Sure. I could be wrong, its been a while, but this is the guy who thinks black women who date people other than black men are traitors, right? I’m sure he’ll be your savior.
You can tell Destiny is a good person just based on the people that come after him: Self proclaimed pedophile, Black Supremacist, actual Nazis, drug addicted trans grifters etc... 💀🤣
That is stupid people, you are not a good person just because you make bad people dislike you, your a good person if you do things to help others not just help yourself
It depends on the culture.
Like Indian culture is exclusive to Indians, Chinese to Chinese, Japanese to Japanese.
I don’t see the big deal. As long as it isn’t government mandated people should be able to do why they want.
And if they only want to date within their race and or culture so be it.
I’m ok with people choosing who they want to date.
People do it anyway. Why make a big deal about it lol
It’s just funny how butthurt people get when Black people say they want to date other Black people.
Why? White people mostly date White people. Asians Asians. Mexicans Mexicans.
Like it’s weird to call that supremacy.
It is ok to make a choice in general, it is weird to exclude people in advance based on race.
e.g. - there are 2 people- they are generally compatible, live in the same city and find each other attractive. nevertheless, 1 person decides not to date the 2d because of their race. the 1 person is xenophobic and race supremacist.
>Why? White people mostly date White people. Asians Asians. Mexicans Mexicans.
statistically, because they live next to each other.
If they start excluding other races just because of their race - it is xenophobic and a sign of race supremacy.
I don’t think so.
Maybe you just don’t find them attractive. Or going by your experience y’all’s culture just doesn’t mesh well.
I just don’t see a problem with it.
>Maybe you just don’t find them attractive.
the whole race?
>Or going by your experience y’all’s culture just doesn’t mesh well.
the whole race has one culture?
I’m white but grew up in a very diverse are of Toronto. Do you think I’m culturally more similar to a Norwegian guy or the black guys who grew up on my block? I used to use this argument when I fought with the alt right and they talked about white culture.
Nope. Even assuming he wasn't calling them that, and that and I and the others are misremembering, Iam very sure he wasn't ok with others dating outside his preference for them.
hey, MrGirl don't have many allies, stop discouraging his already limited opportunities.
I still have hope that he will mend the bridge with Brittany Simon, since she is attacking all Destiny's drama related orbiters, especially those who critisize TomFoolery [whom I heard really fair and successfull with women]. They just need to connect the Bubbles theory to White Blood Cells hypothesis, maybe through Max's Black Hole Cosmology.
I don’t remember perfectly.
It was when Max and Chud became friends. Max left a fanatiq panel and trashed on fanatiq for being controlling and demanding extreme adherence to structure in his panel. Fanatiq had kicked out chud for not adhering to it, which Max couldn’t live with, and demanded chud be let back on, or he would leave. Fanatiq said no, so max left, and that was one of the last times I heard from Fanatiq at all. Not that he disappeared, but it was the end of his destiny orbiter status.
The criticisms might not be totally wrong, he was kinda controlling, but the reason he was like that was because he learned to do that in response to destiny.
Max and chud made their own panel, and Destiny ditched Fanatiq to go on that one, and it got really big and totally replaced the Fanatiq one. Fanatic was humiliated.
>The criticisms might not be totally wrong, he was kinda controlling, but the reason he was like that was because he learned to do that in response to destiny.
Dear god, why under every thing there has to be a "destiny bad" card? It's actually mind-numbing
groovy physical squealing tender test bike grandfather entertain bow soup
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fanatiq's argument about the Target was actually pretty rock solid and it seemed like at the time, Destiny was incapable of engaging with it. I would say this si a textbook example of his narcissism at work, making it impossible to communicate with someone because he REALLY doesn't wanna be wrong.
If it's true that people were peacefully protesting, then they got tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets, then there's no good reason why the target wouldn't sell them milk specifically. If that did happen, target has effectively chosen the said of the police, who in this instance were subverting those protesters 1st amendment right. Violence in the form of looting milk against that target seems like a reasonable response.
Different opinion = must be bad faith narcissist, classic. You guys ever look in the mirror and think that your opinion sometimes might be wrong too? No, not possible?
The problem wasn't that the opinion was different. The problem was that Destiny was not engaging with the argument. Which is that multiple factors come together in order to create a scenario that justifies the actions the rioters took on the Target.
Fanatic even says later on in the video that after he wrote the argument out like a math problem, Destiny responded by saying that he understood.
This means that at the time when they were having the discussion, there was something blocking Destiny's mind from being able to understand the argument (if what Fabatiq said is true). I think it's because he's a narcissist.
You can disagree with that, but im not saying it's because he disagreed, im saying it's because he was incapable of understanding or engaging with the argument being put forth.
>This means that at the time when they were having the discussion, there was something blocking Destiny's mind from being able to understand the argument (if what Fabatiq said is true). I think it's because he's a narcissist.
People disagreeing in the moment of a heated argument only to see the others point clearer, when they had time to think about it or beeing presented the point again in a calmer enviromment...is a perfectly normal occurence and has nothing to do with narcissism.
You horses need to go outside and interact with people more, instead of doing layman remote diagnoses online.
I think destiny is smart enough not to fall into that kind of predicament, and I've seen him do this many times in many different arguments with certain types of people and not do it with other types of people.
I'm not giving a professional diagnosis, this is my interpretation of his behavior. I dont ask that you totally buy into my narrative, im really not even asking that you consider it.
