Wtf is the point of radicalism if you have no power to utilize it? Having some REALLY COOL THOUGHTS is meaningless if you can’t actualize them and instead are talking to yourself in a dark room
And frankly every time I see these parasocial whines concerning Hasan, all I hear are calls for more dark rooms, more sophistry, and more idealism
You think I’d care about that obnoxious dude-bro himbo if he didn’t have the audience and platform? He’s a vector for radicaliztion and the normalization of pro-Palestinian politics, that’s all I care about
The combination of radicalism and reach is the metric we need to judge by, without either one the commentary and presentation is meaningless
And judging by the combination Hasan wields, his annoying ass gets an A-
What are you even arguing with me here about? (Or am I misinterpreting your tone and you’re not arguing?)
The combination of radicalism and reach is the metric we need to judge by, without either one the commentary and presentation is meaningless
Ok, then don’t conflate those two very different things. I likewise do not care for Hasan as a person. I don’t enjoy watching him and find myself getting more annoyed with the stuff he gets wrong than cheering the stuff he gets right, like a case of “so close yet so far away” that it rubs me the wrong way. Still, unlike some here, I think he is ultimately a positive (that is to say a leftist) force in the world and one I’m grateful is out there, despite not caring for him and despite the other ways I think he can hold some people back from genuine leftism. The good he does materially I would say outweighs the bad. And the good that he does do, which you have pointed out, is a direct result of the resources he has to be able to do that good. But that does not make him radical. Which is the only part of what you’ve been saying above that I took issue with.
As for the so-called idealism of having radical positions without the material action to back it up… There are people working in volunteer soup kitchens and spending their free time organizing their community as best they can and supporting the vulnerable within it, and they do this because of the radical ML or even anarchist convictions that they hold. Their material conditions don’t allow them to sit in their million dollar homes commenting on the news and media all day to x-thousands of people paying them to do so like Hasan which is what allows him the ability to do the good that he does. These actually radical people lack his resources and his reach, but they are still devoting as much or more of their time and labor to materially benefit others and spread class consciousness. People who struggle daily, hourly, and risk their livelihood and sometimes their lives to do so. Many of these people are minorities of all kinds too. (There are even people like that who have commented on hexbear). They are inarguably more radical both in terms of their actions and their beliefs than Hasan is.
Hasan is not radical and no matter how many kudos he deserves for the very real good he has done for leftist causes changes that.
Ok, then don’t conflate those two very different things.
HOLY SHIT, we have to conflate them, because ONE, is useless, without the OTHER, hence my use of the word COM-BIN-NATION, I swear this site sometimes
As for the so-called idealism of having radical positions without the material action to back it up… There are people working in volunteer soup kitchens and spending their free time organizing their community as best they can and supporting the vulnerable within it, and they do this because of the radical ML or even anarchist convictions that they hold.
God have mercy, everyone’s a liberal at the end of the day…HEY, you know what would really help those people struggling in their soup kitchens? POWER, actualized POWER WITH REACH, the ability to have your politics normalized whether it be anarchist or ML, and you know what’s a powerful vector of actualization and normalization? That’s right, THE MEDIA, and you know who we have on our side who can normalize our politics despite his “so close yet so far away” takes? That’s right, Hasan Piker, a piped piper handed to you on a silver platter, who through his advocacy can inspire and send streams of newly radicalized people to those soups kitchens of yours
But that’s all meaningless because “nice house”? Well how austere and noble, didn’t know the poverty cult had real adherents
They are inarguably more radical both in terms of their actions and their beliefs than Hasan is.
Confidence, normalization, scalability, inspiration, popularity, cultural buy-in, POWER, are these concepts poisonous to your radicalism? Are we in a struggle to change systems or glorify band-aids?
You’re going off the rails here comrade. I don’t know if it’s because you can’t handle it being pointed out that a word you were using doesn’t mean the thing you were using it to mean or if you really just hate the fact that Hasan on his best days barely crosses the line from liberal to leftist and is simply in no way considered a radical by anyone who is versed in genuinely radical (such as Marxist Leninist) theory, that is making you feel the need to pick nonsensical fights with everyone, but have at it I guess.
But no, we don’t have to conflate two words (use them as if they mean the same thing) that have completely different meanings in order to be effective. A close example: we need to have principles and we need to take action if we want to make positive material change. That doesn’t mean principles and action are the same thing and is sure as hell doesn’t mean we need to pretend they are the same thing in order to be effective leftists.
