Hasan Piker shredded over vile suggestion that Jews were responsible for antisemitic attacks against them: ‘Hack who thrives in hate’

Piker is a beloved figure to the DSA, palling around with Mamdani, spending election night in Michigan with Al-Sayed etc.. His claimed that America deserved 9-11 really enhanced his popularity among Democrats. 

After this blows over, this will help him with Democrats too. 

Where would the right wing in America be without Hasan Piker to kick around?

Somehow I dont think the issue of Hasan Piker is going to save y'all in November. 

Why is he so popular with progressives?

a. His  communism

B.  His hatred for America.

c.  His hatred for Jews.

d.  All of the above.

I care about Hasan Piker about as much as I care about Joe Rogan or Jared Kushner, which is to say none. Since the Trump administration is literally indefensible, "conservatives" are grasping for any straw in the wind. 

this is who democrats choose to rally their base and campaign with:

           Hasan, you hate America? Yeah. I do. I do hate America

Hasan, people say you hate cops? Yeah. I do”

x

This is the future  of the Democratic Pary….

I care about Hasan Piker about as much as I care about Joe Rogan or Jared Kushner, which is to say none.

The first time I'd ever even heard his name was from one of these tired conservative bullshit seeds claiming he was one of the lefts hero's. It's hilarious how in response to the left exposing all of Trump's corruption and misogyny, the right parades out these fringe socialists and far left extremists and say "Well what about these guys? Huh? What about that one obscure Democrat who donated to a group that later provided medical care in eastern Europe to a group linked to a terror group? What about that Democratic congress woman wearing a hijab? How could we not have voted for a convicted felon and admitted sexual predator when the left has crazy people like Piker?!".

the leftist culture in NYC drove trump to pedophilia and a life of crime ... /s

Why is he so popular with progressives?

a. His  communism

B.  His hatred for America.

c.  His hatred for Jews.d.  All of the above.

I personally know, or have met, many Jews. Many are progressives. 

(And to the best of my knowledge, none are Communists)

“People don’t f*** with Israel any longer,” Piker said. “If Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone’s going to come around and take action, not against the State of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews.”

Piker tells Jews they are making antisemitism worse

Piker kept going, likening Israel to the ISIS terrorist organization while telling Jews the real danger was their own attachment to it.

“I don’t know how people don’t recognize how dangerous this predicament is, how dangerous this is for Jews,” Piker continued. “You’re running around basically tying your entire identity to a country that inevitably will be seen as Jewish ISIS and you’re saying, as Jews, this is all we care about. You’re making antisemitism worse.”

The streamer has called Hamas a thousand times better than Israel, described some Orthodox Jews as inbred, and said America deserved 9/11. His campaign stops with Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed this year   split the Democratic Party over how big a tent it wants . The Anti-Defamation League calls him one of the most outspoken antisemitic influencers online.

seattlered

His antisemitism and hatred of America isn't new and certainly didn't keep Al-Sayed from campaigning with him at the end of the primary. Given his reliance on the immigrant vote to win the primary election, it's likely what he owes his success in the democratic party to. 

I thought to myself,"Who the fuck is Hassan Piker?" So I did some research. And a little more... And A little more. That is what you are supposed to do, isn't it?

After considerable research and discussion with multiple forms of AI:

Here is a stand-alone version that supplies the necessary factual context inside the essay.

Taking a statement out of context does not necessarily make the quotation false. The words may be reproduced accurately. The problem is that context often determines what those words were intended to mean, what argument they were part of, and what conclusions reasonably follow from them. Remove enough of that context and a true quotation can be made to support a proposition the speaker was not actually making. At the same time, context should not be treated as a magic solvent that makes objectionable language harmless. Sometimes fuller context weakens one criticism while strengthening another.

That distinction matters in the controversy over Hasan Piker’s August 20 remarks about American Jews and Israel. Piker said that if American Jews continue presenting themselves as collectively and uniquely invested in Israel, hostility toward Israel could eventually be redirected into violence against American Jews. In the surrounding discussion, however, he repeatedly argued that equating Jewish identity with Israel encourages the antisemitic idea that Jews are a monolithic group whose loyalties lie elsewhere. He described that development as dangerous for Jews and warned that it would make antisemitism worse. In context, then, he was warning about antisemitic violence, not advocating it.

But the fuller context does not eliminate the problem with his wording. By saying, in effect, “if Jews keep doing this, someone will eventually attack Jews,” Piker places at least some rhetorical responsibility for antisemitic violence on the potential victims. His statement that Jews who tie their identity to Israel are “making antisemitism worse” reinforces that criticism. Given Piker’s long-established use of intentionally provocative rhetoric, it is also too generous simply to dismiss the formulation as careless. A more accurate conclusion is that he was warning against antisemitism while choosing to make that warning in language that can reasonably be criticized as victim-blaming.

