this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
647 points (96.8% liked)
Progressive Politics
4530 readers
959 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Curious to people that are leftist that "don't like Hasan". I see this comment a lot always when defending him but starting with that prerequisite. Do you mean you just don't enjoy his content style? If so, I can understand that.
There are things I don't like about him. But I don't really judge content creators by whether I'd be friends with them or not or whether their style is for me. For him, I like him because he serves a purpose of countering right wing and racist propaganda in a way that is most attractive to the people that are most vulnerable to it (young men). And he is clearly good at that.
I like him for that alone. He's a huge net positive in my opinion.
He's a political pundit. Part of his job is, at all times, to be entertaining and attention-grabbing. That means his appeal and success are directly tied to how abrasive he sounds at any given time. That's the unavoidable pitfall of the profession, and it's been true since long before the internet and even before television.
Punditry content is not for me personally, but I do think it is filling a niche. Especially as very very few online American content creators have been willing to engage with politics directly.
I'm not on the left so I can't answer.
Even I'm not terminally online enough for this but from the few things I've seen it seems like he ends up being generally ish correct, but he didn't arrive there through actual logic. ex: https://youtu.be/knMyMxXeoDY?t=37m38s
Like come on dude just say "yes maybe it's because he's Jewish and it was about hummus." I've seen him talk to other people about political things and he essentially does this same bit where he makes weird sounds and then tries to grandstand something unrelated to what the person said.
My dude. You're using the genocide supporting Zionist podcaster as your means to criticize Hasan? Might want to just rethink how you even got here. I'm not wasting my time talking about fucking Sabra Hummus.
wow you almost exactly replicated how he would respond lol
You criticized someone for "not using actual logic" and then followed it up with a Zionist crying about racism while he defends a genocide.
You really want to engage in the facts of this with that as your backing?
I don't care the politics of either person, I literally do not care about either of these people. If Bernie sanders said to use coal and Trump says we need to use solar I will say Trump is correct and Bernie isn't using logic. Someone put 2 Jewish people in F tier on a hummus tier list and put the Jewish owned company's hummus in that tier. I can see that being antisemitic, I can see it just being a meme, but either way it's not an insane thing to question it, and Hasan dances around it for 10 minutes and says "well I'm not in their brain so I can't say what they meant by it." Here is the response from a normal person who is being honest: "Yes I could see how that could seem antisemitic to put 2 specifically Jewish people in F tier, but I think it was just a gaff or a joke and not meant to be antisemitic." The person making the argument is irrelevant here, if you want to say Ethan is horrible go ahead, that doesn't make Hasan correct here.
You don't even understand what they are discussing in the clip you linked to. I can't believe I am am typing out this response to someone that doesn't even understand what they linked. But fuck it...
What is being discussed is why Ben Shapiro was put in F tier in the thumbnail even though he wasn't on the tier list in the actual video. The obvious answer to me (if I'm not trying to label all criticisms of Jewish people being because the critic is antisemitic) is: Ben Shapiro was a popular figure at that time and putting him in the thumbnail was for click bait. He was also a supporter/denier of the Palestinian genocide.
So, your "obvious answer" doesn't even make sense.
You're picking a part of a longer discussion on the topic and not even understanding what is being discussed.
You picked the exact moment where Ethan gives up arguing about the actual tier list. (An Iranian women is literally sitting on the same tier as him btw. Do you think that's because the panel was bigoted against her?)
He pivots to talking about the thumbnail because he's losing the argument on the tier list. And then starts saying the appearance of a famous right wing commentor in the thumbnail is because he's Jewish and therefore they hate Jews.
It's such a bad faith argument. He's literally treating Ben Shapiro like his only identity is "Jew" and there is no other reason to maybe put him in a thumbnail.
It's such a ridiculous point to pivot to. Hasan literally does the best thing he can do and just ignore it. "I don't know why". It's so far off from the topic. There is no reason to engage with it and keep following the chain of pivots.
Hasan -> Hasan Moderator (Frogan) -> Frogan doing a video -> The unknown video editor that made the thumbnail for the video.
Like, this is how far you gotta go? Sure, he could have gave an explanation like I did. But, then what? Ethan pivots again or just keep arguing it? Hasan isn't dancing around it. He's not allowing Ethan to control the conversation into something completely irrelevant like a click bait thumbnail.
There. I wasted my time explaining something that you could have gotten from actually watching the video you linked.
Jewish people can be criticized and their Jewish identity be irrelevant. Ben Shapiro and Ethan Klein are both racist genocide supporters. Why would I or anyone else hate them for being Jewish? I hate them because they supported a genocide.
As good faith as Hasan. https://youtu.be/knMyMxXeoDY?t=36m50s this is the first mention of the tier list, Ethan says "yes, with pleasure", then says "did you see the thumbnail." What a pivot to mention it within 5 seconds of bringing it up. I do enjoy wasting everyone's time by lying when you can just look at the video. I can give you the closed captions if you missed him mentioning it within 5 seconds.
There is no Iranian woman in F tier, it is Ethan and Ben Shapiro. He also did not say that means they hate jews, he said it was antisemitic. I can be sexist without hating women, I can be racist without hating other races.
