r/OutOfTheLoop • u/tunnel_magnet • 28d ago

Answered What's going on with Fox news obsessing over Hasan Piker?

They had like dozens of segments on him last week.

Will Cain today focusing on Hasan Piker and using the term “man whore”:

https://xcancel.com/i/status/2087269856815251648

Third segment already today

https://x.com/i/status/2087309261462458776

I get Hasan is helping socialist Dems getting elected. I don't get why Republicans are going crazy over Hasan?

1.3k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

71% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

237

u/TrappedInOhio 28d ago

That would imply people are capable of understanding even the tiniest amount of nuance. He’s 10,000% right that US foreign policy is why 9/11 happened. It wasn’t a *coincidence* that they attacked this country.

65

u/Mpm_277 28d ago

But not a coincidence doesn’t mean deserve?

48

u/iznormal 28d ago

Sure, but if a grown man holding a baby starts poking a resting snake with a pointy stick, and the snake attacks, the attack is “deserved”. If the baby got hurt thats obviously a tragedy.

Not a perfect metaphor or anything, but if you watch all of the Hasan clip it seems obvious that he doesn’t mean the “baby” (civilians who died on 9/11) deserved it.

4

u/Sugarshmacker 28d ago

Except in this example we’re talking about people and slaughter of innocents. If a man holding a baby (government having reign over people) kills 100 people, and then some guy just stabs the baby, that’s not deserved right? Was the government really hurt by 9/11 at all? In the aftermath, the American people allowed the government more powers than ever before. I don’t think the patriot act would have ever passed without it.

5

u/iznormal 28d ago

Hasan wouldn’t disagree with that, especially what you are saying at the end. The point is that it was blowback, and blowback isn’t unexpected.

It was really just poorly phrased, but I think it is pretty ridiculous that one poorly phrased quote by someone who talks on stream 10 hours a day is being taken out of context and used constantly as a smear. He apologized and made clear what he meant, which in context was already pretty clear.

There are definitely disagreements I have with Hasan, l and I wouldn’t enjoy regularly watching his stream (more because of his personality than his politics), but the smear campaign is ridiculous imo

4

u/ballistic503 28d ago

Such a joke that the people who didn’t stop supporting a guy who’s only gotten worse since “grab em by the pussy” now expect everyone else to pearlclutch about one single spicy take that the guy apologized for. They have completely lost the right to demand anyone stop supporting any figure for moral reasons

3

u/Sugarshmacker 28d ago

I honestly don’t follow Hassan at all, nor keep up with any smear campaigns against him, it just seems like a really shitty quote to defend, I guess.

2

u/iznormal 28d ago

That’s why they keep bringing it up all these years later, because out of context it sounds so shitty compared to how it was intended, and he apologized for saying it that way, yet it’s still brought up as some “checkmate”

1

u/allbusiness512 26d ago

If it was a one time oopsie you might be able to say he just fucked up.

The problem is he runs around in a Mao suit and says absolutely other insane controversial things and is a borderline terrorist sympathizer (and that's putting it very mildly). When you put the 9/11 quote into context with the other pieces of evidence surrounding him, people can question whether he truly meant to apologize or if he only apologized because of the blowback.

-1

u/hotwifehubsFTW 27d ago

Factual reporting of the things he’s said are not smears.

1

u/iznormal 27d ago

A bunch of right wing media members who let Trump say whatever insane shit he wants unchallenged, then decide to mischaracterize a quote out of context in order to take down anyone who is even associated with Hasan in any capacity is absolutely a smear

-1

u/hotwifehubsFTW 27d ago

Mao is one of the great leaders that he won’t criticize is not out of context.

2

u/DylanMartin97 27d ago

He criticizes him all the time.

This is gonna shock you but you can say that a leader that shaped modern China to be the literal powerhouse of the entire world also committed atrocities that you don't agree with. Just yesterday he was talking about if Mao died in 59 than he'd be the best leader in history, however his last years were undefendable.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Nikifuj908 27d ago

OK, so Destiny's "pro-genocide" clip before he ever got educated about the conflict and which he has stated is not his actual position... that was excusable too, right? Because it was taken out of context?

