Twitch Suspends Popular Leftist Streamer After Controversial 9/11 Comments

Twitch Suspends Popular Leftist Streamer After Controversial 9/11 Comments
Image: Hasan Piker

During a Twitch stream earlier this week, popular leftist streamer Hasan Piker made a statement that would, by pretty much any measure, be considered incendiary. “America deserved 9/11, dude,” he said. “Fuck it, I’m saying it.” Today, Twitch suspended Piker for one week.

Emotions had been running high in the leadup to the statement on Piker’s stream. Piker, who is also a host of the online news show The Young Turks, was reacting to an episode of the Joe Rogan podcast in which the host interviewed recently-elected Republican congressman Dan Crenshaw. Near the start of the interview, Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who served in Afghanistan, had made the assertion that prior to 9/11, Bin Laden had no reason to hate America except our “Western ideology,” describing that hatred and the acts that followed as “irrational.”

Crenshaw went on to argue against the idea that the United States’ destabilising foreign policies had sowed the seeds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In response to Rogan’s comments that people in other countries now dislike the United States because they’ve watched civilians die en masse to U.S. drone strikes and other military ventures, Crenshaw suggested that “millions” of people in countries like Yemen and Iraq are actually “begging” for the U.S. to establish a bigger military presence and restore order. Ultimately, he concluded that if the U.S. was to pull out of many of the 100-plus countries it is currently occupying in various forms, worse actors would “100 per cent” fill the power vacuum.

Piker, an American citizen who was raised in Istanbul, Turkey, was vehemently opposed to these comments, and said so on his stream. “This is so insane,” he said after watching that portion of the interview. Piker followed this with his statement about how America “deserved” 9/11.

“We fucking totally brought it on ourselves, dude,” he then said. “We fucking did. Holy shit. Look at the way that this dipshit is running his fucking mouth, justifying genocide right now.”

Piker’s Twitch chat did not react well to this statement. Responding to the sentiment in the chat he brought up the fact that the U.S. sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, which had likely helped fund 9/11.

“How is anything I’m saying controversial?” he said. “We fucking fund the people who did 9/11—still, to this day. Donald Trump literally went on national television and said, ‘They bought $US10 ($15) billion worth of weapons,’ so if they chop-chop-chop an American legal permanent resident, it’s OK.” (It was actually $12 billion worth of weapons split between Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.)

During the same (now-unavailable) stream, Piker used vulgar language to criticise Crenshaw for the hypocrisy of having once served, only to now use his credentials to justify more war. “Didn’t he go to war and, like, literally lose his eye because some Mujahideen, a brave fucking soldier, fucked his eyehole with their dick?” (Crenshaw actually lost his eye to an Improvised Explosive Device.)

These comments went well beyond the Twitch chat and set off an often-incendiary internet discussion, beginning with accusations that Piker is “anti-American” on Twitter and YouTube. Big personalities like Drama Alert host Daniel “Keemstar” Keem made hay of the fact that Piker hadn’t been banned from Twitch for the remarks.

Crenshaw himself also got involved, in response to a tweet Piker made about Crenshaw continuing to be offended by a joke comedian Pete Davidson made about his appearance on Saturday Night Live last year. “The only thing that offends me is your inability to use capital letters in any of your tweets,” Crenshaw said on Twitter. “But really it is the fact that Google/YouTube profit from and promote The Young Turks and by extension your disgusting defence of the 9/11 terrorist attacks against Americans.”

“If you have a problem supporting terrorists and those who fund terrorists, why did you vote against stopping our arms sales to Saudi Arabia four times?” Piker said in reply, citing Crenshaw’s record since he became a member of Congress in January.

This all culminated in Crenshaw making an appearance on Fox News yesterday to discuss Piker’s remarks. The segment opened with host Laura Ingraham declaring that the “radical left seems to be getting more depraved every day,” airing a severely truncated version of Piker’s clip with just the 9/11 line and no follow-up plus and the comments about Crenshaw’s appearance, and calling Piker a “vile creature.”

She then introduced “wounded war vet” Dan Crenshaw, who chuckled and proclaimed that Piker was obviously “triggered,” despite being the one who went on national news to talk about a mean thing someone on the internet said about him. Crenshaw and Ingraham proceeded to smirk their way through a conversation about how Piker doesn’t understand foreign policy, leftism is anti-American, and how it’s “pathetic” that Piker “sounds like a valley girl when he speaks, as a young man.”