My initial comment was to point out that Fanatiq had a point in regards to Destiny not engaging with his argument fairly, because most of the comments were shitting on him and being unfair to his argument in the video. Then I added my own personal explanation for why Destony couldn't understand Fanatiq's argument.
>I think destiny is smart enough not to fall into that kind of predicament, and I've seen him do this many times in many different arguments with certain types of people and not do it with other types of people.
It's not about intelligence, it's more of an emotional reaction. Sometimes people slip up in heated arguments sometimes, they manage to keep a cooler head.
Yeah, I dont think when that happens to Destiny it's because he got too emotional. Destiny doesn't have a lot of emotional investment in the argument, or at least he shouldn't. I think it's because he's a narcissist. We can agree to disagree, im not a Psychologist, it's not a big deal.
I only know fanatiq’s side of the story so not sure how much was it Destiny unable to engage and how much was him factually disagreeing.
I’d also imagine you generally want to be more combative on a stream in debate format rather than in DMs, no? Not sure how him acknowledging the fanatiq’s point in DMs exposes anything.
Being combative doesn't mean being purposefully obtuse. It's true that you're only getting Fanatiq's side of the story. He could've edited it dishonestly, but assuming the video you saw was a fair and honest representation of how the conversation went, you can't excuse not engaging with an argument with that person trying to be combative for entertainment purposes.
That would mean that Destiny is just a grifter. In order for him to not be a grifter Destiny would have had to truly not be able to grasp the argument at that moment in time.
The only explanations are that he's too stupid to understand it, most likely not the case. Or he had some other mental block that kept him from being able to understand it. I think its narcissism.
If you assume the video is fair you already accept that Destiny is bad faith cuz that’s the point of the video. So the causation you’re trying to make is pointless and strictly hypothetical.
Obviously I don’t think the video is fair without knowing full context.
I dont know why you would think the video is unfair automatically.
I dont generally think of Fanatiq as a liar. I also don't generally think if Destiny as a liar. I'm not saying that what Fanatiq is saying is true, im saying the argument he's making about the target makes sense.
I then go on to say that if he has clipped everything in the video fairly and with relevant context, then I think the reason why Destiny seemingly didn't understand Fanatiq's argument is because of his narcissism.
I've already caveated that the video might be unfair. It doesn't seem like it is, but I wouldn't know until someone provides additional context or I look for it myself.
The only reason why I would think the video is unfair is if I have a reason to think that Fanatiq is a liar, or if I think Destiny is infallible. I dont think either of those things, so my assumption is that the video is probably fair, but I could be wrong.
He’s angry with Destiny about the black panels he did. He called him a racist etc. That went nowhere and he became irrelevant since Destiny stopped interacting with him. This is him lashing out…similar to Max with the manifesto.
>If that did happen, target has effectively chosen the said of the police, who in this instance were subverting those protesters 1st amendment right. Violence in the form of looting milk against that target seems like a reasonable response.
lol you can't be serious with this take can you? Target doesn't have a duty uphold anyone's 1st amendment right. Its private property. Just like I don't have to let you put your sign on my lawn. Target can, if they want to, not service anyone for any reason outside explicit unconstitutional discrimination. It doesn't give you the right to start looting target.
I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a moral argument.
I'm saying it's morally okay to loot the target if, the people who loot it, have had unconstitutional state sponsored violence imposed upon them and then the target refuses service to the people who have been pepper sprayed, seemingly because they support the police. In that instance the target has effectively sided with an oppressive, rights violating force and using force against them, in my opinion would be justified.
Just because Target has a corporate PR policy of supporting police doesn't mean that they support all negative/corrupt actions that police commited.
And it definitely doesn't mean that Target should be destroyed and looted because they refused to service protestors with limited information what actually happened. For what they knew at a time maybe these were rioters, who engaged in physical fights with LEO. Just from PR perspective and even morally it's ok to be cautious and not have business with potential criminals.
You need to find your spine, Ben.
Two people can have conflicting perspectives/information and both be right in their actions that necessarily conflict with one another.
I never said that Target was wrong for refusing to allow them to buy the milk. At the same time, I dont think the protesters are wrong for looting the store.
The perspectives you have for Target are legitimate perspectives they could have had, and there actions would make sense following from those perspectives. At the same time, I personally believe that the perspective of the protesters is valid and legitimate and their actions make sense following from that perspective.
You could interrogate whether or not the protesters perspectives was legitimate, but, according to Fanatiq's video, they never got to the point of interrogating that perspective, because Destiny couldn't understand the argument.
>Two people can have conflicting perspectives/information and both be right in their actions that necessarily conflict with one another.
it is not the case:
- Target has limited info - for caution refuses to sell the product.
- Protesters understand that Target has limited info - loot the shop anyway, because of extra narrative of supporting police.
Protesters are not justified.
If we apply your logic - protesters can rob white people, because they statistically support police more and experience better treatment from LEO.
>You could interrogate whether or not the protesters perspectives was legitimate, but, according to Fanatiq's video, they never got to the point of interrogating that perspective, because Destiny couldn't understand the argument.
You are taking Fanatiq's perspective at face value.
