Today, Explained - Hasan Piker vs. The Establishment

Episode Date: June 13, 2026

Hasan Piker has become one of the most prominent leftist voices in the US. But his rapid rise has sparked a furious backlash from establishment Democrats -- specifically the Third Way think tank. This show was edited by Kasia Broussalian, fact checked by Esther Gim, mixed by Shannon Mahoney, video edited by Christopher Snyder, and hosted by Astead Herndon. Further reading: Third Way’s critique of Hasan Piker in the Wall Street Journal. The streamer Hasan Piker speaking at a conference in Vancouver. Photo By Florencia Tan Jun/Web Summit via Sportsfile via Getty Images. You can also watch this episode on youtube.com/vox. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. New Vox members get $20 off their membership right now. Transcript at ⁠vox.com/today-explained-podcast.⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After the 2024 election, leftist Twitch streamer Hassan Piker has blown up in popularity, becoming a go-to voice for the Democratic Party on questions about the new internet, how to reach young man, and even the political cause of the Biden White House's policy on Gaza. But Pikers' glow-up has angered a section of Democrats who are growing louder in voice. And they argue that Piker traffics in anti-Semitism, encourages violence, and engages in open misogyny. Now, Piker is controversial, no doubt, but is he toxic? And how much of this blowback is tied to Piker the person versus the leftist politics he stands for? This week, we'll talk to a centrist Democratic think tank that's been leading the anti-Hassan Piker charge.

And then we'll talk to the streamer himself. Let's dig in. So in March, a Democratic group called Third Way published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal's opinion section saying Democrats are too cozy with Hassan Piker. Now, Third Way isn't just any group. It's probably the premier centrist think tank in Washington, and it holds a lot of sway with the party's moderate elected officials. So I wanted to talk to Third Way, not just about their argument in this article, but about their motivations and their goals. So I connected with John Cohen. He's the president of Third Way and the co-author of the piece in the journal. Support for today's show comes from Better Help. Summer is here, which means travel is picking up,

The kids are out of school and fun is in the air, but juggling it can be a lot. So if you're feeling overwhelmed, counting down the days until school returns, or just worried, you're missing critical days of sunshine, BetterHelp is here. BetterHelp can match you with a licensed therapist who can help you through it all. Just fill out a short questionnaire to identify your preferences or if it's not the right fit, you can switch at any time. You don't have to say yes to everything this. summer. You can find support in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com slash America

Actually. That's better, h-elp.com slash America Actually. Support for this show comes from Fetch Pet Insurance. Do you have a pet? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the U.S. gets hit with a vet bill of over a thousand dollars. And it's almost always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetched pet insurance comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance. Get paid back up to 90% of vet bills. You can use any vet in the U.S. and Canada. All vets are in network. Go to fetchpet.com slash save right now for your free quote. That's fetchpet.com slash save. Thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate it. Delighted to be here. So to begin quickly, let's hear your case. You know, Third Way has argued that Democrats are too cozy with Hassan Piker? Why?

Look, bottom line is, it's a free country, and I believe in free speech. So Hassan Piker should be free to have his own show, to stream, to say, and do whatever he wants. That's not the question. The question is, should Democrats be supporting him? Should Democrats campaign with him? Should Democrats seek his endorsement? Should Democrats cozy up to him? And the answer is definitively no. Not just because the things he says are profoundly offensive, and I will run through those in a moment, but because he is such an extremist that it will only do damage to Democrats and the Democratic brand and hurt their chances of beating right-wing populism and expanding the map across the country. Hassan Piker, by his own words, is anti-American, he is bigoted,

he's anti-Semitic, and he is deeply misogynistic. What was the impetus to publish this piece in March? You know, why this year, Trump is president, Democrats have very little power in Washington? What made you all publish this now? We published this for a specific reason and a broad reason. The broad reason is that if Democrats are going to not just be Trump and Trumpism, but MAGA long run, we need to be able to build majorities in lots of red and purple places. And right now, the Democratic Party is perceived as more extreme than mainstream in many places. and a majority of Democratic voters want the party to move towards the center.