Confidence, normalization, scalability, inspiration, popularity, cultural buy-in, POWER, are these concepts poisonous to your radicalism?
Well, let’s take one of those: normalization. What is being normalized? If what’s being normalized is the idea that leftists need to vote for Democrat presidential candidates in order to stop those dastardly Republicans at any cost (especially when those Democrats are actively conducting genocide) then yes, that concept is poisonous to my radicalism. I would say similar things about the rest of your word list.
I’m not going off any rails, I’m growing increasingly annoyed at obtuse parasocial nonsense employed for the purposes of trashing the largest leftist voice in the country and for what? To pretend you (a forum user) has more motion than the largest funder of the Amazon labor union or the most popular pro-Palestine advocate in the US?
I don’t know if it’s because you can’t handle it being pointed out that a word you were using doesn’t mean the thing you were using it to mean or if you really just hate the fact that Hasan on his best days barely crosses the line from liberal to leftist and is simply in no way considered a radical by anyone who is versed in genuinely radical (such as Marxist Leninist) theory
Well, let’s take one of those: normalization. What is being normalized?
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, PRO-PALESTINE POLITICS, yes I’ll take all of that, think I give a fuck about his electoral takes, I need him to radicalize people toward socialism and he’s doing his job well
I would say similar things about the rest of your word list.
Of course you would, you want the left to stay motionless
Alright, let’s look at this honestly because I’ve read many of your comments over the years and know you’re better than this. Right now you are grossly misrepresenting the things people (in this case me) are saying. I sincerely don’t know if you’re aware you’re doing this and just want to score points or if you are in an emotional state that is distorting what you think I’m saying. It seems like the latter, and that is what I mean by going off the rails.
I’m growing increasingly annoyed at obtuse parasocial nonsense
What parasocial nonsense have I expressed in this conversation, from your perspective?
for the purposes of trashing the largest leftist voice in the country
In what way am I trashing Hasan? I literally said I am grateful he is out there and that while I don’t like everything he does, I think he is a force for good in the world. I agreed with you that as far as outreach and spreading and popularizing leftism, that he almost certainly has done more than people here have done.
To pretend you (a forum user) has more motion than the largest funder of the Amazon labor union
What is motion? Where did I pretend I had more of it than Hasan?
If you’re gonna talk shit, the least you could do is know something about the person you’re trashing
I haven’t been doing anything that could remotely be called “talking shit” unless saying “Hasan is not radical” by the standards of nearly anyone on this website is “talking shit.” To the contrary, I’ve been saying that Hasan is undeniably a net good. As for what I know about him, everything I’ve said is well within reason to say given what I do know about Hasan. I have said nothing about him that is not perfectly commensurate with my non-expert but more than average person on the street’s knowledge of who he is.
[your link]
I’m glad he is talking to and is friends with someone else who I will take your word is a well-read Marxist Leninist. It doesn’t matter though, I contend that someone who endorses Democrats, especially genocidal presidential candidates, someone who is as concerned and supportive of one half of the uni-party posing as a two-party state kayfabe politics as I’ve personally seen him to be, that person is simply not a radical leftist and that no actual radical leftist would claim him as one.
Of course you would, you want the left to stay motionless
Great. Nice little jab of meaningless nonsense, accusing me of something that doesn’t even parse, let alone related in any way to anything I said. That’s the way to stick it to your opponents! Come on, what is the point of doing that, really?
I get what you’re saying, but I can’t help it, I have to be pedantic here because words matter. How radical a person is is not dependent on how big their platform or loud their voice is, how many people they’ve exposed to leftist thought, or even how much material change they can affect or may have brought about
This is how you began the conversation, this is incoherent; according to you in terms of what is radical, actions don’t matter, radicalizing people doesn’t matter, exposing people to leftist thought, who cares, loudest anti-genocide voice in the country, platforming countless Palestinian voices, teaching 50,000 people the concept of social murder…etc
“Tried your best kid, BUT THAT AIN’T RADICAL”, that’s your take huh?
No, what apparently what only really matters is a person’s take on electoralism and the concept of entryism, that’s how we here at Hexbear judge what is or isn’t radical, absolute nonsense, is democrat derangement syndrome a thing now?