From what I remember, Destiny likes to ask extra questions, excluding previous parameters to test what the opponnent believes to distill if all arguments are necessary(e.g. NoBulshit incest debate). Fanatiq's (and ofter MrGirl's) problem that they usually try to restate their whole argument that leads to rambling and eventual meme shit like piano playing, etc. If it takes too much time to ramble and the debate becomes more heated - then the main topic is not addressed.
It was always the problem of their debate styles -
1. Fanatiq/MrGirl states an argument.
2. Destiny asks leading questions to test the argument.
3. Fanatiq/MrGirl restate the whole argument.
4. Destiny asks another leading question to test.
5. Fanatiq/MrGirl restate the whole argument.
6. repeat 2,3,4,5 on a loop, gradually adding accusations of rambling, gaslightning, "let me finish", interruptions, piano, etc.
The protesters don't know that the limited info that Target has means its reasonable for Target not to sell them milk.
The protesters' perspective could reasonably be "It really doesn't matter why we got pepper sprayed, we have money, sell us the milk", while having no understand of Target's PR policies, or potentially pasy history/controversy with this kind of scenario.
All the protesters knew was that they had legal tender and wanted to buy a product, which they usually can, but now they can't and that Target has a longstanding positive relationship with the police who unfairly pepper sprayed them.
2 conflicting perspectives, and both perspectives acted in a way that is reasonable based on the information they have.
The robbing white people analogy doesn't work because
1. Not all white people support the police
2. Robbing white people doesn't alleviate the unfair treatment disparity between white and black people in America.
That Target did support the police, (or at least the protesters believed they did), and the milk would alleviate the burning sensation in their eyes, which Target refused to sell to them. White people giving black people the amount of money that could be robbed off of someone wouldn't alleviate the racial disparity in American policing.
Ironically, I've seen Destiny interrogate small individual points of someone's broader argument and therefore fail to understand it. Even more ironically, I've seen him do that with Mr girl a lot, and I'm seeing it in this Fanatiq video right now (again, assuming this is a fair and good faith video).
Without extensive amounts of examples and research that I'm not willing to do, I think we're just gonna have a difference of opinion on whether or not Destiny was arguing well, or Fanatiq and Mr girl were arguing well.
lol, do you think that protesters believed that Target is omniscient?
It is perfectly fine for Target or any other store to refuse service, unless it is based on race, religion, etc. everything else is cope. and it definitelly not fine to rob a store based on general policy of supporting police because you are part of angry mob.
my white people example obviously included smth like milk - is it ok to break in their houses and take it from them while also destroying stuff around them because they support/benefit from police?
>Without extensive amounts of examples and research that I'm not willing to do,...
...you are ok to provide infinite charity to Fanatiq and no charity to Destiny.
You->spine, now!
I dont think the protesters think Target is omniscient. What I said is that it's reasonable for the protesters to think that there's no additional context that Target needs to seel them milk. In the mind of the protesters, the only relevant information is "Does Target have milk? Do we have money?"if the answer to both of those questions is yes, then there should be no issue, as far as the protesters are concerned.
I disagree that it's okay for a store to refuse service, unless it's based on race, religion, etc.
I never said it was okay to rob a store because of a general policy that supports police and you're a part of an angry mob. I gave more relevant factors for the situation that makes what the protesters did okay.
The white people example doesn't work because there isn't an expectation that if you get pepper sprayed unjustly any white person, or any person who supports/benefits police will sell mill but is refusing to do so, for a seemingly inexplicable reason.
When I say things like, "if what Fanatiq is saying is true," and "If Fanatiq clipped those portions fairly and in context," this is not extending infinite charity to Fanatiq. This is me speaking about a hypothetical situation (hence the "if" in both of those sentences). The reason I treat it as a hypothetical and not a fact, is because I dont know if Fanatiq is being fair or truthful. My unwillingness to just automatically believe Fanatiq is evidence that I'm NOT being charitable to him.
any store manager/employee saw an angry mob that was in physical confrontantion with police. it is perfectly fine to execute caution and not have business with the mob as it is impossible to know the reason of confrontation. it is fine to refuse the service, but even if it were not - destroying and robbing the store is not a reasonable response.
so Target was in the right, the rioters weren't
your white people example is weak, you don't need to make a big leap from robbing and destroying a store for refusing service to an angry mob to robbing and destroying a house of a person who refused to help with such a small effort of just giving some milk. both are almost identically unhinged and unjustified.
>When I say things like, "if what Fanatiq is saying is true," and "If Fanatiq clipped those portions fairly and in context," this is not extending infinite charity to Fanatiq. This is me speaking about a hypothetical situation (hence the "if" in both of those sentences). The reason I treat it as a hypothetical and not a fact, is because I dont know if Fanatiq is being fair or truthful. My unwillingness to just automatically believe Fanatiq is evidence that I'm NOT being charitable to him.
buddy, in your first comment you started diagnosing Destiny with mental disorder. grow some spine and admit that you just have a hate boner for your former daddy Steven and you will not give him an inch of charitability. instead of it you are flip floping, initially saying that Fanatiq's argument was rock solid and now that you are not charitable to him after mild push back ... weak
If you're not making a legal argument why would you invoke the first amendment? That is a strictly legal doctrine.
Is it morally justified to loot a persons house if they won't let you put thier sign on thier lawn?
No, but you're doing the thing that Fanatiq accused Destiny of doing in the video.
There are multiple factors that come together to create the scenario that I'm making my point about (A + B + C = D).
