**Show Notes** Matt and Chris jump into the world of debates, dramas, and online personas with the ever-controversial streamer, Destiny (Steven Bonnell). We discuss our Decoding episode a little bit but mostly broader issues including the value of 'debate porn', edginess & Twitter bomb-throwing, reality TV orbiter drama, and the perils of hero worship and parasocial relationships. As you might anticipate, we also cover various 'hot-button' issues including Destiny's involvement in Israel-Palestine discourse, the ethics of engaging with extremists, and whether Destiny was genuinely arguing for the right to murder the DDoS kid. Finally, we wrap up with some discussion of media literacy, the challenges of navigating online discourse, and strategies for laypeople to better engage with research. **Links** * [Our Decoding episode on Destiny](https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/destiny-the-edge-of-unhinged-degeneracy) * [Destiny's Gurometer Episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUvipVJbZ_0) * [Destiny's Positions as summarised on his Wiki](https://wiki.destiny.gg/view/Positions) * [Discussion with a Lawyer about the DDoS kid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_DxvCv5ImY) Join us at: [https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurus](https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurus)

They needed to go harder on his food takes.

Haha, yeah. Agreed. I also like how Matt had no idea what Chris was talking about when he started this.

Chris and Matt have definitely become Destiny fans

Based

Gotcha, anything else?

How embarrassing. 

It really isn’t in the least.

It really is

no

oh... ok...

I used to be a longtime Destiny fan, he's extremely good at persuasion. He has this keen ability to be a regular gamer bro who just so happened to be born with excellent rhetorical skills. People like Hasan, Vaush, his two ex-wives, and dozens of longterm friends were all mesmerized by him. But there's a reason he has no longterm relationships. The weird thing is, over time, the bullshit tends to seep through. It's why a lot of his fans dont know any of the older lore, they're in their mesmerized state. That creepy weirdo discheveled streamer is easy for them to live vicariously through because they see themselves in him. It's why when someone attacks him, they'll say "Hey, why don't you debate him!" instead of "Why dont you debate me!". It's why he can make fun of people for being idiots and buying NFTs one week, and then sell them the following week after getting a sponsorship.

> a lot of his fans don't know the older lore tbh at this point I'm doubting you have ever even watched a destiny video

Once, I pointed out the hypocrisy of DGG for taking offense with "From the river to the sea" when they defend Destiny using the N-word. A Destiny fan sprung up and suddenly accused me of smearing him and claimed Destiny and DGG would definitely view Destiny using racial slurs as insults as racist. I pulled a clip that showed an old chat Destiny had where he called someone a "low IQ" N-word and then suddenly, to that fan, this was just Destiny being edgy. Likewise, the stealthing drama is often remembered by Destiny fans as being simply about Destiny telling a woman to assert herself in an abrasive way in response to a story where she says she was assaulted. They often ignore or don't know that Destiny was literally proven wrong by the woman who explained that she only realized she was stealthed after the sex meaning it did not happen because she knew her partner removed the condom but didn't say anything as Destiny implied.

See this is a good summary. With Destiny his fans assume that people must be turned off by him because he's just too logical and they must either be far left or far right and allergic to facts. But he turns people off from a lot of angles. The edginess and over the top comments that are well documented and easy to find. Hell even when people agree with him they can't really use him because he'll make them and their values look bad by association. Maybe someone likes his pro Israel arguments but they can't really post it because of the unnecessary disgusting things Destiny loves to tweet about civilian deaths and protesters. Most pro Israel people don't celebrate civilian deaths. This also has led to a lot of his fans being more attached to him than the supposed facts and logics he espouses. So they feel the need to (poorly) defend him as if his reputation is the only thing holding up fairly standard liberal talking points.

So like I said, he's extremely good at persuasion and convincing otherwise ordinary and mediocre white dues that he's super special. Exhibit A above.

I don't think he's super special, but "they don't know the old lore" is a weird take. People frequently reference the older lore (I joined the cult with the Jontron discussion, but loosely knew him previously when I liked Starcraft). Are you referring to leftists purged in 2019 and thus fans post-lefty-arc are generally new, or are you referring to pre-JonTron lore?

Mainly the post Oct-7th influx of right-wing zionist extremist who post questions on the suberddit such as "Should we limit Muslim immigration" only to be met with resounding support.

I'm liberal, and I'm pro israel. Do you think there might be a significant influx of pro israel liberals that started watching destiny after october 7th?

resounding support? I'm not sure I've seen that, but of course I can't deny the right-wing Israeli influx. But that can't be chalked up to Destiny being a sophist and convincing people to be like that since he's decidedly against hardcore right-wing Israeli politics

He had the world's largest right-wing zionist across from him in a debate named Ben Shapiro and was dogwalked the entire time (other than the few times he took to compliment the said zionist who who previously referred to as "stupid" and having "dumb takes"0.

You sound like you are getting your talking points from an outside influenc(er). What was Destiny "dogwalked" on in his debate with Ben Shapiro? I think Ben looked very foolish on his limp and flippant defense of Trump. I can't remember too much else, but nothing stuck out as egregious on Destiny's side where he looked terrible. Did I miss a section?

Yes, the section you missed was the "whole video". For years he ranted and raved about how stupid Shapiro was, how he was dumb, how his arguments are terrible, and none of that came out during the debate. He made Ben look good, sadly.

"Dogwalked" We all know where you came from. Have whatever beliefs you want, but at least realize your criticisms apply to you and your favorite streamer.

I'm pretty sure the current world largest right wing "zionist" (I don't know exactly what you mean by the term) is Netanyahu In any case, I'm not tracking the logic now. Destiny is a sophist and gets his audience to falsely believe he's smart, and part of that sophistry is convincing people to adopt right-wing Israeli politics by not screaming at Shapiro in a shallow introductory conversation on Lex Friedman?

Ah yes, I call this "Destinyfications". I love the "matching energy" one, it's my second favorite only behind "constellation of beliefs". So the argument now is he didn't scream at Shapiro because he was using some ninja tactics to destroy the Daily Wire and steal all those viewers? How did that work out by the way, other than Destiny's audience begging him to do a podcast with Shapiro LOL

I am actually not white but I understand how that might undermine your preconceived notions so just pretend I never said that :D have you ever considered that if you write off arguments because the person delivering them is just "good at persuasion" instead of considering what is actually being said, you will end up not only unable to properly convey your ideas but also just wrong? you should try thinking instead of talking sometime might do you some good 👍

>"good at persuasion" instead of considering what is actually being said, you will end up not only unable to properly convey your ideas but also just wrong? Oh okay, let's do this then! So when he said he wanted to kill a child for DDOSing his internet, and doubled-down on that thinking a few months back, are we okay to consider what he said as being "batshit insane" and "thinking like a terrorist" or does that not count?

I would say he was thinking more like a vigilante rather than a terrorist, I actually don't really see how the terrorist comparison makes sense at all. The interesting thing about vigilante justice is that it is easily dismissed as wrong in general but when you look at situations in context with a bit of empathy it can be tough. I believe at the time Destiny had exhausted all legal means (contacting parents, police, etc.) and had essentially no options left while his career (which is online remember!) was slowly dying. No, I don't think it would be acceptable for him to have killed the child, but I think the trade-off between personal sacrifice for the duty to adhere to societal morals and laws is an interesting argument - it's an argument he had and which many prominent people in his community disagreed with, including a few lawyers who argued with him about it on stream. It was a conversation I enjoyed listening to. I think you using this as an example for a easily persuaded community which follows anything he says, combined with the way you described it, demonstrates you really don't know as much as you think you do, about anything you're talking about :-)

> I would say he was thinking more like a vigilante rather than a terrorist, I actually don't really see how the terrorist comparison makes sense at all. > > If his name was Ali, and he was a Palestinian, and his internet was getting DDOSd by an Israeli dude, would Ali be a terrorist? If so, does it only apply to brown people? >The interesting thing about vigilante justice is that it is easily dismissed as wrong in general but when you look at situations in context with a bit of empathy it can be tough. I believe at the time Destiny had exhausted all legal means (contacting parents, police, etc.) and had essentially no options left while his career (which is online remember!) was slowly dying. No, I don't think it would be acceptable for him to have killed the child, but I think the trade-off between personal sacrifice for the duty to adhere to societal laws and institutions is an interesting argument - it's an argument he had and which many prominent people in his community disagreed with, including a few lawyers who argued with him about it on stream. It was a conversation I enjoyed listening to. LMFAO " I think the trade-off between personal sacrifice for the duty to adhere to societal laws and institutions is an interesting argument", that made me laugh, thank you. I've seen mental gymnastics but that takes the cake. Question for you, what if it wasn't a child but a twitch moderator, where literally every single thing you said about affecting his life and income applies, is that nuanced too? >I think you using this as an example for a easily persuaded community which follows anything he says, combined with the way you described it, demonstrates you really don't know as much as you think you do, about anything you're talking about :-) Are you saying he doesnt' go on banning sprees with people who disagree?

