Would you consider Obama more radical as well then since he normalized the idea of single payer healthcare? Sure his ideas are lesser but he’s definitely had a larger reach than just about anyone here ever will and the healthcare system is one of the most damaging ones within the country to the working class.
Single-payer healthcare (radicalism) + reach (hundreds of millions of viewers) = more radical than forum users.
Single-payer healthcare isn’t radical, pro-Palestine politics is, especially in the US
So, YES, Hasan being the loudest anti-genocide voice in American media and becoming the number one target of aipac and Bibi’s lawyer does in fact make him more radical than a collection of ML forum users, who by the way were still debating a burning Israeli flag two years into the genocide, meanwhile Hasan is interviewing genocide survivors and Flotilla members
It’s genuinely wild I have to spell this shit out, material reality trumps your hypotheticals, the streamer has you beat, take the L, it’s not a contest anyway
It’s genuinely wild I have to spell this shit out,
It’s genuinely wild people have to spell out the definition including common use of the word radical to you, but instead of listen you insist on making up some bullshit argument in your head between materialism and idealism. True Anon also interviewed Sumud Flotilla survivors before and after their attempt to bring aid. Where do Brace Belden and Liz Franczak fit on your little “true radicals have reach while fake idealist not-radicals only house and feed a few homeless people at a time” spectrum?
It’s genuinely wild people have to spell out the definition including common use of the word radical to you
Nobody is talking about definitions, your side is upset at some “conflation” I made concerning pro-Palestine radicalism and Hasan’s reach and how that makes his radicalism more meaningful and impactful than forum users typing shit out, try to keep up with the thread
“true radicals have reach while fake idealist not-radicals only house and feed a few homeless people at a time” spectrum?
Oh, there it is, you just don’t know how to read, yeah sure, I critique someone’s over-the-top and unrealistic social expectations and suddenly that means I hate homeless people and I want them to die
Pipe down, and keep your disingenuous accusations to yourself
Pipe down, and keep your disingenuous accusations to yourself
Says the ignorant loudmouth who doesn’t understand the very basic leftist concept of radicalism but can’t stop shouting at everyone in caps how a progressive liberal streamer is more radical than unnamed indigenous MLs protecting people from ICE in the streets because the streamer is rich enough to get more people to listen to him. I can’t believe this isn’t just a really bad bit and that you’re actually serious.
I critique someone’s over-the-top and unrealistic social expectations
A critique is when you tell someone who is housing and feeding homeless people that they aren’t as radical as an internet personality Kamala Harris supporter because of “reach”
because the streamer is rich enough to get more people to listen to him
That’s why I told you to pipe down, you don’t know how to read, I didn’t say Hasan is radical because he’s rich you dogpiling dipshit; I said he’s more radical than loudmouth FORUM USERS because of his pro-Palestinian advocacy, he raised millions for Palestine, you didn’t do shit, he interviewed genocide survivors, you didn’t do shit, he platformed Samud flotilla organizers, and you just talk shit, and you want to accuse me of doing bits lmao? While you sit there trashing the loudest American voice for Palestine
So yes, that rich ass streamer is more radical than you, because radicalism requires actual praxis you ignorant assholes, and praxis has a firm relationship with reach and scale, that’s my point
Keep pretending talking on a fourm is real politics, I’m sure that’s how the revolution comes about
Single payer healthcare is radical, both in the fact that it is an extreme divergence from current policy and thus would constitute an extreme change as well as it aims at a problem close to the source.
Those are the conditions in material reality and that is what radical means.
Also, where did I say that Hasan isn’t more radical than people here? you’re putting words in my mouth. I just have problems with the work you’ve shown, not necessarily your conclusion. My hypothetical is because according to the work you’ve given, Obama would also have to be more radical as well as Hasan as what you’ve said repeatedly has batted away the idea that the ratio of conviction to reach matters in any way.
If you had just kept it pithy and said “Hasan is more radical than the people on this site,” I likely would’ve snorted, liked it, and moved on.
Edit: I actually hadn’t said anything about him yet so far, would you feel better about me questioning the formation of your argument if I say something nice about Hasan during each comment? I have no issues doing that if you cut out the weird snideness in your comments.
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
The state is cracking down on Pro-Palestinian advocates, almost like pro-Palestine politics IS RADICAL, hence my original comment
Also what “work” are you talking about, I’ve literally wedded my usage of the word radical to pro-Palestine politics for this thread, nobody can disagree pro-Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism, but I guess that’s wild “conflation” beyond the pale and I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
I am and just because something is radical doesn’t mean it invites state crackdown. Ultras are more radical than us all and the state won’t crackdown on them because they’re fucking idiots. You haven’t had to spell anything out to me as none of your spelling out has been relevant to what I said.
Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I didn’t disagree, actually if you read what I said I explicitly agreed on that.
Also what “work” are you talking about
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
Again, I explicitly agreed with this premise, if someone else disagreed take it up with them.
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism
That part I didn’t have issue with. Again, I agreed. I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them. Y’know, as I previously said if you read what I said.