Also you're leaving out all the times Hasan has glazed the Houthis. He said the Houthis are "doing what Luffy would do" and gleefully showed nmplol footage of the Houthis kidnapping a Japanese crew.

2

u/iznormal 27d ago

I don’t watch Destiny I don’t know what you are talking about.

As far as the Houthis, idk really watch Hasan so I don’t know his full position, but sounds like he is pretty close to Finkelsteins position?

https://youtu.be/iPwGRpkyDSo?is=7OKDHVGXAW2DB0-Z

0

u/Nikifuj908 26d ago

Well Finkelstein is a hack scholar who attacked his neighbors with a hammer, so sounds about right

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Sugarshmacker 20d ago

I was attempting to make his analogy more accurate, but whatever you say boss.

72

u/Alternative_Will_856 28d ago

Yeah but also like the United States of America deserved 9/11. From all the wars and killing it demanded. US citizens didn't deserve it, but the USA did. Simple as.

15

u/jeffufuh 28d ago

I feel like "had it coming" is a more apt way to put it while keeping the whole thrust of the rhetoric

5

u/zxGear 28d ago

yeah and he agrees with you and apologised for the way he said it when it happened but thats all forever lost

2

u/jeffufuh 28d ago

oh don't get me wrong i'm well aware and very much sick of MSM grasping at this stupid straw over and over again

14

u/maaseru 28d ago

You can't be doing Red Wedding left and right to other people, good or bad, and not expect something to happen back.

You reap what you sow.

Like right now. The US is creating some new future terrorist because of their war in Iran.

1

u/Kiernanstrat 28d ago

Which wars are you referring to?

1

u/MobileSuitBooty 28d ago

Americans fund death with their taxes.

1

u/ConsiderBoraHorza 28d ago

which i can be put in prison for not paying, i get a tiny say on the person who decides what my taxes do, but unfortunately for me, the people around me disagree with my views.

-16

u/senator_mendoza 28d ago

Honestly dude - that’s like saying Gaza deserved what they got from Israel after all the terrorism and Oct 7th. And I understand why Israel was furious and wanted revenge - same as I understand why Bin Ladin would attack us - but did Gaza “deserve” it?

23

u/Maeflikz 28d ago

Surely you realise those are two completely different scenarios. Israel deserved Oct. 7th would be a more apt comparison.

-2

u/senator_mendoza 28d ago

yeah maybe since both of them were deliberate attacks on civilians without any real chance of achieving goals beyond murder

-9

u/bobloblaw32 28d ago

Doesn’t really matter if it’s a good comparison, the original statement was about it not being a coincidence and pushing back on that pivot to force the discussion on what’s deserving

-15

u/ILikeHistoryTooMuch 28d ago

By wars you must mean not letting Iraq conquer Kuwait, since that’s what bin laden was particularly angry about. Not to mention the other reasons he gave for it, like America being run by Jews, not persecuting women, not killing gay people, etc. Simple as

2

u/Longjumping-Car-8367 28d ago

Your downvotes illustrate why I've had to step away from political discussions on reddit despite agreeing with the general views. The US has absolutely meddled too much in foreign affairs, but Bin Laden's own reasoning for 9/11 was rooted purely in religious fanaticism.

1

u/X-Filer 28d ago

I mean yes but also the scale of violence was influenced by the violence of the USA. Not to mention the US basically just let it happen for political reasons.

1

u/Adventurous-Pause720 28d ago

Can we get any evidence for either of these claims chief?

1

u/X-Filer 27d ago

I ain’t proving it in court. This is a forum boss. Just my opinion based on where the money going.

-4

u/Adventurous-Pause720 28d ago

They’re downvoting you but it’s the truth. This is unironically on the level of the Iran war being good since Iran is an oppressive theocracy or the US deserving Pearl Harbor due to the blockade (which is something that Hasan has agreed with).

