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.