So if the party aligns with folks who are this extreme and cozy's up to them, it's going to make it much harder, not easier for Democrats to not just flip the House and get the White House back, but beat Vance and Maga and Rubio and the rest of them long run. The specific impetus was that the pod save folks,

right, very prominent Democrats, had featured Hassan Piker at a conference where they are officially elevating him and aligning him with Democrat. Okay, let's dump it into the article. You know, the article opens up by likening Hassan to far right anti-Semites like Nick Fuentes and Candice Owens. Part of the piece reads, quote, left-wing anti-Semites are savier than the Nazi endorsers on the right who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, and set for dinner with the president. This was the first sentence that kind of jumped out to me in the piece because it does seem like Saviors doing some work. year. There are material differences between Piker and Fueness, at least some. Piker has voted for Democrats, Harris in 2024, Biden in 2020. He is openly opposed Trump, while Fuentes has openly

praised Hitler, dying with Trump, kind of as the peace reference. Does that make them categorically different or just packaged differently? How is that not a material difference, just savvy as the piece of? Hassan Piker is dangerously close to Nick Fuentes in the level of bigotry and racism and misogyny that he espouses. I mean, it's just staggering. Let me just, let me just for your listeners. They really need to understand who this guy is. This is what Hassan Piker said about Miley Cyrus.

I want to say thank you to Miley Cyrus for showing off her cameltoe with the VMAs the other night. I always knew Hannah Montana was a little fucking slut. Don't even try to hide it. Come on, instead, why are we defending this? I guess I'm not really defending it. I'm really just asking about the specific thing that I asked about. I know, but that's horrific, horrific.

Why should this guy be anywhere near the Democratic Party? I just want to re-level set. I'm not here for the Hassan Piker is a good person or not question. I'm here for the claims that the article is making. And I guess I wanted to just ask my question again. Like, Nick Fuentes and Candice Owens are Trump supporters who have, at times, said nice things about Hitler. Hudson Biker has not done that, has voted for Democrats, has advocated against Trump.

And I'm saying, does that make him savvier? Does that make him different? Got it. So Hassan Piker says, if you're someone who says, I want there, if I'm a liberal Zionist, it's like saying you're a liberal Nazi. That is anti-Semitic to its core to say that someone who believes in the existence of Israel is the same as a Nazi. I can't really see the difference between that and Nick Fuentes.

On his voting for Democrats, this is what he said about Kamala Harris. He said Democrats, if they were in charge now, would be doing 100 percent the exact same thing. Same thing he means as Trump. One to one, make no fucking mistake. Anyone who tries to tell you Kamala Harris would be different is a fucking delusional moron. So no, he's not for Democrats. He's for China and Russia. He has said that America deserved 9-11. America is, quote, truly the fourth right with Newt. So I just, it's not an argument with you. It's that I reject the whole premise. This guy is like Nick Fuentes. And we shouldn't be close to him. In the article, it also says this language can be get violence. Last year in the

murder seemingly inspired by left-wing rhetoric killed two people for the crime of being Jewish at the Capitol Jewish Museum. Democrats must understand that accepting anti-Semitic figures like Mr. Piker into the mainstreams puts Jewish lives in danger. Now, I think certainly unequivocally, anti-Semitism is on the rise that represents a violent threat to many Americans. I think we can both acknowledge that. But the CNMP's link there connecting Piker to the violence doesn't even mention his name. So I kind of was wondering where that connection came from. Do we have evidence that Piker's rhetoric has led to violence directly? There is no question that bigoted extremist rhetoric, including anti-Semitic rhetoric,

on the right and the left, absolutely encourages violence. There's a ton, ton written and thought about this. That's incredibly clear. And also, so we're clear, Piker is someone who actively encourages violence. So let me give you a quote from Hassan Piker. This is about people who own property. Kill them. Kill those motherfuckers and murder those motherfuckers in the street. Let the streets, let the streaks soak in their fucking red capitalist blood dude.

Okay. We're moving on. The moderate democratic base is heavily working class people of color. It doesn't really exist without that kind of diverse base. I wondered about where this priority comes from. If third way's point is that Democrats are struggling in places to win over more moderate voter, How do you know that though moderates in question kind of at the base of the party share this priority? Do they care about Hassan Piker?