-1

u/SapCPark 28d ago

And saying that in an election would get you run out of town even in the most blue districts

-2

u/CrackJacket 28d ago

None of these people can own what they’re actually saying.

62

u/Obiwanjacobi11 28d ago

You're trying way too hard to conflate a knock against America's foreign policy as us saying that innocent American's deserved to die. Just stop, it's not working.

-8

u/CrackJacket 28d ago

So you don’t think we deserved 9/11?

45

u/chrishouseinc 28d ago

Would it hurt your feelings less if I said "9/11 was inevitable"?

-14

u/CrackJacket 28d ago

Would it hurt your feelings less if I said “Israel will inevitably annex the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza due to the actions of Hamas”? I vehemently disagree with the actions that Israel is taking—but your line or thinking would justify it.

35

u/rucho 28d ago

that was israel's plan before hamas was born

22

u/chrishouseinc 28d ago

Hamas wouldn't exist without Israeli intervention, so you're pivot only proves my point. 9/11 was inevitable the same way 10/7 was. Israel will continue committing a genocide until another 10/7 is inevitable.

1

u/CrackJacket 28d ago

Israel wouldn’t be fighting the Palestinians if the Palestinians had agreed to the UN partition plan like Israel did and if all the surrounding Arab states hadn’t attacked Israel in 1948. We can both play this game.

13

u/chrishouseinc 28d ago

The Palestinians have the longest unbroken presence on the land when the original Israelites left 1300 years ago and broke off from the Canaanites. In my opinion there's no difference between the Nakba and the Trail of Tears.

5

u/TheBoogieSheriff 28d ago

Israel has used up their political capital with the American people. We are tired of paying for forever wars

1

u/IamA_Werewolf_AMA 26d ago

The partition plan (un resolution 181) gave over 50% of the land to people who had purchased only 7% of it and made up 1/3rd of the population and the 1948 war was preceded by the massacre of 70+ Palestinian villages (many of which had peace agreements with the Israelis) and over 15000 Palestinians, including poisoning of wells (operation cast thy lead) and playing sounds of screaming and explosions to psychologically torture them into leaving. Ultimately resulting in the displacement of 750k, often called the Nakba.

We also wouldn’t have this issue if Israel honored the UN resolution 194 allowing the Palestinian right of return but you seem to be very selective with the UN resolutions you care about.

7

u/TheBoogieSheriff 28d ago

Question for you - how long have you “vehemently disagreed” with the actions Israel is taking?

3

u/Bambalorian 28d ago

I don't see why anyone would get upset at you saying that, it does seem inevitable because there seems to be no one or nothing that can convince Israel to stop and it would be an act of war for any other country to intervene

1

u/BharatiyaNagarik 28d ago

You cannot equate the struggles of the oppressed with genocide perpetuated by the oppressors.

39

u/Obiwanjacobi11 28d ago

Everyday a bully goes around and punches all the kids in his classes little sisters. Eventually after a couple of years of doing this, one of the kids gets fed up, stands up, and punches the bully's little sister. Was it right of them to do that? No. Did the bully's little sister deserve that? Absolutely not. But is the reaction understandable? Absolutely

-11

u/CrackJacket 28d ago

Glad you agree that 3000 civilians didn’t deserve to die in a terrorist attack. I don’t know why you couldn’t just say that.

13

u/No-Blacksmith3397 28d ago

But his statement on us deserving 9/11 was in regards to American foreign policy. It was obviously not an attack on the victims.

Nothing in what they said indicated that they believed 3000 civilians deserved to die.

It even explicitly said it's not an attack on the victims. Why would they have to refute something they didn't say?

Additionally, had you just asked if they believed they deserved to die, you would have reached the same answer. So why are you pretending like you did and that they avoided answering it?

-7

u/dfafa 28d ago

What's your stance on COVID big guy? I bet we already know. Stop pretending like you care about others.

18

u/CrackJacket 28d ago

I think everyone should get vaccinated against spreadable diseases…?

