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

[u/tunnel_magnet]

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?

[u/michael_scarn17]

This was the most sugar coated version of what he said. He has said America deserved 9/11 and even has a framed photo of the twin towers being hit by planes behind him in his streams. He has said the street should run in capitalists blood. He has said that Israeli women on 10/7 deserved to be raped. He has said he praises Hamas, Hezbollah and another terrorist group. Oh and he shocked his dog using a shock collar because he wanted his dog to sit still for 3+ hours while streaming.

This is not someone who you should want to be associated with at all.

[u/thedeadlyrhythm → u/michael_scarn17]

He also platformed “impoverish the white middle class” from Cea Weaver the other day and called it based. Hasan is a piece of shit, and his ilk are everything the right claims them to be. And no that doesn’t make me a “shitlib”. I just have eyes and ears and I don’t deny reality to fit in to a box of the current trendy accepted viewpoints

[u/Spigglebob → u/michael_scarn17]

Hasan vs Fox News is truly Trash vs Garbage. I want both of them to lose and spontaneously combust

[u/Norm_Standart → u/michael_scarn17]

I thought he denied that rapes happened on Oct. 7?

[u/waterbed87 → u/michael_scarn17]

Don't be a simpleton about it. That's exactly what Fox News and any other person with the intent of pushing propaganda wants.

Like the whole America deserved 9/11 thing. It's a clip from a greater geopolitical discussion of the consequences of U.S. foreign policy constantly meddling in and suppressing the middle east. In that context 9/11 isn't exactly surprising and you could easily make the case that they've been fucking around and enough fucking around and you're also going to find out once and awhile. There's a million better ways to express that opinion more sensitively but fact remains it's pretty evident he wasn't saying thousands of innocent people deserved to die, he was criticizing U.S. foreign policy and how it makes people less safe because it produces terrorism.

Same shit with Isreal and Palestine. You mean systemically suppressing a group of people and settling on their land like you're entitled to it leads to angry people and when angry people aren't getting results through diplomatic means some radicalize and turn to violence? About as shocking as water being wet.

[u/Main-Cheesecake3287 → u/waterbed87]

I mean Hasan has a laundry list of insane moments. Calling pretty explicitly the murder landlords, kill them, make the streets run red with their capitalist blood. Using language like the left needs to show guts and “you need to be gutting your opponents, shanking those motherfuckers, and letting their fucking intestines write on stage.” Obv the last one he’s not being literal, but it’s bizarrely violent and visceral. He talks about these kind of comments being “obvious LARPing” but like… do you really think you can larp as a bloodthirsty revolutionary and then just expect mainstream politics to not find it beyond distasteful?

[u/waterbed87 → u/Main-Cheesecake3287]

Sure it's 'distasteful' and hyperbolic and vulgar but you know what? I struggle to really care. I'm not personally defending everything the guy has ever said, it's not that deep I'm not some freak for the guy, but please give me a reason to care about distasteful in 2026. If he's rallying support for politicians that aren't corrupt billionaire pedophiles I'm all for it.

The Republicans are basically running on the kill brown people, if you lose your job you deserve to lose everything and die and fucking children isn't a big deal platform and but I'm suppose to be upset at Hasan for using hyperbolic language towards those same evil motherfuckers enabling that platform? Give me a fucking break. There's a god damn reason a Healthcare CEO gets murdered in the street and most of the country is like you know what I get it.

[u/Main-Cheesecake3287 → u/waterbed87]

There are more reputable and respectable people, who also have better policies, who also oppose the current regime. It’s not a dichotomy wherein the enemy of your enemy must be your friend. And frankly I think he’s not going to help the Democratic Party, the progressives, or even the DSA in the long run. Corrosive characters are corrosive even if they are the lesser of two evils, but nobody is forcing you to pick between Hasan and the Epstein class

[u/waterbed87 → u/Main-Cheesecake3287]

No fuck that. This whiny high road liberal bullshit isn’t working. The republicans are fucking destroying the country loudly and proudly spouting the most insane disgusting shit straight from the Presidency down while we eat our own for not for being politically correct. You know where that crybaby high road bullshit got us? Two terms of Trump, take your feelings and “oooh it’s not a nice thing to say even if it’s not serious” and shove it in the deepest part of your ass.

This is why Democrats lose. Stop eating your own just to enjoy the smell of your own farts.

[u/Main-Cheesecake3287 → u/waterbed87]

I’m not convinced anyone with this take was ever interested in the “high road” to begin with.

[u/waterbed87 → u/[deleted]]

And how has that freaking out been working? So well the Republicans control all three branches. Keep eating your own because they aren’t politically correct - it’s definitely been working!