The pair also talked about how it’s “incomprehensible” that the “highly radical” Young Turks have a platform on YouTube, and that conservatives would never be able to get away with being radical on YouTube. (Fox News currently has 3.4 million subscribers on YouTube.)

Around the same time, Piker went on The Young Turks to address his Twitch comments. He reiterated his central points—that American foreign policy led to 9/11, and the U.S. is selling weapons to Saudi Arabia – but conceded that he “should have used more precise and better” language to convey those ideas. Host Cenk Uygur, who agreed with many of Piker’s stances but vocally disapproved of how he conveyed them, asked Piker if his comments about Crenshaw’s eye were “satire.”

Piker replied in the affirmative. He said he doesn’t actually believe the Mujahideen are brave, and that he was instead referencing the end screen of the 1988 movie Rambo 3 as well as beliefs ostensibly held by former President Ronald Reagan, whose administration helped arm the groups that eventually became the Talbian and Al Qaeda. He went on to say that while he thinks Crenshaw took his comments “like a champ,” Crenshaw doesn’t necessarily deserve his respect.

“Service does not guarantee respect,” he said. “It should not. I’m sorry. This is the exact same kind of jingoistic sentiment that leads to the militant attitude that the United States has. If you have served and then, on top of that, are using that service to continue sending loads of young men and women overseas to die or to come back home and fail to reintegrate into society, just exclusively for the profits of the military industrial complex, then no, you don’t deserve respect by virtue of service.”

This, however, apparently did not move Twitch, which suspended Piker’s channel earlier today. Twitch does not publicise the rationale behind specific suspensions, so it’s impossible to say whether Piker got the big purple boot because of what he said about 9/11 or because his comments about Crenshaw constituted a personal attack. “If you disrespect a veteran as a Republican, you can be President, but if you do it as a leftist—especially one with a Muslim name—you’re a labelled a Jihadi who hates America,” Piker said on Twitter shortly after word of his suspension got out. Kotaku reached out to Piker for further information on the suspension, but he did not reply. Kotaku also reached out to Twitch and Crenshaw about the situation, neither of whom replied.

To an extent, Piker anticipated this potential outcome of his comments. He said during The Young Turks segment that he realised his on-stream comments would be misconstrued right after he made them, so he quickly stopped the stream and deleted the video-on-demand version of it. Because he’s one of the few popular vocal leftists on Twitch, he believes portions of his audience are waiting for him to slip up and defend the wrong cause so they can proliferate the clip sans context. That, he thinks, is what happened here, despite his efforts to pull the video.

As a leftist, Piker has had uncommon success on Twitch in part because he’s willing to go places other leftists sometimes aren’t—or have been unable to gain access to. At various points, he’s befriended popular right-leaning streamers. Other times, he’s debated them and dissected their talking points alongside other divisive political streamers like Steven “Destiny” Bonnell. Piker himself is a self-styled provocateur, going so far as to call himself “The Provocateur Gamer” on Twitch. This approach, for all its potential flaws, often pays dividends.

Stating things crassly and taking aggressive stances means his clips are more shareable, which makes them more prominent in Twitch’s algorithmically generated recommendations and gives them legs on popular Twitch-adjacent hubs like Livestreamfail, the drama fuel to Twitch’s drama fire. According to third-party site TwitchMetrics, Piker currently has the sixth most-watched English channel in Twitch’s popular “Just Chatting” section.

Based on numbers and the general lack of prominent leftist Twitch streamers, you could argue that due to the structure of Twitch and the modern internet at large, it’s currently hard for vocal leftists interested in actually discussing their views to succeed in a big way on Twitch without regularly going over the top. But at the same time, all of this provocation feeds the same insatiable content machine.

In Piker’s case, it began on Twitch, but quickly evolved into mob efforts on Twitter, where it’s notoriously easy for incensed users to descend on whomever they deem worthy of rage and threats. It then graduated to YouTube, where drama is especially big business and channels focused on ever-churning cycles of divisiveness are a news genre unto themselves. The YouTube commentariat frequently weighs in on Twitch issues as well, and Piker’s comments about Crenshaw—and specifically, the way he said them—made for perfect video fodder. From there, the controversy made the leap onto the mother of all outrage fabrication machines, Fox News.