Let's take African-American voters who want to win. We just held a major conference in South Carolina. Those folks want to win. They don't want a party that is deeply connected to and associated with hateful, bigoted extremists like Hassan Piker. That is their priority is winning, beating back Trumpism and expanding the map. They know in their bones that to do that, you don't become a mirror. image of the other party, the right wing that is extremist and bigoted. We don't need two extremist parties in this country. If Democrats are going to beat Maga and expand the map in the House,

the Senate, and the White House, the only way to do that is to offer an alternative to the extremism of Trumpism, not to mirror it. How do you know that? I understand you're making a point about the clearly offensive things that he has said throughout his time and public life. But there is clearly an audience for Hassan Piker's political message. So I'm saying, how do you separate those two things? How do you deal with the reality that Democrats have changed on terms of, like, America's relationship to Intero? That things like Medicare for are increasingly popular. Like, things like abolish ICE are growing in popularity.

So I'm saying that is, I think, a more full representation of the stuff he talks about politically. How are you dealing with that shift among the Democratic base, even if you're making the argument that he himself is offensive? So in 2025 in the off-year elections, right, Mondani, a Democrat, Socialist won in New York, right? And Cheryl and Spamberger won in New Jersey and Virginia. They were both moderates. Yeah. Where was turnout higher?

New York, Virginia, or New Jersey? That feels like an unfair question from a local to state-wide election. Like, come on. No, no, no, no. We're talking about the mayor's race versus the governor's race. Like, that's a trick question. That's not a trick question. It was higher in Virginia and New Jersey.

So this idea... I mean, this idea... Bambonni's favorability rating. is much higher than Cheryl's or Spanberger. You can pick a number and make this argument that either way. I'll give you another example, okay? So since 2018, a central task has been to flip red congressional seats to blue, right? That's a central task in the Trump era.

Crucial, crucial task. The House New Democrats have backed candidates and invested in candidates who flip 50 seats. Our revolution, right, and Justice DeMes, Democrats, two of the most prominent left-wing groups associated with Piker and Bernie and AOC, et cetera, have flipped literally zero. Zero. Yeah. Zero. Okay. Well, that tells you where voters are at. Voters are saying, I want the moderate candidate with the moderate vision. That's how they flip 50 seats. I don't want a voter with a left-wing vision. Is it true that there are deep left places in the United States

where you can make even more blue? Of course there are. But that's not the central political challenge of our time if you want to beat Magas to make blue places bluer, it's to flip red places to blue. And the track record there is unequivocal. These folks have tried over and over and over since 2018. They only make blue places bluer. So I reject the premise of your question. It is true that Mondani can be popular in a deep blue place. And it's also true that lots and lots of moderates can get elected in purple and red places. Those things are simultaneously true. They don't just prove each other. Yeah, yeah. I agree with that. I mean, I think that particularly to your point about like the left coalitions not necessarily succeeding in red to

blue places, I think that's unequivocally true, their goal seems to be a little different. Their goal is to someone change the Democratic Party and the way that, you know, Maga and Trump others had a specific goal of changing the Republican Party through primaries, through pushing candidates that believe a specific vision. It seems like we're talking about kind of two different things. But I mean, let's ask a question. If the existential threat politically of our time is Maga and Trump, the job. is to beat them, to win the White House, to flip the Senate, and to flip the House. That's the job. Why would you then try to make blue places bluer? That's a serious distraction if you

believe that MAGA is an existential threat to our democracy and our way of life. Donald Trump is president right now, not because of progressives, really. You know, like the existential threat of Donald Trump, that goal, Democrats failed it. Like, he won again. It didn't know what I'm saying? like it doesn't seem to me that the question is about the existential threat of Vaga. It feels to me that really where the left and others are trying to do is say in the rubble, that is this Donald Trump reality, how is the kind of Democratic Party moving forward? It actually seemed like you were kind of leaning in that question too in terms of shaping the Democratic Party's future also. So I feel like this red to blue point is kind of a diversion from what you all are both doing,