And you wonder why I might be annoyed and put off, the loudest anti-genocide voice in the country is disqualified from the vaunted halls of Hexbear radicalism because he encouraged his viewers to neither vote for or against Harris, while still trashing Harris the whole time, unforgivable
End of the day, this shit still boils down to 2024 for all of you
You are truly hung up on semantics. Hasan is not radical in ML terms but does have significant impact and reach. You are literally conflating concepts, as it’s been explained to you several times. We recognize you’re claiming that in order for a radical to have impact, they must have reach, but this is not the point. The point is that calling Hasan a radical is bizarre given his Democrat entryism even if he does good under the banner of Marxism.
The point is that calling Hasan a radical is bizarre given his Democrat entryism even if he does good under the banner of Marxism.
And there it is, and that’s why all of you are dumb, sorry but pro-Palestine radicalism boosted by his REACH, doesn’t stop being radical just because of his takes on electoralism, and second of all his electoral takes for the last 8 months have been about how the democrat party is shit and is doomed, while still being rightfully skeptical of third party emergence
Regardless that doesn’t trump his radicalism concerning Palestine and how that radicalism is elevated by his reach, my entire point the whole goddamn time
The combination of radicalism and reach is the metric we need to judge by, without either one the commentary and presentation is meaningless
But that still doesn’t mean that he is more radical just for having larger reach. This is a separate argument. Conflating the two is how people end up thinking Obama is radical for Obamacare being a thing. Ability to impact things is important as is reach but that still doesn’t mean saying having more reach makes one more radical.
Conflation doesn’t mean equally important it means one and the same. Edit: Your argument is better suited if your initial sentence is that he is more effective, not more radical.
Would you consider Obama more radical as well then since he normalized the idea of single payer healthcare? Sure his ideas are lesser but he’s definitely had a larger reach than just about anyone here ever will and the healthcare system is one of the most damaging ones within the country to the working class.
Single-payer healthcare (radicalism) + reach (hundreds of millions of viewers) = more radical than forum users.
Single-payer healthcare isn’t radical, pro-Palestine politics is, especially in the US
So, YES, Hasan being the loudest anti-genocide voice in American media and becoming the number one target of aipac and Bibi’s lawyer does in fact make him more radical than a collection of ML forum users, who by the way were still debating a burning Israeli flag two years into the genocide, meanwhile Hasan is interviewing genocide survivors and Flotilla members
It’s genuinely wild I have to spell this shit out, material reality trumps your hypotheticals, the streamer has you beat, take the L, it’s not a contest anyway
It’s genuinely wild I have to spell this shit out,
It’s genuinely wild people have to spell out the definition including common use of the word radical to you, but instead of listen you insist on making up some bullshit argument in your head between materialism and idealism. True Anon also interviewed Sumud Flotilla survivors before and after their attempt to bring aid. Where do Brace Belden and Liz Franczak fit on your little “true radicals have reach while fake idealist not-radicals only house and feed a few homeless people at a time” spectrum?
It’s genuinely wild people have to spell out the definition including common use of the word radical to you
Nobody is talking about definitions, your side is upset at some “conflation” I made concerning pro-Palestine radicalism and Hasan’s reach and how that makes his radicalism more meaningful and impactful than forum users typing shit out, try to keep up with the thread
“true radicals have reach while fake idealist not-radicals only house and feed a few homeless people at a time” spectrum?
Oh, there it is, you just don’t know how to read, yeah sure, I critique someone’s over-the-top and unrealistic social expectations and suddenly that means I hate homeless people and I want them to die
Pipe down, and keep your disingenuous accusations to yourself
Pipe down, and keep your disingenuous accusations to yourself
Says the ignorant loudmouth who doesn’t understand the very basic leftist concept of radicalism but can’t stop shouting at everyone in caps how a progressive liberal streamer is more radical than unnamed indigenous MLs protecting people from ICE in the streets because the streamer is rich enough to get more people to listen to him. I can’t believe this isn’t just a really bad bit and that you’re actually serious.
