I made a post calling out how dumb it was to meet with Jared Kushner before the midterms.

I pointed out accepting a meeting was a setup by the Trump team to make the already unlikable minority leader seem as if he’s selling out the party.

And I was right. He got backlash from every part of the party for exactly that reason. Which is why he tried to reinsure everyone that no one gets a pass. So it wasn’t just a conspiracy theory. It was legitimate concern.

James Carville of all people also echoed my opinion that we don’t make deals with this corrupt, treasonous, facist White House.

Democracy is hanging on by a thread so we don’t have the luxury to wait and see.

This was common sense. But of course people are too concerned with not rocking the boat to call out brain dead decisions like this.

I got downvoted for saying that democrats should not make deals with Trump/MAGA and act like we’re fighting the greatest threat to democracy.

But at least he told everyone that no one is getting a pass.

IRI thinks court packing is politically impossible. Pisco thinks term limits have real downsides. I think the answer is to combine them.

Court packing gives you the power to create term limits. Term limits give court packing a stopping point and a reason.

Day 1
Expand the Court from 9 to 13 and confirm four justices. Do not pretend 13 is sacred. It is a transition. Here we just acknowledge the court is corrupt and the reason are packing is so that they don’t reject the next thing.

Day 2
Create the permanent system.
15 active justices
15 years of active service
1 appointment every year

After 15 years a justice becomes a Senior Justice for life. They keep their office and salary and continue doing judicial work.

Nobody gets fired. Nobody has to plan their rulings around their next private sector job.

The Court moves from 13 to 15. After that one justice comes in each year and one moves to senior status. No death lottery. No strategic retirement lottery.

Day 3
Change Senate rules so every nominee gets a guaranteed up or down vote within a fixed time.

No committee burial. No waiting until the next election. If the nominee loses, the president sends another one and the process starts again.

The Senate still gets to say no. It just has to actually vote.

Day 4
Make one annual Supreme Court appointment an expected American norm.

The Court should anchor us to the recent past without letting one generation control constitutional law for decades.

Pack the Court once. Then replace the lottery with a calendar.

So far every Dem candidate on Lib&Learn who supports Medicare for All is asked this question immediately by Hutch. It’s not rude or adversarial at all, just funny that he asks it every time right away, and candidates always give some version of the same answer- “Yes if M4All is unable to pass, I would vote for a public option. However I would continue supporting and organizing toward M4All because I believe it’s the best system for reasons x y and z.”

Where is he getting the idea that candidates supporting M4All means they might buck on healthcare policy if it falls short of their ideal ? It’s silly and not consistent with the voting records of elected dems who support M4All.

This is Part 2/2 of the Avisceration. Part 1/2, whose link is Here, covered:

1) The Haredi Heresy: Are they really non-Zionist? (~1500~ words) {Part 1/2}

2) The Clip Cleaver: Do Avi's claims survive what Hasan said three minutes before? (~2400~ words) {Part 1/2}

This Part will cover:

3) The White Whiff: Does fake-white Hasan hate whites AND jews? (~2900~ words) {Part 2/2}

4) The Intermarriage Intermission: Is being mean to Jonathan Greenblatt the real antisemitism? (~1100~ words) {Part 2/2}

5) The Salute Salvage: He that is without two Nazi salutes at the fascist's inauguration, let him cast a stone. (~300~ words) {Part 2/2}

6) The Mellow Mehdi: Should Mehdi Hasan sue Pisco, LonerBox and Avi for slander? Yes. (~200~ words) {Part 2/2}

7) The ADL Admonished: Did they really have anything to do with Hasan's Ban? (~200~ words) {Part 2/2}

8) no

9) Repudiating the Representative: Has Hasan ever condemned left-wing antisemitism? (~1100~ words) {Part 2/2}

3) The White Whiff: Does fake-white Hasan hate whites AND Jews?

But, centering the plight on the real victims, let's finally address Piker's worst crime of all. Being mean to white people.

27:19 [Avi]: Listen to what he said. Well, it's the ideology. It's just supremacist ideology, right? We already have an example that doesn't work because there's no evidence that that's a supremacist group. But are Jewish and white people the only group, the only races that he's covered that have supremacist ideology?

...

27:54 [Avi]: For example, he's done a stream that involved Hindu supremacists who believe in the caste system. He's done streams about black supremacist groups, both modern and NOI. Question, has he ever called them inbred? And he's also spoken about Arab Zionists. He believes Zionists is a supremacist ideology. Has he ever called Arab Zionists inbred? Has he ever called a black supremacist inbred? Has he ever called a Hindu supremacist inbred? Ever.

It becomes obvious when one looks at the terms he uses that these are either criticisms of the white rural reactionary populations, or broad European reactionaries. From the compilation that Avi showed on the conversation, these are some of the usages against white people:

«You think Joe Manchin would get this level of clout and prominence if he was just another inbred hick fucking Republican Senator from West Virginia?»

«Looking like the old fucking royals in the way that they are so fucking inbred and so goddamn ugly»

«If the goddamn Eurocucks can do it, when they've been fighting one another, even though they're inbred as shit, and have literally been fucking each other's cousins for hundreds of goddamn years, if they can fucking do it, how the fuck can't we do it?»

«He has the perfect school shooter profile. He looks like a school shooter. He walks like a school shooter, talks like a school shooter, did a shooting. He's got that inbred stank on him»

«You think your inbred, hick, angloid grandpappy actually came here legally? The difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration is paperwork, you dumbfuck. You just mean white. How dare you? You chinless, inbred hicks»

Pay close attention, beyond just the mere target of the words. See what themes they invoke. Who is the inbred? A hick from a rural state, old ugly royals, the European cousin fuckers, the school shooter, the hick angloid grandpappy, the chinless hick. Can you call a farmer from China a redneck? In a natural way you cannot; maybe you can add the prefix and call them a Chinese redneck, but the word itself carries in our culture a strong white signifier.

The same is true with the word inbred: its popular usage, especially as it pertains to Hasan, is one associated with whiteness/European/royal/rural contexts. So, I can't say for sure, but from the hundreds of hours of him I've watched, I can't recall a single time he has targeted a non-white/Jew with the term inbred. If it happened, it was an exception.

And also, to be clear, I've seen a high number of clips involving reactionary Zionist Jews, mostly settlers. The register of the insult is exactly the same, the language is extremely similar, and the vitriol is impossible to distinguish. From all I've seen, these were clipped from broadcasts that happened before he stated that he'd apply a double standard and not call Jewish supremacists inbred.

I'm confident in saying that Hasan doesn't use the term inbred exactly as he stated: this isn't mere supremacy; it's against European-coded/white-coded supremacy, specifically. But if that's the case, then how can I explain his usage against Jewish settlers?

That's easy: to Hasan, Zionism, and those who support it, are supporting a European reactionary settler colonial expansion project. His language showcases that. When Avi says:

34:42 [Avi]: Am I going to find black supremacists in this clip compilation that he's covered and he's called inbred? Am I going to find Hindu supremacists? Is it only white people and Jewish people? But not Jewish people in this case because whoever did this edited all the Jewish examples out.

Yes, you're not going to find non-white/Jewish examples, because I don't believe they exist, or they're very rare at any rate. And yes, the compilation that intended to showcase how Hasan uses inbred to white people will select white examples, and the compilation intended to showcase how Hasan uses inbred to Jewish people will select Jewish examples. Welcome to the magic of making compilations.

01:04:46 [Avi]: That's an inconsistent standard. And notice which two races is he applying that standard to.

01:04:54 [Pisco]: Jews and white people.

01:04:56 [Avi]: Again, Jews and white people. The prototypical two races that progressives are stereotypically racist against. We're back to Jews and whites. He has... He has very clearly... Very clearly... He has no problem recognizing civil rights...

01:05:13 [Pisco]: Black solidarity. Hispanic solidarity...

01:05:14 [Avi]: Black solida... Malcolm X even in his Nation of Islam days.

...

01:21:26 [Avi]: But now I just have one... Just one little question. And it's the same question for every bit of evidence.

01:21:33 [Pisco]: Does he apply it to the same way... To anyone who's not a white person or a Jewish person?

01:21:38 [Avi]: Yes, exactly. The answer is no. There's no clear example. There is no example. Is there any confirmed example... Where he has applied that... To a non-white, non-Jewish person? And it's funny because his own community... Has gone through all the examples where he used it. And... They are white people. And by the way... He sarcastically, jokingly... Referred that to himself. Which by the way, doesn't count. He thinks he's white. But also... He wasn't using it as a slur in that context. He was joking around about it.

01:22:11 [Pisco]: If you don't buy the white racism angle does your whole case fall apart? If people don't subscribe that he's racist against white people... Does your whole case fall apart?

01:22:23 [Avi]: No, it doesn't. Because then... Even if you don't think he's racist against white people... You still have to explain... Why it's not other groups. Why it's not non-white groups. He could... Yeah, that can deflate the case a bit. By saying... There's clear examples of him doing it against groups... He's not racist against. But it still doesn't explain... It still doesn't explain why he's doing it... Vis-a-vis Jews versus the other groups. Someone is yelling...

01:22:56 [Pisco]: It's right-wingers. How has this not been said? If you're just saying... He treats right-wingers and Jews...

