No, i’m looking for literally anyone you think is a good representation of your geopolitical perspective that might better inform what you consider “someone who knows what they’re talking about”.
You’ve only shared content of piker responding to twitch chat, which is certainly evocative but not helpful in supporting your claim that ‘he doesn’t know what he’s talking about’. I could certainly share an example of his geopolitical stance that I think is well-supported, but I’m really just trying to gain a better understanding of your worldview beyond the reaction slop you keep pointing to.
PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 16 hours ago
Oh, so a different thing from someone qualified coming in and trying to help Hasan understand and him treating them as the enemy and him and all his chat going on a wild tear of insulting them and tearing them down instead of spending even a moment hearing out what they have to say.
Got it. You should have said you were interested in that totally separate question. On geopolitics I like Noam Chomsky, Rachel Maddow, Al Jazeera, Bellingcat, Tim Snyder… kind of hard to list out individual people on the spot, but those are some random ones that come to mind who deal with global issues who I generally will trust their judgement because I’ve seen them be right a lot in the past. Almost any perspective I can appreciate as long as it seems like it’s coming from an honest place, but those are some where I actually feel pretty firmly aligned with the person’s viewpoint or the overall editorial viewpoint. Then there are specific people (Dan Ellsberg, John Perkins) who have some kind of unique insight into a specific element of geopolitics that I think is valuable to include in my overall picture.
I strongly dislike the reaction slop. This stuff is that, sure, and I’m only reacting to it because they seem like they’re bringing receipts, the topic is important, and the counterargument from Hasan’s side is so transparently dishonest that it doesn’t really convince me that he’s not guilty. But I’m limited to those people for my picture of Hasan, I think, because that’s the only ecosystem where he is really active and so those are the only people in a position to criticize him. That’s why I asked you for some of his exemplary work on geopolitics so I can take a look at it, and judge it in the same light that I would those names I listed earlier.
anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
How are you coming to the conclusion that they are “someone qualified”? Maybe there’s more to that interaction that you clipped out of the video - i have no idea
Interesting you list Chomsky as an example because he’s made exactly the same arguments about the Ukraine war as Piker was in that video.
If this were true then you wouldn’t be spending so much emotional energy weighing in on it.
PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 6 hours ago
Someone who is trans is automatically qualified, to a certain extent, to speak about trans issues. It doesn’t mean they’re always right or anything, but it means they start from a baseline of being worth listening to. If you are cis and just derisively shutting them down as far as trans issues, and giving these wild insults (I can’t even remember the context from the video but I remember it was bad) that have very little to do with anything they were saying, and just serve to try to tear them down and punish them so they won’t try to speak up again, then yes, you’re a piece of shit. To me there’s not a lot of context that could somehow “save” that.
You haven’t watched it, have you…
For one of these, I actually did dig up the context. Stuff like that is important to me. So for the “I think you’re choking her” clip, I dug up the context and posted it. A couple of the Hasan stans actually swore to me that the likely outcome after that clip was that he would loosen the collar and all would be well. Because of course you would. Any reasonable person would, and is Hasan not a reasonable person?
Turns out the answer was no, he did not loosen it. He blamed the issue on her NECK. MEAT. and there was an awkward silence, and then the guest who has raised the issue wisely redirected away from the looming confrontation, and just dropped the issue and went back to what she’d been talking about, as if they hadn’t discovered an active issue of suffering in Hasan’s favorite animal.
You know, a normal interaction and normal behavior for a pet owner.
What? These are totally different arguments. Chomsky says, more or less:
That all makes sense. I might agree with it or disagree but it’s fine. What Hasan says is:
*That*, in contrast, is a big bunch of horseshit.
Like I said, this is what I don’t like about Hasan. He’s just an idiot. He just says weird stuff, whatever comes to mind ("vibration collars are good for calling your dog back when she can’t hear you…") but it lines up generally speaking with the geopolitical battle lines that some people like to draw, and so they support him even though a lot of times what he’s saying is just nonsense. He blames world events on CIA/Mossad the instant he hears of them, he waves around his shock collar with tape over it swearing it’s something else, he just kind of says stuff that’s on the right performative side, and to some people that’s enough.
I have no idea why you guys are taken in by this guy. You’re welcome to it, I guess, but he’s a pretty fucking bad standard bearer if you’re looking for leftist podcast people. What happened to chapotraphouse? Behind the Bastards? I haven’t seen them, I don’t know… like I say I just am not involved in this space, so I have no idea who to vouch for in it, but there has to be better out there than this fucking guy.
Also, I asked you a couple times: What should I watch from Hasan to get a good idea about him? I’m going to stop asking soon, but I am genuinely curious what his supporters would want me to watch as a good introduction. If someone asked me that about James Baldwin, Noam Chomsky, whatever, I would have something that I would want to share. You are not obligated to of course I guess.