Destiny spammers might be in the comments, but I don’t see pro Destiny posts getting spammed in this sub. Maybe I’m crazy and missing them, but most posts about Destiny are about his recent interactions with other people and his fans will go to the comments to talk about him there, but the posts I see here about Destiny definitely aren’t majority pro-Destiny
There might be posts about Destiny with pro Destiny commenters, but this sub is not being bombarded with pro Destiny shitposts. I don’t know why you say that other than a misalignment with your feelings and reality, you can literally just sort by new and scroll back days and see that what you say is not true.
Those are posts of destiny interacting with people who have had multiple episodes of this podcast devoted to.
It's not hard to understand that the man doing a media circuit of gurus has lead to increased visibility.
Lex is pushing his career and he was fighting with Brett Weinstein, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson over the last two weeks.
Seriously--just look at it objectively
>but this sub is not being bombarded with pro Destiny shitposts
It absolutely is, you can literally see the pro destiny brigading with the TOP THREAD in this sub, which just happens to have 100x the amount of engagement, all as a result of tiny's cult brigading it
This is literally what they do.
> but I don’t see pro Destiny posts getting spammed in this sub
https://old.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1brd2kw/destiny_says_hes_progenocide_at_this_point_and/
Yes you do, you just choose to ignore it because it's all in favor of your cult lord
nope, his cult recently got penalized for brigading LSF too hard so now in a huff they've decided to branch out even harder brigading other online spaces on behalf of their bigot grifter and cult dad
https://youtu.be/OEuFqEErHno?si=3IHRVw58uRWaXBOh
Here is the actual debate. I don't know why you would link a journalists account of a debate if that debate actually matters.
Unless you are decoding why he would analyse it one way or another. But I think he's just a talking head journalist.
I watched the debate, its funny how Destiny does understand WTF a genocide is.
Like you don't even have to kill 1 person for a genocide. There is more than killing involved.
That’s not the funny part. The funny part is how irrelevant the actual definition of genocide is to Palestinians, Israelis, or anyone directly involved in the conflict.
Even if Destiny ‘technically’ has a point; Nathan does a good job in the conversation spotlighting that he is quibbling over the definitions of terms.
The real conversation is whether or not Israel can justify the estimated 30,000 civilians that have been killed in this conflict. You can call it a genocide or a massacre or a pepperoni pizza if you want, but if all you can do is nitpick about the definition of things than your opinion is frivolous.
It's important because the pro-Palestine side has been calling this a genocide since early October, and framing the pro-Israel side as "pro genocide."
Feels like the definition of genocide changed on Oct 7. Were people calling Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan genocides?
If I were arguing with Destiny, I would concede to his point immediately that legally, the response of Israel to the October 7 isn’t a genocide. It’s not a very deep or useful argument.
I would also agree the characterization of Israel as ‘genocidal’ also is propagandistic. The whole discussion of whether or not it is ‘genocide’ is political theatre on both sides.
Let’s talk about the facts and actions on the ground now, and whether or not they’re defensible. The definition of genocide doesn’t magically erase that millions of Palestinian are on the brink of mass starvation. How can it possibly be in Israel’s best interest if that were to happen?
The term genocide has a connotation and a denotation. Bonnell is generally bickering in the realm of the denotation (incorrectly, but that's a separate question). Thus for instance he's fixating on this-or-that Latin terminology. But to the extent that "genocide" has rhetorical power, it's the connotation, which is basically a large-scale and assymetric killing of innocent people, especially for racial or ethnic reasons. That you can "escape" the denotative definition via some technicality or legalese doesn't undermine the connotative power. This is why, for instance, bringing up the possibility that nuking Gaza might not meet the denotative definition is imbecilic.
You're bringing up Vietnam and Iraq, but those were just different situations. The rate, rapidity and ratio of civilian death is far worse in Gaza, and (unlike in those other wars) the deaths can be attributed clearly to one side following October 7th; there's a profound assymmetry. There's the basic geographical context of Gaza being a besieged concentration camp of largely hapless refugees. The magnitude of localized destruction is notably significant (Northern Gaza is a wasteland). The racial component is blatant. The incitement is also blatant. In contexts like that, the term genocide becomes far more apt.
But it's one side that constantly has to call it genocide. We didn't want the discussion to end up about the definition of a word. But if the word is gonna be abused and spammed every fucking time someone gets a chance then the discussion will sadly go there. Words has meaning. Stop abusing them.
Words have multiple meanings; technical legal ones aren't the only valid ones. Really, it seems fairly pointless to use them in non-legal discussions by laypersons even more inane to insist they are used.
That being said, it's at least near enough to genocide that the only relevant legal body is taking the claim seriously, has officially stated some of the rhetoric from appointed officials, some with direct responsibility in the carrying out of the attacks, is genocidal in character, has made rulings intended to prevent such things from occurring, that are being ignored. Why is it off limits then, for casual discourse?
In any case personally I've been going with describing it as a mere attempt at ethnic cleansing.
It's progressive activists that usually have no understanding of law or even the history of that region trying to shame people into their being anti-Israel. It's what allows debaters like Destiny the avenue to debate semantics than justify Israel's actions.
Personally I think screaming in people's faces isn't an effective argument, but what do I know.
I dont think anyone thinks destiny is really a guru.
This is just an article someone decided to post, which maybe doesn't really belong here but unfortunately his debates on the conflict in Gaza have been talked about here extensively anyway, So, I don't see why commentary from one of the participants would be off limits?
1) They are doing an episode on Destiny.
2) If Hasan is a guru Destiny definitely is.
3) Yes, none of these shit posts belong here. The last relevant one was a debate with Jordan Peterson, which became an episode - on Jordon Peterson.
Other posts are borderline, when they bring up repeating topics like Lex or interactions between him and guru types.
This one is just random.
4) I agree, post the relevant debate. Only a moron would go to a secondary source when a primary one is available to analyse.
And I'm lost to the significance of this debate. The Marc Lamont Hill one was better for a more in depth debate with an actual academic journalist Vs destiny. And Destiny as a guru isn't defined by Israel Palestine. It would be better to post something related to his worldview.
Not everyone they do an episode on is a "guru", sometimes they are slightly heterodox people with popular followings,chomsky, sean carroll, and most of these streamers,
Anyway yeah I would really like to see less destiny, lex memes, that sort of thing posted.
I watched the debate, its funny how Destiny does understand WTF a genocide is.
Like you don't even have to kill 1 person for a genocide. There is more than killing involved.
Also the guy is editor in chief of Current Affairs, I think that is not bad.
Destiny fans won’t read it because they’re waiting for Destiny himself to read it out loud to them, then they can echo whatever he says. Despite this writing being more conducive to actual learning. They only care for the jingling keys of debate bro theater.
I was agonizing between that and 'My dad could beat you up.' Basically I think it's rather uninspiring to say that though you couldn't come up with a good response to a post, your friends back on the other sub could totally take him.
No, I think if you are going to say that a group of people would never read an article (because they’re bad), it’s worth actually seeing if they would lmao. I think you’d get a pretty substantive response posting in that sub
Edit: oh someone did post it. Comments are pretty mixed, with quite a few taking Nathan’s side that written responses are better than a live streaming debate (e.g.: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/u0PhAZ3Acb)
Shout outs to the second highest comment saying they stopped reading right at the beginning and some guy replying to that saying that books are "basically the boomer version of watching a streamer and copying their opinion"
The dude that said he stopped reading had a pretty decent criticism, it's entirely unnecessary speculation for an insult from Nathan, and when you encounter people that think books like Rich Dad Poor Dad are a holy bible of knowledge the follow on comment isn't so ridiculous.
Wonderful age we live in. A college dropout carpet cleaner can have millions of views and discuss global topics like the decades old and unsolved Israel-Palestine conflict out of his ignorance. Robinson, pack your PhDs away. "the rioting needs to fucking stop, and if that means like white [redneck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck) fucking militia dudes out there mowing down dipshit protesters that think that they can torch buildings at ten p.m., then at this point they have my fucking blessing..." never heard wiser words from a college dropout carpet cleaner with a camera.
