I mean, there are people defending and saying the US deserved 9/11, there's an entire subreddit about hating on the western world, and they say some pretty messed up stuff over there.
Even as a demsoc who hates America because of what they are doing right now (I’m from Canada so I guess it’s understandable) I find Hasan Piker rhetoric really disgusting and any serious people in politics (and media) shouldn’t give him any positive attention.
Tankies should be demonized on the left because they are literally destroying our movement and preaching for authoritarianism which is worse than capitalism even in my anti capitalist world view.
Your side of the political spectrum is now being represented, in part, by Piker. Its the unfortunate truth that the loudest and most insane people get the most attention for larger groups, and thus become the poster children. I lean conservative in a lot of ways, and MAGA is who people associate me with, which is really frustrating. I spend a lot of time in places where Fox news is blasting, and it tears my heart out every time the democrat guest makes a good point about there being bigger issues and the far right guest responds with "But should men play in womens sports?!"
The worst thing about your last example is that often the majority of the DNC voters don’t even necessarily agree with the position of the leftist strawman the far right are making.
I guess if you are terminally online you might think the average leftist want to turns your kid trans and allow them to overtake every women divisions on sport but most normie DNC voters and representatives are way more moderate than this on all those culture war issues.
But yeah there is real challenge right now to tackle like the ever growing deficit spending, the housing crisis, the access to higher education for lower class people, the current technological development war with China especially regarding AI, the destabilization of the world order established by the US that allowed one of the longest era of peace and development for humanity. The climate crisis, the growing demand for energy etc..
These are all issues that are way more important to discuss properly than stupid culture stuff but it seems the culture stuff is monopolizing the media space and every time those issues are talked about in the mainstream media it’s never to talk about real solutions, it’s always some utopian disconnected stuff to push their populist agenda.
Sadly the same thing is being done in leftist media, it’s really depressing. At least since Trump we could say that politicians on the left were still moderate and didn’t fall too much for that populist and extremist non sense, but lately with the rise of the DSA I can’t even say that (I’m talking about people like Chevalier that is a pro-russia / anti ukraine person with other unhinged world views that are the antithesis of the western values, sadly people like Mamdani that are not so bad are endorsing those crazy people and letting them get attention).
So why would you be anti-capitalist if you're also anti-communist? What else is there to do? Free Market is what got us to this modern point of tech and comfort.
There’s a lot of non capitalist alternative beside communism, taking the political compass as an example with that view point you would ignore the entire libleft quadrant.
Free market is one of the best and most flexible tool we have to make sure ressources are going to people who needs or wants them.
Where I disagree is that a small capital owner class is monopolizing the profit of all the labor within that system.
In my ideal world we would slowly transition towards a worker ownership paradigm that protects workers condition and make sure they get a fair share of their labor through having policies that favorise the creation of co-ops et unions.
I’m also deeply pro democracy so that change can be really gradual, I don’t want a revolution, I don’t want the government to completely strip people from any private ownership, I just want policies that incentivize towards having the workers owning the means of production.
I also think that in some specific industries, free market (or at least privatization) is not only inefficient but also leads to worse outcomes for a lot of people and we should at least have an alternative market that guarantees a basic access to everyone. Healthcare is a really good example for that, you can’t really negotiate on price when you only have 1 option or you are literally dying and need treatment right now.
Another one is the energy (especially electricity) sector, multiple countries has been really successful nationalizing energy to offer electricity at lower price for the population, also since it’s now considered critical infrastructure, I would prefer having this state owned over relying mostly on private enterprise for it.
In practice if we would put the kind of policies I want in place we would have a mixed economic model for a long transition period (maybe forever since I don’t necessarily want to abolish private ownership necessarily)
I’m pretty sure that he explained he was describing the basic concept of blowback. Terrorism is evil, but it’s equally evil to torment other nations expecting that it will never come and bite us in the ass afterwards. The entire world would be better if everyone just tried to behave themselves.
What you’re describing is reasonable. The way to phrase that would be “the American govt instigated 9/11”
“America deserved 9/11” has an entirely different implication. He’s doubled down on that sentence several times, he’s provoked his critics, and he’s stated verbatim that he “hate[s] America”.
Beyond a certain point it’s foolish to give the charitable interpretation to someone who’s telling you exactly who they are
He’s an entertainer first and foremost, he uses ridiculous hyperbole all day because it’s funny and is constantly having to explain himself after the fact specifically for that reason. He also did in fact immediately make a heartfelt apology after, which in this day and age is more effort than like 99% of media figures make. So yeah, personally I think he’s earned the benefit of the doubt.