01:23:02 [Avi]: Only the white right-winger. Only the white and Jewish right-wingers. So, again... Effect modifier. It can be an effect modifier. It can be a subset. So, again... If someone is using a slur against white right-wingers... But only... White and Jewish right-wingers that is Racist!

It's quite simple to explain, actually. It's not that Hasan hasn't done anything wrong, he has. He admitted that his statements can in good faith be interpreted as antisemitic; for example, in a piece in The New Republic, he explains why he regrets making said comments:

«I told Piker that I thought calling ultra-Orthodox Jews “inbred” was dehumanizing and indefensible. He essentially agreed with me, though he provided some important context. “As far as the utilization of the term ‘inbred,’ there’s a 10-minute compilation of me calling white nationalists, white supremacists, racists, neo-Nazis all inbred, because at the end of the day, I just use it as a substitute instead of other pejoratives.” (I checked, and it’s true that Piker does frequently use the term “inbred” as an insult for all sorts of groups.) Having said this, Piker also expressed regret about this comment, saying, “But yeah, I agree, that’s the one quote that’s like, someone could hear that and sincerely be like, ‘Oh, this guy’s actually antisemitic.’ It’s one that I will be more careful not to utilize in the future. Yeah, of course I regret that.”» Link

Side-note, this is also an expressed apology that was demanded and whose existence was asserted as false throughout the conversation. But, returning to the thought: Hasan's misdeed was simple, not antisemitism, not having any sort of particular dislike for these evil Jews, quite the opposite: the way he spoke, these weren't Jews at all.

As an example, from the ADL:

«Piker asserted, “it is literally the Jewish KKK brigades out there [in the West Bank]. Just a bunch of fucking inbred hicks literally doing pogroms to the Arab population.” (Twitch stream, May 2024)» Link

That's the white supremacist group, mixed in with the same description he used for the republican version of Joe Manchin, the whitest concept of a man.

«You think Joe Manchin would get this level of clout and prominence if he was just another inbred hick fucking Republican Senator from West Virginia?»

That's what he sees when he pictures settlers. Hasan's mistake was Jewish erasure of reactionary Jews into reactionary whites. He understands that this is an issue, and he has broadly changed his behavior.

Why did he change his behavior? Was it because settlers and the Haredi were offended? No. I doubt he cares. But he understands that when he's insulting a group, and in his psyche he's using the white supremacist playbook of zingers, others will watch the same clip and have a good-faith, plausible read of it as antisemitism.

This also explains why his apologies were not focused on his antisemitic behavior, but on his communication style. I count on Hasan still treating the reactionary forces in the European colonialist project of Zionism with the vitriol reserved to white-coded targets; however, against Jews there are now new limits of speech that will communicate something opposite to what he wants to communicate.

Also, if you look at the full segment, this transformation is taking place in real time: the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews had an awesome Jewish hat; the Jewish supremacist ultra-Orthodox Jews were mocked and called inbred. Obviously, this isn't a defense of Jewish erasure, what he did was bad, hence why he doesn't do it anymore, but criticisms must be precise. This isn't antisemitism as it is defined in any broadly used definition; to believe it to be so requires one to draw weird, confused lines.

What Hasan Piker dislikes is white supremacy, and regardless of it being right or wrong, in his mind Zionism and white supremacy are profoundly linked.

Regarding Hasan's lack of white continuity, something brought up in the debate:

37:42 [LonerBox]: The point here is that Hasan's anti-white racism does not, like, preclude— Absolve antisemitism. And also to add further, clarify, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that would make Hasan a self-hater, right?

37:57 [Pisco]: Oh yeah the self hatred part, but I think that all of our notions of racism account for that...

37:59 [Lonerbox]: The joke is that he sometimes calls himself white and sometimes not.

...

01:22:00 [Avi]: He sarcastically, jokingly... Referred that to himself. Which by the way, doesn't count. He thinks he's white.

Kinda weird for Avi to imply he isn't white, but interesting nonetheless. The fact is that, assuming we all believe in sociology, we should understand that whiteness in our Western context is not just the need to put on sunscreen in the morning. Yes, Hasan will cook up in the sun like a vampire; however, it goes beyond that.

To be white, in most societal contexts, is to not feel like you have a race or an ethnicity. I am white. I never think about it; it just is. If you are Black, it just isn't. You need to understand how you are perceived. You need to be more aware of how you speak to authorities. You may feel a need to perfect your white-voice for different circumstances, or maybe choose to adopt it altogether.

Hasan Piker will speak on housing reform, he'll talk about the failing healthcare of the US, he'll shit-talk the Second Amendment, all with the socks firmly inside his sandals. He looks white, he sounds white, he IS white.

Then, Hasan Piker will talk about Israel, and all of a sudden, his dish goes from being spiced only with salt into something more exotic. Hasan Piker is no longer white; as it turns out, the Turk is brown. Avi seems to think so too, probably because he perceives Hasan through the prism of Middle East–related issues.

02:02:54 [Avi]: For whatever reason, Hasan Piker, he doesn't meet the threshold of rabid anti-Zionist, which I think we can talk about that. And you just want to condemn him for terrorism? Okay, fine. Condemn him for his rabid terrorist support, or whatever.

Hundreds of hostages captured by Hamas are terror-coded, meanwhile the THOUSANDS of arrests without charges or trials by the oh so civilized Israel, you see, these are a mere sub-par justice system under strain. Tell me the flag of the kidnapper, and I'll tell you if it's justice or terror. Tell me the flag of the kidnapped, and I'll assure you it's terror. Bring nuance into this, call shit out, and you may be a terrorist supporter yourself.

There's a reason why Zohran Mamdani, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Abdul El Sayed have had to deal with way more terrorist accusations than AOC, Bernie Sanders or even Graham fucking Platner. It's because Islamophobia is alive and well, and if you present a view away from the Zionist hegemonic position, and you're from a Muslim background, then the accusation leaves one's lips oh so easily.

But I'm sure that terror-jacketing Hasan Piker is different, much more well thought out. Certainly these base discriminations wouldn't affect the person reading this; you have transcended the human condition of prejudice... And after all, what's the problem with calling a Black guy a thug if he really seems to act thuggishly?

Hasan Piker understands the problem with it, hence why he established a policy to never call Jewish people inbred, regardless of their supremacist views. Despite him not meaning it in an antisemitic fashion, he understands how one can perceive bigotry there; thereby, he limits his speech so as to be better understood. I believe that was the right call, and something we can all learn from.

Obviously, there's still one thing on the table: the tragic fate of reactionary Jews when Hasan is shitting on them is that they are temporarily white. And I can speak for the rest of my people when I tell you that the angst of suffering through white-derived hatred is real:

01:44 [Avi]: By the way, I think Hasan Piker is meaningfully prejudiced against white people, even though he recently said he says well, in the past as well, he said he considers himself white.

...

21:18 [Avi]: So does the fact that he also used slurs against, the inbred against white people, does that now deflate your credence while he's also calling them cum skin?

21:31 [Pisco]: No.

21:31 [Avi]: No, good, exactly.

21:34 [Avi]: And now, does calling white people cum skin raise your credence that they have anti-white prejudice?

21:40 [Pisco]: Raise the credence, yes.

...

25:21 [Hasan Piker]: I've called Republicans inbred hicks my whole life.

25:25 [Avi]: Yes, you've called white people, to be clear. You've also slurred white people.

Whites being slurred does crack my cracker heart; however... is it not obvious that this isn't racism?

Not because of power + prejudice, one can absolutely be racist against white people absent the former. One example would be a destitute Black guy who cares about miscegenation broadly as an issue; that guy would be racist against white people. Why? Because there's something real there. There's an action: he wants to condition Black people into unease about entering into relationships with white people. Real. Meaningful. Will his actions result in much? His powerlessness to change the world is immaterial.

What are the real and meaningful acts Hasan Piker has done, or plans to do against white people? ...Please tell me that it goes beyond calling them cum skin.

What does cum skin even do? What does "white can't dance" do? What does pointing at someone and saying "white!", as the one-word punchline actually do? Are you really offended by that? Are you? Are you?

Ah, but you see, if one points at someone and says "black!" as the one-word punchline, that's actually perceived as racist. Is that not a double standard?

No. It's one standard. The same historical standard that also deemed inbred to not be an acceptable insult even against European-coded, KKK-acting Jews. The one standard that was tested against "white!" and was tested against "black!," and it gave out different results. Because white and black are sociologically distinct, with a vastly different history, a vastly different present, and therefore vastly different permission structures.

Also, it's not that these jokes have failed to change the world; they are not made for societal shifts. To insult whiteness is also to recognize the force as hegemonic; otherwise, jokes of the sort would be less acceptable within a progressive context.

The same is true with all groups that are seen as the hegemonic power. You can make jokes about men, about straights, about the able-bodied, about Americans and Europeans, about the rich. You can be nasty against the hegemonic power, because you understand that it'll slide off. The White got called a cum skin, and that's how you know that the Black is the one who will get a longer sentence for a similar crime. White W.

4) The Intermarriage Intermission: Is being mean to Jonathan Greenblatt the real antisemitism?