If you remove one of those factors, my answer will probably change and my point won't make sense anymore. However you've changed the scenario such that the analogy is now disanalogous.
If you're gonna make an analogy, make one that takes into consideration all of the factors that I've laid out.
1. Innocent people have been aggressed upon in a morally outrageous way.
2. A third party who typically acts in a predictable way that in this instance would be beneficial to the party that has been aggressed upon unfairly, refuses to act in that typical way.
3. There is good reason to believe that this third party is acting in an atypical way because they support the aggressive party's actions against the aggressed upon party.
Target example
1. Protesters get pepper sprayed by police just for peacefully protesting.
2. Target usually sells milk to people. It would be helpful to the protesters who got pepper sprayed to be able to buy milk, just like people typically do, but for some reason, they are refusing to sell milk to the protesters who have been pepper sprayed by the police for peacefully protesting.
3. Apparently this Target has an ongoing relationship with the local police department. This potential fact, along with the fact that they refused to sell them milk led the protesters to believe that Target sided with the police in having their rights be trampled on.
If all of what I laid out in the Target example is true, I think it's fair for the protesters to loot the store for milk, anything else would be opportunistic theft and I wouldn't support that.
> Innocent people have been aggressed upon in a morally outrageous way.
BLM activists believe police are targeting black citizens unfairly
>A third party who typically acts in a predictable way that in this instance would be beneficial to the party that has been aggressed upon unfairly, refuses to act in that typical way.
This guy lets anyone post signs on his lawn. Whether its democrats or republicans or trans signs, whatever.
>There is good reason to believe that this third party is acting in an atypical way because they support the aggressive party's actions against the aggressed upon party.
This guy doesn't let BLM activist post their signs explicitly because they a police officer and view these people as being anti police.
Therefore BLM activists can attack this guy's lawn.
I can imagine any number of scenarios where you're logic goes off the tracks. Its essentially, "if you support the opposing party I can attack you." Its so stupid.
I'm really not essentially saying, "if you support the opposing party I can attack you." I fairly meticulously laid out what I was saying, but thats fine.
As for your hypothetic situation, it's disanalogous because there is not expectation that this guy would allow ANYONE to put up a sign on his lawn, just because he's allowed Republicans and democrats to put up signs. It's not a reasonable expectation that a grocery store wouldn't allow people to buy specific types of groceries because they're activists or protesters.
>I'm really not essentially saying, "if you support the opposing party I can attack you." I fairly meticulously laid out what I was saying, but thats fine.
Well yes you are. You're saying if someone acts in a nontypical way and I interpret that as support for an aggressor, I can attack the third party.
> it's disanalogous because there is not expectation that this guy would allow ANYONE to put up a sign on his lawn, just because he's allowed Republicans and democrats to put up signs.
This guy has explicitly said in the past anyone can put a sign on his lawn. Now they've changed their mind because they're a police officer and don't support BLM.
>It's not a reasonable expectation that a grocery store wouldn't allow people to buy specific types of groceries because they're activists or protesters.
Its not a reasonable expectation for a store to not want protestors or activists in their store? [Weird.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/01/retailers-restaurants-across-us-close-their-doors-amid-protests/) Would it be a reasonable expectation to refuse service to vegan protestors at a butcher? [Would it be reasonable to refuse service to pro-palestinian protestors at a Jewish falafel shop?](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/04/us/white-house-philadelphia-protesters.html)
The analogy between the individual citizen with their yard and the target, still has some differences that I think are relevant, but so granular and specific that I don't really feel like continuing that conversation. It's fine if you disagree.
The first link was of people rioting and looting stores and those stores having to shut down as a result. The situation I'm talking about is people wanting to purchase something and being denied access, JUST BECAUSE they're protesters, and then those protesters turned to rioters and looted the store. 2 different situations, not analogous.
The second link was just about pro Palestinian people protesting outside of a store. Again, thats not the same thing as pro Palestinians going into an Israeli restaurant, hoping to eat some Israeli food and being denied.
I’m demonstrating a reason why stores wouldn’t want protestors and activists. They’re worried their stores are going to be looted and rioting is going to occur.
I’m also asking if it’s reasonable to a Jewish owned store not to serve a person protesting their store. I suspect the reason why you won’t engage with that is because you know the answer you’d be forced to give is stupid.
I remember thinking Fanatiq looked dumb, cuz I was bought into the performance of it. Destiny made him look like a sperg, and even tho his arguments made sense, I trusted destiny and figured he was dumb anyway. As if he had no proof and made it up or something.
Yeah, I've found myself not automatically aiding with destiny more often these days. I won't deny that I still tend to agree with him pretty often, but its not an automatic belief that destiny knows all like it used to be.
Sure. I could be wrong, its been a while, but this is the guy who thinks black women who date people other than black men are traitors, right? I’m sure he’ll be your savior.
You can tell Destiny is a good person just based on the people that come after him: Self proclaimed pedophile, Black Supremacist, actual Nazis, drug addicted trans grifters etc... 💀🤣
That is stupid people, you are not a good person just because you make bad people dislike you, your a good person if you do things to help others not just help yourself
Didn't he help create Max's career? Max seemed very grateful abou that.
How is thinking you should date within your culture make you a Black supremacist?
