HasanAbi - Hypocrite?

[silene]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

If he was Yellow or something he would certainly have better uses for his money. Something like lending $500 bucks to some African farmer to buy a cow, tools, or a fridge. And to stream how that affects people's lives. That's a simualtion of effects of socialism, from everyone accordong to their means, to everyone according to their needs.

True enough, but in a truly socialist world charity wouldn't be necessary because the system would already provide for everyone. Voluntarily donating your surplus wealth generated via capitalism to poor people (in exchange for enhancing your reputation), is like going back to a 19th C philanthropic capitalist model and not addressing the fundamental problems. But hey, we need short-term assistance like this while those inequalities are dealt with. If they are, I've never asked any African farmers if they want to be socialists! 

Edited February 6, 2022 by silene

[Tim R]

@Godhead How about starting by not living in a big ass mansion in the Hollywood Hills and driving a luxury sports car??

It's not like "either 1-bedroom apartment in a shitty area or $3M villa in Hollywood", there's plenty in between... Same goes for the car, you don't have to drive a 2006 Twingo, you could buy a BMW 3 series or whatever.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be wealthy, but if he truly was a socialist and walked his talk he wouldn't have bought these things.

It's like pretending to hate people who eat meat and yet stuff yourself with steak. And his simps would say "oh what, is he not supposed to eat anything now??", it's like no, there's other things for you to eat. 

You can't rant against capitalism, the ruling class, social / wealth inequality, wear shirts that say "eat the rich" and at the same time be this top 1% champagne socialist who makes massive personal profit from the very structures you so rant against. 

At least have the integrity to admit to what you're doing, that you are and do all these things. And that in fact, it is hypocritical. But of course you can't do that because you'd then promptly lose all of that. 

He could use his money for a good cause, but he doesn't, because he doesn't truly believe in socialism or social equality. And his stream doesn't do sh*t for social equality. If he would at least use his money for that.

He's a capitalist who pretends to be a socialist and who successfully managed to fool his Gen Y/Z audience who can't yet think for themselves and who are probably to a large extent the same kind of people (perhaps not quite that rich tho), kids from good upper class families who get outraged on Twitter about capitalism and social inequality using their new IPhone.

[Godhead]

12 minutes ago, Tim R said:

who makes massive personal profit from the very structures you so rant against.

I mean, what would you like him to do? Start his own Twitch? Of course he's participating in capitalism, we all do, there literally is no other choice. Doesn't mean that we can't criticize it. 

Sure, he's profiting immensely from it, but put yourself in his position. What would you do? He's not really forcing anyone to give him money. He's not really exploiting anyone. Sure, he could invest money in social projects. But he could also invest his time into advocating for systemic changes. 

Like I'm not saying that he's super moral or that buying a sports car is an ethical investment, but that's not what is meant when people say "eat the rich". It doesn't mean taking wealth from all the Doctors, Lawyers, and celebrities. It means, taking the money from the Giga Rich, the Wealth hoarders, the Investment Banks, and the real estate moguls.

19 minutes ago, Tim R said:

He's a capitalist who pretends to be a socialist and who successfully managed to fool his Gen Y/Z audience who can't yet think for themselves and who are probably to a large extent the same kind of people, kids from good families who get outraged on Twitter about capitalism and social inequality using their new IPhone.

Using devices that were provided by capitalism to criticize capitalism is not hypocritical, especially not if there is no alternative. So what, to be a proper socialist, you shouldn't shop at the supermarket, because the food was provided by capitalism? I see your take that green fails to integrate orange and just outright rejects it, but that's just part of how that goes.

[Tim R]

29 minutes ago, Godhead said:

Of course he's participating in capitalism, we all do, there literally is no other choice. Doesn't mean that we can't criticize it. 

I didn't say that we can't critizie capitalism only because we live under it. Of course we're forced to pariticipate.

But you can decide to what extent you participate in capitalism. And buying a Porsche and a mansion isn't exactly congruent with anti-capitalism, there's just no whitewashing this. 

29 minutes ago, Godhead said:

Using devices that were provided by capitalism to criticize capitalism is not hypocritical, especially not if there is no alternative. So what, to be a proper socialist, you shouldn't shop at the supermarket, because the food was provided by capitalism?

Guess you're right here to a certain extent, at least when it comes to devices like smarthones & other necessities. What I was trying to point out is that people are often oblivious to this discrepancy.

But even so, you have to make a decision; are you going to buy the most expensive & most exploitative device like a $1500 IPhone 13 Pro Max or some less obnoxious phone that doesn't virtually scream "consumerism" & "capitalism"? So there you definitely do have some alternative(s). 