The New York Post article reporting the controversy goes beyond evaluating those remarks. It also brings in Piker’s previous inflammatory statements, his wealth, his political associations, and his connections to Democratic Socialist candidates such as Abdul El-Sayed and Zohran Mamdani. Some of that is legitimate political context. If candidates campaign with Piker or seek access to his audience, those relationships are relevant to understanding why his statements matter politically. The problem begins when association starts doing the work of argument. A political relationship with Piker does not itself establish that El-Sayed, Mamdani, or the Democratic Socialists of America share every objectionable statement or position Piker has expressed. Relevant background can become guilt by association when the reader is encouraged to transfer a judgment about one person to everyone politically connected with him.

A reader’s comment on the article illustrates the same problem in a different way. The commenter begins with real criticisms of Piker, then argues that El-Sayed’s success was probably due to his reliance on the “immigrant vote.” But strong support from Arab-American communities is not the same thing as support from immigrants, and neither fact establishes why those voters supported El-Sayed. The comment therefore moves from an observable electoral fact to a demographic generalization and then to an unsupported causal explanation. Each step sounds plausible when presented quickly, but each adds something the available evidence has not actually demonstrated.

That is why context matters. Context does not automatically vindicate the speaker, nor does it automatically discredit the critic. Its purpose is to show which conclusions the evidence actually supports. In Piker’s case, the fuller context weakens the claim that he was threatening Jews or endorsing violence against them, while strengthening the narrower criticism that he framed his warning in language that assigns Jews some responsibility for worsening antisemitism. In the Post article and the reader’s comment, genuine facts are then used as stepping stones toward broader political conclusions that require more evidence than is actually supplied.

That is the danger of selection followed by extrapolation. The facts do not have to be invented. They only have to be selected, rearranged, and connected in ways that rhetorically encourage the reader to go farther than the evidence itself can carry them.

I know that it takes time to parse out the data and arrive at a conclusion based upon the preponderance of available evidence instead of incomplete assumptions based on what one would like to believe. Slow down. Ask the question frequently:

What do the facts actually establish, and what inferences have been added without evidence?

Thank you Thomas!

"But the baggage he carries, including a history of extremist rhetoric such as claiming America “deserved” the 9/11 attacks and downplaying rapes Hamas committed during the Oct. 7, 2023 terror attack in Israel, has led some Democrats to distance themselves from the 35-year-old."

What makes me sick is that it is only SOME Democrats who distance themselves.  

He sounds like a total fucking asshole.

Populists do tend to go to extremes. Now we get to watch the fascists & socialists point at each other as justification for their existences.

Now we get to watch the fascists & socialists point at each other as justification for their existences.

What do you mean "get to watch"? Didn't you know? According to rightwing conservatives you're a card-carrying antisemitic atheist Muslim socialist determined to destroy our constitution and adopt sharia law in America.

According to rightwing conservatives you're a...

Yes... everything to the left of Oswald Mosley is a socialist-communist-marxist to this current crop of right wing populists. I've had Bernie Bros use the same sentiment in the opposite direction. That they use the same twisted logic makes me chuckle.

Now we get to watch the fascists & socialists point at each other as justification for their existences.

I personally have decided not to spend a lot of time focusing on that.

I personally have decided not to spend a lot of time focusing on that.

But if that's the way some folks want to spend their time..well, they have every right to do so!

Some would say that a talentless person who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a week talking trash on the internet and selling cute political crap on line

is a grifter. He has 3 million followers and 72,000 foolish subscribers.

this is his job.  He's a wanna be shock jock who is picking the pockets of the willing.

while he laughs at the reactions, like this article.

Like the conservative Milo Yiannopoulos, Hasan too, will disappear under his own weight.

Some would say that a talentless person who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a week talking trash on the internet and selling cute political crap online is a grifter.

I thought at first you were talking about the President. If the shoe fits.

I remember when liberal [✘] whined like [✘] about Rush and now when they have their own Rush it's nothing to see here? 

When it comes to hypocrisy we can all point at one of us.

The official slogan (the Sarkha) of the Houthis is: "God is the greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A curse upon the Jews, Victory to Islam."  (Also  proving mark carney correct that Muslim values are Canadian values )

the man the winner of the Michigan democratic senate primary chose to rally the democrats base on the eve of primary to appeal to democratic voters:

I have no problem with the Houthis... If you think I’m a terrorism supporter for that reason, then yeah, I’m a f*cking terrorism supporter.”

x

Muslim values are Canadian values

The vast majority of Muslims in Canada are ridiculously peaceful, Carney, who is pragmatic to a fault was referring to those. Unlike your leader he does not seek to divide the nation in a display of xenophobic helter-skelter.

“Today, Muslims in Canada and around the world mark Eid al-Adha. This day holds profound significance for Muslim communities, marking the end of the Hajj pilgrimage. 

Eid is a celebration of service and a time of faith, family, and charity. Eid reminds us that we are bound by a common humanity and a sacred obligation to take care of ourselves and of each other. 

This year, that message carries a heavy weight as Eid falls on the fourth anniversary of the terrorist attack against the Afzaal family in London, Ontario. As we honour Salman, Madiha, Yumna, and Talat, we affirm our work to protect against hate and defend Canadians’ ability to freely practise their faith. 

I hope Canadians celebrating Eid gather with their loved ones on this blessed day. From my family to yours, Eid Mubarak.”

pm.gc.ca