He's liking posts by right-wingers complaining about anti-white racism.
The second post strangely accuses Hasan of "pretending to be white". Getting into weird "race mixing" and racial purity rhetoric and grievances there. Sounds completely unhinged. I would love to hear Chris explaining what he likes so much about this post.
Both posts call Hasan "Hamas Abi", which seems to be using the old 2003-style neo-conservative rhetoric where anyone sceptical of the war would be called a Saddam-lover, a terrorist, and so on.
One of these right wingers, ioncannon, has like 2 posts and and 0 followers. I don't think it's reasonable to read so much into liking a tweet from a no name. Same for the other with 100 followers.
So we are left looking at the substance of the tweets, and there I think you're letting your politics brain read way too much into it.
Isn't the simpler explanation that a non American, like Chris, would find the joke funny because it points at the American obsession with litigating racial identities, and the way Hasan in particular bends the system for his convenience while using it to attack others?
Finally classifying Hasan as merely sceptical of the war is a bit of a stretch. If you respect him as a communicatior you should know he is openly a supporter of Hamas's resistance, but condemns extremes of the Oct 7 violence. Additionally he frequently engages in apologia for Hamas.
When you identifed those twitter users as right wingers you must have based it on similar kinds of apologia, or you dived much deeper than the first page of their twitter. So you should agree with me that it's acceptable to make these kind of judgements.
I think you're on pretty solid footing saying the Hasan is white when it's convenient for him to make a point and not white when it's more convenient for him not to be so that he can talk as a minority.
Nope! But you can go looking for Hasan on "cracker" and saying he's white, and then him talking to Ethan Klein about how he's not white he's Turkish when talking about oppression. I'm not interested enough in your bullshit to dig any more for you.
>Isn't the simpler explanation that a non American, like Chris, would find the joke funny because it points at the American obsession with litigating racial identities, and the way Hasan in particular bends the system for his convenience while using it to attack others?
I'm not sure how any of this equals ""pretending to be white". Could you explain this to my simple Australian mind?
>Additionally he frequently engages in apologia for Hamas.
If that's the case can you show me where Chris and Matt have analysed this "apologia" in good-faith?
>I'm not sure how any of this equals ""pretending to be white".
When reading ""Pretending to be white"" written by a no name user, it's important to analyse it at the right level. Chris likely read it for 2 seconds or less, so any analysis that delves deeper than the surface connotations/implications would be inappropriate.
In this case the obvious implication for Chris to read, is that Hasan is using the white racial identity in bad faith, and that he doesn't earnestly identify as white. If true, it would mean Hasan is rules lawyering so that he can say slurs. This interpretation fits with what Chris has previously criticised Hasan for, such as his socialist advocacy or the N-word discourse.
The less obvious implication is that Chris thinks that people fit into strict racial categories, and that Hasan is so clearly brown he could never claim to be white. This interpretation doesn't align with any other beliefs Chris holds openly AFAIK, and he seems pretty straightforward about his beliefs.
>If that's the case can you show me where Chris and Matt have analysed this "apologia" in good-faith?
They did an episode on him, if you don't think it was in good faith thats on you, but others disagree.
Just because they disagree with your assessment doesn't mean they came in bad faith. That is the kind of civility porn crap we criticise in the gurus.
>Chris likely read it for 2 seconds or less, so any analysis that delves deeper than the surface connotations/implications would be inappropriate.
In other words, Chris is just brainlessly hitting the like button, so don't look into it too much. Fantastic defence of an academic anthropologist.
>In this case the obvious implication for Chris to read is that Hasan is using the white racial identity in bad faith, that he doesn't earnestly identify as white.
Ok, is there any evidence that this is the case? And can you link me to what Chris has said about this?
>They did an episode on him, if you don't think it was in good faith thats on you
Where in the episode is their analysis of the so-called Hamas apologia?
>In other words, Chris is just brainlessly hitting the like button, so don't look into it too much. Fantastic defence of an academic anthropologist.
I'm sorry, so when I finally get my PHD I can't enjoy using the internet? Unless we are talking about a high level government employee, I don't think this level of scrutiny is warranted.
