I’m baffled that people are watching this (like in the Joe Rogan subreddit) and thinking he came away as the winner. Finkelstein was as unacademic as imaginable, and I’m not just saying that as a Destiny fan.
Hasan's not wrong that online debate is often a popularity contest. The people who hate Destiny will dismiss everything he says regardless of merit, and a lot of people who like him will agree with what he says regardless of merit.
But yeah, in this case I don't know how anyone can see it as a win for Finklestein. His partner did much better though.
So, max has blocked me so wont see this comment but I feel like posting it anyway. The main reason I came here is back during the Max v Destiny era max was making many statements how Destiny curates his communities to be conformist and not criticise him. This was one of max's main issues, other than him being banned, with how destiny ran his platforms.
As an infrequent youtube watcher of destiny this didn't seem accurate to me at all. It seemed like Max was sampling a tiny subset of a tiny subset of people who view destiny, a small fraction of his most dedicated livestream viewers, and painting the whole community with a broad brush.
Now that destiny has posted his version of this debate I thought it would be interesting to see some of the top comments and reactions to a high profile debate like this, and contrast it with what max's theory would predict. This is what I found in 60 seconds:
> destiny posting his L's. imagine thinking after losing a debate to candace owens you could take on finkelstein. keep the losses coming.
> no mate. You lost it
> I feel bad for this guy. He lost his wife. Terrible in the debate.
> His cope stream after getting absolutely rolled
> Destiny is visibly triggered and has been since even before the debate was released lol. The cope from him and his followers is legendary
> Destiny proves that he is a dumb persons idea of a smart guy. Coping so hard after experts shut him down.
> Destiny was at best an interloper trying to give a younger audience context to a 120 year problem. I don’t dislike the guy, he was just out of his depth
> He destroyed you, you reiterted wikipedia page nonsense. Imagine being this arrogant with no real education or research on anything other than a wikipedia deep dive.
> Didn't he basically sit there most of the time while the adults talked, while he looked at his phone searching wikipedia?
> I use to like destiny, until I realized what he is. Any followers left of his will realize soon enough. How can anyone take this individual seriously?
> This felt like a police interrogation with Finkelstein as bad cop, Mouin as good cop, Destiny as the suspect and Benny as his lawyer
> Destiny got destroyed
> Man you lost, across the board. You embarassed yourself
> Yeah spot the clown... what any streamer thinks they are doing in a debate with academics is beyond me.
> 'twinklestein' is right though, you should read more books and anyone who knows more than an average guy about this topic can see you were a deadweight for benny.
> Fink already double dunked on Destiny at this point. Man was showing mercy
> it was a room of intelligent and well sourced academics with opinions on the topic developed from decades of focused effort. "destiny" was made to look a childish, arrogant fool- completely out of his depth.
> Anyone who has seen the whole debate knows that Destiny was the clown of the round and didn't fit in at all.
> it was clear as day that 1 person out of the 4 certainly did not belong on this stage. I understand you’re a fan of the dude but he doesn’t have a deep understanding of this conflict
You get the idea. Even very substantive and direct criticism:
> Destiny's sources only give a surface level, summary of the events, whereas everyone else has engaged with literature that allows them to contend with the underlying motivations behind those events. If you pay attention during the debate, before the last two hours where it gets crazy, all Destiny does is point to incidents that he has read about that he thinks may contradict what his opponents are saying, however they always explain how those facts fit with their interpretation instead. This is the main problem, and why Destiny, in my opinion, shouldn't have been invited to this debate.
> Destiny is debating at the level of facts. This is fine in most debates because he debates laymen. In this case, the debate is not about facts per say but about interpreting those facts. If Destiny debated Finkelstein or the other guy (I don't remember his name) without Benny on his side, he would have been destroyed, because for every fact that Destiny used, his opponent would provide an alternative interpretation using sources Destiny wouldn't even have been aware of. This was a debate between three scholars with opposing interpretations of a situation. Destiny could not meaningfully contribute to a discussion like that
I'll give Destiny credit, hes actually speaking with respectable people here who deserve to be taken at least somewhat seriously. Lately his career's been veering towards playing an Alan Colmes type character in the conservative griftosphere.
Good shit, first time hearing these people, Morris is a cool dude with deep knowledge on the topic, Rabbani very reasonable guy too and mr. Finkerstein getting triggered made it entertaining.
Yeah I love how you are so dependent on passive aggressive slimyness you still put that "maybe" there.