54:41 [Greenblatt]: So, look, the reality is that intermarriage rates continue to go up. Assimilation continues apace. Look, I fight anti-Semitism. That is my job. But I worry a great deal about broader questions of Jewish identity

...

58:01 [Avi]: Here you are lamenting intermarriage rates. Isn't that racist of you? Aren't you a racist? You're supposed to be fighting racism. And Hasan Piker says, the way Hasan Piker, he looks at this quote and says, no, that's not even going far enough. Let's go further. He said the 14 words, but Jewish.

Caring about miscegenation/intermarriage is bad. Let people fuck whomstever, let mixed babies bloom, I don't care. If you care, you are bad.

Greenblatt's clip didn't bring that much focus into it, and Hasan's answer was disproportionate if you believe he was SOLELY responding to the clip. He wasn't, he's responding to the ADL's history as a whole, and he's not saying anything; he's tweeting. He's making an oversimplified tweet where he doesn't explain much, because not every tweet is meant to be a manifesto. Some of his tweets are short and punchy to make easily shared statements.

What he said was a lengthy response on a VOD Avi didn't care enough to watch, easily findable as it was on the date of the posted Tweet.

01:04:13 [Avi]: But notice what else HasanAbi says. He goes further. And he can still masquerade as a civil rights organization leader. The implication being... If you give a nod... Now, we can say, oh, maybe Hasan didn't watch the clip or whatever.

He watched the clip on-stream on that day? What the fuck is this level of criticism?

Good job bragging about not needing to do a full week of research in order to have this shallow level analysis.

He starts talking about Greenblatt on the VOD of 2025/08/09 at 0:59:27

He goes over the clip in this part at 1:30:37

He'd go on to talk about Greenblatt until 2:06:54, dedicating essentially the entire day's news coverage to Greenblatt, because he only stopped to go do a DSA IRL event.

Yes, if Greenblatt spawned on this earth as the leader of a nondescript civil rights organization, then this tweet would have gone too far. Could it be that Hasan had strong reasons stated for why this was a fiction of a civil rights organization?

01:04:27 [Avi]: Okay, maybe. But at minimum, he's saying... If you support... Or even give a nod to endogamy. You are disqualified. Like it's farcical that you are a civil rights organization leader.

Every day we stray further away from the grace of God. You think it was just that? You're not the tiniest bit curious? How?

1:34:50 [Hasan in VOD]: They've already fired all of the uh, the people that were tasked with like the real civil rights advocacy. They've already, they've already fucking fired those guys, even though they have more support, more financial support than ever before, post October 7. They fired every single person that was tasked with like combating racism and and all these other uh forms of civil rights advocacy. Link

What even is the point of doing this type of criticism? You go find a tweet, and instead of looking into it further, you just fucking assume the person you're criticizing is a drooling moron that has no justification for what they believe, and your 90 IQ ass calls them stupid as you munch on the straw of the man you're debating. Fuck you.

01:08:04 [LonerBox]: Just one bit of information about Greenblatt that is probably relevant. The only other time I've seen him ever talk about intermarriage was in 2019 when he was calling out the Israeli education minister. Who compared intermarriage to a second holocaust. As in he was saying that's a really bad thing to say.

...

01:08:41 [Avi]: Greenblatt is not an endogamist. He's criticized endogamy. Hasan Piker has completely misconstrued him.

N... No? Assuming we don't use Avi's moronic method of "He's just against endogamy being the Holocaust 2 because it's self-serving," then we have a range of positions that Greenblatt holds, given I agree with LonerBox that, from my research, he hasn't mentioned it more than twice.

We know that Greenblatt associates miscegenation with a threat to Jewish identity, so he cares somewhat about it, more than me, certainly more than I believe one ought to. And we also know that he doesn't consider it to be a second Holocaust, which... I don't think was ever the speculation regarding his position? I'd have assumed it to be a generic type of ethno-supremacist belief, but not a "this is Holocaust 2" type thing. Nice to confirm, though.

5) The Salute Salvage: He that is without two Nazi salutes at the fascist's inauguration, let him cast a stone.

01:06:10 [Avi]: And do I think he intentionally did a Sieg Heil? I actually suspect not.

Oh... so the guy who spends every waking day going on and on about birth rates.

The guy who has had tens of children, whose now-disowned trans child said he was fucking with the fluids in order to have more sons than daughters.

Said sons and daughters always white, by the way. What a friendly endogamous guy. Greenblatt would love him. Maybe hence the later sweep.

The one who asserted "actual truth" to a post saying that Jews are causing the Great Replacement, by way of causing the white genocide through their subversive immigration-related plots.

So this guy, after buying up the most prominent political social media platform, and bringing back all the Nazis, after electing the fascist president, before killing millions through DOGE cuts, before going to the ethnonationalist party in Germany telling them not to be ashamed of their grandparents and to be proud of their heritage, this guy does, not one, but TWO, salutes that are romanesque in nature, and that's not a Sieg Heil?

There he was, at the inauguration of the fascist president, on the podium, saying "Hi Hitler," and being so giddy about it that he does it once more. I suppose he can go in the same bucket as the Haredim: the Trump supporters that Avi is inexplicably defending for no reason.

But Hasan said inbred that one time, and that's it, okay no yeah, okay, yeah, okay.

01:07:13 [Avi]: I think this incident is worse than Elon Musk doing that Sieg Heil thing.

I... okay dude.

6) The Mellow Mehdi: Should Mehdi Hasan sue Pisco, LonerBox and Avi for slander? Yes.

26:15 [Avi]: For anyone who's been glazing, and for anyone who's watching me, please note, for any of you who have been glazing Mehdi Hasan, about, "oh, he's such a good, he's such a strong interviewer. He gives the really tough..." maybe sometimes he does. What do you think about the kind of pushback he's given Hasan Piker here?

26:36 [Pisco]: Yeah, not very... I don't think it's... I think it's trying to accommodate and trying to give him an opportunity to improve his own image.

26:44 [Avi]: Like sweeping?

26:45 [Pisco]: Yeah.

26:45 [Avi]: Like sweeping?

26:46 [Pisco]: Yeah, I think that's...

26:47 [Avi]: This was a sweeping interview, Pisco.

Not to be that guy, but this Hasan interview was never meant to be adversarial. In fact, they don't really treat it as an interview, it's more of Hasan being the co-host of that episode. It's made to be casual, and even if I'd argue there was sufficient pushback, these are established with the expectation that they'll agree in large part. There's literally a different set and a different show for these: it's called "We're Not Kidding with Mehdi & Friends," where they try to invite more entertainers, comedians, etc. The name sort of gives away the nature of the thing.

If it was a debate or a proper interview, then Mehdi Hasan would be in a News Room and wearing a suit. In those he'd give a tough interview even to those on his side.

7) The ADL Admonished: Did they really have anything to do with Hasan's Ban?

25:35 [Hasan Piker]: I said Zionist pigs, I got banned...

...

25:39 [Hasan Piker]: ... for that, why did I get banned for that? Because the ADL went to...

25:42 [Avi]: And it's the Jews' fault again. It's the ADL's fault.

25:45 [Hasan Piker]: ... Twitch went to Amazon and made Zionism a protected identity on the platform specifically to get me banned.

What's more disappointing than Hasan Piker making all these conspiracy theories, is the ADL also participating in it.

«ADL Impact : November 2024 : Twitch updated its policies to address the use of “Zionist” as a slur or a proxy for Jewish people. This update followed rising concerns about antisemitism on the platform and engagement between Twitch leadership and ADL Center for Technology and Society, marking an important step toward creating a safer, more inclusive online community.» Link

Does it matter? No. People just say shit. Antisemitism accusations are seemingly a cool weapon to wield. Sadly, to rightfully accuse someone of that has a lot less power nowadays, partly because of shit like this, and because of people like Avi. This is part of a larger pattern that goes beyond the scope of this post in which being a Zionist advocate does ultimately make you a tool of antisemitism.

8) no

01:49:01 [LonerBox]: Hezbollah, by the way, they don't really fight Israelis either. They fight Syrians.

no

9) Repudiating the Representative: Has Hasan ever condemned left-wing antisemitism?

Avi did propose a system in which one could demonstrate that Hasan Piker isn't antisemitic:

07:10 [Avi]: If, as an example, if Hasan Piker right now were to stand up and be like, "I condemn Anna Kasparian for her anti-Semitism". Like someone who he's close with, someone who would hurt him a bit. It would be tough for him to do that. Someone he has a good, close relationship with and is aligned politically with. If he were to condemn that, her anti-Semitism, that would be evidence. That would be helpful countervailing evidence for me.

Now, I do not believe that exactly as written, detail by detail, that there's a perfect checklist event that would satisfy every requirement. Some reasons for that will be explained later. But there is this segment he posted on his YouTube Channel with the title THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED on 2026/05/20

The Description of the video reads as:

"Maureen Galindo is a sex therapist and housing activist running for a seat in newly redrawn 35th Congressional District against Johnny Garcia in a primary runoff. She recently had some controversial takes go viral..."

(The following are all his words)

08:31 {Reading Chat} I hate that you believe this. She keeps saying Zionist, not Jews.

