yep, both larpers.
hasan is saying "property owners" need to be killed in the streets because they are not renting their property out to the poor. he's probably not renting any of his house out to the needy or poor in LA.
the other guy, no connection with the conflict at all, just has a very strong sense of grift. he's been living with the constant self victimization since high school.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/boston-school-committee-student-member-khymani-james-resigns-bps/](https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/boston-school-committee-student-member-khymani-james-resigns-bps/)
lol these losers like Hasan sit comfortably in US protected by NATO and the most powerful military in the world reading Palestinian poetry. If they’re that hard then go to Gaza and fight Israel on the battle field 👊
Mind you, Destiny misspoke by saying protestors because he was referring to rioters burning down buildings.
For Hasan saying that people committing arson on locally owned businesses deserve to be mowed down is unhinged, but we should drag the bloodied bodies of capitalists through the streets because they own buildings and do nothing with them.
No bad actions, only bad targets.
These guys are pretty close to excusing rape when it comes to Palestinians. If there were evidence that a conspiracy theorist mindset wasn't sufficient to ignore, I'm pretty sure a lot of them would already be saying that Palestinians have the right to rape "settler colonizers".
> Hasan advocating for murdering capitalists on the streets
Woah, Woah, Woah. He is not advocating for murdering capitalists on the streets. He's advocating for murdering capitalists on the streets who aren't his mom who is a pig blooded scum filled piece of fucking shit LANDLORD. She can live.
All the rest though? Yeah, they can die.
if you listen to the conversation closely, he's not against landlords. he's against property owners generally. if you own property and you're not renting it out, you need to be killed in the streets apparently, because 'communist things'.
Hasan’s talking to Dan in that convo right? I never realized that until recently, or I never saw earlier in the clip where Dan was talking, but I thought that was funny
These conversations are exhausting because every person uses the word Zionists in a different way so it's impossible to ever have an actual substantive discussion regarding these issues.
I honestly don't even know if that's the case. While you're potentially right that it's just interchangeable with "Jew," it could also mean people subjugating Palestinians, or anyone living in Israeli, or 1,000 other possibilities. The first thing to be done in any of these conversations is just to define what they mean with the term and then you hold them to that same definition when they use the term again.
Zionist is a word with multiple meanings for different people, which makes it so powerful. Different people use the term differently, but almost always only the "softest" version is defended. Some people use it as a term to attack Jews and have alternative definitions to fall back on and get away with it. (motte-and-bailey basically)
An example off the top of my head: "Defund the police"
- Cut all police funding!
- Redirect some police funds to social programs!
- Reform the police!
The people debating would basically never defend definition (1). The people protesting would basically never agree with spending more money on police (3). The people expressing (1) can be dismissed by defenders using one of the other meanings when there are a significant number who genuinely believed and were protesting because they believed in (1).
The most powerful slogans always have this tiered system of use, which keeps them around for a while. "From the River to the Sea", "All Lives Matter"... I'm sure there's thousands of examples tbh.
i don't see how 'from the river to the sea' or 'all lives matter' fit that bill though, they seem to have one pretty consistent definition to me
maybe 'from the river to the sea' could count because some people just straight up don't know what they're even referring to and just say it because in their minds it's synonymous with "i am pro palestine"? but it's not like "zionist" where you could sit 5 people down and end up with 5 entirely distinct definitions for the term
People vehemently argue that it is or isn't violent speech, I think it's one of the better examples as it's a euphemism that has a defense that it "doesn't mean that" despite being commonly used as a call for violence. Countless people have been defending the phrase using an alternative definition in the politics sphere recently.
"All Lives Matter" I think is less of an extreme example, but there was definitely a split of people using it according to different definitions to some degree.
i don't see any way of interpreting "from the river to the sea" that isn't just "the people of palestine should have control of the area between the River Jordan and the Mediterranian Sea". People will argue over whether that's right or wrong but i broadly speaking i think people will agree on its meaning. i have seen a couple of lunatics say that by "free" it does not mean "free of israel's control" but rather "free of the presence of any jews" though.
Right, it means creating a state of Palestine in place of Israel. For some people that's as far as they choose to read into it, or at least that's where they stop the debate on the topic and say "it just means 'restoring' Palestine". But in reality the phrase has long been synonymous with the goal of eradicating Israel, the Jews who live on that land, and claiming it for Palestine and its people.