Here are some other non-jewish people that were genocide deniers: Trump (far more popular and recognizable), the change my mind guy, piers Morgan, just about every republican politician. Again, is it a coincidence they put 2 jews into F tier? Probably, but it's not insane to think that's a bit odd and question it. And again all Hasan had to do was say "I can see that but I think it's just they put him there because he's the first anti-hamas guy they thought of." But instead he says hey who knows I could never make any statement ever about it, it's insane to say it's because they're Jewish, and continues grandstanding rather than engaging with what Ethan said. You engage with it because its a conversation and to not massively waste the other persons time. You don't say uhhwhatt? Ethan are you ok? Are you hallucinating?
I don't care if they're Jewish or not, but I also don't think it's insane for someone to make that connection and say why are the 2 jews in F tier. If there were 10 worst fox news commentators ranked and the bottom 2 were the only women I would question it. Just say I'm not sure but I see where you're coming from, I think its just a coincidence. Don't tell them they're insane for thinking hmm this video about Jewish hummus put 2 jews in F tier, anyone that considers that weird is actually just insane and hallucinating, like wtf? Again I don't care if it's the editor, the president, or some random guy in a basement. They posted the video with that thumbnail, and Ethan is asking is "is this thumbnail antisemitic" and Hasan argues around it for 20 minutes rather than just saying yes I see how that could be bad. He literally says no I don't even think it was a bad coincidence, and then goes on to whataboutism.
Jesus fucking Christ
He literally said himself he doesn't care if what he says is true so long as it furthers the goals of the left, which fair enough but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
AHAHAHA holy shit
"Hasan always debates in bad faith" pulls up Ethan Klein
You witless dishcloth
Sadly I care about the substance of someone's argument not who they are. I also do not care about either of these people. If trump made a good argument against Hasan I would post that too.
Yeah I would hope so, but Ethan makes zero substantive arguments here. He strawmans the shit out of everything Hasan says, he makes up shit that isn’t true, contradicts his own points, and basically does hasbra. It was actually very disappointing to watch, I used to be an H3 fan, but this was the final nail in the coffin.
Kind reminder for everyone, that this is Ethan Klein in one of the most infuriating and evil videos I have seen in my life: https://old.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/1bg1xzs/old_and_horrifying_video_of_h3h3_resurfaces/
Had to use old reddit (you don't need an account to see NSFW stuff here) because he successfully got it censored in YouTube.
This is the dude you are using as a moral compass right now. A dude who literally joked about raping a Boston Bomb victim while he was 28 years old and being filmed by the Raider of Ramallah. The dude who calls everyone a pedophile repeatedly until they ruin their life and career. This is who you are asking us to show a shred of attention to.
He is a Zionist who wants innocent Palestinians dead because he hates Arabs. His dad was an actual pedo, didn't he impregnate his mom while she was still underage and with a massive gap of like 10 years between the two? The fact Ethan calls others a pedophile as an automatic insult says a lot about him, it is a massive red flag, and the fact he had to move from Israel or whatever in his early 20s doesn't help the suspicion either. Ethan Klein has a high chance of being an actual pedophile himself.
I am not using him as a moral compass, he made an argument that something is antisemitic. If I don't care who made the argument because it's immaterial to the point of "why are the only 2 Jewish people in F tier in a video about a Jewish hummus?" Ethan is a react farmer and always has terrible arguments and was part of the gamer gate movement of just making fun of women and saying "politics(that disagree with me) bad", but that doesn't mean what he said here was wrong.
TL:DR They are in the F tier for being Zionists who use stochastic terrorism to cause immense amounts of pain and suffering unto innocent people. Not just because they are Jews. It is not antisemitic, it is anti-zionist, a very, very important difference.
He has proven to have the worst judgement possible, dude. The Boston video is just an appetizer that displays the kind of person he is and what to expect. Those two people in the F tier deserve to be there because they are pieces of shit who deserve to be insulted and made fun of for the rest of their lives unless they do massive things that tip the scale. That's it, stop trying to farm sympathy for evil people, it won't work, I don't care if they are "Jews"; they are Zionists, and Zionists killed my family in Lebanon and Palestine.
I won't excuse their crimes just because they went through the Holocaust anymore, and you should stop too. 2 years after WWII ended, they did the Nakba. They are not innocent little angels, they are human beings, and human beings are complex. You trying to make this black and white, by using antisemitism as a shield, is not going to work anymore. Zionists deserve everything that is coming to them, and I still respect Jews, because not all Jews are Zionists. I'd say the same about Americans, despite the anger I display, I can still separate MAGAs from Americans instead of treating them all as monolithic.
Hasan constantly debates in bad faith, and is often closer to a left wing grifter than an activist. He doesnt argue " I think your analysis is wrong because xyz" rather he says "If you beleive this you are evil, stupid, or captured by propoganda."
The worst part is his preloading conclusions to arguments and failing to accurately respond to his opposition, more often than not endlessly reframing/deflecting the argument to get to his own conclusion without adressing what his opponent has put forth. To anyone in the debate scene, its almost anti-dialectic.