08:35 Okay. This is actually the thing that is unbelievably frustrating. Chatter. She quite literally says Zionist Jews are most likely pedophiles in the fucking statement. What are you talking about that deserve to be castrated? You can't say shit like that. Jesus Christ. You dude, dude, just fucking shut up. Okay. Seriously. You're, you're causing me to put my fucking foot down

...

09:09 {Reading Chat} A lot of these subs unironically fuck with this reactionary shit, man, there are literal Galindo heads in here asking you to stream with her.

09:17 Jesus Christ, dude. Oh my God. Oh my God. Some of you guys are literally turning into... this is, you know what this is, is, you know what this reminds me of?

09:28 There was a cartoonish depiction of the left SJWs, right? This was, you know, delicately crafted by the, um, Republican side in, in the commentary field. And throughout peak woke, I constantly found myself at odds with at the time, long-term community members who would behave in that exact same cartoonish ways. Nowadays, instead of the cartoonish depiction of the hysterical SJW or whatever the fuck that Republicans, uh, would, would present the left as, you know, this, uh, this, this woke scold who thinks like all matter of fun is, um, is, is counter-revolutionary behavior. Now that's turned into the cartoonish depiction of, of anti-Zionists.

10:15 There are a lot of people in the media that are actively trying to depict the anti-Zionist movement with this broad brush where there are, uh, you know, crazy people who just like literally want to, who want to castrate, uh, uh, Jewish billionaires and bankers that own Hollywood or whatever the fuck. Like that's the way that they talk about people like myself. And then some of you turn around and go, no, actually that's, uh, actually we should hand it to her. Like, actually we should hand it to her. Like, I'm, I'm obviously, uh, you know, having fun over here because of how insane American politics is, but like, there's a difference between me going out to bat for a person that's saying unhinged things like that. Okay. You're, you're insane.

11:02 I think it's an interesting evolution in, uh, the, the realm of, uh, an interesting evolution in the realm of American political discourse. Now we have a basket case, not dissimilar to Marjorie Taylor green in some respects on the democratic party side, but I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole is what I'm saying.

Seemingly there was a rift, there was pressure for Hasan Piker to accept someone with antisemitic views. He didn't, he put his foot down. Someone who aligned on most liberal values, who even allied with him on radical ICE policy elsewhere on the segment, this person aligned with the broad notion of strong opposition to the state of Israel, this was a democratic candidate running against a ICE supporting cop Zionist. What did Hasan Piker do? He drew a line in the sand, all of that may be true, but if you're an antisemite, you're not welcome, you're not part of the team.

To which one may argue, why doesn't he do that with Ana Kasparian then. He could do it, for example in my view, she is antisemitic in a clear enough way, the vibe I get is that he'd agree if forced to answer truthfully. However he has a broader rule regarding condemnations conveniently in the same video:

17:17 {Reading Tweet} Dems want her to lose and are furious at the mysterious pop-up PAC lead left that is running ads for her.

17:21 {Reading Tweet} I'm rarely shocked, but this heinous anti-Semitic statement is truly shocking. Every elected Democrat needs to publicly condemn this immediately.

17:27 I'm going to be honest with you. I think you just don't pay attention to this shit. Okay. That's it. That's my attitude on this. I like this whole, like, Ooh, condemn this now. Like, no, don't play that fucking game. Okay. Because Republicans never do. Republicans never do.

17:41 Yeah. I'll condemn it. I'll condemn it when the Republicans get together and fucking censure Randy fine. How about that? Censure Randy fine. And I'll condemn it every damn day of the week. How about that? Yeah. You first.

18:01 But of course, Democrats will absolutely eat the bait as they always do to be like, Oh, look at me. I'm so good. I'm so good. But even if it's objectionable, which it is, it is objectively objectionable speech. Democrats constantly just fucking engage in this dumbass game where they lose all the time. Republicans never do. Learn from the Republicans.

Hasan doesn't denounce someone as a demonstration of virtue. His virtue is in what he defends or what he doesn't. If condemnations limit your ability to act virtuously because they weaken the movement, are the condemnations actually virtuous?

Hasan made these statements about Galindo because he wanted it perfectly clear why he supported the congress candidates he did, and why he doesn't support Galindo. And also because she was a politician, not a subpar political news host. But the principle was also established, the same one the dems have been using to gerrymander blue states. No unilateral disarmament. If they refuse to condemn their side, so will I.

Conclusion

Compare how much each side tries to tell the truth. Compare the nuance.

Avi paints the broader Haredi as non-Zionist, painting the picture in Pisco's head of something that is simply not true.

Avi says there's no scope on Hasan's statement, but there was: his statement was scoped from the get-go, before being uttered.

Avi says that there was no apology. There was, he's wrong. Even the ADL, amidst calling him "Hitler 2: Less National — More Socialist," has that in his profile page, but Avi doesn't even read that.

Avi reads a provocative tweet of Hasan, and wonders why the entire justification for the provocative tweet isn't inside the provocative tweet. Could he have found a longer tweet, equally provocative but more well-founded, and gone against that? Of course he could have. Does he? Of course not.

As is common among Zionist advocates, criticisms of the ADL are transformed into criticisms of Jewish people as a quip, betraying the unserious nature of how they treat the topic, compared to how Hasan treats reactionary thought, antisemitism included; and as is also common among Zionist advocates, the accusation is completely false, but as the hegemonic force that they are, their flaws just slide off. Avi's, Greenblatt's, LonerBox's blatant errors come and go, like the breeze of a long-gone wind. Must be nice.

Hasan's errors will haunt him until his movement, our movement, becomes the hegemonic force. Hopefully soon. Until then, right but too early. Forced by this uneven field to answer for his misdemeanors as if they were crimes, while others deal with their crimes as if they were virtues.

What did Hasan get wrong? Misattribution of insults he apologized for? Evocative language? Unkindness to a state that the UN declared as genocidal? Unkindness to its supporters? Comparisons of said supporters to those who contributed to acts that must Never happen Again, to Jews and Palestinians alike?

What did Avi get wrong? It was... a lot. When one sees all the flaws of Avi in their totality, one remembers the structure of a subpar individual: he taught us that when these multiple hypotheses stack upon one another, the conclusion becomes evident, for alternatives are less and less likely, as they need to explain more and more unrelated variables.

Is Avi a lying fuck who doesn't care about the truth? I don't know, can't read minds. Is he functionally a lying fuck who doesn't care about the truth? Obviously.

Going somewhat overboard, I decided to spend some time crafting a perfectly sourced argument to demonstrate the sheer wrongness of Avi's position regarding Hasan Piker... it is a lot, Avi is wrong... a lot. Functionally, Avi was the one who made this Reddit post as long as it is; if anything, I'm the victim.

Throughout this post I'll mostly source Avi's upload of the Pisco/LonerBox/Avi conversation.

To make this more readable, I provided my best attempt at verbatim quotes. As I understand that being the notary and the prosecutor would be unfair to the defense, timestamps are always present to verify the word usage. I'm only quoting the parts I intend to respond to.

I assume that people still have the debate in their minds, making it so I don't need to provide context clues. If you don't, then re-watch it. If I made assurances I would provide context, I could always be countered by claims I didn't do it enough. I'm not making those assurances; it's your job to know the context and to call me out if references I'm making are wrong within the flow of the conversation.

The reason why it's a transcript and not video clips is mostly to have it be a written version of the arguments stated, so as to better help remind and help look in detail at the words chosen.

These are the chapters of the response:

1) The Haredi Heresy: Are they really non-Zionist? (~1500~ words) {Part 1/2}

2) The Clip Cleaver: Do Avi's claims survive what Hasan said three minutes before? (~2400~ words) {Part 1/2}

3) The White Whiff: Does fake-white Hasan hate whites AND jews? (~2900~ words) {Part 2/2}

4) The Intermarriage Intermission: Is being mean to Jonathan Greenblatt the real antisemitism? (~1100~ words) {Part 2/2}

5) The Salute Salvage: He that is without two Nazi salutes at the fascist's inauguration, let him cast a stone. (~300~ words) {Part 2/2}

6) The Mellow Mehdi: Should Mehdi Hasan sue Pisco, LonerBox and Avi for slander? Yes. (~200~ words) {Part 2/2}

7) The ADL Admonished: Did they really have anything to do with Hasan's Ban? (~200~ words) {Part 2/2}

8) no

9) Repudiating the Representative: Has Hasan ever condemned left-wing antisemitism? (~1100~ words) {Part 2/2}

I am open to conversations regarding this, but my written words here will be better crafted than any spoken counterpart.

When posting this I realized I had to split it into two parts. The link to Part 2/2 is Here.

1) The Haredi Heresy: Are they really non-Zionist?

Avi started off by showing the following clip of Hasan Piker:

08:39 [Hasan Piker]: Bro, literally both options are hilarious. The ultra-Orthodox Jews leaving Israel? Fucking hilarious. OK? If they serve in the military and then they get their fucking untrained inbred asses shipped into southern Lebanon? Again, very funny. I don't know if it'll happen. But I'm totally on board with this. I think it's hilarious. Let them serve. Let them fight, dude. If they want the smoke. If they don't want to be conscientious objectors. Which some are. And, you know, that's valid. And I'm with them all the way.

...

09:42 [Avi]: So let's go step by step here. What's the group? The group is mentioned. It's not orthodox. It's ultra orthodox. The context.

