I think everyone who knows some about him will have an opinion on him - I’d call him divisive.
I’ll try to give a relatively neutral rundown - I’m not a historian or researcher on this subject so my knowledge is likely to have holes.
I don’t have time to treat this like a dissertation or adding citations, but I’ll try to present things as neutrally as I can and then you (or anyone else reading) can decide to further research any of the points as you see fit. I am not the final authority on this, just someone who’s dug a little more into this than the average person, and who has no strong feelings for or against the person in question.
He is a political twitch streamer. He ties himself to, and uses the language of, the far left and related candidates. He backs and campaigns for progressive candidates which often raises awareness and donation for them, but the effect seems to be limited - some candidates he backs does well and others do not.
He also seems to make plenty of statements that directly contradicts the candidates he backs and campaign for, causing some of them to try to distance themselves from him.
He appears to be well-versed in U.S. electoral politics, media framing, and progressive political arguments, which tracks with his bachelor’s degree in political science and communication studies from Rutgers from 2013.
Being a streamer he ends up talking about a lot of related subjects, in which he often has to give off-the-cuff opinions and takes, which can often fall well-short of informed or accurate.
He says his end goal is communism. He got his start as a content creator in his uncle’s online news channel (The Young Turks), before later splitting off from them and doing his own streaming business. He is from a very affluent family, personally earns a lot of money and he clearly lives an affluent lifestyle.
He claims to thrift for designer clothes but when pressed appears to reference outlet stores and similar.
Initially he claimed that he doesn’t want his regular thrift stores to get raided by fans, although his fans might be less affluent than him and therefore better served by access to these stores.
He has done several very successful charity streams that amassed large amounts of money for good causes.
He claims to donate great amounts of money to charities, although the amount of donated money that can be tied to him is very low for his level of wealth, somewhere between 77.000 - 80.000 USD total (0,5-1%) of his estimated wealth, which is 8-14 million USD.
While he does not appear to put his money where his mouth is, he does spend some of his time on popular fundraising, which drives a lot of attention to both him and the causes he fund-raise for.
He is often abrasive in his communication, although he will excuse that with passion for the subjects he talk about.
He has a large audience that aggressively attacks dissenters or people Hassan expresses dislike for or disagreement with.
The harassment from his fan base appears to be significantly above and beyond the norm for the space, and while he comments to the contrary it would be hard to believe that he is unaware of the dynamic between him and his fan base.
From what I can tell he has taken no steps towards solving this dynamic beyond disavowing some instances of the harassment, while condoning other instances. He does not appear to have a problem with lying about people or broadcasting random people (even known malicious actors, that he himself states to be malicious) on twitter or twitch if it fits his narrative.
He often breaks the rules of his streaming platform (twitch) but receives special treatment, although I am unsure if that is due to personal popularity or personal relationships with the owner of twitch.
He denies using a shock collar on his dog, but looking at the evidence gathered through old videos, still frames from new videos, and from people who personally interacted with the dog would suggest that to be a lie. I do not know if he still uses a shock collar on his dog since the latest controversy.
As said, feel free to research each of these points, but do be critical of the sources of information and try to just find the actual evidence of what was done or said, rather than peoples’ conclusions.
He is divisive so when people give their take they usually either dismiss all the criticism and focus on the things he does well, or dismiss the things he does well and focus on the criticism.
Find all the evidence you can and make up your own mind.
He denies using a shock collar on his dog, but looking at the evidence gathered through old videos, still frames from new videos, and from people who personally interacted with the dog would suggest that to be a lie. I do not know if he still uses a shock collar on his dog since the latest controversy.
Tbh this is enough for me to doubt the validity of pretty much everything else you’ve said. If you’re so uncritical as to fall for this, what else will you fall for?
It also highlights that Hasan has been borderline, if not actually, abusive to his previous dog.
Probably not intentionally, mind you, as I think he believes he is using actual training tools and training for results that are reasonable, but what he believes does not change the fact that these are abusive (and ineffective) training methods.
when people give their take they usually either dismiss all the criticism and focus on the things he does well, or dismiss the things he does well and focus on the criticism.
A fact very well demonstrated by your comment lmao
I tried to point out both positive and negative actions of his, while also encouraging independent, critical research and thinking.
I don’t dismiss the good he does, nor do I overlook the bad.
He’s a flawed character, just like the rest of us, and his reach magnifies both his flaws and his virtues, as well as their impacts on the world. Just like any public figure.
Every time you pointed out something negative, it was stated as fact. Every time you pointed out something positive, you used language that leaves room for doubt. Go back and reread your comment. It’s not neutral at all dude, it’s fraught with negative bias.
Which specific negative (or positive, for that matter) do you believe to be untrue?
I tried to temper some of the negatives and positives both with what I consider relevant counter weight, but I didn’t always have one I deemed relevant or that I could find substantiation for.
I would also argue that I treated both the negatives and positives as factual, because I believe they both are.
I find that there’s a little good in the bad and a little bad in the good, so I try to add that nuance when I believe I can see proof of it.
I’m happy to be corrected if you think any of the statements are untrue.
I’ll just go through one by one and give my thoughts and point out where I saw bias.
He ties himself to, and uses the language of, the far left and related candidates.
Right off the bat, instead of directly saying “he’s a leftist political commentator on twitch”, you instead just say he “ties himself to and uses the language of” leftist candidates. This makes it seem like you’re implying that he isn’t an actual leftist, or that he’s just doing leftism as a performance or something. It’s dismissive of reality, not to mention overcomplicating things.
He backs and campaigns for progressive candidates which often raises awareness and donation for them, but the effect seems to be limited - some candidates he backs does well and others do not. He also seems to make plenty of statements that directly contradicts the candidates he backs and campaign for, causing some of them to try to distance themselves from him.
Your acknowledgement of a positive is immediately followed by a “but” statement, dismissing of the positive. It also places blame on him instead of on the candidates for their campaigns, where it actually belongs in most cases. It also mirrors right-wing talking points where they claim that his “radical viewpoints” are actually fracturing the Democratic base, instead of introducing leftist ideology to an audience that no one else on the left has been able to meaningfully reach yet.
He says his end goal is communism.
Phrasing it like this implies you don’t believe him. It’s dismissive again.
He is from a very affluent family, personally earns a lot of money and he clearly lives an affluent lifestyle.
He claims to thrift for designer clothes but when pressed appears to reference outlet stores and similar. Initially he claimed that he doesn’t want his regular thrift stores to get raided by fans, although his fans might be less affluent than him and therefore better served by access to these stores.
Again echoing the dismissive right wing talking point of “he can’t possibly be a ‘Real Socialist’, he comes from a rich family and buys expensive things!”, on top of sowing doubt about his explanation of shopping secondhand. You also confused “outlet stores” for consignment shops.
He has done several very successful charity streams that amassed large amounts of money for good causes.
He claims to donate great amounts of money to charities, although the amount of donated money that can be tied to him is very low for his level of wealth, somewhere between 77.000 - 80.000 USD total (0,5-1%) of his estimated wealth, which is 8-14 million USD.
While he does not appear to put his money where his mouth is, he does spend some of his time on popular fundraising, which drives a lot of attention to both him and the causes he fund-raise for.
Other than the first sentence, this whole paragraph is dismissive of his charity/fundraising efforts, and is colored by your personal negative bias and what you confidently claim his net worth is (I can find estimates that vary widely from the range you claim).
He is often abrasive in his communication, although he will excuse that with passion for the subjects he talk about.
This is your opinion stated as fact.
He has a large audience that aggressively attacks dissenters or people Hassan expresses dislike for or disagreement with.
This is your opinion stated as fact.
The harassment from his fan base appears to be significantly above and beyond the norm for the space, and while he comments to the contrary it would be hard to believe that he is unaware of the dynamic between him and his fan base.
