644
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
644 points (96.8% liked)
Progressive Politics
3939 readers
1439 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I can literally tell you don't watch Hasan because you said "Hasan debates". He literally never does debates. You're talking about something that happens maybe once a year.
Like, none of what you are saying here is at all resembling of his content either. It sounds like your only experience with his content is via watching someone else criticize him in a YouTube video.
I do watch his streams and clips every once in awhile, and I’m using “debates” loosely to mean adversarial political exchanges, whether that’s call-ins, panel arguments, reacting to critics, or sparring with chat/other creators.
My critique isn’t about frequency, it’s about style. The pattern I’m talking about, preloading moral conclusions, reframing opponents into caricatures, and using moral condemnation instead of engaging the actual claim, shows up in those exchanges too.
You can disagree with that assessment, but saying “you don’t watch him” doesn’t really address the substance of what I wrote.
There is nothing of substance to address in what you said. You can say
But you have to actually provide an example of what you are talking about. Otherwise you're literally just spitting out word salad. I'm not going to pretend you're actually critizing someone when you speak like that.
I'm supposed to infer your use of "debate" being loosely defined. But now you spit out another criticism without any examples and I'm supposed to "address the substance"?
It's Jello. There is no substance.
You’re shifting from “this isn’t true” to “this doesn’t exist unless you cite a clip.” Those are different claims.
I’m not arguing that one isolated moment proves my case. I’m criticizing a style of engagement that shows up across all of his content, where moral condemnation precedes analysis and critques/arguments are reframed instead of answered.
You’re free to disagree with that description. But dismissing it as “Jello” doesn’t make it go away, it just sidesteps what I am getting at.
You haven't gotten anywhere. Here, let me make this clear. I'll use an extreme example.
During a debate I could say "you're using a Strawman argument". If I simply state that as a reason for why the person I'm talking to is wrong and do nothing else but just state a falacy they supposedly made and declare victory then I'm the idiot. I haven't actually discussed anything. It may "look smart" to someone that just wants to watch someone they already agree with. But I'm not. I'm just stating a conclusion without going through the steps to actually declare it.
People that actually want to have a discussion of debate don't do this. They are aware of fallacies or bad faith arguments. But they don't just "declare" them. Actually, I'd say no intelligent or good faith person does that. That's internet debate slop.
That's essentially what you are doing though. You made some vague criticism about his use of morality. But didn't actually bring any evidence or examples.
All I can say is "huh, I guess you believe that". Like, what am I supposed to say? Are you just use to people that jump to disagree with you based on your vague criticisms? I have no idea. Maybe I would even agree with you. Why would I rebut to something you haven't even explained.
You have no substance because you are just stating your conclusion. If you can't actually build that conclusion why would you expect me to engage?
You’re asking for a formal, step-by-step evidentiary case. I’m offering a high-level critique of a rhetorical pattern. Those are different kinds of claims, and neither is illegitimate.
I’m not “declaring victory,” I’m describing how his style reads to a lot of leftists: moral preloading, reframing, and condemnation first, engagement second. That’s an interpretive claim, not a syllogism, and it doesn’t require me to footnote every instance to exist.
You’re right that if this were a debate, I’d need to walk through examples. But this isn’t a debate, it’s a comment thread. I’m explaining why many people react to him the way they do, not trying to prove a theorem.
If you don’t recognize that pattern, that’s fine. We just have different readings of the same content. But saying “there is no substance” because it isn’t presented in your preferred format is just another way of refusing to engage with the claim itself.
Holy shit. It's exhausting trying to talk to someone that just refuses to actually explain their opinion beyond the vague criticisms they started with. Like, I can't ask why you think those things? That's literally all I'm trying to get out of you and you refuse. If you didn't want to do that then don't reply. My initial point still stands. No substance. You've literally spent the last few comments avoiding giving any reason or example for why you have these criticisms in the first place.
Why? Why is that so hard to do?
The problem here is that you provide no actual proof of something you claim Hasan "always does", then go on to claim "it's too much work" for you to cite your evidence, instead we should take on that work because it's on us to educate ourselves.
TBH, this is the same shit antivaxxers try to pull.
Put up or shut up, what you are saying is not true and you have no evidence to back it up. You got got by the clipfarm industry.
Hey, I heard you and I agree with your assessment. Block the guy youre arguing with in this comment thread. Its meant to exhaust and frustrate you.