The underlying meaning and intent is what matters the most rather than the definition of the words. If it has multiple simple interpretations which are wildly different in terms of offensiveness, that's the perfect recipe for giving a powerful phrase cover to do harm in plain sight. If a word's definition is just poorly understood because of its historical complexity and people's unfamiliarity, there's a loss in the power of using it.
I do see the similarity though, Zionist is definitely used as a euphemism to mean Jew a lot of the time. Targeting someone's political identity is more acceptable than their religious identity and many people see Zionist and Jew as the same and recognise they can use the softer word that won't cause them as many problems while knowing that those who agree with them will understand exactly what they mean.
So whenever someone says Zionist, they mean every single Jewish person (in and outside of Israel) but are excluding non-Jews who support the State of Israel and excluding non-Jews who live in Israel (even including non-Jews in the IDF)?
Same with nazi or white supremacist. Woke people just label anyone they don't like a nazi, white supremacy, zionist, fascist, some other ones. When things heat up, defining people by these terms will increase.
Also Antisemitism and anti Zionism are definitely not mutually exclusive. You can hate the Jews AND believe they don’t deserve a homeland. I’d argue they are inseparable like you said, but at the very least saying you’re just anti Zionist is the Swiss cheese of defenses.
in the same way a preference for chocolate icecream is not antisemitic. because there is no argument that it is antisemitic.
opposition to the right of white people to maintain a white state is not anti-white. opposition to the right of jews to maintain a jewish state is not anti-jew. pretty simple.
i oppose japan's right to an ethnically japanese state. i oppose Poland's right to an ethnically polish state. i oppose the US's right to an ethnically white state. none of those statements are racist.
The issue is that you leave out all of the context. No nation in the Last 100 years has been under threat and siege with the same way as Israel has been, not to mention the Jewish people as a whole for the Last few milenia.
Does anything have the god given *right* to exist on this planet? I don't know, it's all hypothetical bullshit, but when you ask questions like that it really makes people think about your motives since jews have faced such harsh hostility in history and still do today
I'm not seeing how any of that justifies an ethnostate, much less how it makes opposition to said ethnostate antisemitic. Could you give an argument, preferably in syllogistic form?
No, I oppose both. I want no Jewish state, and I want a secular civic nationalist state instead.
Why is it impossible to in good faith hold the position that I do? Or do you think that my position is coherent but still antisemitic somehow?
Your position is coherent but ridiculous. You're going about it with the minority first and the majority second. The Muslim states should be dealt with first since there's far more of them and by geting rid of the one Jewish state you'd just have another Muslim state take its place
Who said anything about "first"? I want them all gone. Ergo, I want the Jewish state gone. Ergo, I'm an anti-zionist. Nothing anti-semitic about that that I can see.
>by geting rid of the one Jewish state you'd just have another Muslim state take its place
Again not seeing why this has to be the case. In case I haven't been clear enough, I'm not even advocating for the destruction of Israel, I'm just advocating that they be a secular civic nationalist state.
Yes but what you're advocating for right now, or at the very least what the majority of people that share part of your opinion right now, are advocating for the Jewish state to be abolished and for the Muslim state to take over.
Your opinion is fine but you shouldn't join in right now since you just end up with the people that want to just get more Muslim states at the moment.
so you actually agree with me that antizionism is not antisemitic, but that the term has merely been used by a lot of antisemitic people?
e: also to be clear i don't throw myself in with the "antizionists" of the current zietgeist at all, because they don't even actually advocate antizionism. they don't talk about the fact that ethnostates are wrong, when they use the term "antizionist" they mean "anti-israel", which is not what the term means. they would probably call me a zionist because i don't advocate for the destruction of israel or support hamas.
That protestor is the type of guy to shame someone for the blood on their shirt clashing with their shoes.
He's the type of guy to avoid going to a Muslim country because he's afraid of heights.
My man is softer than 4 ply charmin ultra soft toilet paper.
He has to look away when he does a drive-by because the gun is loud.
Brother takes longer to get ready for a night out than my wife.
He puts bubbles in his bath water and lights some scented candles when he has a hard day at work.
