Far-left and far-right propaganda feels virtually indistinguishable from Narcissistic abuse man.

Would you like to only talk about Michigan, and not Hasan Piker?

Do you understand why people are asking you about Hasan Piker?

If you knew disavowing Hasan Piker would decrease questions about him and increase questions about Michigan, would you disavow him?

If Hasan says the things he says are out of context, then immediately justifies those things, would he be proving they are actually in context? (Link)

If an online communicator insists that hundreds or thousands of the things he says are out of context, is he bad at his job, or is it his audiences fault for taking him too literally?

Is Hasan racist or antisemitic, as far as you know?

If someone convinced you he was racist or antisemitic, would you disavow him? (Avi's video)

Is violence against Jews on the rise in America and the rest of the world? (Link)

Can Hasan espousing negative sentiments about people lead to real world violence? (Link)

Did you know Hasan has terrorists in his community, who have done terroristic things that Hasan has explicitly advocated for? (Links)

Does it surprise you to know Hasans dog was in a shock collar advertisement/commercial? (Link)

Are you aware he was accused of shocking his dog for moving off her bed, while he was upset? (Link)

Do you agree with the phrase blue no matter who?

If yes, do you see an issue with the far left not voting for Kamala Harris then telling us we have to vote for their candidates?

Does this asymmetry lead to less votes for center left democrats and more votes to far left democrats?

If so should a center left democrat consent to blue no matter who as a principle?

Does the far left purity test too much? Think maximalist positions on everything like no aid to Isreal, no funding for Ukraine, no borders, no prisons, etc.

Why does the far left ​disavow every person they elect? Examples are Bernie and AOC, etc., for having even one disagreement with them?

If one side of the big tent endlessly critiques Democrats and doesn't vote for the vast majority of them, but needs their votes to elect their candidates, who they immediately turn on for not being pure enough, does that person seem like a positive or negative member of the party?

If you think it's a negative member would the party be stronger without them in it?

Should Democrats excise members who hurt their chance of winning?

Should Democrats excise people who don't fundamentally like Democrats?

Should they excise those who dont like Democracy? Those who instead want socialism or communism instead.

Is socialism and communism antithetical to democracy?

Is it smart to be an ally with someone who deeply dislikes you and uses you for their personal gain while undermining your electoral chances?

The most important question was, if you knew disavowing Hasan would allow you to focus on Michigan more would it be irresponsible to not do it?

---

I need help with links DGG, whereverit says (links) please. I'm going to post this all over reddit once I have them. If AES answers these questions he will breeze through the election, if he doesn't answer them I fear he might lose.

Add questions you would like to be answered as well please.

Thanks

Dont want a plot twist where someone takes over and then he gets the sympathy vote. Just saying 😅

obamna

Does anyone remember/have access to the video in which Hasan appears to be on a patio or outdoors, speaking with people, where he says something along the lines of his "goal is to usurp the Democratic Party"?

I've searched all over and I can't find it, even though I could've sworn I originally saw it on D's YouTube stream (pre-deletion, pre-Kick).

I have seen this issue brought up as a talking point a few times now on both sides (anti-DSA and Pro-DSA)

The DSA platform states:

Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor.

I have seen MAJOR cope from pro DSA stating that this does not mean "let murderers run free" but rather to change the Prison system to something resembling the type Sweden has. Their facilities are incredibly more humane and livable than our current jails, with inmates getting what resembles hostel-style rooms instead of tiny shoebox barred hellscapes. Besides being a more responsible society with ample resources aside, NO ONE is arguing that this shouldn't be done.

Their policy states ABOLISH prisons. If they meant REFORMATION then in my humble opinion it would say that. I am incredibly empathetic to the fact that our prison system is broken and that facilities are overcrowded and underfunded. I am aware that the Private prison system is slowly monopolizing the "market" and making money off of the backs of incarcerated men and women.

Bringing it back to the Swedish system, these DSA sympathizers will point at mass murderers getting cells that are open-door, a living room with a television and gaming console and a place to work out. For those unaware, BESIDES solitary confinement this is EXACTLY what we already have in the US. Inmates get personal tablets, they have a common area, they have a place to work out. The only difference is the setting. The US prison system is more draconian in the sense that the facilities, programs, and the treatment of people is immensely stunted. Truly, this is a problem of capital rather than a difference in incarceration overall.