I critique someone’s over-the-top and unrealistic social expectations
A critique is when you tell someone who is housing and feeding homeless people that they aren’t as radical as an internet personality Kamala Harris supporter because of “reach”
because the streamer is rich enough to get more people to listen to him
That’s why I told you to pipe down, you don’t know how to read, I didn’t say Hasan is radical because he’s rich you dogpiling dipshit; I said he’s more radical than loudmouth FORUM USERS because of his pro-Palestinian advocacy, he raised millions for Palestine, you didn’t do shit, he interviewed genocide survivors, you didn’t do shit, he platformed Samud flotilla organizers, and you just talk shit, and you want to accuse me of doing bits lmao? While you sit there trashing the loudest American voice for Palestine
So yes, that rich ass streamer is more radical than you, because radicalism requires actual praxis you ignorant assholes, and praxis has a firm relationship with reach and scale, that’s my point
Keep pretending talking on a fourm is real politics, I’m sure that’s how the revolution comes about
Single payer healthcare is radical, both in the fact that it is an extreme divergence from current policy and thus would constitute an extreme change as well as it aims at a problem close to the source.
Those are the conditions in material reality and that is what radical means.
Also, where did I say that Hasan isn’t more radical than people here? you’re putting words in my mouth. I just have problems with the work you’ve shown, not necessarily your conclusion. My hypothetical is because according to the work you’ve given, Obama would also have to be more radical as well as Hasan as what you’ve said repeatedly has batted away the idea that the ratio of conviction to reach matters in any way.
If you had just kept it pithy and said “Hasan is more radical than the people on this site,” I likely would’ve snorted, liked it, and moved on.
Edit: I actually hadn’t said anything about him yet so far, would you feel better about me questioning the formation of your argument if I say something nice about Hasan during each comment? I have no issues doing that if you cut out the weird snideness in your comments.
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
The state is cracking down on Pro-Palestinian advocates, almost like pro-Palestine politics IS RADICAL, hence my original comment
Also what “work” are you talking about, I’ve literally wedded my usage of the word radical to pro-Palestine politics for this thread, nobody can disagree pro-Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism, but I guess that’s wild “conflation” beyond the pale and I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
I am and just because something is radical doesn’t mean it invites state crackdown. Ultras are more radical than us all and the state won’t crackdown on them because they’re fucking idiots. You haven’t had to spell anything out to me as none of your spelling out has been relevant to what I said.
Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I didn’t disagree, actually if you read what I said I explicitly agreed on that.
Also what “work” are you talking about
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
Again, I explicitly agreed with this premise, if someone else disagreed take it up with them.
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism
That part I didn’t have issue with. Again, I agreed. I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them. Y’know, as I previously said if you read what I said.
I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
??? Huh? I don’t have any opinions on your opinions on the homeless… I’ve never considered how you feel about the homeless before, I presume you want the best for them?
Edit: Conflation is what brings about opportunism, even if you yourself simply misused it and have proper understanding, as you mentioned with the repeated struggle sessions over not burning the fucking Zionist entities flag there are obviously people that susceptible. Such a type would see that and feel what you stated as written feels intuitive correct and would use that as some litmus test which while it sometimes works I feel would lead to all types of opportunists passing as well which was my sole is.
I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them
Except I did make consideration of the makeup, hence the fact I specified “Pro-Palestine politics” from the start and throughout the thread, YOU’RE the one who changed the makeup to fuckin Obamacare, and asked me “is Obama radical?”
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
Yes, if you change the formula you’re gonna get a different answer, good thing I didn’t just say radicalism without any qualification and specified from the beginning, but that didn’t matter three comments ago, because we had to dunk even tho the dunk didn’t make any sense
Wtf is the point of radicalism if you have no power to utilize it? Having some REALLY COOL THOUGHTS is meaningless if you can’t actualize them and instead are talking to yourself in a dark room
And frankly every time I see these parasocial whines concerning Hasan, all I hear are calls for more dark rooms, more sophistry, and more idealism
You think I’d care about that obnoxious dude-bro himbo if he didn’t have the audience and platform? He’s a vector for radicaliztion and the normalization of pro-Palestinian politics, that’s all I care about
The combination of radicalism and reach is the metric we need to judge by, without either one the commentary and presentation is meaningless
And judging by the combination Hasan wields, his annoying ass gets an A-
What are you even arguing with me here about? (Or am I misinterpreting your tone and you’re not arguing?)
Ok, then don’t conflate those two very different things. I likewise do not care for Hasan as a person. I don’t enjoy watching him and find myself getting more annoyed with the stuff he gets wrong than cheering the stuff he gets right, like a case of “so close yet so far away” that it rubs me the wrong way. Still, unlike some here, I think he is ultimately a positive (that is to say a leftist) force in the world and one I’m grateful is out there, despite not caring for him and despite the other ways I think he can hold some people back from genuine leftism. The good he does materially I would say outweighs the bad. And the good that he does do, which you have pointed out, is a direct result of the resources he has to be able to do that good. But that does not make him radical. Which is the only part of what you’ve been saying above that I took issue with.