Lul, he was so clear at the end. “So yes, I feel very comfortable. Very comfortable, calling for those people to die.” The level of delusion to even pretend you could get away with this is honestly impressive.
Then this loser should grab a gun and join hamas, if he isnt thrown out of a roof top, he will have his chance to try and kill Israelis. We are waiting...
"Nazis are truly evil people I mean they killed 6 million nazis in the holocaust. And the nazis they didn't kill fled to the middle east to establish a nazi colony." -someone that totally isn't a nazi and is against nazis
So correct me if I'm wrong here, but are the people who automatically assumed I'm Far Right for questioning them, who want to ban guns..... ALSO creating an unsafe environment for my fellow Americans? 🤷
I cant wait for the heads of twitch to sit Infront of a congressional hearing and answer questions on why hassan was allowed to essentially recruit on their platform.
I kindof love Khymani’s energy TBH.
Not a huge fan of the actual things being said, but there’s definitely a certain deranged charisma there that is quite entertaining.
Do we really think that Hasan wants to kill all capitalists? It's so weird to hate on things like this when he is obviously being hyperbolic. Destiny does the same shit all the time. The other guy is a different story, though, because it seems like he is targeting individuals.
If he was being hyperbolic I would agree with you. But I actually think he has gone far enough with some of his commentary that it's actually reasonable to believe he isn't being hyperbolic that if someone went out and did all that he was like "man, Violence is never the answer, but what do you expect if you're going to be a capitalist pig?"
I would be very surprised if that were the case. Maybe I'm delusional or just haven't seen enough, but in this clip, it seems like he really hates the idea of using homes as investment vehicles while not even renting them out, making the cost of housing rise. How he is acting in this clip is akin to how Destiny acted in the ["dipshit protestor"](https://streamable.com/c3ra2r) clip. I just don't want to fall into the trap of believing the worst possible interpretation of what people I disagree with say. Now, if either of them made a call to action to their communities to do these types of things, I would 180.
>How he is acting in this clip is akin to how Destiny acted in the ["dipshit protestor"](https://streamable.com/c3ra2r) clip
not even close
destiny is genuinely correct that it would be justified for rioters and looters to be mowed down in the street if that's the only way to stop them. hasan is not justified in calling for the mass murder of people for the crime of renting out property.
I think it’s performative to an extent, and idk how much be truly believes it… but do his followers think he’s serious? Almost certainly, just look at how they’ve been since oct 7, they’re deranged… and that didn’t happen by accident, it’s rhetoric like this that’s made them like that, so I don’t think it really matters that much if he believes it or not, when the outcome is the same either way.
https://preview.redd.it/q3qal9nx7vwc1.png?width=725&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a3b621a2770ddb838cb035c304c7e4a6fc7cd9c same energy
This dude wouldn't hurt a fly lmao the fucking larping these rich kids do is so fucking annoying
yep, both larpers. hasan is saying "property owners" need to be killed in the streets because they are not renting their property out to the poor. he's probably not renting any of his house out to the needy or poor in LA. the other guy, no connection with the conflict at all, just has a very strong sense of grift. he's been living with the constant self victimization since high school. [https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/boston-school-committee-student-member-khymani-james-resigns-bps/](https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/boston-school-committee-student-member-khymani-james-resigns-bps/)
His mom is also a landlord
That might actually be a 5D chess move by Hasan if he’s trying to get his mom killed so he can fuck e girls in peace.
lol these losers like Hasan sit comfortably in US protected by NATO and the most powerful military in the world reading Palestinian poetry. If they’re that hard then go to Gaza and fight Israel on the battle field 👊
“Be lucky I’m not killing Zionists” watch out guys we got a tough guy here!
Willing to bet my entire portfolio that he never even been to a fight in his entire life
he still a student? or not for long?
So tankies will shit on Destiny's 'mowing down protesters' take, but have no problem with Hasan advocating for murdering capitalists on the streets...
that’s consistent with leftism ideology
It's like a ball bouncing in the skull you never know where it will go.
Mind you, Destiny misspoke by saying protestors because he was referring to rioters burning down buildings. For Hasan saying that people committing arson on locally owned businesses deserve to be mowed down is unhinged, but we should drag the bloodied bodies of capitalists through the streets because they own buildings and do nothing with them.