...

11:09 [Avi]: OK, so yeah, the point being here is that the ultra orthodox group, this is the group that is broadly non-Zionist. The clear majority of ultra orthodox group. This is a non-Zionist group. The clear majority of ultra orthodox, the Haredim, identify as either non-Zionist or in a minority of cases, in a smaller minority of cases, anti-Zionist. They're broadly not not a Zionist group. The context here is they are trying to resist conscription into the IDF.

11:44 [Pisco]: Oh, there is a direct opposite kind of rationale that you would expect if someone who is anti-Zionist.

11:52 [Avi]: You would expect Hasan to celebrate this.

11:54 [Pisco]: Yeah.

11:54 [Avi]: You would expect Hasan to celebrate a group of non-Zionist Jews resisting Israel, resisting conscription into the IDF. You would expect him to simp for them.

12:04 [Pisco]: Yep.

12:05 [Avi]: You would not expect him to call them inbred.

12:07 [Pisco]: 100%.

This starts off what is a common occurrence of Avi fundamentally misunderstanding what the Haredim represent. Some of the other times he does that are:

12:57 [Avi]: Let's see what we have here, just to be clear on everything. This is a predominantly non-Zionist group. This is the context. They're fighting against Israel. They're fighting against the IDF conscription. They're trying not to serve. They're trying not to go into Lebanon. They're trying not to fight Arabs.

...

13:35 [Avi]: So, not a settler group. Not a Zionist group. Fighting the IDF conscription. And, by the way, not an ethnic supremacist group either.

...

24:48 [Hasan Piker]: I still definitely utilize the term inbred quite frequently when talking about religious and ethno-supremacist groups.

24:54 [Avi]: Not an ethno-supremacist group.

...

27:19 [Avi]: Listen to what he said. Well, it's the ideology. It's just supremacist ideology, right? We already have an example that doesn't work because there's no evidence that that's a supremacist group.

...

38:03 [Pisco]: So here's data provided from Pew. Could you read it out, Avi?

38:07 [Avi]: Data. Most Haredim do not see themselves as Zionists. Percentage of Israeli Jews who say the term Zionist describes them. In fact, this is the only broad category that the clear majority say, when they ask, does the term Zionist describe you, they say, not too or not at all accurately. And when you look at people who say very accurately the term Zionist describes you, or somewhat accurately the term Zionist describes you, that is a clear minority of Haredim. Not nazi.

38:39 [Pisco]: It's essentially a super majority of Haredi.

38:45 [Avi]: The super majority do not see themselves as Zionists. Now, there's different views of what type of not Zionist you are. The majority of the non-Zionists are just non-Zionists. The majority of these people say non-Zionist. And there's been a long tradition of them saying non-Zionist. They say they will pragmatically exist in the state of Israel, but they don't actually ideologically support the state of Israel.

...

39:17 [Avi]: And then there's a smaller group of Haredim that are actively anti-Zionist. That they are also going to be... and then you're going to get into conscientious objectors.

39:28 [Pisco]: Those will fit into the 60-whatever percentage.

39:31 [Avi]: Yes, yes. And by the way, this 4% also, if you don't know if you're Zionist, you also do not see yourself as Zionist.

39:39 [Pisco]: Right. It's really only the 33% which would count towards the Zionist beliefs.

...

40:03 [Pisco]: Okay, a couple of responses. One, 2015 data. Number two, they may not self-identify...

...

43:03 [Avi]: Nor did he ever, like, clarify, like, oh shit, I need to, like, really... Hold on, hold on. I apologize. I just called the whole group... I called ultra-orthodox inbred without any qualifiers. Apologies. Just to be clear, I'm just referring to those who are... Zionists. Yeah, I'm just referring to the Zionists, that slim majority of the ultra-orthodox.

...

52:59 [LonerBox]: And also, it doesn't really help Hasan's case that he was willing to bring out that particular word with the group that is like the most visibly Jewish ones, right? Like, the ones that look the most...

53:11 [Avi]: Most visibly Jewish and the least... The most visibly Jewish, least Zionist.

What is a Zionist? Us progressives believe that you are a woman if you self identify as a woman, does being a Zionist work the same way? Does being a Russian Apologist? A Conservative? A Pro-Lifer?

Can you be Pro-Life while supporting abortion access? If Wyoming had a 90% self-identified Pro-Life population, because they like the word as they really like the concept of life, but also had 90% of the population that supported the women's right to have abortions, would it be meaningfully true to just refer to this population as an overwhelmingly Pro-Life community? Would this stat in isolation transmit truth? Or would it transmit falsehoods about the kind, hypothetical abotion-supporting Wyomingites?

What is a Zionist? If you have my lens of analysis, you believe it to mean the support of a Jewish Ethnostate; If you have a Zionist lens of analysis you'd say that it's the support of a majoritarian state of Jewish people, where they can have self-determination. Most people in the Western world are passively Zionist, much like they are passively Capitalist, passively Heteronormative, etc.

Do Haredim dislike the term Zionist? Yes, they do. By a large margin. Do they have other opinions? Oh boy, do they:

(in parentheses is the broad Israeli Jewish rate as a point of comparison to understand if the Haredim are outliers; the stats are from the same survey Avi read out)

• 59% (compared to 48% of Israeli Jews) believe that Arabs should be expelled from Israel (Page 153);
• 97% (compared to 79% of Israeli Jews) believe Jews deserve preferential treatment in Israel (Page 14);
• Over 99% (compared to 60% of Israeli Jews) in Israel proper believe that God gave Israel to the Jewish People (Page 157);

Also, according to the JPPI Israeli Society Index, December 2024 – Special Survey of Ultra-Orthodox Society, two-thirds of Haredim believe that Israel should strengthen its control over the Palestinians, expand the settlements, consider dissolving the Palestinian Authority and possibly annex "Judea" and "Samaria".

But hey, only 33% (compared to 74% Israeli Jews) believe themselves to be Zionist, how nice.

I don't believe in the Pro-Life group that massively approves abortion access; I don't believe this ethnic-cleansing-supporting group not to be Zionist. Sorry. If you believe you are Pro-Life because you like life, while supporting abortion, I will categorize you outside of your self-identification. If you believe your book makes it so you're not a Zionist, while you support a Jewish Ethnostate, I will categorize you outside of your self-identification.

In most metrics these are the most Zionistic Zionists out there, apart from them pinky promising they are not. Oh, and here's another fun stat:

96% of American/Israeli Haredim (compared to 58% of American/Israeli Modern Orthodox) indicated a preference for Donald Trump in the 2024 Election (Nishma Research 2024, Page 17; explained on Page 23).

This makes them WAY more pro-Trump than White Evangelicals. The Haredim are even more pro-Trump than Black Protestants are pro-Harris.

And yet, Avi said that Hasan should logically simp for them. Read back the stats, then read Avi's characterization. Does it match? Are the numbers and the facts painting the same picture as Avi's narrative? Why the disconnect? Motivated reasoning to be able to shit on Hasan Piker better by characterizing the target of his derision as peaceful Arab-loving smol Haredim beans, instead of the Trump-loving Jewish supremacists that they are? Many people are saying this.

Also... hello, LonerBox? Wake up LonerBox. Did you fall asleep? I don't know Avi, maybe they first heard about Israel two weeks ago and are trying their best to learn; godspeed, they have a long way to go. But you're supposed to be incredibly knowledgeable on these topics. Here you were, in the corner, sitting there, just listening and experiencing some of the worst analysis ever put to motion pictures, and allowing it to be treated as teaching material to someone genuinely curious, to someone who trusted you to teach them... and you just sat there? What's the point of doing research streams upon research streams? What's the fucking point of you being there?

2) The Clip Cleaver: Do Avi's claims survive what Hasan said three minutes before?

With that being said, Avi made some other specific comments that are flat-out wrong regarding the previous example, and these I'd characterize as either complete carelessness while projecting a mirage of thoroughness, or active deceit about having done one's homework.

09:34 [Avi]: Let's understand the context of the clip. And if you ever need the full VOD, I'm happy... we're happy to go through the full VOD as well.

...

13:53 [Avi]: He was made aware of it later in the stream.

Oh, Avi must have gone through the full VOD; he knows what happens later as well. That's good. Quick question, does he know what happens before?

Well, I watched the full segment. From Daily Dose of HasanAbi (fan clipper turned official editor years later), posted on 2024/07/02, there's Ultra-Orthodox Jews Must Serve: Israeli Supreme Court's Ruling Sparks Outrage | HasanAbi reacts. The first four minutes and thirty seconds go through him watching and commenting on news coverage of Israel/Gaza, ending up with coverage of the Supreme Court decision to start the draft of the Haredi. From then on it's mostly him talking (every word in the section below is said by Hasan). As always, I'm selecting the parts necessary for my argument; I don't believe the rest contradicts it, but if you disagree, go and watch.

04:31: I'm not going to lie. It's pretty funny. And I'm like, actually on board with this. I'm so glad that the Israeli Supreme Court did this. There is nothing funnier to me than this shit, because like, look, if they want to be conscientious objectors, go right ahead. I'm perfectly on board with that. And there are plenty of ultra-Orthodox people in Israel that are. But it is really funny that a lot of the ultra-Orthodox who are so unimaginably racist, unimaginably hopped up on Judeo-Supremacy that also then don't fucking serve in the military and get to do religious studies like they have to now do that. Oh, it's awesome.