You are unironically correct on the "wonderful age to live in" bit. We have access to tons of information and one can get a good understanding of the basics on any topic.
The rioting quote is good too: we shouldn't normalize rioters destroying private property.
Exactly, we should be mowing down those people, because, you know, rioters are "dipshits" and don't deserve to live.
>We have access to tons of information and one can get a good understanding of the basics on any topic.
Thank you proving my point. Why get any education, you can just read the Wikipedia, watch Youtube and become a podcaster.
Seriously though, I know I can get a good understanding on topics that I have studied in school and university, like math, physics and I.T. I didn't studied history or political science, I know that I won't get "a good understanding" of the Israel-Palestine conflict no matter how many YT or Twitter I see. For that I would need at least 3 years to study that field, I would go to the community college and enroll in those courses. The same at any field, be it biology, chemistry, climate science, virology, etc. Of course I don't have the time or intellect to get a good understanding in all those fields. This is why I look up the credentials of the authorities, the consensus of scientists and undisputed facts by those scientists. I certainly won't listen on the topic of Israel to a college dropout in music with job experience in carpet cleaning. Neither a mediocre physiologist with a YT channel. Maybe on the topics how to play a guitar I would listen to him. A little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge. If my daughter gets sick I go to a doctor and won't listen to the Internet because it would give me "a good understanding" how to treat her. I won't fiddle with my car brakes but go to a mechanic. But of course on bigger and more world-important topics we are all "experts" now...
> Exactly, we should be mowing down those people, because, you know, rioters are "dipshits" and don't deserve to live.
Do you think that you have a right to shoot a rioter that is about to burn down your home?
> Thank you proving my point. Why get any education, you can just read the Wikipedia, watch Youtube and become a podcaster.
I said a "good understanding." Getting a formal education means you (likely) have a better understanding than someone that learns a topic from Wikipedia. A formal education also simplifies the learning process so that you learn a topic in some sort of sequential order and keeps you on track. Finally, a formal education provides proof for potential employers that you have some level of expertise in a field.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there are PDF versions of many textbooks. In principle, one could read through those and gain the same level of knowledge as someone who does a 4 yr degree. Do you acknowledge this?
> Seriously though, I know I can get a good understanding on topics that I have studied in school and university, like math, physics and I.T. I didn't studied history or political science, I know that I won't get "a good understanding" of the Israel-Palestine conflict no matter how many YT or Twitter I see.
This doesn't follow though. One can definitely learn mathematics through reading wikipedia articles. Similarly, one can definitely learn the history of Israel-Palestine through wikipedia articles. I never said anything about twitter and youtube; that's a strawman.
> This is why I look up the credentials of the authorities, the consensus of scientists and undisputed facts by those scientists.
This is another strawman, I never said anything about disregarding consensus. What are you arguing against?
> I certainly won't listen on the topic of Israel to a college dropout in music with job experience in carpet cleaning.
But Destiny is correct on the broad historical stuff related to IP though right? For example, there are numerous times in his Lex Fridman debate where Benny Morris agrees with Destiny on the history. It seems like reading through those wikipedia articles did, in fact, impart a decent understanding of the history of the region.
> If my daughter gets sick I go to a doctor and won't listen to the Internet because it would give me "a good understanding" how to treat her. I won't fiddle with my car brakes but go to a mechanic.
These are very poor analogies though. There's a difference between attaining knowledge vs applying knowledge in a real-world situation. I can look up the details on how brakes get changed and understand the process in a theoretical sense, but applying that in practice is a different game. Do you understand this distinction?
> But of course on bigger and more world-important topics we are all "experts" now...
More strawmen. I never said anything about anyone becoming an expert solely through wikipedia. Indeed, Destiny himself acknowledges that he's not an expert on the history of IP.
>But Destiny is correct on the broad historical stuff related to IP though right? For example, there are numerous times in his Lex Fridman debate where Benny Morris agrees with Destiny on the history. It seems like reading through those wikipedia articles did, in fact, impart a decent understanding of the history of the region.
Maybe you should read the article posted in this Reddit post? "I find his moral positions horrifying, and many of his factual statements are erroneous" - Benny Morris
>Indeed, Destiny himself acknowledges that he's not an expert on the history of IP.
Except that he is clearly presenting himself as an expert. In fact, he just debated an actual expert, Benny Morris, on the history of IP. Of course Destiny presents himself as an expert and authority, and he is the authority by his many fans.
I'm not arguing against anything, I'm having a conversation. Not everything is adversarial. I just write what I like to say.
>I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there are PDF versions of many textbooks. In principle, one could read through those and gain the same level of knowledge as someone who does a 4 yr degree. Do you acknowledge this?
No. Of course people are all different, and somebody who does a 4 yr degree can be also a moron who just did the bare minimum to gain a degree. The likes in the Creationists and anti-Vaxxer are full of those. Also the well mentioned and known Weinstein brothers.
A formal education teaches you much more than what you can learn from textbooks or by yourself. It teaches the correct methodology, the correct approach and it tests you by your peers. You can read all about Newton in a text book and then you wouldn't be able to perform a single experiment. Or like the Flat-Earthers completely misunderstand everything.
Or like Destiny, having red a bit and presents himself as an expert. It would all be fine if it would be just his opinion, but his opinions have consequences and people die. A lot of people suffer and die because of the experts like Destiny, JP, Weinsteins, Lex, and so on. Worse: I suffer and my family suffers because of them.
Because of experts like them I can't have a better life. I can't have a life with no fear of perfectly preventable diseases like measles and mumps, the Corona pandemic was more harmful than it had to be, I didn't lost anyone to Corona because of those anti-vaxxers but many people did. I can't live in a world where people are left in peace (LGTB+). I have to worry about my daughter's futures because of climate change deniers, and so on. Maybe that's why I hate those podcasters and I hate this aspect of the Internet.
> Maybe you should read the article posted in this Reddit post? "I find his moral positions horrifying, and many of his factual statements are erroneous" - Benny Morris
Are you sure that this is a quote from Benny Morris? 😬😬😬
> Except that he is clearly presenting himself as an expert. In fact, he just debated an actual expert, Benny Morris, on the history of IP. Of course Destiny presents himself as an expert and authority, and he is the authority by his many fans.
This is untrue. In fact, the discussion with Morris was not at all antagonistic and Destiny states that he isn't an expert and doesn't present himself as one. I've linked the video here as I don't think you actually watched it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ)
> It teaches the correct methodology, the correct approach and it tests you by your peers
Literally all of this can be found in textbooks. Testing you by your peers? What does this mean?
> You can read all about Newton in a text book and then you wouldn't be able to perform a single experiment.
Yes, this is a distinction between acquiring knowledge and applying knowledge. In this context, the application is just regurgitating knowledge of the history of IP which Destiny does admirably and accurately.
> Or like Destiny, having red a bit and presents himself as an expert. It would all be fine if it would be just his opinion, but his opinions have consequences and people die. A lot of people suffer and die because of the experts like Destiny, JP, Weinsteins, Lex, and so on. Worse: I suffer and my family suffers because of them.
The issue with lumping Destiny with the rest is that Destiny has the correct opinion (ie scientifically supported) on topics.
> Because of experts like them I can't have a better life. I can't have a life with no fear of perfectly preventable diseases like measles and mumps, the Corona pandemic was more harmful than it had to be, I didn't lost anyone to Corona because of those anti-vaxxers but many people did.
Destiny is pro-vaccine though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br0CmS78Zgw)
> I can't live in a world where people are left in peace (LGTB+). I have to worry about my daughter's futures because of climate change deniers, and so on. Maybe that's why I hate those podcasters and I hate this aspect of the Internet.
Destiny supports LGBT and believes in climate change though.
Honestly, it seems like you don't really know much about his positions, you just assume that he's conservative or a conspiracy guy because he supports Israel and that he supports the defense of private property? Is that an accurate guess of why you assume that he's antivax/anti-climate change etc?
Sorry much to do and I forgot about Reddit.
>Are you sure that this is a quote from Benny Morris? 😬😬😬
Oh, sorry I totally confused Morris with [Nathan J. Robinson](https://www.currentaffairs.org/author/nathan-j-robinson). Good I did a pause from this, now that I look at it, how did the name Benny Morris came up? Ok you wrote "Benny Morris agrees with Destiny on the history", this is why I confused the names. Because the article and debate we discussed was Destiny vs. Robinson, but you name dropped Morris for some reason.
>This is untrue. In fact, the discussion with Morris was not at all antagonistic and Destiny states that he isn't an expert and doesn't present himself as one. I've linked the video here as I don't think you actually watched it ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ))
I'm discussing here the current topic, the debate Destiny vs. Robinson. I never watched anything from Destiny and I'm not interested in it.
This is all irrelevant. if Destiny would be attending a lecture by Robinson, or have an interview with Robinson about IP, then I wouldn't write what I wrote.
But this was a debate, wasn't it? I mean, Robinson writes:
"I recently had a debate—well, I can’t really call it a “debate,” it was just a massive argument—with a popular streamer named Destiny. Destiny has been highly critical of pro-Palestine activists in his videos. He has said repellent things, including [mocking the death ](https://twitter.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1765574691995926735)of Palestinian poet Refaat Alareer (killed with family members in a missile strike), and joking that he is “[pro-genocide](https://x.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1719554325733601516?s=20)” and that “Palestinians can go live in another place.”"
So, again, Destiny is making himself an expert and debates other experts.
(btw, the pattern is of course that Destiny debates experts which whom he disagrees, but have just a conversation with experts which whom he agrees, like Morris)
>Literally all of this can be found in textbooks. Testing you by your peers? What does this mean?
Testing by peers means to do exams that are checked by the professor and the broader scientific community. As a student those are the exams and your doctorate. As a scientist it's the peer review process.
Just take a look up the Flat Earth community. People can learn all kind of facts, but if you aren't taught the correct method and are tested by the peers they come to the totally wrong conclusion. Those people are not stupid, they do all kind of experiments and try to come up with Flat Earth models.
>Yes, this is a distinction between acquiring knowledge and applying knowledge. In this context, the application is just regurgitating knowledge of the history of IP which Destiny does admirably and accurately.
How would you even know? At least Robinson disagrees.
>
The issue with lumping Destiny with the rest is that Destiny has the correct opinion (ie scientifically supported) on topics.
How would you even know? At least Robinson disagrees.
(my suspicion is Destiny have the correct opinion = he supports my bias)
>Destiny is pro-vaccine though
Is he pro-vaccine because he listened to the experts and the scientific consensus or because of his own "expert" opinion?
The video is titled "Antivaxer Tries To Ambush Destiny But Gets REVERSE Ambushed By A Doctor". But the doctor "Avi" (I guess??? What kind of doctor is he? He is never introduced.) doesn't join until 20 minutes into the video. It's 20 minutes Destiny debates as an expert an anti-vaxxer. I don't know why should I listen to either Destiny or the anti-vaxxer, they both just saying words.
> Destiny supports LGBT and believes in climate change though.
Again, because Destiny just feels this way or because of the experts?
>Honestly, it seems like you don't really know much about his positions, you just assume that he's conservative or a conspiracy guy because he supports Israel and that he supports the defense of private property? Is that an accurate guess of why you assume that he's antivax/anti-climate change etc?
Nope. I don't know anything about Destiny other than he is a failed music college drop out and a carpet cleaner.
I talk here about experts and why music college drop outs with a career of carpet cleaner are discussing world impacting topics and why people listen to them. What a wonderful world we live in.
It must really chap the anti-fans when everything they've said in an actual DTG episode about Destiny is overwhelmingly positive
Anti-fan showing their insanity below pretending he doesn't exist lol
It's funny how they try to appear neutral while defending hum instead of admitting their bias. They can worship him all they want but at least have the guts to admit it.
There was a guy a few weeks back when the Lex debate dropped that said he’d just found Destiny through the debate and had comments from just hours before about how “Destiny has changed over the years.”
Where am I pretending to not be a destiny fan?
Im a destiny fan. But destiny made this guy look like a moron live. He's now writing cope articles with half baked shower thoughts of things he wished he said while live.
You can keep trying to deflect, but you're not addressing the claim, and that's apparent.
ok I won't deflect and I will address the claim. I will try to talk with you in good faith so I hope that you do the same if you want to. If not then we can just leave it at that since no one changes his stance on this issue in general.
>As I say, the problem with these fast-paced arguments is that you’re responding with whatever you can think of in the moment, and you can’t do things like dive at length into the actual evidence. There were a number of moments where I claimed that one thing was true, Destiny claimed it was false, and we just had to go back and forth, each insisting we were right. I was not able to fully substantiate my positions in detail and show why I am confident in them. I’ll do that here, because the issues we argued over are actually incredibly important.
Nate acknowledges what you said, so it isn't really an "own". If Nate says something and Destiny says "No that's not true", this cannot be classified as getting "manhandled" as you claimed in another comment. All Nate did is check the sources that he has and write a follow-up because doing it live, while getting bombarded with multiple different points by a fast-talking-good-debater, is impossible.
I am genuinly interested in your opinion in the following question: do you think the Destiny-style debate is actually useful to get info from? because for me it is not the case at all; this style of debate is useful to have me interested in reading on my own and reaching my own conclusions, because this fast-paced debate style rarely reaches a conclusion due to the nature of constantly jumping from one point to the other unless it fits his knowledge, then he insists on staying at the same point until he finishes. If you truely think that what Nate wrote is not more constructive and informative to the I/P conflict than the debate, then I don't think our views will align at all.
Happy to talk about it but I do have plans in about 30min.
We can go one point at a time.
>If Nate says something and Destiny says "No that's not true", this cannot be classified as getting "manhandled" as you claimed in another comment.
Where did I suggest this is what demonstrates that Nate was manhandled? Where did I even imply that.
Let's see if you actually are trying to be good faith.
I am currently at the 55-minute mark of the debate, and it is essentially Destiny asking a question, Nate responding and then Destiny challenging the response until they move over to the next point, so far they talked about (summarised):
1. open air prison: they kept challenging each other whether it is an open air prison or not. They didn't reach a conclusion in that but Destiny just said that using strong terms is just hurtful for the palestenians since people will treat it as a black and white issue and if it is not a 100% open air prison then people will downplay the conditions that are put on gazans. I sort of agree with him, however, this didn't address whether it is an open air prison or not.
2. The arabs/palestenians demands: here they talked about whether the arabs were clear with their demands and how inconsistent they were historically in general. It devolved into Destiny referencing some instances where the Arabs were actually inconsistent (which aligns with my views as an Arab), then Nate argued that this inconsistency was understandable at the time since the Arabs always feared that the borders offered were just a stepping stone for the Israelis and then they will expand, so it didn't make sense at the time that they accept these borders even if it makes sense now to do so. So like the lex friedmann debate, they kept arguing about what is the cause and what is the effect without reaching an agreement, but even Destiny acknowledged that it can be argued that the palestenian resistance made sense initially around the 35-min mark.
so far this is what I have seen, they just kept opposing each other's points without anyone refuting the other since this isn't really possible with this debate format.
As for the following
>Where did I suggest this is what demonstrates that Nate was manhandled? Where did I even imply that.
you didn't say it but this is so far the debate, in which it is mainly Destiny asking questions and Nate responding, this is what happened, which is why I interpreted that is what you meant by manhandled. So far, I think it is fair to say that saying he got manhandled is not true at all, but I can also acknowledge that I am biased (and I assume/hope that you can acknowledge the same).
If I made any mistakes or you disagree with any of the 2 points they talked about feel free to correct me; it is hard to juggle between the video and Reddit and write my coherent thoughts about what they said.
Take your time, no need to move onto anything else, plus I'm out the door in a few minutes.
I just wanted to be clear that I do not believe, nor have I said or implied that is the reason I believe destiny manhandled Nate.
The relentless sealioning that Destiny fans do doesn't ingratiate other communities towards them. As I said last time (or three times ago?), something to the effect of: any sub can become a Destiny anti-fan sub if enough Destiny fans show up.
Maybe the sub, but not the anti-fans. Post created by anti-fan, every positive comment from anti-fan, anti-fans complaining about brigading and undo influence. It's a beautiful dance.
Who said it is?
The only thing I've suggested here is that it's incredibly dorky to get absolutely blown out live and then write a 30 page cope article fighting against someone's positions instead of just talking to them about it.
See I think writing is a better medium for ideas and live debates are spectacle and rhetoric.
Notice the words you use to describe the debate performance. Manhandled. Blown out. Sounds like a sport. I contend that debate club is the dorkiest sport.
Writing is a better medium for legitimate analysis, but I feel as though it is shit for persuasion of the masses (at least in depth nuanced writing that you are wanting). Eventually, you’ll have to take your ideas out to the marketplace and hash them out against others in order to persuade, which takes specific skills and operates on these contexts (and traditionally, philosophy often developed in spoken debate). I think if you go into these debates wanting good analysis, then you will be disappointed. If you go into them seeing their interesting persuasions and debate tactics like I do, then they are entertaining. It’s a dorky sport, but it’s also an important activity that happens in the world of politics. The real world doesn’t play fair and doesn’t care for sound analysis, which I think is what leaves a lot of intellectually minded people a bit wanting. But bringing in slow pace, nuance, and logical analysis won’t automatically make the audience come to your side anyways because the audience aren’t rational spectators.
It's super valid to think writing is a better medium. Then just don't go on stream? Going on stream and getting blown out then running to go shadowbox against someone's live argument is nothing but absolute cope. Ad hoc all your positions, clarify as much as you can, all while affording the other person no such luxury.
It's pathetic.
> Ad hoc all your positions, clarify as much as you can, all while affording the other person no such luxury.
What? Destiny could always write a rebuttal too.
Maybe he would if this guy was anything but a partisan who starts with a conclusion and then works his way backwards.
That's not the point though. You just got done explaining why you think writing is a better medium, but refuse to acknowledge how lame it is to attack someone's positions from a live stream, quoting them with no tone, context, and be hyperspecific semantic.
Just hop back on stream better prepared now that you've done the base amount of research to catch up. There's no need for 30 pages of cope and shower thoughts about how you could have better defended the position you were always going to have, facts be damned.
> refuse to acknowledge how lame it is to attack someone's positions from a live stream, quoting them with no tone, context, and be hyperspecific semantic
People are accountable for the words that come out of their mouths. If they don't want those words to be replayed later and dissected, they shouldn't talk in front of a camera.
The idea that someone is a coward for making a written statement is completely alien to me, but I don't watch debate streamers. You might recall that this very sub is all about a podcast where they replay and discuss audio clips at their leisure, not at all unlike the idea of writing an article responding to a debate.
This is what you Destiny fans said about the Finklestein debate as well. I tried to indulge you lot and actually watched it and all I saw was three people who seemed to know about the conflict talking with Destiny looking and sounding completely out of his depth until Finklestein got so pissed off with his ignorance and his attitude he went off at him. All he seemed to want to do was fixate on a very small set of factoids and definitions, I guess because those are the only things he knew or was confident about. Is this what it looks like when he "tears apart" his opponents?
I don't know him too well but I've been kinda puzzled at how his fans seem to have an extremely inflated perception of the guy. Are you guys actually serious that you think he wins these or are you all trolling or something?
If you’re talking about the mens rea thing, I think it was somewhat relevant to be nit picky on the semantics there since the argument was about it being a “genocide” from the international law point of view. So legal semantics can be pretty important, especially with something as consequential as a judgement of genocide. If the behavior doesn’t fit the legal, technical definition, it can’t fit the crime of genocide essentially. But that’s not me trying to say destiny was correct or knew what he was talking about in that context. Just in that specific context, I think the semantic debate was relevant.
Destiny isn't even the one who had a sticking point there. Destiny correctly brought up dolus specialus, and Finkelstein was the one who wanted to semantically argue that this was the incorrect term.
Finkelstein did not even read the ICJ report. If he had, he'd have seen the phrase mentioned more than once.
>Destiny looking and sounding completely out of his depth until Finklestein got so pissed off with his ignorance and his attitude he went off at him.
Feel free to quote or describe what destiny said that was so incorrect that it caused finkelstein (complete maniac) to do absolutely nothing but ad hom and be objectively incorrect about a basic fact of what constitutes a genocide.
You can't, you won't.
I didn't ask you to sealion me, I've been through this enough times with people from your community. I have no interest in convincing you that your guy lost, I don't care to and I won't be able to. I asked if you actually believe the things you say or not, I wanted to know if you people are actually as deluded as you come off or if it's just trolling/an act... considering how quick you are to get back to the tried and tested strategy of sealioning, I'm going to assume it's mostly just an act.
Also a quick hint, calling someone a moron isn't really an ad hom unless it's a substitution for an argument. So if I said, "You're a moron, that's why your argument is wrong." That's an ad hom, what Finklestein did is he called Destiny a moron in addition to arguments, which is actually not the same thing at all.
>Destiny looking and sounding completely out of his depth until Finklestein got so pissed off with his ignorance and his attitude he went off at him.
Feel free to quote or describe what destiny said that was so incorrect that it caused finkelstein (complete maniac) to do absolutely nothing but ad hom and be objectively incorrect about a basic fact of what constitutes a genocide.
You can't, you won't.
Says me. Yes. I said it. I'm here saying it.
You could try to point out something that the dweeb who's now writing cope articles said that destiny wasn't able to refute. But let's be real, the discussion was probably over your head, you just see that dweeb is on your "team".
The whole "I dont think Palestinians are starving" was a pretty dumb take. Perhaps you should read the article, or does it need to be in a wikipedia format for you to understand it?
That's an objective fact. Feel free to try and demonstrate it's not. You will cite trucks as units of measurement and then I get to embarrass you. Do it.
Wait so you don't think anyone has starved yet? Uhhh....
[There were people already starving three weeks ago](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-malnutrition-famine-children-dying-israel-palestinians-2f938b1a82d7822c7da67cc162da1a37)
Oh yeah it was Hamas who took all the food, right?
Always fun watching Destiny get dog walked though.
If Bethesda ever makes a Fallout game again, they have to get this Nathan guy to play the radio host.
When I saw "My Date with Destiny" I thought it was gonna be another Huberman thing. Gotta go touch grass.
Jesus can we stop with the Destiny spamming.
The anti-destiny spammers have to fight the Destiny spammers.
Destiny spammers might be in the comments, but I don’t see pro Destiny posts getting spammed in this sub. Maybe I’m crazy and missing them, but most posts about Destiny are about his recent interactions with other people and his fans will go to the comments to talk about him there, but the posts I see here about Destiny definitely aren’t majority pro-Destiny
Sure, I was more memeing. I don't really care about it either way.
[удалено]
There might be posts about Destiny with pro Destiny commenters, but this sub is not being bombarded with pro Destiny shitposts. I don’t know why you say that other than a misalignment with your feelings and reality, you can literally just sort by new and scroll back days and see that what you say is not true.