which is pushing the Democratic Party. But I don't think it's a diversion at all, meaning this instead. If you're offering a vision, for the future of the Democratic Party, right? That vision cannot just be your dreams of what you want to have happened. It has to be grounded in political reality, right? Your vision has to have at least 50 percent of what you're offering has to be concrete proof that you can over and over and over again expand this deep blue formula to places that are red and purple. Because if you can't do that, all you're saying is we can hold a small slice of the country and make it even bluer,

but we have no formula to actually flip the rest of the country. That's a non-starter or is a political vision. That's where it connects, which is let's have great ideas. I agree with you. Great debate about left-wing ideas. But half of what you offer is a political movement has to be a formula for flipping the country, your direction. And these guys have utterly failed at that. Let's ask where we wanted to land.

We're going to talk to Piker, as we mentioned, about these controversial statements, about the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. and what he thinks about his responsibility to the audience. I think one thing that's important that we haven't really talked about is this is different than kind of a traditional media person or endorser because, you know, these Twitch streamers make a lot of money from controversy and there's not really a gut check on accountability. So all I'm saying is we're going to ask about all that.

Is there anything that you think he hasn't answered or is a question that you want to put in front of him from third way? My question to Hassan Piker is, is he ever going to apologize sincerely and profusely and go on an actual apology tour for the dozens and dozens of bigoted offensive, misogynistic things he said, or is he just going to keep standing by all of them? I just, again, I want to come back. Here's what we are asking of Democrats.

Don't campaign with the guy. Don't platform him. Don't cozy up to him. And that's all we're saying. And like, you know, again, like, I mean, Hassan Piker is so profoundly offensive that Graham Platner wouldn't campaign with him. And that's really saying something right now. I'll let you get the last word on that.

Thank you, Jonathan, for coming on. Thanks for having me. Up next, what Hassan Piker has to say in response. Hey, what's up, guys? It's Andrew Ray, aka Babish, and I'm so excited to be hosting a new podcast with Vox Media called In the Booth with Babish. In every episode, I'll be sitting down with celebrities,

chefs, and other fascinating folks to make a meal out of conversation. New episodes of In the Booth with Babish drop every other Tuesday, and you can watch on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts. Cheers. Asam Becker, thank you for joining America actually. Thank you for having me. I wanted to talk to you because, as you know, we talked to the president of Third Way, the centric Democratic group that has argued that Democrats are too cozy with you,

and we dug into their argument. And it seemed both substantive and personal. They say that your brand of politics is bad for the Democratic Party, which we'll dig into later. But they also argued that just the scope of things that you have said are too offensive and that you have not apologize for them. Racist thing, antisemitic things, sexist things. I wanted to start with

some of those statements that get quoted a lot. I know that some of which they quoted were not taken in context, but a couple others seemed as if there were some merit to them. So I'm going to play

the first one. I want to say thank you to Miley Cyrus for showing off her cameltoe at the VMAs the other night. I always knew had a Montana

was a little slut. Don't even try to hide it. Look. Okay, so that was one of them. I want to say, how should we think about these past statements?

Do you stand by them? Will you apologize? Oh, my God. It's so cringe. That is an unearthed attempt at a satirical, like, pop culture slash, like, dating advice show that I was trying to do that was, like, bro-focused. And, of course, I've apologized for it. I mean, it's nasty. It obviously doesn't reflect my current values. And it hasn't reflected my values since, like, I would say, 2014.

What would you ascribe that to? Like, what was the shift in values? Is that just growing up? Or is that like something happened that make you think, lay, it made me pivot away from this kind of house. No, it was a desperate attempt to try to be funny. And, you know, I was much younger back then, too. It was far too misogynistic, which is why we deleted it almost on release.