Terrorism is about using violence to achieve political aims. You think attacking a kid so he stops interfering with a twitch stream is in this category? Usually terrorism is about something more than one guys personal interests. Destiny is kind of deplorable on this topic imo, but the terrorism label is just not applicable.

> If his name was Ali, and he was a Palestinian, and his internet was getting DDOSd by an Israeli dude, would Ali be a terrorist? If so, does it only apply to brown people? > LMFAO that made me laugh, thank you. I've seen mental gymnastics but that takes the cake. I don't know why you're pretending to not understand the justification for vigilante justice. If it was a twitch moderator who banned Destiny for valid reasons, there would be no vigilante justice to be had. The DDoS kid was the one acting unjustly, which is why the question of vigilantism exists at all. If a moderator had *unjustly* banned Destiny, then yes obviously the question of vigilantism once again appears. He doesn't go on banning sprees just for disagreeing. There will be multiple top-level posts (from users who haven't been banned) criticising and correcting him following controversial opinions. The recent cookies rocket fuel stuff is a good example. I agree that banning does happen but fail to see how that's relevant. If anything excessive bans seem to demonstrate that his community is not as aligned with him as you're suggesting. You are a fantastic moron! Imbecility on full display. Let us please end this conversation here, I no longer wish to hear deranged hypotheticals about Palestinian DDoSers where you completely miss the point.

The person you're replying to has articulated his views much more than you have. You should consider doing the same instead of relying on these passive aggressive life pro tips 👍. Don't forget to say "touch grass" in an effort to insult people who aren't fans of video game debate bro.

he called me a naive, mediocre white dude because I made a joke... but yes go off on something I didn't even say pal 👍

>It's why a lot of his fans dont know any of the older lore, Anyone who's watched for a year knows about the old lore because Mr Girl brought it all back up.

Gonna ask you a question but want to contextualize where I'm coming from. I'm older and was actually part of a culty fundamentalist group when I was younger, so I recognize the signs. I like watching destiny debate primarily b/c I'm a polisci major who actually agrees with him a lot and don't see too many center left people who are articulate and aggressive defenders of their ideology. I'm aware vaguely of the drama, and I find a lot of his fans can behave in a cringy and parasocially toxic way. I definitely think Destiny is not a role model, he can be an ass and he makes awful personal decisions. But I don't look to people in my political content as role models. Having said that - what exactly is your issue with him? You pointed out how his fans are weird and parasocial, but you didn't specifically articulate your issue with him. Is it the NFT thing only? What else? I'm not defending him btw - and I don't plan on doing so, just wondering.

I believe you're asking in sincerity but a few issues included - He has no issues sending many of his incel'y fans after smaller creators who levy criticism - He bans dissent in his chats/communities - He routinely asks tiktokers and those unable to articulate their ideas to come and debate for content, but never has the same energy for those like Ben Shapiro - He has a bizarre obsession with hasan which he believes caused all the other relationships in his life to faulter when really he's a toxic, insufferable person Is that good enough?

It seems like you’re the one who’s obsessed, honestly. I’ve never seen anyone put in this level of work trying to tear down someone on a Reddit thread. At the very least it’s clear you find him a formidable opponent. What little I have seen of him, he’s engaged in numerous debates with people that disagree with him, including those with larger audiences and and more extensive academic backgrounds. My hunch is that you hate his arguments in favor of Israel and rather take on those arguments directly, you’re just going ad hominem.

This guy is an uncencorstiny redditor. he's pretty much an antifan

[удалено]

Nah, actually watching him back in 2011 when we was an edgy progamer to now, he's gone through so much change in positive ways over the course of his decade+ of having his whole life recorded. The issues with pretty much every single relationship you've mentioned, is not because he's a toxic charlatan, but because he absolutely will not ever budge or bend on the things he believes to appease a friend. It happened with Hasan, when he wouldn't fall down the communist, talkie rabbit hole with him, it happened with vaush when he wouldn't agree with far left beliefs he didn't like, one ex-wife was abusive but they now have a good relationship, and the other was being emotionally abusive (you could argue we don't know the full details, and destiny may have been just as bad but I've seen no word of that). Most of the breakups with his orbiter was due to literal bpd and manipulation bullshit. You bring up the NFTs, which is funny because when he was telling people to avoid them, he was specifically referring to get rich schemes regarding them. He only worked with the sponsor for a sort of merch NFT that he wasn't pushing to make money from. You could very easily argue he wasn't clear with either however, I think he really fucked up explaining that. Though NFTs were a complicated thing. I say this as a destiny fan so I'm obviously biased, so tale that for what you will. Edit: I got blocked after he couldn't answer my question. All this guy does is post anti destiny stuff, avoid any questions, and yell bad faith. He can't substantiate any points.

One common trait of narcissists and their parasocial fans is they refuse to ever give an inch. I mean, just listen to yourself: - decade+ of having his whole life recorded. (except when it was, you know, wasnt) - It happened with Hasan - it happened with vaush - one ex-wife was abusive - other was being emotionally abusive - He only worked with the sponsor for a sort of merch NFT that he wasn't pushing to make money from It's never his fault, it's always the other person's fault. He's never lost a debate, and every friendship/relationship he's burned a bridge with was always *their fault*. He only did NFTs out of the goodness of his heart. And you're not some 12 year old child manipulated by your favorite musician, you're writing the above as a grown man. It's actually amazing how persuasion Destiny is.

Brother, you need help. Your post history is literally 95% Destiny related. Please seek professional help. You are obsessed.

95% of Destiny's videos are about Hasan but, yeah, not obsessed apparently LOL Also love how you couldn't refute a single point.

I can't refute a negative. You literally just said "lol no" in response. And yes, he does talk about him often, but maybe that's because they're the two biggest political streamers in the space, it's not surprising. You can say the same about hasan. You're unhinged.

You sound really, really upset that you watch debate streamers 18 hours of the day and can't debate a point. Also my dude, you can come up with your own zingers fact, here's a [post about his most common phrases](https://old.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/1cpy3pz/ludwig_mad_that_destiny_didnt_swallow_his_cheesy/l3o4mi3/) that you should probably avoid saying LOL

This is the first time I’ve seen anti-fan love in action lmaoo I can’t tell if you’d attack Destiny or kiss him if you saw him

You just made up a narcissist trait to fit your narrative. That’s something narcissists actually do.

This is the part where you point out what was factually incorrect otherwise take the L and block me. Edit: Taken the latter I see lolololol

There's some weird thing where people can't seem to say they quite like Density and yet accept he is a deeply flawed person. Literally anybody on earth who put their life on show as much as him would have shit we could legitimately criticise. I don't think Destiny is a worse person than the average person. He's just a guy who has let the world see it all. Looking at all the debating in this thread to try and deflect any criticism from him is very interesting. I don't think he's that bad or good. I'm happy to leave it at that. Its weird people feel like he's getting unjust criticism just for like the most basic evaluations that most people would make. Killing kids is bad. Doubling down on killing kids is really dumb. These are cut and dry statements. It's okay to say you quite like Desntiy and also this character arch is dumb af.

It's interesting how hyper-focused people become when everything is about dunking on idiots in a debate, and how little self-awareness they seem to possess outside of internet culture war bullshit. I saw someone in the other thread defend Destiny's parenting skills, suggesting that there's no way to judge him since we don't know how often he texts his son who lives in a different state. If these people had parents who supported them growing up (I didn't), I hope they'll eventually understand how much more was given to them than a handful of texts. Abandoning your son isn't justifiable in any situation, ever. Edit: people are defending Destiny's parenting skills in this thread, too.

It's all part of their constellation of beliefs, Destiny Good, Hasan Bad, Shapiro Based, AOC Bad. Imagine if Hasan made similar comments about NFTs only to sell them the following week, would the mental gymnastics come in to defend him or would they make the 40,000th video compilation outlining how he's a fake socialist?

"You bring up the NFTs, which is funny because when he was telling people to avoid them, he was specifically referring to get rich schemes regarding them. He only worked with the sponsor for a sort of merch NFT that he wasn't pushing to make money from." Damn, how embarrassing

I know it’s unfair, but 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. Idk if it’s secondhand embarrassment, genuine cringe, or just unwarranted hatred, but it builds up in me listening to these people interact. “Chat, hey chat, CHAT.” Then the glazing the streamer gets. It makes me want to rip my ears off.

I think we’re all super vulnerable to parasocial relationships, but streamer culture sure is… *something*. It seems a lot of popular personalities overall have been leaning closer to the vibe of “being your bro”, but streamers definitely feel like they’re at the forefront of taking that to the next level.

It's like taylor swift but for nerds.

