4 ms·

> Hasan Piker for example, the #1 politics streamer on Twitch, is quite far left and is much more pro-Russia than say CNN. I don't think Hasan is even remotely

> Hasan Piker for example, the #1 politics streamer on Twitch, is quite far left and is much more pro-Russia than say CNN. I don't think Hasan is even remotely pro-Russia. What makes you say that?

lalaland1125 5y ago
Hasan talks on his show about how he thinks Russia was right to annex Crimea: https://clips.twitch.tv/ElegantTemperedApplePicoMause-VCY99fPs8hKewayQ https://clips.twitch.tv/ElegantTemperedApplePicoMause-VCY99f...
- Miner49er 5y ago
  But he also used his stream to raise $200k for Ukranian relief efforts.
  - ffwszgf 5y ago
    I mean his is the quintessential “both-sides” take that pushes (younger) people to be “unsure” about who they support, no? Russia is bad, but so is Ukraine and NATO, too. Russia is bad but Ukraine does have a Nazi problem. People like him are probably the greatest contributors to the large amount of Gen Z who are unsure as to who they support.
    - idiotsecant 5y ago
      Yes, in real life the truth is often that all participants in a conflict have morally ambiguous motivations and do bad things when they think they can get away with it. It's OK to acknowledge that while also acknowledging that in a certain narrowly focused issue one side is less wrong and one side is more wrong. If you're arguing that young people should accept that Russia (which is already a complicated concept) is universally Bad and the western friendly powers (another nearly uselessly complicated concept) are universally Good then you're arguing for a false view of reality. Give the public a little credit, they can tolerate a little bit of moral ambiguity and still make a reasonable decision of right and wrong.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        To middle-class retirees in the US, this is literally sedition and you are a Russian asset.
- nicholasnorris 5y ago
  I don't think this particular clip shows a strong support for the Russian Federation in general. He seems to be saying that a majority of the people of Crimea want to be a part of Russia, having been more tied to Russia proper historically than any independent Ukraine, and they were able to make that switch without much violence.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    It completely ignores the context (which you would see in more mainstream sources) for why most people see that annexation as unethical. In particular, the lack of a "status quo" option for Crimea (the referendum only had two options, go independent or join Russia) and the lack of international observers (OSCE observers currently in the Crimea were asked to leave by the Russian authorities in the area) made the whole thing iffy from the get go. And that's not even getting into the fraud allegations ...
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      That's definitely true. However, it's not really arguable that a majority or close to a majority of Crimea was moreso favourable to joining Russia than staying in an anti-Russia version of Ukraine. Independent polls confirm this : https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/?sh=46e2863a510d https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a... There was no status-quo option because at the time, according to the dominant legal opinion (as in, backed by force), Crimea had already seceded from Ukraine. To consider the status quo that Crimea was part of Ukraine would undermine the legal basis for a referendum without assent from Kyiv, which is why it was not included. It's for sure bullshit to the moral level, but it couldn't have been done differently while still being a referendum on joining Russia. They could have done a referendum on returning to Ukraine, I guess.
    - nicholasnorris 5y ago
      To be fair, it is a tiny clip of an off-hand response; hard to compare to focused articles and segments on the topic. I can see the criticism of piecing together an opinion from a bunch of off-hand comments vs fully expressed arguments. It might be better to compare a full discussion on the specific topic from the criticized party to the lauded one. One problem with many mainstream outlets is that they are often give free passes to organizations like OSCE. For example, the OAS, an organization that serves a similar watchdog position in the Americas, completely bungled their duties in recent Bolivian elections. So much so, that they helped legitimize a violent far-right coup in 2019.
- chmod775 5y ago
  He does not say "Russia was right", he said the annexation was justifiable and clearly not justifiable as in "right" but as in "defensible". Saying he is "pro-Russia" is a big claim, because you're saying their position on Russia's action are overwhelmingly one of agreement. In that clip he appears to call Russia's actions defensible (which is not the same as agreement) on the Crimea issue, while being unclear but likely opposed on the Donbas issue. Also given that many people are capable of more nuance than blindly supporting or opposing a country on every issue, you might as well be calling them a simpleton.

