The streaming star on how to reject political violence while staying honest about Kirk’s rhetoric.
“Charlie Kirk was a vehement white nationalist that is currently burning in Hell. Debate me and prove me wrong.”
Hell doesn’t exist, you have now been proven wrong. His legacy will be tarnished by his own quotes and that’s the real hell people will see.
I don’t disagree with the white supremacist part his dog whistle was just a regular whistle.
Doubt it. Hell is much worse then just fire. Probably getting railed by a huge black guy while his wife watches and wishes she was him. Black, gay, and cucked. His worst fears. And he’s on fire.
Kirk was not a white nationalist, even though there is overlap in their taking points. The key difference is that white nationalist sources often present a more systematised ideology, often with explicit references to racial superiority, or calls for formal racial separation. Kirk did not publicly as far as sources show explicitly promote white supremacist violence or call for a white ethnostate.
As for burning in hell, thats just silly. There is no hell. No hot place where you go to pay for your sins. There is only the absence of existence. Charlie Kirk is just gone. Nothing of him remains anywhere.
https://racism.org/articles/defining-racism/white-privilege/12835-charlie-kirk-white-supremacist
I think you’re splitting hairs here. He constantly espoused white supremacist talking points and beliefs. But he gave himself plausible deniability by never overtly claiming to be a white nationalist. And you’re continuing his charade even after his death.
No, Im debating you. What Im also doing is taking what he said at face value, and not supplanting what he said with what I think he meant. No more “reading between the lines”. You hold people to account for the things that they say, not what you think they might say behind closed doors. Especially when it comes to someone is as miss quoted as Kirk is/was.
For example, it was pretty funny seeing Stephen King claim that Kirk had said that “gays should be stoned”, and then get noted to fuck because it wasnt true. But theres loads of people who do this all the time that never get noted, or when they do they ignore it in place of what the “feel”. For context, Kirk was commenting on something said by Ms Rachel(a youtuber) that was cherry picking bible verses as some kind of “gotcha”, using Leviticus 19(Love you neighbour as yourself), and Kirk said:
“Ms. Rachel, you might wanna crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death. Just sayin’”.
This was then widely reported as Kirk advocating for the stoning of gays(if you read between the lines). You begin to see the problem? Media today, both social and main stream, is more interested in getting clicks than it is telling us the truth. And nothing generates clicks quicker than outrage.
I have no doubts the man was a fanny. And when he did talk, he often did the same thing. Saying things to get the reaction that give him a platform. Even his widow just the other day, when speaking after his murder, was performative as fuck. Like she too needs to always be driving engagement, rather than taking the time to actually honour the man she loved, she was rallying support for his message. Grief might make us do weird things, but ugh. Its exhausting listening to these people talk the way they do.
He’s overtly racist which some mistake for nationalism.
So I type all that for the debate, and you just hand wave it away with a personal belief? Jesus fucking christ.
Im not the guy you replied to.
But you did reply to a “debate”, you know that right?
he did not come out and say it that I know of, but he certainly tiptoed around it, expressed lots of overlapping opinions, supported white nationalists & nazis, and helped spread their message
so, his support and promotion of the message is enough to say, in general, that he was a white nationalist. however, people will tear the statement apart because it’s only 90% accurate
No he didnt. People said he did, like in the example I gave. But he never did. Another one would be the civil rights act thing. He said it was bad law, that people were now twisting to use for their own needs today. But it was reported as him saying that he thought blacks should still be segregated, which is specifically said he didnt mean. He was talking about having better laws, that protected everyone, but it was reported as though he hated that it happened at all.
I knew none of this, I never watched Kirk. I just saw everyone else saying he said this and that, and when I looked it up it turns out, not so much. He was of the opinion that DEI was bullshit, and was being abused. When he said he would want to check the credentials of a black pilot, he wasnt saying that black pilots are less than white ones. He was saying that people in positions of hiring are putting appearance before merit. Something that has been proven to be happening. The most direct example would be the RAF that was found to be passing over straight white men in favour of non whites and women for “diversity” reasons. It was illegal as fuck, but the thought at the time was that it was fine because it was positive discrimination. At the Oxford Union, the President Elect, George Abaraonye, some how got into Oxford even though he did not meet the basic criteria for admission. Guess what skin colour he has?