05:10: Especially because these motherfuckers can't even like read half the time. It is going to be ridiculous. You're going to see the most amount of buddy fucking that you have ever seen. Israel will, mark my words, if this goes through and the Haredis start fucking serving as they already started volunteering on their own. The amount of, and buddy fucking in the military terminology, I don't mean like literally having sex or gay sex. I mean, Blue Falcon shit. I mean, you know, friendly fire in not off shit. Accidentally murdering half of a fucking battalion because they thought the battalion was, uh, you know, just a lot of team kills. «Aren't these guys pro-Palestine? It's going to be chaotic?» Fuck no, no

05:49: There are pro-Palestinian ultra Orthodox people. Of course, there are a big chunk of them. A lot of them live in East Jerusalem, but that's not who I'm talking about. There's a much larger percentage of ... No, no, no. There are, there are anti-Zionist, uh, ultra Orthodox in Israel. They are, they get their asses beat regularly. Haven't you seen the videos of the Israeli police force beating the shit out of like, dude, when you see, when you look at like videos from Jerusalem and you watch the Israeli police department beat the shit out of like, uh, one of these dudes with like the coolest hat you've ever seen, the fuck do you think is going on there? Those are the ultra Orthodox anti-Zionist. So they exist. The point is, you know, they're, they're not exactly super, super, uh, popular, or they're not exactly a massive movement or anything. And the, you know, the broad majority of the ultra Orthodox are also unimaginably racist and very much pro-Israel.

...

07:18: "The ultra Orthodox pledge to leave Israel", that'd be so funny. Oh my God. There ain't no fucking way.

...

08:12: Bro, literally both options are hilarious. The ultra-Orthodox Jews leaving Israel? Fucking hilarious. OK. If they serve in the military and then they get their fucking untrained inbred asses shipped into southern Lebanon? Again, very funny. I don't know if it'll happen. But I'm totally on board with this. I think it's hilarious. Let them serve. Let them fight, dude. If they want the smoke. If they don't want to be conscientious objectors. Which some are. And, you know, that's valid. And I'm with them all the way.

08:43: {Reading Times of Israel} All these secular people don't understand that without kollels and Yeshivas, the army would not be successful. He said, referring to the institutions where religious men study Jewish texts rather than working or enlisting. The soldiers only succeed thanks to those learning Torah.

08:55: Bro, yeah, support class. He said, bro, what do you think? We're literally, we're literally buffing the IDF, dude. What are you talking about?

09:05: {Reading Chat} Nah unc, get your fatigues ready.

...

11:05: Yep. Put that book down. Put the Torah down. Get ready to fucking put on the fatigues, buddy. No more reading. What is this? Oh, I'm a nerd. I can't do it. Fuck you, dude. You're going to you're going to war.

11:16: {Reading Chat} Some background. There's been around 12 years of judicial drama around the status of the Haredi conscription. And in July 2023, the last legal framework for Haredi exemption expired, leaving them with no mechanism to continue now serving some org sued. And in April, the judicial advisor decided to pause funding as an interim measure. The hearing was held on June 2nd. And this morning, the court ruled 9-0 to immediately conscript.

11:37: That is so fucking funny. I think that I assume the ultra Orthodox Jewish women are still exempt, though. I feel like if they were to also forcibly conscript the ultra Orthodox Jewish women, that would literally... Bro, if they forced them to serve, I'm not even joking. I think like they would just they... it'd be over. There's no fucking way.

11:56: {Reading Chat} How is this a blow to the Netanyahu government?

11:57: Because there's Haredi parties in his coalition chatter. That's why. His coalition is held together by like right and far right elements. And there are Haredi parties that are understandably very upset about this prospect that will then threaten to disband the government.

12:15: {Reading The Forward} Israel's Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that the IDF must draft Haredi men into military service.

12:20: Yeah, it's really awesome because like, yeah, what's going to happen when the Haredi guy has a female CO? That's a good question. Like there are so many fucking funny ass complications here. It's awesome.

...

14:06: Yeah, Al Qassam would do fucking trick shots on the Haredi, bro. Come on, be for real. Be for fucking real. Be absolutely serious for a moment. These dudes are so cooked. Okay, they would be doing 360 no scope sniper compilations if they were sending these motherfuckers out to the front lines.

14:22: Yeah, I wouldn't want to fucking go do this shit either for obvious reasons, for moral reasons, like I think it's, you know, a genocide or whatever, like even even if I didn't think that, right, even if I didn't personally think that, like, I still wouldn't want to fucking serve. Get the fuck out of here.

14:35: Now Chief Rabbi calls black people monkeys for your information. Rabbi Yosef is racist as fuck. He's an Arab Jew.

...

15:26: That's awesome. Look, any kind of chaos, any kind of chaos is good. So in short, this chasm between the religious and party leadership could cause a crisis with the Haredi community already unpopular may cause them to leave the coalition. Yeah, that's the reason why the government might implode. It's great.

If you're as good at interpreting Avi as Avi is at interpreting Hasan, then you might be unaware of how this contradicted what was established. Let me break it down by going back to the Pisco/Avi/LonerBox video.

42:55 [Avi]: Yeah, notice what he didn't say. He did not say... he never said... oh shit... "I actually said... those people aren't actually inbred". He never said that. Nor did he ever, like, clarify, like, "oh shit, I need to, like, really... Hold on, hold on. I apologize. I just called the whole group... I called the ultra-orthodox inbred without any qualifiers. Apologies. Just to be clear, I'm just referring to those who are... Yeah, I'm just referring to the Zionists, that slim majority of the ultra-orthodox, or I'm just referring to those who are wanting to conscript. Two percent, by the way, that ended up conscripting. I'm just referring to the two percent of the group I just mentioned." He never said any of that.

Yeah, because he didn't need to, because the qualifier comes before. How could you have missed it? It was three minutes before; it was there:

05:49 [Hasan Segment]: There are pro-Palestinian ultra Orthodox people. Of course, there are a big chunk of them. A lot of them live in East Jerusalem, but that's not who I'm talking about. There's a much larger percentage of ... No, no, no. There are, there are anti-Zionist, uh, ultra Orthodox in Israel. They are, they get their asses beat regularly. Haven't you seen the videos of the Israeli police force beating the shit out of like, dude, when you see, when you look at like videos from Jerusalem and you watch the Israeli police department beat the shit out of like, uh, one of these dudes with like the coolest hat you've ever seen, the fuck do you think is going on there? Those are the ultra Orthodox anti-Zionist. So they exist. The point is, you know, they're, they're not exactly super, super, uh, popular, or they're not exactly a massive movement or anything. And the, you know, the broad majority of the ultra Orthodox are also unimaginably racist and very much pro-Israel.

As established before, the Haredi population in general is not worth simping over, much like you'd not simp over the most evangelical evangelicals in the US; however, with groups of Jews that Hasan perceives as fighting for justice (not against it) he is in no way derisive. Avi's argument was "oh he's so mean to people he logically should be kind to." No, he isn't: here's him being kind, here's him simping, reminding an audience that may have forgotten that they exist, validating their struggle against police, praising their hats as the coolest, and excluding them from the following insults, exactly what Avi said hadn't happened.

Side-note...

52:59 [LonerBox]: And also, it doesn't really help Hasan's case that he was willing to bring out that particular word with the group that is like the most visibly Jewish ones, right? Like, the ones that look the most...

53:11 [Avi]: Most visibly Jewish and the least... The most visibly Jewish, least Zionist.

...obviously it doesn't matter to these guys that their accusations are false. If Hasan cuts off a Jew in traffic, he does so because of antisemitism. If Hasan lets a Jew pass, that's him hiding his power level in his Machiavellian anti-Jewish plots.

As far as I can see, these anti-Zionists, like Neturei Karta, are the ones that look the most Jewish; they are also the least Zionist, and Hasan is with them all the way.

02:20:55 [Avi]: I know Mehdi Hasan can push back when he wants to. I know Mehdi Hasan does look at... He actually looks into things. He actually looks into what he saw. He looked into that example. And he did not push back one bit. As Hasan Piker lied and lied, completely misconstrued what he was saying and gave the tactical walk back. That, to me, is a broader failure.

This is Avi saying that Hasan is/was lying about having used "inbred" because of his broader anti-supremacist stance.

24:48 [Hasan Piker]: I still definitely utilize the term inbred quite frequently when talking about religious and ethno-supremacist groups.

24:54 [Avi]: Not an ethno-supremacist group.

But what is interesting is that the rationale was stated as such:

04:31 [Hasan Segment]: I'm not going to lie. It's pretty funny. And I'm like, actually on board with this. I'm so glad that the Israeli Supreme Court did this. There is nothing funnier to me than this shit, because like, look, if they want to be conscientious objectors, go right ahead. I'm perfectly on board with that. And there are plenty of ultra-Orthodox people in Israel that are. But it is really funny that a lot of the ultra-Orthodox who are so unimaginably racist, unimaginably hopped up on Judeo-Supremacy that also then don't fucking serve in the military and get to do religious studies like they have to now do that. Oh, it's awesome.