This is unfounded speculation.
From what I can tell he has taken no steps towards solving this dynamic beyond disavowing some instances of the harassment, while condoning other instances.
I catch bits and pieces of his stream here and there, and in my experience he pretty consistently calls down chatters that are being inappropriate. It sounds like your speculation is based on articles about his streams that cherry pick and decontextualize things.
He does not appear to have a problem with lying about people or broadcasting random people (even known malicious actors, that he himself states to be malicious) on twitter or twitch if it fits his narrative.
This at minimum deserves some examples. Kinda hard for people to “do their own research” when you give so little to go off of.
He often breaks the rules of his streaming platform (twitch) but receives special treatment, although I am unsure if that is due to personal popularity or personal relationships with the owner of twitch.
Another right wing talking point that Hasan himself has addressed and debunked.
He denies using a shock collar on his dog, but looking at the evidence gathered through old videos, still frames from new videos, and from people who personally interacted with the dog would suggest that to be a lie. I do not know if he still uses a shock collar on his dog since the latest controversy.
Another talking point that has been debunked so thoroughly not even the right still uses it.
Do you see it now, or do you still think your comment is unbiased?
I think everyone who knows some about him will have an opinion on him - I’d call him divisive. I’ll try to give a relatively neutral rundown - I’m not a historian or researcher on this subject so my knowledge is likely to have holes.
I don’t have time to treat this like a dissertation or adding citations, but I’ll try to present things as neutrally as I can and then you (or anyone else reading) can decide to further research any of the points as you see fit. I am not the final authority on this, just someone who’s dug a little more into this than the average person, and who has no strong feelings for or against the person in question.
He is a political twitch streamer. He ties himself to, and uses the language of, the far left and related candidates. He backs and campaigns for progressive candidates which often raises awareness and donation for them, but the effect seems to be limited - some candidates he backs does well and others do not. He also seems to make plenty of statements that directly contradicts the candidates he backs and campaign for, causing some of them to try to distance themselves from him.
He appears to be well-versed in U.S. electoral politics, media framing, and progressive political arguments, which tracks with his bachelor’s degree in political science and communication studies from Rutgers from 2013. Being a streamer he ends up talking about a lot of related subjects, in which he often has to give off-the-cuff opinions and takes, which can often fall well-short of informed or accurate.
He says his end goal is communism. He got his start as a content creator in his uncle’s online news channel (The Young Turks), before later splitting off from them and doing his own streaming business. He is from a very affluent family, personally earns a lot of money and he clearly lives an affluent lifestyle. He claims to thrift for designer clothes but when pressed appears to reference outlet stores and similar. Initially he claimed that he doesn’t want his regular thrift stores to get raided by fans, although his fans might be less affluent than him and therefore better served by access to these stores. He has done several very successful charity streams that amassed large amounts of money for good causes. He claims to donate great amounts of money to charities, although the amount of donated money that can be tied to him is very low for his level of wealth, somewhere between 77.000 - 80.000 USD total (0,5-1%) of his estimated wealth, which is 8-14 million USD. While he does not appear to put his money where his mouth is, he does spend some of his time on popular fundraising, which drives a lot of attention to both him and the causes he fund-raise for.
He is often abrasive in his communication, although he will excuse that with passion for the subjects he talk about. He has a large audience that aggressively attacks dissenters or people Hassan expresses dislike for or disagreement with. The harassment from his fan base appears to be significantly above and beyond the norm for the space, and while he comments to the contrary it would be hard to believe that he is unaware of the dynamic between him and his fan base. From what I can tell he has taken no steps towards solving this dynamic beyond disavowing some instances of the harassment, while condoning other instances. He does not appear to have a problem with lying about people or broadcasting random people (even known malicious actors, that he himself states to be malicious) on twitter or twitch if it fits his narrative.
He often breaks the rules of his streaming platform (twitch) but receives special treatment, although I am unsure if that is due to personal popularity or personal relationships with the owner of twitch.