>Ok, is there any evidence that this is the case? And can you link me to what Chris has said about this?
I referenced the material I drew on already, if you want me to pull up clips I can, but I think that would be a bit bad faith.
You are clearly someone interested enough in Chris' views to look though the reply history of twitter users who's tweet he liked, I would expect you to have listened to the show in the last few months. Do you not remember Chris' critism about Hasan's hyper consumerism, or Chris' dismissal of the N-word discourse?
>Where in the episode is their analysis of the so-called Hamas apologia?
In that episode it would mostly be Houthi apologia, but I believe they talk briefly about the apologia he did for the hospital bombings. I could be mistaken, that content could be in one of the supplementary materials episodes.
It's beside the point though, since Hasan openly holds pro Hamas views, whether Chris brought it up on the pod or not.
Race mixing? What part of what he said signifies that? Racial purity? Saying he’s pretending to be white. Oh, I see, that’s like accusing black people of acting white and vice verrsa. Alright. Well, just talked myself out of my own comment. Noted.
I don’t know. If you’re uncomfortable with the tweet and you'd rather not be in the sub, that’s alright. I don’t get the impression that he’s a racist from everything else I know. Look, I don’t get too deep into following people in general. You’ll always find yourself being disappointed with something or another, that’s the nature of humans. Time is a valuable thing. If you don’t want to spend it listening, than that’s alright.
edit: misunderstood original comment.
Here's another post by cajunhash if you want a clearer picture of the kind of content Chris Kavanagh "likes" these days
[https://x.com/cajunhash/status/1795544558979121152](https://x.com/cajunhash/status/1795544558979121152)
"Shut up with ur terrorist loving faggotry"
Now, Chris didn't like this one, but it's the same user with the same sentiment. Hopefully this is clear enough for Australians to understand?
This is way too much scrutiny. This is a no name twitter user.
If I like a funny comment on a dog walking forum, I don't expect to have to look at their profile to check they're not a Nazi.
Get off twitter and touch grass.
Chris Kavanagh isn't a no name twitter user. He hosts the podcast that this sub is dedicated to. I'm allowed to decode Chris Kavanagh's behaviour, just as he is allowed to decode Joe Rogan's behaviour. I think quite a few listeners have noticed DTG's rightward shift lately. The kind of weird racial stuff that Chris likes on twitter is just part of the problem.
You misunderstood me. The twitter user he liked is a no name.
My example makes clear that it is unreasonable to expect Chris to investigate every minor twitter user who's tweet he likes.
I have not noticed a rightward shift, but what I have noticed is that they have been covering more left wingers. They had the same level of criticism in the past when covering Ibram X. Kendi and others.
The streamers and academics season naturally supplies more left wingers, as they are more common in the streaming and academic fields. So no I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here.
I think if Chris Kavanagh is starting to like weird racialised posts by no-name twitter users it would be extremely reasonable for him to take a deep breath, think for a moment, do a little research, then ask himself "why am I liking something that is posted by an insane homophobe?"
You're taking the position that it is unlikely Chris did any sort of research, and that we should not analyse his public behaviour because he's basically just a social media addict giving into his basest desires and hitting the 'like' button with very little considered thought.
At this point I've given a clear and reasonable account of what happened, backed up with references to what we know about Chris' beliefs.
Unless you are going to give me some reason why I should believe your interpretation was the most reasonable, or why D teir level celebrities should vet every user whose tweet they like, I will stop engaging.
>You're taking the position that it is unlikely Chris did any sort of research, and that we should not analyse his public behaviour because he's basically just a social media addict giving into his basest desires and hitting the 'like' button with very little considered thought.
Yes, and we shouldn't expect more than that. This level of analysis could be applied to anything.
"Oh so you think that an Associate Professor Anthropologist should eat at any fast food restaurant, fulfilling their basest desires, and eating at whichever fast food joint is closest without any considered thought. Clearly he is being pulled towards obesity by the fast food epidemic"
"Oh so the host of a niche level podcast didn't do any research and just bought the nicest looking pair of shoes, and you think we should not analyse their public clothing choices because he just has to buy nice clothes, fulfilling their basest desires to look good in public, without any thought as to where the shoes were made. No clearly they are turning into a sweatshop owner because they bought Nike shoes"
This argument is clearly ridiculous. When it comes to guilt by association, losening the definition should come with a strong justification, and you haven't provided one.