As for the so-called idealism of having radical positions without the material action to back it up… There are people working in volunteer soup kitchens and spending their free time organizing their community as best they can and supporting the vulnerable within it, and they do this because of the radical ML or even anarchist convictions that they hold. Their material conditions don’t allow them to sit in their million dollar homes commenting on the news and media all day to x-thousands of people paying them to do so like Hasan which is what allows him the ability to do the good that he does. These actually radical people lack his resources and his reach, but they are still devoting as much or more of their time and labor to materially benefit others and spread class consciousness. People who struggle daily, hourly, and risk their livelihood and sometimes their lives to do so. Many of these people are minorities of all kinds too. (There are even people like that who have commented on hexbear). They are inarguably more radical both in terms of their actions and their beliefs than Hasan is.
Hasan is not radical and no matter how many kudos he deserves for the very real good he has done for leftist causes changes that.
HOLY SHIT, we have to conflate them, because ONE, is useless, without the OTHER, hence my use of the word COM-BIN-NATION, I swear this site sometimes
God have mercy, everyone’s a liberal at the end of the day…HEY, you know what would really help those people struggling in their soup kitchens? POWER, actualized POWER WITH REACH, the ability to have your politics normalized whether it be anarchist or ML, and you know what’s a powerful vector of actualization and normalization? That’s right, THE MEDIA, and you know who we have on our side who can normalize our politics despite his “so close yet so far away” takes? That’s right, Hasan Piker, a piped piper handed to you on a silver platter, who through his advocacy can inspire and send streams of newly radicalized people to those soups kitchens of yours
But that’s all meaningless because “nice house”? Well how austere and noble, didn’t know the poverty cult had real adherents
Confidence, normalization, scalability, inspiration, popularity, cultural buy-in, POWER, are these concepts poisonous to your radicalism? Are we in a struggle to change systems or glorify band-aids?
You’re going off the rails here comrade. I don’t know if it’s because you can’t handle it being pointed out that a word you were using doesn’t mean the thing you were using it to mean or if you really just hate the fact that Hasan on his best days barely crosses the line from liberal to leftist and is simply in no way considered a radical by anyone who is versed in genuinely radical (such as Marxist Leninist) theory, that is making you feel the need to pick nonsensical fights with everyone, but have at it I guess.
But no, we don’t have to conflate two words (use them as if they mean the same thing) that have completely different meanings in order to be effective. A close example: we need to have principles and we need to take action if we want to make positive material change. That doesn’t mean principles and action are the same thing and is sure as hell doesn’t mean we need to pretend they are the same thing in order to be effective leftists.
Well, let’s take one of those: normalization. What is being normalized? If what’s being normalized is the idea that leftists need to vote for Democrat presidential candidates in order to stop those dastardly Republicans at any cost (especially when those Democrats are actively conducting genocide) then yes, that concept is poisonous to my radicalism. I would say similar things about the rest of your word list.
I’m not going off any rails, I’m growing increasingly annoyed at obtuse parasocial nonsense employed for the purposes of trashing the largest leftist voice in the country and for what? To pretend you (a forum user) has more motion than the largest funder of the Amazon labor union or the most popular pro-Palestine advocate in the US?
If you’re gonna talk shit, the least you could do is know something about the person you’re trashing
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, PRO-PALESTINE POLITICS, yes I’ll take all of that, think I give a fuck about his electoral takes, I need him to radicalize people toward socialism and he’s doing his job well
Of course you would, you want the left to stay motionless
Alright, let’s look at this honestly because I’ve read many of your comments over the years and know you’re better than this. Right now you are grossly misrepresenting the things people (in this case me) are saying. I sincerely don’t know if you’re aware you’re doing this and just want to score points or if you are in an emotional state that is distorting what you think I’m saying. It seems like the latter, and that is what I mean by going off the rails.
What parasocial nonsense have I expressed in this conversation, from your perspective?
In what way am I trashing Hasan? I literally said I am grateful he is out there and that while I don’t like everything he does, I think he is a force for good in the world. I agreed with you that as far as outreach and spreading and popularizing leftism, that he almost certainly has done more than people here have done.
What is motion? Where did I pretend I had more of it than Hasan?