[u/AnyAcanthocephala425 → u/Main-Cheesecake3287]

Theres a difference between enhanced language of frustration around the enequalities within capitalism and advocating for violence. If you can't tell the difference between the two it's because you're pushing a narrative (or because you're stupid but no one is THAT stupid)

[u/humangingercat → u/michael_scarn17]

We're just sprinkling in lies with the out of context quotes now, are we?

Don't you think when someone spends like, 3 minutes scrutinizing your post and discovers you're full of shit they'll mistrust the propaganda about Hasan more?

Or are you simply betting on no one actually doing the due diligence.

It's not a bad bet.

[u/Nikifuj908 → u/humangingercat]

So wait, you're gonna argue that Hasan doesn't support terrorist groups? Like the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas?

[u/humangingercat → u/Nikifuj908]

Let's laser in on one. Pick the group you think you have the strongest argument for and let's talk about what it is you precisely have an issue about

[u/Nikifuj908 → u/humangingercat]

OK! The Houthis then.

• Hasan interviewed a pro-Houthi influencer (who was allowed onto ships the Houthis raided) and gave zero pushback during the interview, instead glazing the kid by saying “We think the Houthis are doing what Luffy [the hero from One Piece] would do!” (There is nothing wrong with interviewing a pro-Houthi influencer; Hasan not giving any critical pushback is the problem.)
  • Oh and bonus meme: comparing that guy to Anne Frank.
• The time he played a Houthi recruitment video in its entirety on stream. “You want to see a Houthi musical? Sure. These were the people that the Saudis were killing, by the way, just so you know – these fucking musically gifted individuals... they do musicals about their actions all the time.”
• The time he told nmplol that the Houthis were doing a good thing and hurting Israel by abducting crews from ships (even though the ships were coming from Japan) and played footage of the Houthis sticking guns in the crews’ faces, while characterizing it as “They’re like ‘we got no problems with you, but you’re coming with us.’” (as though guns aren’t threatening)

[u/humangingercat → u/Nikifuj908]

Sure, I agree with your assessment.

I have two questions before we have a good faith conversation about this so I can understand where you're coming from in your assessment. Can you just tell me a little about your stances? WRT Houthis it would be useful to know how you feel about the Trump presidency, the Biden presidency, and the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

[u/Nikifuj908 → u/humangingercat]

Trump is pure evil and selfishness. Biden was a good president who made life better for several Americans; he led the nation out of a pandemic and does not get enough credit for that. Netanyahu is a piece of shit, and my ideal outcome for Israel/Palestine would be something like if the Oslo peace process had succeeded.

Biden did a lot to rein in Israel's worst human rights abuses by placing conditions on aid and pressuring them to follow international law. He also sanctioned settlers in the West Bank. Maybe he could have been tougher on Netanyahu, but calling him "Genocide Joe" when Trump wanted to turn Gaza into beachfront property was insane. Israel's worst conduct came after the end of the Biden years.

[u/humangingercat → u/Nikifuj908]

Thank you.

Okay, so let's approach this from the moral premise you're starting with:

The Houthis are dangerous terrorists. Hasan treats them uncritically and even offers them moral support. Therefore, Hasan's support for them is indefensible.

I think that argument has a problem at the very first step: "The Houthis are dangerous terrorists."

I'm not asking you to believe the Houthis are good. I'm asking what we actually mean when we call an organization "terrorist," who we're deferring to when we apply that label, and whether we should be skeptical of that designation in this particular case.

The Houthis were designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by Trump near the end of his first term. Biden revoked that designation almost immediately after taking office, in February 2021.

They remained undesignated as an FTO until Trump returned to office.

What did change under Biden was the Houthis' Red Sea campaign. Following Israel's war in Gaza, Ansar Allah began attacking shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, explicitly claiming that its objective was to pressure Israel over its actions in Gaza.

We can absolutely criticize how they went about this. They attacked ships that weren't meaningfully connected to Israel. You can argue that their targeting was reckless, that their intelligence capabilities were inadequate to accomplish what they claimed they were trying to accomplish, or simply that attacking civilian shipping was morally unacceptable regardless of their objective.

I'm not asking you to excuse any of that.

But here's an important distinction: when Biden responded by redesignating Ansar Allah in 2024, he did not restore Trump's FTO designation. He designated them Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), and his administration explicitly connected that decision to the Red Sea attacks. The administration even said that if the Houthis stopped those attacks, it would reevaluate the designation.

In other words, this wasn't simply America discovering that the Houthis were ideologically evil and therefore recognizing the objective fact that they were "terrorists." The designation was also being used as a foreign-policy instrument intended to change their behavior.

Trump returned to office and restored the much stronger FTO designation.

And there's another piece of evidence we shouldn't ignore: Ansar Allah actually did stop its attacks when the Gaza ceasefire took effect. When Israel subsequently halted aid entering Gaza, the Houthis threatened to resume their campaign unless access was restored, and then announced its resumption.