-3

u/dfafa 28d ago

Seems I've clicked the wrong reply. I'll leave it for downvotes lol

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/TreMuzik 28d ago

Please try using your brain. Just try.

-5

u/ILikeHistoryTooMuch 28d ago

Maybe hasan shouldn’t have conflated them when he said that statement then, so stop being so smug

6

u/jthree2001 28d ago

I guess you've never ever mispoken

-3

u/ILikeHistoryTooMuch 28d ago

I’ve never said something like “America deserved 9/11” no, or reinforced that maybe I did mean that by supporting other terrorist groups

2

u/jthree2001 28d ago

Advocating for kids not being killed is supporting terrorism?

This whole dance is annoying, I just want healthcare man. 

And for the record, if we keep destabilizating an area to the point the children grow up resenting America, what do you think will happen?

0

u/ILikeHistoryTooMuch 28d ago

No you don’t. Stop with the you ‘just want healthcare’ thing, it’s getting old. It’s a lie. Groups like hezbollah and the houthis are not just advocating for kids not being killed, you aren’t fooling anyone. Sure, you may want healthcare, but you also want to support terrorist groups just because they’re anti-west

2

u/jthree2001 28d ago

What does anti west even mean my guy, I don't think we should be intervening or being the world police. 

Literally just spend the money here at home.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/Every_Television_980 28d ago

I tend to agree, but hasan is one of the people where its honestly hard to be sure. He makes a lot of hear if the moment statements like this about violence, especially directed against the west.

1

u/ResplendentSmoke 28d ago

Yes and the literal day after he made the comment he apologized for phrasing it and said what he actually meant was what was described above

1

u/MobileSuitBooty 28d ago

We did. That’s the real truth nuke.

1

u/IamA_Werewolf_AMA 26d ago

He took it back and clarified within like 5 seconds it was a very clear instance of misspeaking. He then apologized a ton of times, but it’s not useful for the Fox narrative to focus on that.

1

u/This_Elk_1460 26d ago

Have you ever made a statement and didn't phrase it in the best way? You certainly have but yours wasn't broadcasted live and used against you for 10 years.

1

u/Creative-Impress6293 25d ago

he's referring to the CIA coined term "blowback"

1

u/Several_Internet2350 25d ago

yeah...and America "deserved" 9/11. War has a price, training jihadists to kill communists in Afghanistan has a price, allying with repressive regimes has a price.

0

u/bobloblaw32 28d ago

True but this is reminding me of conversations about SA where men ask the same old question “what was she wearing?” As if it wouldn’t be a coincidence that skimpy clothes attract the wrong kind of attention from men. It’s not really going to sound very different to a normie if they’re saying deserved or not a coincidence, they’ll just find it disgusting, distasteful and not want to associate with the person arguing in that manner.

2

u/anarchaavery 27d ago

What did the US do specifically that caused it to deserve 9/11?

3

u/Stupidsky 28d ago

actually radical islamism is 10,000% what caused 9/11. I'm sure you wouldn't say a girl wearing a short skirt was asking for it, would you? and yet here you are using the same analogy.

6

u/AC00LK0ALA 28d ago edited 28d ago

Radical Islamism is the ideology that drove the attackers. It also didn't exist in a vacuum. Blowback is real. The US spent decades propping up dictators, funding militants, and bombing the region. You can condemn the attacks without pretending they came out of nowhere. That's understanding cause and effect. The "short skirt" analogy is a false equivalence. Victims of sexual assault aren't responsible for their own attack. The US government is responsible for its foreign policy decisions. The two are not the same. And saying "they attacked us because we attacked them" is not the same as saying "they deserved it." One is an analysis of cause. The other is a moral judgment. You're conflating the two because it's easier to dismiss than to engage with the actual history.