This cycle benefits opportunists, whether they’re drama-devouring YouTubers or politicians like Crenshaw, whose mastery of the ancient art of concern trolling has been nakedly apparent ever since his spat with Pete Davidson. Yesterday, he ended his chat with Fox’s Laura Ingraham with a grin, saying that he needs to “come back more often” after Ingraham pointed out it was his first time on her show.

Image Image: The Young Turks

It also makes it hard to discuss the points Piker was trying to make, though he did, by his own admission, make them sloppily. What he tried to do was hold a powerful figure accountable by dispelling his justifications for undeniably abhorrent acts perpetrated by the United States. What ensued, though, was a drive-by scream fight about whether or not a streamer hates America. Twitch proceeded to pour salt on the wound by suspending Piker and, per its unpopular policy, not explaining why, leaving the door open for people to conclude that the content of Piker’s statement – that America’s policy decisions led to 9/11 – played a part in the company’s decision-making.

During his Young Turks segment, Piker expressed hope that people will still take away a more lasting lesson from all of this.

“Obviously, 9/11 was a horrific tragedy,” Piker said. “3,000 Americans died, OK? 7,000 troops have died since then in endless wars. And if you’re spending all of your energy getting upset at me because I think that is abhorrent and awful, maybe you should spend your energy elsewhere and realise that those who justify the endless bloodshed don’t actually have the best interest of those young men and women at heart.”


    • Remember, any press is good press for sad attention seekers. Which seems to make up a lot of what we read online.

  • Anyway a quick look through the Twitch rules state you can’t make fun of somenone’s disability (loss of an eye) or veteran status. Seems like a no brainer to me but I’m sure old mate will enjoy his one week vacation followed by the extra revenue this “controversy” has caused.

    Also a bit rich of the author to be throwing shade around about people on the internet saying mean things not being a big deal. Doesn’t Gamergate and that whole culture still live rent free in his head?

    • yeah i only got halfway through this pile of trash, Nathans latest completely bias and incomprehensibly moronic article.
      The pair also talked about how it’s “incomprehensible” that the “highly radical” Young Turks have a platform on YouTube, and that conservatives would never be able to get away with being radical on YouTube. (Fox News currently has 3.4 million subscribers on YouTube.)
      what the actual fuck… he thinks fox news is radical?

      Jesus Christ Nathan get the fuck off twitter it’s melting your brain!!! come back to reality.

      • I don’t think that quote means what you think it means. Where did you even get ‘fox news is radical’ from?

      • Yep, I remember watching them *years* ago when they first started, they weren’t too bad way back then. Or maybe my ideals were very different. These days though, I see them as nothing more than a cancerous blight upon humanity.

        • First, i heard of them was someone debunking them when they tried to promote pseudoscientific anti-vacc crap. I’ve never treated them as legitimate or factual.

          They are the equivalent of Alex Jones, Minus the unintentional hilarity.

        • eh, their name itself says they don’t do research. after all Young Turks has a very different meaning see Armenian Genocide. Innocent mistake or not… well it speaks to their research care.

          • We all know the Armenian Genocide never happened

            But just thinking about it, how interesting that certain groups of people will willingly throw around the Nazi label, but listen to the YT like they are a legitimate news source.

          • Ummm… so I used the wrong parentheses when trying to add sarcasm… so um… please read the my comment as

            {sarcasm}We all know the Armenian Genocide never happened{/sarcasm}

          • To be fair, the term has had widespread idiomatic use for the last century or so, and isn’t solely associated with the original Ottoman reform movement. The idiomatic usage refers to a young political agitator rebelling against the status quo, and it’s been used in that context by Rod Stewart in his song of the same name, and even in shows like the Simpsons.

            The closest analogue off the top of my head would be calling yourself a grammar nazi or lore nazi because you’re a stickler for those things. Sure it has the name of a group responsible for mass murder in it, but in that context the meaning isn’t the same. The same kind of distinction exists with the ‘young turks’ term too, and the modern group is using it in the idiomatic sense, not the literal one.

  • Pretty ridiculous to suspend somebody over this IMO. Obviously that view of 9/11 is controversial (although I’ve met a fair few people who feel the same way), and the comments about Crenshaw crude and unnecessary, but it’s not hate speech or what have you.

