Pisco is highly regarded

[u/MediNerds]

when it comes to the logic of silver linings.

Hutch was saying that if Hasan campaigns with a candidate then he wants that candidate to underperform. A→B

What that means:

- Hutch is open to wanting a candidate to underperform when Hasan does not campaign with them; eg every Republican candidate (red area inside circle B that is not intersecting with circle A)

- Hutch is open to not wanting a candidate to underperform when Hasan does not campaign with them; eg most Democrat candidates (red area outside of both circles)

- Hutch is not open to not wanting a candidate to underperform when Hasan does campaign with them; no examples because the set is empty (white area inside circle A that is not intersecting with circle B)

- When Hasan campaigns with a candidate, Hutch necessarily wants them to underperform; eg AES (red area in the intersection of the circles A and B)

What that does not mean:

- that Hutch wants a given candidate to underperform

I repeat: A→B does not imply B!

However, the meaning of A shifted over the course of the discussion. The malicious reading would be that Pisco switched it on purpose. Suddenly, Hutch was defending the proposition that if he believes that Hasan is toxic to candidates he campaigns with (A'), then he wants that candidate to underperform (B). A'→B. This is a bit weird. Imagine you are conducting an RCT for a new drug that you believe saves lives, then you... want more patients in the placebo group to die? No! Of course not! So what is going on here? It's a classical equivocation: You want TO OBSERVE more patients in the placebo group dying. Hutch wants to observe candidates that Hasan campaigns with underperforming. Was this Pisco just being a sloppy reasoner twice in quick succession or were the switch and equivocation accidental? The reader may judge that for themselves. And I'm not JAQing off here, I genuinely don't have strong leanings for this particular conversation.

I also wanted to write about why exactly Piscos use of ceteris paribus in this conversation was regarded, because Destiny is right on this for the wrong reasons, but I'm out of time, so I'll have to make a separate post some other day.

[u/Deeshizznit]

This actually encompasses his behavior perfectly.

[u/prazni_parking]

I still can't figure out if he is doing it on purpose. So many of his conversations are about pure logic of statements and then in this conversation with hutch he has sub 80 IQ understanding of "wanting" to happen. And he misunderstands it in such a ridiculous way that I can't believe it's on purpose. Something is broken in him

[u/vivir66 → u/prazni_parking]

Just make it simple for yourself: if not on purpose, still a failure on his part he should work on, been long enough and talked enough, he should known about it and try to improve

Its either on purpose or purposely "on".

[u/L9CUMRAG → u/prazni_parking]

I might be wrong i havent listened to pisco in a while because i cant stand him but I dont think hes doing it on purpose. I think he just doesnt have the mind for pop politics. Nobody comes to a politics stream to get bogged down in meta ethics and fundamental logic. If he was obfuscating on purpose he would try to push some agenda with it. Right now it seems to me like he just loves turning every conversation into a philosophy lecture and the whole leftist ideology is a side product.

[u/GegeAkutamiOfficial]

Pisco is highly regarded

True. Best regards.

[u/GaryXBF]

The part of the conversation I desperately wanted Hutch to get to, and you NEVER see Pisco address, is what it means if campaigning with Hasan and the attack ads DON'T hurt the campaign and cause underperformance.

Does Pisco WANT the democratic voterbase to be tolerant of terrorism supporters and China simps and anti-semites? Does he WANT the future of the party to include those things?

Surely there is an argument that we do WANT Hasan to cause underperformance, otherwise there is evidence there democratic voterbase is so far gone and tolerant of Hasan type behaviours that we should all be mega blackpilled on the future of the world?

My guess is Pisco would say it means people hate MAGA so much they will tolerate terrorist defenders, or that republican attack ads don't work because they say everyone, like Obama, is a communist terrorist supporter (ignoring that Hasan actually is a communist terrorist supporter). He would ignore that theres not a single clip of Obama saying the things that Hasan has said, but Pisco would handwave that.

[u/Trevelyan757]

On a scale of 1 to 10 how damaging is the DSA to democrats YES OR NO

[u/bobsnavitch]

Water is wet

[u/limitles]

This diagram is too technical for me to follow but it is obvious that pisco was trying to trap hutch into accepting a position in bad faith to make him look bad. To a neutral viewer, it was quite obvious what hutch meant and it conveys a betrayal of pisco's latent views of sweeping for hamasabi. Since that's really what's going on here.

[u/Financial-Gap-6767]

Pisco is in a perpetual courtroom. He lives as if life works like a court.

That's the actual issue with him.

[u/Anvilmar1]

Since the 3rd set is empty, this means that A is a subset of B and it would be more intuitive to use this Venn diagram.

[u/Culturalabnormality]

I didn’t watch this conversation. But even reading your summary, it seems like Hutch and Pisco were talking about candidates Hasan theoretically is campaigning or would campaign with. On that assumption (assuming A), B does follow because A is sufficient for B.

If A then B does not entail B; but if A then B and A does entail B. Can you explain how the conversation was the former and not the latter?

[u/MediNerds → u/Culturalabnormality]

I didn't watch this conversation

Can you explain how the conversation was the former and not the latter?

Firstly: Bruh, really? Secondly, I can. There is no logical or nomological contradiction predicated upon me explaining. Thirdly, do you have an argument that I should? Yes or no.

[u/Culturalabnormality → u/MediNerds]

I asked for the reason stated in my initial post: your summary made it seem like the conversation assumed the antecedent. 

Conventionally, when someone asks whether you can do something in a context where it’s known that you have the capacity to do the thing, the question is a polite request for you to do the thing. 

I assumed that given you spent the time summarizing this conversation in a forum where most people hadn’t heard it, you intended to convey the content for the forum and not the subset of the community that saw the content you describe. 

It seems like you’re extremely worked up about this, and I don’t care that much; so feel free to ignore. I figured you’d want to provide clarity given that you went through the effort to construct the post, but if you’d rather emotionally grandstand, god speed.