Theres examples of positive discrimination all over the place. Its everywhere. Its special treatment, not because someone might excel in other areas that call for special consideration, but because these institutions want to be seen as diverse for popularity reasons. And you can say thats great, but what about if the pendulum swings back again? What we should have been doing was making sure that we changed the system to better serve everyone, instead of just making random people the posterchildren for various companies and institutions social media presence. For example, improving access to education at younger years for everyone so that no one needs special treatment or consideration. Trump showed how easy it is to over turn shakingly written law with Roe, I shocked that everyone else doesnt see the issues with other laws that might be just as shaky.
But thats where the real problem lies. Theres so little debate going on. Its all buzzwords, with the battlelines already well drawn and no one wants to hear anything that makes them question what they already hold to be true. We are all utterly terrified of being wrong, and will fight to the death to make sure we never are with an endless stream of name calling, characters assassination, and fucking memes.
A guy was murdered because of the things he said while being open to debate. And some people cheered for this, like it was a good thing. Those on the right do it as well, as those same people love to point out as though it justifies their behaviour. If thats not an example of the radicalisation of the culture wars, I dont know what is. Both sides are cheering on real world violence like they are watching football teams scoring touch downs. Its all rather insane.
I agree that I dislike taking his quotes out of context. he said enough bad shit here and there that there’s no need to misrepresent his words even slightly
while being open to debate
Oh spare us, Kirk never had any interest in good faith debate.
They why did anyone go to speak to him? Why dont YOU spare me, me the nonsense of making shit up? Theres plenty of reasons to hate him, without just inserting your bullshit.
Lol, it’s pretty obvious now that you’re just a salty Charlie Kirk fan.
I couldnt stand the cunt, but keep trying. Youll get it eventually…
There are a lot of piss baby conservatives and liberals in this thread
Hassan is just outrage farm and nothing else. He has been covering Israel Gaza for years, but only learned about the meaning of the Western Wall like last week. Vapid, insipid aimless people making bank off of Gaza genocide
Edit: For as much of a vile person Kirk was, at least he knew how to organize and mobilize people politically with success. The most Hasan can seem to do is read Twitter headlines from the comfort of his Beverly Hills mansion lol. It’s the equivalent of Kony 2012, just repackaged for genz.
Don’t believe me? Go watch his stream. Go for it.
how does knowing “the meaning of the western wall” at all supposed to inform one’s stance on Israel’s atrocities on Palestine?
this is like saying a journalist has been covering NASA for years but they still don’t know which zodiac signs are in the water group.
Not at all. He professses to be an expert on me issues and the conflict in Israel. He’s been covering it for years. You’d better damn well know at least the fundamentals of the GODDAMN region you’re covering holy shit.
again you failed to demonstrate how it is at all relevant. literally the same relevance as my analogy.
Really? One of the keystone elements in the biggest geopolitical conflicts in the middle east? One of the biggest claims the zionists use as justification for right to return? The most sacred site in the Jewish faith?
Really?
Wikipedia is free, you know?
i don’t remember saying i don’t know what the fucking wall is. i said how is it fucking relevant to forming a fucking opinion on the fucking genocide.
I don’t know man… Why does having any historical context help to discuss the biggest conflict in middle east? Are you under the impression the genocide started on Oct 7?
what are you even talking about? “the meaning of the western wall” has no bearing on the reality of the genocide, not the morality of it. this is not a religious project. it’s a settler colonial project. you don’t even need to know what religion they are part of, let alone what some fucking magic wall is supposed to “mean”. here’s what it means: nothing. none of this shit is for or because of the wall.
No, he did. If I claim to be a computer programmer with 20 years of experience, but dont know the basics of any computer language, that would be an important detail in discrediting me and my “expertise” on the topic. Right? So if someone is saying they are an expert on Israel and Gaza(ie, “listen to me!”) then pointing out that they dont know basic things about the topics is very important. Because the last thing the world needs, is more listening to fucking grifters that only feed into collective outrage.
your analogy is not correct. this is like claiming to be a computer programmer with 20 years of experience but not knowing how the computers in star trek work. it’s just bullshit that has no bearing on your opinions on programming.