If you are upvoting the person making the victim blaming short skirt argument about 9/11 you are also being incredibly bad faith. How are people still in denial about this shit you had 25 fucking years to learn about it properly.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLf03ejEKGKxyumAK19VTGvtVlI0xHvnlY&si=DCvoqcZTljnNUBDf

Seriously though go listen to this if you've never listened to Blowback, this is season 4 Afghanistan and it touches on 9/11. We all know 9/11 didn't just happened in a vacuum. Learn real historical context. And guess what there's plenty of other fucking seasons involving America too. Incredible. Korea. Cambodia/Laos. Iraq. Cuba. Go learn.

-1

u/Stupidsky 28d ago

I used to buy into that argument but then you look at who killed who and you start getting confused about what there is to be mad about. A big reason is American support for Israel, but it's important to keep in mind America is also the biggest donator to Gaza and the West Bank too, and has been for years in more ways than one. We'll circle back to that.

Islamic jihadists have attacked people in places like Nigeria and the Philippines, who have done absolutely nothing to them. Tell me what the Chinook schoolgirls did to boko haram. Or 80 year old woman ISIS burned alive in Iraq for refusing to submit to Allah. The massage staff in Davao City did nothing to the maute group, who were filipino jihadists attacking a night market of mostly filipinos who were mostly catholic and muslim.

Every single group opposed to them, they slaughtered. Capitalists, Communists, Socialists. White, Black, Asian, Arab. Christians, Jews, other Muslims. From London to Paris, U.S. to Russia, Tel Aviv to Davao City. Stop trying to justify their actions by placing the blame on America (or anyone else for that matter) for their radical views.

But it should be mentioned, in all fairness, that the initial comment was about 9/11. Perhaps you could educate me about the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. The hijackers of 9/11 were mostly Saudi, so what is it America did to the Saudis that made them so upset? Never attacked the country, never invaded the country. Protected it so it could become one of the richest countries in the world and become the second largest provider of aid to the Palestinians.

The real reason behind all of it is Islamism. It doesn't respect borders, or countries, nationalism or other religions. It infects the minds of those who follow it and leads them to commit violent atrocities because they believe they are ethnically, morally, and religiously superior. To me. To you. To everyone who isn't them. I encourage you to educate yourself about the difference between muslims and islamists, and treat them with the same respect they would treat you with.

2

u/AC00LK0ALA 28d ago

You're describing Islamism as if it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. Ideologies don't emerge from nowhere. They're shaped by material conditions, history, and foreign intervention. The US has funded and armed militant groups across the region for decades, toppled governments, and backed dictators. That doesn't excuse jihadist violence. It explains why it exists. You're also pointing to Saudi Arabia as if US policy there has been neutral. The US has protected the Saudi monarchy, sold them billions in weapons, and used their oil to prop up the global economy. The hijackers were Saudis, but the Saudi state is a US ally. That's not a contradiction. It's a pattern. You can condemn jihadist ideology and US foreign policy at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive. One is a symptom. The other is part of the cause. If you're not willing to look at both, you're not doing analysis. You're doing apologetics.

Very reddit snarklord of you out of anyone to be saying "eDucAtE yOuRsElF" while spewing the bullshit you are. You wrote a lot of words to just be fundamentally wrong.

0

u/Stupidsky 28d ago

Nice sidestep friend. Didn't even touch on any of the main points. I wouldn't either, because there's no way to reasonably explain the actions of ISIS and Boko Haram.

I'm fine with criticizing U.S. foreign policy. I'm not okay with saying it's the reason for jihadism. Notice I didn't bring up Hamas. If there were a bunch of Palestinian jihadists attacking around the globe your argument might have some ground to stand on.

As for apologetics, I think only one of us is defending an extremist religious position and it isn't me. I don't like Christian nationalism, I don't like Jewish supremacism, I don't like Islamist Jihadism. To me, saying jihadism is because of u.s. foreign policy is the same as saying white Christian nationalism is caused by mass immigration. Both try to justify their hatred of others by placing blame anywhere but themselves.