I haven’t been doing anything that could remotely be called “talking shit” unless saying “Hasan is not radical” by the standards of nearly anyone on this website is “talking shit.” To the contrary, I’ve been saying that Hasan is undeniably a net good. As for what I know about him, everything I’ve said is well within reason to say given what I do know about Hasan. I have said nothing about him that is not perfectly commensurate with my non-expert but more than average person on the street’s knowledge of who he is.
I’m glad he is talking to and is friends with someone else who I will take your word is a well-read Marxist Leninist. It doesn’t matter though, I contend that someone who endorses Democrats, especially genocidal presidential candidates, someone who is as concerned and supportive of one half of the uni-party posing as a two-party state kayfabe politics as I’ve personally seen him to be, that person is simply not a radical leftist and that no actual radical leftist would claim him as one.
Great. Nice little jab of meaningless nonsense, accusing me of something that doesn’t even parse, let alone related in any way to anything I said. That’s the way to stick it to your opponents! Come on, what is the point of doing that, really?
This is how you began the conversation, this is incoherent; according to you in terms of what is radical, actions don’t matter, radicalizing people doesn’t matter, exposing people to leftist thought, who cares, loudest anti-genocide voice in the country, platforming countless Palestinian voices, teaching 50,000 people the concept of social murder…etc
“Tried your best kid, BUT THAT AIN’T RADICAL”, that’s your take huh?
No, what apparently what only really matters is a person’s take on electoralism and the concept of entryism, that’s how we here at Hexbear judge what is or isn’t radical, absolute nonsense, is democrat derangement syndrome a thing now?
And you wonder why I might be annoyed and put off, the loudest anti-genocide voice in the country is disqualified from the vaunted halls of Hexbear radicalism because he encouraged his viewers to neither vote for or against Harris, while still trashing Harris the whole time, unforgivable
End of the day, this shit still boils down to 2024 for all of you
You are truly hung up on semantics. Hasan is not radical in ML terms but does have significant impact and reach. You are literally conflating concepts, as it’s been explained to you several times. We recognize you’re claiming that in order for a radical to have impact, they must have reach, but this is not the point. The point is that calling Hasan a radical is bizarre given his Democrat entryism even if he does good under the banner of Marxism.
And there it is, and that’s why all of you are dumb, sorry but pro-Palestine radicalism boosted by his REACH, doesn’t stop being radical just because of his takes on electoralism, and second of all his electoral takes for the last 8 months have been about how the democrat party is shit and is doomed, while still being rightfully skeptical of third party emergence
Regardless that doesn’t trump his radicalism concerning Palestine and how that radicalism is elevated by his reach, my entire point the whole goddamn time
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Jesus fuck get over yourself
Jesus fuck learn how to read
Keep crashing out
But that still doesn’t mean that he is more radical just for having larger reach. This is a separate argument. Conflating the two is how people end up thinking Obama is radical for Obamacare being a thing. Ability to impact things is important as is reach but that still doesn’t mean saying having more reach makes one more radical.
Conflation doesn’t mean equally important it means one and the same. Edit: Your argument is better suited if your initial sentence is that he is more effective, not more radical.
“The combination of radicalism AND reach…without either one…is meaningless”
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
Would you consider Obama more radical as well then since he normalized the idea of single payer healthcare? Sure his ideas are lesser but he’s definitely had a larger reach than just about anyone here ever will and the healthcare system is one of the most damaging ones within the country to the working class.
Single-payer healthcare (radicalism) + reach (hundreds of millions of viewers) = more radical than forum users.
Single-payer healthcare isn’t radical, pro-Palestine politics is, especially in the US
So, YES, Hasan being the loudest anti-genocide voice in American media and becoming the number one target of aipac and Bibi’s lawyer does in fact make him more radical than a collection of ML forum users, who by the way were still debating a burning Israeli flag two years into the genocide, meanwhile Hasan is interviewing genocide survivors and Flotilla members
It’s genuinely wild I have to spell this shit out, material reality trumps your hypotheticals, the streamer has you beat, take the L, it’s not a contest anyway
It’s genuinely wild people have to spell out the definition including common use of the word radical to you, but instead of listen you insist on making up some bullshit argument in your head between materialism and idealism. True Anon also interviewed Sumud Flotilla survivors before and after their attempt to bring aid. Where do Brace Belden and Liz Franczak fit on your little “true radicals have reach while fake idealist not-radicals only house and feed a few homeless people at a time” spectrum?