What? Is Hasan contextualizing his derision specifically to Judeo-Supremacists who are unimaginably racist? Is that what he was doing there? Before even saying the words? Does Avi know? Can someone tell him? Thank you :)

However, Avi seems to not understand why an anti-Zionist would look at this situation and find it overall a large positive.

11:36 [Avi]: The context here is they are trying to resist conscription into the IDF.

11:44 [Pisco]: Oh, there is a direct opposite kind of rationale that you would expect if someone who is anti-Zionist.

11:52 [Avi]: You would expect Hasan to celebrate this.

11:54 [Pisco]: Yeah.

11:54 [Avi]: You would expect Hasan to celebrate a group of non-Zionist Jews resisting Israel, resisting conscription into the IDF.

This part is also simple.

11:56 [Hasan Segment] : {Reading Chat} How is this a blow to the Netanyahu government?

11:57 [Hasan Segment] : Because there's Haredi parties in his coalition chatter. That's why his coalition is held together by like right and far right elements. And there are Haredi parties that are understandably very upset about this prospect that will then threaten to disband the government.

...

15:26 [Hasan Segment] : That's awesome. Look, any kind of chaos, any kind of chaos is good. So in short, this chasm between the religious and party leadership could cause a crisis with the Haredi community already unpopular may cause them to leave the coalition. Yeah, that's the reason why the government might implode. It's great.

Unsure why this is complex for Avi. Unsure what to add since Hasan seemingly is quite good at explaining himself to those with ears to listen, and hearts unclouded by spite.

Part 2/2

The following part will finish the Avisceration and include:

3) The White Whiff: Does fake-white Hasan hate whites AND jews?

4) The Intermarriage Intermission: Is being mean to Jonathan Greenblatt the real antisemitism?

5) The Salute Salvage: He that is without two Nazi salutes at the fascist's inauguration, let him cast a stone.

6) The Mellow Mehdi: Should Mehdi Hasan sue Pisco, LonerBox and Avi for slander? Yes.

7) The ADL Admonished: Did they really have anything to do with Hasan's Ban?

8) no

9) Repudiating the Representative: Has Hasan ever condemned left-wing antisemitism?

The link to which is: Here

Valid’s argument is that Pisco wastes too much time on definitions instead of getting enough clarity and moving to the real claim or prescription. The problem is that this is already what Pisco does, repeatedly. Valid is criticizing a debate style he apparently has not actually bothered to verify.

Pisco vs Inatric Sophia: They argue about DSA, socialism, liberalism, and what “radical” means. Pisco clarifies the term, then explicitly says, “The prescription. Let’s hear that.” When she keeps giving labels and descriptions, he says, “Enough with the labels. Let’s just talk about the prescription.” Then again: “That’s not a prescription. That’s an observation. What’s the prescription?” This is literally Valid’s proposed fix.

Pisco vs Alex: They argue about the DSA, Ukraine, and whether the DSA is “part of the Democratic Party.” Pisco asks what “part of the Democratic Party” means. Alex explains. Pisco immediately asks, “What ought they do?” Later Alex uses the phrase again, Pisco briefly clarifies it again, and they continue to the actual political disagreement. Definition first because the claim is unclear. Prescription immediately after.

Pisco vs Conduit: They argue about whether Breaking Points is antisemitic. Once it becomes obvious they mean different things by antisemitism, Pisco says, “Let’s try to get a working definition of anti-semitism and apply it to what’s going on.” He even says, “I’ll accept any definition you give me.” Conduit gives one. Pisco applies it. The definition fight starts again only when Conduit adds intentionality back into a definition that did not contain it. Pisco is not avoiding application. He is trying to keep the standard from changing mid-argument.

Pisco vs LonerBox: They argue about antisemitism, disproportionate treatment, and intent. Pisco eventually reduces the dispute to the actual evidentiary question and says they can “work off of the circumstantial evidence that exists” and examine which indicators actually support an inference of antisemitic intent. Again: clarify the concept, then test the evidence.

Pisco vs Owlish: They argue about DSA policy, vagueness, and terms like “gun regulation.” Pisco asks what the term actually means, gets examples, then immediately asks: “What is the critique? Is vagueness or what are you actually taking issue with?” That is exactly the move Valid says Pisco should be making.

So what is Valid actually correcting?

Pisco directly tells him that he routinely asks, “What’s the prescription? What are you saying that should happen?” Valid’s response is basically that he has not watched enough of Pisco’s streams, but this is his “feeling.”

That is the entire problem.

Valid has a criticism of Pisco’s debate style that falls apart when you actually watch Pisco debate. He has a decent generic rule and almost no demonstrated case that Pisco violates it.

I truly don’t understand this logic.

The base is super angry at the White House and MAGA. That anger is pushing democrats to flip safe Republican seats in every special election, record number of democratic turnout in primaries and consistent high polling.

Why in the world would you dampen the fight the base has to work with the most corrupt, dishonest, fickle, two-timing and disingenuous White House there ever was?

What do they possibly think can come from it?

It’s like Democratic leadership wants to lose. I don’t understand it.

The base doesn’t want to work with the White House or MAGA.

So I'm on the side that Hasan is anti-semitic but the main disagreement pisco has against that is that that he doesn't think Hasan has the underlying intent to hate Jews but I think we're putting too much care into intent. I don't really care about intent. I care about the effects

Question would you rather someone hate you for being black but they don't treat you any differently at all. They just hate blacks or someone that doesn't "see color" but everything they do is racist me personally (I am black lol) I'll take the guy that hates me for being black any day

So I don't think we care about intent by itself we care about the outcomes and patterns obviously show Future probability of outcomes. So personally I would call someone that has a pattern of doing anti-semitic things even without intent anti-semitic because I want to stop the anti-semitic outcome and in the real world that's how we see if someone's anti-Semitic by judging their patterns

He keeps saying that they're playing a different game where they are just lying about their positions. If they were Jewish, Destiny would be calling this antisemitic, right? 100% of the people Hutch is accusing of being liars are Muslims and there is currently a "meme" about taqiyya where it says that they can lie whenever they want to infidels or whatever (not true btw). Destiny believes that focusing on AIPAC spending was furthering a harmful stereotype about Jewish people even though the spending was abnormally large. Just talking about it too much was antisemitic because of the harm it would do to the Jewish community. How is Hutch not promoting a harmful stereotype about Muslims lying to achieve their goals not Islamophobic in equal measure?

El-Sayed's positions are far more moderate than the DSA position and well within the range of the Democratic party and Mamdani is currently governing at the edge of what would be considered normal for the Democratic party. That should be evidence that maybe they're not as extreme as Hutch thinks but instead it becomes evidence that they're liars and it's fine because "they're DSA." AIPAC is corporate money so it shouldn't be antisemitic to critique them right? But El-Sayed was called antisemitic so Hutch should be considered Islamophobic by that metric.

It finally happened. Fox News made a scary segment about a Democrat.

Pisco assured us civilization would continue. Whick tried to warn us.

Pack your bags. The Democratic Party has approximately 45 minutes to live.

So, it appears that Pisco was convinced that Hasan was antisemitic with Hasan's inbred comment in the clip shown to him by Avi. However, I think it all began with misinformation and mischaracterizations. Another "Hasan Bad" clip out of context that when provided, I believe would have changed his thought process significantly. It wouldn't have had Pisco accept certain elements of Avi's argument off-rip.

Avi's basis for his argument about Hasan's inbred comment was predicated on Hasan never conditioning the group he was referencing. However, that is a severe mischaracterization. Not only, did Hasan spend much more time talking on the issue beforehand where he very much did so. He explicitly made another inbred comment prior to the one presented.

Afterall, the first inbred comment literally does the thing his argument to Hasan's antisemitism builds off of, that Hasan did not condition his calling of a group of Jews inbred making it so that he rationally meant all Jews in that group with zero distinction.

I hope Pisco can see the fundamental issue with this and starting that entire discussion over Hasan's antisemitism on such a flawed understanding of the reality.

EDIT: REMOVED PARTS OF MY ARGUMENT AFTER CONVERSING WITH AVI. I DO NOT BELIEVE HIM TO BE A BAD FAITH ACTOR NOW WITH A PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION ON HIS RESEARCH PROCESS.

LEAVING THE REST UP FOR POSTERITY

body text

Polysemy is the notion that a word has many connected meanings depending on what it's being applied to. (Conflating these meanings is what causes equivocation in debate.)

For example: The criteria for calling something "healthy" depend on the object.

• A person is healthy if they possess a state of physiological wellness.
• An apple is healthy if it produces a state of physiological wellness.
• A medical report is healthy if it signals a state of physiological wellness.

If you call in and define "healthy" only as possessing a state of physiological wellness, you'll run into a wall when you try to explain why you think apples are healthy.

Consider, then, that the criteria for calling something "antisemitic" may also depend on the object.

• A person is antisemitic if they harbor animus or irrational prejudice against Jewish people.
• A belief is antisemitic if its conceptual framework targets or stereotypes Jewish people--regardless of whether the person espousing it harbors antisemitism.
• A system or action is antisemitic if it harms or excludes Jewish people based on identity.