Youre liking the genocide in gaza to star trek? Are you insane?
no? does no one understands analogies here? the genocide is computer programming in this analogy. the wall is the computers in star trek. it means fuck all and has no bearing on actual computer sciences.
Even real experts don’t know every details about their field. The argument that just because he didn’t know about the wall was makes him fake and uneducated about the topic is ridiculous and dumb
They may not know every detail off the top of their heads, but they will know the basics of their chosen fields. Like every mathematician knows their times tables, right? Whats ridiculous and dumb, is being so balls deep in the culture wars that you refuse to see any negatives of the talking heads you subscribe to, even when they are obvious as fuck.
A vile person person who has concrete terrible impact is better than one who simply make bank from the genocide if that’s even true?
Notice how the user does not say Gaza genocide.
It was implied. There. I added it in. It. Hope it makes you feel better
Saying that covering the Gaza genocide was a grift has to be one of the dumbest things you can possibly say.
Your first time interacting with online media pundits?
No I have seen your comments before.
Oh ok. cool. Listen, if twitter text to speech analyzer Hasan Piker makes you happy, go for it.
Grifters do all sorts of shit, mate. That fact is why 4chan started using “woke” ironically. ie “Hey, guys. This racist shit is really wrong. Dont forget to like, share and subscribe so we can fight racism together!!!”.
Inaccurate simplification of Hassan. So much so that I assume you are just elaborately saying, “Nothing to see here folks. Go about your business.”
Your tactics are in line with those of right wing trolls. Call into question something you want silenced with ad hominem attacks, obscure references, with just a glint of truth buried in there to make anyone arguing with you get sucked into a lengthy complicated debate. Yes, modern popular media feeds off of outrage and Hassan is part of it. That’s something I could say about virtually every popular person on the internet. It’s doesn’t mean that none of them have ever said anything relevant, accurate, or otherwise worth listening to.
Crawl back into whatever hole you came from you disingenuous troll.
He streams on twitch spewing hate and farming intellectual elite club by heavy moderation.
He fucking farms you for money.
Crawl back into whatever hole you came from you disingenuous troll.
Every single defense is this. Name calling and getting offended for pointing out of what Hassan is.
A narcissist farming idiots. Just like Tate. Like Jones. Like Shapiro.
It is the same fucking play. Different political spectrum.
Get. Fucking. Real.
If you say so. I’m not a fan, but he’s been a decent debater and representative of the left in the few times I’ve heard him speak. I find anyone dismissing him wholesale to be disingenuous. He’s speaks well, makes good points, and makes right-wing idiots look like idiots. I appreciate that.
Maybe you are like the other guy and just want him to cheerlead the Democratic Party blindly and follow their talking point? Or are you just upset because he seems to be pretty hard on Israel?
He is not left. He is not right.
He is not a decent debater. He gishgallops and gaslights. Just like Shapiros. Kirks. Tates.
He does not give a fuck. He is making money. And shoving himself into the politics.
Get.
Real.
Fucking bullshit. Hassan has a special particular type of rage bait farming. I’ve been watching his content on and off for years. It’s unfortunate that he has such a large following because he’s a disingenuous piece of shit. Also, it’s fun and easy do just discount any criticism of Hassan as “trolling”- what a cowardly copout of an answer. It’s prefertly fine to use Ad-hominem attacks on people who negate or downplay sexual abuse or say constant vitriol on his stream. I don’t care how many charity streams he did. He’s a slop streamer (just last week he doxxed several people).
It’s weird how his fan boys enjoy this grotesque parasocial relationship with him and come to his constant defense whenever the slightest criticism is levied of our idol. Almost like another group of abhorrent individuals I see online…
I’m not a Hassan fanboy, or even a fan really, and I’m not having fun. You simply didn’t put any effort into your accusations. They still sound like the typical troll behavior used to silence or muddle people you don’t agree with. Try to offend, barely substantiate, if at all, your accusations and assertion, and try to engage without putting any effort into it. Be as disingenuous as possible but bait responses and keep interlocutor lost in the weeds of your half assed arguments.