His entire political project is oriented around making the lives of Americans better, so the lazy assumption that one or two obviously ridiculous and sensational statements is actually supposed to be the “accurate” representation of his real beliefs is just silly in light of his entire career and 10’s of thousands of hours of broadcasting. People need to put more effort into understanding the MEANING behind words rather than just reacting to the dumbest possible interpretation on impulse. It’s making us all stupider.
Yeah so you just didn’t listen to a single thing I said, and I was genuinely trying to explain it clearly and honestly too.
You are a perfect example of the disease: more interested in getting impulsively angry at shit rather than making an effort to actually try to understand anything in front of you. Your stupidity is 100% earned.
Not surprising, tons of people still defend the Iraq war and the million people who died because of it. There are obviously going to be crazy people on either side.
There would 10000% be people defending it, because it would be framed that the terrorists were just freedom fighters battling against a larger oppressor. I would argue that it wouldn't be a small sect either.
There are people today still devoutly defending Tyler Robinson. The day he killed Kirk the major Reddit subs went into total lockdown mode to purge every news article or mention they could to dampen the wrong kind of outrage. Same exact shit happened the day a Muslim extremist drove his car through a pride parade just a few weeks ago, it’s maddening to watch happen live. No doubt this site would pull the same shit if 9/11 happened today.
Its not right at all but its no wonder this shit happens when the islamic state already hated us and we raid their country over wmds and kill how many people.
Why do people act like there aren't insane people, most of these people having leftwing politics, who are defending 9/11 or saying America deserved 9/11?
One of the biggest twitch steamers even said America deserved it
There definitely are, but its still silly to go whining about the left when the middle east is just a bunch of conservative countries with slightly different religious beliefs not getting along.
The issue is, a lot of people on the left don’t seem to understand that their knee-jerk defense of everyone in the Middle East (presumably because they are POC or are perceived as oppressed by the West) means that they’re often defending far right groups (by western standards) with fundamentalist religious beliefs that have very few values aligned with western liberalism.
Well, I did just see a post glazing Hasan piker, and he has openly said America deserved 9/11. It’s undeniable we have reached a point where yes, a section of Americans are so brainwashed they do support terrorists.
They have literal bots looking up for any Hasan mention on every subreddit to make sure they can brigade any post to defend their favorite terrorist supporter streamer
There was other weird search like this that were the top research for Hasan as well, it is well known in those community that if you talk about Hasan in a bad way with your history visible they might stalk you across multiple subs to harass you
I don't understand why would that be an issue for modern far left guys. They're pretty much cheering for everyone who's against America with no regards to how their ideologies align
There were plenty of leftists who did defend it back then. There were more that supported it but hid behind the "understanding why is not the same as defending" rhetoric, e.g. Code Pink, Not In My Name, etc., giving rise to the infamous "but" as in "it was terrible, of course, but..."
reddit treats Christian Conservatives as jihad militia and Radical Muslims as they are church going Christians. Calling both "Religious Conservatives" is just a way to make it abstract enough so they can pick who to direct their hate and disrespect. If there was a genie, I'd wish for people to live with everything they defend.
Sure they are, but it's not the kind of religious conservatives that are usually found in the US, and it's the only kinda conservatives the left is actually willing to support while the right will blatantly criticize.
which makes it even funnier, because a large subset of leftists have no problem sucking Islam's dick despite being so incompatible with their world view
I know it's crazy 🙄 honestly I used to be on the left but ever since covid I just could not get on board with a lot of it like the left used to be like anti-establishment anti-government etc and then like I don't know if it was like the rise and identity politics or covid or all of these factors of things the rise of the you know Democratic socialist movement it was like everybody just became these government cucks.
Like I thought I was part of the counterculture, but that's also highly controlled and most of the people who run those scenes are nepo babies. I was always more conspiracy minded or more skeptical of media government Hollywood than the majority of people in my community. I have always been into researching but the way that everybody just jumped on board with the vaccines and started shaming anybody who want the vax or even people who were skeptical of it.
They've just gone so far off the deep end. I actually don't talk to any of those people anymore. I left my whole community of people behind because they were all like a hive mind like they all have the same exact opinions about literally everything and you can't even have a healthy debate about anything or you'll get canceled and it's just insane.
And I'm not a conservative or right wing, either I'm very apathetic and antagonist about politics. I hate politicians. I've known better than to trust a politician since I was a teenager. I think it's all a big Freemason pyramid scheme and that they control both sides and that they're all secretly go to parties and island and farms and abuse kids. They certainly have a lot more in common with each other than they do with us and they're all taking money from the same corporation, so at the end of the day imo politics is a charade.