But then nothing gets deleted on the Internet, of course. Yeah, I mean, so, but third way's argument was that you have not apologized. You're saying you have. Oh, of course. And not only that, but also a big part of my politics and a big part of my worldview revolves around rehabilitation, both in the criminal justice system, but also the draconian attitude that I think a lot of Americans have towards rehabilitation in the social crimes division. And I use examples such as that one that you just showed as a way to say, look, like I had misogynistic opinions in the past. I've had transphobic opinions in the past. And I've worked through them. understanding that it causes harm to others, and it also is not reflective of who I am as a person. I mean, that's one of the statements, but there's a couple others, and I do want to play another that is more recent. This comes from the question the Third Way was raising about anti-Semitism, which seemed central to the reasons that the UK recently barred you from entry. You have said that the amazas a thousand times better than the Israeli state and doubled down on it later, saying that you would vote for them over Israel every time.

You once referred to ultra-orthodox Jews as imbred, but the one that they focused on most specifically was a time on stream when you were arguing with the Jewish man and said this statement. You want every single Palestinian to be fucking executed ruthlessly in the streets so that you can build another fucking theme park on Gaza. You fucking baying pig. You fucking bloodthirsty, violent pig dog.

Now, I wanted to ask about that because they brought up that specific slur as something that you also have not apologized for. In the aggregate, how is this not add up to someone who has trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes? Yeah. And I didn't even know that this is like in any way, shape, or form anti-Semitic. The term, the utilization of the term pig dog is what is in contention, right? Yeah, I didn't realize that that, I don't even think anyone else realized that this was actually an anti-Semitic statement. I've only heard about it being referred to as like capitalist big dog and Red Alert as a common thing that social.

have deployed against capitalists and fascists. But that common thing could be based in a history that has anti-Semitic ties to it, right? And so to the same question becomes the same. They were asking specifically about apology. Is there one for this statement? Oh, for utilization of the term pig dog?

Yeah, I mean, of course. Look, I don't think they're being sincere when they say this stuff. But yeah, of course, I'm not, I never want to offend entire swaths of the population. unless they're fascists. The third statement they talked about that we want to ask about, again, before we get to the kind of broader questions, is that you had advocated for violence. Now, I pushed back against some of their claims specific to anti-Semitism because I don't think that really added up.

But there was a moment in a 2025 limestone when you said, if you cared about Medicare fraud or Medicaid fraud, you would kill Rick Scott. That comment got you temporarily pulled from Twitch, but you since said it was a figure of speech. I still wanted to ask, though, based on their argument, in a country with real political violence, is that irresponsible? Yeah, that was, that also was directly clipped out of context. I was actually referencing Mike Johnson talking to Caitlin Collins on CNN. He was bringing up the fact that they were not actually taking people off of Medicare or not trying to erode Medicare expenditure, but instead combating Medicare fraud. and I said if you, Mike Johnson, actually cared about Medicare fraud, you would, and I used hyperbolic language there, and I shouldn't have. But no, the whole point of that was, and I followed it,

I followed it up in the longer conversation. It's pretty obvious. I'm talking about Rick Scott committing at the time award-winning amounts of Medicare fraud. I asked because I think they were trying to make a larger argument about the responsibility or lack of responsibility to your audience, which is a big one. As that has grown over the years, how have you thought about the balance between filling the hours of day that streaming requires and not leaning in to the most controversial or most bombastic version of yourself? Do you think about that? I do. Absolutely. I mean, I think the fact that over the course of 10,000 hours, the only choice quotes that they can find are from like 2013 or something that like, I don't think anybody knew was,

an anti-Semitic slur at all. And I... Rick Scott was 2025, you know? Yeah, but Rick Scott is a more recent example. And I think like that, once again, uh, is, like, I've been visited by the Secret Service before. Secret Service didn't show up for that one. Like, the FBI did not show up for that one because it's pretty obvious what I'm saying.

I'm not like, you know, talking about like advocating to assassinate an American politician. There is always going to be opportunities for groups to create and manufacture outrage, manufacture controversy around everything that I'm saying. And the medium that I occupy makes it virtually impossible to be controversy ridden, right? I mean, to be... Controversy-free. Yeah, controversy-free, sorry. Have you changed how you go about those eight hours as the focus on you has gotten bigger? Absolutely, but I think it was post-October 7. It wasn't recent. Okay. Post-October 7, I very quickly found out that there were numerous advocacy organizations and numerous