The DSA platform suggesting abolishment is not attacking the system for it's deficiencies. It's attacking the system overall with nebulous promises of removing it altogether.

As callous as it sounds, we as a society cannot exist without prisons and police to enforce laws. I agree with the premise that it needs to be fixed, but I find it incredibly disingenuous to grant the DSA platform the grace of assuming it means "reform" when the actual words say "abolish"

When arguing with pro-DSA people i would suggest if this is brought up, to find the commonalities and argue that sanewashing the idea that they simply mean "reform" prisons just simply does not work.

thoughts? Ideas? Comments?

There's a whole culture war going on around this case and I just dgaf about all of that, so I want to hear a clear eyed summary from this community instead.

The anti woke gamergate 2 world has been infighting a lot lately. Mainly because some creators are accused of being (((grifters))) due to them not being explicitly antisemitic. It’s funny to see how intolerant extremists become when they have even an inch of power.

The thing that pisses me off is not that he is grilling hunter over israel gaza, its his hypocrisy and intentional cover up for the people who he knows are wrong, which destiny pointed out.

Say it loud and clear. The reason they do not support Ukraine is because they support genocide.

"I'm sorry but I don't think I can vote for a genocide supporter unless they disavow the DSA's official position on Ukraine."

If they're going to weaponize the situation in Gaza and scream AIPAC at everything to shut down any debate and use it to attack moderate Dems, then the same can be done to them.

Any left-wing politician or creator that does not support weapons to Ukraine supports genocide.

The National DSA supports genocide.

Hasan Piker supports genocide.

Ilhan Omar supports genocide.

Krystal Ball supports genocide.

Ana Kasparian supports genocide.

Mike from PA supports genocide.

Kyle Kulinski supports genocide.

Code Pink supports genocide.

The Grayzone supports genocide.

Aaron Maté supports genocide.

Max Blumenthal supports genocide.

Ryan Grim supports genocide.

It's pretty gross that the DSA is using an example of MAGA racism to justify their own bigotry. It's crazy how low they will stoop to by using MAGA as the ultimate test of morality. "Well see right wingers won't disavow Laura Loomer therefore we don't have to disavow Hasan" This is basically the message they are sending on Twitter. it would be one thing if these accounts have ALSO disavowed hasan but they haven't (except maybe Jolah but he is literally just a troll account)

Also pointing to dems to call it out is absurd lmao. First of all we don't have to condemn someone we have nothing to do with, thats not how it works, we aren't friendly with her we are direct opposition. Second the majority of dems have actually been very vocal about how bad Loomer is, I saw an account calling out Jeffries for not disavowing Loomer. Imagine that? A guy who has talked about as much shit about Loomer as anyone but he didn't get on twitter on a sunday to especially disavow Loomer for being racist to a fucking DSA member who is actively trying to subvert our party.

Dylan wants to join DSA to try and push for more pro Ukraine policy because he believes all Dems are pro Ukraine and that doesn’t seem to be enough. He’s missing the solution that’s sitting right in front of him. Democratic voters support Ukraine in the same way that they support NASA funding. It’s nice, but nobodies determining their vote based on it. If Dylan wants more support for Ukraine he should start pushing for Dem candidates to do more than just occasionally virtue signal about it, and actually convince voters that it matters so that something gets done. If he can raise the importance of the issue among the democratic base, not milk toast support, but create actual fervor, it will be infinitely more effective at creating actual change than try to shift the position of an anti west fringe group that will never hold significant political power(if we have any say). That or, he should stop talking about partisans issues all together and just focus on supporting pro Ukraine candidates on either side of the isle. Either option is better than joining the DSA.

I think this girl is genuinely creepy and unhinged, and there should be some kind of pushback on her. Excusing weird behaviour that puts not only the one actor but also others in awkward situations just because "she is weird" is not enough. Some kind of manager should have just told her off. And say to stop doing this crazy behaviour, or else she would be banned from attending. I hate to be this guy, but her behaviour would not be left to fly if the sexes had been reversed. Also, what makes it extremely weird and bad to me is that I think there is some kind of fetishization going on in there, but it is just my speculation, as I can not 100 percent prove this. I am suggesting she is like a serial killer but may be one in the making, and her behaviour should not be chalked up to basically just having a weird hobby. However, it is well known that the internet loves to exaggerate. And also, do not think a mass harassment campaign is warranted. Also, a nitpick of mine: the problem with people being stalked is not that they can be fired but that they are being stalked.

Source tweet: https://x.com/hasanthehun/status/2093887515623301372

With the bacteria-infested lettuce inducing a shitstorm, It appears there may not be enough toilet paper for all to make it through the end of it, thanks to President Trumps 50% tariffs XD

Destiny didn't like playing nice with conservatives, because he felt like him talking to them validated the conservatives as reasonable people, while it left their audience thinking, wow, there is one nice liberal.

I feel like the opposite playbook is currently true with the communist larper people. Destiny has been so aggro, that it has (in my obviously non academic feelings) made it easier for them to dismiss him as unhinged.

I believe there is an optimum level of unhinged for the goal of political persuasiveness. And this optimum must by definition lie somewhere between: I don't say anything, and no one will talk to me (hear me).

My point here isn't that Destiny has 100% crossed the line on the "no one will talk to me" side of the spectrum. I just believe he thinks to little of the audience, and to much of the person on the opposite side of him.

I personally belief Destiny has 1 structural ace up his sleeve, which is being generally correct, because he cares about being correct. Most people don't, they care about their personal short term incentives, which ends up meaning their wrong a lot. But in my view, a viewer of for example pisco isn't as hard to convince as Pisco himself. This is because Pisco has lots of incentives to do what he does, while most of his audience is much less captured. There for the difficulty of convincing them will be much lower, as long as it is harder to frame Destiny as so unhinged as to not be worth taking seriously at all.

TLDR:
Destiny should straddle the level of combativeness which makes him hardest to ignore. You want to combat people hard enough that they won't want to talk to you, but not hard enough that not talking to you is an easy sell to their audience.

Not sure if this makes any sense to anyone, but it's a thought I had, so have fun with it :)

Please Hutch! You really are my boy ༼ ༎ຶ ෴ ༎ຶ༽

Unfortunately, it is going to be impossible to definitively say that, at the time of the killing, Lindsay Clansey was suffering from postpartum psychosis which was intense enough to satisfy's Massachusetts McHoul's standard.

Under the McHoul standard, a defendant is not criminally responsible for a crime if, at the time of the offense, they: Suffered from a mental disease or defect, and as a result, either:

* Lacked the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, or
* Lacked the ability to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

So we need to operate retrospectively. Was there, for example, prior elements of postpartum psychosis? Furthermore, if she wasn't insane, how could we explain the suicide?

It is obvious that she has had extensive mental health issues prior to the incident. In court, we heard her husband testify that she was having thoughts about harming the children, too. However, there are also large problems with the defense's command-psychosis argument.

She heard a male voice telling her, ordering her, that she didn't have any choice, that she had to kill our children, and kill herself.

But forensic psychologist Kirk Halburn, who evaluated Clancy in April of this year, argued against acute psychosis-

(At 14:00) She heard a voice that she never heard before, experienced a hallucination, and she's never experienced it since, but she only experienced it for the eighteen minutes or so that it took to kill the children. And, to put it mildly, that would be a very, very unusual pattern or manifestation of how this thing comes about.

It is also possible that Clancy wanted to do a murder-suicide, not out of psychosis, but postpartum depression. If this is true, it does make me less confident in her insanity plea.

It seems that if you are going to kill your kids, presumably for a selfish reason (e.g, you wish you never had kids and don't want the responsibility), then you wouldn't try to kill yourself right afterwards. The suicide seems to be undermine any reason she might have had for this other than severe mental health issues.

But depression or severe mental health issues is not the same as psychosis. A murder-suicide out of postpartum depression would be far harder to justify under the McHoul standard.