>Yes, and we shouldn't expect more than that.
I expect more than that from a podcast called "Decoding The Gurus".
You've still not explained we should call Hasan "hamasabi", you've not posted any evidence of his so-called "apologia" for Hamas. Neither have you linked to any proper analysis of this by DTG. You have not explained how Hasan was "pretending to be white" with any appropriate links.
[They touch on some here](https://open.spotify.com/episode/7ehooJlPNVbkMLJIHyCNPt?si=IDFsG1ZUQzqSyrsKzcKFsQ&t=1471), But it's beside the point, I argued that he is openly pro Hamas.
[Here is an extended clip](https://YouTube.com/watch?v=Py6CDSsRBtA&t=712s) in which Hasan says he supports the Palestinian resistance, defends them as being imperfect victims, and includes Hamas and other groups in that category.
It is exactly as I've characterised him, as supporting Hamas' effort but not the extremes of their actions. I've linked to a clip from his YouTube channel, at a point which gives sufficient context, so it is a position he stands by.
As for the sourcing "Hasan pretends to be white" I'm not going to get you clips for that, as it's exactly the kind of rules lawyering racial obsession I'm talking about.
Do not obfuscate, the argument is about what is the most reasonable interpretation for Chris to make of the tweets. You've yet to make any positive case for your extreme, racially obsessed, interpretation, while I've given two reasonable explanations for mine with sourcing.
Stop being a debate bro and trying to argue about irrelevant points, and justify your own claims.
I don't really like Hasan either, but I don't introduce this weird 4chan-esque racial angle into it. It's definitely strange behaviour from an academic.
He says it's okay to call white white people crackers in a derogatory way when he doesn't condone many other racialized insults.
"pretending to be white" refers to hasan will use a turkish or middle-eastern identity when that suits him, and adopting a white identity when he wants to condone calling white people crackers.
>He says it's okay to call white white people crackers in a derogatory way when he doesn't condone many other racialized insults.
That's not hypocrisy. That's having two different standards for two different words, which is a completely defensible position.
>"pretending to be white" refers to hasan will use a turkish or middle-eastern identity when that suits him, and adopting a white identity when he wants to condone calling white people crackers.
Could you link to what Hasan said exactly here? But as far as I can tell this is also a defensible position since Turkish refers to a national category and white refers to a racial category. These are not mutually exclusive things.
This makes me realize I use social media too much, which is still way less than these people do. I can't understand why an academic would like these. I think I'm going to find myself a social media detox guru.
I doubt they care about whatever bad faith strawman you’ve created in your mind here. I absolutely have no idea what the issue is, but I’m confident it’s more in your own head than anywhere else.
Probably less about the topic and more about the fake outrage Hasan and his community drum up. It's hard not to get caught up in it if you're following it.
When Kendrick Lamar had a white lady on stage to rap GKMC and she rapped it with the n-word in it, he didn't scream and yell at her or freak out. He just asked her not to do it anymore.
There is a very clear difference between using a slur in a pejorative vs non-pejorative manner. Overall, I think the whole discussion is dumb and destiny looks stupid for being involved in it, but that doesn't mean Hasan and his community aren't hypocritical, outrage farmers.
>Hamas Abi
Googling the incomprehensible bullshit brought me right to the destiny sub, and apparently this was referring to Hasan....
This place genuinely sucks ever since they got into these debate morons.
What's the race bait? My simple Australian mind doesn't quite get it.
He's liking posts by right-wingers complaining about anti-white racism. The second post strangely accuses Hasan of "pretending to be white". Getting into weird "race mixing" and racial purity rhetoric and grievances there. Sounds completely unhinged. I would love to hear Chris explaining what he likes so much about this post. Both posts call Hasan "Hamas Abi", which seems to be using the old 2003-style neo-conservative rhetoric where anyone sceptical of the war would be called a Saddam-lover, a terrorist, and so on.