    • Indeed. I don’t agree with him, I think he’s an absolute twit, but he’s got to be able to speak his mind publicly, as we all say we want freedom of speech after all. Of course, with that speaking publicly will come the inevitable criticism of him, and rightly so. But silencing him is wrong in this sense, it just furthers his cause.

      • Companies do not owe anyone the right to free speech. If he broke twitchs’ rules he deserves to be suspended. He hasn’t been silenced, one company decided a certain person cannot broadcast on them any more. He is fully able to seek another.

        • So what you’re saying is he *was* silenced, he has to go somewhere else to talk. He’s an idiot, he’s got shit ideals, but dude, don’t contradict yourself openly like that.

          • He has been temporarily suspended from a single platform. He hasn’t been locked up or punished by the government or indeed anybody else; he still has his freedom of speech. He’s just been told to go sit in the naughty corner for a while.

          • Do you insist restaurants have to continue to serve customers that pee in the corner as well? He broke the rules of a privately supplied service, leading to a temporary suspension, but you are acting like he was chucked in a Kazakhstan black site by amazon. Pretty sure Mixer costs exactly the same to deliver his program on, exactly nothing.

          • i think the people arguing he shouldn’t have been banned based on freedom of expression etc are actually against the twitch TOS, they think that twitch should be run the same way the US constitution governs his free speech. I agree with that, i think you just make the streams 18+ or not and if your 18+ you can say pretty much anything you want if your not then you have the TOS.

          • Does the restaraunt serve apples or oranges?

            Can we compare them like you’re doing here?

          • How am I comparing apples and oranges? You’re the one mixing things up, freedom of speech laws apply to *governments*, not *corporations*. A private or publicly traded company is free to apply any rules and standards to it’s users.

          • Now that you’ve run your course we’re going to go back to my original post:

            Indeed. I don’t agree with him, I think he’s an absolute twit, but he’s got to be able to speak his mind publicly, as we all say we want freedom of speech after all. Of course, with that speaking publicly will come the inevitable criticism of him, and rightly so. But silencing him is wrong in this sense, it just furthers his cause.

            1. I don’t agree with him.
            2. We all *say* we want freedom of speech.
            3. By silencing him, it just furthers his cause.

            At no point did I declare anything about companies being wrong, at no point did I say anything of the sort. You’ve injected a *whole* lot of extra stuff along the way. I haven’t disagreed with you, on purpose, because I wanted to see where this would go 🙂

            Of course companies are free to silence him, and they did. But as I stated, people *do* say they want freedom of speech, but then they call for him to be silenced? It makes a martyr of him when companies invariably do ban or silence him. The funniest part is, had they just left him be, his voice would’ve disappeared into history like all the other whackjobs.

            Have a good one 🙂

  • Personal comments aside, what he said about US foreign policy is pretty bang-on. You can point to any number of examples where entrenched colonialism results in a hideous backlash from the locals: Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, for instance. I also would be keen to know what Twitch objected to.

      • I don’t think he was? It’s hard to tease the nuance out with such a politically charged topic – but I think he was saying that the roots of 9/11 can be found in the US support of the Saudis.

        • @h0bkn0b

          America deserved 9/11 direct quote from this article, which is quoting this tool.

          If that’s not condoning a terror attack… Well…

          I mean, if a woman gets belted by her husband, and I turn around and say “well she deserved it,” would I not be condoning domestic violence and violence against women? That’s exactly what’s happening here

          • I was wondering if someone would characterise it like this. I’m sure you’re not going to like it, but if you want to make an analogy of domestic violence, you can pose another one. An abusive, controlling partner confines their spouse for years till that spouse finally snaps and attacks the abuser.
            Geopolitically America is a serial-abuser; again there are a lot of examples. They all result in deaths, some of them American. No-one needs to condone terrorism to say they set these situations up.
            Comments sections like this always furiously demand evidence, so, think of Iran. America supported the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for years because they wanted cheap Iranian oil and a buffer-state against the Soviet Union. They supplied the weapons that the Shah used to crush internal, democratic reform movements. For years the US ignored growing internal unrest and instability in Iran. Finally the country went through a brutally awful Islamic revolution toppling the Shah and unleashing a bloodbath that took uncounted lives, including American ones. My question would be: do you need to condone the revolution to say that America was a key player in making it happen?