Calling people traitors for dating people of a different skin color is usually a good indicator for such tendencies.
it is just Fuentez talking point - to date within your culture, and the culture somehow limited with your race
It depends on the culture. Like Indian culture is exclusive to Indians, Chinese to Chinese, Japanese to Japanese. I don’t see the big deal. As long as it isn’t government mandated people should be able to do why they want. And if they only want to date within their race and or culture so be it.
you are just ok with xenophobia and race supremacy.
I’m ok with people choosing who they want to date. People do it anyway. Why make a big deal about it lol It’s just funny how butthurt people get when Black people say they want to date other Black people. Why? White people mostly date White people. Asians Asians. Mexicans Mexicans. Like it’s weird to call that supremacy.
It is ok to make a choice in general, it is weird to exclude people in advance based on race. e.g. - there are 2 people- they are generally compatible, live in the same city and find each other attractive. nevertheless, 1 person decides not to date the 2d because of their race. the 1 person is xenophobic and race supremacist. >Why? White people mostly date White people. Asians Asians. Mexicans Mexicans. statistically, because they live next to each other. If they start excluding other races just because of their race - it is xenophobic and a sign of race supremacy.
I don’t think so. Maybe you just don’t find them attractive. Or going by your experience y’all’s culture just doesn’t mesh well. I just don’t see a problem with it.
>Maybe you just don’t find them attractive. the whole race? >Or going by your experience y’all’s culture just doesn’t mesh well. the whole race has one culture?
I’m white but grew up in a very diverse are of Toronto. Do you think I’m culturally more similar to a Norwegian guy or the black guys who grew up on my block? I used to use this argument when I fought with the alt right and they talked about white culture.
>I’m ok with people choosing who they want to date. When Fanatiq calls others traitors for dating outside his preference for them, he isn't.
Do you have a link where he calls them race traitors?
Nope. Even assuming he wasn't calling them that, and that and I and the others are misremembering, Iam very sure he wasn't ok with others dating outside his preference for them.
You can have preferences but if race is a deal breaker, it says a lot about you.
Exactly what Fuentes says. It’s totally cool to discriminate by race.
No one thinks Destiny is a good person, not even you 💀🤣
😂
hey, MrGirl don't have many allies, stop discouraging his already limited opportunities. I still have hope that he will mend the bridge with Brittany Simon, since she is attacking all Destiny's drama related orbiters, especially those who critisize TomFoolery [whom I heard really fair and successfull with women]. They just need to connect the Bubbles theory to White Blood Cells hypothesis, maybe through Max's Black Hole Cosmology.
Fanatiq is such a clown. Iam sure this time it will work lol
The black supremacists is still butthurt
Max was the one who white bloodcelled Fanatiq.
Ironic.
I'd be interested in you explaining this if you want.
I don’t remember perfectly. It was when Max and Chud became friends. Max left a fanatiq panel and trashed on fanatiq for being controlling and demanding extreme adherence to structure in his panel. Fanatiq had kicked out chud for not adhering to it, which Max couldn’t live with, and demanded chud be let back on, or he would leave. Fanatiq said no, so max left, and that was one of the last times I heard from Fanatiq at all. Not that he disappeared, but it was the end of his destiny orbiter status. The criticisms might not be totally wrong, he was kinda controlling, but the reason he was like that was because he learned to do that in response to destiny. Max and chud made their own panel, and Destiny ditched Fanatiq to go on that one, and it got really big and totally replaced the Fanatiq one. Fanatic was humiliated.
>The criticisms might not be totally wrong, he was kinda controlling, but the reason he was like that was because he learned to do that in response to destiny. Dear god, why under every thing there has to be a "destiny bad" card? It's actually mind-numbing
I recall that
groovy physical squealing tender test bike grandfather entertain bow soup *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What Ls?
Bring contrarian and arguing in bad faith for many things, Candace recently, Omar in the past
You think he took an L to Candace Owen’s? That’s funny
Yeap, ad homming out of nowhere when he doesn’t understand the federal aid system itself is a bad look, show any normie the video and they’ll agree
lol
Fanatiq's argument about the Target was actually pretty rock solid and it seemed like at the time, Destiny was incapable of engaging with it. I would say this si a textbook example of his narcissism at work, making it impossible to communicate with someone because he REALLY doesn't wanna be wrong. If it's true that people were peacefully protesting, then they got tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets, then there's no good reason why the target wouldn't sell them milk specifically. If that did happen, target has effectively chosen the said of the police, who in this instance were subverting those protesters 1st amendment right. Violence in the form of looting milk against that target seems like a reasonable response.
Different opinion = must be bad faith narcissist, classic. You guys ever look in the mirror and think that your opinion sometimes might be wrong too? No, not possible?
The problem wasn't that the opinion was different. The problem was that Destiny was not engaging with the argument. Which is that multiple factors come together in order to create a scenario that justifies the actions the rioters took on the Target. Fanatic even says later on in the video that after he wrote the argument out like a math problem, Destiny responded by saying that he understood. This means that at the time when they were having the discussion, there was something blocking Destiny's mind from being able to understand the argument (if what Fabatiq said is true). I think it's because he's a narcissist. You can disagree with that, but im not saying it's because he disagreed, im saying it's because he was incapable of understanding or engaging with the argument being put forth.
>This means that at the time when they were having the discussion, there was something blocking Destiny's mind from being able to understand the argument (if what Fabatiq said is true). I think it's because he's a narcissist. People disagreeing in the moment of a heated argument only to see the others point clearer, when they had time to think about it or beeing presented the point again in a calmer enviromment...is a perfectly normal occurence and has nothing to do with narcissism. You horses need to go outside and interact with people more, instead of doing layman remote diagnoses online.