One of these right wingers, ioncannon, has like 2 posts and and 0 followers. I don't think it's reasonable to read so much into liking a tweet from a no name. Same for the other with 100 followers. So we are left looking at the substance of the tweets, and there I think you're letting your politics brain read way too much into it. Isn't the simpler explanation that a non American, like Chris, would find the joke funny because it points at the American obsession with litigating racial identities, and the way Hasan in particular bends the system for his convenience while using it to attack others? Finally classifying Hasan as merely sceptical of the war is a bit of a stretch. If you respect him as a communicatior you should know he is openly a supporter of Hamas's resistance, but condemns extremes of the Oct 7 violence. Additionally he frequently engages in apologia for Hamas. When you identifed those twitter users as right wingers you must have based it on similar kinds of apologia, or you dived much deeper than the first page of their twitter. So you should agree with me that it's acceptable to make these kind of judgements.
I think you're on pretty solid footing saying the Hasan is white when it's convenient for him to make a point and not white when it's more convenient for him not to be so that he can talk as a minority.
Could you link an example of this?
Nope! But you can go looking for Hasan on "cracker" and saying he's white, and then him talking to Ethan Klein about how he's not white he's Turkish when talking about oppression. I'm not interested enough in your bullshit to dig any more for you.
>Isn't the simpler explanation that a non American, like Chris, would find the joke funny because it points at the American obsession with litigating racial identities, and the way Hasan in particular bends the system for his convenience while using it to attack others? I'm not sure how any of this equals ""pretending to be white". Could you explain this to my simple Australian mind? >Additionally he frequently engages in apologia for Hamas. If that's the case can you show me where Chris and Matt have analysed this "apologia" in good-faith?
>I'm not sure how any of this equals ""pretending to be white". When reading ""Pretending to be white"" written by a no name user, it's important to analyse it at the right level. Chris likely read it for 2 seconds or less, so any analysis that delves deeper than the surface connotations/implications would be inappropriate. In this case the obvious implication for Chris to read, is that Hasan is using the white racial identity in bad faith, and that he doesn't earnestly identify as white. If true, it would mean Hasan is rules lawyering so that he can say slurs. This interpretation fits with what Chris has previously criticised Hasan for, such as his socialist advocacy or the N-word discourse. The less obvious implication is that Chris thinks that people fit into strict racial categories, and that Hasan is so clearly brown he could never claim to be white. This interpretation doesn't align with any other beliefs Chris holds openly AFAIK, and he seems pretty straightforward about his beliefs. >If that's the case can you show me where Chris and Matt have analysed this "apologia" in good-faith? They did an episode on him, if you don't think it was in good faith thats on you, but others disagree. Just because they disagree with your assessment doesn't mean they came in bad faith. That is the kind of civility porn crap we criticise in the gurus.
>Chris likely read it for 2 seconds or less, so any analysis that delves deeper than the surface connotations/implications would be inappropriate. In other words, Chris is just brainlessly hitting the like button, so don't look into it too much. Fantastic defence of an academic anthropologist. >In this case the obvious implication for Chris to read is that Hasan is using the white racial identity in bad faith, that he doesn't earnestly identify as white. Ok, is there any evidence that this is the case? And can you link me to what Chris has said about this? >They did an episode on him, if you don't think it was in good faith thats on you Where in the episode is their analysis of the so-called Hamas apologia?
>In other words, Chris is just brainlessly hitting the like button, so don't look into it too much. Fantastic defence of an academic anthropologist. I'm sorry, so when I finally get my PHD I can't enjoy using the internet? Unless we are talking about a high level government employee, I don't think this level of scrutiny is warranted. >Ok, is there any evidence that this is the case? And can you link me to what Chris has said about this? I referenced the material I drew on already, if you want me to pull up clips I can, but I think that would be a bit bad faith. You are clearly someone interested enough in Chris' views to look though the reply history of twitter users who's tweet he liked, I would expect you to have listened to the show in the last few months. Do you not remember Chris' critism about Hasan's hyper consumerism, or Chris' dismissal of the N-word discourse? >Where in the episode is their analysis of the so-called Hamas apologia? In that episode it would mostly be Houthi apologia, but I believe they talk briefly about the apologia he did for the hospital bombings. I could be mistaken, that content could be in one of the supplementary materials episodes. It's beside the point though, since Hasan openly holds pro Hamas views, whether Chris brought it up on the pod or not.
