For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
Maybe dont support the wholesome chungus nazi just because he says he is progressive next time?
Quote tweet
https://x.com/shreyabasu003/status/2074233808216305682
I wish the sexual assault survivor behaved in a way more politically favorable to me :( what a unnecessary and compassionless thing to say
I remember when the Nazi tattoo was revealed and it was telling how Hasan, Majority Report, Breaking Points, and all these other people just lined up to defend him.
It broke my brain. I actively had cognitive dissonance over it. I tried to box the whole thing up and push into a corner of my mind because I couldn't bear the idea of how fucking wrong it was that they supported this guy.
I want all these media personalities who defended this guy, to apologize, and disappear forever.
There are users of this website that supported him
Last time we had a bunch of Hasan chat on this site a whole lot of his fans said to STFU and go outside. Well now what lol
I guess I went outside lol having a great time
Same 😄, best of luck to you ❤️
Haha nice
I don't hold posters on the fan forum for Citations Needed to the same standards
I dunno folks here say they're anarchist/socialist/communist and folks on those shows are all just libs. This site is much less influential of course.
It might be tolerable if they admitted they had made the wrong judgement rather than this just being something there was no way to anticipate, but that is not the reaction that I've seen.
I mean, it's hard to say that Hasan ever "defended" platner. Perhaps skeptical of the previous NYT article, but the only real accusation there was from a right wing operative, so skepticism was warranted
Could he have condemned him harder, sure, but he never suggested this is the new model for Dems (Mamdani and DSA NY clearly have that endorsement from him). If anything from what I've seen he used platner to illustrate the hollow nature of the Dems and also the desire for socialism (and platner of course doesn't identify as such and was basically a grifter drafting behind left momentum).
Could he have been more full throated/anti-troop? Sure. But he's doing electoralism in america where the civic religion around troops is wild. But it's hard to say "you're wrong" about someone being aremoved when, again, the only other accusations were from a right wing hatchet woman who helped get Brett kavanaugh on the supreme court.
If anyone is still defending platner though, they need to get purged asap. He's a very good cautionary tale for why we need better organization to find people who aren't just grifters reading the room or half baked radicals.
Get a grip
This is unquestionably false. He did not give a blanket defense of Platner, but he defended various aspects that were already indefensible.
I have no problem with how he responded to the NYT article, and in fact I think his response was better than your summary, which mentioned the RW operative's possible motivation but still lent credence to what was said instead of de facto discarding it out of hand.
His approach amounted to tailism. You don't need to unconditionally crucify someone for being a vet (this was the false dichotomy that he still uses), but someone that has Platner's military record and wears that record as a badge of honor should not be considered leadership material for progressives. This should not be a hard sell even to left-liberals, and even if it was, that's an integral part of the job of political agitation and education. You can't just embrace wildly reactionary trends because they are currently popular, that's not a basis for a socialist movement and in fact works toward the detriment of such a movement, serving instead to entrench those reactionary trends and to muddy your actual platform.
it's even worse because hasan has actually shown himself to be willing to do this over gaza/palestine, he lost a big chunk of his audience for awhile over it and yet he's unwilling to do so again to go against the troop worship in this country for whatever reason
Yeah, I think it's kind of difficult to make sense of, though it's worth noting that while it's good he didn't endorse Harris, he did vote for her and publicly say so and has continuously defended "harm reduction" narratives, even as he's decided to push against it with Newsome's hypothetical presidential bid (for now), so I wouldn't call him completely principled there either even if I do need to give him credit for biting the bullet on the Oct 7 Hasbara backlash.
I can only find two real reasons: One is hyperfixation about a particular approach to fighting zionism, which is very consistent with how he talks about elections where he thinks beating an AIPAC-backed candidate overrides other concerns (e.g. the depravity of the "alternative" candidate being supported). Two is that he has increasingly become more open about his entryism, to the point that his "communist" supporters basically need to make conspiracy theories to justify him believing in the necessity of revolution in America. You can see this especially (but not exclusively!) in interviews, where he talks about his aspirations to reform the Democratic Party.
on hasan: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11567635
They just really want their turn to run the empire 🤷♀️
Mom did say it was my turn
An empire BY and FOR the working class of America!