You’re asking for a formal, step-by-step evidentiary case. I’m offering a high-level critique of a rhetorical pattern. Those are different kinds of claims, and neither is illegitimate.

I’m not “declaring victory,” I’m describing how his style reads to a lot of leftists: moral preloading, reframing, and condemnation first, engagement second. That’s an interpretive claim, not a syllogism, and it doesn’t require me to footnote every instance to exist.

You’re right that if this were a debate, I’d need to walk through examples. But this isn’t a debate, it’s a comment thread. I’m explaining why many people react to him the way they do, not trying to prove a theorem.

If you don’t recognize that pattern, that’s fine. We just have different readings of the same content. But saying “there is no substance” because it isn’t presented in your preferred format is just another way of refusing to engage with the claim itself.

You’re shifting from “this isn’t true” to “this doesn’t exist unless you cite a clip.” Those are different claims.

I’m not arguing that one isolated moment proves my case. I’m criticizing a style of engagement that shows up across all of his content, where moral condemnation precedes analysis and critques/arguments are reframed instead of answered.

You’re free to disagree with that description. But dismissing it as “Jello” doesn’t make it go away, it just sidesteps what I am getting at.

I do watch his streams and clips every once in awhile, and I’m using “debates” loosely to mean adversarial political exchanges, whether that’s call-ins, panel arguments, reacting to critics, or sparring with chat/other creators.

My critique isn’t about frequency, it’s about style. The pattern I’m talking about, preloading moral conclusions, reframing opponents into caricatures, and using moral condemnation instead of engaging the actual claim, shows up in those exchanges too.

You can disagree with that assessment, but saying “you don’t watch him” doesn’t really address the substance of what I wrote.

Hasan constantly debates in bad faith, and is often closer to a left wing grifter than an activist. He doesnt argue " I think your analysis is wrong because xyz" rather he says “If you beleive this you are evil, stupid, or captured by propoganda.”

The worst part is his preloading conclusions to arguments and failing to accurately respond to his opposition, more often than not endlessly reframing/deflecting the argument to get to his own conclusion without adressing what his opponent has put forth. To anyone in the debate scene, its almost anti-dialectic.

Alot of his rhetoric is moral spectacle, filled with rage, absolutist rhetoric, and purity language. This not being paired with humility, mutual aid, or coalition-building makes critics see him as someone who cosplays revolutionary ethics while living like a celebrity pundit. Not because he is rich, but because he uses the aesthetics of struggle without practicing its discipline.

For many leftists, Hasan represents the worst of online politics. Moral grandstanding, idealogical bullying, and content-first ethics. His style trains people to perform righteousness instead of doing politics.