I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
??? Huh? I don’t have any opinions on your opinions on the homeless… I’ve never considered how you feel about the homeless before, I presume you want the best for them?
Edit: Conflation is what brings about opportunism, even if you yourself simply misused it and have proper understanding, as you mentioned with the repeated struggle sessions over not burning the fucking Zionist entities flag there are obviously people that susceptible. Such a type would see that and feel what you stated as written feels intuitive correct and would use that as some litmus test which while it sometimes works I feel would lead to all types of opportunists passing as well which was my sole is.
I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them
Except I did make consideration of the makeup, hence the fact I specified “Pro-Palestine politics” from the start and throughout the thread, YOU’RE the one who changed the makeup to fuckin Obamacare, and asked me “is Obama radical?”
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
Yes, if you change the formula you’re gonna get a different answer, good thing I didn’t just say radicalism without any qualification and specified from the beginning, but that didn’t matter three comments ago, because we had to dunk even tho the dunk didn’t make any sense
Yes you said pro-palestine politics with the loudest and most visible voice.
Everyone on this site is pro-palestine (dubiously with some of the shit I see but I digress) thus making it seem that radicalism is more with a bigger reach.
And typically when doing word equivalency equations, the core component is that in the parenthesis and the part on the outside is treated as instantaneous not as qualitative so I read it that way as well as the fact you’ve reference the radicalization separately:
radicaliztion and the normalization of pro-Palestinian politics
So you’ve mentioned it in an instantaneous way that makes it seem like the form of radicalization is instance based for what you were saying.
I’m not dunking on you and was seeking clarification because I’ve seen an opportunist suspectable bent on this site and thought your statement had room for those susceptible to misinterpret. I don’t know what your problem with me is, but I thank you for sufficiently clarifying.
Like I said in another comment to another user, One’s expression of radicalism is often ELEVATED by one’s reach, and one’s reach can be defined by one’s radicalism, that’s been my point from the start, far from being “unrelated” or even “equivalent” they interact with each other
Reach helps with the radicalization of other people, one’s personal radicalism can define HOW you use your reach, this describes Hasan Piker perfectly, I’m not saying radicalism and reach are the same thing
I’m been saying they can be linked, they can have a relationship, radicalism without any degree of reach is simply someone talking to themself, it’s still radical, but it’s not useful is it?
I’m pointing at an interaction between two things and the resulting utility and making a comparison, frankly I’m shocked how this went over so many people’s heads
I’m at work and responding from my inbox not the thread so if you addressed this somewhere else I haven’t seen it and I’m sorry if you’ve had to repeat yourself because of that.
Would you consider Obama more radical as well then since he normalized the idea of single payer healthcare? Sure his ideas are lesser but he’s definitely had a larger reach than just about anyone here ever will and the healthcare system is one of the most damaging ones within the country to the working class.
Single-payer healthcare (radicalism) + reach (hundreds of millions of viewers) = more radical than forum users.
Single-payer healthcare isn’t radical, pro-Palestine politics is, especially in the US
So, YES, Hasan being the loudest anti-genocide voice in American media and becoming the number one target of aipac and Bibi’s lawyer does in fact make him more radical than a collection of ML forum users, who by the way were still debating a burning Israeli flag two years into the genocide, meanwhile Hasan is interviewing genocide survivors and Flotilla members
It’s genuinely wild I have to spell this shit out, material reality trumps your hypotheticals, the streamer has you beat, take the L, it’s not a contest anyway
It’s genuinely wild people have to spell out the definition including common use of the word radical to you, but instead of listen you insist on making up some bullshit argument in your head between materialism and idealism. True Anon also interviewed Sumud Flotilla survivors before and after their attempt to bring aid. Where do Brace Belden and Liz Franczak fit on your little “true radicals have reach while fake idealist not-radicals only house and feed a few homeless people at a time” spectrum?
Nobody is talking about definitions, your side is upset at some “conflation” I made concerning pro-Palestine radicalism and Hasan’s reach and how that makes his radicalism more meaningful and impactful than forum users typing shit out, try to keep up with the thread
Oh, there it is, you just don’t know how to read, yeah sure, I critique someone’s over-the-top and unrealistic social expectations and suddenly that means I hate homeless people and I want them to die
Pipe down, and keep your disingenuous accusations to yourself
Says the ignorant loudmouth who doesn’t understand the very basic leftist concept of radicalism but can’t stop shouting at everyone in caps how a progressive liberal streamer is more radical than unnamed indigenous MLs protecting people from ICE in the streets because the streamer is rich enough to get more people to listen to him. I can’t believe this isn’t just a really bad bit and that you’re actually serious.