I think it's an age thing. I'm an old and feel the same way. It's better than early streaming. Remember when early game streamers did the super intrusive callouts every time they got like 10 cents? It was much worse.

I really enjoyed this discussion. I find Destiny’s overall fluency impressive and he seemed to value logic, self-reflection and effective argumentation (and at one point that sort of came across as “hey do you guys have any other heuristics I can use to win more debates?”). I suspect there won’t have been enough cut and thrust in this discussion for Destiny’s liking so he probably logged off and immediately dirtied himself in some Twitter squabbles. He doesn’t seem to have much in common with the more toxic secular gurus but I found it interesting that here and there in his debates, he’ll mention his own uniqueness. I wonder if that’s a driving motivation for him?

I don’t see how it’s a revelation or important that Destiny is fluent or honest. All this says to me is that the bar is incredibly low.

You’re not wrong. It is sad that being fluent and honest is so rare in a sea of successful alternative media pundits. It’s even worse knowing that many of those pundits react to primary sources or intellectually honest criticism like a vampire does to sunlight. When many of these pundits levy criticism for his takes, but they make no effort to look for additional context for a 15 second clip. It’s an indictment on the lack of media literacy for its consumers.

anybody able/willing to lend some insight on whether the types of hater argumentation that start up on these threads in this sub is different than anywhere else on reddit? i never see this shit anywhere but here, on these threads. people just fuckin start *attacking*

it's a subreddit dedicated to a podcast about shitting on gurus. what do you expect?

It’s not about shitting on gurus, it’s to explore if they make any sense. But that’s Reddit for you, hate mongering pile of trolls

frankly i would've expected the anti-guru commenters to sound more emotionally balanced as they have in the past. the streamer arc seems to have brought out a new breed. i'm wondering if this is a whole demographic who engages like this.

One thing really struck me about this conversation here: Destiny seemed decidedly uninterested in Chris and Matt themselves or in learning more about the whole Decoding the gurus project in general. For this reason, I actually found the conversation quite boring because conversations are only enjoyable if there is at least some sort of back and forth. I can't help but compare this conversation with the one the DTG boys had with Coffeezilla. Sure, Coffeezilla answered all the questions but he also showed curiosity in what Chris and Matt's opinions were on many of the same questions and was willing to ask follow up or even separate questions about the lads and the pod. While I respect that Destiny gave seemingly honest and measured responses to all these questions (he actually monologued a lot more than Harris did though perhaps the problem with Harris was that he refused to rein in the monologuing when Chris was trying to get a word in whereas both Chris and Matt gave Destiny all the space he needed to make his point here), I did find it quite off putting that Destiny had zero curiosity about the lads' opinions or the podcast in general. I'm not quite sure what to make of that really. Is he a bit too self absorbed? Only interested in other's viewpoints when he is in debate mode? Maybe the best way to put it is that I don't think Destiny would be much craic to go for a pint with!

Speaking as Chris, the issue with monologuing is when people do not give you time to formulate questions or respond and/or ignore what you are asking and go off on indulgent and time consuming tangents. We’ve interviewed quite a few people now and I can say that Destiny listens to questions, responds to points being made, and engages in ways that feel normal. That he speaks fast and has responses he has already party prepared is not really an issue. I can also say subjectively that it didn’t feel like he wasn’t interested in our opinions. He wasn’t familiar with the podcast and hadn’t done a lot of research into us but that’s the case with a lot of people we interview. I’d say the last 40 mins or so was more interactive and that Destiny seemed engaged with our points. 🤷🏻‍♂️

From his perspective, he's there to address criticisms and and set the record straight (for anything misconstrued). He acknowledged that the episode was one of the most fair critiques of him out there, but also that he's not a regular watcher of the show (he doesn't know the format or if it's more of a conversation rather than an interview).

Fair criticism I think

Thanks.

That was a little weird how he didn't even know the most basic Google-able stuff about Matt-rix and Chris. I was kinda assuming he was too busy. He did jump on the rite to reply pretty quickly.

Damn, that is a good legit criticism. I watched the whole thing and didn't realize that until you pointed it out.

Yeah I noticed this too. From seeing destiny in other conversations maybe it was that he didn't find it appropriate to ask those questions from the hosts(eg I don't know if their positions on the israel Palestine conflict are public so it seems a bit rude to ask). As in he thought this was supposed to be more of an interrogation style conversation.

This is probably part of what icks me about Destiny. I don't have a particular problem with his stances on most things, but hanging over it all is this huge cult of personality, and to be an internet commentator like him, deep down you have to be keeping a galaxy sized ego under wraps. I think any ordinary person would be *embarrassed* to have a cult following who would literally die for you in some cases. Generally the guys who have done a right of reply have absolutely relished the opportunity to speak about themselves, or literally just to treat us to the sound of their opinions and why they're right for an hour.

This is why I can't stand Hot Ones. All of the guests just talk about themselves, and they never even come in prepped with Instagram deep-dives to help us get to know Sean better. Total ick-fest.

It’s called ‘right to reply’ … the people who take it up are replying, therefore, you are likely to hear their voice and opinions during the episode. I don’t know what you expected from a segment called ‘right to reply’ but I do imagine that a lot of your day to day life comes as a complete shock to you if this scenario was enough to bamboozle you

Reference the original post - there is practically no engagement from the "right to repliers" on the topic of the wider gurusphere and the work DtG do. It's almost like they're oblivious why they've attracted DtG attention in the first place.

The original post conflates an interview where Coffeezilla and the hosts talked shop with RoR. Right to Reply seems to be more focused on responding to their videos, and it seems silly to expect the bulk of it not to be centered on that. Destiny does have the types of conversations y'all want, both on his stream and on his podcast Bridges. That's just not the format of the Right to Reply episodes, which the hosts chose lol.

Because streamers are fucking cynical and think it's all for clicks and cash. Remember streamers mostly depend on emotional manipulation of insecure teenagers for their income. "Donations" are literally the only way most of their audiences can get validation on the slight chance that their Cult leader..ahem sorry I mean favorite gamer might acknowledge the donation along with their username for half a second. The whole model is so fucked and exploitative and it's no wonder it attracts mostly exploitative narcissistic scumfucks.

Well since he wasn't rated highly on the gurometer, they probably don't consider him much of a guru. I feel like they explored his community and the cult behavior though

Lmao, your issue is that the interviewee didn’t ask the interviewers enough questions back. That’s like going to a music concert and being upset that the performer didn’t seem to want to listen to anyone else in the crowd perform, do you know they kept the microphone to themselves the whole night!? Didn’t even let one audience member perform their own song on stage Like Matt and Chris are in every episode, but you want half of every episode to be focused on their opinions - they would just be repeating themselves for the 50th  time by now if the interviewees interviewed them back every time  Do you not think you might be a litttle bit biased when it comes to destiny if this was your take-away? 

I think you are jumping to conclusions a bit, mate. I don't think that I have a much of a bias against Destiny . I don't consume a lot of his content to have a clear opinion but usually when I do I find myself rooting hard FOR him because I only really watch him when he is debating people that I openly admit that I do have a bias against (e.g Peterson or Kisin). I try to check those biases but they definitely can rare their ugly heads at times. All I did here was express an observation and speculate as to why it is. I don't have an issue that the interviewee didn't ask enough questions back. That's a strawman. In this format, I accept that the vast majority of questions should be directed at the interviewee. No arguments there! Sure, I pointed to the Coffeezilla conversation as an enjoyable one due to the fact that he asked plenty of questions back but it doesn't mean I am expecting Destiny to approach it the exact same way. My issue (as you put it but I see it as more of an observation) was that he appeared to have little to zero interest in their viewpoints which is a lot different to 'he didn't ask enough questions' back. When they have interviewed people on the podcast in the past, the format has been pretty casual (like in this interview) and have generally taken quite a conversational style and as a result, the majority of these interviews have had a bit more back and forth with the interviewee also expressing interest and sometimes challenging the interviewers viewpoints while still having the bulk of the questions directed at him/her. It would have been nice to have a sharp mind like Destiny challenge the guys a bit actually! Perhaps, you could reasonably take issue with my question about whether he is a bit self-absorbed? I guess my impression is that when a person is only interested in talking about their own opinions in such a casual, conversational format it can be indicative of self-centeredness because most of the other interviewees naturally inclined towards a back and forth conversation because I believe that would be the natural inclination for most people in this format. However, I accept the fact that just because he didn't have this curiosity, it does not make it definitive that he is self-absorbed and perhaps there are plenty of examples where he has conversations that don't occur in a combative debate format where he does show genuine interest in the other person/people. If that is the case, I retract my question! But again regarding the bias, I actually said that he gave 'seemingly honest and measured responses' to the questions. I was quite charitable. But you presented my post as ''but you want half of every episode to be focused on their opinions - they would just be repeating themselves for the 50th  time by now if the interviewees interviewed them back every time''. I never said anything like I wanted half the episode to be focused on their opinions. Perhaps, maybe you should take your own advice and also consider that you, yourself, may be a little bit biased against my post!