So I assume you are a troll.
What a joke. What am I even to say to that? Just because I didn’t get into specifics off the bat doesn’t mean we can’t bring receipts. If you want, ask. But don’t be no disgustingly superficial in your discourse. I’m exhausted hearing about this guy.
Hassan is just outrage farm and nothing else.
I don’t need justification for your glint of truth. I need justification that nothing in the linked interview of Hassan is worth reading or listening to because he’s nothing more than an outrage farm.
I actually listened to the interview. He said several things that so few people in mainstream media are willing to say, and he criticized mainstream media for not saying those things.
Kirk advocated for gross positions. He literally stated that empathy was invented by the left. In response to the shooting, right wing politicians and pundits immediately called for retribution against the left just like they did when the democratic lawmaker was assassinated, and say nothing when it turns out it wasn’t a leftists killer. Trump never bothered did any honor the victim of that killing, but they lower flags this weekend for Kirk and don’t mention the school shooting that happened literally one hour later or the 45 prior shootings in 2025. They praised Kirk for valuing debate and free speech, but are now firing people and refusing to let in travelers if they posted negative opinions of Kirk. Rage bait, or reasonable things to talk about?
Yes. I’m familiar with the horrible human that is Kirk. Nothing of value was lost. He was committed to punching down everyone that wasn’t white or Christian. But one thing he was exceptionally good at is organizing.
See, the difference between Kirk and Hassan is that Kirk was so successful at rallying right wing youth that they showed up in droves to the polls, especially in this election. We gotta appreciate the ability to mobilize so effectively.
The only thing Hassan seems capable of is shitting on EVERYONE. Because Hassan is not solutions oriented. He is not particularly motivated at building a political movement or accomplishing anything apart from a charity drive once in a while. That’s it. He spends 80% of his stream chastising democrats. Then rallying his base day after day about Gaza but not looking towards any meaningful prescriptions. Just the other week he streamed an interview of a man who lost his son in the Nova music festival. Despite losing his child this man was calling for a ceasefire. He wasn’t a settler. He wasn’t IDF. He wants peace. The best we can get out of Hassan? He calls him Nazi scum.
I could go on about the ineffective and meaningless content that is Hassan, but at the end of the day, it’s just superficial. And I think that’s the part that bothers me the most. He has such a massive platform and all he can do is read Twitter headlines and rage bait seven days a week. For what?
Just the other week he streamed an interview of a man who lost his son in the Nova music festival. Despite losing his child this man was calling for a ceasefire. He wasn’t a settler. He wasn’t IDF. He wants peace. The best we can get out of Hassan? He calls him Nazi scum.
I don’t suppose you have any “receipts” for this? Perhaps any information about the interview?
A horseshoe debate? Would it have ended with them agreeing about everything?
No, Hasan Piker would not have agreed with Charlie Kirk on everything
A debate is not to agree on things?
Piker is a terrorism apologist.
Defend that statement
Probably something about he’s not sucking off Israel
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/left-wing-pundit-hasan-piker-says-i-dont-have-an-issue-with-hezbollah-praises-yemens-houthis-for-seizing-ships/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/01/17/what-to-know-about-the-viral-yemeni-pirate-rashid-dominating-social-media/ https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/05/13/hasan-piker-how-an-israel-hating-terror-supporting-streamer-seduced-the-new-york-times/
anti-Israel sentiment is not the same thing as terrorism apologism. But being pro Israel demands being an endorser of child murder war-crimes and terrorism.
You can’t support Israel right now without being the bad guy. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other bad guys, but there are no pro Israel good guys.
You are
.de
Figures.
Lets assume this brain dead comment isn’t a bot… How does one get this dense?
Hasan is a wimpy baby who makes money on the existence of the right wing. He is to scared to rejoice in a good thing.