A critique is when you tell someone who is housing and feeding homeless people that they aren’t as radical as an internet personality Kamala Harris supporter because of “reach”
That’s why I told you to pipe down, you don’t know how to read, I didn’t say Hasan is radical because he’s rich you dogpiling dipshit; I said he’s more radical than loudmouth FORUM USERS because of his pro-Palestinian advocacy, he raised millions for Palestine, you didn’t do shit, he interviewed genocide survivors, you didn’t do shit, he platformed Samud flotilla organizers, and you just talk shit, and you want to accuse me of doing bits lmao? While you sit there trashing the loudest American voice for Palestine
So yes, that rich ass streamer is more radical than you, because radicalism requires actual praxis you ignorant assholes, and praxis has a firm relationship with reach and scale, that’s my point
Keep pretending talking on a fourm is real politics, I’m sure that’s how the revolution comes about
Single payer healthcare is radical, both in the fact that it is an extreme divergence from current policy and thus would constitute an extreme change as well as it aims at a problem close to the source.
Those are the conditions in material reality and that is what radical means.
Also, where did I say that Hasan isn’t more radical than people here? you’re putting words in my mouth. I just have problems with the work you’ve shown, not necessarily your conclusion. My hypothetical is because according to the work you’ve given, Obama would also have to be more radical as well as Hasan as what you’ve said repeatedly has batted away the idea that the ratio of conviction to reach matters in any way.
If you had just kept it pithy and said “Hasan is more radical than the people on this site,” I likely would’ve snorted, liked it, and moved on.
Edit: I actually hadn’t said anything about him yet so far, would you feel better about me questioning the formation of your argument if I say something nice about Hasan during each comment? I have no issues doing that if you cut out the weird snideness in your comments.
You can claim it’s “radical” all you want, the state is not cracking down on people pushing Obamacare, again wild I have to spell this out
The state is cracking down on Pro-Palestinian advocates, almost like pro-Palestine politics IS RADICAL, hence my original comment
Also what “work” are you talking about, I’ve literally wedded my usage of the word radical to pro-Palestine politics for this thread, nobody can disagree pro-Palestine politics IS radical, but apparently the issue is me pointing out Hasan’s reach makes that radicalism (pro-Palestine politics) more meaningful than whatever the fuck this forum is doing right now
I said his reach would be meaningless WITHOUT the accompanying radicalism, but I guess that’s wild “conflation” beyond the pale and I apparently also hate homeless people now lmao
I am and just because something is radical doesn’t mean it invites state crackdown. Ultras are more radical than us all and the state won’t crackdown on them because they’re fucking idiots. You haven’t had to spell anything out to me as none of your spelling out has been relevant to what I said.
I didn’t disagree, actually if you read what I said I explicitly agreed on that.
Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users
Again, I explicitly agreed with this premise, if someone else disagreed take it up with them.
That part I didn’t have issue with. Again, I agreed. I had issues with you saying we need to conflate the two without consideration of the makeup of them. Y’know, as I previously said if you read what I said.
??? Huh? I don’t have any opinions on your opinions on the homeless… I’ve never considered how you feel about the homeless before, I presume you want the best for them?
Edit: Conflation is what brings about opportunism, even if you yourself simply misused it and have proper understanding, as you mentioned with the repeated struggle sessions over not burning the fucking Zionist entities flag there are obviously people that susceptible. Such a type would see that and feel what you stated as written feels intuitive correct and would use that as some litmus test which while it sometimes works I feel would lead to all types of opportunists passing as well which was my sole is.
I think otherwise you’re correct.
Except I did make consideration of the makeup, hence the fact I specified “Pro-Palestine politics” from the start and throughout the thread, YOU’RE the one who changed the makeup to fuckin Obamacare, and asked me “is Obama radical?”
Yes, if you change the formula you’re gonna get a different answer, good thing I didn’t just say radicalism without any qualification and specified from the beginning, but that didn’t matter three comments ago, because we had to dunk even tho the dunk didn’t make any sense
Yes you said pro-palestine politics with the loudest and most visible voice.
Everyone on this site is pro-palestine (dubiously with some of the shit I see but I digress) thus making it seem that radicalism is more with a bigger reach.
And typically when doing word equivalency equations, the core component is that in the parenthesis and the part on the outside is treated as instantaneous not as qualitative so I read it that way as well as the fact you’ve reference the radicalization separately:
So you’ve mentioned it in an instantaneous way that makes it seem like the form of radicalization is instance based for what you were saying.
I’m not dunking on you and was seeking clarification because I’ve seen an opportunist suspectable bent on this site and thought your statement had room for those susceptible to misinterpret. I don’t know what your problem with me is, but I thank you for sufficiently clarifying.
Like I said in another comment to another user, One’s expression of radicalism is often ELEVATED by one’s reach, and one’s reach can be defined by one’s radicalism, that’s been my point from the start, far from being “unrelated” or even “equivalent” they interact with each other
Reach helps with the radicalization of other people, one’s personal radicalism can define HOW you use your reach, this describes Hasan Piker perfectly, I’m not saying radicalism and reach are the same thing
I’m been saying they can be linked, they can have a relationship, radicalism without any degree of reach is simply someone talking to themself, it’s still radical, but it’s not useful is it?
I’m pointing at an interaction between two things and the resulting utility and making a comparison, frankly I’m shocked how this went over so many people’s heads
I’m at work and responding from my inbox not the thread so if you addressed this somewhere else I haven’t seen it and I’m sorry if you’ve had to repeat yourself because of that.
This comment I fully agree with.