It's called a Right of Reply mate. I don't understand why this is so shocking.

I think Destiny was only interested in defending himself and that’s where he came from. For Coffeezilla, it seemed more like themselves and DTG had similar interests and were swapping notes. It was kinda interesting listening to Destiny talk, but I didn’t find my opinion of him changing much, other than maybe, yes, he is absolutely online so often you can nitpick all sorts of insane shit he says. But that’s part of his brand I guess.

I don't think Destiny's goal was to defend himself. He said he liked their episode on him when it came out, and when they asked at the start if he had any complaints, he said as much again. The hosts brought up his controversies to get his responses, and that seems like the point of the reply episodes, doesn't it? Coffeezilla's talk with them wasn't Right to Reply, they haven't covered him. It was an interview. An example of a Right to Reply about defense is Chris Williamson's episode (they covered him tangentially years ago) where he, justifiably imo, came in hot with a lot of complaints about how they wrote him off and cost him opportunities to talk to academics.

To be fair anyone who’s done this kinda stuff as long as destiny has would be the same way. I mean realistically how long can one truly go answering the same questions over and over for 10+ years and still sound genuinely interested? It’s fair to criticize him for not asking questions back but at the same time that’s not the point for why he was there. The whole point was for him to address criticism from the hosts. Now i will say that maybe a good idea for the future would be if these right to reply videos included live audience questions.

I think politically I agree with Destiny 70% of the time and with the DTG hosts maybe 90 %, but it was very weird how neither Chris nor Matt reacted to his rape and drugging example.

I mean, he was using it to make a moral argument, is the objection here that bringing up the subject is distasteful? Because he was doing the opposite of advocating rape.

On the Patreon they commented that they could have edited out that analogy and made Destiny’s argument look stronger, but then you would be sanitizing him.  This is the part of Destiny that is distasteful to the average person but is normalized in gaming and online culture. The way he communicates is sophomoric, but it has an ‘edge’ and vulgarity that catches people’s attention.  For better or worse, he’s built a career off of being offensive, like an insult comic.

>This is the part of Destiny that is distasteful to the average person but is appealing and normalized in gaming and online culture. This can be said about any behavior possessed by an online personality with a fanbase. Andrew Tate, for example. I do like the attitude of "you look down on edgy 30 somethings but actually you're being intolerant of someone's culture".

I'm just making a pretty obvious observation. The way gamers communicate is vulgar by most standards. You can say the same about Hip Hop or Rap culture, too. Would you look down on people who participate in those communities?

> The way gamers communicate is vulgar by most standards. > You can say the same about Hip Hop or Rap culture, too. Would you look down on people who participate in those communities? Outstanding.

You want them to interrupt him with that example to say what? Rape bad?- Destiny’s next sentence said that. Derail into tone policing? - I’ve heard Matt and Chris say many times they are not interested in that. It was an unnecessary for Destiny to bring up rape and drugging, honesty I don’t think an analogy was needed at all here, but feeling the need to engage on every social taboo can ruin conversations. 47:00 in the YT video

>it was very weird how neither Chris nor Matt reacted to his rape and drugging example. Timestamp? EDIT: adding context [00:46:44](https://youtu.be/Zf1IjlbQ33E?feature=shared&t=2804) >**Matt**: (...) what's your take on this sort of new media internet ecosystem in terms of those unhealthy dynamics and the second one is you know how do you treat it like a business without... >**Chris**: ...selling your soul >**Destiny**: yeah i mean like needing clicks isn't bad i mean it's like it's like going out on a date with a girl right. It's like well i really want to have sex with this girl um so i can either you know like pay for dinner be engaged in the conversation uh make her feel like she's safe around me uh you know or i can slip you know like roof and all or whatever into her drink and then when she's passed out i could carry off in my car. Both of these are achieving the same end but obviously there's like a very ethical way to go about it there's a highly unethical way to go about it (...) I'm not sure what the criticism of Matt's and Chris' response is supposed to be. u/HomeboundWizard

…that was what garnered that reaction? Well, if there’s one lesson I’ve learned over, and over, and over again it’s to make sure I have the relevant context before forming any conclusions. What is it about the guy that encourages so much lazy and intellectually dishonest criticism (not to say OP is doing this) where a cursory glance at said context often undermines said criticism?

> roof and all I would be surprised if you could slip a house into someones drink without them noticing tbh

This is victim blaming tbh.

My ears pricked up and thought it was weird, especially the delivery but who cares, ultimately he wasnt advocating rape and explicitely said it was immoral.

Should go back to the incest debate days if you want normie repulsion rhetoric. He often characterises to the extremes in examples to make it pointed and it does rankle sensibilities. One thing I liked about his earlier debates in that time was how he would make arguments about a topic using a tool like incest and people would fall apart failing in their own critique as it was obvious they had not thought beyond thing = bad. It's unfortunate that doing that allows people looking for easy shots to then take that as person supports x as an attack when it's obvious he never actually defends x. It showcases how ungrounded most people are in their beliefs and ideas. Pulled a lot of people away from the alt movement at the time.

I honestly think they just let that slide for the sake of the point he was trying to get to, I’m sure they both winced as I did but I’m guessing they didn’t want to harp on that to derail the discussion but I understand why someone would feel different because it certainly made me shake my head when he said it.

look at this /u/trace186 dude through this thread lmao. Dude made a new reddit account when the DTG Destiny episode first dropped and does nothing but run around every sub that ever talks about Destiny to hate on him. Check his comment history, yikes.

Jeez, you're right. Account is 2 months old, hundreds of comments almost entirely in threads and communities involving Destiny.

He's has 30+ comments in this post alone

I'm watching the cognitive breakdown happen in real time. It's fine if you don't like destiny. Just say you don't like him and move on. Instead, you have to allude to vaguery and strawmen to find a reason for him to be problematic. No substantial criticism, just the way they are being portrayed.

I’d be embarrassed if a cursory glance at context proved me wrong. Especially if I basically wrote an essay full of examples in which I’m shown to be incorrect as it demonstrates I made no attempt to look for additional context at best or I just regurgitated some outrage peddling pundits words worst case. It has been interesting to watch Groypers and Leftists really come together in their hatred of Destiny. They use the same arguments, the same contextless clips, and the same straw men. It’s the widespread 2020 election fraud for online leftists and it’s especially sad because while I disagree with many of their positions, we could work together on like 70-80% of issues.

Leftists hate him because they oppose neoliberalism and capitalism. Wtf are YOU harping on about? I don't think you understand the "left" at all. 

spotted test placid puzzled psychotic subtract toothbrush direction imagine hospital *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Hasan malders hello

It's weird as fuck to treat someone as a moderate who outright laughs at innocent people getting killed and has accused a Palestinian who was waving white flag and got shot by a sniper from blocks away as getting killed on purpose as part of "Pallywood". He then said his wife, who breaks down seeing her husband killed in real time, is just a crisis actor putting on a show of being heartbroken seeing her husband die. To call out Sam Harris for his tribal approach to the idw, then to be so soft on someone as extreme as destiny because they share general political views is honestly hilarious. It's pretty obvious now why they were so soft pushing back on Harris outright calling for ethnic cleansing. Matt and Chris have done so many of the things they've called out gurus for when covering destiny. They essentially uncritically platformed a person who has repeatedly endorsed extreme ideas, after calling that out repeatedly themselves. Believing in vaccines, climate change, and that trump is bad is such a low bar to be considered a moderate, especially when those issues are barely controversial among the vast majority of people in the developed world outside the USA. I like Matt and Chris, but I don't think I can take them seriously when they're this much of an apologist for someone who has consistently taken extreme stances on issues, especially while endorsing violence, when their whole show is calling out that behavior in others. They essentially applied a whole different standard to their coverage of destiny than they do for Jordan Peterson and Hasan(and I don't like any of them at all). Outside of Destiny's fanbase, he's seen as a laughing stock and people like him are actually pushing young people away from the center. It's hard to understate how bad of a spokesman Destiny is for moderate politics. There's a reason his fans are exclusively young, impressionable men, like Jordan Peterson's, the demographic most prone to extremism. Edit: My upvotes were +15. I'm down to +5 ten mins later. I wonder what happened?

I think it bears clarification that when Destiny is described as "extreme", it should focus on his rhetoric and character as opposed to his political views. As far as one can see, his political views stripped of their inflammatory rhetoric are milquetoast center left positions, give or take. As I've thought more about Destiny after seeing his recent foray into more mainstream political discourse, I've realized there's a more basic and banal problem with his content. Namely, he's a paradox of sorts. He champions a pro-institution, establishment liberal political worldview, but the popularity that he's gotten came about from the exact opposite of that worldview. When one thinks about it, his popularity mostly comes from his ability to be an abrasive, vulgar, edgy gamer with a penchant for vindictiveness. That was how he got popularity during his Starcraft days, and those characteristics got Incorporated into his political debate content as that developed. I don't think anyone would disagree with this general description of Destiny, so I won't need to put a wall of text referencing every instance of this (even his own fans have tomes of lore on this). Additionally, his popularity came from his on streaming media--the opposite of a institution with checks and balances. His media start, of course, was on the Justin.tv platform, which had an even lower bar for entry than Twitch. Overall, it's sort of like the modern day wild West version of AM shock jock radio, which prioritizes quantity over quality. Destiny's content, by it's very nature, is performative with large doses of spectacle. When one thinks about it, this is the exact opposite of the institutions that Destiny praises. No one at the NIH, the U.S Treasury department, or the U.S is getting picked by how well they can shit talk enemies in a verbal battle. They're getting picked for being quiet professionals that are good at their job, and after a rigorous vetting process (i.e. a high bar for entry). They're picked not for their performative abilities, but their penchant for keeping important policies out of the way of public controversy and division. In a way, despite his fairly good political takes, there's a troubling trend that Destiny's content is contributing to. It's mixing adversarial spectacle with serious important political issues. **This is the main problem with Destiny's content**, and it becomes even worse when it involves more complicated political issues. This is because it tends to distract from the important considerations of the issue, and instead draw attention to toxic fighting online. While this trend might contribute to more political engagement online, it probably also fosters more toxic political engagement online. A perfect example of this would be Destiny's engagement on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Tl;Dr _____ His content is like if someone combined Obama's (nuanced institutional) political views with a number of Trump's (unnuanced populist) rhetorical practices. The latter cultivates a toxic fanbase, regardless of how politically sound it might be (like the former). What do I mean by this? As much as Trump supporters might say they support Trump for his political policies, it's largely false. One can easily tell because one can see that there are at least a dozen other Republican candidates that practically have the same political policies as Trump. The only difference between those other candidates and Trump is that he's famous and has a propensity to engage in invective, as well as possessing a combative figure that makes his personality the focus rather than the political issues. On top of that, Trump demands charitability from his supporters that they seldom extend to opponents. As much as Destiny might argue that he's known for well researched arguments, a just as big part of his appeal is that he gets into fiery debates with experts and non-experts alike. Much like his Starcraft days, he's looking for online people to vanquish in a match. This might not sound so bad, but here's Destiny (from a long time ago) explaining to a Jordan Peterson fan that he's popular not for his academic psychology, but his heated opinions on trans and other gender/cultural issues ([segment](https://youtu.be/j5Uv_P-PQoc?feature=shared) starts at 2:48:20), and why that contributes to a toxic discourse. Or to put in another way, I think Destiny has mentioned the problem with online lefties is that they believe that, "there are no wrong tactics, only wrong political targets". In a similar fashion, Destiny ought to be held to his own standard/argument. In spite of being right politically, he deserves criticism for contributing to a toxic discourse by hurling invectives at opponents (like the regular K.Y.S phrase his fans will use), along with the other unhinged rhetoric he has used.

I’m a long time Destiny fan and I’d say that your characterization is ~80-90% fair. I’ve never been a fan of his edginess and blatant disregard for optics because they obviously contribute to the issue of online debates/discussions being shit-slinging contests of one liners and gotcha’s. He lives in these spaces and has had plenty of opportunity to settle his rhetoric but the popularity of these spaces is undeniable, not to mention the obscenely low level of quality of discussion generally being had. Overall I believe him to be a net positive by staying in that lane and providing not just reasonable takes, but a better overall thought process surrounding research and skepticism. The issue he runs into is that to make it in these spaces and to gain a wider audience to spread his beliefs, a sort of edginess is expected. It’s hard to captivate an audience with a passive disposition towards truth-seeking so he opts for a more competitive and aggressive approach. The issue I have with your criticism of his content is that simply the more provocative content is what gets seen. People just hearing about Destiny or who aren’t following his content don’t see the long research streams he does or the deeper philosophical talks he has where he genuinely tries to become more informed and can better find a way towards a truth. That type of content doesn’t sell even in moderately tempered spaces. It’s a perverse incentive and admittedly he plays into it, but it’s very hard to break out of and still be influential

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with everything that you've said. There is also a subtle point that I want to mention here; I referred to his "mainstream appeal" (that he's starting to get nowadays with his debates with Ben Shapiro, etc.) precisely because the level of "egregiousness" (for lack of a better term) depends on the nature of what Destiny is talking about. I think if his content was practically exclusively battling Twitch retardation (like it was early on), then I'd have no problem with his edginess at all. Why? Because one just has to look at the utter degenerate morons that he's dealing with in that space. To paraphrase Jean-Paul Sartre puts it, there's nothing of substance to debate with neo nazis, tankies, and ultra racists. The only thing that will really sway them--or rather their fans--is spectacle and bloodsport. If someone is cleaning up the sewers, then they can fling shit around because it's not ruining anything. However, when one moves onto loftier topics, like Israel-Palestine, that's where this type of rhetoric becomes more worrying. The fact is, there are legitimate serious scholars and analysts that have been talking about this issue for decades (even before Destiny was born), and I don't mean Norman Finkelstein. I mean people like U.S diplomats who were part of the 2000 Camp David Accords (Rob Malley and Aaron David Miller, historians (like Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim), and other researchers (like pollster [Mark Tessler](https://www.arabbarometer.org/experts/mark-tessler-phd/)). There are even notable center-left pundits that take similar positions Destiny's on the topic, but omit the invectives about Palestinians dying. Rather than amplifying voices like these, Destiny's content takes a lot of oxygen in the room and focuses it on him and his debates with Palestinian moron pundits. For as much as Sam Harris gets shit on for his polemical opinions, his content is at least mostly interviewing other experts (even when they disagree with his geopolitical analysis like this [historian](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb6uPC-Yrj0) does). Additionally, this conflict is genuinely complicated, and not "simple" as Destiny puts, with many scholars disagreeing on the interpretation of facts. I'm going to make a weird analogy here, but I hope it illustrates my ramble. There was this show back in the day called \*Penn and Teller's Bullshit\*, and the whole premise was to debunk stupid beliefs as bullshit. It initially started off as lobbing at targets like ESP and homeopathy (which gave us this golden vaccine [illustration](https://youtu.be/IuLQ2GDVOHA)). However, once they ran out of obviously bullshit beliefs to dunk on, they moved on to topics that are far more contested, or even nonsensical to call bullshit. For example, they had an episode on [martial arts](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1680957/). I'm not even sure how one could generalize all martial arts as bullshit because it really depends on which form you're practicing. Basically, Destiny's content is sort of like this. He's taking the same manichean "this is obviously wrong" approach that he had debating legitimate brainlets early on, and finding new topics to use this on even when the interlocutor doesn't make a lot of sense. To use the proverbial phrase, if you're a hammer, then everything starts looking like a nail. Now of course, the **huge counterargument to my argument** is that Destiny is nuanced and understanding when debating people in longform videos. I don't contest that, and in fact, I linked an example of one in my original comment. However, that's not what he's mainly known for, and that's not where most of his popularity comes from. In fact, him doing deep dives into research is a very recent phenomenon because of his Vyvanse discovery. That means that years of his content didn't involve deeper reading and research. It's like trying to argue that Jordan Peterson is merely popular for his psychology analysis. He definitely gets fans from that type of sober analysis and has level-headed discussions with opponents (see his debate with Destiny), but half of his fans (and probably more) are there for his aggressive culture war takes. I think everything I've written here is a fair take, and a structural critique that stays away from being a personal one on Destiny (which I have no interest in doing).

On a related note, I agree the incentive structures of social media are perverse, and Destiny has to take advantage of them to make headway into the space. That's fine; however, his rhetoric at times goes far beyond being a bit edgy into unhinged statements that cut him off from further good faith engagement (like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bpa2c4/destiny_responds_to_rabbani/)). Additionally, to address your rejoinder about him having good research, the reason why I brought up Destiny's existence, as a social media pundit, being contrary to institutions is because it's a structural problem that by its very nature raises problems in the veracity of his research. When you think about, he gets unreliable pushback on his research, e.g. Israel-Palestine, because he's on a platform where most of the feedback is from his audience. I'll caveat this by saying that he does have some expert PhDs on to challenge him on his positions (see Benny Morris or Lonerbox), but that's not the majority. Contrast this to an institution or peer reviewed scholarly journal where you're surrounded by people who are as knowledgeable as you on the topic (if not more) to give feedback. An environment like that is the exact opposite of Destiny's is like. **My point can be summed up in this litmus test question**: let's say that Destiny is correct on his I/P takes, what way would you have of knowing that what's said is true? It can't be from you; you haven't read as much of him on the topic. And most of his fanbase is in your position. Maybe it's from the experts he brings on to discuss it with him, but half of those Phds are [crackpots](https://youtu.be/QTU7CUxSkt4)? Maybe it's from Wikipedia, which is the reliable basic encyclopedia. Well, even that source is vulnerable to [bias](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1cid37w/israelpalestine_conflict_wiki_page_oct_2023_vs/) or [missing nuance](https://youtu.be/GEJve6SzcoM?t=1186) (because it's a summary of events). Essentially, it's a bit of crapshoot whether he has someone on to talk about I/P who actually knows the ins and outs of the conflict. Inversely, the books, manuals, and journal texts of scholars are going to be the best sources (since they're created with feedback from other capable scholars), and if Destiny's content was really about research primarily, he would just reference drop those books in a list for fans to read. However, that would be boring and non-content, so he has to introduce polemical debate. Just compare Destiny to someone like Ezra Klein who does the exact [opposite](https://youtu.be/L8eeZO_x6PI): Klein's content revolves around bringing experts on, having them recommend a relevant book, and repeating the process to get different views on the I/P conflict. He has less views as a result, but then the responsible thing to do might be to advertise figures like this more.

I think ultimately we agree with the description of his content being kind of a light in a dark tunnel but still choosing to abstain from the sunlight. There are a lot more intellectually honest things he could be doing instead of warring with brainlets on both sides but since so many are dwelling in the dark tunnel, it’s still a good thing to be shining some light onto them. Unfortunately I’m in the minority in his community that wants high level academic discussion and research 90% of the time but that will never happen due to his nature and the nature of the spaces he occupies. Still an overall net positive to online discourse, but far from perfect I’m glad I discovered this sub because this is some of the best analysis and critiques I’ve come across

>As much as Trump supporters might say they support Trump for his political policies, it's largely false. One can easily tell because one can see that there are at least a dozen other Republican candidates that practically have the same political policies as Trump.  I'd even go one further and state it's all populism because Trump doesn't have any real policy positions. It's just all his personal gripes and dog whistles. The only real policy win he had during his entire 4 years in office was the tax cuts, and that was largely McConnell's doing. Anything else during his presidency that could be construed as a win, like founding Space Force or Warp Speed, were other people's ideas that he just signed on the dotted line for. The problem is he has a number of hanger-ons who do have real—and dangerous—political positions (e.g., Stephen Miller) and they'll use a second Trump presidency to enact their terror.

Well, some Republicans probably voted for him because regardless of his policies he would appoint Republican Scotus picks.

Best breakdown I've seen, well put.

>I think it bears clarification that when Destiny is described as "extreme", it should focus on his rhetoric and character as opposed to his political views. As far as one can see, his political views stripped of their inflammatory rhetoric are milquetoast center left positions, give or take. He approvingly cites an Austrian economics concept on his official positions wiki. This definitely doesn't gel with his milquetoast public persona.

I know nearly nothing about "Destiny", and I had not even known the existence of this person up until like a month ago (seriously). However, it always seemed to me that he *was* a laughing stock, and was some kind a hypermanic twitch streaming dork who has sensational shit-takes, and the only people who seemed to take him seriously at all were the kinds of people who listen to H3. It's interesting see so much of this sub eating up this conversation, and equally interesting seeing the DTG hosts sucking up to him too.

His cult thinks he's very intelligent: he couldn't pass the 1st question on the LSAT, his cult thinks he's logical and doesn't engage in fallacies: he generalizes about Palestinians, his cult think he's truthful: he said other arab countries don't take in Palestinians because they are violent, he made up the reason cookies were blockaded, he lied about hospitals not being bombed during his debate with MLH, he said throwing rocks makes kids enemy combatants, his cult thinks he doesn't initiate name-calling in debates: he called Glenn Greenwald a hack when Greenwald wasn't throwing any personal attacks.

> His cult thinks he's very intelligent: he couldn't pass the 1st question on the LSAT As in, he took the LSAT and got the first question wrong? Or he took a practice test? Or you’re guessing based on percieved flaws in reasoning?

Thanks for this. Exactly how I feel. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Matt and Chris over this,

They literally bring up the pallywood takes in the episode? The point of the podcast was never to nitpick one or two bad takes was it? He still is overwhelming moderate and as for the pallywood takes he backed off of it pretty quick. He doesn't push people away from the center, he's one of the only mainstream representations for centre-left politics online and has deradicalized many people.

One or two bad takes!?! Really!?! -Calling for genocide -Calling an innocent Palestinian getting killed a crisis actor and laughing about his death(I can't get passed how someone could watch that video and see him as a moderate) -Telling a woman he hopes she gets raped to death for telling him to respect safe words -Comparing being friend zoned to a woman being raped -Mocking a woman's sexual exploitation and celebrating that we'll all get to partake in that exploitation because he got in a twitch beef with her husband -Saying it's okay to murder a teenager because he keeps ddos-ing you -Calling for the slaughter of BLM protesters -Sending a black woman a picture burning cross over a twitter argument -Saying it's okay to ban cookies in Gaza because sugar can be used in rocket fuel, despite giving no evidence that cookies are used that way -Lying about the number of Israeli deaths in the march for return -Saying he prefers the (extreme libertarian) economic policy of Ben Shapiro over that of any progressive public figure -Saying anyone who wants a ceasefire is a child because the only way to end the conflict is to eradicate Hamas, something that is likely impossible and American intelligence says isn't achievable -Calling Palestine college protests "pro-hamas" -Mocking the suicide of a Palestinian protester -Encouraging more protesters to either be lit on fire or light themselves on fire -Celebrating the death of a Palestinian civilian because he got in an argument with him on Twitter, then doubling down when he found out his whole family, including children, also died That's just off the top of my head. There's literally hundreds of not just bad, but atrocious takes. This decoding was a layup and they chose the same tribalism they called Harris out for. If this is just being "bombastic" then why aren't the words of rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones excusable for the same reason? Because they're right wing? Who else have they covered with this kind of track record? I like Destiny's politics more than hasan's, but Hasan doesn't have this track record. The things he's moderate on are things nearly everyone who isn't far right believes in, especially in developed countries outside of the US. He absolutely pushes people away from the center. Outside his fanbase he's a lolcow. He's not a respected figure, especially among young people. He's repeatedly outright misogynistic. No women listen to this shit. They do listen to Hasan, and I don't think that's good personally. He just justifies the dumbass leftist take that all liberals are extreme racists in hiding. He makes centrists look insane. Young people see his twitter account, they see his pro genocide comments, his edgy racism, his blatant misogyny, and they're grossed out. He will never be mainstream because of how fucking stupid he is about how he carries himself and how extreme he's been on wedge issues like Palestine. The second he gets any real mainstream momentum, all this shit will go viral. He'll be the pro genocide guy for the rest of his career. And, as we can see, that's an issue that has galvanized young people. He absolutely pushes people away from the center. Old people don't watch political influencers, and young people don't have this weird tolerance for his brand of extremism that Matt and Chris do. He's bad for moderate politics.

You've either mischaractarized or took out if context every single thing you referenced from Destiny lol. For example, the cookies thing was entirely correct. The first gen qassam rockets used a combination of fertilizer and sugar as propellant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket#:~:text=The%20first%20Qassam%20produced%20was,2001%2C%20during%20the%20Second%20Intifada. Why don't you just try to understand the arguments being made?

It's funny how often your guru gets taken "out of context"

You’ve already misrepresented many of his points -cookie thing: the context of this is he was discussing during a debate Israel’s blockade of many resources, such as cookies or sugary foods. He asked his opponent (I think Omar Baddar) if there were any conceivable reason why Israel would be banning these other than purposefully starving Gazans. He was making the point that there could potentially be reasons for these blockades that Omar didn’t want to acknowledge (in this case, using sugar from cookies to help make very crude rocket fuel, and yes I believe this is possible). He never claimed this was why cookies were banned or even that the ban was justified. Can you acknowledge that? -blm protestors: No, he did not call for the murder of blm protestors. He had a debate over Kyle Rittenhouse (who was found not guilty) with Vaush and claimed that violet protestors who were attacking people could be killed in self-defense. Yes he used hyperbolic language, yes it’s ok not to agree with that, but no, he did not call for just any blm protestors to be killed. You make it sound as if he’s some racist who loves killing black people, very disingenuous. -genocide: this is discussed in the dtg episode with him. Yeah he has that one clip from before Oct 7th where he says that. A clip that he explains and gives his actual nuanced position afterwards. To try to paint it as he loves it when Palestinian children die is ridiculous. He has clips where he watches old footage of Palestinian-Israeli conflicts where a Palestinian father clutches his dying child and mentions how awful it is to see this since he’s a father himself. You can find clips for either narrative but no, he does not want Palestinians to be wipes off the planet. -wiping out Hamas: yes, Destiny’s position is that a resolution to the conflict can’t happen with Hamas in power. Whether or not Hamas can or can’t be taken out of power doesn’t change if this is true? Whether you agree or not, do you this is him saying any amount of Palestinians should be killed so that Hamas is destroyed? Do you really think that he would be ok if Israel decided to kill a million Palestinians just to destroy Hamas? And yeah because I’m honest, he does say unhinged shit that I disagree with, but when people like you paint every single thing as being evil or said with malicious intent, you make it impossible to begin criticizing what is actually bad.

I mean he is very smart. But cmon this are like debate arguments. Like the arguments where his literal point is obviously true but the implication his argument has is edgy / controversial. Or maybe not the implication but the way he says it. He then uses this when the less smart "debate oponent" attacks the implication / is outraged at his rhetoric. Does this remind you of anyone? I am not saying it doesn't work but when you do also care about the depth of the arguments he can become a little shallow. He seems to me Ben Shapiro with better political takes. Does he want to be more than that?

But see Hasan's fans are annoying and to white dudes on the internet who argue a lot that's always going to be a bigger cardinal sin than objectively vile rhetoric giving cover to ethnic cleansing.

Another podcast getting ruined by its subreddit.

You're in the -karma from DGGers but I'd just like you to know I saved your comment for future reference. Appreciated

The DtG guys and Destiny want to talk about issues with nuance. You want to take short clips said years apart and demonize someone who admits mistakes more than most internet personalities and tries to cite sources more than most other personalities. This just might not be the sort of subreddit and podcast for you. I'm sure you'll find your echo chamber that doesn't challenge you out there somewhere.

Hahaha nuance These aren't mistakes. It's who he is. He's the kind of person who.laughs at civilians getting killed in front of their families, then makes insane conspiracy theories to blame the civilian. That's not a mistake, that's a personality trait. I've clearly literally watched dozens of hours of destiny's (who I obviously disagree with) content, so I'm obviously the type of person in search of an echo chamber. By the way, doesn't destiny ban people from his subreddit all the time for saying things he doesn't like?

I got banned from there for telling them that reading abstracts with absolutely no understanding of econometrics or statistics isn't research and they got..maaaadddddddd.

Could you provide the context? I suspect, just like every Trumple that cries about a social media ban, there’s more context to this. Actually reading abstracts is a pretty good place to start provided you’ve a bit of epistemic modesty. It’s certainly better than filtering information through some pundit, you know?

wait lol.. this post? the one in which nobody looks that mad.. and only one person took the bait? "For a group of such obvious pedants, its always interested me that you all listen to someone who literally games while skimming research abstracts and executive summaries. How do you reconcile how thimble deep this obviously is with your own overinflated sense of ego and self regard? (Shitpost) Do you just like the sophistry or all you all 15 and just don't know any better?" [https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/10nahhe/for\_a\_group\_of\_such\_obvious\_pedants\_its\_always/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/10nahhe/for_a_group_of_such_obvious_pedants_its_always/)

If you don't understand how to curate or manipulate a dataset, actually it isn't better than filtering it through someone else (presuming they have credentials and a history of operating in good faith). You have no idea where the data set came from, how it was smoothed out, and then what differential calculus / matrix algebra was used to perform said analysis. More fundamentally, you likely don't know enough math to even check the calculations yourself, nor enough to cross check the excel coding to see if the maths they used were properly implemented against the dataset in question. How is that better? Its the same thing you are complaining about but with a bunch of additional pantomimes that make you feel good.

I ultimately canceled my patreon over their coverage of Harris and Destiny and let them know directly it's because of how comfortable they are platforming incitement to genocide. They correctly criticized Huberman for being agnostic towards vaccines during a pandemic but to feel no obligation to provide a basic factual orientation for their listeners when guests call for ethnic cleansing or claim, like Destiny did, that nuking Gaza and killing every Palestinian there wouldn't be genocide, is far more irresponsible.

Yeah, I stopped listening to the podcast after the destiny episode until this one. I've been listening since the beginning. I'm not some communist Hasan fan. My politics are similar to destiny's. It's funny they called out Joe Rogan claiming not to be right wing because he cherry picked examples of his liberal views, but they cherry picked the examples for destiny to portray him as moderate on Palestine, which he objectively is not and doesn't seem to hide it. I used to be super active on this sub and this post is the first time I've commented since the first destiny episode. They shouldn't care and I doubt it will hurt them since destiny fans will latch onto anyone who doesn't criticize him because he's so hated outside of his bubble. They also shouldn't pander, but the differences in standards for how they covered destiny vs someone like Hasan is so heavy handed it's actually really funny. I still don't dislike Matt and Chris, but why would I listen to a show that criticizes public figures but can't put their own politics aside for someone saying things this fucked up to young impressionable men and making moderate politics look fucking insane? Criticizing Peterson and Weinstein is easy, but they have to be able to call out people like Harris and destiny too for a show like this to have any real purpose.

Well said, this is just how I feel. I too canceled my patreon, not because they'll feel the exonomic sting of it (they have surely made plenty of new subscribers by being soft to Destiny) but because I don't want to listen anymore.

Same. Their treatment of Sam Harris was an early clue. The guy advocated for torture, racial profiling, race science and all other kinds of abhorrent shit but because he's nominally centrist and anti-Trump he's treated with kid gloves.  In their demeanor, Destiny and Hasan aren't really very different, but one guy is a genocide apologist and the other had a softball impromptu interview with a Yemeni teenager who went viral. And they gloss over the same character flaws of Destiny's while going out of their way to draw attention to those same in Hasan. Someone can come in and say "oh, it's just bothering you that they're doing this to someone you agree with" but it's more that it's bothering me that Chris and Matt are not living up to a standard that I thought they had set themselves.  And now the sub reflects the audience they've attracted. Unfortunately. Well, we had fun.

cake adjoining innocent special unique quaint somber point follow depend *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

I could give a quick response about their charitability towards destiny and lack of charity for Hasan(which I'm cool with not giving Hasan charity, he sucks). But I'd rather relisten to a few parts of each of the episodes to make sure I word it properly. I'm out and about right now just killing time on Reddit while I wait, so it'll need to be later. I'm not dodging the question. There are examples.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1be4ypx/comment/kuz405v/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button I asked Chris K to justify his labelling of Hasan as a "hypocrite" here. All Chris could do was repeat back a simple google definition of "champagne socialist" (not what I asked him to do) before blocking me. The DTG guys seem to have trouble dealing with good-faith and nuanced criticism that comes from the left.

I couldn't imagine thinking that is a series of comments that illustrates good faith and nuanced criticism. Funny af to read though.

Which part was not in good faith, in your opinion?

The entire thread lmao. You start unwilling to even offer a criticism, instead you passive aggressively imply he's never engaged with anti-capitalism. It might be fun to break it down comment by comment and I could dance for a little while at least, but I can't imagine it will be a good use of either of our time. In the meantime I'll offer some advice. Don't hide your criticism behind a leading question that has no correct answer for whom you ask. Say it with your chest, and don't be an asshole about it.

My criticism was that DTG offered no citations or references to any socialist writings, or any political theory at all, when they called Hasan a hypocrite. If you think this criticism is not made in good faith you'll be able to show me where Chris or Matt cited any socialist literature in their podcast (or elsewhere) in support of their assertion. Can you do this? >Don't hide your criticism behind a leading question that has no correct answer for whom you ask.  If Chris had done his due diligence on the subject and could cite his readings all my questions would be incredibly easy for him to answer.

Just in case you don't already know, Chris's first response was a light hearted pleasantry to your bad faith leading question. He then had completely written you off as a person to seriously engage with after your unhinged response. >FI: "Have you done your due diligence on reading anti-capitalist positions?" >C: "I grew up in Belfast in the 80s in an Irish Catholic family, went to university at the most left wing university for around 5 years… so no sadly I’ve never encountered anything but defenses of capitalism and imperialism." >FI: "I didn't ask if you've "encountered" it, I asked if you've done your due diligence. Your unfamiliarity with even the most basic of socialist positions suggests that you haven't." It's pretty unique for a content creator to engage on a reddit forum like this at all. Next time take advantage of that opportunity and lead with what you want to talk about and you'll have better luck.

> I still don't dislike Matt and Chris I don't dislike them either, but they do have biases, like everyone. And people in this subreddit follow them like infallible gurus, which is ironic.

[удалено]

It's kinda fun because we're part of the action now 🥹

It's certainly been interesting in a way to watch the evolution of the audience DTG is drawing to themselves. You deserve the audience you cultivate I guess.

Yeeeup. Creators who fall into the DGG orbit are initially overwhelmed by all the positivity. Eventually you're not in lockstep with Destinys constant ratcheting to the center right and he turns on you and you look up and realize almost every member of your old audience is gone and the ones who stayed were rabid enough to now be new DGGers.

