Although I have not watched a lot of Hasan videos , I think he is not actually leftist ! He is liberal at best , posing to be leftist ?
Although I have not watched a lot of Hasan videos , I think he is not actually leftist ! He is liberal at best , posing to be leftist ?
He went into Ethan Klein's podcats, whose audience is mostly liberals and socdems and said, in no uncertain terms that the uighur genocide is a lie. He is good friends with the Deprogram boys, which are open MLs. He regularly criticizes the dems.
There is a lot of criticism to be done about hasan piker, but dismissing him as a liberal feels like the usual "no true leftist" purity test
Damn. I don't think I'd have the guts to do that. When did he do that?
https://www.youtube.com/live/JeUGqefy2TQ?si=Npz3Xq4FsUoYREV6 the relevant part starts at 1:18:00
is there criticism though? like if you dont like his streams you probably are a chud.
As an avid Hasanabi viewer, I have criticisms of him for sure, but not really regarding his politics. He's a classic react lord and it bothers me when, while watching a video on stream, he sometimes just gets up and leaves while leaving the video running. Also he's kind of a douche sometimes and quite aggressive towards random chatters, although I'll give him leeway there because oh my god do people online have the worst fkn opinions about Hasan Piker. I think if I got as much shit on a daily basis as him (while being forced to read it because it's my job to engage with the audience), I would lose my mind.
Yeah same. At first blush it feels like he's being a douche sometimes, but really it's that his chat is literally trying to gaslight him for fun approximately 50% of the time lol
yes, there is a lot of legitimate criticism. he might have a couple of good China takes, but he holds a lot of state department propaganda as true— says there is a “cultural genocide” of Uyghurs and propagates the “state capitalist” obfuscation.
CW: sexual assault
he is also unapologetic abt soliciting prostitution and anyone who calls him out on it, he calls sex work exclusionary. im not gonna entertain a struggle session rn. but think abt this: to have solidarity with sex workers, one must understand that sex work is real labor, and labor under capitalism is coercive, therefore, soliciting sex from a sex worker is coerced sex (i.e. r***). johns are r***ists, to deny this is to deny the material reality of sex work, and insulting to sex workers
Ok but this assumes all sex workers are coerced. Not all of them are.
Cw
spoiler
And I resent the idea that something is like rape. To me, the key aspect of rape is trauma and nonconsent.
I have plenty of friends that are in sex work and are doing fine and have no trauma. It's obviously important to ensure people can leave this industry, we need to make sure all sex workers live fulfilling lives, especially considering the increased risk factors of that industry. It's just as a survivor of rape and someone that has talked to others about this exact issue, I think it's important to keep an open mind and adapt to what sex workers at large need. Of course, this can only be done with scientific socialism.
This convos isn't exactly good for me rn so I'd appreciate it if only one person replies to this comment
yes, i understand that some sex workers are not traumatized, but i disagree that there is sometimes no coercion. under capitalism there will always be economic coercion for the underclasses to work, which is what brings people to sex work. im willing to listen to what sex workers need (and i have) and if thats decriminalization of both sides of the transaction im all for that. but johns are horrible and the act of soliciting prostitution is sexual violence
im sorry that my comment reminded you of ur trauma. perhaps my approach isnt the best way to address the problem, no matter how disgusting johns are
cw
spoiler
Some people come to sex work for the money. I know people that just love having sex and like that it can be a job for them. Thats sort of the point I'm making, for many sex workers its just another job, and potentially one they enjoy. Trauma is an important aspect of what youre describing. Sex is not inherently traumatic, and neither is being paid poorly for your work (while that is a shitty thing to do). What is traumatic is when something happens that you don't want to happen. If someone has their arm cut off by a machine, that is just as bad as SV because it creates lingering bodily and mental harm. Do you understand what I'm saying? Sex work is a kind of work, if that work brings you trauma, thats when it becomes like you describe. I don't like these broad statements like 'all johns inflict sexual violence' because I don't believe that is true in the slightest, and I feel like it belittles what sexual violence is.
i understand, sorry for being so obtuse. thank you for explaining. you’re right and i definitely need to rethink my stance on this
could you explain this position on SW to me?
cw sv
the two components seem at odds, because usually when people take the solicitors are r***ists line, the prescription is banning it. but almost every mode of support for sex workers i've heard of involves the further legalization & formalization of SW. how do you square this?
they're an actual swerf lol. to them it's a moral hazard first and foremost, concerns about economic exploitation and liberation are secondary. Ask them if they think porn addiction is real next.
?
legalize sex work but have harsher punishments for soliciting prostitution. stop jailing sex workers, instead punish the johns
how can sex workers make a living in the open if their customers have to be underground? wouldn't this empower brokers to insure a successful transaction, just like under regular prohibition?
how do sex workers have customers now? the only difference would be sex workers would have more power over their clientele. this also lessens the power of brokers bc their occupation would still be illegal, as they are a party to solicitation of sex. full legalization is what would give the brokers more power, as it makes their business legal, elevating them to the proper, legal bourgeoisie— paying wages to sex workers while legally extracting their surplus value
i would argue the way sex workers get customers is at the core of your complaints about sexwork. you'll still need pimps if the johns need to vet/be vetted to avoid getting arrested, it's part of the reason they exist now. the other component, safety, is not affected so much by the legal immunity you propose, because everyone involved except the sexworker are committing illegal acts, and so the trade is still secret & incentives to not report/act on abuse remain for those parties---even for the SWs who might still risk their livelihood.
if neither party is committing a crime, the reasons for a broker diminish, or their role more resembles an agent. if a crime is committed any party can call for help, not just the sexworker. for the record i'm advocating decriminalization, not legalization into designated brothels in designated districts
good points. johns and pimps are still reprehensible, but i can see how decriminalization on both sides can be safer/better for sex workers
So far, the criticisms that have caused struggle sessions wind up being about pretty mild stuff.
Off the top of my head: he frequently uses ableist language, like using "schizophrenic" as an insult.