          • You’re poor excuse for an analogy misses one key ingredient. Innocence. America didn’t “die”, innocent people did.

            Let’s fix your analogy somewhat. An abusive, controlling partner confines their spouse for years till that spouse finally snaps and attacks their child.

            The people who died in those attacks didn’t arm or train the terrorists. They were innocent people.

            Saying those thousands of people deserved it (which is what is heavily implied), because of what people in power did is horrendous and condones terrorism.

            Tell me. When the US retaliated, and innocents on Iraq/Afghanistan were killed, did they then deserve that?? I mean, America was only retaliating. So going by your line of thinking…

          • Innocents, by definition, don’t deserve to die. However, if their governments are culpable, those deserve to be held accountable.

          • So, those that were killed during 9/11 were being held accountable..

            And the innocents killed in the Middle East in the aftermath, were also being held accountable…

            I see

          • For some reason I can’t reply to your last post @nuffman -is there some arbitrary limit to the number of posts you can make?- I hope you see this!
            In answer to what you said, no, innocents are innocent. The cycle of violence is being perpetrated at higher level. If you look at the middle east, even before oil was a burning issue, colonial powers have committed horrendous atrocities because it suited them to do so and no-one was going to tell them not to. As long as superpowers act with impunity, considering only their own interests, the cycle of violence will continue; terrorism is a part of that cycle.

          • Just a limit to far to the right a thread can go.

            You do realise that “Colonial powers” are just the latest (probably not even the latest anymore, to be honest) in a LONG string of powers that are doing the same things over right? Before they looked towards the Middle East, the Middle East was doing it to themselves, and to others *cough* Ottoman Empire comes to mind.

            The Middle East has rarely, if ever, seen any stability. Look at it’s history.

            And let’s be honest here… If it wasn’t the US, it would have been someone else, and if it wasn’t that group, it would be someone else. Unfortunately that’s the way the world is.

            We can keep going back further and further and further to find faults

          • jesus man have some objectivity for fuck sake, Dan Crenshaw if you actually watch the podcast said America is not perfect they have made mistakes i think he actually said “many mistakes”. It does not change the fact that there are millions of people in every single country you have mentioned so far that are very happy America has a presence in their country. But you only seem to care about the people who support your story and hate America being in their countries.

            You can point to any number of examples where entrenched colonialism results in a hideous backlash from the locals: Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, for instance.

            Because the US just shows up in these countries and builds military bases etc… no they are invited and they have agreements with the countries they are in. They US has fucked up several times so has Australia, i understand your argument about supporting the shah and selling weapons etc etc stupid fkn move but the argument Crenshaw made that if they leave terrorists will take over is very credible and anyone arguing like Hasan that the US invites the Islamic hatred with its foreign policy is a liar.

            Even if America never interfered with the middle east they would still be attacking them the Islamist fundamentalists take over countries all the time they have been doing this song and dance for thousands of years. Iran in the 60’s had miniskirts and women in university learning chemistry and shit like that until it all went to shit like it always does. When the Islamist’s take over they start terrorist shit its how they have always operated and they will never stop. If only the perfect word of god wasn’t so easy to ‘misinterpret’.

            Finally the country went through a brutally awful Islamic revolution take another look at the history of the area you statement is basically “just another Tuesday in the middle east” what is the point? fuck Iran. If America had intervened instead of ignoring it you would be whining about colonialism and how they interfered, this is word games. If they do go in early it’s ‘interfering’ if they ignore it until the place explodes you say why didn’t they ‘intervene’. It’s either interfering or intervening they can’t win.

          • Um….the US did interfere in Iran…

            To protect oil interests, the CIA and MI6 staged the infamous coup in the 50’s to overthrow the democratically elected government.
            The US backed monarchy that took over became increasingly violent and oppressive, causing the economic decline that gave rise to hardline political and religious figures and led to the revolution in the 70’s
            American foreign policy is literally recognised as the catalyst an cause.

            The US role in the spreading of anti western ideology in the Middle East isn’t some conspiracy, it’s well documented history and current affairs.

