Stop Excusing HasanAbi — Animal Abuse Isn’t “Whataboutable”

You know what’s honestly wild to me right now? The number of people trying to excuse HasanAbi’s alleged abuse of his dog by bringing up Palestine. Like, what are we doing? I’ve seen people online say things like “Why are you focusing on Hasan’s dog when there’s a genocide going on?” or “There are worse things happening in Gaza, stop worrying about a streamer’s pet.” And like—what? You can care about both. You can care about human suffering and animal suffering at the same time. Compassion isn’t a limited resource. And this whole “what about Palestine” response to an alleged act of animal cruelty isn’t empathy — it’s deflection. It’s moral gymnastics to protect someone’s image because you don’t want to admit your favorite streamer might’ve done something wrong.

Whataboutism is one of the most toxic habits of online discourse, and this is a prime example. When you say “But what about Palestine?” you’re not defending Palestinians — you’re using them as a rhetorical shield to protect a rich streamer from criticism. And that’s disgusting. That’s not activism. That’s cult behavior disguised as solidarity. If you genuinely care about justice, you don’t get to pick and choose when it applies. If you care about freedom, you should care about the freedom of every living being, including animals. And if you care about the oppressed, you should care when a creature with no voice yelps in pain on a livestream. The two causes aren’t in conflict — they’re both rooted in compassion. But apparently, a lot of people online forgot that.

Then there’s the other side — the people who are certain Hasan did abuse his dog, but instead of being outraged or saddened, they’re memeing about it. Making jokes. Doing “shock collar” memes. Turning it into some edgy running gag. And that’s not right either. That’s not justice — that’s cruelty hiding behind irony. When you make jokes about alleged abuse, you’re not calling out the problem. You’re trivializing it. You’re turning something traumatic — even if it’s “just” an animal — into a punchline for engagement. It’s like people forgot that behind that clip is a living, breathing dog who might’ve been scared or in pain. There’s nothing funny about that. There’s nothing clever about that. It’s heartless.

And I want to make this really clear — I’m not being “centrist” here. I’m not trying to say “both sides are wrong” in some lazy neutral way. No. I’m a progressive. I’ve always been. I care about compassion, about ethics, about justice. But what I’m noticing is that a lot of so-called progressives don’t seem to actually practice empathy when it comes to people they like. It’s selective morality — they’ll cry for justice overseas but ignore injustice in their own online communities. And that’s a real problem. Because if your empathy is conditional — if it stops where your fandom begins — then it’s not empathy at all.

I’ve got dogs at home. And here’s the thing about dogs: they don’t just yelp for no reason. They don’t make that kind of noise unless they’re in pain, scared, or startled. Something must’ve been up in that clip. Maybe it was a shock collar. Maybe it wasn’t. But something happened. And if it wasn’t the collar, then it’s still not a good look. Because apparently, Hasan keeps that dog in his room for hours while streaming, sitting or lying there quietly off-camera. That alone — if true — is a kind of neglect. Maybe not violent, but neglectful. Because a dog is not a prop. A dog is not content. A dog is a living being that needs movement, attention, and care.

And that’s what bothers me the most about this whole situation — even if you remove the alleged shock collar completely, there’s still something deeply wrong here. The power dynamic is off. Hasan seems to treat his dog like part of the set, like another background element for his stream. That’s exploitation. It’s using a living creature to gain views, engagement, and emotional points with the audience. That’s not love — that’s selfish. Because the moment the dog behaves in a way that doesn’t fit the “show,” he gets frustrated, angry, or dismissive. And for what? For moving? For existing? For interrupting the stream? That’s not how you treat an animal, especially one that trusts you.

And if HasanAbi is supposed to be a leftist, someone against exploitation and capitalist dehumanization, then he should recognize what he’s doing — because this is exploitation. He’s commodifying his pet. He’s turning Kaya into a brand accessory, and that’s exactly the kind of behavior leftists are supposed to oppose. You can’t be anti-exploitation when it comes to workers and pro-exploitation when it comes to your own dog. Compassion doesn’t work that way. Ethics don’t stop where your content begins.

There’s also the part where Hasan showed the collar on stream — or at least, part of it — but not until almost a full day later. And honestly, that delay alone was a little suspicious. If it were really that simple to clear things up, why wait nearly a day before showing it? Why not just immediately say, “Here’s the collar, here’s what it does,” and be transparent from the start? Instead, when he finally did show it, he kept it partially hidden, holding it at an angle where you couldn’t really see the full device. That made the whole thing feel off — like he was trying to manage optics rather than genuinely prove anything. He said it was just a vibrating collar, not a shock one. But vibrations alone don’t usually make a dog yelp in pain like that. Anyone who’s ever lived with dogs knows that sound — it’s not surprise, it’s distress. So if it really was “just vibration,” then why did Kaya react that way? Either something else was going on, or the collar wasn’t quite what he said it was. And that combination — the delay, the half-obscured view, the defensive tone — didn’t exactly build trust. It felt less like transparency and more like damage control.

What really sucks, though, is that I feel like I’m one of the few left-leaning people actually talking about this honestly. Most of the outrage I’ve seen online is from right-wing creators or centrist commentators. The left, for the most part, is silent — or worse, defensive. They’re circling the wagons, pretending nothing’s wrong because it’s “their guy.” That’s dangerous. Because if the left can’t call out its own when they mess up, then we lose all moral credibility. Accountability has to start at home. Otherwise, we’re no better than the systems we criticize.

We need more progressives, more leftists, to step up and say: “This isn’t okay.” To say that alleged animal abuse, or even neglect, isn’t compatible with the values we claim to hold. It’s not “cancel culture” to demand decency. It’s not “reactionary” to want someone to treat their dog with respect. It’s being consistent. It’s being human.

Because even if Hasan didn’t shock his dog — even if every allegation somehow turns out false — the pattern of behavior still raises red flags. The frustration, the yelling, the control, the confinement. It doesn’t look healthy. It doesn’t look caring. And even if Kaya wasn’t physically hurt, you can’t tell me a dog that’s kept cooped up in one room for hours on end, just so her owner can stream uninterrupted, is being treated right. That’s not love. That’s management. That’s control. And that’s not what dogs need.

Here’s a hot take that shouldn’t even be hot: how about just let your pet roam? Let them be free. Let them move around. I’m not saying be careless — just let them live. Even Vaush, of all people — and trust me, I’m not a fan after the whole “porn folder” mess — still lets his cats roam around. They’re not locked in a room with him while he streams. They’re allowed to exist freely, to come and go as they please. And honestly, that’s something every pet owner should aspire to. You should want your pets to feel comfortable, not confined. Loved, not managed. Safe, not silenced.

It’s sad that this even needs to be said, but treating animals with kindness shouldn’t be a political issue. It shouldn’t depend on who you like or what ideology you follow. If a right-winger abused a dog, leftists would be furious — and rightly so. But if a leftist does it, suddenly it’s “nuanced”? No. Abuse isn’t nuanced. Exploitation isn’t ideological. It’s just wrong. And until people on all sides can admit that, we’re not going to get anywhere.

At the end of the day, empathy isn’t partisan. It’s human. And if progressivism means anything at all, it should mean compassion — for people, for animals, for the voiceless. So no, I’m not going to defend HasanAbi just because he’s on “my side.” And no, I’m not going to meme about it either. I’m going to say what I see: that something isn’t right. That the way he treats his dog, even if it’s not physical abuse, looks controlling, cold, and exploitative. That he needs to reflect — not deflect.

Because if you can’t show kindness to the being sitting right next to you — the one who depends on you completely — then all your politics, all your speeches, all your talk about liberation and justice, mean nothing.