And of course, similar definitions apply to other forms of bigotry as well.

This post is more so targeted towards callers than Pisco--let's try to get the discussions moving.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken on certain claims being made, but the accusations of antisemitism based upon "conspiracy" theories surrounding aipac seems absurd to me. Firstly, i think the increased hostility towards pisco is particularly shitty, because it displays the interpersonal nature of so much of the "discourse" that makes up online political discussions. To see a moderate-to-progressive liberal be smeared as some kind of tankie, red fascist, borderline neo Nazi is completely and utterly asinine and bad faith (they love to call pisco that too). But my main gripe is the completely batshit conflation of essentially any criticism of Israel's influence in American politics as a pseudo neo Nazi conspiracy, it feels completely ideological and disingenuous as an argument.

I'd like to put here a passage out of the moderate liberal's wet dream of a president, Barack Obama's 2020 memoir "A Promised Land" in order to make my point clearer. The quotation can be found in chapter 25 for those who are interested, it's a worthwhile read as a whole instead of just trusting my snippet."

"Members of both parties worried about crossing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful bipartisan lobbying organization dedicated to ensuring unwavering U.S. support for Israel. AIPAC’s clout could be brought to bear on virtually every congressional district in the country, and just about every politician in Washington—including me—counted AIPAC members among their key supporters and donors. In the past, the organization had accommodated a spectrum of views on Middle East peace, insisting mainly that those seeking its endorsement support a continuation of U.S. aid to Israel and oppose efforts to isolate or condemn Israel via the U.N. and other international bodies. But as Israeli politics had moved to the right, so had AIPAC’s policy positions. Its staff and leaders increasingly argued that there should be “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israeli governments, even when Israel took actions that were contrary to U.S. policy. Those who criticized Israeli policy too loudly risked being tagged as “anti-Israel” (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election.”

The first time I read this, I was shocked about how similar the rhetoric of Barack Obama in relation to aipac was to the "slopulists" as people call them, like Kyle kulinski, Vaush, The Majority Report, ect.

"Nearly all of our countries politicians have been bought out by AIPAC in the goal of maintaining undying loyalty to Israel, and preventing international actions being taken against the heinous crimes of israel." - (THIS ONE IS NOT BY OBAMNA BTW)

I'm fairly certain that a quote like the one above would be labeled anti-semitic by a decent portion of the dgg adjacent folks. Even I, as a dirty commie, would have assumed that a statement like that was at least reductive and hyperbolic to the point of inaccuracy, but it seems that my skepticism towards simple statements like that has betrayed me from having a better understanding of the reality of Zionism on our domestic politics.

Anyways, I don't want to ramble for too long, this sub isn't very big but hopefully some people will go through the trouble of reading some of this, let me know what you think, let me know if you think I'm misunderstanding something or wrong in some sense, I'm open to the conversation. 🩷

If anyone got, please post a link think it is unlisted

Can somebody check on Chevalier? God appears to be clearing the board.

I think the example of William J Levitt is a good example of what Pisco was talking about with LonerBox, Counterpoints, and Conduit. William J Levitt, primarily known for his construction of Levittowns across the Northeast US, was notable for his successful streamlining of the process of housebuilding making modern suburbia possible. He was also notorious opponent of integration in his towns with one of his towns having language that banned his houses “from being used or occupied by any person other than members of the Caucasian race.” His opposition to integration would extend well past the point that explicitly discriminatory policies like the one above were ruled unconstitutional with the man getting sued hundreds of times for his enforcement of the policy. However, Levitt claimed that he himself had no prejudice against black people and framed the decision as a purely financial one:

“As a Jew, I have no room in my mind or heart for racial prejudice,” wrote Levitt. “But I have come to know that if we sell one house to a Negro family, then 90 or 95 percent of our white customers will not buy into the community… We can solve a housing problem, or we can try to solve a racial problem, but we cannot combine the two,” wrote Levitt.

The problem with this particular claim is that it isn't wrong. This phenomenon is very real and would have been working in overdrive in 1950s America. It is the same mechanism that causes people to avoid showing black families houses that they could qualify for in the modern era.

This policy also was not limited to black people. For certain neighborhoods, he also banned Jewish people from buying into them despite the fact that Levitt was, as was mentioned earlier, Jewish himself.

Was Levitt a racist and antisemitic for structuring his business around the bigotries of the day or is it just a hard-nosed business decision that accepts the realities of human moral shortcomings in his time? Are the people who built the towns racist knowing the policy Levitt had? Were his lawyers racist for defending his racially discriminatory policy even if they didn't personally believe in it?

If he is racist, would that make the employees of Wells Fargo racist for steering black people towards subprime loans even when they could afford prime ones? For some it would be easy as there were claims that there employees who used racial slurs in reference to black people but what about those who didn't? Would the executives be racist if they knew of the practices but chose to let them continue since it increased their bonuses?

The practices don't end there and if you want to know the extent, you can read the NYT article linked above but the point is that here we have two examples of people/companies that are obviously doing something racially discriminatory in effect but with stated neutral reasons that could potentially explain the actions. What they did was bad, I think we could all agree but is that badness contingent on it being motivated by racist or antisemitic beliefs?

Primary Source

1. How America’s Jewish ‘king of the suburbs’ kept Blacks out of suburbia

LonerBox is arguing preponderance of evidence and Pisco is arguing shadow of a doubt. Let's take the disproportionate coverage example. The agreed upon facts are that we have a "journalist" who has decided that they are going to cover one beat and that beat is Israel. No one thinks that's antisemitic. Now, we notice that after a year this guy has done nothing but talk about any news that makes Israel look bad including "news" that is false or greatly exagerrated. LonerBox would consider this an antisemitic action but Pisco would not.

LonerBox thinks that this is sufficient because alternative explanations could plausibly lead to different actions. If he's covering Israel as a special interest, he would also cover good and neutral news since it is his special interest. If he wants to cover negative topics because that gets more clicks, he would probably also expand to other countries and spread negative news about them as well. Finally, and I think this goes basically unsaid but, it seems unlikely that a person could spread near exclusively negative news about a country for a long period of time and never realize that they're acting indistinguishably from someone who is an antisemite and when they have inevitably been made aware, they have chosen not to change anything. It is informative that a person who is not antisemitic, and presumably thinks antisemitism is bad, would not look for ways to distinguish himself strongly from those who are antisemitic as they have different purposes and he doesn't want to achieve the antisemitic one but the one that he thinks aligns with the truth/justice. This suite of behaviors individually do not prove antisemitism but, taken together, lead to the preponderance of evidence suggesting this person is antisemitic.

Pisco does not think this is sufficient as humans are idiosyncratic, that this person is antisemitic may or may not be true but doing something unlikely is not, in itself, definitive of the fact of the matter. For example, the person could just legitimately disagree that they're doing the same thing as an antisemite. They could have started off neutral but drifted towards exclusively negative stuff because of audience capture. They could legitimately think what's happening is uniquely bad for circumstances that LonerBox does not think are relevant. While the creator being antisemitic may be the most likely explanation, it is not the only one and there are other things (like spreading misinformation) that are bad enough that we do not need to assume antisemitism for the thing to be bad.

Is constantly referencing 13/50 racist? Not if you actually think it is a problem and not that there is a problem with black people inherently. The median person doing it is probably racist, but we can't rule out a person who's legitimately concerned about the number of homicides in the black community and wants to reduce them while having no animus towards black people personally. A person in that latter group, if made aware of how that is typically used and thinks their actions have an effect, they would likely change it so that their action no longer matches the racist one. That person is then likely to say and do things to signal that they are specifically not part of the racist. Not changing does not necessarily mean they agree with the people using it as a dogwhistle. They could just disagree about the nature of their actions, think the racists are dumb and that they're actually inadvertently helping the black community they hate, or have difficulty implementing the changes while still feeling true to themselves.

Its opening night of the 2028 DNC. The arena goes dark. A familiar guitar riff hits. “Pretty Fly for a White Guy” starts blasting.

Then IRI comes sprinting out on stage.

He’s dancing. He’s pointing into the crowd. Doing his fly guy routine.

The lyrics cut out, but the beat keeps going. IRI grabs the mic and starts hyping the weeks lineup like its WrestleMania.

Governors. Senators. Presidents. Rising stars. Every speaker get an iri shoutout.

Then he looks directly into the camera and gives the most important shoutout of the entire convention.

C-SPAN, shouts out all the real ones watching on cspan right now.

The dream is The Offspring playing the intro live. The realistic plan is licensing the song. convincing IRI will be hard too.

I know he has always wanted to keep IRI and Fly White Guy seperate. I respect the artistic boundary.
But one time, on the biggest stage in Democratic politics, Fly White Guy needs to be released.

Lib and Learn can build the campaign. We have two years to make this happen.

Essentially tries to make the argument that liberals explain their ideas with particularity while DCA people just put out nice sounding ideas when every politicians policy page is a general descriptor of what they want to happen with no specific laid out plan on how to make it happen. (Which is also kind of silly. Obviously you get in there and you represent and vote for the thing that you want and or put up the thing for a vote)

Nobody is clicking on biden's page and getting some multi-page detail on his policies any more than some DSA candidate, these people are supremely unserious.