          • Thankyou – I wasn’t sure where to begin with that last reply. Sometimes it feels like all you can do is supply a slightly more informed view and then wait for the downvotes and ranting to roll on in 😉

          • yay i love it when people can’t grasp simple sentences.

            i never fucking said they didn’t interfere for fuck sake jesus your so infuriating. I said it doesn’t matter if they get involved or not this guy is going to shit on whatever decision they make. When they do intervene it’s colonialism if they don’t hes bitching about why they didn’t intervene and save people or whatever. As per usual everyone decides what your position is and starts lobbing shit back at you.

            keep assuming nobody else in the world has access to the internet or knows anything about history so you can sanctimoniously inform them.

            time for some facts, American foreign policy blah blah blah yes it is absolutely a reason given by SOME people in the middle east to excuse their terrorism. The fact that you all seem to think that is okay is pretty retarded but sure why not. At the same time there are indeed millions of people all over the middle east that are very happy to have America there and do not want them to withdraw, there are no absolutes in this argument.

            American foreign policy is literally recognised as the catalyst an cause.

            but Islamic extremism has no place in any of the middle easts problems the fact that this same shit has been happening all over the middle east for centuries before the US even existed nah that’s not important because your memory only goes back till wherever you want so you can justify your talking points. get off it man the US might contribute to these problems but your all acting like they are solely responsible give me a break.

          • Thanks for your reply, but could you tone down the profanity? It really isn’t helping anyone. If I understand the broad stab of your argument, you’re saying that the US is ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’ regarding interference in foreign countries. I have problems with that idea on a number of levels, but, to oversimplify things, if colonial powers limited their interference in the affairs of other nations to helping that’d be a strong argument for their presence. As it is, all of the examples I’ve cited involved gross self-interest on the part of a superpower -mostly the US- and this is a key cause of regional instability, religious unrest and terrorism. You can win, morally, but that involves respecting the other side and playing by the rules.

          • the middle east has been a powder keg of “regional instability, religious unrest and terrorism.” for ages stop laying all the blame at the feet of the west. The middle east has never been stable for very long and even without any intervention they would still be killing each other day in and day out.

            if colonial powers limited their interference in the affairs of other nations to helping that’d be a strong argument for their presence i doubt it, any intervention period ends in someone there getting pissed off you cant help any nation in the middle east without pissing off another so don’t give me this Utopian bullshit. It is a complete shit show and always has been and it has little to do with the west repeated cock ups the people themselves can’t help it and you can’t fix it. The extremism and violence is so inexorably linked to their religion which you will never get them to abandon nothing kills more Muslims than other Muslims i wish it could be different but it can’t and never will.

            this is completely pointless you only care about history that confirms your anti western sentiments so lets just not bother huh, you keep blaming the west and excusing Islamists and i will continue to believe the whole place is gaping whirlpool of despair that cannot be saved.

          • @djbear nah man, let him have his “moral high ground”.

            While he simultaneously complains about people downvoting his condoning of terrorism because “America started it”, and downvoting you.

    • basically. the context is available and everything he said is backed up by facts. at the end of the day, a 1 week ban to avoid pressure from a bunch of idiotic right-wing groups is a decent trade off for twitch.

    • Yeah, saying folks deserved it was going to far but you can’t have an honest discussion about the rise and proliferation of terrorism without looking at American foreign policy and how things always seem to lead back to it.

    • A stupid thing to say for sure, and the particular comments about eyes and whatnot is probably actually what he should have been banned for, but given the way I think he meant it – yep. Even worse they haven’t just brought it upon themselves one time, it’s been going on for ages and they just keep doing it. Saying America deserved 9/11 is dumb, but saying they were responsible for creating the mindset, group and individuals that lead to it is absolutely on the money.

      And Australia keeps on supporting them. We’re like the kids following the bully around the schoolyard, pointing and laughing as big bad America kicks every kid that isn’t fast enough to run away or has something America wants. Every problem America creates we’re complicit in.

      • It’s exactly why we’ve had the few issues we’ve had, coupled with our abuse of refugees. I’m pretty sure the government is happy to use it to ramp up laws to control the populace as a whole though.

  • Is Hasan Piker a dickhead? Yes

    Should he be banned for these comments? No

    I think the public shaming he received is what he deserves.

    • Lol.

      What did he say that deserves such public condemnation.

      All this nonsense reminds me of the denials that the US funded Suddam’s rise to power in Iraq.

