When talking about Dan Crenshaw, admittedly nearly as big a douchbag as Hasan himself, he mused about how he went "to war and like literally lose his eye because some mujahideen — a brave fucking soldier — fucked his eye hole with their dick?”
Justified China’s invasion of Tibet and destruction of Tibetan culture by claiming that Tibet was always part of China and that Tibetans were savages and slavers so China did them a favor by civilizing them
Said that rapes at colleges that are full of rich people are good, because the “millionaire failsons and faildaughters” are raping each other and not the general population
I could, quite literally, go on for days. Hasan routinely says things that the vast majority of Americans, liberal or conservative, would find abhorrent.
I don’t know if the word for Hasan is “woke”, but he represents exactly the energy we need to cut out of our party if we ever want to win again.
…Hasan was illustrative of voices on the left that have broken through the alt-right disinfo sphere. Nothing more.
I’m not going to debate this with you because that would be going off topic. I’m not even a fan of Hasan. I don’t like him. But this laundry list of things you are claiming is exactly the problem here. Its gish gallop. I’m having trouble either verifying some of the things that you claim, or what he actually said doesn’t match the accusation.
And that’s exactly what scares people away from “the woke”. It’s a silencing tactic. People don’t have time to look up all these things you have claimed.
You are illustrating, more than ever why it isn’t time to “tone down the woke”, but to go all in.
It’s not a gish gallop; it’s not my fault that Hasan says so much odious stuff.
I am happy to source any claim you’re doubting or disputing later today when I can listen to audio to find the right videos. The beautiful and horrible thing about Hasan is that all the disgusting stuff he says is broadcast to thousands of people.
Every bit of it is true, and I’m happy to provide links.
If you’re talking about “going all in” on “unabashed support for Hezbollah and the Houthis”, like Hasan, then I’m gonna disagree.
You’re welcome to do that, but not as part of the Democratic party.
…I can’t verify that Hasan has said any of the things you claim he has said. That’s the problem here. Thats why its gish gallop. I tried looking up some of that stuff and encountered a flood of utter nonsense.
Not that it matters: because again: you are missing the point.
Nah. I’ll just accept the concession. This is all decidedly off-topic. Again: I bought Hasan up as an example of someone that broke through the disinfo sphere. Thats all.
Some of it isn’t. I looked it up for myself.
I’m going all in like supporting trans people in sport. Opposing the genocide of the Palestinians. Stopping cop cities. Universal healhcare. Fight climate change. End white supremacy. Support the unhoused. Stop persecuting immigrants. Fight antisemitism. Fight anti-Muslims.
Ya know, woke stuff.
:: looks around ::
Phew! You don’t have to worry about that. I don’t get a vote.
While wokeness wasn’t an issue in the campaign, at least not in a direct manner in the sense that the Democrats didn’t campaign on it, I can’t help but think it’s played a party in driving people to one party or the other. Or at least playing a factor. I’m pretty certain I can tell how someone voted when they decry a movie for being woke because a lead actor is black or there are gay characters. I don’t think the answer is throwing people under the bus in the hopes that it saves the rest of us. We’re probably better off with the Democrats trying to address the real concerns many of Trump voters had. Or at least to find a better way to communicate that they are addressing those concerns.
Well, I’ll help you out, if you can’t Google basic statements he made.
Ho ho ho! Nice try, banquet buddy! I concede absolutely nothing. This isn’t a gish gallop; I just didn’t have headphones on me. Now I do.
“What the fuck? What the fuck is wrong with this dude? Didn’t he go to war and like literally lose his eye because some mujahideen, a brave fucking soldier fucked his eye hole with their dick?” Piker continued.
The reason I have so many examples is not to gish gallop; it’s because Hasan is such an odious monster that simply googling his name for 5 minutes reveals all of these heinous things he said.
And this is why you want the voice of the online left to be?
It decidedly is not, since Hasan is an example of the thing we need to cut out of our party - whether you wanna call that “woke” or “Tankie” or “brainrotted”.
Hasan has literally cost Twitch most of their ad revenue, and may get them hauled before Congress.
…I’d argue that this formed a great part of the basis of the Democrats campaign. Its why they bought in the Cheney’s. Its why their stance on immigration and the borders moved to the right. Its why Harris said “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot” to Oprah Winfery.