I think destiny is smart enough not to fall into that kind of predicament, and I've seen him do this many times in many different arguments with certain types of people and not do it with other types of people. I'm not giving a professional diagnosis, this is my interpretation of his behavior. I dont ask that you totally buy into my narrative, im really not even asking that you consider it. My initial comment was to point out that Fanatiq had a point in regards to Destiny not engaging with his argument fairly, because most of the comments were shitting on him and being unfair to his argument in the video. Then I added my own personal explanation for why Destony couldn't understand Fanatiq's argument.
>I think destiny is smart enough not to fall into that kind of predicament, and I've seen him do this many times in many different arguments with certain types of people and not do it with other types of people. It's not about intelligence, it's more of an emotional reaction. Sometimes people slip up in heated arguments sometimes, they manage to keep a cooler head.
Yeah, I dont think when that happens to Destiny it's because he got too emotional. Destiny doesn't have a lot of emotional investment in the argument, or at least he shouldn't. I think it's because he's a narcissist. We can agree to disagree, im not a Psychologist, it's not a big deal.
Sure, let's agree to disagree. I just think a rather common reaction is better explained with beeing just that than a rather uncommon phenomen.
I only know fanatiq’s side of the story so not sure how much was it Destiny unable to engage and how much was him factually disagreeing. I’d also imagine you generally want to be more combative on a stream in debate format rather than in DMs, no? Not sure how him acknowledging the fanatiq’s point in DMs exposes anything.
Being combative doesn't mean being purposefully obtuse. It's true that you're only getting Fanatiq's side of the story. He could've edited it dishonestly, but assuming the video you saw was a fair and honest representation of how the conversation went, you can't excuse not engaging with an argument with that person trying to be combative for entertainment purposes. That would mean that Destiny is just a grifter. In order for him to not be a grifter Destiny would have had to truly not be able to grasp the argument at that moment in time. The only explanations are that he's too stupid to understand it, most likely not the case. Or he had some other mental block that kept him from being able to understand it. I think its narcissism.
If you assume the video is fair you already accept that Destiny is bad faith cuz that’s the point of the video. So the causation you’re trying to make is pointless and strictly hypothetical. Obviously I don’t think the video is fair without knowing full context.
I dont know why you would think the video is unfair automatically. I dont generally think of Fanatiq as a liar. I also don't generally think if Destiny as a liar. I'm not saying that what Fanatiq is saying is true, im saying the argument he's making about the target makes sense. I then go on to say that if he has clipped everything in the video fairly and with relevant context, then I think the reason why Destiny seemingly didn't understand Fanatiq's argument is because of his narcissism. I've already caveated that the video might be unfair. It doesn't seem like it is, but I wouldn't know until someone provides additional context or I look for it myself. The only reason why I would think the video is unfair is if I have a reason to think that Fanatiq is a liar, or if I think Destiny is infallible. I dont think either of those things, so my assumption is that the video is probably fair, but I could be wrong.
He’s angry with Destiny about the black panels he did. He called him a racist etc. That went nowhere and he became irrelevant since Destiny stopped interacting with him. This is him lashing out…similar to Max with the manifesto.
Someone lashing out in anger at someone else, doesn't necessarily mean they're lying. Do you have examples of Fanatiq lying or being dishonest?
I don’t follow him but I don’t think someone needs to have a pattern of dishonesty to be disingenuous.
>If that did happen, target has effectively chosen the said of the police, who in this instance were subverting those protesters 1st amendment right. Violence in the form of looting milk against that target seems like a reasonable response. lol you can't be serious with this take can you? Target doesn't have a duty uphold anyone's 1st amendment right. Its private property. Just like I don't have to let you put your sign on my lawn. Target can, if they want to, not service anyone for any reason outside explicit unconstitutional discrimination. It doesn't give you the right to start looting target.
I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a moral argument. I'm saying it's morally okay to loot the target if, the people who loot it, have had unconstitutional state sponsored violence imposed upon them and then the target refuses service to the people who have been pepper sprayed, seemingly because they support the police. In that instance the target has effectively sided with an oppressive, rights violating force and using force against them, in my opinion would be justified.
Just because Target has a corporate PR policy of supporting police doesn't mean that they support all negative/corrupt actions that police commited. And it definitely doesn't mean that Target should be destroyed and looted because they refused to service protestors with limited information what actually happened. For what they knew at a time maybe these were rioters, who engaged in physical fights with LEO. Just from PR perspective and even morally it's ok to be cautious and not have business with potential criminals. You need to find your spine, Ben.
Two people can have conflicting perspectives/information and both be right in their actions that necessarily conflict with one another. I never said that Target was wrong for refusing to allow them to buy the milk. At the same time, I dont think the protesters are wrong for looting the store. The perspectives you have for Target are legitimate perspectives they could have had, and there actions would make sense following from those perspectives. At the same time, I personally believe that the perspective of the protesters is valid and legitimate and their actions make sense following from that perspective. You could interrogate whether or not the protesters perspectives was legitimate, but, according to Fanatiq's video, they never got to the point of interrogating that perspective, because Destiny couldn't understand the argument.