Why would he celebrate the assassination of a political commentator when he holds the same exact job title
he was set to debate Charlie before he got a new hole on his neck just in a couple weeks. if the shooter waited a little while Hasan could have literally been a couple meters away from him during the shooting. even putting aside the possibility of being the target himself, he could just catch a stray bullet one day because the US is just generally an insanely violent, backwards-ass country. why would he want this to be a normal thing
He should just not say anything on the matter. If he can’t publicly celebrate the removal of trash, then he should remain silent. Calling this a tragedy is saying his behavior is acceptable, and people have the right to poison the world as such.
Actually I think his reaction is the most reflective of the situation. Yea, Kirk was a stochastic propagandist and a sociopath, but him getting killed doesnt materially improve anything while making the situation far more dangerous for everyone involved.
The most I feel comfortable saying is that Kirk fucked around and found out - but I certainly wouldn’t celebrate the situation this now puts us in.
If you’re going to engage in adventurism, at least make sure your target is worthy of your sacrifice. Kirk was a loud nobody and his death has gained us close to nothing.
Hard disagree. Kirk was a successful mouthpiece for the extreme right wing. He targeted the youth. He knows he was programming them.
Frankly, I just don’t think you are aware of what all he did—which explains your ignorant dismissiveness.
Kirk’s death is a godsend. It is THE road we need to be on.
Agree to disagree, then.
I’m well aware of kirk’s influence, but if anything those in his base have just been galvanized, many more have likely been driven into extremism.
Things will get worse from here before they get better.
They aren’t gonna get better sweetie. Not without our lifetime. This is the part where people read about in the future and think “wow they didn’t even know how fucked they were, and they did nothing to stop it”
I’m speaking directly as compared to him not being assassinated, friend. The harm he would have gone on to do is outshadowed by the harm that will now be done as retribution for his death.
There was always going to be violent conflict between the fascists and anti-fascists, but believe it or not he was a moderating voice in the reactionary space. Without him, the overton window shifts even further right, with voices like Shapiro becoming comparatively centrist and falling out of favor by those motivated by Kirk’s death. It’s a reason why the shooter potentially being a Groyper is both liberating and damning to leftists - it means that we can’t as easily be blamed for the escalation (we will still, though), but it also serves as a reminder that there are more violent voices still who are driving a wedge into the center of the republican party to drive them further into Nazism.
Better to target the productive capacities of the right, rather than the beneficiaries of the right’s sugar daddies (like Kirk).
It is the reichstag fire, in that it was a nazi crime that the Nazis used to get liberals to willingly vote to grant all power to the fuhrer to protect germany. Thats what they mean right? Right???
… yes? why are you implying that he might mean something else?
The State Department has already made an announcement saying that they are going to look at people’s profiles at the point of entry into the country to see if they actually sufficiently grieved Charlie Kirk—which is, of course, a violation of the First Amendment, regardless of whether I personally think that’s inappropriate or not. I’m just simply talking about how ridiculous it is to make this kind of enforcement a priority and how unconstitutional it is.
And it’s very clear that they’re using this as a Reichstag fire moment, very clearly, using this as an opportunity to further persecute and prosecute political dissidents.
They were already doing that since January. Hasan Piker himself was already detained and interrogated while re-entering the country for his posts and opinions on israel.
I’m saying the reichstag fire wasnt an excuse for them to keep doing what they were already doing but more. It was the inciting event that resulted in the passing of the enablement act which established by law the dissolution of german government as a whole; handing all power to hitler and leading directly to the holocaust.
Are those two things materially different? I personally think there should be a distinction.
Violent repression of dissidents was already widely enforced, well before nazis took absolute power. We still live in a fascist police state, but there is a large gap between what we are seeing and the immediate arrest of all communist members of parliament along with the suspension of all civil liberties in germany. There is still time for us to organize mass resistance. Calling this the reichstag fire gives anyone with an understanding of history a cop out that “its already over” when it isnt. It isnt over until both chambers of congress unanimously vote in support of suspending the constitution entirely.
It’s pretty obvious after the response they will find or manufacture a “legal” reason to start allowing right wingers to attack and kill anyone they don’t like