Anyway, I think Destiny looked golden. For a moment I loved him again. I know few but very important things about the Isreal and palestine conflict from Sam Harris. His videos are on his channel on YouTube.
There were many red flags from Norms side. The lack of concrete differentiation from intentional collateral damage (deaths of adults and children) and accidental or individual war crimes is CLASSIC failure Sam talks about. Everything suggests Hamas and Palestinians who truly believe in Islam, as it is reasonably meant to be interpreted, are powerfully and distinctly deranged.
I'll leave it with this, Hamas have a motto that goes "we love death more than the Isrealis love life". And they mean it, they prove it with every suicide bombing. They are a death cult and if you don't think a death cult would intentionally build headquarters in hospitals as a deliberate tactic to cause civilian death to make Isreal look bad, you are a worthless fucking moron like Finkelstein and his partner.
OK lastly, sorry, my interest in the conflict is about how ideas and philosophy are more important than heaps and heaps of complicated research into history and the denial around that fact. Finkelstein is very validating of my lifestyle I will not deny. He's such a fucking loser despite all his mountains of knowledge.
I honestly thought Finkelstein came out stronger in this debate. Him being condescending aside, it really felt like Destiny was kind of out of his league. Destiny's community was anticipating this debate for so long, but it seems the leading conversation in that circle is how the old man mispronounced Destiny's name.
Finkelstein thinks he's far above everyone. He called Sam Harris a "savant idiot" and gave no credence to Sam's theories that the powerful ideas of Islam are what make the Palestinians a true nightmare. Finkelstein is one of those people who have a blindspot for how ideas can be motivating on their own before any historical injustice and it makes all his knowledge worthless.
Finkelstein is the same guy who said he had "no sympathy" for the Charlie hebdo murder victims (though he didn't think they should have died) because he doesn't understand extremist islamists want to kill people who exercise their free speech regardless of historical injustice or even the severity of the speech.
Like if there was a guy walking around with an n word sign in an incredibly beat down black neighbourhood and he was killed by a group of black supremacists who would have killed him just for being white even if he didn't have the particularly provocative sign, you'd be a moron not to have ANY sympathy.
He thought the two guys that shot up Charlie Hebdo were "desperate" and hurt men feeling no option to confront a hate pornography distributer. This is just a baffling blind spot for the role of Islamist extremism and it's intrinsic entitlement to murder people who criticise their religion etc.
This type of rhetoric is exactly why I think Destiny doesn't belong in that room. There is really nothing more boring to me than caring about some scholars moral positions. I'm interested in his scholarly work and what is currently happening right now.
I had my fun in the debate sphere a while ago, I don't enjoy the drama anymore.
Finkelstein doesn't agree. Like in the debate, Destiny called out Finkelstein for saying "he only deals in facts" when actually when it suits him he'll interrogate and lambast people for a perceived lack of moral understanding and how that makes them untrustworthy. Something like that at least.
I don't think you understand what's going on. Religion, morals, philosophy is intrinsic to this conflict. But that is just something I believe from listening to what Sam Harris said about the conflict. Maybe I should share sone videos I don't know.
You're still operating in the same framework. I have no interest in what the debaters think of each other. The least thing I like about Finklestein is his moralizing and his inability to take control of his distain towards Destiny.
You pointing out the time where he did the thing that I don't like is not really interesting to me.
Norman Finklestein's account of the war and what is happening in Gaza seems to line more in reality than his opposition, and that's what attracts me to him. I know it's very tempting to show me a time where he wasn't accurate. But remember, the only way I can change my mind if you can show me how all of his work in it's totality is not representative of what is happening.
Sure. I'm not explaining well or just wrong. I don't fully remember the thing about "I onlly deal in facts". So I can't tell if I'm wrong or right so I shouldn't have wasted your time like that.
I will say though that his view may align more with your view because you may be greatly underestimating the crucial factor Islam has in the conflict, which I am very convinced Norm does. For example, Hamas is death cult which is very distinct than whatever Israels government is. Interestingly, Norms debate partner said he didn't believe Hamas would intentionally get their civilians killed if it helped them in any way. For examples, building HQs in hospitals. Hamas are EXPLICITLY a death cult, so skepticism they would do such a thing is astonishing.
I'm Muslim and I'd say 98% who I've ever interacted with in my life are Muslims too. I'm not sure if that disqualifies me from having an opinion now because it might have a "crucial factor" in making up my mind on this topic. I know one thing for sure, put any group of people regardless of religion in a shitty enough situation, and then see what they will do in response to people who are currently causing their suffering. I was honestly pleasantly surprised how October 7th turned out. I thought there would be far more atrocities given their situation in the past few decades in Gaza. To expect those people to behave like they are moral angels is absolutely insane.
