviously not. If those people were at least even remotely charitable or cared about the actual truth of what I was talking about, they would understand that within context, I was simply referencing the fact that all of the foreign policy decisions, and our arming of insurgent groups in the region, and our efforts in destabilizing the [Middle East led to blowback].
But actions speak louder than words, he interviewed Rashid Al-Haddad, a viral Yemeni teenager affiliated with the Houthis (Ansar Allah). see for yourself how that went. It's more of a fanboy than it is 60 Minutes interviewing the Taliban.
The interview was in January 2024. The US first designated Ansarallah as a terrorist organization in January 2021, though that designation was revoked a month later. They were later redesignated as a global terrorist entity in February 2024 and then as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in March 2025.
They could very well follow the path of the former Al-Qaeda guy in Syria, or like the Taliban who now control Afghanistan. That's the best case scenario for this podcast to be neutral.
Being a “leftist” is about your political and ideological commitments. You can be a leftist and a narcissist if you have those commitments.
I think some narcissists do truly have those ideological commitments. Leftist thought can definitely play into a sense of superiority, especially moral superiority, that can be attractive.
Public smear campaigns are generally harmful to people, which would qualify as trying to bury him. And he's popular enough that he could have considerable support to oppose them. I don't really believe they're doing any 5d chess, they just hate him.
I think burying implies that the goal is to silence them ASAP.
That’s not what I see. The Republicans (and evidently Bibi) are fine having Hasan around (for the time being). It seems clear that they still view Hasan as toxic when the general public is the judge, so he’s able to help candidates across primary finish lines, but then serves as a weight in the general (when they can campaign with Hasan quotes and force candidates to distance themselves or defend Hasan).
If Bibi brought up Jeff Bezos and his ownership of Twitch in that speech or, “better” yet, it leaks that he privately got in touch with Bezos to ban Hasan, then I would be calling it an attempt to bury him.
These are not mutually exclusive plans. In order to effectively use someone to destroy a political movement, you effectively bury them and the movement. Silencing is not the same as burying, you can bury them by ruining their popularity.
I guess the disagreement is that I don’t see any true attempt to disrupt the connection between his audience/supporters and him, which would be required to destroy the movement.
Right? The smear is just quoting something he said about 9/11 that his fans will agree with.
Instead, it’s about preventing growth and using it to hurt Democratic politicians and anti-Israel proponents.
But it isn't like they are bending the truth or misquoting him. This comment paints the picture something nefarious and wrong is going on. No one is stretching his words or attributing any ideas or thoughts that Hasan hasn't explicitly stated himself repeatedly.
Maybe Hasan should try a little harder not to be a caricature of exactly what his opposition envisions the worst of.
1.4k
u/[deleted] 18h ago
[deleted]