He denies using a shock collar on his dog, but looking at the evidence gathered through old videos, still frames from new videos, and from people who personally interacted with the dog would suggest that to be a lie. I do not know if he still uses a shock collar on his dog since the latest controversy.
As said, feel free to research each of these points, but do be critical of the sources of information and try to just find the actual evidence of what was done or said, rather than peoples’ conclusions. He is divisive so when people give their take they usually either dismiss all the criticism and focus on the things he does well, or dismiss the things he does well and focus on the criticism.
Find all the evidence you can and make up your own mind.
Tbh this is enough for me to doubt the validity of pretty much everything else you’ve said. If you’re so uncritical as to fall for this, what else will you fall for?
Can you give some substance other than your opinion?
Here’s one source that does bring evidence to the table to support the conclusion that Hasan used a shock collar.
It also highlights that Hasan has been borderline, if not actually, abusive to his previous dog.
Probably not intentionally, mind you, as I think he believes he is using actual training tools and training for results that are reasonable, but what he believes does not change the fact that these are abusive (and ineffective) training methods.
A fact very well demonstrated by your comment lmao
I disagree.
I tried to point out both positive and negative actions of his, while also encouraging independent, critical research and thinking.
I don’t dismiss the good he does, nor do I overlook the bad.
He’s a flawed character, just like the rest of us, and his reach magnifies both his flaws and his virtues, as well as their impacts on the world. Just like any public figure.
Every time you pointed out something negative, it was stated as fact. Every time you pointed out something positive, you used language that leaves room for doubt. Go back and reread your comment. It’s not neutral at all dude, it’s fraught with negative bias.
Which specific negative (or positive, for that matter) do you believe to be untrue?
I tried to temper some of the negatives and positives both with what I consider relevant counter weight, but I didn’t always have one I deemed relevant or that I could find substantiation for.
I would also argue that I treated both the negatives and positives as factual, because I believe they both are. I find that there’s a little good in the bad and a little bad in the good, so I try to add that nuance when I believe I can see proof of it.
I’m happy to be corrected if you think any of the statements are untrue.
I’ll just go through one by one and give my thoughts and point out where I saw bias.
Right off the bat, instead of directly saying “he’s a leftist political commentator on twitch”, you instead just say he “ties himself to and uses the language of” leftist candidates. This makes it seem like you’re implying that he isn’t an actual leftist, or that he’s just doing leftism as a performance or something. It’s dismissive of reality, not to mention overcomplicating things.
Your acknowledgement of a positive is immediately followed by a “but” statement, dismissing of the positive. It also places blame on him instead of on the candidates for their campaigns, where it actually belongs in most cases. It also mirrors right-wing talking points where they claim that his “radical viewpoints” are actually fracturing the Democratic base, instead of introducing leftist ideology to an audience that no one else on the left has been able to meaningfully reach yet.
Phrasing it like this implies you don’t believe him. It’s dismissive again.
Again echoing the dismissive right wing talking point of “he can’t possibly be a ‘Real Socialist’, he comes from a rich family and buys expensive things!”, on top of sowing doubt about his explanation of shopping secondhand. You also confused “outlet stores” for consignment shops.
Other than the first sentence, this whole paragraph is dismissive of his charity/fundraising efforts, and is colored by your personal negative bias and what you confidently claim his net worth is (I can find estimates that vary widely from the range you claim).
This is your opinion stated as fact.
This is your opinion stated as fact.
This is unfounded speculation.
I catch bits and pieces of his stream here and there, and in my experience he pretty consistently calls down chatters that are being inappropriate. It sounds like your speculation is based on articles about his streams that cherry pick and decontextualize things.
This at minimum deserves some examples. Kinda hard for people to “do their own research” when you give so little to go off of.
Another right wing talking point that Hasan himself has addressed and debunked.
Another talking point that has been debunked so thoroughly not even the right still uses it.
Do you see it now, or do you still think your comment is unbiased?