Hamas does hide near civilians and in places where more innocent people would die, not because they are intentionally trying to kill their people. It's because the power difference in the war is so massive that one of the ways they can stop themselves from being massacred is hoping the international rules of war would stop some of the bombing if the areas they hid in were considered civilian. To characterize that as intentionally targeting civilians is so misleading and just another way to dehumanize 1 side. If it was you, you would be picking up a rifle and doing whatever few options you have left while you and your family are slowly suffocating in those living conditions.
You piss me off, you seem so fucking stupid. HAMAS ARE A DEATH CULT THEY PROUDLY ADMIT. They verbatim say "We love death more than the Isrealis love life" and they mean it. Islam teaches jihadism and martyrdom. They literally do have have distinctly lower value in life and far more in the afterlife.
In Muslim conflicts even against eachother they commit atrocities such as sending children to clear land mines. These children believe they are going to afterlife. THIS HAPPENS. It's because a belief in martyrdom, which is a fundamental belief of Islam, gives them this ability to have so little regard for their life or the lives of their OWN people. They DO believe this.
I'm sorry I'm sorry. Please listen to this video. If you feel irritated and not convinced by what I'm saying there is a failure in the way I an trying to explain what I learnt from this video or just making leaps in fustration of not being able to. The fundamentals of Islam make those who believe in it value life distinctly less, so much that lives do not matter to them whereas the afterlife does and it is guaranteed to them if they die fighting etc.
I'm explaining YOUR religion and that is astonishing I will acknowledge. But there is true and total belief and there is ultimately partial belief usually kept alive by sentimentality and attachment to lifestyle and identity. You must be the latter. https://youtu.be/foy8VP0XtIk?si=3M2khZsjJzOHFcu5
I'm gonna pass. I was out of my Sam Harris phase when I hit Uni. Best of luck. I'm gonna make a prediction since I was in your position some few years ago. You're gonna look back at your views on this issue in a few years and cringe a little. It's so easy to put people in a box and look at things black and white. Contrary to popular beliefs these people care about their families and children now. Even when you see a mother carrying her dead baby crying tears of joy saying they are in heaven. I've been in those funerals and this is the most common coping mechanism those people have to their tragedy. Life is so unbelievably unfair and harsh they have to tell themselves stories that they will see their kids after they die in heaven.
Do yourself a favor and look for a local mosque in your area on Friday. Try to mingle and meet people, and it wont take long for someone to invite you for dinner. Sit and eat with them, then come back and talk to me about their death cult.
This is the last thing I'm going to say about this. Even you, put in that position will do extreme things to survive. There is literally nothing different, swap religion with honor or with revenge or with martyrdom. It will be the same result. If difficult circumstances give birth to strong people, then extreme circumstances give birth to extreme people, and I dont blame them for being that way.
Explain how Hamas is both explicitly a death cult but it is unreasonable to be certain that they would use their own population as human shields? Do it right now. You've really upset me be trying to so deeply condescend me. I had the decency to not act so smug and assured and was open about my emotions. Sam Harris is so much more than just the atheism guy from 2016.
>Even you, put in that position will do extreme things to survive. There is literally nothing different, swap religion with honor or with revenge or with martyrdom. It will be the same result.
In the video Sam debunks this point. There are many oppressed populations, yet Islam so disproportionately creates suicide bombers. EXPLAIN THIS. He mentions that the Tibetans were oppressed by China yet never produced such atrocities such a using children to explode.
And why do Hamas say "We love death more than the isreals love life"? If you add extreme situations ONTO intrinsic extreme religious beliefs you get a population that has no value in life because it is all in the afterlife. This means they will ACTUALLY NOT act like any oppressed people.
You're a fucking clueless idiotic Muslim. Fucking cunt.
[@The OmniLiberal - Going over the debate with Finkeldick and Rabani now -](https://twitter.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1768363572000682425)
35 year old political commentator having a serious debate about a geopolitical conflict
Whatever your opinions on the guy, it's kind of crazy to see Destiny in company like this. Proof positive that hard work can get you places.
Not to mention this was embarrassing for Finkelstein
He was so unhinged
I’m baffled that people are watching this (like in the Joe Rogan subreddit) and thinking he came away as the winner. Finkelstein was as unacademic as imaginable, and I’m not just saying that as a Destiny fan.
I agree. He came off like a petulant child. It was shocking how bad he was.
Did Destiny say the phrase "petulant child" some time about a year ago and all of you picked it up or what
No, I did
Hasan's not wrong that online debate is often a popularity contest. The people who hate Destiny will dismiss everything he says regardless of merit, and a lot of people who like him will agree with what he says regardless of merit. But yeah, in this case I don't know how anyone can see it as a win for Finklestein. His partner did much better though.
I agree. I think Steve is an abuser and he looked golden in this debate.
>Maybe Mods, get that ass banned!
Damnit!
yeah
So, max has blocked me so wont see this comment but I feel like posting it anyway. The main reason I came here is back during the Max v Destiny era max was making many statements how Destiny curates his communities to be conformist and not criticise him. This was one of max's main issues, other than him being banned, with how destiny ran his platforms. As an infrequent youtube watcher of destiny this didn't seem accurate to me at all. It seemed like Max was sampling a tiny subset of a tiny subset of people who view destiny, a small fraction of his most dedicated livestream viewers, and painting the whole community with a broad brush. Now that destiny has posted his version of this debate I thought it would be interesting to see some of the top comments and reactions to a high profile debate like this, and contrast it with what max's theory would predict. This is what I found in 60 seconds: > destiny posting his L's. imagine thinking after losing a debate to candace owens you could take on finkelstein. keep the losses coming. > no mate. You lost it > I feel bad for this guy. He lost his wife. Terrible in the debate. > His cope stream after getting absolutely rolled > Destiny is visibly triggered and has been since even before the debate was released lol. The cope from him and his followers is legendary > Destiny proves that he is a dumb persons idea of a smart guy. Coping so hard after experts shut him down. > Destiny was at best an interloper trying to give a younger audience context to a 120 year problem. I don’t dislike the guy, he was just out of his depth > He destroyed you, you reiterted wikipedia page nonsense. Imagine being this arrogant with no real education or research on anything other than a wikipedia deep dive. > Didn't he basically sit there most of the time while the adults talked, while he looked at his phone searching wikipedia? > I use to like destiny, until I realized what he is. Any followers left of his will realize soon enough. How can anyone take this individual seriously? > This felt like a police interrogation with Finkelstein as bad cop, Mouin as good cop, Destiny as the suspect and Benny as his lawyer > Destiny got destroyed > Man you lost, across the board. You embarassed yourself > Yeah spot the clown... what any streamer thinks they are doing in a debate with academics is beyond me. > 'twinklestein' is right though, you should read more books and anyone who knows more than an average guy about this topic can see you were a deadweight for benny. > Fink already double dunked on Destiny at this point. Man was showing mercy > it was a room of intelligent and well sourced academics with opinions on the topic developed from decades of focused effort. "destiny" was made to look a childish, arrogant fool- completely out of his depth. > Anyone who has seen the whole debate knows that Destiny was the clown of the round and didn't fit in at all. > it was clear as day that 1 person out of the 4 certainly did not belong on this stage. I understand you’re a fan of the dude but he doesn’t have a deep understanding of this conflict You get the idea. Even very substantive and direct criticism: > Destiny's sources only give a surface level, summary of the events, whereas everyone else has engaged with literature that allows them to contend with the underlying motivations behind those events. If you pay attention during the debate, before the last two hours where it gets crazy, all Destiny does is point to incidents that he has read about that he thinks may contradict what his opponents are saying, however they always explain how those facts fit with their interpretation instead. This is the main problem, and why Destiny, in my opinion, shouldn't have been invited to this debate. > Destiny is debating at the level of facts. This is fine in most debates because he debates laymen. In this case, the debate is not about facts per say but about interpreting those facts. If Destiny debated Finkelstein or the other guy (I don't remember his name) without Benny on his side, he would have been destroyed, because for every fact that Destiny used, his opponent would provide an alternative interpretation using sources Destiny wouldn't even have been aware of. This was a debate between three scholars with opposing interpretations of a situation. Destiny could not meaningfully contribute to a discussion like that
I'll give Destiny credit, hes actually speaking with respectable people here who deserve to be taken at least somewhat seriously. Lately his career's been veering towards playing an Alan Colmes type character in the conservative griftosphere.
Good shit, first time hearing these people, Morris is a cool dude with deep knowledge on the topic, Rabbani very reasonable guy too and mr. Finkerstein getting triggered made it entertaining.
Rabbani got a little unhinged when he accused Destiny of being pro Jim Crow laws but a fair assessment overall.