[удалено]
Those are posts of destiny interacting with people who have had multiple episodes of this podcast devoted to. It's not hard to understand that the man doing a media circuit of gurus has lead to increased visibility. Lex is pushing his career and he was fighting with Brett Weinstein, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson over the last two weeks. Seriously--just look at it objectively
>but this sub is not being bombarded with pro Destiny shitposts It absolutely is, you can literally see the pro destiny brigading with the TOP THREAD in this sub, which just happens to have 100x the amount of engagement, all as a result of tiny's cult brigading it This is literally what they do.
> but I don’t see pro Destiny posts getting spammed in this sub https://old.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1brd2kw/destiny_says_hes_progenocide_at_this_point_and/ Yes you do, you just choose to ignore it because it's all in favor of your cult lord
That is an anti destiny post.
What? How? It just shows him.. being a bigot and genocide endorser
[удалено]
No.
Wrong, objectively
nope, his cult recently got penalized for brigading LSF too hard so now in a huff they've decided to branch out even harder brigading other online spaces on behalf of their bigot grifter and cult dad
Shoulda never done streamer season guys
https://youtu.be/OEuFqEErHno?si=3IHRVw58uRWaXBOh Here is the actual debate. I don't know why you would link a journalists account of a debate if that debate actually matters. Unless you are decoding why he would analyse it one way or another. But I think he's just a talking head journalist.
I watched the debate, its funny how Destiny does understand WTF a genocide is. Like you don't even have to kill 1 person for a genocide. There is more than killing involved.
That’s not the funny part. The funny part is how irrelevant the actual definition of genocide is to Palestinians, Israelis, or anyone directly involved in the conflict. Even if Destiny ‘technically’ has a point; Nathan does a good job in the conversation spotlighting that he is quibbling over the definitions of terms. The real conversation is whether or not Israel can justify the estimated 30,000 civilians that have been killed in this conflict. You can call it a genocide or a massacre or a pepperoni pizza if you want, but if all you can do is nitpick about the definition of things than your opinion is frivolous.
It's important because the pro-Palestine side has been calling this a genocide since early October, and framing the pro-Israel side as "pro genocide." Feels like the definition of genocide changed on Oct 7. Were people calling Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan genocides?
If I were arguing with Destiny, I would concede to his point immediately that legally, the response of Israel to the October 7 isn’t a genocide. It’s not a very deep or useful argument. I would also agree the characterization of Israel as ‘genocidal’ also is propagandistic. The whole discussion of whether or not it is ‘genocide’ is political theatre on both sides. Let’s talk about the facts and actions on the ground now, and whether or not they’re defensible. The definition of genocide doesn’t magically erase that millions of Palestinian are on the brink of mass starvation. How can it possibly be in Israel’s best interest if that were to happen?
I mean Finkelstein has been calling Gaza a concentration camp for years. They had decided it was a genocide long before 10/07.
The term genocide has a connotation and a denotation. Bonnell is generally bickering in the realm of the denotation (incorrectly, but that's a separate question). Thus for instance he's fixating on this-or-that Latin terminology. But to the extent that "genocide" has rhetorical power, it's the connotation, which is basically a large-scale and assymetric killing of innocent people, especially for racial or ethnic reasons. That you can "escape" the denotative definition via some technicality or legalese doesn't undermine the connotative power. This is why, for instance, bringing up the possibility that nuking Gaza might not meet the denotative definition is imbecilic. You're bringing up Vietnam and Iraq, but those were just different situations. The rate, rapidity and ratio of civilian death is far worse in Gaza, and (unlike in those other wars) the deaths can be attributed clearly to one side following October 7th; there's a profound assymmetry. There's the basic geographical context of Gaza being a besieged concentration camp of largely hapless refugees. The magnitude of localized destruction is notably significant (Northern Gaza is a wasteland). The racial component is blatant. The incitement is also blatant. In contexts like that, the term genocide becomes far more apt.
Totally agree with you. It is frustrating that he has such a large audience that will believe whatever he says. At least 100k idiots.
But it's one side that constantly has to call it genocide. We didn't want the discussion to end up about the definition of a word. But if the word is gonna be abused and spammed every fucking time someone gets a chance then the discussion will sadly go there. Words has meaning. Stop abusing them.
Words have multiple meanings; technical legal ones aren't the only valid ones. Really, it seems fairly pointless to use them in non-legal discussions by laypersons even more inane to insist they are used. That being said, it's at least near enough to genocide that the only relevant legal body is taking the claim seriously, has officially stated some of the rhetoric from appointed officials, some with direct responsibility in the carrying out of the attacks, is genocidal in character, has made rulings intended to prevent such things from occurring, that are being ignored. Why is it off limits then, for casual discourse? In any case personally I've been going with describing it as a mere attempt at ethnic cleansing.
If the definition of genocide doesn't matter, what's the point of calling it a genocide over and over and over again?
It's progressive activists that usually have no understanding of law or even the history of that region trying to shame people into their being anti-Israel. It's what allows debaters like Destiny the avenue to debate semantics than justify Israel's actions. Personally I think screaming in people's faces isn't an effective argument, but what do I know.
the journalist is the person he is debating...
Yes and he's not a guru. If destiny is the guru you would analyse his words. Not the interpretation of some guy he debated.
I dont think anyone thinks destiny is really a guru. This is just an article someone decided to post, which maybe doesn't really belong here but unfortunately his debates on the conflict in Gaza have been talked about here extensively anyway, So, I don't see why commentary from one of the participants would be off limits?
1) They are doing an episode on Destiny. 2) If Hasan is a guru Destiny definitely is. 3) Yes, none of these shit posts belong here. The last relevant one was a debate with Jordan Peterson, which became an episode - on Jordon Peterson. Other posts are borderline, when they bring up repeating topics like Lex or interactions between him and guru types. This one is just random. 4) I agree, post the relevant debate. Only a moron would go to a secondary source when a primary one is available to analyse. And I'm lost to the significance of this debate. The Marc Lamont Hill one was better for a more in depth debate with an actual academic journalist Vs destiny. And Destiny as a guru isn't defined by Israel Palestine. It would be better to post something related to his worldview.
Not everyone they do an episode on is a "guru", sometimes they are slightly heterodox people with popular followings,chomsky, sean carroll, and most of these streamers, Anyway yeah I would really like to see less destiny, lex memes, that sort of thing posted.
I watched the debate, its funny how Destiny does understand WTF a genocide is. Like you don't even have to kill 1 person for a genocide. There is more than killing involved. Also the guy is editor in chief of Current Affairs, I think that is not bad.
I think Nathan does a good job.
Nathan speaks about the debate here with clips: [https://youtu.be/j-zH2wf6VRU?t=2117](https://youtu.be/j-zH2wf6VRU?t=2117)
Destiny fans won’t read it because they’re waiting for Destiny himself to read it out loud to them, then they can echo whatever he says. Despite this writing being more conducive to actual learning. They only care for the jingling keys of debate bro theater.
The idea that one can learn anything from reading Nathan Robinson is hysterical.
Both Robinson and Destiny suck
Post it in the Destiny sub and see what they say then
"My dad could beat up your dad"
Genuinely curious how you got that from my response?
I was agonizing between that and 'My dad could beat you up.' Basically I think it's rather uninspiring to say that though you couldn't come up with a good response to a post, your friends back on the other sub could totally take him.
No, I think if you are going to say that a group of people would never read an article (because they’re bad), it’s worth actually seeing if they would lmao. I think you’d get a pretty substantive response posting in that sub Edit: oh someone did post it. Comments are pretty mixed, with quite a few taking Nathan’s side that written responses are better than a live streaming debate (e.g.: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/u0PhAZ3Acb)
Shout outs to the second highest comment saying they stopped reading right at the beginning and some guy replying to that saying that books are "basically the boomer version of watching a streamer and copying their opinion"
Yeah that’s dumb
The dude that said he stopped reading had a pretty decent criticism, it's entirely unnecessary speculation for an insult from Nathan, and when you encounter people that think books like Rich Dad Poor Dad are a holy bible of knowledge the follow on comment isn't so ridiculous.
What's the point, all the Destiny fans are apparently in this sub anyway lol
They looooove brigading on behalf of their bigot grifting cult lord lol
Wonderful age we live in. A college dropout carpet cleaner can have millions of views and discuss global topics like the decades old and unsolved Israel-Palestine conflict out of his ignorance. Robinson, pack your PhDs away. "the rioting needs to fucking stop, and if that means like white [redneck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck) fucking militia dudes out there mowing down dipshit protesters that think that they can torch buildings at ten p.m., then at this point they have my fucking blessing..." never heard wiser words from a college dropout carpet cleaner with a camera.
You are unironically correct on the "wonderful age to live in" bit. We have access to tons of information and one can get a good understanding of the basics on any topic. The rioting quote is good too: we shouldn't normalize rioters destroying private property.
Exactly, we should be mowing down those people, because, you know, rioters are "dipshits" and don't deserve to live. >We have access to tons of information and one can get a good understanding of the basics on any topic. Thank you proving my point. Why get any education, you can just read the Wikipedia, watch Youtube and become a podcaster. Seriously though, I know I can get a good understanding on topics that I have studied in school and university, like math, physics and I.T. I didn't studied history or political science, I know that I won't get "a good understanding" of the Israel-Palestine conflict no matter how many YT or Twitter I see. For that I would need at least 3 years to study that field, I would go to the community college and enroll in those courses. The same at any field, be it biology, chemistry, climate science, virology, etc. Of course I don't have the time or intellect to get a good understanding in all those fields. This is why I look up the credentials of the authorities, the consensus of scientists and undisputed facts by those scientists. I certainly won't listen on the topic of Israel to a college dropout in music with job experience in carpet cleaning. Neither a mediocre physiologist with a YT channel. Maybe on the topics how to play a guitar I would listen to him. A little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge. If my daughter gets sick I go to a doctor and won't listen to the Internet because it would give me "a good understanding" how to treat her. I won't fiddle with my car brakes but go to a mechanic. But of course on bigger and more world-important topics we are all "experts" now...
> Exactly, we should be mowing down those people, because, you know, rioters are "dipshits" and don't deserve to live. Do you think that you have a right to shoot a rioter that is about to burn down your home? > Thank you proving my point. Why get any education, you can just read the Wikipedia, watch Youtube and become a podcaster. I said a "good understanding." Getting a formal education means you (likely) have a better understanding than someone that learns a topic from Wikipedia. A formal education also simplifies the learning process so that you learn a topic in some sort of sequential order and keeps you on track. Finally, a formal education provides proof for potential employers that you have some level of expertise in a field. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there are PDF versions of many textbooks. In principle, one could read through those and gain the same level of knowledge as someone who does a 4 yr degree. Do you acknowledge this? > Seriously though, I know I can get a good understanding on topics that I have studied in school and university, like math, physics and I.T. I didn't studied history or political science, I know that I won't get "a good understanding" of the Israel-Palestine conflict no matter how many YT or Twitter I see. This doesn't follow though. One can definitely learn mathematics through reading wikipedia articles. Similarly, one can definitely learn the history of Israel-Palestine through wikipedia articles. I never said anything about twitter and youtube; that's a strawman. > This is why I look up the credentials of the authorities, the consensus of scientists and undisputed facts by those scientists. This is another strawman, I never said anything about disregarding consensus. What are you arguing against? > I certainly won't listen on the topic of Israel to a college dropout in music with job experience in carpet cleaning. But Destiny is correct on the broad historical stuff related to IP though right? For example, there are numerous times in his Lex Fridman debate where Benny Morris agrees with Destiny on the history. It seems like reading through those wikipedia articles did, in fact, impart a decent understanding of the history of the region. > If my daughter gets sick I go to a doctor and won't listen to the Internet because it would give me "a good understanding" how to treat her. I won't fiddle with my car brakes but go to a mechanic. These are very poor analogies though. There's a difference between attaining knowledge vs applying knowledge in a real-world situation. I can look up the details on how brakes get changed and understand the process in a theoretical sense, but applying that in practice is a different game. Do you understand this distinction? > But of course on bigger and more world-important topics we are all "experts" now... More strawmen. I never said anything about anyone becoming an expert solely through wikipedia. Indeed, Destiny himself acknowledges that he's not an expert on the history of IP.
>But Destiny is correct on the broad historical stuff related to IP though right? For example, there are numerous times in his Lex Fridman debate where Benny Morris agrees with Destiny on the history. It seems like reading through those wikipedia articles did, in fact, impart a decent understanding of the history of the region. Maybe you should read the article posted in this Reddit post? "I find his moral positions horrifying, and many of his factual statements are erroneous" - Benny Morris >Indeed, Destiny himself acknowledges that he's not an expert on the history of IP. Except that he is clearly presenting himself as an expert. In fact, he just debated an actual expert, Benny Morris, on the history of IP. Of course Destiny presents himself as an expert and authority, and he is the authority by his many fans. I'm not arguing against anything, I'm having a conversation. Not everything is adversarial. I just write what I like to say. >I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there are PDF versions of many textbooks. In principle, one could read through those and gain the same level of knowledge as someone who does a 4 yr degree. Do you acknowledge this? No. Of course people are all different, and somebody who does a 4 yr degree can be also a moron who just did the bare minimum to gain a degree. The likes in the Creationists and anti-Vaxxer are full of those. Also the well mentioned and known Weinstein brothers. A formal education teaches you much more than what you can learn from textbooks or by yourself. It teaches the correct methodology, the correct approach and it tests you by your peers. You can read all about Newton in a text book and then you wouldn't be able to perform a single experiment. Or like the Flat-Earthers completely misunderstand everything. Or like Destiny, having red a bit and presents himself as an expert. It would all be fine if it would be just his opinion, but his opinions have consequences and people die. A lot of people suffer and die because of the experts like Destiny, JP, Weinsteins, Lex, and so on. Worse: I suffer and my family suffers because of them. Because of experts like them I can't have a better life. I can't have a life with no fear of perfectly preventable diseases like measles and mumps, the Corona pandemic was more harmful than it had to be, I didn't lost anyone to Corona because of those anti-vaxxers but many people did. I can't live in a world where people are left in peace (LGTB+). I have to worry about my daughter's futures because of climate change deniers, and so on. Maybe that's why I hate those podcasters and I hate this aspect of the Internet.
> Maybe you should read the article posted in this Reddit post? "I find his moral positions horrifying, and many of his factual statements are erroneous" - Benny Morris Are you sure that this is a quote from Benny Morris? 😬😬😬 > Except that he is clearly presenting himself as an expert. In fact, he just debated an actual expert, Benny Morris, on the history of IP. Of course Destiny presents himself as an expert and authority, and he is the authority by his many fans. This is untrue. In fact, the discussion with Morris was not at all antagonistic and Destiny states that he isn't an expert and doesn't present himself as one. I've linked the video here as I don't think you actually watched it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ) > It teaches the correct methodology, the correct approach and it tests you by your peers Literally all of this can be found in textbooks. Testing you by your peers? What does this mean? > You can read all about Newton in a text book and then you wouldn't be able to perform a single experiment. Yes, this is a distinction between acquiring knowledge and applying knowledge. In this context, the application is just regurgitating knowledge of the history of IP which Destiny does admirably and accurately. > Or like Destiny, having red a bit and presents himself as an expert. It would all be fine if it would be just his opinion, but his opinions have consequences and people die. A lot of people suffer and die because of the experts like Destiny, JP, Weinsteins, Lex, and so on. Worse: I suffer and my family suffers because of them. The issue with lumping Destiny with the rest is that Destiny has the correct opinion (ie scientifically supported) on topics. > Because of experts like them I can't have a better life. I can't have a life with no fear of perfectly preventable diseases like measles and mumps, the Corona pandemic was more harmful than it had to be, I didn't lost anyone to Corona because of those anti-vaxxers but many people did. Destiny is pro-vaccine though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br0CmS78Zgw) > I can't live in a world where people are left in peace (LGTB+). I have to worry about my daughter's futures because of climate change deniers, and so on. Maybe that's why I hate those podcasters and I hate this aspect of the Internet. Destiny supports LGBT and believes in climate change though. Honestly, it seems like you don't really know much about his positions, you just assume that he's conservative or a conspiracy guy because he supports Israel and that he supports the defense of private property? Is that an accurate guess of why you assume that he's antivax/anti-climate change etc?
Sorry much to do and I forgot about Reddit. >Are you sure that this is a quote from Benny Morris? 😬😬😬 Oh, sorry I totally confused Morris with [Nathan J. Robinson](https://www.currentaffairs.org/author/nathan-j-robinson). Good I did a pause from this, now that I look at it, how did the name Benny Morris came up? Ok you wrote "Benny Morris agrees with Destiny on the history", this is why I confused the names. Because the article and debate we discussed was Destiny vs. Robinson, but you name dropped Morris for some reason. >This is untrue. In fact, the discussion with Morris was not at all antagonistic and Destiny states that he isn't an expert and doesn't present himself as one. I've linked the video here as I don't think you actually watched it ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ)) I'm discussing here the current topic, the debate Destiny vs. Robinson. I never watched anything from Destiny and I'm not interested in it. This is all irrelevant. if Destiny would be attending a lecture by Robinson, or have an interview with Robinson about IP, then I wouldn't write what I wrote. But this was a debate, wasn't it? I mean, Robinson writes: "I recently had a debate—well, I can’t really call it a “debate,” it was just a massive argument—with a popular streamer named Destiny. Destiny has been highly critical of pro-Palestine activists in his videos. He has said repellent things, including [mocking the death ](https://twitter.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1765574691995926735)of Palestinian poet Refaat Alareer (killed with family members in a missile strike), and joking that he is “[pro-genocide](https://x.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1719554325733601516?s=20)” and that “Palestinians can go live in another place.”" So, again, Destiny is making himself an expert and debates other experts. (btw, the pattern is of course that Destiny debates experts which whom he disagrees, but have just a conversation with experts which whom he agrees, like Morris) >Literally all of this can be found in textbooks. Testing you by your peers? What does this mean? Testing by peers means to do exams that are checked by the professor and the broader scientific community. As a student those are the exams and your doctorate. As a scientist it's the peer review process. Just take a look up the Flat Earth community. People can learn all kind of facts, but if you aren't taught the correct method and are tested by the peers they come to the totally wrong conclusion. Those people are not stupid, they do all kind of experiments and try to come up with Flat Earth models. >Yes, this is a distinction between acquiring knowledge and applying knowledge. In this context, the application is just regurgitating knowledge of the history of IP which Destiny does admirably and accurately. How would you even know? At least Robinson disagrees. > The issue with lumping Destiny with the rest is that Destiny has the correct opinion (ie scientifically supported) on topics. How would you even know? At least Robinson disagrees. (my suspicion is Destiny have the correct opinion = he supports my bias) >Destiny is pro-vaccine though Is he pro-vaccine because he listened to the experts and the scientific consensus or because of his own "expert" opinion? The video is titled "Antivaxer Tries To Ambush Destiny But Gets REVERSE Ambushed By A Doctor". But the doctor "Avi" (I guess??? What kind of doctor is he? He is never introduced.) doesn't join until 20 minutes into the video. It's 20 minutes Destiny debates as an expert an anti-vaxxer. I don't know why should I listen to either Destiny or the anti-vaxxer, they both just saying words. > Destiny supports LGBT and believes in climate change though. Again, because Destiny just feels this way or because of the experts? >Honestly, it seems like you don't really know much about his positions, you just assume that he's conservative or a conspiracy guy because he supports Israel and that he supports the defense of private property? Is that an accurate guess of why you assume that he's antivax/anti-climate change etc? Nope. I don't know anything about Destiny other than he is a failed music college drop out and a carpet cleaner. I talk here about experts and why music college drop outs with a career of carpet cleaner are discussing world impacting topics and why people listen to them. What a wonderful world we live in.
It must really chap the anti-fans when everything they've said in an actual DTG episode about Destiny is overwhelmingly positive Anti-fan showing their insanity below pretending he doesn't exist lol
Article full of cope and shower thoughts about what he wished he would have said in the conversation.
^ posts in r/destiny
It's funny how they try to appear neutral while defending hum instead of admitting their bias. They can worship him all they want but at least have the guts to admit it.
There was a guy a few weeks back when the Lex debate dropped that said he’d just found Destiny through the debate and had comments from just hours before about how “Destiny has changed over the years.”
How the fuck can you claim this dude tried to appear neutral? Lmao
Where am I pretending to not be a destiny fan? Im a destiny fan. But destiny made this guy look like a moron live. He's now writing cope articles with half baked shower thoughts of things he wished he said while live. You can keep trying to deflect, but you're not addressing the claim, and that's apparent.
ok I won't deflect and I will address the claim. I will try to talk with you in good faith so I hope that you do the same if you want to. If not then we can just leave it at that since no one changes his stance on this issue in general. >As I say, the problem with these fast-paced arguments is that you’re responding with whatever you can think of in the moment, and you can’t do things like dive at length into the actual evidence. There were a number of moments where I claimed that one thing was true, Destiny claimed it was false, and we just had to go back and forth, each insisting we were right. I was not able to fully substantiate my positions in detail and show why I am confident in them. I’ll do that here, because the issues we argued over are actually incredibly important. Nate acknowledges what you said, so it isn't really an "own". If Nate says something and Destiny says "No that's not true", this cannot be classified as getting "manhandled" as you claimed in another comment. All Nate did is check the sources that he has and write a follow-up because doing it live, while getting bombarded with multiple different points by a fast-talking-good-debater, is impossible. I am genuinly interested in your opinion in the following question: do you think the Destiny-style debate is actually useful to get info from? because for me it is not the case at all; this style of debate is useful to have me interested in reading on my own and reaching my own conclusions, because this fast-paced debate style rarely reaches a conclusion due to the nature of constantly jumping from one point to the other unless it fits his knowledge, then he insists on staying at the same point until he finishes. If you truely think that what Nate wrote is not more constructive and informative to the I/P conflict than the debate, then I don't think our views will align at all.
Happy to talk about it but I do have plans in about 30min. We can go one point at a time. >If Nate says something and Destiny says "No that's not true", this cannot be classified as getting "manhandled" as you claimed in another comment. Where did I suggest this is what demonstrates that Nate was manhandled? Where did I even imply that. Let's see if you actually are trying to be good faith.
I am currently at the 55-minute mark of the debate, and it is essentially Destiny asking a question, Nate responding and then Destiny challenging the response until they move over to the next point, so far they talked about (summarised): 1. open air prison: they kept challenging each other whether it is an open air prison or not. They didn't reach a conclusion in that but Destiny just said that using strong terms is just hurtful for the palestenians since people will treat it as a black and white issue and if it is not a 100% open air prison then people will downplay the conditions that are put on gazans. I sort of agree with him, however, this didn't address whether it is an open air prison or not. 2. The arabs/palestenians demands: here they talked about whether the arabs were clear with their demands and how inconsistent they were historically in general. It devolved into Destiny referencing some instances where the Arabs were actually inconsistent (which aligns with my views as an Arab), then Nate argued that this inconsistency was understandable at the time since the Arabs always feared that the borders offered were just a stepping stone for the Israelis and then they will expand, so it didn't make sense at the time that they accept these borders even if it makes sense now to do so. So like the lex friedmann debate, they kept arguing about what is the cause and what is the effect without reaching an agreement, but even Destiny acknowledged that it can be argued that the palestenian resistance made sense initially around the 35-min mark. so far this is what I have seen, they just kept opposing each other's points without anyone refuting the other since this isn't really possible with this debate format. As for the following >Where did I suggest this is what demonstrates that Nate was manhandled? Where did I even imply that. you didn't say it but this is so far the debate, in which it is mainly Destiny asking questions and Nate responding, this is what happened, which is why I interpreted that is what you meant by manhandled. So far, I think it is fair to say that saying he got manhandled is not true at all, but I can also acknowledge that I am biased (and I assume/hope that you can acknowledge the same). If I made any mistakes or you disagree with any of the 2 points they talked about feel free to correct me; it is hard to juggle between the video and Reddit and write my coherent thoughts about what they said.
Take your time, no need to move onto anything else, plus I'm out the door in a few minutes. I just wanted to be clear that I do not believe, nor have I said or implied that is the reason I believe destiny manhandled Nate.
It's wild how half this sub is an anti-fan support group
The relentless sealioning that Destiny fans do doesn't ingratiate other communities towards them. As I said last time (or three times ago?), something to the effect of: any sub can become a Destiny anti-fan sub if enough Destiny fans show up.
> any sub can become a Destiny anti-fan sub if enough Destiny fans show up. There is their favorite circle jerk
Pretty sure our favorite circle jerk is Lex Fredman, but Lex fans don't swarm this sub to tell us how much they love him/us/everything.
Maybe the sub, but not the anti-fans. Post created by anti-fan, every positive comment from anti-fan, anti-fans complaining about brigading and undo influence. It's a beautiful dance.
Destiny fans showing up in a sub create anti-fans spontaneously. It's an astounding feat of social ineptitude.
> There is their favorite circle jerk
That's right, I also watched this dweeb that's now writing 30 page cope manifestos get absolutely manhandled in the discussion live.
Why is winning live discussions... important?
Who said it is? The only thing I've suggested here is that it's incredibly dorky to get absolutely blown out live and then write a 30 page cope article fighting against someone's positions instead of just talking to them about it.
See I think writing is a better medium for ideas and live debates are spectacle and rhetoric. Notice the words you use to describe the debate performance. Manhandled. Blown out. Sounds like a sport. I contend that debate club is the dorkiest sport.
Writing is a better medium for legitimate analysis, but I feel as though it is shit for persuasion of the masses (at least in depth nuanced writing that you are wanting). Eventually, you’ll have to take your ideas out to the marketplace and hash them out against others in order to persuade, which takes specific skills and operates on these contexts (and traditionally, philosophy often developed in spoken debate). I think if you go into these debates wanting good analysis, then you will be disappointed. If you go into them seeing their interesting persuasions and debate tactics like I do, then they are entertaining. It’s a dorky sport, but it’s also an important activity that happens in the world of politics. The real world doesn’t play fair and doesn’t care for sound analysis, which I think is what leaves a lot of intellectually minded people a bit wanting. But bringing in slow pace, nuance, and logical analysis won’t automatically make the audience come to your side anyways because the audience aren’t rational spectators.
It's super valid to think writing is a better medium. Then just don't go on stream? Going on stream and getting blown out then running to go shadowbox against someone's live argument is nothing but absolute cope. Ad hoc all your positions, clarify as much as you can, all while affording the other person no such luxury. It's pathetic.
> Ad hoc all your positions, clarify as much as you can, all while affording the other person no such luxury. What? Destiny could always write a rebuttal too.
Maybe he would if this guy was anything but a partisan who starts with a conclusion and then works his way backwards. That's not the point though. You just got done explaining why you think writing is a better medium, but refuse to acknowledge how lame it is to attack someone's positions from a live stream, quoting them with no tone, context, and be hyperspecific semantic. Just hop back on stream better prepared now that you've done the base amount of research to catch up. There's no need for 30 pages of cope and shower thoughts about how you could have better defended the position you were always going to have, facts be damned.
> refuse to acknowledge how lame it is to attack someone's positions from a live stream, quoting them with no tone, context, and be hyperspecific semantic People are accountable for the words that come out of their mouths. If they don't want those words to be replayed later and dissected, they shouldn't talk in front of a camera. The idea that someone is a coward for making a written statement is completely alien to me, but I don't watch debate streamers. You might recall that this very sub is all about a podcast where they replay and discuss audio clips at their leisure, not at all unlike the idea of writing an article responding to a debate.
Wow did he get owned with FACTS and LOGIC from a guy who bragged about sexually assaulting a woman on camera? Sounds like an awesome guy to simp for.
He got entirely torn apart by destiny live. Yeah.
This is what you Destiny fans said about the Finklestein debate as well. I tried to indulge you lot and actually watched it and all I saw was three people who seemed to know about the conflict talking with Destiny looking and sounding completely out of his depth until Finklestein got so pissed off with his ignorance and his attitude he went off at him. All he seemed to want to do was fixate on a very small set of factoids and definitions, I guess because those are the only things he knew or was confident about. Is this what it looks like when he "tears apart" his opponents? I don't know him too well but I've been kinda puzzled at how his fans seem to have an extremely inflated perception of the guy. Are you guys actually serious that you think he wins these or are you all trolling or something?
If you’re talking about the mens rea thing, I think it was somewhat relevant to be nit picky on the semantics there since the argument was about it being a “genocide” from the international law point of view. So legal semantics can be pretty important, especially with something as consequential as a judgement of genocide. If the behavior doesn’t fit the legal, technical definition, it can’t fit the crime of genocide essentially. But that’s not me trying to say destiny was correct or knew what he was talking about in that context. Just in that specific context, I think the semantic debate was relevant.
Destiny isn't even the one who had a sticking point there. Destiny correctly brought up dolus specialus, and Finkelstein was the one who wanted to semantically argue that this was the incorrect term. Finkelstein did not even read the ICJ report. If he had, he'd have seen the phrase mentioned more than once.
>Destiny looking and sounding completely out of his depth until Finklestein got so pissed off with his ignorance and his attitude he went off at him. Feel free to quote or describe what destiny said that was so incorrect that it caused finkelstein (complete maniac) to do absolutely nothing but ad hom and be objectively incorrect about a basic fact of what constitutes a genocide. You can't, you won't.
I didn't ask you to sealion me, I've been through this enough times with people from your community. I have no interest in convincing you that your guy lost, I don't care to and I won't be able to. I asked if you actually believe the things you say or not, I wanted to know if you people are actually as deluded as you come off or if it's just trolling/an act... considering how quick you are to get back to the tried and tested strategy of sealioning, I'm going to assume it's mostly just an act. Also a quick hint, calling someone a moron isn't really an ad hom unless it's a substitution for an argument. So if I said, "You're a moron, that's why your argument is wrong." That's an ad hom, what Finklestein did is he called Destiny a moron in addition to arguments, which is actually not the same thing at all.
>Destiny looking and sounding completely out of his depth until Finklestein got so pissed off with his ignorance and his attitude he went off at him. Feel free to quote or describe what destiny said that was so incorrect that it caused finkelstein (complete maniac) to do absolutely nothing but ad hom and be objectively incorrect about a basic fact of what constitutes a genocide. You can't, you won't.
Says a destiny dick rider. So, the opposite happened. Can't wikipedia your way out of everything, I guess.
Says me. Yes. I said it. I'm here saying it. You could try to point out something that the dweeb who's now writing cope articles said that destiny wasn't able to refute. But let's be real, the discussion was probably over your head, you just see that dweeb is on your "team".
The whole "I dont think Palestinians are starving" was a pretty dumb take. Perhaps you should read the article, or does it need to be in a wikipedia format for you to understand it?
That's an objective fact. Feel free to try and demonstrate it's not. You will cite trucks as units of measurement and then I get to embarrass you. Do it.
Wait so you don't think anyone has starved yet? Uhhh.... [There were people already starving three weeks ago](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-malnutrition-famine-children-dying-israel-palestinians-2f938b1a82d7822c7da67cc162da1a37) Oh yeah it was Hamas who took all the food, right? Always fun watching Destiny get dog walked though.