      • Did you read the article?

        Do you genuinely believe all those people deserved to die in the world trade centre?

        Do you believe this is the proper way to address a military veteran injured while deployed?

        “Didn’t he go to war and, like, literally lose his eye because some Mujahideen, a brave fucking soldier, fucked his eyehole with their dick?”

        • Did you read the article?
          He didn’t say they deserved to die.

          And him being a veteran doesn’t mean he deserves respect.

          • “America Deserved 9/11”

            America includes everyone in it.

            Had he said for example:

            “America’s actions led to 9/11”

            I would have actually agreed with him. The CIA did arm the Taliban against the Soviets after all. His comment, however, implies that everyone in America deserved 9/11

            And him being a veteran doesn’t mean he deserves respect.

            So you genuinely think fucked his eyehole with their dick?” is a perfectly fine comment to use to refer to someone?

          • It is funny how you dont find any issue with this comment.

            Yet you took great issue with jokes about women in NBA2K

            Make vile comments about someone who was injured while deployed overseas? ALL GOOD!
            Post obvious bait memes about women in the NBA? OH SHIT THIS IS TOO FAR!

          • You think someone deserves respect just for being in the military?

            Funny, none of my vet family members feel that way.

            And he didnt say they deserve to die.

            Stop writing a strawman to get offended at.

            And there is a big difference between attacking an individual and being a bigot.

          • So america doesnt include everyone in it?

            Got it.

            idonegaminggood think all those in the WTC deserved what happened to them.

            Dont be idonegaminggood, Dont be a c**t.

          • he didnt say they deserve to die.

            What else is implied when he basically said “America deserved having multiple planes hijacked and being used as weapons to destroy buildings where thousands of civilians were killed in horrific circumstances.”

            People are STILL dying, to this day, as a result of those attacks, for nothing more than being in the vicinity at that moment. And you have the gall to sit there, shrug your shoulders and say “well, America deserved that”.

            Mate, you must have a short memory, or clouded by your social justice studies at uni, but I vividly remember turning on the morning TV and watching people jump to their death from the WTC, just so they didn’t burn to death. Not once did I ever stop to think “eh, they had it coming for living in that country.”

          • And? Does that in any way mean he deserves the comment?

            You’d have to be a pretty shitty human being to think that in any way an appropriate comment.

          • He’s part of the military machine responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the middleast east. I don’t know the exact comments made towards him, but not at all do I feel sorry for him.
            I will also admit, I have reasons to have an unbalanced bias against the coalition in general in the middle east.

      • Really… All you can do is downvote it… Just admit it. You support terrorism and the killing of innocents

          • Cool. Say hello to suicide car bombs… We can place this all day long.

            I don’t condone, nor support the idea of civilians being killed. But I don’t go around saying “they deserve it” like these drongos

  • Wow so much too unpack here, let’s start with the article itself, Grayson it seems is making Hasan out to be some sort of victim while simultaneously trying to climb up his ass.

    By making Crenshaw seem all buthurt and Hasan this poor misunderstood leftist just trying to make a go of it on twitch… Give me a fucking break

    Secondly Hasan says “We fucking did. Holy shit. Look at the way that this dipshit is running his fucking mouth, justifying genocide right now.” I don’t really need to day anything more but Fuck it I will, you brought up genocide have a talk to that dipshits of an uncle if yours about genocide.

    Lastly this idiot weather or not his comments are quote UNAMERICAN unquote (which I believe is debatable) or just fucking stupid his comments about Crenshaw’s injuries
    “fucked his eyehole with their dick?”

    Not only could this be interpreted as “homophobic” by some standard it’s also a good enough reason to be banned try and defend it after by saying it was satire all you like your still a moron for saying it belittling someone for a physical disability just makes you trash.

    • Exactly.

      I might disagree strongly with most of what Crenshaw says. But it still does not in any way justify what was said to him by this moron.

      I might think Donald Trump is a terrible human being ruining America, But late-night hosts making jokes about the President’s genital girth is not okay.

  • Wow, what a cluster fuck of an article. Piker probably deserved the suspension because other people have been suspended for less. But I don’t care about that. What makes this article hilarious are the mental gymnastics employed to make Piker seem like a victim – probably because the author is sympathetic to his political views.