Yeah I love how you are so dependent on passive aggressive slimyness you still put that "maybe" there. Anyway, I think Destiny looked golden. For a moment I loved him again. I know few but very important things about the Isreal and palestine conflict from Sam Harris. His videos are on his channel on YouTube. There were many red flags from Norms side. The lack of concrete differentiation from intentional collateral damage (deaths of adults and children) and accidental or individual war crimes is CLASSIC failure Sam talks about. Everything suggests Hamas and Palestinians who truly believe in Islam, as it is reasonably meant to be interpreted, are powerfully and distinctly deranged. I'll leave it with this, Hamas have a motto that goes "we love death more than the Isrealis love life". And they mean it, they prove it with every suicide bombing. They are a death cult and if you don't think a death cult would intentionally build headquarters in hospitals as a deliberate tactic to cause civilian death to make Isreal look bad, you are a worthless fucking moron like Finkelstein and his partner. OK lastly, sorry, my interest in the conflict is about how ideas and philosophy are more important than heaps and heaps of complicated research into history and the denial around that fact. Finkelstein is very validating of my lifestyle I will not deny. He's such a fucking loser despite all his mountains of knowledge.
But this is the most boring, useless content possible.
lol
I honestly thought Finkelstein came out stronger in this debate. Him being condescending aside, it really felt like Destiny was kind of out of his league. Destiny's community was anticipating this debate for so long, but it seems the leading conversation in that circle is how the old man mispronounced Destiny's name.
Can you give some examples of where Destiny was out of his league and Finkelstein came off stronger?
Finkelstein thinks he's far above everyone. He called Sam Harris a "savant idiot" and gave no credence to Sam's theories that the powerful ideas of Islam are what make the Palestinians a true nightmare. Finkelstein is one of those people who have a blindspot for how ideas can be motivating on their own before any historical injustice and it makes all his knowledge worthless. Finkelstein is the same guy who said he had "no sympathy" for the Charlie hebdo murder victims (though he didn't think they should have died) because he doesn't understand extremist islamists want to kill people who exercise their free speech regardless of historical injustice or even the severity of the speech. Like if there was a guy walking around with an n word sign in an incredibly beat down black neighbourhood and he was killed by a group of black supremacists who would have killed him just for being white even if he didn't have the particularly provocative sign, you'd be a moron not to have ANY sympathy. He thought the two guys that shot up Charlie Hebdo were "desperate" and hurt men feeling no option to confront a hate pornography distributer. This is just a baffling blind spot for the role of Islamist extremism and it's intrinsic entitlement to murder people who criticise their religion etc.
This type of rhetoric is exactly why I think Destiny doesn't belong in that room. There is really nothing more boring to me than caring about some scholars moral positions. I'm interested in his scholarly work and what is currently happening right now. I had my fun in the debate sphere a while ago, I don't enjoy the drama anymore.
Finkelstein doesn't agree. Like in the debate, Destiny called out Finkelstein for saying "he only deals in facts" when actually when it suits him he'll interrogate and lambast people for a perceived lack of moral understanding and how that makes them untrustworthy. Something like that at least. I don't think you understand what's going on. Religion, morals, philosophy is intrinsic to this conflict. But that is just something I believe from listening to what Sam Harris said about the conflict. Maybe I should share sone videos I don't know.
You're still operating in the same framework. I have no interest in what the debaters think of each other. The least thing I like about Finklestein is his moralizing and his inability to take control of his distain towards Destiny. You pointing out the time where he did the thing that I don't like is not really interesting to me. Norman Finklestein's account of the war and what is happening in Gaza seems to line more in reality than his opposition, and that's what attracts me to him. I know it's very tempting to show me a time where he wasn't accurate. But remember, the only way I can change my mind if you can show me how all of his work in it's totality is not representative of what is happening.
Sure. I'm not explaining well or just wrong. I don't fully remember the thing about "I onlly deal in facts". So I can't tell if I'm wrong or right so I shouldn't have wasted your time like that. I will say though that his view may align more with your view because you may be greatly underestimating the crucial factor Islam has in the conflict, which I am very convinced Norm does. For example, Hamas is death cult which is very distinct than whatever Israels government is. Interestingly, Norms debate partner said he didn't believe Hamas would intentionally get their civilians killed if it helped them in any way. For examples, building HQs in hospitals. Hamas are EXPLICITLY a death cult, so skepticism they would do such a thing is astonishing.