groups on the internet that were volunteering to do this thing. They set up a website called Hamasabi, I think on October 14th, 2023. It's incredible. October 7 happens. It's horrifying. The world is in crisis. Israel very quickly goes into Gaza, starts murdering Palestinians by the hundreds, by the thousands. And there were people on the internet whose first goal in that moment was to set up a website to log every single thing that I have said about Israel from October 8th and onward. And that's when I realized, like, I have to be unbelievably careful, which is precisely the reason why, since October 8th, 2023, I've talked for thousands of hours on this issue. And there's, like, three things that they can point to. And one of them

is me referring to, you know, ultra-far-right, ethno-nationalists and fascists as inbred, which is something that I deploy against all matter of racist and white nationalists in general, because that revolves around purity politics, like genetic purity politics at the end of the day. And I think that's a normal pejorative to deploy against, you know, neo-Nazis and far-right settlers as well. I guess I do want to clarify one big point, though. I do think that, like, the double down you made on Potsave America. I'm a harm reduction voter. I'm a lesser-evil voter.

And therefore, I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time. Is to some people enough of an offense? to ignore the rest of, I think, the context you are trying to lay out. I want to give you another opportunity. I've already tripled down on it. Yeah, yeah, I'm like, you're about to triple down on it. No, no, I'm about the quadriple down on it. I triple down on it.

I triple down on LBC. I think, like, the quadrupling and tripling down on it is, like, also part of the process. Like, I'm aware that this is something that most people have never encountered. This is not a statement that they would ever hear in polite society. And that's kind of the purpose of it. It's intentionally provocative. It is intentionally provocative, but I don't think it's inappropriate. If the point of the statement is to underscore the violent atrocities that the Israeli government has committed, particularly over the last three years, I think that people understand that.

But doesn't that flatten the atrocities Hamas is committed on some of the same people? I think that that flattening actually does a disservice to the Palestinian resistance fronts in its entirety because there is no flattening. When I say Israel is a thousand times worse, I mean it. Because the reality of the matter is in the Western world, once any non-state actor is designated as a terrorist organization, there is a good deal of racialized animosity demonstrated towards these sorts of groups as well. And I think that it's important for people to understand these are normal human beings at the end of the day that have suffered tremendous loss over the course of...

I guess people maybe not care about the discrimination Hamas faces. No, no, but it's very important to understand. understand that because it's not Hamas. Hamas is not an alien entity. These are Palestinians, right? Of course it's important to understand how they arrived at militant resistance, why they're doing it, and how their methods have also evolved, and how such heinous acts of violence even take place. A lot of people want to just believe that Hamas did this because they're violent, barbaric, anti-Semites. I don't think that's the case. Actually, I know that that's not the case. This is, like, Are there anti-Semitic people?

I'm about to say, there's certainly moving. I'm like, we're not about to say the Hamasism is a movement with some anti-Semitism based into. Of course. Now, of course, of course, of course there's anti-Semitic people within the Palestinian resistance. There's anti-Semitic people in America. There's anti-Semitic people everywhere. But the anger or the goals of Hamas is to make the occupation as costly as possible, while also simultaneously trying to negotiate with Israel.

At a time when Palestinians had been completely written off. from the conversation and that it was all but over, that ethnic cleansing was an inevitability. I guess I just wanna say, like, that I don't think people who are maybe more good faith upset by this would not be upset by the statement of we need to understand the conditions that have led Hamas to resistance.

But that seems distinct from saying, I would vote for that, right? And that also seems like, at minimum, it underscores why there, is a website set up, you know, like, or why there is something that tries to link you to a group that you're linking yourself to in terms of least trying to understand that perspective. So I guess I'm saying, like, I don't think the kind of argument you're making here saying we should learn the structural conditions that have led to this moment is exactly the same

as folks being upset at, I will vote for Hamas over the Israeli government. I am, at the end of the day, someone who is engaging in, and this is a Marxist term that a lot of people get mad at, because they don't understand that propaganda is supposed to be a neutral term in its inception, but this is agitative propaganda. The entire point I'm making there is to cause you to second guess when we have this back and forth conversation, as I'm sure many people who will be tuning in to listen to this conversation will maybe think about this perspective differently than they ever have. You know, part of the reason you blew up, particularly post-20204 election, at least in more mainstream Democratic world, is that it was helpful for the party to try to understand the new media ecosystem and kind of how to reach young men, which became a topic a lot of folks were coming to you for. I wanted to just summarize, like, in your opinion, what's the chief reason that liberals have failed to really take off in places like Twitch or in streaming culture more broadly? The reality is Republicans get to portray themselves as authentic. on the internet, authenticity is everything. And Republicans present themselves as authentic by being racist.