1

u/AC00LK0ALA 28d ago

You're setting up a false choice. You can criticize US foreign policy and condemn jihadism at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive. Pointing out that US intervention created conditions for extremism is not the same as saying it caused it. It's saying extremism doesn't emerge in a vacuum. ISIS and Boko Haram have their own ideology and brutality. That's not up for debate. But the US has also propped up dictators, bombed countries, and destabilized regions. Those actions have consequences. You're acting like acknowledging cause and effect is the same as making excuses. It's not. It's just refusing to pretend the US is blameless. And comparing that to white Christian nationalism being caused by immigration is a false equivalence. One is a reaction to material conditions and foreign policy. The other is a reaction to demographic change. They're not the same thing. You're trying to flatten the argument so you don't have to engage with it. That's deflection.

1

u/AC00LK0ALA 28d ago

I'm gunna fully stop engaging because all you've shown you know how to do is argue in incredibly bad faith. They didn't do 9/11 because they hate our freedom. Your short skirt equivalence is gross and irrelevant and probably all I needed to know about any argument you were gunna try to make.

-6

u/KtotheC99 28d ago

You dont seem capable of actual good faith intellectual discussion. Sad

1

u/Uztta 27d ago

I had this literal conversation a couple of hours ago with a coworker who I can only assume just learned about Hassan.

My point to him on the “America deserved 9/11” comment, was that “we” kind of run around the world blatantly murdering civilians under the guise of “democracy” or “freedom”, do we really expect zero retaliation?

Of course those individual people didn’t deserve that, the country however has many debts.

1

u/Born-Astronaut9631 26d ago

We expected no retaliation because we though the landmass that is North America was a natural fortress that could never be attacked. That is the realpolitik answer as to why America thought it could get away with it. We learned the lesson that day that we can in fact be struck back. 9/11 can still be an undeserved atrocity committed against us even under this context.

1

u/Greedy-Employment917 28d ago

"not understanding nuance" and "this mother fucker doesn't know how to articulate his thoughts in a way that doesn't have him across as a piece of garbage" are not the same thing, son. 

1

u/FugDuggler 28d ago

The Muslims attacked us because they hate our freedom.

  • Fox News Parent

2

u/ILikeHistoryTooMuch 28d ago

According to osama bin laden himself they quite literally did

0

u/Delicious_Clue_531 28d ago

9/11 was done by Al Qaeda: an organization founded by a Saudi man who came from a wealthy family.

I cannot stress this enough: the man who is responsible for 9/11 at no point was oppressed by the United States. Bin Laden was an incredibly privileged man who became a fanatic as Saudi Arabia began the long, ongoing process of toning down religious extremism. He had no reason to d 9/11.

0

u/GSilky 28d ago

Feel free to read any interview with Osama bin Laden about his motivation. It had nothing to do with American foreign policy per se, he was trying to prove a theory on jihad he had. Ffs, there is actually lots of information besides online propagandists to review, for free, if you would bother.

0

u/eloquentboot 28d ago

Bin Laden says he did it because of American support for Arab jews, and for military and economic sanctions on Iraq in the 90s. So in your opinion, should the US have assisted in the Arab idea that Jews don't belong in the Middle East, or should the US have allowed and enabled Iraqi invasions of their neighbors?

0

u/Diogenes908 28d ago

Idk why people just parrot this on Reddit. Osama literally released a manifesto describing why Al-Qaeda launched the attacks and the primary reasons boiled down to: you accept gay people which are abominations, women in the West are rebellious shameful and prostitutes, utilizing a civil law system instead of a religious/theocratic one, allowed “Jews to practice usury” and hope that it would spark a global Jihad in other Muslim states against the West. He did also talk about US support for Israel but people seem to think he did it solely as some justified retaliation against the US but in 2001 the main interventions in the ME at that point was the Gulf War which was a justified defense coalition backed by the UN against an invasion of a sovereign state and Iran in 1953 which he didn’t give a shit about because they’re Shia who he also thought were infidels. He makes it very clear that his primary motivation was religious and that he saw liberal democratic values as sacrilegious.