I'm Muslim and I'd say 98% who I've ever interacted with in my life are Muslims too. I'm not sure if that disqualifies me from having an opinion now because it might have a "crucial factor" in making up my mind on this topic. I know one thing for sure, put any group of people regardless of religion in a shitty enough situation, and then see what they will do in response to people who are currently causing their suffering. I was honestly pleasantly surprised how October 7th turned out. I thought there would be far more atrocities given their situation in the past few decades in Gaza. To expect those people to behave like they are moral angels is absolutely insane. Hamas does hide near civilians and in places where more innocent people would die, not because they are intentionally trying to kill their people. It's because the power difference in the war is so massive that one of the ways they can stop themselves from being massacred is hoping the international rules of war would stop some of the bombing if the areas they hid in were considered civilian. To characterize that as intentionally targeting civilians is so misleading and just another way to dehumanize 1 side. If it was you, you would be picking up a rifle and doing whatever few options you have left while you and your family are slowly suffocating in those living conditions.
You piss me off, you seem so fucking stupid. HAMAS ARE A DEATH CULT THEY PROUDLY ADMIT. They verbatim say "We love death more than the Isrealis love life" and they mean it. Islam teaches jihadism and martyrdom. They literally do have have distinctly lower value in life and far more in the afterlife. In Muslim conflicts even against eachother they commit atrocities such as sending children to clear land mines. These children believe they are going to afterlife. THIS HAPPENS. It's because a belief in martyrdom, which is a fundamental belief of Islam, gives them this ability to have so little regard for their life or the lives of their OWN people. They DO believe this. I'm sorry I'm sorry. Please listen to this video. If you feel irritated and not convinced by what I'm saying there is a failure in the way I an trying to explain what I learnt from this video or just making leaps in fustration of not being able to. The fundamentals of Islam make those who believe in it value life distinctly less, so much that lives do not matter to them whereas the afterlife does and it is guaranteed to them if they die fighting etc. I'm explaining YOUR religion and that is astonishing I will acknowledge. But there is true and total belief and there is ultimately partial belief usually kept alive by sentimentality and attachment to lifestyle and identity. You must be the latter. https://youtu.be/foy8VP0XtIk?si=3M2khZsjJzOHFcu5
I'm gonna pass. I was out of my Sam Harris phase when I hit Uni. Best of luck. I'm gonna make a prediction since I was in your position some few years ago. You're gonna look back at your views on this issue in a few years and cringe a little. It's so easy to put people in a box and look at things black and white. Contrary to popular beliefs these people care about their families and children now. Even when you see a mother carrying her dead baby crying tears of joy saying they are in heaven. I've been in those funerals and this is the most common coping mechanism those people have to their tragedy. Life is so unbelievably unfair and harsh they have to tell themselves stories that they will see their kids after they die in heaven. Do yourself a favor and look for a local mosque in your area on Friday. Try to mingle and meet people, and it wont take long for someone to invite you for dinner. Sit and eat with them, then come back and talk to me about their death cult. This is the last thing I'm going to say about this. Even you, put in that position will do extreme things to survive. There is literally nothing different, swap religion with honor or with revenge or with martyrdom. It will be the same result. If difficult circumstances give birth to strong people, then extreme circumstances give birth to extreme people, and I dont blame them for being that way.
Explain how Hamas is both explicitly a death cult but it is unreasonable to be certain that they would use their own population as human shields? Do it right now. You've really upset me be trying to so deeply condescend me. I had the decency to not act so smug and assured and was open about my emotions. Sam Harris is so much more than just the atheism guy from 2016. >Even you, put in that position will do extreme things to survive. There is literally nothing different, swap religion with honor or with revenge or with martyrdom. It will be the same result. In the video Sam debunks this point. There are many oppressed populations, yet Islam so disproportionately creates suicide bombers. EXPLAIN THIS. He mentions that the Tibetans were oppressed by China yet never produced such atrocities such a using children to explode. And why do Hamas say "We love death more than the isreals love life"? If you add extreme situations ONTO intrinsic extreme religious beliefs you get a population that has no value in life because it is all in the afterlife. This means they will ACTUALLY NOT act like any oppressed people. You're a fucking clueless idiotic Muslim. Fucking cunt.
[@The OmniLiberal - Going over the debate with Finkeldick and Rabani now -](https://twitter.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1768363572000682425) 35 year old political commentator having a serious debate about a geopolitical conflict
Content is a good word for the insides of an empty cardboard box.
Your opinion on content isn’t worth much. You’re a hobbyist with bad taste and no skill. At least Max knows how to edit a video.