This week, the British government banned Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur, two leftwing US commentators with millions of followers, from entering the country on the grounds that their presence would not be “conducive to the public good”. It did not spell out what it meant by this very broad phrase, but Piker and Uygur have accused the government of denying them entry because of their prolific criticism of Israel. Some critics have accused the pair of antisemitism, which they deny.
Neither Piker nor Uygur have said anything that is more divisive or dangerous than former Israeli president Isaac Herzog’s declaration that all Palestinians were responsible for the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023. A UN commission of inquiry found that Herzog incited the commission of genocide with this statement and said that his later modifications of that utterance were an effort “to deflect responsibility for the initial statement”. Still, the British seem fine with that first statement: Herzog met with Keir Starmer in London in 2025. Clearly that meeting was deemed to be conducive to the public good.
Wherever you live, whatever you believe, wherever you sit on the political spectrum, most of us have a shared understanding of basic moral concepts, of what is good and what is bad. We understand that children are innocent and should not be killed in the thousands. We understand that a region’s healthcare system should not be systematically wiped out and medics targeted. We understand that there should be laws around warfare to protect civilians. We understand that people should not be expelled en masse from their land, their homes replaced with luxury settlements. We understand that collective punishment is a crime, one that is very much not “conducive to the public good”.
When you stop someone from entering your country because you deem that they are not “conducive to the public good”, then I think it’s important to spell out exactly what you mean by “good”. The British government has declined to do that directly. But what has become very clear, over the last couple of years, is that the UK and US have deemed it conducive for the public good for Israel to be allowed to do whatever it likes, with no limits. What is morally bad, apparently, is talking about it.
I don't think you get it.
All political influencers place their bets on where they think the future may lay. He had reservations of whether or not the CIA was full of shit.
As to the idea of him supporting Putin or being pro Z, that's bullshit - and you know it. Going through the mental gymnastics of saying that he is, albeit indirectly, when he is obviously pro peace and anti war is disingenuous to say the least
He has stated that he is anti imperialist. Just because Chinese programming has convinced him and that US propaganda has made him jaded doesn't negate his stance on the issue.
So before we move on, let's ignore the fan wiki and move to the actual meat of the matter: link to me the direct, unfalsifiable and clear proof that he is anti Ukrainian and pro Z.
If it's all him being skeptical of US propaganda - wether or not it is correct - then you have no grounds to justify saying that he is actually anti Ukrainian or pro Z.