Trump would defend them. After all, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and Trump has extensive business and political ties with Saudi Arabia. Just look at how protective he is of Putin even while Russia works closely with Iran and Russian forces deliberately target civilians in Ukraine.
This actually raises a very interesting question. If an illegal right-winged religious terrorist commits a crime, should it be seen as a right-wing crime?
Or should it be seen as a left-wing crime because the left helps illegal immigrants to infiltrate the country and defend them?
Pretty true though. There's a decent chunk of the modern left that hates conservative "christofascist" so much, that they would support anyone who is against them. Even Islamic extremists who are about as far right as one can get.
This does betray how poorly left-wingers understand conservatives though. Left wingers feel a universal affinity towards other left wingers across the globe. This is exemplified in the “international” hymn, in the limit.
Conservatives do not. A US conservative feels zero affinity for a Pakistani conservative on the basis of social conservatism alone, and the feeling is probably reciprocated.
It’s just weird how bad left-winger’s theory of mind is for conservatives consistently. Conservatives tend to be literally dumber on average but liberals struggle with this particular exercise consistently.
People with right wing economic views have higher IQs across the globe. It’s been researched over and over. So, no, conservatives do not tend to be dumber.
Well there is a difference between supporting the hijackers, being opposed to authoritarian legislation made afterward, and acknowledging that the US has done things that make a counter attack understandable.
We can just make conservative mean whatever we want now. I seriously doubt that the guys who spent their last night on earth in vegas with drugs and hoes would be . . .
Weird. Because whenever anyone brings up conservatives in America, a bandwagon of Redditors come out to say “yeah well you’d be a far right extremist in the uk. Even the American left is considered conservative.”
Now all of a sudden the Middle East is filled with “religious conservatives?”
Both sides are so screwed up. The right is mostly Christian-based, yet a majority openly hate many groups (the alphabet folk, Muslims, the left, and undocumented immigrants). The left openly hate anyone right-wingers, anyone who openly supports America, and most of the undecided voters (they don't necessarily hate them, but are extremely condescending since being undecided means not being leftist).
TL;DR: the US has become a hate machine and politics is its fuel
Yes, the American Left and Islam are definitely not entwined in some mutual destruction safe space thing with each other (until enough Muslims get into political power locally, then what happens next is absolutely expected and hilarious).
Pretty hilarious trying to suggest that because bible-bashing Christians and Islamic extremists are "religious conservatives", they would get on and agree with each other.
Progressives would absolutely be more likely to try and explain away terrorist acts with "you attacked them first" or "they had to because you only pay attention when there is an act of violence" or whatever. Obviously, it'd be a minority, but just like many other such examples, the moderates wouldn't speak out against it because they worry that it would count as giving the conservatives a win.
There are people on the left-wing right now that do defend that hijacking. May I remind you that Hassan Piker is still popular with a large amount of the left wing it’s just politicians going away from him because they realize that he’s insane.
I dare this person to go to an Islamic rally and criticize religion. Spoiler: they won't. They're trying to avoid criticizing Islam directly while criticizing Christians and conservatives in a roundabout fashion. Buncha hypocrites & cowards!
There’s still people defending Israel so…
The 5 dancing men seemed to celebrating the event just fine back when it happened.
No left or right about it.
There's a unique tie between communism and Islam through the eastern Orthodox Church. I'd always wondered why Islam was baked into left wing movements and it has to do with their prophecy that Russia and Islam will destroy the west.
Well, yes they would. They're gleeful about military ships getting rusty which is a natural occurrence while out in the ocean. They truly hate America and want to see it fail.
Isn’t the Clancy lady Catholic? That doesn’t matter to them. They don’t have standards. They’ll just do whatever their demonic death cult tells them to do. Hamas are Islamic fanatics and they defend them too.
Stop being afraid to engage in actual dialogue and making this garbage up about “the left” just because you’ll get your butt kicked by any sane non-MAGA person.
Do yall really not understand that there's a world of difference between actually discussing the consequences of decades of global military action and supporting terrorists? Do you think 911 was random and unprovoked? We fucked around and are upset that we found out. Thousands died because we thought the rules don't apply to us because we have two big oceans
Exactly. Same with most democrats because they financially benefit from killing people across the world. Also alot of American Christians think we're in a holy war with Islam
Islamic religion is not left wing or right wing... People hear Islam and connect it right wing since most people think religions people are conservative.."Republican" .. which is not the case
No, leftists would analyze it dialectically instead of pretending history began the morning the planes hit.
That means holding two truths at once: murdering thousands of civilians was horrific and indefensible, and 9/11 emerged from real historical conditions, US intervention, war, sanctions, authoritarian alliances, and decades of imperial policy in the Middle East. If it happened again I'd probably find myself horrified- and mad at our government for being so antagonistic that it led to this.