> Hasan Piker for example, the #1 politics streamer on Twitch, is quite far left and is much more pro-Russia than say CNN. I don't think Hasan is even remotely pro-Russia. What makes you say that?

lalaland1125 5y ago

Hasan talks on his show about how he thinks Russia was right to annex Crimea: https://clips.twitch.tv/ElegantTemperedApplePicoMause-VCY99fPs8hKewayQ https://clips.twitch.tv/ElegantTemperedApplePicoMause-VCY99f...

Miner49er 5y ago
But he also used his stream to raise $200k for Ukranian relief efforts.
- ffwszgf 5y ago
  I mean his is the quintessential “both-sides” take that pushes (younger) people to be “unsure” about who they support, no? Russia is bad, but so is Ukraine and NATO, too. Russia is bad but Ukraine does have a Nazi problem. People like him are probably the greatest contributors to the large amount of Gen Z who are unsure as to who they support.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    Yes, in real life the truth is often that all participants in a conflict have morally ambiguous motivations and do bad things when they think they can get away with it. It's OK to acknowledge that while also acknowledging that in a certain narrowly focused issue one side is less wrong and one side is more wrong. If you're arguing that young people should accept that Russia (which is already a complicated concept) is universally Bad and the western friendly powers (another nearly uselessly complicated concept) are universally Good then you're arguing for a false view of reality. Give the public a little credit, they can tolerate a little bit of moral ambiguity and still make a reasonable decision of right and wrong.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      To middle-class retirees in the US, this is literally sedition and you are a Russian asset.
nicholasnorris 5y ago
I don't think this particular clip shows a strong support for the Russian Federation in general. He seems to be saying that a majority of the people of Crimea want to be a part of Russia, having been more tied to Russia proper historically than any independent Ukraine, and they were able to make that switch without much violence.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  It completely ignores the context (which you would see in more mainstream sources) for why most people see that annexation as unethical. In particular, the lack of a "status quo" option for Crimea (the referendum only had two options, go independent or join Russia) and the lack of international observers (OSCE observers currently in the Crimea were asked to leave by the Russian authorities in the area) made the whole thing iffy from the get go. And that's not even getting into the fraud allegations ...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    That's definitely true. However, it's not really arguable that a majority or close to a majority of Crimea was moreso favourable to joining Russia than staying in an anti-Russia version of Ukraine. Independent polls confirm this : https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/?sh=46e2863a510d https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a... There was no status-quo option because at the time, according to the dominant legal opinion (as in, backed by force), Crimea had already seceded from Ukraine. To consider the status quo that Crimea was part of Ukraine would undermine the legal basis for a referendum without assent from Kyiv, which is why it was not included. It's for sure bullshit to the moral level, but it couldn't have been done differently while still being a referendum on joining Russia. They could have done a referendum on returning to Ukraine, I guess.
  - nicholasnorris 5y ago
    To be fair, it is a tiny clip of an off-hand response; hard to compare to focused articles and segments on the topic. I can see the criticism of piecing together an opinion from a bunch of off-hand comments vs fully expressed arguments. It might be better to compare a full discussion on the specific topic from the criticized party to the lauded one. One problem with many mainstream outlets is that they are often give free passes to organizations like OSCE. For example, the OAS, an organization that serves a similar watchdog position in the Americas, completely bungled their duties in recent Bolivian elections. So much so, that they helped legitimize a violent far-right coup in 2019.
chmod775 5y ago
He does not say "Russia was right", he said the annexation was justifiable and clearly not justifiable as in "right" but as in "defensible". Saying he is "pro-Russia" is a big claim, because you're saying their position on Russia's action are overwhelmingly one of agreement. In that clip he appears to call Russia's actions defensible (which is not the same as agreement) on the Crimea issue, while being unclear but likely opposed on the Donbas issue. Also given that many people are capable of more nuance than blindly supporting or opposing a country on every issue, you might as well be calling them a simpleton.