Nobody is talking about definitions, your side is upset at some “conflation” I made concerning pro-Palestine radicalism and Hasan’s reach and how that makes his radicalism more meaningful and impactful than forum users typing shit out, try to keep up with the thread
Oh, there it is, you just don’t know how to read, yeah sure, I critique someone’s over-the-top and unrealistic social expectations and suddenly that means I hate homeless people and I want them to die
Pipe down, and keep your disingenuous accusations to yourself
Says the ignorant loudmouth who doesn’t understand the very basic leftist concept of radicalism but can’t stop shouting at everyone in caps how a progressive liberal streamer is more radical than unnamed indigenous MLs protecting people from ICE in the streets because the streamer is rich enough to get more people to listen to him. I can’t believe this isn’t just a really bad bit and that you’re actually serious.
A critique is when you tell someone who is housing and feeding homeless people that they aren’t as radical as an internet personality Kamala Harris supporter because of “reach”
That’s why I told you to pipe down, you don’t know how to read, I didn’t say Hasan is radical because he’s rich you dogpiling dipshit; I said he’s more radical than loudmouth FORUM USERS because of his pro-Palestinian advocacy, he raised millions for Palestine, you didn’t do shit, he interviewed genocide survivors, you didn’t do shit, he platformed Samud flotilla organizers, and you just talk shit, and you want to accuse me of doing bits lmao? While you sit there trashing the loudest American voice for Palestine
So yes, that rich ass streamer is more radical than you, because radicalism requires actual praxis you ignorant assholes, and praxis has a firm relationship with reach and scale, that’s my point
Keep pretending talking on a fourm is real politics, I’m sure that’s how the revolution comes about
Single payer healthcare is radical, both in the fact that it is an extreme divergence from current policy and thus would constitute an extreme change as well as it aims at a problem close to the source.
Those are the conditions in material reality and that is what radical means.
Also, where did I say that Hasan isn’t more radical than people here? you’re putting words in my mouth. I just have problems with the work you’ve shown, not necessarily your conclusion. My hypothetical is because according to the work you’ve given, Obama would also have to be more radical as well as Hasan as what you’ve said repeatedly has batted away the idea that the ratio of conviction to reach matters in any way.
If you had just kept it pithy and said “Hasan is more radical than the people on this site,” I likely would’ve snorted, liked it, and moved on.
Edit: I actually hadn’t said anything about him yet so far, would you feel better about me questioning the formation of your argument if I say something nice about Hasan during each comment? I have no issues doing that if you cut out the weird snideness in your comments.
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
The state is cracking down on Pro-Palestinian advocates, almost like pro-Palestine politics IS RADICAL, hence my original comment
Also what “work” are you talking about, I’ve literally wedded my usage of the word radical to pro-Palestine politics for this thread, nobody can disagree pro-Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism, but I guess that’s wild “conflation” beyond the pale and I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
I am and just because something is radical doesn’t mean it invites state crackdown. Ultras are more radical than us all and the state won’t crackdown on them because they’re fucking idiots. You haven’t had to spell anything out to me as none of your spelling out has been relevant to what I said.
I didn’t disagree, actually if you read what I said I explicitly agreed on that.
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
Again, I explicitly agreed with this premise, if someone else disagreed take it up with them.
That part I didn’t have issue with. Again, I agreed. I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them. Y’know, as I previously said if you read what I said.
??? Huh? I don’t have any opinions on your opinions on the homeless… I’ve never considered how you feel about the homeless before, I presume you want the best for them?
Edit: Conflation is what brings about opportunism, even if you yourself simply misused it and have proper understanding, as you mentioned with the repeated struggle sessions over not burning the fucking Zionist entities flag there are obviously people that susceptible. Such a type would see that and feel what you stated as written feels intuitive correct and would use that as some litmus test which while it sometimes works I feel would lead to all types of opportunists passing as well which was my sole is.
I think otherwise you’re correct.
Except I did make consideration of the makeup, hence the fact I specified “Pro-Palestine politics” from the start and throughout the thread, YOU’RE the one who changed the makeup to fuckin Obamacare, and asked me “is Obama radical?”
Yes, if you change the formula you’re gonna get a different answer, good thing I didn’t just say radicalism without any qualification and specified from the beginning, but that didn’t matter three comments ago, because we had to dunk even tho the dunk didn’t make any sense