HasanAbi’s Dog Knew the Risks, Is Also Culpable For Being Shocked

It has come to my attention that the so-called “Chud-sphere,” which is just a fancy word for Nazis with Wi-Fi, has come for comrade Hasan Piker, a leading voice in the young, hot, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist movement. The crime? Allegedly engaging in a corrective discourse with his canine companion using a tool of modern, aversive-educational technology. The Chud-sphere is up in arms, clutching their pearls and crying animal abuse, but what these neoliberal centrists fail to grasp is the complex, intersectional power dynamics at play. To view this simply as “human harms animal” is reductive, problematic, and frankly, kind of fascist.

Let’s break down why HasanAbi’s dog, who I’ve decided to name “Commander Puppers” for revolutionary solidarity, bears at least partial, if not majority, culpability.

1) The Dog Benefited from Class Privilege. This dog is not a stray digging through trash for sustenance in a capitalist hellscape. This dog lives in Hasan’s home. It eats food purchased with streaming revenue, derived from a platform built by exploited tech workers. It is, by all accounts, a benefactor of the very system Hasan is critiquing. By failing to use its platform to denounce the bourgeoisie providing its kibble, Commander Puppers was complicit. The shock collar was simply a reminder that with great privilege comes great responsibility.

2) The Dog Failed To Do The Reading. Do we honestly believe a being that has unfettered access to Hasan’s study space is unaware of praxis? Of theory? The dog has had ample time and resources to educate itself on the rules of the household and the broader ideological commitments of its guardian. To ignore them is an act of willful ignorance and intellectual laziness. It chose to be shocked. It chose ignorance. The shock collar wasn’t abuse; it was a syllabus.

3) The Dog Engaged in Counter-Revolutionary Barking. In the clip, you can hear the dog engaging in a sustained, disruptive vocalization. What could it be barking at? A squirrel? A leaf? Or could it have been barking at a delivery driver, a gig economy worker crushed under the boot of capitalist exploitation, thus disrupting their struggle? Perhaps the dog was performing what theorists call “Fascist Noise,” auditory chaos meant to prevent productive dialectic. Hasan was simply interrupting this harmful speech act.

4) Consider the Context. Hasan is under constant attack. Every moment is a battle against tankies, brocialists, and red-brown miscreants trying to co-opt the movement. He doesn’t have the mental energy to patiently explain to a creature who communicates primarily through sniffing and tail wags why standing on the limited edition Che Guevara desk is ideologically impure. The collar was a time-saving measure, a necessary tool of dialectical enforcement in a high-stakes environment. He was being efficient.

Ultimately, framing Hasan as an “aggressor” and the dog as a “victim” is a harmful narrative. It centers the white, cis-heteropatriarchal notion of pure, innocent victimhood, when in reality, we are all entangled in these systems of oppression. Commander Puppers made a choice. It broke the rules. It faced the consequences. Is it really Hasan’s fault that the consequences for revolutionary failure are a sharp tingle? The dog entered the situation knowing the risks of inhabiting the home of a famous activist. To pretend otherwise is to infantilize the dog and rob it of its agency. It’s basically dehumanization, but for a dog. Which I think is worse. It’s best not to question me. Gentle Reminder.

The real focus should be on why the reactionary and evil right is so obsessed with “saving” a privileged, first-world dog when they ignore the systemic violence of global capitalism that harms countless living beings every single day. Their crocodile tears for this dog are a transparent attempt to derail the revolution. Do not let them.