I think the Democrats would be much better off if they tried to address the real concerns of the people in their base. Millions of them sat this election out. They didn’t sit it out because of “woke.”
…LOL, as he says while he cites Erick Erickson, Dan Crenshaw, and Drew Pavlou.
I mean, come on. What are you doing following those people anyway? Are those your “voices on the left?”
I’d choose Hasan over the people you cited any day of the week. Yeah, Hasan said those words. And he owns it. But there is context. And your cites have conveniently stripped those clips of all context. A proper citation would have been to the actual streams or a transcript, not to alt-right disinformation.
So I see we are off the false accusations of gish galloping and on to ad hominems now?
I don’t follow any of those people; they’re who posted the videos that came up when I googled Hasan’s quotes. Except Dan Crenshaw; I think you’re confused because the video where Hasan says we deserved 9/11 is one where he’s reacting to Crenshaw.
I see you aren’t disputing any of the vile things Hasan said, though.
Please explain the cOnTeXt in which it is appropriate to muse about how nice it is that the rich people are raping each other, or the cOnTeXt that makes it OK to justify China’s ethnic cleansing of Tibetan culture with literal White Man’s Burden talking points. I’ll wait here.
@Babale, you drag this discussion into virtually every thread you’re posting in. Keep this discussion in threads that are dedicated to it, or risk being thread-banned.
No, random people who show up when I look up clips of Hasan saying fucked up shit whose only qualification is having posted a clip of Hasan saying fucked up shit at some point in time are not who I think should be representing the left. I don’t know why you’d think that would be the case; afaik I didn’t say anything that should have given that impression; but if you were confused, I hope this clarified things.
Their “real concerns” were fantasies, as has been said many times. The communication part is more important but unsolvable, since you can’t communicate with people who refuse to listen.
Would you say Obama claiming not to support gay marriage in 2008 was ‘throwing gay people under the bus’? It was eventually legalised by the Supreme Court, because Democrats had been able to appoint judges after getting elected based on more generally popular issues (universal healthcare, in Obama’s case).
This was a more effective strategy than staking your popularity on issues many people oppose and others didn’t care about much, losing control of the Supreme Court and seeing those decisions gradually reversed.
Why is it no longer possible to prioritise goals that will make a bigger difference and/or are more achievable? Seems to me there has been a big change from viewing these things as political goals to be worked towards, to seeing them as moral imperatives that determine the goodness of a person, and thus cannot be compromised on or publicly disavowed. And this is part of the phenomenon we call ‘woke’.
I hope I won’t be considered off-topic for replying to this, but I’d say that anyone who can compete in that space is bound to be controversial. If they aren’t alt-right then they’ll be far left or extreme in some other way. It’s not that the right have a monopoly of the traditional media or the internet, it’s that if you want establishment views you can go to the establishment.
And people only want establishment views when they feel that establishment is working for them.
I agree. I believe we should be totally awake in terms of seeing and dealing with unacceptable behavior in the here and now. However, to look at something that happened many years ago and render condemnation NOW is unjust. Society had different norms in different periods of our history. Let’s be fair.
Yes, there was a time Obama was not in favor of gay marriage, but he was in favor of gay civil unions. Even that made conservatives run for the smelling salts. And still, with that “woke” position, Obama won the 2008 election.
And when did Obama came out supporting full gay marriage? That was in May of 2012, Seven months before the 2012 election.
No, the woke position is that supporting civil unions isn’t good enough and makes you a bigot for not wanting to give full equality to gay people. I’ve seen it play out multiple times over current controversies, and this rigid, moralising approach is what a lot of people find objectionable. It makes them feel that politicians are looking down on them and condescending to them.
He came out in support when he thought voters were ready to hear it, because he was a smart politician who desired to win power. And although he helped usher in wokeness, activists at that time were still willing to compromise and tolerate different views, and more willing to focus on their own issues rather than insisting everything must be advanced all at once.
Surely there are some men’s health initiatives that could be mentioned in a section on men, plus improving education for boys, reducing suicide, and any other issues that are general but affect more men than women.
For a section on white Americans they could have some boiler plate about how life can be hard for everyone and they understand that your race does not shield you from all difficulties in life, then list off general policies that might be relevant, and link to the ‘rural’ section since they will be overrepresented.
The point is to ensure these people do not feel they have been forgotten.