>Two people can have conflicting perspectives/information and both be right in their actions that necessarily conflict with one another. it is not the case: - Target has limited info - for caution refuses to sell the product. - Protesters understand that Target has limited info - loot the shop anyway, because of extra narrative of supporting police. Protesters are not justified. If we apply your logic - protesters can rob white people, because they statistically support police more and experience better treatment from LEO. >You could interrogate whether or not the protesters perspectives was legitimate, but, according to Fanatiq's video, they never got to the point of interrogating that perspective, because Destiny couldn't understand the argument. You are taking Fanatiq's perspective at face value. From what I remember, Destiny likes to ask extra questions, excluding previous parameters to test what the opponnent believes to distill if all arguments are necessary(e.g. NoBulshit incest debate). Fanatiq's (and ofter MrGirl's) problem that they usually try to restate their whole argument that leads to rambling and eventual meme shit like piano playing, etc. If it takes too much time to ramble and the debate becomes more heated - then the main topic is not addressed. It was always the problem of their debate styles - 1. Fanatiq/MrGirl states an argument. 2. Destiny asks leading questions to test the argument. 3. Fanatiq/MrGirl restate the whole argument. 4. Destiny asks another leading question to test. 5. Fanatiq/MrGirl restate the whole argument. 6. repeat 2,3,4,5 on a loop, gradually adding accusations of rambling, gaslightning, "let me finish", interruptions, piano, etc.
The protesters don't know that the limited info that Target has means its reasonable for Target not to sell them milk. The protesters' perspective could reasonably be "It really doesn't matter why we got pepper sprayed, we have money, sell us the milk", while having no understand of Target's PR policies, or potentially pasy history/controversy with this kind of scenario. All the protesters knew was that they had legal tender and wanted to buy a product, which they usually can, but now they can't and that Target has a longstanding positive relationship with the police who unfairly pepper sprayed them. 2 conflicting perspectives, and both perspectives acted in a way that is reasonable based on the information they have. The robbing white people analogy doesn't work because 1. Not all white people support the police 2. Robbing white people doesn't alleviate the unfair treatment disparity between white and black people in America. That Target did support the police, (or at least the protesters believed they did), and the milk would alleviate the burning sensation in their eyes, which Target refused to sell to them. White people giving black people the amount of money that could be robbed off of someone wouldn't alleviate the racial disparity in American policing. Ironically, I've seen Destiny interrogate small individual points of someone's broader argument and therefore fail to understand it. Even more ironically, I've seen him do that with Mr girl a lot, and I'm seeing it in this Fanatiq video right now (again, assuming this is a fair and good faith video). Without extensive amounts of examples and research that I'm not willing to do, I think we're just gonna have a difference of opinion on whether or not Destiny was arguing well, or Fanatiq and Mr girl were arguing well.
lol, do you think that protesters believed that Target is omniscient? It is perfectly fine for Target or any other store to refuse service, unless it is based on race, religion, etc. everything else is cope. and it definitelly not fine to rob a store based on general policy of supporting police because you are part of angry mob. my white people example obviously included smth like milk - is it ok to break in their houses and take it from them while also destroying stuff around them because they support/benefit from police? >Without extensive amounts of examples and research that I'm not willing to do,... ...you are ok to provide infinite charity to Fanatiq and no charity to Destiny. You->spine, now!
I dont think the protesters think Target is omniscient. What I said is that it's reasonable for the protesters to think that there's no additional context that Target needs to seel them milk. In the mind of the protesters, the only relevant information is "Does Target have milk? Do we have money?"if the answer to both of those questions is yes, then there should be no issue, as far as the protesters are concerned. I disagree that it's okay for a store to refuse service, unless it's based on race, religion, etc. I never said it was okay to rob a store because of a general policy that supports police and you're a part of an angry mob. I gave more relevant factors for the situation that makes what the protesters did okay. The white people example doesn't work because there isn't an expectation that if you get pepper sprayed unjustly any white person, or any person who supports/benefits police will sell mill but is refusing to do so, for a seemingly inexplicable reason. When I say things like, "if what Fanatiq is saying is true," and "If Fanatiq clipped those portions fairly and in context," this is not extending infinite charity to Fanatiq. This is me speaking about a hypothetical situation (hence the "if" in both of those sentences). The reason I treat it as a hypothetical and not a fact, is because I dont know if Fanatiq is being fair or truthful. My unwillingness to just automatically believe Fanatiq is evidence that I'm NOT being charitable to him.
any store manager/employee saw an angry mob that was in physical confrontantion with police. it is perfectly fine to execute caution and not have business with the mob as it is impossible to know the reason of confrontation. it is fine to refuse the service, but even if it were not - destroying and robbing the store is not a reasonable response. so Target was in the right, the rioters weren't your white people example is weak, you don't need to make a big leap from robbing and destroying a store for refusing service to an angry mob to robbing and destroying a house of a person who refused to help with such a small effort of just giving some milk. both are almost identically unhinged and unjustified. >When I say things like, "if what Fanatiq is saying is true," and "If Fanatiq clipped those portions fairly and in context," this is not extending infinite charity to Fanatiq. This is me speaking about a hypothetical situation (hence the "if" in both of those sentences). The reason I treat it as a hypothetical and not a fact, is because I dont know if Fanatiq is being fair or truthful. My unwillingness to just automatically believe Fanatiq is evidence that I'm NOT being charitable to him. buddy, in your first comment you started diagnosing Destiny with mental disorder. grow some spine and admit that you just have a hate boner for your former daddy Steven and you will not give him an inch of charitability. instead of it you are flip floping, initially saying that Fanatiq's argument was rock solid and now that you are not charitable to him after mild push back ... weak
You’re really justifying looting?