And that's exactly what I meant with buying a less pompous house & car. Even though we are forced to play the capitalist game, we can decide how much we're participating. Especially when you have 'won' the game and are rich, especially then you can afford not to play this game to this Villa- & Porsche-extent.

 

Again, I'm not saying that he's not supposed to be rich or not live a good life. It's the extent to which Hasan pushes all this which I find hyporitical.

Where are we going to draw the line? Some people might say that a $3M house and a $200K car are not hypocritical. 

What about buying a $600K Lamborghini and a $8M mansion? Still okay? 

[Joel3102]

This tweet sums it up pretty well.

The reason Hasan doesn't have any cognitive dissonance is I don't think he really gives a fuck about the issues that much. He's just a fratbro who wanted to be famous and get money/women (which is understandable tbh) and found his lane by adopting leftism through his uncle Cenk

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Tim R said:

You can't rant against capitalism, the ruling class, social / wealth inequality, wear shirts that say "eat the rich" and at the same time be this top 1% champagne socialist who makes massive personal profit from the very structures you so rant against.

Sure you can!

That's how socialism has always worked

[Dryas]

It’s a damn nice car though

[DocWatts]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That has always been the core problem with socialism: is that it only exists atop capitalism.

Right-wingers make this point as a critique from below. But this point can be made as a critique of socialism from above. Socialism doesn't actually work to generate the material goods and services we all love and use. So the fundamental hypocrisy of Hasan is that he enjoys material goods and services that would not be possible to create if socialism were enacted today. And he is in denial about this point. He would argue that socialism can generate the same goods and services and more humanely. But I would counter that the inhumanity of capitalism is exactly what is necessary to create those goods and services. At least at this point in social evolution. It doesn't always have to be that way.

You cannot buy a McDonalds burger for $1 unless it is generated via capitalism. If society was truly egalitarian that same burger would cost you $100. Which is precisely why we don't have socialism.

I thought it was generally understood that socialism would by necessity have to be built atop the scientific and Industrial base developed by Capitalism? Someone like Marx was pretty explicit about this point, that Capitalism was a necessary stage of societal development that can't be skipped. Similar to how Capitalism was built atop Mercantilism, and Mercantilism was built atop a Feudal system.

You could also point out how much of a distortion it is that a $100 McDonalds burger is priced at $1 under capitalism, and how strange it is that this peculiar system is taken for granted as the 'default' due to social conditioning 

Edited February 6, 2022 by DocWatts

[Girzo]

8 hours ago, DocWatts said:

You could also point out how much of a distortion it is that a $100 McDonalds burger is priced at $1 under capitalism, and how strange it is that this peculiar system is taken for granted as the 'default' due to social conditioning 

Yeah, bizarre as fuck. People just don't value other people's lives. There is no good moral reason why a CEO of a big company earns 2000x what the janitor in the headquarters of that company makes, or 200000x what the lowest paid worker in the supply chain earns. I can assure everyone, that there's no way in hell that he is 200000x more productive than the slave-worker gluing up iPhones.

Meritocracy is bullshit, and it always has been, because meritocracy itself is a concept thought up to show how stupid the idea is. The same with pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. I don't know how that ridiculing gets twisted into an affirmation of the system again and again.

[Danioover9000]

@Tim R

On 2/5/2022 at 8:05 PM, Tim R said:

What do you guys think about Hasan Piker aka HasanAbi? He just bought a Porsche Taycan (~$150K) and a year or so ago a $2.7M mansion, yet he claims to be a socialist and always rants about capitalism... Not sure if I can take him seriously anymore.. Not that I ever did but that just kinda takes the cake for me

   Mostly a stage orange individual coopting stage green values.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I thought it was generally understood that socialism would by necessity have to be built atop the scientific and Industrial base developed by Capitalism? Someone like Marx was pretty explicit about this point, that Capitalism was a necessary stage of societal development that can't be skipped. Similar to how Capitalism was built atop Mercantilism, and Mercantilism was built atop a Feudal system.

That may work in 500 years once capitalism has sufficently met most of the world's material needs and people fully evolved past Orange.

People are still fundamentally too hungry for material improvements to life.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Socialism doesn’t work because last time it was tried, Sylvester Stallone personably killed one hundred trillion gorrillion people vuvuzula no iPhone.

[Fleetinglife]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

only reason he's able to make millions a year from Twitch and YT is because that's all part of the capitalist system which enables these giant tech platforms. And that system is built on wage slavery....etc.

