This is the average dgg response to anyone viewed as being insufficiently uncharitable to anything Hasan Piker says.
No engagement with the substance of anything said by the selected target, just dismissive smears invented solely to uphold the established groupthink boundaries.
New video from my comeback stream.
Does appearing with Hasan Piker mean a candidate now has to answer for everything Hasan has ever said?
I dug into the Abdul El-Sayed “disavow Hasan” discourse and why I think the association ≠ endorsement distinction matters.
Yes, and it’s also still a thing and still a totally reasonable framework for discussing the subtle (and often extremely unsubtle) ways black people get turned into racially coded reaction imagery online.
My general prior is that Hasan Piker is pushing the discourse in the right direction but says some dumb things.
But when I actually listen to him—instead of just looking at whatever dumb-sounding quote ends up on my timeline—he sounds way more thoughtful than I expected
as much as i shittalk Hasan and his ilk, it is mostly because he provides cover to the subhuman filth representing the GOP
the Trump admin began their illegal war in Iran by vaporizing a hundred schoolgirls and are drone striking random fishing boats for fun as we speak
"Hasan Piker Says America Has Killed Lots of People. Donald Trump Agrees"
The latest Piker ‘scandal’ is an Axios interview in which he compared death tolls for al-Qaeda and the U.S. – something Trump has done for Russia and the U.S.
https://t.co/ei8qqoUZX4
@Musstad666@SamuelJLaxative@WhickTv@shannonrwatts Great! I think there’s a real debate to be had about where the line between collateral damage and terrorism sits.
But thank you for engaging with an obvious underlying sentiment that isn’t solely about “elevating a terrorist group over a democratic nation.”