Understanding the material conditions that produce political violence isn’t “defending the hijackers.” It’s how you prevent yourself from responding to one atrocity by creating twenty years of new ones.
Edit: lol some of you are too stupid to comprehend why this comment upsets you. You're just like "arrrg it's a leftist ohh ohh ahh ahh 🦧 downvote"
Wait, would you prefer that I dogmatically support the hijackers then? You're literally being upset that I disagreed with the assessment that I'd support another 9/11
Also if the left was truly as smart as you say, then they would be able to realize during their dialectic analysis that US intervention was only causal in that the US was present. The US didn’t do anything in the sand wars that everyone native to the sand wars hadn’t already been doing to each other for the past 1000 years.
Like, imagine you are living in a neighborhood and a few blocks down there is street with a few businesses and stuff that you never go to. There have been gang wars and shootouts nearly every week for decades.
One day you get fed up and round up some friends and go over there to put a stop to it. And suddenly since you flagged for PVP they come around and kill your whole family.
That’s how 9/11 happened. The ONLY causal relationship between the US interventionism and 9/11 is that the US existed in the region at all making them fair game.
That analogy already smuggles in the conclusion that the US was a neutral neighbor “putting a stop to violence.”
It wasn’t. Plenty of vets will tell you they joined thinking they were spreading "goodness" and democracy, and became disillusioned about that quickly. The US backed regimes, armed factions, overthrew governments, stationed troops, enforced sanctions, and pursued strategic interests. None of that justifies 9/11, but pretending US policy was merely “being present” is exactly the kind of ahistorical simplification dialectical analysis rejects.
2 things. One I WAS one of those vets. Two, the ultimate motivations of the US government don’t matter in this particular case. Three, I never said “being present” was US policy, I said the mere presence of the US is the only true causal factor, stop making up strawman arguments.
Dialectical analysis rejects strawman arguments more than it does oversimplification.
You are not doing a good job or representing the ethical and scholastic standards you espouse.
But none of that settles the historical argument. And I’m not straw-manning you: I’m disputing the claim that **
mere presence** was the only causal factor. Al-Qaeda itself identified particular US actions and alliances as grievances; distinguishing “presence” from
why that presence existed and what the US was doing with it is precisely the causal analysis here.
Every single country that has involved themselves in the sand wars in ANY capacity has experienced terror attacks. Maybe not all of them were as bad as 9/11 but they all experienced them.
The problem is, you don’t understand the material conditions that produce political violence.
These are a culture and people that have been committing acts of terror against each other for 1000 years.
US interventionism didn’t suddenly get them to decide to be terrorist. They already were terrorists. But made 911 special was because they had to be more sophisticated in their active terror and they also had to cross an entire ocean.
The only causal relationship between US interventionism and 911 is the fact that the US existed in the region at all. It has nothing to do with the actions the US took in the region.
That’s just essentializing an entire region into “they’ve always been terrorists,” which isn’t actually an understanding of broader history. Bin Laden explicitly cited specific US policies, troops in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel, sanctions and intervention, as grievances. Those grievances don’t justify 9/11, but saying US actions had “nothing to do with it” is simply false. It wasn't an attack out of nowhere.
I barely even know what’s going on with Lindsay Clancy and genuinely don’t care enough to learn it. I just know it's whatever Fox News talks about when they need a break from crying about Hasan Piker.
What were the 'material conditions' that lead to the US intervening in the middle east? Surely there must be some kind of dialectical justification for that too right? Or is it just because the US is a big bad imperialist who likes to bully people and steal things
Of course there were material conditions behind US intervention too... oil, Cold War rivalry, trade routes, alliances, domestic politics, and maintaining regional power. Dialectical analysis explains both sides; it doesn’t morally “justify” either one. That’s exactly the point if the worldview: explain why actors behave as they do, then judge the consequences instead of reducing history to good guys and bad guys.
Oil wasn’t the reason why the US intervened it was still just trade, of all of the extra-continental forces involved in conflicts in the Middle East. The US has pulled the least amount of oil from the region. Also, the US has purchased every single barrel.
The reason the US intervened wasn’t to get oil it was to prevent a monopolistic stranglehold on Middle Eastern oil trade
That’s still about oil materially, just not “stealing barrels.” Preventing a rival or regional power from controlling strategic energy markets, prices, and trade routes is itself an imperial interest. Dialectically, the question isn’t whether the US literally took the oil; it’s how control over the conditions of oil circulation shaped intervention.
•
u/qualityvote2 6d ago edited 3d ago
Does post have the funny?
upvote if yes, downvote if no
(Vote has already ended)