    There should be one standard regardless of left or right politics, and saying shit like someone getting their “eyehole fucked” is a garbage thing to say. Piker knew what he was saying and the attempt at damage control is inept – even if he does have a valid point regarding US intervention in the Middle East. So basically he said something offensive on stream, people called them out on it, they got a suspension, but oh no how awful because he had a point to make that the author agreed with! You can bet if it was anyone else there’d be an article celebrating it. We’ve reached a time on the internet, which people like the author championed, where saying offensive things gets you banned – often regardless of context. You can’t bitch when it slaps someone you like.

    Also TYT is sensationalist trash, it’s basically the Fox News of leftist political views.

  • Man… Trying to paint as the victim someone who actually, verifiably just said some dumb shit and got a temporary ban for it.

    The author’s ability to reach all new lows really is second to none.

  • That was pretty dumb to say, just because it’s an abyss of harmful ignorance and delusion poisoning the rest of the planet now, doesn’t mean that it retroactively deserved that kind of horrific event. Yeah, it was a stupid, regressive country, but it wasn’t harming the rest of the world, 9/11 is actually what triggered all of that and basically laid the tracks to what it is today.

    • Uh, no. The US was doing plenty to harm the rest of the world well before 9/11.

      Obviously they didn’t “deserve” 9/11 – nobody deserves to be the victim of a terrorist attack.

      But the interventionist foreign policy of the United States throughout the Cold War contributed to a lot of suffering in the world.

      • So did the actions of the USSR in pursuit of the ideology of Communism, but nobody gives a fuck about that apparently. Lots of countries are guilty of intervention in foreign nations, especially during the Cold War, to maintain the balance of power. You can acknowledge the cause and effect of their actions, but isolationism doesn’t fucking work either!

  • If someone like PewDiePie had said this, this article would have been a hit piece. Instead, we get an article trying to explain why something was said like, you know, REAL journalism is supposed to be, but only cos it’s someone Kotaku Letftys like. Thus proving that Kotuaku is biased as all hell, and needs to think more.

  • wow, just wow. This guys doesn’t do the left any good lol, seriously.
    If he said this immediatey post 9/11 he would have be dead meat…justifiably.

  • His central point is correct, and well documented. What Crenshaw presents is some bizarre alternate reality fantasy. However the way Piker conveys his message is so uncomfortably immature and inflammatory that it undermines any point he’s trying to make, and only adds further noise to the utterly exhausting Left v Right dichotomy.

    • Americans and FNC, in particular, are really into revisionism. Look at the complaints about disrespecting Trump… they were quite fine with burning and hanging Obama in effigy by comparison, that apparently never happened.
      What Piker said wasn’t justified in most respects, however, I can appreciate the frustration at hearing outright lies. Especially since it’s something happening every day.

  • Hey @nuffman – we keep running out of space! Just answering your previous reply.

    Yeah, the middle east has an astonishing history of bloodshed … but so does everywhere else. We don’t need to live in the middle ages forever! Unfortunately, some parts of the world don’t get to experience the political evolution of the last five-hundred years, because it suits other parts of the world to keep them in poverty and ignorance and run by despots.
    Iran, again, is the perfect example: The US and before them, the British and the Russians have consistently smothered and destroyed indigenous democratic / nationalist movements, choosing instead to prop up autocratic rulers who follow the whims of their foreign masters, not the Iranian people. The last Shah of Iran was a US-backed puppet who was so out-of-touch he never saw the horror of the Islamic Revolution building beneath his increasingly unstable rule.
    I see Saudi Arabia in a similar light. The US has been backing the autocracy there for a hundred years. The same tensions are at play: a US armed ruler is trying to strangle both democracy and Islamism. Out of that came Osama Bin Laden, a radical Islamist determined to have his revenge on the West.
    The middle east, like many post-colonial (or still just plain colonial) regions is a hotbed of rage and violence. No-one knows how to ‘fix it’, but I tell you what, I don’t think it’s by doing the same thing you’ve always done. My biggest concern at the moment is the moves by certain US business interests to sell nuclear technology to the Saudis.

    Imagine a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia facing off against a nuclear-armed Iran facing off against a nuclear-armed Israel. Who will wear the blame for what happens then? America is not to blame for 9/11, but there are people in America who laid a lot of the groundwork for it, because they were making bank.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!