💰 Grifter Hasan Piker / HasanAbi - Young Turk, Twitch Streamer, Stunlocked Brogressive, Cenk's Nephew, only a socialist for the money, abuses his dog by shocking it, Rutgers sex pest

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The Elon thing is blowing up to a point it could start hurting Amazon's ad revenue, they won't have much of a choice if advertisers pull out.

I don't think it really matters, he'd make more money on Kick.
 
merpalerpaherp said:
The Elon thing is blowing up to a point it could start hurting Amazon's ad revenue, they won't have much of a choice if advertisers pull out.

I don't think it really matters, he'd make more money on Kick.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't survive Kick.
He's too thin skinned and bitch made to pop his head out in the Chud zone and I'm guessing people who watch Kick hate Twitch, and no matter Hasan goes he's still gonna be seen as Dan Clancey's pocket pussy ergo, the "Twitch Bitch".
They'd eat him alive.
 
Meth Dick said:
He wouldn't survive Kick.
He's too thin skinned and bitch made to pop his head out in the Chud zone and I'm guessing people who watch Kick hate Twitch, and no matter Hasan goes he's still gonna be seen as Dan Clancey's pocket pussy ergo, the "Twitch Bitch".
They'd eat him alive.
Click to expand...
It's not like he can't use the same mods and chat bots on Kick, it'd be no different than going to Youtube for the first week. A large portion of his audience would follow him so long as he doesn't have to gamble as they have with many big Twitch streamers. Really the only viewers you lose are mobile and the ones who really hate it. He probably would also lose 2x reigning rising star Frogan though.
 
merpalerpaherp said:
The Elon thing is blowing up to a point it could start hurting Amazon's ad revenue, they won't have much of a choice if advertisers pull out.

I don't think it really matters, he'd make more money on Kick.
Click to expand...
He’s against kick and said he would never go there because they allow gambling, he will start streaming on youtube if he ever gets banned
 
Dana scully said:
He’s against kick and said he would never go there because they allow gambling, he will start streaming on youtube if he ever gets banned
Click to expand...
I guarantee push come to shove he would run to Kick and pretend he never said anything about them promoting gambling. He has no principles.
 
Hasan's reaction to Kirk being shot is so fascinating. The posters in here saying you can see his humanity momentarily claw to the surface are 100% right.

Hasan has seen footage of people dying in these endless sand wars but this is obviously the first time he's seen someone he actually knows irl (not closely of course) violently ended. You can practically see the realizations flitting through his brain:
  • That Kirk is dead (many held on to hope that Kirk would survive but Hasan is at least bright enough to recognize Kirk is dead on impact)
  • That this could easily have been Hasan at any of his public livestreams
  • That the shooter was almost assuredly motivated by the ideals and rhetoric that Hasan makes a living pushing
  • That there's a good chance this shooter could have been a vocal fan of Hasan's specifically
  • That regardless of the two points above, more scrutiny will now turn to talking heads who encourage violence against the right and his livelihood might be threatened
  • There's a nonzero chance this could kick off retaliatory killings
  • That this is partially his fault
Hasan has called for violence many a time but there's always been a distance there. He often champions aggression against a vague, faceless "Nazi right;" and when he does encourage violence against specific people (the Kleins) I genuinely believe he doesn't think anything will actually happen. Not anything serious, at least. It's easier to call for landlords or MAGAtards or whatever to be hanged in the streets when you don't know any landlords or Trumpers. It's easy to demand the death of Israeli settlers when it's on the other side of the world from you. It's easy to say someone should do something about those dang dirty Kleins when you don't think anything will really happen, maybe someone will SWAT them or throw a soda at them in public but nothing "all that bad." This was a reality check the likes of which he, in his sheltered, nepo baby lifestyle, has never had before.

Of course it appears he has shoved that genie back in the bottle, for now. It's scary to face the fact that you could share the blame for the gruesome assassination of a father and beloved public figure, someone that you had personally spoken with, someone that you know deep down is far less extreme in their beliefs than you. That's something that even someone of strong moral character would shrink at. Will Hasan successfully bury his head in the sand and power on as usual? Will cracks start to show? What would those cracks look like? More unhinged outbursts? More insane takes? Substance abuse? Escalating paranoia about leaving his home?

For comparison, the twink Hasan has reportedly been attempting to mentor, Dean Withers, openly sobbed about Kirk's murder and has said that if the left continues to gravedance he will leave the left. I don't expect such backbone from Hasan but I'm curious if Hasan's behavior will change whatsoever, for good or ill, going forward.
 
Even if he gets banned from Twitch due to his incitement and threats of violence, I can't see him lasting long on Youtube. Right now he seems shook by Kirk's assassination, but he doesn't seem to have the self-control to keep his mouth shut for very long and Youtube won't protect him the same way Twitch has.
 
guiltyspark85 said:
Even if he gets banned from Twitch due to his incitement and threats of violence, I can't see him lasting long on Youtube. Right now he seems shook by Kirk's assassination, but he doesn't seem to have the self-control to keep his mouth shut for very long and Youtube won't protect him the same way Twitch has.
Click to expand...
If he gets permabanned from Twitch (not convinced this will happen), YouTube isn't going to want to be "the platform that didn't ban him". In a perfect world we'd be anticipating Hasan's impending criminal investigation/deportation, the fact that we're left here wondering if maybe he'll face 5% of the punishment that completely milquetoast rightwing content creators like Steven Crowder have faced over the last 10 years is embarrassing.
 
Dana scully said:
if any right wing influencer pulled tiny bit of the shit hasan piker does and continue to do he will would have been debanked and banned from everything and be put in no fly list.
Click to expand...
It boggles my mind Hasan is not on some form of terror watchlist or no fly list. He openly praises radical Islamist terrorists, excuses their acts of terrorism - heck, he even chats with some of them on his stream! How is he not being waterboarded in Guantanamo Bay? WTF were all those security laws put in place after 9/11 for, if a dipshit like Hasan can openly praise radical Islamic terrorism while livestreaming on the internet?
 
Dana scully said:
He’s against kick and said he would never go there because they allow gambling, he will start streaming on youtube if he ever gets banned
Click to expand...
He's said a lot of shit and did the exact opposite. Hell, he wants to boycott Israel yet he's still streaming on a site owned by Amazon.
I usually think this stuff is gay. It's hard to put into words so here's an example, "you hate China? Stop using stuff made there."
Thing is, he would ridicule other people for using products from Israel so it's only fair if the same applies to him.
 
Eventide said:
It boggles my mind Hasan is not on some form of terror watchlist or no fly list. He openly praises radical Islamist terrorists, excuses their acts of terrorism - heck, he even chats with some of them on his stream! How is he not being waterboarded in Guantanamo Bay? WTF were all those security laws put in place after 9/11 for, if a dipshit like Hasan can openly praise radical Islamic terrorism while livestreaming on the internet?
Click to expand...

He could be a fed. It's quite obvious that Fuentes is, so it's possible they've got Hasan working for them as well to cover both sides. Hasan gets to be his usual self, safe in the knowledge that he can't really get in trouble for having a stupid take when it's just trapping stupid idiots. Even if he's not a fed, it's obvious that he'd throw his fans under the bus to save his own skin anyway. Someone in it for only themselves has nothing to lose by selling out their viewers like that. It's also another plausible explanation as to he doesn't get banned from streaming. Twitch gives him the green light because the FBI gives them the glowing light.
 
Eventide said:
It boggles my mind Hasan is not on some form of terror watchlist or no fly list. He openly praises radical Islamist terrorists, excuses their acts of terrorism - heck, he even chats with some of them on his stream! How is he not being waterboarded in Guantanamo Bay? WTF were all those security laws put in place after 9/11 for, if a dipshit like Hasan can openly praise radical Islamic terrorism while livestreaming on the internet?
Click to expand...
Until fairly recently he was provisionally accepted into the Global Entry program which is specifically for “low-risk travelers”. When he got kicked out of the program last year it made national news as if he was being persecuted for his political beliefs.
 
Eventide said:
It boggles my mind Hasan is not on some form of terror watchlist or no fly list. He openly praises radical Islamist terrorists, excuses their acts of terrorism - heck, he even chats with some of them on his stream! How is he not being waterboarded in Guantanamo Bay? WTF were all those security laws put in place after 9/11 for, if a dipshit like Hasan can openly praise radical Islamic terrorism while livestreaming on the internet?
Click to expand...
At this point i’m just gonna stop being angry about Hasan and just laugh at how incompetent the fbi and the government at handling this active terrorist supporter in US soil, if any terrorist attacks inspired by Hasan happens in the future blame the dumb government for not putting an end to this guy. Nick fuentes is a disgusting human being and people speculate he’s a fed but to his credit he been put in no fly list and debanked and banned from different social media platforms Hasan isn’t.
 
Found this clip on Xitter of Hasan saying he's been banned more times than streamers say nigger, and believes his bans have been harsh punishment. Actually first bit is true in the sense saying nigger in most cases is going lead straight to a perma ban and not some pissy 24 hour ban that he receives as Dan Clancy's golden child.
 
Hasan was given the opportunity to write an op-ed for the New York Times on Charlie Kirk's tragic murder. (Archive)

1757935576547.webp

I Was Supposed to Debate Charlie Kirk. Here’s What I Would Have Said.​

​
By Hasan Piker
Mr. Piker hosts a streaming show on the Twitch platform covering politics and pop culture.
Sep 13, 2025

In less than two weeks, I was supposed to debate Charlie Kirk.

The event was scheduled for Sept. 25 at Dartmouth College, and it was meant to be a wide-ranging conversation about American politics, focused on the views of young voters.

But on Wednesday, tragedy intervened. The entire country now knows the story: Mr. Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at a university campus in Utah. Late Thursday night, an arrest was made in the case.

I found out that Mr. Kirk had been killed while I was livestreaming to my audience on Twitch, as I do nearly every day. While I am exposed daily to images of incredible horror, particularly those of atrocities taking place in Gaza, I was still shocked by the images from Utah.

What shocked me was not merely the graphic nature of what took place. It was the horror of seeing someone whom I know — not a friend or an ally, but a human being I know personally and have debated before — fall victim to what clearly seems to be a rising tide of political violence.

Even before knowing exactly why Mr. Kirk was killed, I think there are some disturbing and necessary insights that can be drawn from his horrible death, ideas that affect the way many of my viewers — and many of the people who followed Mr. Kirk — see the world.

The first of these insights is hardly new. The United States has both very loose gun laws and more violent gun deaths per capita than any other developed nation in the world. And while shootings occur most anywhere, campuses can be especially deadly. As news broke that Mr. Kirk was shot at Utah Valley University, there was a near-simultaneous tragedy at a high school in small-town Colorado, where a 16-year-old shot two fellow students. There have been 47 school shootings this year.

Though it may ultimately prove correct to classify Mr. Kirk’s death as a tectonic political murder, the shooting was not itself uncommon or extraordinary. The victim was.

The second idea is more general and is connected to perhaps why these kinds of killings happen in the first place. Violence almost never originates in a vacuum, and the killing of a high-profile political content creator — regardless of why it happened — speaks to a breakdown in our social order.

Mr. Kirk was fond of talking about the ways that urban life has decayed in America, particularly in places like his native Chicago area. In fact, his last words included answering a question about the frequency of mass shootings with a question of his own about whether “gang violence” counted in that discussion.

Any answer about civic decline in America also has to include a discussion about the failure of our political and economic establishment to reconcile with social challenges that have touched every place and aspect of American life. Too many examples of the deadly gun violence we see today are, it seems to me, indicative of this decline.

The social challenges include rising rents and homelessness, the destruction caused by climate change, titanic levels of inequality, and too many others to name here. Our capitalist way of life — always accumulating, never evening out — leaves more and more people to deal with these problems on their own.

This produces feelings of isolation and resentment as material conditions worsen. And considering that our society is swamped by and yet somehow stitched together by a 24/7 news cycle that too often feeds this resentment, it is little wonder that a country of stressed-out gun owners would have so many grim, needless gun deaths.

This connects to my final idea.

Americans inhabit a culture of violence to which we have become habitually desensitized. There’s a connection between our culture of violence and American foreign policy. Over time, our culture of violence has targeted people around the world — anywhere from Cuba to Iraq — people who serve as literal targets for American weapons and bombs, absorbing what I think of as Americans’ excess capacity for violence.

For years now, American politics has taken on an increasingly punitive flavor. During the George W. Bush era, Arabs and Muslims were (and remain) singled out for suspicion. Their civil rights were routinely violated as we embarked on fresh wars against Arab and Muslim countries, and we regarded lives in those countries as less precious than our own.

The Barack Obama years were not so much a correction as continuity, with drone strikes, night raids and forever war. What followed in President Trump’s first term and in Joe Biden’s administration was still more of the same: extreme rhetoric about designated American enemies combined with aggressive sanctions and secret operations aimed at destabilizing entire countries.

A foreign policy organized around punishing and killing our supposedly sworn enemies, diplomacy be damned, conveys the terrible message that we can only kill and maim our way to achieving the world we want to live in.

I fear that this is most evident in America’s ironclad support for Israel. The genocide in Gaza has claimed tens of thousands of innocent lives. Meanwhile, Israel has carried out brazen assassinations and attempted assassinations in Iran, Qatar, Lebanon and Yemen. Backed up by Mr. Trump and, previously, by Mr. Biden, our government’s virtually unyielding support for Israel tells a scary story about the country we live in.

It suggests that, merely because we designate them as such, American enemies can be marked for death. Whether such rivals pose a legitimate threat, the “fire and fury” of our military and our allies have clearly become the default answer for how we deal with a world whose interests don’t align with our own. Pulling a gun or launching a missile has become part of our national character, a sad reduction of morality to the time it takes for fingers to pull triggers.

I would have liked to ask Mr. Kirk about all these things. He and I identified some of the same problems, but our views clashed about their causes and their potential solutions.

Americans, especially younger Americans, feel a sense of growing hopelessness as so many of those in power refuse to listen to their struggles, economic and otherwise. One side, Democrats, offers mostly platitudes, while the other, epitomized by Mr. Trump, frequently takes advantage of people’s resentments and redirects them toward vulnerable communities. Mr. Kirk, an ally of Mr. Trump, was an expert at the latter.

I wanted to debate Mr. Kirk. But because of a violent act, now I can’t.
 
Hylene said:
Hasan was given the opportunity to write an op-ed for the New York Times on Charlie Kirk's tragic murder.
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to be the left's new thinker and influencer?
This is a third grade level essay.

Yeah, I see what you mean. The draft reads more like a diary entry or a college opinion paper than a polished NYT-level op-ed. The content is heavy and serious, but the style is too plain, repetitive, and under-edited. Here’s where it feels “third grade essay” and how it could be elevated:


1. The opening.


  • Current: “In less than two weeks, I was supposed to debate Charlie Kirk.”
    That’s very flat — like telling a story to a class.
  • Stronger: Start with a striking scene or a vivid image: “Two weeks from now, I was meant to share a stage with Charlie Kirk. Instead, I watched the news of his killing unfold live, mid-broadcast, in front of thousands of my viewers.”

2. Repetition and padding.
The essay keeps restating the same point in slightly different words — gun violence is common, America is violent, politics feed resentment. A NYT-worthy piece would sharpen these into fewer, more forceful arguments rather than circling around them.


3. Weak transitions.
Paragraphs often start with “The first idea…” or “The second idea…” or “This connects to my final idea.” That feels like a school essay outline. An editor would want more natural, flowing transitions.


4. Generic phrasing.
Phrases like “too many others to name here” or “indicative of this decline” sound vague and filler-like. NYT editors cut fluff — every sentence should carry weight.


5. Mixing personal with structural issues.
The piece wavers between personal reaction (the Twitch stream, shock, loss) and sweeping systemic critique (capitalism, Gaza, U.S. foreign policy). A sharper op-ed would pick one central frame — e.g., “Kirk’s death and the normalization of political violence” — and weave personal detail in sparingly, instead of trying to cover everything from housing to foreign wars.


6. Tone.
At times, it drifts into accusatory or activist-style language (“genocide in Gaza,” “fire and fury have become our national character”). That’s fine for a personal Substack or Twitch monologue, but the NYT opinion page usually prefers precise, restrained language — let facts and framing speak for themselves rather than relying on moral outrage.
Yeah, I see what you mean. The draft reads more like a diary entry or a college opinion paper than a polished NYT-level op-ed. The content is heavy and serious, but the style is too plain, repetitive, and under-edited. Here’s where it feels “third grade essay” and how it could be elevated:


1. The opening.


  • Current: “In less than two weeks, I was supposed to debate Charlie Kirk.”
    That’s very flat — like telling a story to a class.
  • Stronger: Start with a striking scene or a vivid image: “Two weeks from now, I was meant to share a stage with Charlie Kirk. Instead, I watched the news of his killing unfold live, mid-broadcast, in front of thousands of my viewers.”

2. Repetition and padding.
The essay keeps restating the same point in slightly different words — gun violence is common, America is violent, politics feed resentment. A NYT-worthy piece would sharpen these into fewer, more forceful arguments rather than circling around them.


3. Weak transitions.
Paragraphs often start with “The first idea…” or “The second idea…” or “This connects to my final idea.” That feels like a school essay outline. An editor would want more natural, flowing transitions.


4. Generic phrasing.
Phrases like “too many others to name here” or “indicative of this decline” sound vague and filler-like. NYT editors cut fluff — every sentence should carry weight.


5. Mixing personal with structural issues.
The piece wavers between personal reaction (the Twitch stream, shock, loss) and sweeping systemic critique (capitalism, Gaza, U.S. foreign policy). A sharper op-ed would pick one central frame — e.g., “Kirk’s death and the normalization of political violence” — and weave personal detail in sparingly, instead of trying to cover everything from housing to foreign wars.


6. Tone.
At times, it drifts into accusatory or activist-style language (“genocide in Gaza,” “fire and fury have become our national character”). That’s fine for a personal Substack or Twitch monologue, but the NYT opinion page usually prefers precise, restrained language — let facts and framing speak for themselves rather than relying on moral outrage
Click to expand...

You nailed the core issue: it’s not just the style — the substance feels boilerplate.


A truly NYT-caliber op-ed about an assassination like this would need to avoid looking like a template of leftist talking points (guns, inequality, Gaza) stitched together. Right now, the piece:


  • Flattens the uniqueness of the event. Saying Kirk’s murder is just another data point in “gun violence + social decay + capitalism” doesn’t do justice to how rare political assassinations are in the U.S. It should highlight how this breaks from the norm, not lump it in with school shootings.
  • Misses the irony. A pro-gun, anti-“urban decay” right-wing figure becoming a victim of political violence is shocking in itself — and politically complicated. That irony is far more powerful than a broad “America is violent” essay.
  • Over-expands. Gaza, drone strikes, Obama, forever war — it dilutes the focus. Instead of sharpening one insight about domestic political violence, it meanders into foreign policy grievances. That makes it feel predictable and ideological, not fresh.
  • Lacks narrative tension. The Twitch moment could be dramatic — a writer reacting in real time to news of a rival’s assassination. But it’s treated almost offhand, when it could serve as the beating heart of the piece.