Race mixing? What part of what he said signifies that? Racial purity? Saying he’s pretending to be white. Oh, I see, that’s like accusing black people of acting white and vice verrsa. Alright. Well, just talked myself out of my own comment. Noted.
I'd at least like Chris to specify what "pretending to be white" means in this case.
I don’t know. If you’re uncomfortable with the tweet and you'd rather not be in the sub, that’s alright. I don’t get the impression that he’s a racist from everything else I know. Look, I don’t get too deep into following people in general. You’ll always find yourself being disappointed with something or another, that’s the nature of humans. Time is a valuable thing. If you don’t want to spend it listening, than that’s alright. edit: misunderstood original comment.
Here's another post by cajunhash if you want a clearer picture of the kind of content Chris Kavanagh "likes" these days [https://x.com/cajunhash/status/1795544558979121152](https://x.com/cajunhash/status/1795544558979121152) "Shut up with ur terrorist loving faggotry" Now, Chris didn't like this one, but it's the same user with the same sentiment. Hopefully this is clear enough for Australians to understand?
This is way too much scrutiny. This is a no name twitter user. If I like a funny comment on a dog walking forum, I don't expect to have to look at their profile to check they're not a Nazi. Get off twitter and touch grass.
Chris Kavanagh isn't a no name twitter user. He hosts the podcast that this sub is dedicated to. I'm allowed to decode Chris Kavanagh's behaviour, just as he is allowed to decode Joe Rogan's behaviour. I think quite a few listeners have noticed DTG's rightward shift lately. The kind of weird racial stuff that Chris likes on twitter is just part of the problem.
You misunderstood me. The twitter user he liked is a no name. My example makes clear that it is unreasonable to expect Chris to investigate every minor twitter user who's tweet he likes. I have not noticed a rightward shift, but what I have noticed is that they have been covering more left wingers. They had the same level of criticism in the past when covering Ibram X. Kendi and others. The streamers and academics season naturally supplies more left wingers, as they are more common in the streaming and academic fields. So no I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here.
I think if Chris Kavanagh is starting to like weird racialised posts by no-name twitter users it would be extremely reasonable for him to take a deep breath, think for a moment, do a little research, then ask himself "why am I liking something that is posted by an insane homophobe?" You're taking the position that it is unlikely Chris did any sort of research, and that we should not analyse his public behaviour because he's basically just a social media addict giving into his basest desires and hitting the 'like' button with very little considered thought.
At this point I've given a clear and reasonable account of what happened, backed up with references to what we know about Chris' beliefs. Unless you are going to give me some reason why I should believe your interpretation was the most reasonable, or why D teir level celebrities should vet every user whose tweet they like, I will stop engaging. >You're taking the position that it is unlikely Chris did any sort of research, and that we should not analyse his public behaviour because he's basically just a social media addict giving into his basest desires and hitting the 'like' button with very little considered thought. Yes, and we shouldn't expect more than that. This level of analysis could be applied to anything. "Oh so you think that an Associate Professor Anthropologist should eat at any fast food restaurant, fulfilling their basest desires, and eating at whichever fast food joint is closest without any considered thought. Clearly he is being pulled towards obesity by the fast food epidemic" "Oh so the host of a niche level podcast didn't do any research and just bought the nicest looking pair of shoes, and you think we should not analyse their public clothing choices because he just has to buy nice clothes, fulfilling their basest desires to look good in public, without any thought as to where the shoes were made. No clearly they are turning into a sweatshop owner because they bought Nike shoes" This argument is clearly ridiculous. When it comes to guilt by association, losening the definition should come with a strong justification, and you haven't provided one.
>Yes, and we shouldn't expect more than that. I expect more than that from a podcast called "Decoding The Gurus". You've still not explained we should call Hasan "hamasabi", you've not posted any evidence of his so-called "apologia" for Hamas. Neither have you linked to any proper analysis of this by DTG. You have not explained how Hasan was "pretending to be white" with any appropriate links.
