Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't know Hasan, but I've heard statements like "so and so endorses Hamas" used to summarise someone voicing concerns for civilian deaths in Gaza.

I'm not saying your comments are in bad faith, I don't know (and encourage you to provide links to back up your statements), but these comments are reminiscent of frequently made bad faith comments, so the only way to differentiate is by providing that evidence with your statements.



I also believe you don’t speak in bad faith but it doesn’t look good when you raise suspicion when openly admitting you don’t have knowledge about the topic. Yes, Hasan is raising concerns about Gaza. But he goes further than that and that’s the crux of the issue.


People openly support Israel committing a genocide. Who cares if others support Hamas.


People openly support the ultra-mega-rich-and-psychotic genocidal campaign against the entirety of humanity (and most of the rest of life on Earth probably) for a bit of extra cash in their bank accounts, too. Who cares if the human race has no future? :shrug:


People have really shot themselves with "boy who cried wolf" situations these past few years. Anyone who remotely disagrees with anything or has any concerns is instantly labeled as supporting (bad extremist thing). And there have been two major consequences of this: innocent people being labeled as extremists, and actual extremists being given a free pass because people just stopped caring about the endless finger pointing long ago.

I also don't know the guy beyond seeing his name a few times online. Don't know a single thing he said. But I've also reached a point where I don't care because I've seen so many people simply ask "what's the point of this?" and end up being called terrorist sympathizers.

Maybe he's bad. Maybe he's good. But there are so many efforts out there to build up absolute databases of random quotes people say to frame them as evil that I don't even want to contribute to either side by taking a stance. Because it's only a matter of time until some new thing becomes The Big Evil and some dumb thing I've said gets me labeled a terrorist.



Not sure a man best known for having animals rotting in his house is worth listening to.


Don't shoot the messenger.


[flagged]


Linking to a collection of context-less clips from a streamer with an active sexual harassment suit[1], whose community is engaging on a harassment campaign against the subject in question[2] isn't the unbiased source you think it is.

1: https://www.polygon.com/news/527186/destiny-steven-bonnell-s... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_(streamer)#Post-Twitch...


Having seen Destiny's loose grasp on facts during the Lex Friedman hosted debate with Benny Morris, Norman Finkelstein, and Mouin Rabbani, I'm gonna go ahead and consider a fan-sourced wiki bearing his name as unreliable.


Thanks for the link, but as you said the value is about 3 seconds. Who’s this source? What are their biases? Are the summaries accurate?

What id prefer is a link to a video or post or something where he makes one of these comments so that I can understand what he’s saying myself, or a link to someone I trust making a statement on it. I will go and watch some of the linked clips, but you can understand that this is a much higher time investment and not something I really want to do for every comment I read online. Id much rather see evidence and links provided by the person trying to make the point.


Fair enough and sorry for the snark. Certainly it's worth aiming for, but I don't think the standard here is that every claim has to be cited.

A better version of my post would be to point out that it took 3 seconds to get some initial info with which to do a quick pass of self-assessing the claims.

I agree with your original point that rhetoric gets stretched a lot on these contentious topics.

Browsing some of the clips myself, I think it's a bit less than a slam dunk on the narrowest interpretation of the streamer "supporting" various groups... but a pretty convincing display of a strong bias wrt said contentious topic.

And to zoom back out to the context of the original comment vis a vis the posted article, it provides some useful context about why this person might be targeted for additional screening by domestic security organizations -- regardless of what one thinks about the validity or wisdom of those particular decisions.

Edit: And to your original framing, I think it's very easily apparent that this streamer is not a simple case of "concern for civilian deaths" -> "endorses Hamas". He's very consistently making the claim that they (and others) are emancipatory groups which are being maligned as terrorist.


I looked at the link you added and couldn't find any endorsement of Hamas. Could you share a specific video where he does so?


Plenty of room for equivocation with words like "endorse", so depends what you mean by it.

I mean, literally in the first video he makes the standard argument that terrorist designations are politicized but you have to "look at who's right". And it's all in the context of defending Hamas and Hezbollah etc

And that's immediately followed by a clip of saying "America is biggest terrorist organization".

Obviously, the streamer is taking a "critical IR" type of standpoint.

So, I'm not sure what standard you're looking for. I never said anything about who's right or wrong, either among the streamers or the underlying sides of the conflict.

But the statement that he "endorses" Hamas etc doesn't seem so farfetched in the overall context.

And I apologized for the snark in my comment providing the link -- that was motivated by pointing out how readily available information is for self-assessment of the claims vs. calling for the original commenter to cite their claims (which most people are not doing in most HN comments).




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: