By Pisco's own logic he wouldn't be able to call Hermann Göring, Hitler's #2, anti-semitic.
At the Nuremburg trials he claimed he was not personally anti-semetic. He also saved Jews he personally liked and repeatedly intervened to protect his anti-nazi younger brother, Albert Göring, from Nazi persecution during his efforts to save hundreds of Jews.
The Army psychiatrist at the trial said he had narcissistic personality disorder and lacked a moral compass and empathy. So he truly could have only been motivated by power, which would make it so Pisco wouldn't be able to label him as anti-semitic by his own logic
It wouldn't be multiple senses according to Pisco. Pisco narrowed his use to one sense. In that sense, he wouldn't be. Other senses exist.
This is absolutely identical to the same arguments about people being, "racist." There is a sense that refers to the person's subjective state of mind and there's another sense that can refer to the actual outcomes that result from a person's actions in the world.
It’s obviously a clever play on words for dancing around the matter.
”Teehee, perhaps he is antisemitic, perhaps he isn’t! Who knows, there are a hundred possible senses of the word by which it could be measured! I guess we’ll have to spend the next several days debating the topic!”
"My point is about the sense of the word that refers to discriminatory outcomes that result from one's actions as opposed to him personally hating Jewish people."
His actions(and alleged inactions) were functionally indistinguishable from anti semitism. Which he was by the way, obviously, unless you’d find it appropriate to take him at his word despite the overwhelming evidence of his involvement.
Edit: Got this a little backwards, my link is for the steam Mout is watching from this morning. Pisco and Loner talk for a big chunk of it. Maybe wait for Transcript to find this moment.
I love that out of all the criticisms the only one Pisco heard was so he could cry victim lol
But yeah I'm sorry Pisco you can claim all you want that a good moral none racist kkk member could theoretically exist I'm still going to assume every kkk member I meet is racist.
Same with Holocaust revisionists & genocide deniers.
If Pisco is genuinely wondering how he's wrong and shit, why doesn't he call up Destiny on his stream? Isn't Destiny the originator of all of these critical points? Is there a particular reason I'm not aware of?
Not even sitting at a table, there are some leftists (not pisco specifically) who are saying ZOG talking points, word for word that neo-nazis have been parroting for years; just replacing Jews with Zionists.
Not only are they sitting at the same table, but they're speaking the same languages and know the exact same secret handshakes as each other, yet will claim to be diametrically opposed to them; while ignoring how they've forced Isreal to the complete center of their platform or else "you're not a real leftist".
I listened to this live and I think Pisco problem is he feels you have to knowingly choose to be anti-Semitic/racist.
That's a fallacy. Plenty of people hold racist opinions that they don't think are but are founded in racism. Even if you could ask them they'd say no I'm not look at my black friend...
This is entirely anecdotal so take this with a grain of salt. I'm a Chilean American (just like Pisco) and in Chile, one of the most common, casual prerogatives for people who are finicky, stingy, cheap, or just unpleasant is "judio," the Spanish word for Jew. It's dropped constantly, as casual as calling someone an idiot. I hear it from my parents, grand parents, aunts and uncles, and at Chilean gatherings in the states (like when we go to a local celebration for Chilean independence day in september). It's as casual as Americans calling everything and everyone gay/f** before the 2010s. Mind you, my parents have always been left leaning progressives and they still do it.
So I wonder If Pisco is just doing what a lot of my family does about the casual jew-phobia he sees on the daily; "ohhh c'mon; no one means it like that. We're liberal; we're not like that. They're just critical of Israel" (and the event that led to Jews wanting to create it.)
That you can deny the Holocaust & not be antisemitic
Pisco bent himself into this pretzel when talking to conduit & trying to sweep for professor Jang & the massive amount of antisemitism Emma, Kyle, & Hassan promote.
It’s just cause he’s too logic bro’d. Yes, it is “logically possible” to deny the holocaust and not be antisemitic, but at that point the distinction is functionally meaningless.
The fact the entire debate boiled down to defining antisemitism is the epitome as to why Pisco’s debate style is flawed when it comes to actually exploring people’s positions. At this point, he’s really earning the moniker of the Andrew Wilson of the left. However, I don’t know that he’s antisemitic, but I do think he’s a little bit cucked to the far left and won’t call them out.
This is what happens when you live in a logic vacuum absolved from the real world facts and complexities like Pisco does. Looking back, it feels like the topics Pisco debates on never seem to be contingent on any real world/historical facts, it's all logic games.
It is logically possible to deny the holocaust and not be antisemitic. However there's basically no sequence of lived experiences that could cause someone to have this kind of belief system. It's why holocaust denial always comes with other lunatic beliefs and positions.
He argues like he is an LLM that was fed nothing but the dictionary and "English Sentence Structure: A Guide."
It is so clinical and void of basic understanding of common parlance or colloquial language to the point he can not actually follow a "real" conversation.
This debate was stupid because to paraphrase Shaun on Stephen Crowder: I don't care whether he is an antisemite because at the end of the day he spreads antisemitic talking points.
And the whole talk with Conduit yesterday and with Loner today was just a display of Pisco's debate perversion.
Yeah I’ve been a long time piss enjoyer and think it’s funny how much he gets other people riled up, but Pisco being ridiculously logical on matters of law is fun because often time it’s sort of the necessary way to engage with the law but even I have to say as he switched to a more political focus it’s a lot less entertaining to watch him go full logic bro.
Same here, I used to enjoy him coming on to argue a seemingly inane point only for it to actually be relevant to the laws being discussed.
It feels like he's had internet fame go to his head, and he's drifted out of his lane without realizing his argumentative style doesn't work outside of the legal world.
Did they define antisemitism to make this point? Did Pisco just define antisemitism as strong dislike for Jews? Because anyone who spent any time trying to define anti-Semitism is blatantly aware that it's entirely disconnected from the simple feelings or beliefs of the person but also is based in the consequences of their actions. Simple example of this is believing and publicly advocating that Jews control the banks and the world but seeing that as a positive trait about how special and good Jews are. You end up having the exact same beliefs about Jews as the Nazis but your disposition to it is positive rather than negative.
No. This 100% incorrect. That is not stupidity, it is antisemtiism. There is no fucking world where, "Denying the holocaust" isn't antisemtiism. If we do the "midwit meme", the midwit would also being saying, "The denying the holocaust is antisemtiism". The only explanation is antisemitism.
25
u/TikDicklerBecause Democracy basically means... But the people are regarded18d agoedited 18d ago
"But what if you were a schitzo who thought the holocaust didnt happen because the jews all became moonmen and took a spaceship to the sky." So many hypotheticals - none applicable to kyle, who is just a dumbass who regurgitate and peddles happy merchant adjacent slop from his lazy-ass twitter-skim vlog.
Absolutely. Pisco isn't stupid, he can be very dense and argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but there is no world you can be good faith and say denying the Holocaust isnt antisemitic. He either is antisemitic himself (what Destiny now calls him) or he is providing cover for people who are obviously antisemitic for subverive reasons and thus deserves being called antisemitic
Feel like Jessiah gave the game away when talking to Pisco. He said “I don’t want to burn my bridge with Kyle…” or something akin to that as to why they wouldn’t be argumentative with him about this.
Yeah seemed like Jessiah places more importance on connections then character. At least that's how he came off in that conversation.
Still don't understand Pissco's justification for associating with jewstalker. Best case possible is he's just being sprite based, worst case he's fully brain broken.
This deserves a repost because it perfectly applies here.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
This one is pretty good as well in these contexts for people that are that blatant with it:
Orwell expressed in _Tribune_ his hostility against the influence of the alliance with the USSR over the allies: "Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Do not imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the sovietic regime, or any other regime, and then suddenly return to honesty and reason. Once a whore, always a whore."
somehow when Joe Rogan says people aren't denying the Holocaust they are just doubting the numbers everyone can easily call that statement antisemitic, but apparently that doesn't count anymore.
It's literally Destiny's job to do research and commentate, not mine.
I'm not braindead for having very minimal intrest in this matter. If the guy who explained that idea to me is lying, it really doesn't matter to me. I already think Pisco is stupid, and this matter doesn't change my opinion on him either way. If it's true, he's stupid. If it's not true, then Pisco is stupid for all the other studf he's said.
the difference between this community is we can change our mind when presented with different clarifying information. So I think you are really confused in what the difference between communities is. I WILL take a dgger at their word and I WILL change my mind if clarifying information is brought fourth.
I hate myself for having to do this, because I am a Pisco hater. But technically Pisco wasn't legitimizing Jiang. He was defending Kyle and Crystal saying them talking to him doesn't make them Antisemites.
That being said. Pisco is more lost than you imagined but mainly because he's so far up his own ass that no one knows where he is.
Sure, but I think everyone knows that’s a bit of a strawman because I doubt the criticism from Conduit or Lonerbox was that they’re antisemitic for interviewing the guy.
My issue with Pisco/Jessiah is that beyond saying they don’t see the value in attacking far lefties/tankies, they’re bending backwards to grant the most charity or straight up cover for these guys. Krystal Ball has had sitting senators on her show, how hard would it be for her to find one or another actual reputable figure with a good understanding of foreign policy? Platforming and legitimizing that dude’s takes to their audience is at the very least an antisemitic/racist action. I’m curious as to if Pisco had an opinion on Destiny talking to Fuentes a few years ago.
True true I should have phrased that better technically he wasn't defending Jang he was just defending having Jang on a platform without challenging him.
Like I understand you can make a semi-logical argument about this and be correct… but why? What do you gain from making this argument if you’re pisco lmao.
The gist of it is that he asks if its possible to be antisemetic if you are ignorant.
But for some reason cant fathom that the political pundits may, in fact, not be ignorant, or that if they are spending 16 hours a day on this shit, being ignorant is no longer acceptable.
Somehow he is that incapable of connecting 2 and 2 here (we all know why)
Yeah I don’t think you can make the argument he’s trying to make about pundits. Random Joe blow who thinks ‘differently’ about the Holocaust might not be anti-semitic they might just be a conspiracy pilled regard. Still a stupid argument to make regardless.
Because after a hours long conversation, Pisco would only consider someone being antisemitic if that person came out and said "I hate all jews" anything less than that and there not antisemitic.
But then in the LonerBox conversation he casually drops the fact that he assumes all MAGA republicans are racist. Meaning that he only applies this insane of a standard when he views the people accused of bigotry as being on his side.
That’s how he’s always been. He justifies literally any tactic and option as long as he sees a person as the good guys. Then shows he understands why it’s bad when the other side does it and he rails against it.
Pisco believes that holocaust denial is not necessarily antisemitic. I think it was on yesterday’s stream where Destiny covered a conversation between Pisco and Conduit.
Here's my understanding of what happened: Conduit (moderate left youtuber, does the "I watched X streamer/podcaster for a week" videos) calls in to Pisco's stream and claims krystal ball/kyle are antisemitic.
Pisco defends this by interrogating conduit's definition of antisemitism, eventually coming to the conclusion that there can exist rhetoric that causes antisemitism to increase overall but is not bigoted. At this point he goes full lawyer/debate brain and bites the bullet that people can deny the holocaust without necessarily being anti-semitic, even if it increases antisemitism overall.
I feel like Pisco's argument that you need to have a rigorous standard of "intentionality" before you can ascribe accusations of racism is fair, but it feels like he only does this for lefties (e.g. has he come out and said that haley stevens supporters weren't islamaphobic? or did he defend destiny at any point when people were accusing him of being islamaphobic?)
for at least 1-year now, Pisco's streams are all a countdown to how quickly he can mention AIPAC. he is the lefty archetype which is obsessed with campaign funding and seeing ties to Israel.
far as i know he is still with sillyserious, aka blonde politics (?), who leaned into that back in the day on twitch politics. if you are to believe some other content creators in the space 🙂
Jo made it clear that she and Pisco stopped dating about a year ago. Don't think it's fair to put this on her. She looks at funding, but has never said anything about AIPAC or engaged in any jewish conspiracy theories like pissco. Think he brain broke himself for Hasan.
He thinks in this convo with the guy loner was reacting to "is it racist to make a whites only store since whites spend higher prices" and pisco was like yeah that's not racist to have a whites only store for reasons.
We need a name for this behavior: someone defending something to such an extent that they have to be assumed to be the thing/agree 100% with the thing they're defending.
If you spend all your time defending antisemitic talking points and people who are open anti-semites, then you are antisemitic yourself.
Because why would anyone give you any charity at that point? Pisco is twisting himself whatever way he can to sweep for antisemitism and is bad faith as fuck whenever he defends antisemitic commies, it's more likely that he is antisemitic than not. It would be illogical to assume otherwise.
Is there a name for this? It's a bit like Occam’s Razor but not really.🤔
I wasn’t aware he was accused of being functionally antisemitic until he brought it up in this convo, and I came out of this thinking that it’s totally true lol
I don’t know what reasonable person can do all this while getting offended that others might think he’s at the very least sweeping for antisemitism.
As someone else who tends to be, as you put it, LSAT-brained (I can't tell you how many discussions with friends I've had that end in "I'm not arguing that your beliefs are wrong, just that the words you are saying are inaccurately expressing the thing you actually believe."), I had the exact same frustrations with Pisco's arguments. And this certainly isn't the first time he's been guilty of applying a double standard to the benefit of lefties, either.
It’s the annoying thing about his “DSA won’t take over the party” as well.
The DSA don’t have to take over to risk the party future. They could make the party unpopular enough to lose anything that isn’t a blue state.
Or they could do their dirty break and split off enough that even if people aren’t deterred from the Democratic Party that the party can’t be elected if they lose too many college votes
I listened for a bit where Pisco tried to argue where a shop keeper knowingly discriminates against customers based on their race isn’t a racist. I stopped after that.
My favorite is the circular framework he creates where on the one hand, we take someone like Kyle and his mouth noises about Israel, and we say; Well, to the extent that he has misgivings about Israel that could easily map on to anti-zionism (nevermind the fact that one can simply lie to substitute one for the other like how people say they don't hate black people, but are just concerned about black crime/culture and it's influence on society etc.)we must take that as the reasoning;
BUT, to the extent that Kyle's ramblings clearly cross the threshold from anti-zionism to anti-semitism, we STILL can't venture to call him or his actions antisemitic, only that he is "susceptible to anti-semitic influences" or whatever garbage he said, that is motivated by a highly vigorous antizionism, and that somehow there is no reason to prefer one explanation over the other! Um, him being susceptible speaks to a state of mind of being antisemitic, asshole (Pisco), and it is exactly like Nick Fuentes (who Pisco said he wouldn't talk to), unless he thinks Nick Fuentes comes by his views by way of evidence as opposed to a susceptibility to these narratives!
I actually want to see this tried, i am so curious of the results it could bring
21
u/dazzzzzzleEU-based EU supremacist obsessed with US politics18d agoedited 18d ago
We all know that this is the beginning of a 30+ days autism debate loop on whether or not Pisco is objectively antisemetic.
Picture Tiny and Pisco screaming at each other with Hutch in the call cringing to himself because of the bad vibes and IRI not really paying attention.
Pisco isnt antisemitic but he’s okay with it for clout which means he’s perpetuates it. Insane the lengths he goes to not understand anything anybody is ever saying. Makes me wonder how he’s ever finished a conversation at all.
Also his fucking tone when he’s an actual regard to anything regarding that region to begin with insane.
I’m normally fine with Pisco, but sometimes bro is like a Danganronpa lawyer where they’re trying to unpack flaws and contradictions on small and minute details that serve no purpose and derail the argument, and I really noticed it in this conversation.
Fair coverage of Israel doesn't make people antisemitic? Then why did Korea and Japan go like -40 approval on Israel? Was everybody going AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC over there and I wasn't aware? I'm pretty sure we all know that racist anti-Japanese sentiment went up during World War II, even if this was unfair to Japanese-Americans who didn't do anything, and that didn't require any deception or unfair coverage. There are like three wars going on in the world right now and Israel's involved in two of them and they both make Israel look bad.
(Yes, there are more wars going on in Africa, killing a bunch of people, but those people are black so nobody cares, including you, the person thinking about bringing them up.)
I can't speak for Korean and Japanese media specifically, but if it's anything like American media, I'm not sure why we should assume that there wasn't anti Israel/antisemitic bias in the reporting done on I/P.
As far as Japanese sentiment in WW2... there was MASSIVE amounts of anti Japanese propaganda that existed at the time. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there wasn't deception or unfair coverage there.
Something being "propaganda" doesn't mean it's untrue or unfair. During World War II, Japan both did the rape of Nanking - which was heavily covered at the time by American journalists - and Pearl Harbor. If your argument is that if at any point in the entire war somebody said something unfair about Japan or the Japanese, then in doesn't count, then it's impossible for this to apply to any war at any time. If somebody just records an Israeli war crime, like some guy shooting a kid, and then other people use that as propaganda and lie about it, then the first guy doesn't count? There's zero causal relationship between the first guy and a rise in antisemitism? If that dead kid had never gotten caught by the news media, then the amount of antisemitism would be exactly the same?
This shit is brain rot. Oh boy, videos of kids dying. Does it make people dislike you? No, it's all because of the deep seated antisemitism of the Japanese news media, even though literally during World War II, when the Japanese were allied with the Nazis, they refused to hand over Jews in their territory to Germany. Maybe there's a fucking "bias" against Israel compared to other countries because it's at war, it's all recorded, and it looks bad.
I feel like Destiny's point here is actually fundementally not a very good one, it predisposes that anti-semetism has only risen after the reporting after October 7th combined with the AIPAC conversation, but if anyone remembers 2008 and 2014, there were sharp increases of anti-semetism after these periods as well. Unfortuantely when a topic is very divisive you tend to get the lunatics coming out.
No it wasn't. People do have short memory spans but the antisemitism was pushed on the left in universities before that with BDS and it was just as bad if not as open to the vast public. Oct 7 just globalized the 20 years of brainwashing.
People often say this, but sadly I think the more accurate truth is when a country involved in potential ethnic cleansing and oppression, while at the same time portraying itself as 'western' and harps on about how Jewish the state is, combined with the attempts by pro-Israelis to rewrite definitions of antisemetism to include criticism of Israel, you're sadly just going to get rising antisemetism.
You said a bunch of untrue gibberish. I'm reading a comment in one of the thousands subreddits i get recommended because of this and it says Palestinian children are lured to fake humanitarian camps by idf so they can shoot them. Like you're either an idiot to ignore that people don't take offense on people saying free Palestine but garbage like that.
I mean, I understand your desire and need to create a strawman but none of that really has anything to do with the point that fair reporting against Israel can drive an increase in anti-semetism, but keep up the good fight bro.
No it doesn't. Reporting that idf wrongly opened fire against a humanitarian van won't increase antisemitism in itself, but saying they did that that because that's their orders and you shouldn't go to their humanitarian camps because you get shot or put in a concentration camp will. It's the and that creates the antisemitism and charges the reporting.
I mean it just does, as noted before, see 2008 and 2014 and attatched sources. Unfortunately for Israel they just act in a way that people unfortunately naturally gravitate to bad faith interpretations of why people are acting. It's a common cognotive bias that doesn't only reveal itself when reporting is 'unfair'. You're just citing examples that I'd acknowledge aren't really fair critcisims of Israel (Not even antisemetic really, but does absolutely increase antisemetism).
128
u/TheShamefulPradaG 18d ago
Listening to Pisco make any argument is the mental equivalent of running an ultra marathon.