If I were editing this into something NYT-worthy, I’d suggest:


  1. Frame it as a rupture in American politics. Political assassinations in the U.S. have been rare since the 1970s. This feels like crossing a line we thought we’d left behind.
  2. Center the irony. Kirk often framed America as under siege from “violent outsiders.” To die this way — at a campus, answering a question about gun violence — is tragically ironic, and that contrast can be explored without gloating.
  3. Stay in America. Don’t dilute with foreign wars and Gaza. Stick to the uniqueness of American political discourse and gun culture.
  4. Personalize but don’t over-indulge. The Twitch angle works — you were live when you heard, which underscores how political violence now collides with digital life and parasocial audiences.
Click to expand...
Beating a dead horse, but i asked chatGPT to rewrite it like chomsky would and a cheap AI version of him is 100x better than what Hasan could ever produce;


Two weeks ago, I was scheduled to debate Charlie Kirk at Dartmouth College. By Wednesday, that plan had vanished. Kirk was dead — shot in public, on a campus, in a manner that is still being investigated. I learned the news mid-stream on Twitch, a moment that crystallized the paradox of our era: we live in a society where political violence is increasingly personal, immediate, and yet often normalized.


Kirk’s murder is not only a tragedy in the personal sense; it is a symptom of a political system that routinely fails to contain the very forces it unleashes. The United States tolerates — even encourages — a culture of violence that is both systemic and ideological. Gun laws are lax, school shootings are commonplace, yet political figures, journalists, and content creators remain exposed to attacks that would be unthinkable in most developed nations.


What is particularly notable in this case is the irony: Kirk’s public persona revolved around warnings of urban decay, cultural disintegration, and moral collapse. He spent years attributing social dysfunction to others — immigrants, minorities, left-wing activists — yet he himself became a casualty of the very milieu he spent so much energy analyzing and criticizing. There is a grim symmetry here, and it demands more than facile commentary about “guns” or “mental health.”


One cannot separate domestic violence from broader social and political dynamics. America’s political discourse has grown increasingly punitive, militarized, and polarized. Partisan media ecosystems stoke resentment and paranoia while political institutions fail to address the structural inequalities and social alienation that often animate acts of extreme violence. The result is a society where moral and civic bonds fray, and where disaffected individuals sometimes act on ideological or personal impulses with lethal consequences.


We also cannot ignore the transnational parallels. The same society that produces mass shootings domestically projects violence abroad — drone strikes, economic sanctions, covert operations — and instills in its citizenry a tacit moral framework: violence is an acceptable instrument of policy when directed at the “other.” The logic that allows bombs in Gaza, Yemen, or Iraq to be rationalized also, paradoxically, feeds a domestic appetite for aggression, retaliation, and spectacle.


Kirk’s death forces a reckoning with this reality. It is not merely the story of one man killed; it is a window into the unraveling of civic trust, the personalization of ideological conflict, and the interplay of media, culture, and politics in shaping who lives, who dies, and why. In this light, the event is far more than shocking — it is instructive.


We can mourn, we can debate, we can theorize, but we cannot afford to ignore the systemic conditions that make such tragedies plausible. That is the hard, uncomfortable lesson.
Click to expand...
 
Irene and 22 others said:
He could be a fed. It's quite obvious that Fuentes is, so it's possible they've got Hasan working for them as well to cover both sides. Hasan gets to be his usual self, safe in the knowledge that he can't really get in trouble for having a stupid take when it's just trapping stupid idiots. Even if he's not a fed, it's obvious that he'd throw his fans under the bus to save his own skin anyway. Someone in it for only themselves has nothing to lose by selling out their viewers like that. It's also another plausible explanation as to he doesn't get banned from streaming. Twitch gives him the green light because the FBI gives them the glowing light.
Click to expand...

But what purpose would Hasan serve as a fed? To make young American radical Islamists (who are almost certainly in our country/currently making Sharia No-Go zones in shitholes like Hamtramck & Dearborn) turn into faggy Gucci wearing debate bros, instead of pledging themselves to ISIS on the darkweb?

'cause the solution to that problem isn't Hasan. It's simply not letting more sand niggers into the country/banning their attempts to build a parallel Sharia no-go zone (like the law the Texas governor just passed).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom