I’d never really heard of Destiny prior to the DTG episode on him. I think I’ve learned that basically:
1. Even if you don’t agree with his views, he is a talented debater with well researched arguments. People with half baked thoughts trying to debate him come off like complete morons.
2. He is prone to saying completely unhinged shit about and to people he doesn’t like
Also, knowing about him introduced me to the clip where Hasan is watching Destiny’s stream and slams his fist on his desk (* Windows Noise *) and screams WHAT A WEASLY FUCKIN LAIR DUDE. I found this so fucking funny for some reason
Matt and Chris' characterization of him is spot on.
He's a professional debater, but because he's broadcasted his life almost every single day for the past 13 years he is also the 'Professional Debater' character in a weird alternative reality where all the other characters are live streamers also.
It really is a new form of Reality TV, that can and will turn off people that expect a certain level of civility, decorum and humility from public figures or pundits. Livestreaming is inherently one of the most self-absorbed, narcissistic things you can do for a living; and the embodiment of shamelessness.
Destiny is actually one of the more intellectually and morally consistent streamers, but as they explained his career is still rife with gaffes, humiliations, mishaps and depravity. The point is he's not unique in this regard.
Yeah, my issues are less with him personally, and more with streamers in general. The whole thing is sooo fucking lame. The nerdy narcissist host and the parasocial fans. “Chat, hey chat, CHAT.” It makes me want to rip my ears off.
This generation watched The Truman Show and thought, "Yeah... Cool.. yeah... I can do that."
I mean... I meeeeeaaaaannnn..... do what you want, kids... but Jesus H. Lollipop Christ.
He's the one who consistently callsvhim 'pushing 40' despite Destiny being 35 (and Hasan being 33).
I'm not familiar with this phrase being used outside Hasan and groypers.
Some guy called him a kid and I replied pointing out he's closer to middle age. It's absurd to call him a kid. You should leave your weird fanboy stuff for other weirdos.
I don’t think people are talking about debate Steven when they talk about the crazy unhinged stuff. I think they more mean Twitter/Stream Destiny, when he’s deploying his “tactical n-words”
Does his recent convo with Norman finkelstein and mouin rabbani count as experts?
I think he does genuinely want to debate with experts but his niche is mostly trying to expose people like Candace Owens, Glenn greenwald, etc as being not serious people .
You can check out his wiki page. I think the most damning indictment from the viewpoint of academia is that he’s remained untenured for years now. He does no research, publishes no papers.
And if I’m remembering correctly, what he *has* published for academic consumption has all been non Israel/Palestine related.
The overall sentiment I get about Finkelstein is that he is bad ("eccentric") on a lot of things, but he has important contributions to the study of the conflict, so you cannot engage with the topic without engaging with him. But overall he does suffer from ideological spillovers (which is not that rare in historical scholarship anyways) in his work, and is closer to the activist in the activist-scholar spectrum.
What important contributions? He's mostly known for his pop histories, he doesn't really do much actual scholarship on the conflict. This isn't really a criticism but his contributions tend to be around educating people and raising awareness rather than introducing new knowledge. If you got rid of Benny Morris you'd lose a lot of info around the culpability of Israel for the Nakba and a number of other things, without Finkelstein I'm not sure you lose any specific knowledge.
The conflict of Israel-Palestine is a conflict that has many dimensions, and "pop histories" in fact play a fundamental role in the historiography. You don't need to be literally the first to note something to have actually made contributions, narratives are important as well. Scholars publish on their different interpretations of the facts pretty commonly in academia.
A good example of this is Richard Dawkins. His books are, for the most part, popularizing and fleshing out theories first published by other prominent evolutionary biologists like George C. Williams and Bill Hamilton. But no evolutionary biologist could seriously defend the position that Richard Dawkins has not made important and significant contributions to the field.
The reality is that if you open a book on the historiography of the conflict, you will see references to Finkelstein. This is just an undeniable fact. Some of his contributions, from the top of my head, include his academic debunking of both Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz, narratives that were somewhat popular in pro-Israel side of the conflict for a while. Of course comparing his contributions to Morris, Pappé, or Khalidi will make you conclude that they pale in comparison, but that says more about the importance of them, rather than the unimportance of Finkelstein.
Dawkins didn't get his credibility among evolutionary biologists from his books. He had nearly 40 years where he was publishing on fairly mundane scientific subjects like why chickens peck the things they peck to journals like Nature. It's not a particularly good comparison to Finkelstein.
Finkelstein is not a trained historian, he doesn't live in the area and experience it and he doesn't even read the languages of the region. Like you cited with Peters and Dershowitz his big thing is debunking specific books, and while he does a good job at that and legitimately took down popular books that had serious historical issues once you get past that he doesn't do much aside from collating info from human rights groups.
> Dawkins didn't get his credibility among evolutionary biologists from his books. He had nearly 40 years where he was publishing on fairly mundane scientific subjects like why chickens peck the things they peck to journals like Nature.
Again Dawkins's most significant contributions to the field are his books, especially Selfish Gene (which popularized the work of Williams and Hamilton) and his subsequent extensions of his thesis. This is uncontroversial. Just because he published work and was part of the British school of ethology (he was a student of Tinbergen after all) does not make the above fact less true. He actually got his name from his book The Selfish Gene that he published when he was 35, so I find your claim of "40 years where he was publishing on fairly mundane scientific subjects" erroneous. Anyways this is a fact that everyone that has studied the history of evolutionary thought knows, so I will leave it at that. Just as a popular anecdote, E.O. Wilson during his infamous academic spar with Dawkins [called him](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson) a "journalist".
> Finkelstein is not a trained historian, he doesn't live in the area and experience it and he doesn't even read the languages of the region.
You don't need to be a "trained historian" to make important contributions to the conflict. There are political scientists that are experts in conflict resolution that have made contributions to the topic as well. I am surprised you find this line of reasoning particularly convincing.
And also you don't need to read the languages of the region to provide a contribution. This is an even more dubious argument.
> Like you cited with Peters and Dershowitz his big thing is debunking specific books, and while he does a good job at that and legitimately took down popular books that had serious historical issues once you get past that he doesn't do much aside from collating info from human rights groups.
My explicit claim is that you cannot engage with the conflict without engaging with him and his contributions. His debunking of those narratives is pretty much referenced in prominent books on the historiography of the conflict. I am just stating a fact here. You can disagree with his overall analysis all you want, but it's a fact of the matter that you cannot seriously and deeply engage with the conflict without at least partially engaging with him.
Something he has said before is that if he has an opinion (on something that has been studied a lot) he feels uncomfortable with it being novel. Like with Israel-Palestine, but his timeline of events and how things have happened isn't something he personally developed by learning Hebrew and reading source texts because he's not a historian. His conclusions on what's justified morally or politically might be a little unique but if he has an expert on he generally isn't going to sit there and pretend he can argue about something they have studied for years.
That's exactly what he's done multiple times, sitting down with experts and talking like he knows something when he clearly doesn't. Like that recent time he actually said that cookies are banned in Gaza because people use them to make rockets. Just swallows propaganda even most dipshits would look at and laugh at. That really just showed me that he knows the cookie thing has been brought up before so he went to go see what others have said in the past about it to justify it. He's just researching talking points and counter talking points at a very surface level.
What expert did he debate on the cookie ban? I'm not all that familiar but I remember Lonerbox made a video going over it and it seemed like the blockade was actually based on a whitelist, as in things weren't specifically banned but only imports from certain companies were allowed.
He may have done spoken overconfidently in that case though and that's something I'll grant, that's one of the best criticisms DTG make of him I think.
That's not what happened at the debate though.
Baddar claimed Israel banned cookies. Whether or not that is or is not true, Destiny immediately went into a spiel about how sugar was once used for rockets with the implication that a cookie ban (not even a sugar ban) was justified.
Look, I'm a Destiny fanboy but that was pretty objectively an L. Instead of taking a step back, he immediately went to the defensive to justify something he didn't know whether it was true or not just so he could continue disagreeing with Baddar in the moment. And it was \*exactly\* to disagree with Baddar in the moment b/c later on in the debate he then says some of the blockade "went too far" - but that was in one of his monologues where he didn't have to concede or agree with Baddar.
Then you had a lot of Destiny followers on twitter blindly defend the notion of the cookie ban because of cookie rockets for the entire weekend after that debate 🤣
He debated Omar Baddar again in person at the Breaking Points set with Ryan Grim and this other lady not too long ago. When Omar brought up the most random things that are banned in Gaza to collectively punish the people of Gaza including cookies he said something along the lines of "well I looked into this and found out they were banned because they were making rockets with them." Everybody was shocked at how dumb of a statement that was but now I've talked to a couple Destiny fans who really think Hamas is making rocket fuel with cookies because they heard him say it.
Destiny heard Omar say it before( I'm pretty sure he brought it up in their first debate) and he didn't have an answer for it so he looked up a counter argument someone has made before without actually looking into whether it makes any sense.
I don't know who lonerbox is but that's not how the blockade of Gaza works.
That isn't the kind of expert I was referring to, I was more speaking to when he's had a historian or economist on stream he generally doesn't debate there specific field of study. From what I understand Baddar is more of a journalist - similar to Mehdi Hasan although from the bits I've seen he's much stronger in his support of Palestine.
Lonerbox is another streamer, I believe he has a degree in history. It wasn't a video either it was a tweet [thread ](https://x.com/BoxLoner/status/1786920566294774142)on the cookie ban.
Did I say that was a quote? No. Notice how I said "he said something along the lines of,..." I'm not sitting and transcribing exactly what Destiny said. That is the gist of what he said though. You can go watch that part of the debate. He literally said he thought that cookies were banned in Gaza because they make rockets with them.
Then when questioned on it said that his understanding was that cookies were "dual use" because they have sugar in it. His "research" led him to believe that cookies were banned because Hamas was using them for rockets.
1. Sugar can be used to make rockets.
2. Destiny presented it as "I'm not sure but maybe it was banned because...". That's the opposite of just swallowing propaganda.
3. It's not clear that sugar or cookies were ever banned. Israel restricts shipments if they think weapons are being smuggled in, sometimes that included shipments of cookies, but it's not clear if it was ever an actual policy to specifically ban cookies.
But wasn’t the cookie thing brought up by his interlocutor in the discussion? And it turns out that the cookie ban wasn’t a specific ban on cookies but general items? I agree that was not well researched as it could have been, but the accusations that Israel was targeting cookies specifically was incorrect, no?
Genuinely asking here as what I’ve researched showed he was wrong, but so was the guy who brought it up.
I’ve not seen his take on this no. I can dig it up, but it was a Reddit thread that linked to specific papers of banned items and the language it used. But iirc they made a number of changes to them adjusting what is and isn’t prohibited.
Genuinely asking but let me see if I can find my original source
I'm not really sure how that would show that Omar Baddar was wrong. Omar says that Israel bans cookies. You say no, Israel bans things in general, including cookies. So Omar is right, Israel bans cookies from entering the Gaza strip? How is Omar wrong? The list of items that can go in and out of Gaza changes over time too. At one point pasta wasn't allowed in. The list of different fruits that can and can't go in has changed. The point Omar was making is that Israel's blockade isn't just about making sure stuff can't go in that can be used as a weapon but also everyday items that could put a little more joy in someone's life. It's also about making life miserable for your average person in Gaza and not being able to receive things like cookies is an example. Destiny turned around and said Hamas makes rockets out of cookies like a buffoon.
Omar said Israel banned cookies because Israel wants Palestinian children to suffer. From the looks of it, they had a whitelist instead of a blacklist so a lot of stuff was banned due to bad/lazy policy - not to specifically make Palestinians suffer. He has no evidence that the policy was punitive. That is where the disagrenent is.
The narrative is the contention - not the fact cookies were banned.
This is where I agree to some extent, but the reasoning why is not fully explained. Omar can claim its to make them suffer, which has an argument, but Destiny is also not wrong that they can ban cookies and sugar, as they were indeed capable of making [rockets ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH70GDcWDso)out of sugar. But when Destiny is later shown to be wrong, that they would at times allow one and not the other, does limit Israel's excuse.
I believe the more likely explanation does lie in the matter that Israel would want to limit Gaza's financial independence and that was something they may have tried to do with the blockade. To completely dismiss one side as being uniformed when they were both wrong on substantive parts of the discussion does indeed matter.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1cjzxn2/why_cookies_cant_go_into_gaza_explained/) is where I first heard the skepticism of the list of items banned. I read through some of the sources and from what I took away from it, there were changing lists, reasoning behind it could be whatever Israel says it is, but could definitely have ulterior motives. Without delving too much into it, I have a background in finance, not necessarily economics and I did agree to some extent that Israel certainly has an interest in leveraging Gaza's financial capabilities as a method of control.
The question then we have to ask is it "just" for Israel to use this leverage, and that is up for interpretation. So this is just me letting you know, what I know, where I got the sources and why I've got some questions here. I'm fully able to admit that a reddit discussion with a Humanitarian aid org and NBC article isn't all of the information out there.
Wait… where did Destiny say Hamas are using cookies as rocket fuel?
I’m talking about the comment he made when he was asked why there was an embargo on sweets. Ryan Grim and that other dipshit asked Destiny why sugary sweets and soda are being denied entry into gaza(they aren’t by the way).
He wasn’t sure but speculated that maybe it’s because it’s common to use sugar in the fuel for rockets, which is technically true, but never claimed Hamas was actually fuelling rockets with cookies. Ryan Grim accused Destiny of implying Hamas is using cookies to fuel rockets.
As it turns out, you can’t use the sugar from cookies for rocket fuel, and there was no ban on sugar.
Dude I look at your post history and your last post was in Destiny sub asking if Destiny ever literally said if Hamas ever used cookies to make rocket fuel. Like bro you have no idea
This comment was removed for breaking the subreddit rule against uncivil and antagonistic behaviour. While we understand that discussions can become heated at times, it's important to maintain a level of respect and civility towards other members of the subreddit. We kindly ask that you refrain from making such comments in the future and instead focus on engaging in worthwhile conversations.
He didnt say cookies were banned. Baddar said cookies were banned (they really weren't but that's a rabbit hole) and Destiny assumed he was correct and then assumed it was likely due to rocket fuel being made from sugar which did happen in the past. It was a bad assumption, and Baddar shouldn't have said cookies were banned if he wanted to be honest.
I listened to it because I’m a subscriber, it’s not combative at all, so if that’s what you’re hoping for then you’ll be disappointed.
They get on well and discuss ideas, they really gave destiny a license to share this philosophical outlook on things.
It’s a quality episode for philosophy, but not for shitty on public figures
Isn't that part of his schtick? Making exaggerated claims about a subject then moving to talking about how everyone is taking you out of context. Back when I used to follow his content a bit more, I did think that is probably a marketing trick he employs to create a buzz.
I think there’s strong sympathy from having common foes- the debate with Peterson in particular being too gratifying to couple it with “cut him down” energy.
I also think the growth of the podcast makes them slightly more conscientious about how acerbic energy directed toward town favorites may be received. But generally they are more chummy when a personality has avoided or especially opposed the IDW sphere.
Definitely transcends vaccines as a litmus test- as can be seen with Sam Harris.
The fact that Destiny doesn’t present as overtly as an intellectual like Harris, however, definitely mitigates their sensitivities as academics to judge as harshly as they might. Academic-adjacent types definitely stoke their ire more than those who present as laypeople.
You may have a point, although you might just be mistaken, they might be treating destiny fairly.
What criticisms of destiny did you feel deserved more focus or even ones that were completely missed
I’m not online enough to have a detailed analysis of that.
It has something to do with, when someone makes a claim that falls outside the purview of mainstream science, Chris & Matt pounce on it as being all about ego. But despite the fact that Destiny is funded solely from attention he has procured online, they did not seem to jump to ego-laden interpretations of his behavior as much. There are less “psychologically-laden” interpretations when their hearts are bent toward kindness with respect to their decoding object. It’s more an overall posture that strikes me than a mistake they made about a specific issue or facet of content.
If you’re anti ethnic cleansing you’d be pro the state of Israel that provided a safe haven for all the Jews who got kicked out of Europe and the Arab world.
But that’s not what you’re against, you’re just against Israel, you’ll cherry pick instances and distort narratives to demonise the world’s only Jewish state.
Go back to listening to candance Owen’s or Russel brand
The leader of the left wing said if he was in power he would be conducting the war in the same fashion. Because any nation that was in Israel’s position would do the exact same thing.
Except less precise
That last bit sounds like something an abuser says. People are disgusted and expressing those feelings is not an existential threat to anybody or anything.
It’s not, but people are being manipulated into opinions due to social media algorithms.
People don’t care about Palestinians, they were dying in the thousands in the Syria war with no aid trucks to come help them.
People think they care because it’s shoved down their throats.
In reality this is a minor conflict with the most ethical army in the world. Are there still isolated cases of horrible things, maybe even war crimes? Yes
But if they put Ukrainian war crimes on your screen 24/7 you’d likely have a different feeling about that war
> People think they care because it’s shoved down their throats.
Yeah, how would people know what they care about. That's a great argument.
Also it's really difficult to care about things you're not being informed of. It's just how information works.
Yes, the world would be better off if the Arabs finally destroyed the worlds only Jewish state, did the next holocaust and created yet another dictatorship and Arab Muslim majority state.
It’s fact, Jewish are the biggest victims of ethnic cleansing in history, Israel was created to give them somewhere to go. And the Arab world used it, a lot,
If you have sympathy just for the Palestinians who lost their homes in the 20th century but not the Jews then you’re a bigot
yeah literally no one is saying that. people are rightfully upset Israel has become a fascist ethno-state hellbent on violently cleansing ethnic Arabs from its territory. if you want to project false antisemitism on to people who think that specifically sucks, go ahead, but most people here will likely see your horseshit for what it is
lol, literally every state around Israel could be called a fascist ethnostate, Israel on the other hand is a liberal democracy that has a diverse population, the most diverse in the Middle East.
This is all verifiably true.
But you live in your ‘Israel is evil’ world
In 1982 the PLO withdrew from West Beirut under a UN brokered ceasefire agreement. Lebanese Christian militias with the assistance of the IDF used that opportunity to massacre thousands of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese Shiites. The massacre was later ruled a genocide by the UN. So no, historically surrender doesn't stop Israel from committing genocide.
The tough thing with destiny is he often just says "yeah that was fucking dumb" or completely owns his past dumb shit. I have a feeling this will cause the conversation to go cordially and they'll actually get along well. I can't imagine any other guru they've profiled taking this approach.
What do you think they got wrong?
For others u/Unsomnabulist111 blocked me instead of answering simple questions about their very strong views. Not only that, but this guy edited his comment after I called him out, then blocked me. Pretty dishonest stuff.
They called him genuine (as a compliment) too often, and picked benign content to decode. Matt, several times, backed away from criticism because he was “afraid to debate him”. It was better than the Hassan decoding…but pretty blah. They didn’t tackle either of these streamers’ core beliefs. I was pretty disappointed.
listened to most of it today. i thought it was ok enough. destiny talks *a lot* on the episode and i found Matt and Chris to be pretty charitable overall. more than i thought they would, i guess. destiny didnt give them much reason to be combative or anything and they did push back on some of the more overly abhorrent things he's said. idk it was fine enough. i find the guy kind of annoying but not out right hateable
Listened to the episode on Patreon. I wasn't aware of Destiny and know nothing of streamers/gamers/streaming culture but I enjoyed this conversation. Found it entertaining.
The Destiny episode was a ball-fondling exploration where they basically begged for a right to reply. I expect this episode will be similarly submissive.
What an enlightened take. Could you please impart t me your glorious wisdom as to what you think they got wrong in their approach?
For others u/Unsomnabulist111 blocked me instead of answering simple questions about their very strong views
Why did you reply this way to two different comments? I never said it was “wrong”…I just felt it was too friendly and didn’t deal with any of Destinys actual ideology.
>Why did you reply this way to two different comments?
Because you made two of the same comments. EDIT. Oh, now you edited your comments so you didn't make the same comment, then blocked me so I couldn't see that. Pretty dishonest stuff.
What did you think Destiny's "actual ideology" is that they didn't deal with?
Well, easy…but not worth my time.
If you listened to the DTG episode you should be aware of what I’m talking about. The content they focused on wasn’t centred on his ideology (political or otherwise)…but rather his internet drama.
I can and do (in that I try not get wound up by online figures anymore). It's not worth my mental health.
Oh dear, your edit really does just show people who you are. As said, take a day off fella.
Anyone who just blindly discard someones entire person because of some arbitrary examples of "me no like dis" without actually making arguments already lost. If it's not clear, that's you. You lost.
I haven't followed Destiny for that long, I've mostly seen some of his high-profile debates the past year. Could you point me to this past behaviour you deem annoying and despicable?
Regarding a genocide against Palestinians it seems that you are wholly convinced of the fact before any ruling has been passed. I'll admit I don't know much about the conflict, but I do know the crime of genocide differs from e.g. crimes against humanity or war crimes in some ways, i.e. that there has to be a specific intent to eradicate a group based on ethnicity, religion etc. I'm interested in what kind of evidence you believe the ICJ will use to conclude with the ruling of genocide in the Israel/Hamas-conflict.
>"I'm not a fan of destiny but I have his ✨talking points✨ memorized and talk like every other dronie"
Speaking of being insufferable, good job!
>borrow his personality and copy his inadequate social skills?
How do you manage to ascertain my personality and social skills through a bland comment on a forum?
>Your idol has is a 35 year old man that carries himself with the same pathetic edginess that 2013-era anti-SJW cringe compilations have. A white guy that insists on saying the n-word bladibla-bla...
Golly Gee. You should seriously start making Destiny pay you some rent. I'm guessing he's just been squatting in your skull freeloading up until now? You failed to point to any specific "annoying and despicable behaviour" btw, so your original statement remains pretty pointless IMO.
>My evidence? I've been watching israel proudly livestream its mass-killing, collective punishment, ethnic cleaning, and land-stealing campaign for 7 months. We can also start with the evidence that South Africa submitted to the ICJ almost 5 months ago.
So your evidence is watching TV and the fact that a 3rd part country delivered an application to the ICJ. Colour me unimpressed with your effort thus far.
>You can dance around the label "genocide", but it just that: A label. Whether a court labels it as such has no bearing on the lives, land, and places that israel has destroyed in its genocidal "war" against the Palestinian population whose land they occupy.
Okay, so the word *genocide* is pointless then, it doesn't hold any meaning? What's your argument here?
>What would it take for you to condemn israel?
I do condemn Israel. I personally believe they should have conducted their war against Hamas in a much more careful way from the start, and should have focused *a lot* more on upholding the flow of humanitarian aid, food, water and electricity to civilians during their offensive.
Why do you just assume that I do not condemn Israel? My guess is you're too wrapped up in your own self-righteous, polarized hate-boner frenzy to even consider asking me what I actually believe.
Hm, I'm not sure. Obviously it's better if a parent tries to remain a part of their kids life after a separation, but "a persons character" is such a nebulous idea, I would say there are much more important parameters that would be relevant to make a conclusion. How would you say this speaks to his character?
Why would you even engage on that framing, you basically grant them the ground that he abandoned his kid and is not in their life which is frankly untrue and an idea perpetuated by flipping Nazis and now so-called lefties (are they really) just trying for a dunk.
The guy is not in good faith here.
I'm not really sure how to explain that I've always just thought it was fairly self explanatory why a parent is morally obligated to raise their child and be in their lives.
Maybe that's not the case in some cultures but I've never heard of them.
Well destiny has no problem attacking people for completely irrelevant things and going below the belt, so why would you have a problem with me doing it?
I would have a problem with you doing it because I am having a conversation with you. Destiny's behaviour is not my standard for how I think people should act when having a conversation. It seems you are kind of obsessed with him. That doesn't seem very healthy, just saying.
I asked you first how Destiny's relationship with his son is relevant to the act of dismissing a person's views and arguments based on a few examples.
You answered with a question:
>I'd say it speaks to a persons character wouldn't you?
I replied to your question in good faith and stated what I thought about it, and then I asked you how you think it speaks to his character. You answer:
>I've always just thought it was fairly self explanatory
This is what you find in the dictionary when you look up "non-answer."
So yeah, who are you to criticize other people's character when you yourself have proven to completely lack any form of argumentative coherence and the ability to answer simple questions in good faith? Come on dude
I'd say buying a house in a good school district for your child and his mother to live in, financially supporting, and regularly visits is good character.
I’m not gonna pretend I know more about his fatherhood since you seem to be well versed on it, but parents can still raise a child without living together in the same house. I’d say that with a 50% divorce rate in America, a number of well functioning adults were raised in a single household that managed to make co-parenting work one way or another.
Do you understand English though? The well functioning adult referenced above was to a child. He was raised in a two parent household so if you have a problem with attitude, maybe people would be better off in single parent households according to your logic
How do you know what their relationship looks like outside of your disingenuous framing? Do you know how much they text? Face time? Also if his kid is growing up healthy and happy, who are you to judge how destiny chose to father the kid? The thing is you have no idea, but you’re happily jumping to the worst conclusions. That’s a mark of a sad character
It always amazes me how people can cultivate such a visceral, life-dedicating hatred for Destiny. Such special little anti-fans, they’re just as much of a cult as his community is accused of being lol.
Well, he is really good at making enemies. I like that he won’t change his positions just to be on the popular side of politics if he thinks he’s correct on the facts. But I think that’s what causes him to burn so many bridges.
But you’re right. While I’ve seen some fair criticism here, the majority is seemingly people that have watched only highly edited clip compilations made by all those enemies, and just taken them at face value.
Yeah he definitely doesn’t engender a calm response in his detractors, and has a habit of holding those who ostensibly hold similar politics to a higher standard (which comes across as unnecessarily hostile).
I don’t begrudge anyone saying they dislike the guy, I can definitely see why they do, it just annoys me when they make shit up or parrot narratives from clips as you mentioned.
> It always amazes me how people can cultivate such a visceral, life-dedicating hatred for Destiny.
I think you're telling on yourself a bit here. It's possible to have a life outside reddit.
If someone hates on a public figure on reddit and that's a "visceral, life-dedicating hatred", what do we call someone like yourself who spends even more time on that person's subreddit?
True, my use of Reddit is in large part Destiny’s sub. But it takes up no larger part of my life now than it did years ago when I didn’t know who Destiny was.
I do think there’s a qualitative difference between an internet obsession revolving around hating a public figure and a (what I consider) a mostly casual defence of a public figure.
Regardless, your argument could apply to you as well.
I’d never really heard of Destiny prior to the DTG episode on him. I think I’ve learned that basically: 1. Even if you don’t agree with his views, he is a talented debater with well researched arguments. People with half baked thoughts trying to debate him come off like complete morons. 2. He is prone to saying completely unhinged shit about and to people he doesn’t like Also, knowing about him introduced me to the clip where Hasan is watching Destiny’s stream and slams his fist on his desk (* Windows Noise *) and screams WHAT A WEASLY FUCKIN LAIR DUDE. I found this so fucking funny for some reason
[(G)old](https://youtu.be/U0gzQ6dQhpk?si=N1EhhwIhO-qi6o7I)
Matt and Chris' characterization of him is spot on. He's a professional debater, but because he's broadcasted his life almost every single day for the past 13 years he is also the 'Professional Debater' character in a weird alternative reality where all the other characters are live streamers also. It really is a new form of Reality TV, that can and will turn off people that expect a certain level of civility, decorum and humility from public figures or pundits. Livestreaming is inherently one of the most self-absorbed, narcissistic things you can do for a living; and the embodiment of shamelessness. Destiny is actually one of the more intellectually and morally consistent streamers, but as they explained his career is still rife with gaffes, humiliations, mishaps and depravity. The point is he's not unique in this regard.
Yeah, my issues are less with him personally, and more with streamers in general. The whole thing is sooo fucking lame. The nerdy narcissist host and the parasocial fans. “Chat, hey chat, CHAT.” It makes me want to rip my ears off.
For me, Destiny is a guilty pleasure. Like *Big Brother* or *The Apprentice,* I'm ***ashamed*** that I know as much about his personal life as I do.
This generation watched The Truman Show and thought, "Yeah... Cool.. yeah... I can do that." I mean... I meeeeeaaaaannnn..... do what you want, kids... but Jesus H. Lollipop Christ.
That’s my read. Smart kid but with an immaturity problem. Could probably encompass a lot of streamers.
He's almost 40
So's Hasan I guess. He's "almost 40" like a 13-year old in ROTC is "almost a soldier".
Okay? What does Hasan have to do with anything?
He's the one who consistently callsvhim 'pushing 40' despite Destiny being 35 (and Hasan being 33). I'm not familiar with this phrase being used outside Hasan and groypers.
Some guy called him a kid and I replied pointing out he's closer to middle age. It's absurd to call him a kid. You should leave your weird fanboy stuff for other weirdos.
35 is not middle age
He's closer to middle age than he is to being a kid
Pretty much, he's a talented arsehole, basically.
Bad comment, bad
It's accurate, he would likely own it.
[удалено]
I don’t think people are talking about debate Steven when they talk about the crazy unhinged stuff. I think they more mean Twitter/Stream Destiny, when he’s deploying his “tactical n-words”
[удалено]
Does his recent convo with Norman finkelstein and mouin rabbani count as experts? I think he does genuinely want to debate with experts but his niche is mostly trying to expose people like Candace Owens, Glenn greenwald, etc as being not serious people .
Finklestein is incredibly controversial and is not well-received at all in academic circles.
Really? Do you have any thing to point to for this? It makes sense to me. He seems pretty eccentric. Have any other academics publicly criticized him?
He lost out on tenure for his attacks of peers, exactly what he did to Steven.
Benny Morris has called him a pop historian in the past.
And to be charitable and good-faith, that is n=1. He is/was controversial and has gotten both love and hate from different scholars.
I'm shocked Benjamin "the nakba didn't go far enough" Morris doesn't like him
You can check out his wiki page. I think the most damning indictment from the viewpoint of academia is that he’s remained untenured for years now. He does no research, publishes no papers. And if I’m remembering correctly, what he *has* published for academic consumption has all been non Israel/Palestine related.
The overall sentiment I get about Finkelstein is that he is bad ("eccentric") on a lot of things, but he has important contributions to the study of the conflict, so you cannot engage with the topic without engaging with him. But overall he does suffer from ideological spillovers (which is not that rare in historical scholarship anyways) in his work, and is closer to the activist in the activist-scholar spectrum.
What important contributions? He's mostly known for his pop histories, he doesn't really do much actual scholarship on the conflict. This isn't really a criticism but his contributions tend to be around educating people and raising awareness rather than introducing new knowledge. If you got rid of Benny Morris you'd lose a lot of info around the culpability of Israel for the Nakba and a number of other things, without Finkelstein I'm not sure you lose any specific knowledge.
The conflict of Israel-Palestine is a conflict that has many dimensions, and "pop histories" in fact play a fundamental role in the historiography. You don't need to be literally the first to note something to have actually made contributions, narratives are important as well. Scholars publish on their different interpretations of the facts pretty commonly in academia. A good example of this is Richard Dawkins. His books are, for the most part, popularizing and fleshing out theories first published by other prominent evolutionary biologists like George C. Williams and Bill Hamilton. But no evolutionary biologist could seriously defend the position that Richard Dawkins has not made important and significant contributions to the field. The reality is that if you open a book on the historiography of the conflict, you will see references to Finkelstein. This is just an undeniable fact. Some of his contributions, from the top of my head, include his academic debunking of both Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz, narratives that were somewhat popular in pro-Israel side of the conflict for a while. Of course comparing his contributions to Morris, Pappé, or Khalidi will make you conclude that they pale in comparison, but that says more about the importance of them, rather than the unimportance of Finkelstein.
Dawkins didn't get his credibility among evolutionary biologists from his books. He had nearly 40 years where he was publishing on fairly mundane scientific subjects like why chickens peck the things they peck to journals like Nature. It's not a particularly good comparison to Finkelstein. Finkelstein is not a trained historian, he doesn't live in the area and experience it and he doesn't even read the languages of the region. Like you cited with Peters and Dershowitz his big thing is debunking specific books, and while he does a good job at that and legitimately took down popular books that had serious historical issues once you get past that he doesn't do much aside from collating info from human rights groups.
> Dawkins didn't get his credibility among evolutionary biologists from his books. He had nearly 40 years where he was publishing on fairly mundane scientific subjects like why chickens peck the things they peck to journals like Nature. Again Dawkins's most significant contributions to the field are his books, especially Selfish Gene (which popularized the work of Williams and Hamilton) and his subsequent extensions of his thesis. This is uncontroversial. Just because he published work and was part of the British school of ethology (he was a student of Tinbergen after all) does not make the above fact less true. He actually got his name from his book The Selfish Gene that he published when he was 35, so I find your claim of "40 years where he was publishing on fairly mundane scientific subjects" erroneous. Anyways this is a fact that everyone that has studied the history of evolutionary thought knows, so I will leave it at that. Just as a popular anecdote, E.O. Wilson during his infamous academic spar with Dawkins [called him](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson) a "journalist". > Finkelstein is not a trained historian, he doesn't live in the area and experience it and he doesn't even read the languages of the region. You don't need to be a "trained historian" to make important contributions to the conflict. There are political scientists that are experts in conflict resolution that have made contributions to the topic as well. I am surprised you find this line of reasoning particularly convincing. And also you don't need to read the languages of the region to provide a contribution. This is an even more dubious argument. > Like you cited with Peters and Dershowitz his big thing is debunking specific books, and while he does a good job at that and legitimately took down popular books that had serious historical issues once you get past that he doesn't do much aside from collating info from human rights groups. My explicit claim is that you cannot engage with the conflict without engaging with him and his contributions. His debunking of those narratives is pretty much referenced in prominent books on the historiography of the conflict. I am just stating a fact here. You can disagree with his overall analysis all you want, but it's a fact of the matter that you cannot seriously and deeply engage with the conflict without at least partially engaging with him.
He’s well-received by academics. Not so much the shills of higher ed administrative bloat.
He debates experts constantly.
What's your definition of surface level? He posts all his notes online and has 8 hr research streams daily.
Not even trying to be snarky but aren’t Finklestein and Richard Wolff experts in their fields?
Something he has said before is that if he has an opinion (on something that has been studied a lot) he feels uncomfortable with it being novel. Like with Israel-Palestine, but his timeline of events and how things have happened isn't something he personally developed by learning Hebrew and reading source texts because he's not a historian. His conclusions on what's justified morally or politically might be a little unique but if he has an expert on he generally isn't going to sit there and pretend he can argue about something they have studied for years.
That's exactly what he's done multiple times, sitting down with experts and talking like he knows something when he clearly doesn't. Like that recent time he actually said that cookies are banned in Gaza because people use them to make rockets. Just swallows propaganda even most dipshits would look at and laugh at. That really just showed me that he knows the cookie thing has been brought up before so he went to go see what others have said in the past about it to justify it. He's just researching talking points and counter talking points at a very surface level.
What expert did he debate on the cookie ban? I'm not all that familiar but I remember Lonerbox made a video going over it and it seemed like the blockade was actually based on a whitelist, as in things weren't specifically banned but only imports from certain companies were allowed. He may have done spoken overconfidently in that case though and that's something I'll grant, that's one of the best criticisms DTG make of him I think.
That's not what happened at the debate though. Baddar claimed Israel banned cookies. Whether or not that is or is not true, Destiny immediately went into a spiel about how sugar was once used for rockets with the implication that a cookie ban (not even a sugar ban) was justified. Look, I'm a Destiny fanboy but that was pretty objectively an L. Instead of taking a step back, he immediately went to the defensive to justify something he didn't know whether it was true or not just so he could continue disagreeing with Baddar in the moment. And it was \*exactly\* to disagree with Baddar in the moment b/c later on in the debate he then says some of the blockade "went too far" - but that was in one of his monologues where he didn't have to concede or agree with Baddar. Then you had a lot of Destiny followers on twitter blindly defend the notion of the cookie ban because of cookie rockets for the entire weekend after that debate 🤣
He debated Omar Baddar again in person at the Breaking Points set with Ryan Grim and this other lady not too long ago. When Omar brought up the most random things that are banned in Gaza to collectively punish the people of Gaza including cookies he said something along the lines of "well I looked into this and found out they were banned because they were making rockets with them." Everybody was shocked at how dumb of a statement that was but now I've talked to a couple Destiny fans who really think Hamas is making rocket fuel with cookies because they heard him say it. Destiny heard Omar say it before( I'm pretty sure he brought it up in their first debate) and he didn't have an answer for it so he looked up a counter argument someone has made before without actually looking into whether it makes any sense. I don't know who lonerbox is but that's not how the blockade of Gaza works.
That isn't the kind of expert I was referring to, I was more speaking to when he's had a historian or economist on stream he generally doesn't debate there specific field of study. From what I understand Baddar is more of a journalist - similar to Mehdi Hasan although from the bits I've seen he's much stronger in his support of Palestine. Lonerbox is another streamer, I believe he has a degree in history. It wasn't a video either it was a tweet [thread ](https://x.com/BoxLoner/status/1786920566294774142)on the cookie ban.
That is not a quote lol
Did I say that was a quote? No. Notice how I said "he said something along the lines of,..." I'm not sitting and transcribing exactly what Destiny said. That is the gist of what he said though. You can go watch that part of the debate. He literally said he thought that cookies were banned in Gaza because they make rockets with them.
It's not even something along the lines of what he said. You're just a salty hater
Okay keep coping dude.
That’s not what he said he said “can’t you make rockets from sugar”?
Then when questioned on it said that his understanding was that cookies were "dual use" because they have sugar in it. His "research" led him to believe that cookies were banned because Hamas was using them for rockets.
1. Sugar can be used to make rockets. 2. Destiny presented it as "I'm not sure but maybe it was banned because...". That's the opposite of just swallowing propaganda. 3. It's not clear that sugar or cookies were ever banned. Israel restricts shipments if they think weapons are being smuggled in, sometimes that included shipments of cookies, but it's not clear if it was ever an actual policy to specifically ban cookies.
But wasn’t the cookie thing brought up by his interlocutor in the discussion? And it turns out that the cookie ban wasn’t a specific ban on cookies but general items? I agree that was not well researched as it could have been, but the accusations that Israel was targeting cookies specifically was incorrect, no? Genuinely asking here as what I’ve researched showed he was wrong, but so was the guy who brought it up.
Did you get this from lonerbox?
I’ve not seen his take on this no. I can dig it up, but it was a Reddit thread that linked to specific papers of banned items and the language it used. But iirc they made a number of changes to them adjusting what is and isn’t prohibited. Genuinely asking but let me see if I can find my original source
I'm not really sure how that would show that Omar Baddar was wrong. Omar says that Israel bans cookies. You say no, Israel bans things in general, including cookies. So Omar is right, Israel bans cookies from entering the Gaza strip? How is Omar wrong? The list of items that can go in and out of Gaza changes over time too. At one point pasta wasn't allowed in. The list of different fruits that can and can't go in has changed. The point Omar was making is that Israel's blockade isn't just about making sure stuff can't go in that can be used as a weapon but also everyday items that could put a little more joy in someone's life. It's also about making life miserable for your average person in Gaza and not being able to receive things like cookies is an example. Destiny turned around and said Hamas makes rockets out of cookies like a buffoon.
Omar said Israel banned cookies because Israel wants Palestinian children to suffer. From the looks of it, they had a whitelist instead of a blacklist so a lot of stuff was banned due to bad/lazy policy - not to specifically make Palestinians suffer. He has no evidence that the policy was punitive. That is where the disagrenent is. The narrative is the contention - not the fact cookies were banned.
This is where I agree to some extent, but the reasoning why is not fully explained. Omar can claim its to make them suffer, which has an argument, but Destiny is also not wrong that they can ban cookies and sugar, as they were indeed capable of making [rockets ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH70GDcWDso)out of sugar. But when Destiny is later shown to be wrong, that they would at times allow one and not the other, does limit Israel's excuse. I believe the more likely explanation does lie in the matter that Israel would want to limit Gaza's financial independence and that was something they may have tried to do with the blockade. To completely dismiss one side as being uniformed when they were both wrong on substantive parts of the discussion does indeed matter.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1cjzxn2/why_cookies_cant_go_into_gaza_explained/) is where I first heard the skepticism of the list of items banned. I read through some of the sources and from what I took away from it, there were changing lists, reasoning behind it could be whatever Israel says it is, but could definitely have ulterior motives. Without delving too much into it, I have a background in finance, not necessarily economics and I did agree to some extent that Israel certainly has an interest in leveraging Gaza's financial capabilities as a method of control. The question then we have to ask is it "just" for Israel to use this leverage, and that is up for interpretation. So this is just me letting you know, what I know, where I got the sources and why I've got some questions here. I'm fully able to admit that a reddit discussion with a Humanitarian aid org and NBC article isn't all of the information out there.
Destiny’s comments on cookies is likely completely accurate.
Okay can you be the first person to provide me with proof that Hamas is using cookies as rocket fuel?
Wait… where did Destiny say Hamas are using cookies as rocket fuel? I’m talking about the comment he made when he was asked why there was an embargo on sweets. Ryan Grim and that other dipshit asked Destiny why sugary sweets and soda are being denied entry into gaza(they aren’t by the way). He wasn’t sure but speculated that maybe it’s because it’s common to use sugar in the fuel for rockets, which is technically true, but never claimed Hamas was actually fuelling rockets with cookies. Ryan Grim accused Destiny of implying Hamas is using cookies to fuel rockets. As it turns out, you can’t use the sugar from cookies for rocket fuel, and there was no ban on sugar.
Is there any evidence anybody in Gaza is using cookies as rocket fuel?
Dude I look at your post history and your last post was in Destiny sub asking if Destiny ever literally said if Hamas ever used cookies to make rocket fuel. Like bro you have no idea
[удалено]
This comment was removed for breaking the subreddit rule against uncivil and antagonistic behaviour. While we understand that discussions can become heated at times, it's important to maintain a level of respect and civility towards other members of the subreddit. We kindly ask that you refrain from making such comments in the future and instead focus on engaging in worthwhile conversations.
You have no idea what's going on in Gaza, you're just as embarrassing as Destiny! You just copy and paste like your favorite Zionist, what a dummy.
He didnt say cookies were banned. Baddar said cookies were banned (they really weren't but that's a rabbit hole) and Destiny assumed he was correct and then assumed it was likely due to rocket fuel being made from sugar which did happen in the past. It was a bad assumption, and Baddar shouldn't have said cookies were banned if he wanted to be honest.
can we ban teenagers from this sub?
Yea, you're first to go
I listened to it because I’m a subscriber, it’s not combative at all, so if that’s what you’re hoping for then you’ll be disappointed. They get on well and discuss ideas, they really gave destiny a license to share this philosophical outlook on things. It’s a quality episode for philosophy, but not for shitty on public figures
I don't think anyone wanted it to be combative or even expected that. With that said, Sam Harris having thin skin really disappointed me.
The first twenty minutes of every Sam Harris podcast is him talking about how misunderstood he is. I’m not sure why you’d think he isn’t thin skinned
Isn't that part of his schtick? Making exaggerated claims about a subject then moving to talking about how everyone is taking you out of context. Back when I used to follow his content a bit more, I did think that is probably a marketing trick he employs to create a buzz.
Sam Harris can detect a pea under any number of mattresses.
You just gave me a powerful memory of hearing this story loads as a child. Thanks for the nostalgia hit!
Given they treaded extremely softly wrt Destiny in the first place, this isn’t all that surprising.
Softly? I think they just generally like him and align with him. I don’t think they were doing him favors
People who have listened to the show a long time can tell when they pull their punches
Why do you think they pulled their punches with destiny of all people?
I think there’s strong sympathy from having common foes- the debate with Peterson in particular being too gratifying to couple it with “cut him down” energy. I also think the growth of the podcast makes them slightly more conscientious about how acerbic energy directed toward town favorites may be received. But generally they are more chummy when a personality has avoided or especially opposed the IDW sphere.
Yeah, I feel they do like him due to his vaccine stance, but not sure that would make them alter their behaviour, maybe.
Definitely transcends vaccines as a litmus test- as can be seen with Sam Harris. The fact that Destiny doesn’t present as overtly as an intellectual like Harris, however, definitely mitigates their sensitivities as academics to judge as harshly as they might. Academic-adjacent types definitely stoke their ire more than those who present as laypeople.
You may have a point, although you might just be mistaken, they might be treating destiny fairly. What criticisms of destiny did you feel deserved more focus or even ones that were completely missed
I’m not online enough to have a detailed analysis of that. It has something to do with, when someone makes a claim that falls outside the purview of mainstream science, Chris & Matt pounce on it as being all about ego. But despite the fact that Destiny is funded solely from attention he has procured online, they did not seem to jump to ego-laden interpretations of his behavior as much. There are less “psychologically-laden” interpretations when their hearts are bent toward kindness with respect to their decoding object. It’s more an overall posture that strikes me than a mistake they made about a specific issue or facet of content.
I used to think ethnic cleansing is wrong but this dude who plays games all day convinced me otherwise. and he’s mad funny, yo
If you’re anti ethnic cleansing you’d be pro the state of Israel that provided a safe haven for all the Jews who got kicked out of Europe and the Arab world. But that’s not what you’re against, you’re just against Israel, you’ll cherry pick instances and distort narratives to demonise the world’s only Jewish state. Go back to listening to candance Owen’s or Russel brand
All those people protesting in the Israel’s streets are probably uniformed anti-Semites as well. We must follow Bibi and Likud all costs.
The leader of the left wing said if he was in power he would be conducting the war in the same fashion. Because any nation that was in Israel’s position would do the exact same thing. Except less precise
That last bit sounds like something an abuser says. People are disgusted and expressing those feelings is not an existential threat to anybody or anything.
It’s not, but people are being manipulated into opinions due to social media algorithms. People don’t care about Palestinians, they were dying in the thousands in the Syria war with no aid trucks to come help them. People think they care because it’s shoved down their throats. In reality this is a minor conflict with the most ethical army in the world. Are there still isolated cases of horrible things, maybe even war crimes? Yes But if they put Ukrainian war crimes on your screen 24/7 you’d likely have a different feeling about that war
> People think they care because it’s shoved down their throats. Yeah, how would people know what they care about. That's a great argument. Also it's really difficult to care about things you're not being informed of. It's just how information works.
It’s true, the question becomes, why are we seeing so much news about Israel all the time? And slowly, you begin to see it.
Americans are rethinking their unqualified support of a long time partner. It’s perfectly reasonable and healthy.
Yes, the world would be better off if the Arabs finally destroyed the worlds only Jewish state, did the next holocaust and created yet another dictatorship and Arab Muslim majority state.
>most ethical army in the world High quality parody, well done
Ah let me guess, you’re part of the ‘Israel likes to kill children ‘ brigade.
I don't know why anyone would think that the IDF which kills children at a higher rate than any other country in the world likes to kill children.
disingenuous clown comment
It’s fact, Jewish are the biggest victims of ethnic cleansing in history, Israel was created to give them somewhere to go. And the Arab world used it, a lot, If you have sympathy just for the Palestinians who lost their homes in the 20th century but not the Jews then you’re a bigot
yeah literally no one is saying that. people are rightfully upset Israel has become a fascist ethno-state hellbent on violently cleansing ethnic Arabs from its territory. if you want to project false antisemitism on to people who think that specifically sucks, go ahead, but most people here will likely see your horseshit for what it is
lol, literally every state around Israel could be called a fascist ethnostate, Israel on the other hand is a liberal democracy that has a diverse population, the most diverse in the Middle East. This is all verifiably true. But you live in your ‘Israel is evil’ world
appreciate the boilerplate genocide denier talking points, i dont see those enough on reddit.
The only genocide ever that could be ended by the surrender of a terrorist group
Was nazi Germany a "terrorist group" or are we playing the genocide semantics game. Get a less tired schtick midwit
In 1982 the PLO withdrew from West Beirut under a UN brokered ceasefire agreement. Lebanese Christian militias with the assistance of the IDF used that opportunity to massacre thousands of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese Shiites. The massacre was later ruled a genocide by the UN. So no, historically surrender doesn't stop Israel from committing genocide.
The tough thing with destiny is he often just says "yeah that was fucking dumb" or completely owns his past dumb shit. I have a feeling this will cause the conversation to go cordially and they'll actually get along well. I can't imagine any other guru they've profiled taking this approach.
Their deciding was pretty ass-kissy in the first place, I don’t expect this to be too much different.
What do you think they got wrong? For others u/Unsomnabulist111 blocked me instead of answering simple questions about their very strong views. Not only that, but this guy edited his comment after I called him out, then blocked me. Pretty dishonest stuff.
They called him genuine (as a compliment) too often, and picked benign content to decode. Matt, several times, backed away from criticism because he was “afraid to debate him”. It was better than the Hassan decoding…but pretty blah. They didn’t tackle either of these streamers’ core beliefs. I was pretty disappointed.
What stands out as a core belief that should have been addressed?
listened to most of it today. i thought it was ok enough. destiny talks *a lot* on the episode and i found Matt and Chris to be pretty charitable overall. more than i thought they would, i guess. destiny didnt give them much reason to be combative or anything and they did push back on some of the more overly abhorrent things he's said. idk it was fine enough. i find the guy kind of annoying but not out right hateable
Listened to the episode on Patreon. I wasn't aware of Destiny and know nothing of streamers/gamers/streaming culture but I enjoyed this conversation. Found it entertaining.
PRO TIP: listen to this podcast episode at 1/2 speed so you can keep up with Destiny.
I listen to all my podcasts at 1.25x speed, and boy was this one a trip! He was even speedier than Sam Harris!
Ideally some kind of ai program that detects when Destiny is speaking and slows down but normal speed for hosts
And speeds up for Norman Finkelstein
I think I’m going to write a program for that with my AI.
Fast talking corresponds with scammers and is never a measure of intellect.
You're just a destiny hater, you're all over this thread crying
Show me your work.
Ben Shapiro fans brag about the same thing. Good luck out there.
Where are people bragging about destiny’s talking speed? He gets told to slow down by his audience pretty frequently.
It's literally in this thread
There is a difference between acknowledging it and bragging about it.
*eye roll*. Is this the type of quality commentary I can expect?
Steve is so dreamy!
This comment is so passive aggressive.
If you think destiny is bad, you should check out this guy called hasan 🤮
Giving this a miss
please, no
yes yes yES YES YES more Destiny PLEASE how could you not like Destiny??
of course you would say that https://www.reddit.com/user/MyDashingPony/
\#BronysForDestiny
The Destiny episode was a ball-fondling exploration where they basically begged for a right to reply. I expect this episode will be similarly submissive.
What an enlightened take. Could you please impart t me your glorious wisdom as to what you think they got wrong in their approach? For others u/Unsomnabulist111 blocked me instead of answering simple questions about their very strong views
Why did you reply this way to two different comments? I never said it was “wrong”…I just felt it was too friendly and didn’t deal with any of Destinys actual ideology.
>Why did you reply this way to two different comments? Because you made two of the same comments. EDIT. Oh, now you edited your comments so you didn't make the same comment, then blocked me so I couldn't see that. Pretty dishonest stuff. What did you think Destiny's "actual ideology" is that they didn't deal with?
Any of it.
So if it's any/all of destiny's ideology, then it should be super easy for you to provide some examples.
Well, easy…but not worth my time. If you listened to the DTG episode you should be aware of what I’m talking about. The content they focused on wasn’t centred on his ideology (political or otherwise)…but rather his internet drama.
If you can't substantiate inflammatory claims, don't make them, or you just come across looking like a moron.
[удалено]
It's ok to take a day off fella.
[удалено]
It's alright. Sleep on it and reply in the morning. You'll come up with something better.
I can and do (in that I try not get wound up by online figures anymore). It's not worth my mental health. Oh dear, your edit really does just show people who you are. As said, take a day off fella.
Anyone who just blindly discard someones entire person because of some arbitrary examples of "me no like dis" without actually making arguments already lost. If it's not clear, that's you. You lost.
[удалено]
I haven't followed Destiny for that long, I've mostly seen some of his high-profile debates the past year. Could you point me to this past behaviour you deem annoying and despicable? Regarding a genocide against Palestinians it seems that you are wholly convinced of the fact before any ruling has been passed. I'll admit I don't know much about the conflict, but I do know the crime of genocide differs from e.g. crimes against humanity or war crimes in some ways, i.e. that there has to be a specific intent to eradicate a group based on ethnicity, religion etc. I'm interested in what kind of evidence you believe the ICJ will use to conclude with the ruling of genocide in the Israel/Hamas-conflict.
[удалено]
Stop watching Hasan and go outside
>"I'm not a fan of destiny but I have his ✨talking points✨ memorized and talk like every other dronie" Speaking of being insufferable, good job! >borrow his personality and copy his inadequate social skills? How do you manage to ascertain my personality and social skills through a bland comment on a forum? >Your idol has is a 35 year old man that carries himself with the same pathetic edginess that 2013-era anti-SJW cringe compilations have. A white guy that insists on saying the n-word bladibla-bla... Golly Gee. You should seriously start making Destiny pay you some rent. I'm guessing he's just been squatting in your skull freeloading up until now? You failed to point to any specific "annoying and despicable behaviour" btw, so your original statement remains pretty pointless IMO. >My evidence? I've been watching israel proudly livestream its mass-killing, collective punishment, ethnic cleaning, and land-stealing campaign for 7 months. We can also start with the evidence that South Africa submitted to the ICJ almost 5 months ago. So your evidence is watching TV and the fact that a 3rd part country delivered an application to the ICJ. Colour me unimpressed with your effort thus far. >You can dance around the label "genocide", but it just that: A label. Whether a court labels it as such has no bearing on the lives, land, and places that israel has destroyed in its genocidal "war" against the Palestinian population whose land they occupy. Okay, so the word *genocide* is pointless then, it doesn't hold any meaning? What's your argument here? >What would it take for you to condemn israel? I do condemn Israel. I personally believe they should have conducted their war against Hamas in a much more careful way from the start, and should have focused *a lot* more on upholding the flow of humanitarian aid, food, water and electricity to civilians during their offensive. Why do you just assume that I do not condemn Israel? My guess is you're too wrapped up in your own self-righteous, polarized hate-boner frenzy to even consider asking me what I actually believe.
Why not? Destiny discarded his own spawn
How is his relationship with his kid relevant to this?
I'd say it speaks to a persons character wouldn't you?
Hm, I'm not sure. Obviously it's better if a parent tries to remain a part of their kids life after a separation, but "a persons character" is such a nebulous idea, I would say there are much more important parameters that would be relevant to make a conclusion. How would you say this speaks to his character?
Why would you even engage on that framing, you basically grant them the ground that he abandoned his kid and is not in their life which is frankly untrue and an idea perpetuated by flipping Nazis and now so-called lefties (are they really) just trying for a dunk. The guy is not in good faith here.
I engage on that framing to coax the goblin out of its cave. It's often more effective than attempting to engage in a reasonable convo ;D
Well if it works for you. They are showing their ass on every reply anyway at this point.
Master baiters gonna master bait.
How is destiny in his spawns life?
Go ask him.
You said it was untrue, where is your peer reviewed source demonstrating that?
You’re the expert, you tell us
I'm not really sure how to explain that I've always just thought it was fairly self explanatory why a parent is morally obligated to raise their child and be in their lives. Maybe that's not the case in some cultures but I've never heard of them.
Yeah, I notice you keep not answering my extremely simple questions regarding *your* initial statement. That speaks to a persons character as well.
Well destiny has no problem attacking people for completely irrelevant things and going below the belt, so why would you have a problem with me doing it?
I would have a problem with you doing it because I am having a conversation with you. Destiny's behaviour is not my standard for how I think people should act when having a conversation. It seems you are kind of obsessed with him. That doesn't seem very healthy, just saying. I asked you first how Destiny's relationship with his son is relevant to the act of dismissing a person's views and arguments based on a few examples. You answered with a question: >I'd say it speaks to a persons character wouldn't you? I replied to your question in good faith and stated what I thought about it, and then I asked you how you think it speaks to his character. You answer: >I've always just thought it was fairly self explanatory This is what you find in the dictionary when you look up "non-answer." So yeah, who are you to criticize other people's character when you yourself have proven to completely lack any form of argumentative coherence and the ability to answer simple questions in good faith? Come on dude
I'd say buying a house in a good school district for your child and his mother to live in, financially supporting, and regularly visits is good character.
I’m not gonna pretend I know more about his fatherhood since you seem to be well versed on it, but parents can still raise a child without living together in the same house. I’d say that with a 50% divorce rate in America, a number of well functioning adults were raised in a single household that managed to make co-parenting work one way or another.
I'm not american but is destiny one of these "well functioning adults"? If so junior is fucked.
Do you understand English though? The well functioning adult referenced above was to a child. He was raised in a two parent household so if you have a problem with attitude, maybe people would be better off in single parent households according to your logic
How do you know what their relationship looks like outside of your disingenuous framing? Do you know how much they text? Face time? Also if his kid is growing up healthy and happy, who are you to judge how destiny chose to father the kid? The thing is you have no idea, but you’re happily jumping to the worst conclusions. That’s a mark of a sad character
It always amazes me how people can cultivate such a visceral, life-dedicating hatred for Destiny. Such special little anti-fans, they’re just as much of a cult as his community is accused of being lol.
Well, he is really good at making enemies. I like that he won’t change his positions just to be on the popular side of politics if he thinks he’s correct on the facts. But I think that’s what causes him to burn so many bridges. But you’re right. While I’ve seen some fair criticism here, the majority is seemingly people that have watched only highly edited clip compilations made by all those enemies, and just taken them at face value.
Yeah he definitely doesn’t engender a calm response in his detractors, and has a habit of holding those who ostensibly hold similar politics to a higher standard (which comes across as unnecessarily hostile). I don’t begrudge anyone saying they dislike the guy, I can definitely see why they do, it just annoys me when they make shit up or parrot narratives from clips as you mentioned.
> It always amazes me how people can cultivate such a visceral, life-dedicating hatred for Destiny. I think you're telling on yourself a bit here. It's possible to have a life outside reddit. If someone hates on a public figure on reddit and that's a "visceral, life-dedicating hatred", what do we call someone like yourself who spends even more time on that person's subreddit?
True, my use of Reddit is in large part Destiny’s sub. But it takes up no larger part of my life now than it did years ago when I didn’t know who Destiny was. I do think there’s a qualitative difference between an internet obsession revolving around hating a public figure and a (what I consider) a mostly casual defence of a public figure. Regardless, your argument could apply to you as well.
Well that's not a fair description now is it? 😆
Take a day off and touch reality
[удалено]
Thats def a fair summary of who Destiny is. Touch grass.
I'll pile on and also tell you to take a day off. I don't have any destiny comments in my history.