Alot of his rhetoric is moral spectacle, filled with rage, absolutist rhetoric, and purity language. This not being paired with humility, mutual aid, or coalition-building makes critics see him as someone who cosplays revolutionary ethics while living like a celebrity pundit. Not because he is rich, but because he uses the aesthetics of struggle without practicing its discipline.
For many leftists, Hasan represents the worst of online politics. Moral grandstanding, idealogical bullying, and content-first ethics. His style trains people to perform righteousness instead of doing politics.
I can literally tell you don't watch Hasan because you said "Hasan debates". He literally never does debates. You're talking about something that happens maybe once a year.
Like, none of what you are saying here is at all resembling of his content either. It sounds like your only experience with his content is via watching someone else criticize him in a YouTube video.
I do watch his streams and clips every once in awhile, and I’m using “debates” loosely to mean adversarial political exchanges, whether that’s call-ins, panel arguments, reacting to critics, or sparring with chat/other creators.
My critique isn’t about frequency, it’s about style. The pattern I’m talking about, preloading moral conclusions, reframing opponents into caricatures, and using moral condemnation instead of engaging the actual claim, shows up in those exchanges too.
You can disagree with that assessment, but saying “you don’t watch him” doesn’t really address the substance of what I wrote.
There is nothing of substance to address in what you said. You can say
But you have to actually provide an example of what you are talking about. Otherwise you're literally just spitting out word salad. I'm not going to pretend you're actually critizing someone when you speak like that.
I'm supposed to infer your use of "debate" being loosely defined. But now you spit out another criticism without any examples and I'm supposed to "address the substance"?
It's Jello. There is no substance.
You’re shifting from “this isn’t true” to “this doesn’t exist unless you cite a clip.” Those are different claims.
I’m not arguing that one isolated moment proves my case. I’m criticizing a style of engagement that shows up across all of his content, where moral condemnation precedes analysis and critques/arguments are reframed instead of answered.
You’re free to disagree with that description. But dismissing it as “Jello” doesn’t make it go away, it just sidesteps what I am getting at.
You haven't gotten anywhere. Here, let me make this clear. I'll use an extreme example.
During a debate I could say "you're using a Strawman argument". If I simply state that as a reason for why the person I'm talking to is wrong and do nothing else but just state a falacy they supposedly made and declare victory then I'm the idiot. I haven't actually discussed anything. It may "look smart" to someone that just wants to watch someone they already agree with. But I'm not. I'm just stating a conclusion without going through the steps to actually declare it.
People that actually want to have a discussion of debate don't do this. They are aware of fallacies or bad faith arguments. But they don't just "declare" them. Actually, I'd say no intelligent or good faith person does that. That's internet debate slop.
That's essentially what you are doing though. You made some vague criticism about his use of morality. But didn't actually bring any evidence or examples.
All I can say is "huh, I guess you believe that". Like, what am I supposed to say? Are you just use to people that jump to disagree with you based on your vague criticisms? I have no idea. Maybe I would even agree with you. Why would I rebut to something you haven't even explained.
You have no substance because you are just stating your conclusion. If you can't actually build that conclusion why would you expect me to engage?
You’re asking for a formal, step-by-step evidentiary case. I’m offering a high-level critique of a rhetorical pattern. Those are different kinds of claims, and neither is illegitimate.
I’m not “declaring victory,” I’m describing how his style reads to a lot of leftists: moral preloading, reframing, and condemnation first, engagement second. That’s an interpretive claim, not a syllogism, and it doesn’t require me to footnote every instance to exist.
You’re right that if this were a debate, I’d need to walk through examples. But this isn’t a debate, it’s a comment thread. I’m explaining why many people react to him the way they do, not trying to prove a theorem.
If you don’t recognize that pattern, that’s fine. We just have different readings of the same content. But saying “there is no substance” because it isn’t presented in your preferred format is just another way of refusing to engage with the claim itself.
Holy shit. It's exhausting trying to talk to someone that just refuses to actually explain their opinion beyond the vague criticisms they started with. Like, I can't ask why you think those things? That's literally all I'm trying to get out of you and you refuse. If you didn't want to do that then don't reply. My initial point still stands. No substance. You've literally spent the last few comments avoiding giving any reason or example for why you have these criticisms in the first place.
Why? Why is that so hard to do?
The problem here is that you provide no actual proof of something you claim Hasan "always does", then go on to claim "it's too much work" for you to cite your evidence, instead we should take on that work because it's on us to educate ourselves.
TBH, this is the same shit antivaxxers try to pull.
Put up or shut up, what you are saying is not true and you have no evidence to back it up. You got got by the clipfarm industry.
Hey, I heard you and I agree with your assessment. Block the guy youre arguing with in this comment thread. Its meant to exhaust and frustrate you.
Wrong. He absolutely explains xyz, and the moment he gets flooded with mouthbreathers who still double down on wrong ideas like "all immigrants are criminals" and shit like that, he loses his cool and starts insulting them. I can easily prove you wrong if you bring any talking point you think he hasn't explained xyz about from the past year, I can tell you what his stance is on it and why would he insult some of the people that keep doubling down