Hacker News Reader

Comment by M4v3R | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgKEz0P3UeA

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

Don't shoot the messenger.

> voiced

> endorsed

> praised

> interviewed

All protected by the constitution (for now).

Also, please provide references or there's no reason for anyone to take your comments seriously.

I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is - isn't all of that covered by the first amendment?

It is. That’s why he wasn’t arrested, just questioned. But it also raises red flags for certain three letter agencies and for a good reason.

What is the good reason?

Since Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the federal government, As a terrorist organization, Americans are not allowed to provide material support to the group.

The federal government would have good reasons to protect national security to question people that threaten our national security.

You really think Hasan is providing material support to Hamas?

I don't know. Maybe someone should question him to find out?

TFA says he was questioned about his allegiance to Trump. Is that the good reason you were talking about?

Edit: to be clear, I think Hasan is a fool, but detaining him still smells like a political purity test

It might be weird or not depending on how you frame it. Asking “what do you think about the current president of the country you’re entering” might be a pretty benign question for a border officer to ask. Or it might not, depending on the exact wording and context. Hard to judge without seeing the actual thing.

The current context, in case you forgot, was that the trump admin is making direct threats against private citizens who engage in constitutionally protected activities, like speaking and like gathering in a protest. The context is that "getting detained" is half a step away from "getting disappeared".

I get that you don't think this is a problem. Just remember this when you are looking for someone that you can't find anymore.

And detaining people at the border is covered by the laws government CBP.

It's true. The first amendment gives him the freedom to express his beliefs, but it should be obvious that who endorses terrorism and genocide is going to be suspicious/monitored in case they are further radicalised

Which side is endorsing a genocide?

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? Inaccurately representing other people's views is what gets them detained in the current political climate.

It can be true at the same time that Hasan Piker is a piece of shit and what is happening here is scary. If they can do that to a US citizen, what happens the next time I visit the US as a foreigner?

I used to look up to the US because this kind of bullshit wouldn't fly. Was I mistaken?

Yes. The US might have offered some protections to its citizens in the past, but they never gave a fig for the rights of noncitizens.

Not mistaken at the time probably, assuming that was a few years ago.

Now, today? Yes it would be a mistake to continue to believe that US is somehow immune to "this kind of bullshit".

Decisions can only be judged relative to specific points in time and relevant context. Situations change. Looking up to America made more sense in the 80s/90s/00s/10s even, but by now in the 20s? There is nothing noble or pure left, not that we were ever all that noble or pure to begin with; still, the corruption is naked and explicit now, case in point - see $400M gift plane from Qatar.

i don’t follow him specifically, but what i have seen are videos of him saying “analysis does not equal an endorsement” followed by him saying it was expected behavior given the messy circumstances there, followed up again with “and so i’m clear, analysis does not equal an endorsement”

i have also seen videos of him unequivocally stating “the murders by hamas on innocent people was unequivocally disgusting and wrong, even though they’re wrong, this doesn’t magically justify the multiple times over murder of other innocents just for some kind of retribution, thousands of them are innocent people too.” [1]

i have also seen pieces edited from the same videos that always seem to remove the first and last part contexts and only show the out of context pieces.

again though, i haven’t spent much time, only wanted to add the wider context that i have personally seen.

[1] paraphrasing because i honestly don’t have time to spend hours digging through videos, but the sentiment is spot on to what ive seen him say multiple times.

> Yes it is. But the the 1st amendment does not say that any speech can have zero consequences for you.

The Government taking action against a citizen for voicing opinions it does not agree with falls pretty clearly into what the 1st amendment covers. This is not a "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type scenario where speech is being restricted for the benefit of many.

> He even interviewed a known terrorist on his show

This is incorrect. The kid you're referring to is not a member of the Houthi tribe, and there's no evidence he's a terrorist aside from him saying some angry stuff on social media (and what teenage boy hasn't, especially one living right next to a country committing genocide). I'm sorry but that's just not enough to call someone a terrorist, and calling him one anyway is pretty shitty. Words have meaning, please try to treat them as such.

> one living right next to a country committing genocide)...Words have meaning, please try to treat them as such

Are yoiu refering to Israel? If so, Yemen and the Houthis are not close to being ‘next to’ Israel - it’s about the same distance as Paris to Istanbul (approx. 2000km).

I was thinking Saudi Arabia

Neighbors? That makes a lot more sense - thanks for the clarification.

Yeah sorry, I was being quite unclear, especially considering that Israel is committing a genocide too.

To expand slightly on the point: look at what teenagers from very comfortable, peace-ridden, rich western nations are saying online. Some of it is quite normal and unproblematic, but some of it is unhinged/uneducated (take for example 4chan). My point was that having had a genocide committed against you (or if you don't like that term for what SA did; a military invasion) as a teenager is probably gonna make your comments lean a bit more to the unhinged/uneducated side. I think that's normal and expected.

The most annoying thing about Hasan or any other streamer on any point in the political axis is their constant need to have “the right opinion” instead of bringing about any sort of actual change or reduction of suffering. They sit in a room, have all their meals delivered, and spout “the right opinion” to whoever their target audience is. Honestly, I don’t know how they don’t get bored of it. Probably all the money and attention helps, and some fake rationalization on how they’re the voice of reason and light in the world.

So what is different to a traditional media personality?

If you're right... that means the Republican officials claiming those things were not a factor are telling lies again.

The choice to lie suggests a guilty conscience with something to hide, which adds more weight to Mr. Piker's competing interpretation of the event as targeted or escalated harassment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com