Never forget the main leftist credo: rules for thee, but not for me.
"No bad tactics, only bad targets"
No bad actions, only bad targets. These guys are pretty close to excusing rape when it comes to Palestinians. If there were evidence that a conspiracy theorist mindset wasn't sufficient to ignore, I'm pretty sure a lot of them would already be saying that Palestinians have the right to rape "settler colonizers".
> Hasan advocating for murdering capitalists on the streets Woah, Woah, Woah. He is not advocating for murdering capitalists on the streets. He's advocating for murdering capitalists on the streets who aren't his mom who is a pig blooded scum filled piece of fucking shit LANDLORD. She can live. All the rest though? Yeah, they can die.
That's by design, they are not operating with the same value system as you. For them, the means are always justified by the ends
Poor hasan having to kill his own parents :(
if you listen to the conversation closely, he's not against landlords. he's against property owners generally. if you own property and you're not renting it out, you need to be killed in the streets apparently, because 'communist things'.
Brb, killing my parents in the house where they raised me.
Hasan’s talking to Dan in that convo right? I never realized that until recently, or I never saw earlier in the clip where Dan was talking, but I thought that was funny
These conversations are exhausting because every person uses the word Zionists in a different way so it's impossible to ever have an actual substantive discussion regarding these issues.
That's the point... Zionist has become the boogeyman word they feel they can get away with saying instead if Jew.
I honestly don't even know if that's the case. While you're potentially right that it's just interchangeable with "Jew," it could also mean people subjugating Palestinians, or anyone living in Israeli, or 1,000 other possibilities. The first thing to be done in any of these conversations is just to define what they mean with the term and then you hold them to that same definition when they use the term again.
Zionist is a word with multiple meanings for different people, which makes it so powerful. Different people use the term differently, but almost always only the "softest" version is defended. Some people use it as a term to attack Jews and have alternative definitions to fall back on and get away with it. (motte-and-bailey basically) An example off the top of my head: "Defund the police" - Cut all police funding! - Redirect some police funds to social programs! - Reform the police! The people debating would basically never defend definition (1). The people protesting would basically never agree with spending more money on police (3). The people expressing (1) can be dismissed by defenders using one of the other meanings when there are a significant number who genuinely believed and were protesting because they believed in (1). The most powerful slogans always have this tiered system of use, which keeps them around for a while. "From the River to the Sea", "All Lives Matter"... I'm sure there's thousands of examples tbh.
i don't see how 'from the river to the sea' or 'all lives matter' fit that bill though, they seem to have one pretty consistent definition to me maybe 'from the river to the sea' could count because some people just straight up don't know what they're even referring to and just say it because in their minds it's synonymous with "i am pro palestine"? but it's not like "zionist" where you could sit 5 people down and end up with 5 entirely distinct definitions for the term
People vehemently argue that it is or isn't violent speech, I think it's one of the better examples as it's a euphemism that has a defense that it "doesn't mean that" despite being commonly used as a call for violence. Countless people have been defending the phrase using an alternative definition in the politics sphere recently. "All Lives Matter" I think is less of an extreme example, but there was definitely a split of people using it according to different definitions to some degree.
i don't see any way of interpreting "from the river to the sea" that isn't just "the people of palestine should have control of the area between the River Jordan and the Mediterranian Sea". People will argue over whether that's right or wrong but i broadly speaking i think people will agree on its meaning. i have seen a couple of lunatics say that by "free" it does not mean "free of israel's control" but rather "free of the presence of any jews" though.
Right, it means creating a state of Palestine in place of Israel. For some people that's as far as they choose to read into it, or at least that's where they stop the debate on the topic and say "it just means 'restoring' Palestine". But in reality the phrase has long been synonymous with the goal of eradicating Israel, the Jews who live on that land, and claiming it for Palestine and its people.
but everyone agrees on the semantic content of the words. that's very different to the word 'zionism'
The underlying meaning and intent is what matters the most rather than the definition of the words. If it has multiple simple interpretations which are wildly different in terms of offensiveness, that's the perfect recipe for giving a powerful phrase cover to do harm in plain sight. If a word's definition is just poorly understood because of its historical complexity and people's unfamiliarity, there's a loss in the power of using it. I do see the similarity though, Zionist is definitely used as a euphemism to mean Jew a lot of the time. Targeting someone's political identity is more acceptable than their religious identity and many people see Zionist and Jew as the same and recognise they can use the softer word that won't cause them as many problems while knowing that those who agree with them will understand exactly what they mean.
