Asked by host Francesca Fiorentini for her thoughts on the MS NOW interview of Hasan Piker, Emma Vigeland said MS NOW host Symone Sanders “didn’t listen to anything that he said,” responded to something “completely disconnected from the point he was making,” and that she was “shocked at how poor of an interviewer she is.” Vigeland said the “AIPAC-aligned, wealthy, billionaire-aligned Democrats” have “hours and hours of footage” of him “sometimes saying edgy or inflammatory things by their own conservative standards,” and “feel like this is a figure that we can define.” When they ask why he campaigns for candidates “if you’re so politically toxic,” she said, they ignore that “this coordinated campaign against him” is what could make him toxic.
Why we used this label
The case covers two prongs: whether Piker’s comparison is defensible, and what his statements mean for the candidates associated with him. Vigeland’s “politically toxic” passage addresses the second prong, responding to Sanders’s statement in the clip that she would advise candidates to disavow Piker; her earlier remarks concern Sanders as an interviewer. She disputes that any political toxicity is Piker’s own doing, attributing it to “this coordinated campaign against him,” and describes his critics as holding footage of him “sometimes saying edgy or inflammatory things by their own conservative standards.” She does not mention the al-Qaeda comparison; the only comparison of Piker’s she refers to is his comparison of the reaction to him with the industry reaction to Macklemore and Ruffalo, which she calls “a good, I think, comparison.” The closest competing label is minimizes, which this case uses for Tom Shillue’s reframing of Piker’s statements; it loses because Vigeland does not downplay his statements or concede fault, she disputes what makes him toxic.