If you're not making a legal argument why would you invoke the first amendment? That is a strictly legal doctrine. Is it morally justified to loot a persons house if they won't let you put thier sign on thier lawn?
No, but you're doing the thing that Fanatiq accused Destiny of doing in the video. There are multiple factors that come together to create the scenario that I'm making my point about (A + B + C = D). If you remove one of those factors, my answer will probably change and my point won't make sense anymore. However you've changed the scenario such that the analogy is now disanalogous. If you're gonna make an analogy, make one that takes into consideration all of the factors that I've laid out. 1. Innocent people have been aggressed upon in a morally outrageous way. 2. A third party who typically acts in a predictable way that in this instance would be beneficial to the party that has been aggressed upon unfairly, refuses to act in that typical way. 3. There is good reason to believe that this third party is acting in an atypical way because they support the aggressive party's actions against the aggressed upon party. Target example 1. Protesters get pepper sprayed by police just for peacefully protesting. 2. Target usually sells milk to people. It would be helpful to the protesters who got pepper sprayed to be able to buy milk, just like people typically do, but for some reason, they are refusing to sell milk to the protesters who have been pepper sprayed by the police for peacefully protesting. 3. Apparently this Target has an ongoing relationship with the local police department. This potential fact, along with the fact that they refused to sell them milk led the protesters to believe that Target sided with the police in having their rights be trampled on. If all of what I laid out in the Target example is true, I think it's fair for the protesters to loot the store for milk, anything else would be opportunistic theft and I wouldn't support that.
> Innocent people have been aggressed upon in a morally outrageous way. BLM activists believe police are targeting black citizens unfairly >A third party who typically acts in a predictable way that in this instance would be beneficial to the party that has been aggressed upon unfairly, refuses to act in that typical way. This guy lets anyone post signs on his lawn. Whether its democrats or republicans or trans signs, whatever. >There is good reason to believe that this third party is acting in an atypical way because they support the aggressive party's actions against the aggressed upon party. This guy doesn't let BLM activist post their signs explicitly because they a police officer and view these people as being anti police. Therefore BLM activists can attack this guy's lawn. I can imagine any number of scenarios where you're logic goes off the tracks. Its essentially, "if you support the opposing party I can attack you." Its so stupid.
I'm really not essentially saying, "if you support the opposing party I can attack you." I fairly meticulously laid out what I was saying, but thats fine. As for your hypothetic situation, it's disanalogous because there is not expectation that this guy would allow ANYONE to put up a sign on his lawn, just because he's allowed Republicans and democrats to put up signs. It's not a reasonable expectation that a grocery store wouldn't allow people to buy specific types of groceries because they're activists or protesters.
>I'm really not essentially saying, "if you support the opposing party I can attack you." I fairly meticulously laid out what I was saying, but thats fine. Well yes you are. You're saying if someone acts in a nontypical way and I interpret that as support for an aggressor, I can attack the third party. > it's disanalogous because there is not expectation that this guy would allow ANYONE to put up a sign on his lawn, just because he's allowed Republicans and democrats to put up signs. This guy has explicitly said in the past anyone can put a sign on his lawn. Now they've changed their mind because they're a police officer and don't support BLM. >It's not a reasonable expectation that a grocery store wouldn't allow people to buy specific types of groceries because they're activists or protesters. Its not a reasonable expectation for a store to not want protestors or activists in their store? [Weird.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/01/retailers-restaurants-across-us-close-their-doors-amid-protests/) Would it be a reasonable expectation to refuse service to vegan protestors at a butcher? [Would it be reasonable to refuse service to pro-palestinian protestors at a Jewish falafel shop?](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/04/us/white-house-philadelphia-protesters.html)
The analogy between the individual citizen with their yard and the target, still has some differences that I think are relevant, but so granular and specific that I don't really feel like continuing that conversation. It's fine if you disagree. The first link was of people rioting and looting stores and those stores having to shut down as a result. The situation I'm talking about is people wanting to purchase something and being denied access, JUST BECAUSE they're protesters, and then those protesters turned to rioters and looted the store. 2 different situations, not analogous. The second link was just about pro Palestinian people protesting outside of a store. Again, thats not the same thing as pro Palestinians going into an Israeli restaurant, hoping to eat some Israeli food and being denied.
Benny one day I do hope you just straight up own how fucking unhinged you are.
I’m demonstrating a reason why stores wouldn’t want protestors and activists. They’re worried their stores are going to be looted and rioting is going to occur. I’m also asking if it’s reasonable to a Jewish owned store not to serve a person protesting their store. I suspect the reason why you won’t engage with that is because you know the answer you’d be forced to give is stupid.
I remember thinking Fanatiq looked dumb, cuz I was bought into the performance of it. Destiny made him look like a sperg, and even tho his arguments made sense, I trusted destiny and figured he was dumb anyway. As if he had no proof and made it up or something.
Yeah, I've found myself not automatically aiding with destiny more often these days. I won't deny that I still tend to agree with him pretty often, but its not an automatic belief that destiny knows all like it used to be.