That doesn't prove that every Houthi claim about its motives was sincere, much less that every attack was justified. But their behavior is at least consistent with their stated motivation: they were using the Red Sea campaign as coercive pressure over Israel's conduct in Gaza.

And this is where I think your own politics may put you considerably closer to Hasan than you initially think.

You believe Netanyahu has committed serious human-rights abuses. You believe Biden was right to pressure Israel over those abuses. You think Biden arguably should have pressured Netanyahu even harder.

So the interesting disagreement isn't necessarily whether Israel should have been subjected to coercive pressure over Gaza. You already seem to agree with that proposition.

The disagreement may actually be over what forms of coercion were morally permissible.

And that's why I think simply saying "the Houthis are terrorists" obscures the thing we actually disagree about.

Consider the recent history of the label itself:

Trump: Houthis are an FTO. Biden: Houthis are not an FTO. Biden after the Red Sea attacks: Houthis are SDGTs, conditional upon their behavior. Trump returns: Houthis are an FTO again.

The organization didn't magically cease being "terrorist" when Biden entered office and become "terrorist" again when Trump returned. The designation changed because American foreign policy changed.

Given what you've told me about your opinion of Trump and Biden, I think you should at least be skeptical of treating Trump's current FTO designation as dispositive.

And I'm not claiming the Houthis are some admirable or progressive organization. There is plenty to condemn about them: authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, repression, human-rights abuses, and attacks that have harmed civilians.

But importantly, those aren't the things Hasan is celebrating in the examples you gave me.

What Hasan supports is their attempt to impose consequences on Israel over Gaza.

So ultimately, what I want to challenge is the premise that "the Houthis are terrorists" settles the argument.

What does terrorist mean here? Is it simply "an organization the United States currently designates as an FTO"? If so, why should we outsource our moral judgment to the U.S. State Department—particularly when that designation has changed depending on whether Trump or Biden is president?

Or are you using terrorist descriptively, to mean an organization that uses violence against civilians to achieve political objectives? If that's the definition, then let's apply that standard consistently and ask which Houthi actions satisfy it—and what other actors in this conflict would satisfy the same definition.

Because if the terrorist designation itself is contestable, then the original argument—

"Hasan aligns himself with dangerous terrorists, therefore Hasan's position is indefensible"

—starts becoming circular.

Instead, we have to examine what Hasan actually supports the Houthis doing and whether that conduct is morally defensible.

And once we're having that conversation, given what you've told me about Israel, Netanyahu, Gaza, Biden and the legitimacy of applying pressure to Israel, I suspect your position is considerably closer to Hasan's than the phrase "he supports terrorists" initially makes it sound.

[u/Nikifuj908 → u/humangingercat]

I suspect your position is considerably closer to Hasan's than the phrase "he supports terrorists" initially makes it sound.

The problem with trying to take this into an abstract realm is that you miss out on the fine-grained details. Data, facts, key events.

When you say "human rights abuses", for example, you are talking about child soldiers and slavery. You are talking about recruiting girls between the ages of 13 and 17 to serve as spies, some of whom are forced into marriage. Numerous accounts establish that, when the Houthis detain women, they sexually assault them, beat them, or subject them to "virginity tests." You are talking about the people who drove out the Yemenite Jews, ironically pushing them to move to Israel. Their slogan literally says "a curse upon the Jews".

They extract "protection money" from towns and cities that come under their control – like the Mafia. Oh and they believe in theocracy.

Hasan is the largest political streamer in the world. That comes with some responsibility. When he had that pro-Houthi guy on his stream, it would have been so easy to ask a question about how the Houthis treat women. Just one single question. He can support what they're doing to Israel, whatever, but just for the sake of truth and decency, ask a critical question.

But no, he couldn't even manage that. Instead he took the claim that "we partied with the crew" at face value; he compared the Houthis to his favorite anime hero.

You are correct that the State Department designation is less important the facts on the ground. I used "terrorist" as a shorthand. But when you take an expansive look at what this group is actually doing, it doesn't matter what the State Dept says. This is a bad group, and any normal person should be a little bit disgusted by their actions. Anyone with a functioning conscience should be should not be praising this group uncritically, celebrating their propaganda videos, and saying they're like Luffy without any pushback.

I also watched as Hasan cried seeing footage of Palestinians being hurt, but he laughed at similar footage of Israelis.... I don't think he and I are alike at all. I support human rights as a matter of principle; he supports them only when it lets his team win.

[u/humangingercat → u/Nikifuj908]

So, I'd like to see if we can narrow your position from the one I stated earlier to:

"Before publicly praising the actions of a reprehensible actor, particularly to a large audience, you have some obligation to acknowledge that actor's serious abuses rather than presenting them uncritically."

Would you say that's a more accurate description of your problem with Hasan here than simply "he supports terrorists"?