That's it. Tell it like it is. Yeah, they tell it like it is. Exactly. Trump did that too. Yeah. To much success. Like kind of performatively offensive.

Yes, being performatively offensive. Exactly. You can't really do that on the internet as like a liberal. You're always going to come across as a little inauthentic. You're going to come across like you're lecturing people. And that is a tough nut to crack. on the independent media side. And sometimes when you do a pretty good job

at identifying right-wing misinformation and tackling it and combating it like I do, then Third Way comes after you and says, oh, well, you're not sufficiently woke, but you're also too woke at the same time. Yeah, I mean, they were kind of making the argument that you have succeeded by adopting some Republican-y tactics or that, you know.

If that was the case, wouldn't Third Way love me? I'm saying there's, like, that's what they want to do. I guess what I really wanted to ask To bring it back to the young men point, is there a way to be authentic to wide swaths of new emerging Americans without offending traditional black growth structures? You know, like I'm saying, sometimes those two things do feel a little in conflict about how you live in the culture of those people without reflecting values that I would like to think left or liberals don't like. Yeah. No, I'm unapologetically anti-right-wing, anti-reactionary.

I will always argue against white supremacy. And I make that very clear in my commentary. Yeah, I've heard that. And now they're saying I'm actually too reactionary, which I find to be very strange because these groups are also the same people that are saying we should be a little bit more right-wing on culture issues.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a fair thing to point out. It doesn't make any sense. It's just completely inconsistent. It is. The two critiques are kind of in conflict. I guess I want to end with a couple of more quick ones. What's your message to the slice of Democrats, third way included,

that have sought to marginalize you in the last few months? Oh, it's awesome. your booze mean nothing when I've seen what makes you cheer. And guess what? The people also feel the exact same way. It was awesome. I knew from the start people would come up to me. They'd be like, dude, they're on your ass right now.

Are you okay? Like, how are you feeling? I was like, first of all, it was a lot lonelier on October 8th, 20203, what I was saying, the exact same things that I'm saying right now. Okay? It doesn't feel so lonely anymore. And number two, if they want to position themselves on the 10% side of a 90-10 issue, that's going to be great for me.

That's going to be great for the candidates that I'm actually promoting. Yeah, it really does keep coming back to me that you're kind of making the argument that Third Way's memo seeks to make, which is that like, you know, their focus on the wrong side of a cultural uniting issue,

which is, you know, most people do think that Israel's committed to genocide. Most people do think that atrocities. Yeah, and so I'm saying like, you're saying like, so they're positioning themselves on the wrong side of that thing is worst.

impact for Democrats than what you're saying? Yes. Changing the Democratic Party isn't a silly vanity project. Changing the Democratic Party to make sure that we have some real fighters, to make sure that they're going to fight for the American people rather than constantly tell them that better things are not possible, will actually create longstanding change in this country that will be good for the American working class. And it will certainly be the most effective way to combat fascism. I appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. America actually will be in your feeds every Saturday with an interesting interview in culture or politics. You could also watch these episodes on the Vox YouTube channel. Just go to

YouTube.com slash Vox or click the link in the show notes. The best way to support this show is by becoming a Vox member. Members get a bonus segment on Patreon every week and they make our work possible. Go to Vox.com slash members to join. This show was edited by Kasha, Factorily, fact-checked by Esther Gim and mixed by Shannon Mahoney. Christopher Snyder is our video editor, and Kuhnui is our senior art director. Our executive producer is Christina Vallis, and our theme music is from Breakmaster Cylinder. Additional support for Miranda, Miranda, David Tadashore, and Nisha Chittal. I'm Estet Heurndon, and this is America Actually.