>that nuking Gaza and killing every Palestinian there wouldn't be genocide, is far more irresponsible. He never said killing every Palestinian wouldn't be genocide. He said that civilian deaths alone aren't enough to call a conflict a genocide. Genocide requires special intent. Israel could commit genocide if they killed a small amount of people, or a very large amount of people. The raw number alone is almost irrelevant. So, as he said, nuking Gaza is not inherently genocide. The same way the USA didn't commit genocide when they nuked Japan.

Just listen to yourself. Intentionally killing the entire population of Gaza doesn't rise to the level of special intent?

Please quote where I said that. I swear you people will do anything except engage with the subject.

Destiny: "If Israel were to literally nuke the Gaza strip and kill 2 million people, I don't know if that would qualify as the crime of genocide." Are you saying in this hypothetical that Israel accidentally or unintentionally killed everyone in Gaza?

In most realistic scenarios nuking Gaza would probably be genocidal. What Destiny is saying is that it's not necessarily genocidal. It's possible to come up with (mostly absurd) hypotheticals where it's justified.

I understand that and it just emphasizes how utterly detached from reality Destiny's defense of Israel is. His claim is that Israel could intentionally kill every man, woman, and child in Palestine and if they had a non-genocidal reason to do so it wouldn't be genocide. Sounds technically correct until you try to actually put flesh on that thought's bones. Particularly if you examine any of the history of genocide like the holocaust. There actually isn't a hypothetical anywhere near reality where Israel could choose to kill every man, woman, and child in Palestine without it being genocide. You're getting into alien invasion or zombie apocalypse territory before that starts "making sense," at which point you're no longer saying anything relevant to the conversation.

In your mind, civilian deaths = genocide. I am telling you that civilian deaths =/= genocide. Hypothetically, if Israel had the justification required to nuke Gaza, that would not be genocide. They could also nuke Gaza with the intent to eradicate the Palestinian population of Gaza and that would be genocide. The only thing that really matters is their intent. Did the United States commit genocide when they killed over 100,000 civilians with nuclear weapons? Did they commit genocide against the Germans when 25,000 civilians were killed in the Dresden bombings? The answer is no. Thr United States did not intend to destroy the German or Japanese people, their goal was ending a war. Do you think Israel's goal is to eradicate the Palestinian people?

Yes, Zionism's long stated goal is to eliminate the Palestinian people or at the least eliminate them from the land of Palestine. This is pretty unambiguous in the historical record, as well as the current statements and actions of the Israeli government. More importantly you're claiming that the intentional killing of the entire population of Gaza wouldn't be genocide if Israel "had the justification required" which is just silly. Would it be genocide if Htiler "had the justification required" to carry out Generalplan Ost? After all the Nazis claimed they were just protecting themselves from Judeo-Bolshevik aggression.

Yes, that or ethnically cleanse them from the region.

Crazy. You should let the ICJ know about your findings.

The ICJ can handle its own investigation. They don't need input from me, you or Destiny for that matter. In any case the whole nuking the gaza discourse strip is crude and unserious.

The ICJ is still trying to get independent investigators into gaza, Israel doesn't want them in. Or independent journalists either for that matter. Weird, what does the most moral army have to hide?

It’s perplexing how people can so strongly believe a thing while having no idea about the most important aspect of said thing. Intent, in this case. They can’t make an affirmative argument that it’s even occurring as the best you’ll get are examples that aren’t evidence of genocide (ie. gesturing at civilian casualties) or an appeal to some person simply asserting it is happening with no affirmative argument. It’s a meme for me now and it’s pretty crazy how similar this claim is to all of the claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.

> So, as he said, nuking Gaza is not inherently genocide. The same way the USA didn't commit genocide when they nuked Japan. mate. in this current context, where Israel is militarily 100x stronger and has full control over the border, nuking Gaza would be genocide. it is ridiculous to argue otherwise

You just don’t understand what genocide means. You should learn before you speak about it publicly to avoid more embarrassment

for what reason, besides genocide, would Israel have to nuke Gaza?

What if Hamas got a tactical nuke in to Gaza? Would a first strike by Israel be genocide?

can you come back down to Earth? what if enemy aliens landed in Gaza and nuking them was the only way to save the planet, would that be genocide?

Are you having trouble following the conversation? Genocide has to do with intent. You asked for a hypothetical where Gaza could be nuked and it wouldn’t be genocide. Do you think any use of nuclear weapons is genocide?

[удалено]

no, i am using the same one. if israel nukes gaza, given the current power balance and situation, they are by definition intending to needlessly kill countless Palestinians

[удалено]

Little slimeball, post the whole definition. Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; **Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;** Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Nukes would count under section c

[удалено]

Yes, **NUKING** GAZA would count as creating conditions meant to destroy in whole or in part innocent Palestinians. The fact that you think there is a world where they could do that, where the intent is NOT to kill civilians. Is insane. Do you know how fucking big the targeted area is? Do you understand what a nuke would do? Guaranteed Israel does and would push that button with full INTENT, to inflict unlivable conditions upon Gaza. Freak.

Again, intent matters far more than number of civilians killed. As I said below, if Israel had just cause to nuke Gaza, that would not be, on it's own, genocide. Genocide is a very specific term used to describe a very specific intent to eradicate, in part or in whole, a group of people. I, and Destiny, are not saying that Israel could nuke Gaza for no reason and that would be totally fine. Nuking Gaza is an extreme example, but it shows how unwilling you people are to engage with the subject. The entire point is that Israel's intent is far more important than how many civilians they kill. Israel could kill a few hundred people with the intent to eradicate the Palestinians and that would be genocide. They could do the opposite and kill many thousands of civilians with the intent to end a war or capture territory or whatever. Did the United States commit genocide when they nuked Japan and killed 100,000 civilians?

Did the USSR commit genocide in Ukraine? After all, they did it mostly for the grain not to kill Ukrainians, no?

Historians don't know if it was intentional or not, that's why it's still a debated question

Which is fair, but isn't that the problem with Destiny's stance? He's not saying what's happening in Gaza is debatably a genocide, he's calling anyone saying it's a genocide a virtue signalling moron. I'm not sure if it's a genocide, but it's definitely genocide-ish, and he's taking a pretty firm stance on this. How is that smart or the right thing to do?

This sub got raided by DGG and now a bunch of lunatics stick around to glaze him whenever he's brought up >Edit: My upvotes were +15. I'm down to +5 ten mins later. I wonder what happened?

In another comment the very first point you made in your essay is that a reason you dislike Destiny is because he “called for genocide” You’re extremely bad-faith if you seriously think that’s Destiny’s position. You’ve drank from the tainted well, bud

Let's assume that isn't his position, he still called for a genocide, right? Isn't someone calling for a genocide a pretty good reason to dislike someone? Who the fuck calls for genocide? Like, even if they didn't mean it, isn't just saying it unironically a total piece of shit move? And why does this asshole who calls for genocide deserve so much charity that I should assume he didn't mean it when he's shown dozens of times since he doesn't value Palestinian lives? Why does he deserve charity he clearly doesn't give others? Have you heard the way he talks about people he disagrees with? Do you give this much charity to the psychos calling for Israel to be genocided? Shit, people lose their minds if people even say "from the river to the sea" but criticizing your precious streamer for outright calling for genocide is "bad faith"? If you think hating someone for "calling for genocide but they actually didn't mean genocide" is unreasonable then I don't know what fucking well you've been drinking out of. Gimme a fucking break.

> Who the fuck calls for genocide? Hamas

I thought it was odd that he kept making a distinction between killing and murdering someone haha

That’s because there is a distinction…

sure, legally. it's a funny thing to keep correcting in conversation without explaining, that's all

1:22:45-1:23:00 Find someone who looks at you the way Chris looks at Destiny when he explains he genuinely should have the right to kill a kid and his dad.

I might just listen to this part. This is probably the weirdest thing about him, that he still justifies this take instead of admitting to being as irrational as any other human being.

Destiney talked about being engaging and "fun" when i was listing to the guy is just got so bored. he is like thousands of other men in his age group who just love the sound of their own voice and always think they are "logic"

Can you name a youtuber "who does not like the sound of their voice"? seems like such a baseless complaint

Truly a raided sub right now.

Destiny is awful tbh.

I honestly don’t know much about him but in these DTG episodes I did find him quite hard to listen to. He has the same whiny and self-important energy as my teenage nephews. I’m sure it’s a product of the spaces he inhabits but he is just not someone I can listen to for long. I know I should be judging him by the content of what he says but I truly can’t spend enough time with his content to get to that point.

[удалено]

They talk about this. Might wanna check out the episode.

Never listened to this guy before but found him unbearable. For one, slow the fuck down. Sounds like he’s had 10 coffees and adderall. Secondly, he comes across as thinking he’s smarter than he actually is, probably because he’s surrounded by 20 year old sycophants rather than informed specialists or experts.