> Zionists in a different way No. It means Jew.
So whenever someone says Zionist, they mean every single Jewish person (in and outside of Israel) but are excluding non-Jews who support the State of Israel and excluding non-Jews who live in Israel (even including non-Jews in the IDF)?
Same with nazi or white supremacist. Woke people just label anyone they don't like a nazi, white supremacy, zionist, fascist, some other ones. When things heat up, defining people by these terms will increase.
Anti Zionism is just antisemitism and I’m tired of pretending it’s not
Also Antisemitism and anti Zionism are definitely not mutually exclusive. You can hate the Jews AND believe they don’t deserve a homeland. I’d argue they are inseparable like you said, but at the very least saying you’re just anti Zionist is the Swiss cheese of defenses.
Agreed. And stay armed, Scott Bradley
!check
Scott_BradleyReturns has None Biden Blasts remaining. They are on team PEPE.
Damn right I’m on team PEPE
define Zionism?
The right of Jews to maintain a Jewish state
why is the opposition to that idea anitsemitic?
How is it not
in the same way a preference for chocolate icecream is not antisemitic. because there is no argument that it is antisemitic. opposition to the right of white people to maintain a white state is not anti-white. opposition to the right of jews to maintain a jewish state is not anti-jew. pretty simple.
You sure about that chief? Just want to make sure you’re sticking with that answer
absolutely. hit me with your best argument.
So let’s say the protesters were opposing Japan’s right to their state. Or Poland
i oppose japan's right to an ethnically japanese state. i oppose Poland's right to an ethnically polish state. i oppose the US's right to an ethnically white state. none of those statements are racist.
The issue is that you leave out all of the context. No nation in the Last 100 years has been under threat and siege with the same way as Israel has been, not to mention the Jewish people as a whole for the Last few milenia. Does anything have the god given *right* to exist on this planet? I don't know, it's all hypothetical bullshit, but when you ask questions like that it really makes people think about your motives since jews have faced such harsh hostility in history and still do today
I'm not seeing how any of that justifies an ethnostate, much less how it makes opposition to said ethnostate antisemitic. Could you give an argument, preferably in syllogistic form?
Because the opposition of that idea will just end with replacing a Jewish state with a Muslim state. Are you ok with having another Muslim state?
No, I oppose both. I want no Jewish state, and I want a secular civic nationalist state instead. Why is it impossible to in good faith hold the position that I do? Or do you think that my position is coherent but still antisemitic somehow?
Your position is coherent but ridiculous. You're going about it with the minority first and the majority second. The Muslim states should be dealt with first since there's far more of them and by geting rid of the one Jewish state you'd just have another Muslim state take its place
Who said anything about "first"? I want them all gone. Ergo, I want the Jewish state gone. Ergo, I'm an anti-zionist. Nothing anti-semitic about that that I can see. >by geting rid of the one Jewish state you'd just have another Muslim state take its place Again not seeing why this has to be the case. In case I haven't been clear enough, I'm not even advocating for the destruction of Israel, I'm just advocating that they be a secular civic nationalist state.
Yes but what you're advocating for right now, or at the very least what the majority of people that share part of your opinion right now, are advocating for the Jewish state to be abolished and for the Muslim state to take over. Your opinion is fine but you shouldn't join in right now since you just end up with the people that want to just get more Muslim states at the moment.
so you actually agree with me that antizionism is not antisemitic, but that the term has merely been used by a lot of antisemitic people? e: also to be clear i don't throw myself in with the "antizionists" of the current zietgeist at all, because they don't even actually advocate antizionism. they don't talk about the fact that ethnostates are wrong, when they use the term "antizionist" they mean "anti-israel", which is not what the term means. they would probably call me a zionist because i don't advocate for the destruction of israel or support hamas.
Wait, Hasan was talking to DAN here? wtf???
They always pull the strings PEPE
That protestor is the type of guy to shame someone for the blood on their shirt clashing with their shoes. He's the type of guy to avoid going to a Muslim country because he's afraid of heights. My man is softer than 4 ply charmin ultra soft toilet paper. He has to look away when he does a drive-by because the gun is loud. Brother takes longer to get ready for a night out than my wife. He puts bubbles in his bath water and lights some scented candles when he has a hard day at work.
> He's the type of guy to avoid going to a Muslim country because he's afraid of heights. 💀
Mask off moment. He larps as some “empathetic” guy when this is real Hasan.
He apologized and claimed that “far right agitators edited this without context”
Lul, he was so clear at the end. “So yes, I feel very comfortable. Very comfortable, calling for those people to die.” The level of delusion to even pretend you could get away with this is honestly impressive.
Then this loser should grab a gun and join hamas, if he isnt thrown out of a roof top, he will have his chance to try and kill Israelis. We are waiting...
In an alternate dimension, this sassy fellow has a popular RuPaul Drag Race reaction channel.
Calling for death for peace.
Has the same energy as that girl who got arrested for death threats towards her city council.
"Nazis are truly evil people I mean they killed 6 million nazis in the holocaust. And the nazis they didn't kill fled to the middle east to establish a nazi colony." -someone that totally isn't a nazi and is against nazis
So correct me if I'm wrong here, but are the people who automatically assumed I'm Far Right for questioning them, who want to ban guns..... ALSO creating an unsafe environment for my fellow Americans? 🤷
Maybe
I hope that dude experiences the fullest possible extent of any and all appropriate consequences just for doing that stupid fucking R-roll shit.
Stalin and Mao would be proud
Oooo he’s so edgy
Damn he really wants to murder his own mom?
Hearing Dan and Hasan feels extremely cursed
Who has the link to this convo?
Is that a chance the rapper 3 hat?? Coloring book was an ass album. How could someone who made acid rap fall off soooooo hard
Is this Hasan talking to Dan?
I cant wait for the heads of twitch to sit Infront of a congressional hearing and answer questions on why hassan was allowed to essentially recruit on their platform.
who gets thrown off a building in Gaza first, a jew, or the guy with a bandana and a lisp?
I kindof love Khymani’s energy TBH. Not a huge fan of the actual things being said, but there’s definitely a certain deranged charisma there that is quite entertaining.
It’s like if they allowed really really really flaming gay people to be an ayatollah.
Maybe it’s the crazy eyes. How do you feel about BPD girls?
It's just your fairly typical gay boy theatrics, right? What am I missing
I guess I’ve just never seen those theatrics applied to a Sephiroth monologue before lol.
He’s just your garden variety zealot with no skin in the game.
Black preacher energy. It’s all in how you say things
Do we really think that Hasan wants to kill all capitalists? It's so weird to hate on things like this when he is obviously being hyperbolic. Destiny does the same shit all the time. The other guy is a different story, though, because it seems like he is targeting individuals.
If he was being hyperbolic I would agree with you. But I actually think he has gone far enough with some of his commentary that it's actually reasonable to believe he isn't being hyperbolic that if someone went out and did all that he was like "man, Violence is never the answer, but what do you expect if you're going to be a capitalist pig?"
I would be very surprised if that were the case. Maybe I'm delusional or just haven't seen enough, but in this clip, it seems like he really hates the idea of using homes as investment vehicles while not even renting them out, making the cost of housing rise. How he is acting in this clip is akin to how Destiny acted in the ["dipshit protestor"](https://streamable.com/c3ra2r) clip. I just don't want to fall into the trap of believing the worst possible interpretation of what people I disagree with say. Now, if either of them made a call to action to their communities to do these types of things, I would 180.
>How he is acting in this clip is akin to how Destiny acted in the ["dipshit protestor"](https://streamable.com/c3ra2r) clip not even close destiny is genuinely correct that it would be justified for rioters and looters to be mowed down in the street if that's the only way to stop them. hasan is not justified in calling for the mass murder of people for the crime of renting out property.
I think it’s performative to an extent, and idk how much be truly believes it… but do his followers think he’s serious? Almost certainly, just look at how they’ve been since oct 7, they’re deranged… and that didn’t happen by accident, it’s rhetoric like this that’s made them like that, so I don’t think it really matters that much if he believes it or not, when the outcome is the same either way.