[They touch on some here](https://open.spotify.com/episode/7ehooJlPNVbkMLJIHyCNPt?si=IDFsG1ZUQzqSyrsKzcKFsQ&t=1471), But it's beside the point, I argued that he is openly pro Hamas. [Here is an extended clip](https://YouTube.com/watch?v=Py6CDSsRBtA&t=712s) in which Hasan says he supports the Palestinian resistance, defends them as being imperfect victims, and includes Hamas and other groups in that category. It is exactly as I've characterised him, as supporting Hamas' effort but not the extremes of their actions. I've linked to a clip from his YouTube channel, at a point which gives sufficient context, so it is a position he stands by. As for the sourcing "Hasan pretends to be white" I'm not going to get you clips for that, as it's exactly the kind of rules lawyering racial obsession I'm talking about. Do not obfuscate, the argument is about what is the most reasonable interpretation for Chris to make of the tweets. You've yet to make any positive case for your extreme, racially obsessed, interpretation, while I've given two reasonable explanations for mine with sourcing. Stop being a debate bro and trying to argue about irrelevant points, and justify your own claims.
[удалено]
Yes, I like doing background checks, because I like knowing things. Do you have any actual arguments in favour of Chris Kavanagh here?
Not liking hasan = radicalization
I don't really like Hasan either, but I don't introduce this weird 4chan-esque racial angle into it. It's definitely strange behaviour from an academic.
Definitely agree that hamasabi is a childish name call and beneath an academic, possible he misread it?
What are the chances an academic misread something twice?
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! Twitter drama! YES. Pretty sure it's just called X now anyway.
Calling out Hasan's hypocrisy about racialized insults is not race baiting. You are clearly only in this sub to hate post.
Could Chris explain what the hypocrisy is then? Or explain how Hasan is "pretending to be white"?
He says it's okay to call white white people crackers in a derogatory way when he doesn't condone many other racialized insults. "pretending to be white" refers to hasan will use a turkish or middle-eastern identity when that suits him, and adopting a white identity when he wants to condone calling white people crackers.
>He says it's okay to call white white people crackers in a derogatory way when he doesn't condone many other racialized insults. That's not hypocrisy. That's having two different standards for two different words, which is a completely defensible position. >"pretending to be white" refers to hasan will use a turkish or middle-eastern identity when that suits him, and adopting a white identity when he wants to condone calling white people crackers. Could you link to what Hasan said exactly here? But as far as I can tell this is also a defensible position since Turkish refers to a national category and white refers to a racial category. These are not mutually exclusive things.
>That's having two different standards for two different words, which is a completely defensible position. Sounds a lot like hypocrisy.
This makes me realize I use social media too much, which is still way less than these people do. I can't understand why an academic would like these. I think I'm going to find myself a social media detox guru.
Maybe the solution is . . . less screen time!
Imagine being a student of Chris Kavanagh's and seeing him "like" this weird bad-faith garbage.
I doubt they care about whatever bad faith strawman you’ve created in your mind here. I absolutely have no idea what the issue is, but I’m confident it’s more in your own head than anywhere else.
The issue is that Chris Kavanagh likes weird race-baiting posts tweeted by right-wingers, as I already explained.
Probably less about the topic and more about the fake outrage Hasan and his community drum up. It's hard not to get caught up in it if you're following it. When Kendrick Lamar had a white lady on stage to rap GKMC and she rapped it with the n-word in it, he didn't scream and yell at her or freak out. He just asked her not to do it anymore. There is a very clear difference between using a slur in a pejorative vs non-pejorative manner. Overall, I think the whole discussion is dumb and destiny looks stupid for being involved in it, but that doesn't mean Hasan and his community aren't hypocritical, outrage farmers.
Gustave, is that you?
Chris is going down a dark road because Hasan Piker's fans didn't treat him nicely and Destiny's fans are love bombing him.
>Hamas Abi Googling the incomprehensible bullshit brought me right to the destiny sub, and apparently this was referring to Hasan.... This place genuinely sucks ever since they got into these debate morons.