Twitch and YT are peak capitalism. But it allows a few of us creators to feel like we aren't part of the wage slavery system because we happen to sit at the top of the food chain... etc. 

In a truly egalitarian society (not socialism), Hasan would be not be making millions per year while the employees who moderate YT earn $10/hr.... etc. 

That has always been the core problem with socialism: is that it only exists atop capitalism... may work in 500 years once capitalism has sufficently met most of the world's material needs and people fully evolved past Orange...etc.

People are still fundamentally too hungry for material improvements to life...etc.

Socialism doesn't actually work to generate the material goods and services we all love and use... etc. 

So the fundamental hypocrisy of Hasan is that he enjoys material goods and services that would not be possible to create if socialism were enacted today. And he is in denial about this point. He would argue that socialism can generate the same goods and services and more humanely. But I would counter that the inhumanity of capitalism is exactly what is necessary to create those goods and services. At least at this point in social evolution. It doesn't always have to be that way...etc.

You cannot buy a McDonalds burger for $1 unless it is generated via capitalism. If society was truly egalitarian that same burger would cost you $100. Which is precisely why we don't have socialism.

So until then, do "the weak must suffer what they must?" 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[mememe]

21 hours ago, Girzo said:

If he was Yellow or something he would certainly have better uses for his money. Something like lending $500 bucks to some African farmer to buy a cow, tools, or a fridge. And to stream how that affects people's lives. That's a simualtion of effects of socialism, from everyone accordong to their means, to everyone according to their needs.

Or whatever, there are many ways to leverage your money to make the highest positive impact. At some point people see that being altruistic is a worthy pursuit in life, because they become dissillusioned with living the prestigious life as the way of sustaining happiness. (I mean people who are actively self-actualizing)

mhh if he needs a car, he probably wouldn’t buy a cow instead. yellow in my understanding is still oriented towards own survival - especially if living in a society where money still plays a roll. so i‘d guess he would probably invest into car sharing and sustainable cars, maybe from a not so known but promising company with coop character even, if he was in yellow, to then use the car himself. owning a car is pretty orange, car sharing is green, investing in green technology is yellow. taking the bike is more healthy.

what he does with the rest of his money, if he invests it into a farm or coop or social-environmental-project, depends probably on how much he owns, how fruitile the project and how connected he is emotionally. i doubt modern socialism is about controlling others about what they do with their money. thats not a good approach. how little or how much it might be, other than state regulatory to what limit. successful it can only be if people regulate themselves to some extend. you also don’t know in which way his car might be relevant for his impact radius. there is stuff we might not see. (might be the car is not yellow but red )

Edited February 7, 2022 by mememe

[Fleetinglife]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no Twitch or YT without exploiting the working class.

There would be no Das Kapital or to the beneficiary of the legacy or our inheritance of the plethora of other socialist, Marxist, communist work either. 

I think we can only question the degree and qualities of the exploitation required for their coming into existence in contrast to other types of works and what their attempts actually accomplished and achieved in the same relative to their later actual benefits, good sides, development, evolution and progress they yielded for humanity as a whole. 

But that's only my partial not yet fully developed, matured perspective on it. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[DocWatts]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That may work in 500 years once capitalism has sufficently met most of the world's material needs and people fully evolved past Orange.

People are still fundamentally too hungry for material improvements to life.

That's of course assuming that continued disregard of ecological constraints doesn't result in a stagnation (or decline) of living standards before this point.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

That's of course assuming that continued disregard of ecological constraints doesn't result in a stagnation (or decline) of living standards before this point.

Lol

[Tim R]

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

That's of course assuming that continued disregard of ecological constraints doesn't result in a stagnation (or decline) of living standards before this point.

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Lol

@Leo Gura The poorest people on earth, i.e. those who still have a great hunger for material wealth are those who live in regions where climate change will make their home uninhabitable, they don't care about material goods if they have a water shortage. That's just Africa and south east Asia. Not to mention India, they too will get hit pretty hard by climate change. 

People will be forced to abandon (their desire for) material wealth if they want to survive.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Tim R said:

@Leo Gura The poorest people on earth, i.e. those who still have a great hunger for material wealth are those who live in regions where climate change will make their home uninhabitable, they don't care about material goods if they have a water shortage. That's just Africa and south east Asia. Not to mention India, they too will get hit pretty hard by climate change. 

People will be forced to abandon (their desire for) material wealth if they want to survive.

None of that will change people's desire for material wealth.

[Roy]

This is why you don't listen to what people say, but watch what they do.

Behavior and actions reveal ones true values and intentions.