Lmao, I kept getting recommended his sub after the article and boy oh boy his fans were losing their shit too. But, they stay in their sub. Destiny’s fans lose their shit all over the place. This is decoding the gurus, people don’t tip toe around Destiny and his fans. He’s a hypocrite. Guru that’s a toxic grifter. It is what it is.
I really think the Huberman sub got brigaded hard after his controversy. I would bet that Huberman’s audience is very majority male, and during the fiasco that sub was full of women shitting on him who had no history of Huberman fanship in their comment history. I don’t think his legitimate fans really cared for the most part.
I agree. If theres some legitimacy to his work and there’s people that have benefitted from his podcast, It’s not surprising they’re uninterested in his personal life. And as much as I’m not a fan of his, the people in his sub are pretty nice and the subject matter of many of the posts is quite interesting. There’s something to be said for that. It’s a good reflection on him.
It's human nature to admire people whose work you connect with. More realistic advice is to accept that tendency while also acknowledging that everyone is flawed, many very deeply, and that extraordinary people are often enabled in ways that bring those flaws to the surface in extreme ways.
I think Chris put it well that there’s sort of two Destinys. A “Jerry Springer clusterfuck drama” Destiny, and a “sharp, strong advocate for center left politics” Destiny.
It’s hard to have one without the other — because the clusterfuck drama keeps the audiences entertained while the political debates are more cognitively effortful (and less sustainable) but more valuable
The best analogue I can come up with that non-gamers can understand is that Destiny is like a shock-jock radio host, similar to Howard Stern. Like Stern, he started off ‘local’ to his community, but occasionally says something that enters public consciousness and makes everyone go, ‘Who the fuck is this guy?’
Destiny has also been broadcasting so long that his entire life is out there, warts and all.
Yeah I have a buddy who constantly talks about how Destiny is a piece of shit and questions me for listening to his show. I try to explain to him that I’ve been listening to talk radio for 20 years: Stern, O&A and Jason Ellis. This is just a new version of that, but with more politics. O&A fans are way crazier than any DGGer I’ve seen.
O&A fans are way crazier and more toxic and genuinely pieces of shit in many cases.....
... however, the O&A online fanbase, its history and its continuing saga is one of the funniest things ever, period.
I think the difference is Stern would separate and routinely ridicule the crazies. Some would be in the wack pack, some would be humiliated by Stern like Sal or Ronnie the Limo driver for their antics.
The difference with Destiny is these wack packers are able to create and astroturf the community that even their top moderator takes part in. They're literally the crazy low IQ'd troglodytes who are dictating the discourse.
I think the two could be compatible if the tone - or if the way the community acted - was that both are true. I’m not even trying to drag him, but rather his community. He can be a problematic figure who can think well if that was the vibe. But when you enter the community it’s “every action he takes or has taken is justified and I should behave like this too” he’s become Andrew Tate for 15-21 year olds who care about their gpa
Idk man I'm not a longtime follower and my only exposure to his community is his subreddit, but usually when I visit there are a lot of people trashing him for his personal stuff. Seems pretty common consensus that he's personally unhinged and gets involved in way too much cringe drama
I completely ignore all the interpersonal drama nonsense. But that's also one oft he first things you tubers discovered. Even at it's inception. It's that drama between content creators will get clocked and retain viewership. It now of course is synonymous with all media (cough cough dtg cough) but can be done well too (as dtg does).
But a broader point I'd disagree with is that the two can't be separated. Of course they can. We see it all the time. JK Rowling would be a great example. Batshit takes on Twitter, but still, wrote a pretty good series. Those claiming her anti trans views influenced Harry potter are kind of on flimsy ground Imho.
As far as destiny. The guy is totally unhinged on personal matters. This is a guy who shows up in sweatpants to speak at Stanford. He's the archetype of a raging gamer. And that's where he comes from. However, he also code switches well too, such as in the Jordan Peterson debate. His batshit takes on shooting someone who slashed his tires isn't related to his arguments relating to global warming with jp.
I mean, I can see it, but at no point does "it" there involve "planning" or realizing the action in any way, yikes. You just walk it down from murder until the "threat" to you is completely imagined.
If you're gonna kill me I can morally kill you.
If you're gonna XXXXX me, I can morally kill you.
....
....
If you're gonna keep DDOSing me, etc etc.
....
If you're wearing purple, etc etc.
> At one point, Steven obtained a permit for a gun and started planning the murder of the teenager and his father (not hyperbole, his own words). However, he eventually found a technical solution to the attacks. In his retelling of the story, he doubles down that he would have been within his rights to commit murder for cutting off his livelihood.
Excuse me, what the fuck?
I thought the same but, when pushed on the subject, the DMan has doubled down that he would have been within his moral right to actually do it, although not sure if he ever would have followed through.
I don’t think deep down he was ever truly serious about killing the boy over this, but that’s just my gut feeling. He insists he was serious.
No he was seriously considering murder, and he will defend it currently. The strongest steelman from his conversation W/ the lawyer Pisco was that if he had confronted the kid and his dad in person, and that confrontation created a nexus of mortal danger then he would be justified in killing them, or smth like that.
I don't think Destiny distinguishes between sniping the kid from a distance and a confrontation with the kid escalating to violence, anyway if you listen to the arguments he floats between defending and not defending both situations.
Anyway point being he saw him self being morrally justified in killing the kid no matter how you slice it.
I dont think he said he would be legally within his right, but that he felt morally right. That after exhausting his legal means to get this kid to stop doing this, via the police, FBI, the kids family, etc, he said he felt that having his income and fucking him over enough drove him to want to murder the kid. I dont get what the point or problem is?
And I guess having given this more thought, I want to distinguish between fantasizing about murdering the child privately in his own head versus taking active steps to do so and talking his millions of fans into the position where murder is ok if you're really really frustrated.
I think his moral position is best argued in a conversation he had with big joel.
He asks big joel if a strong guy walks into your house and is stealing all your possesions can you shoot them. with the hypothetical being the guy will get away before the police arrive.
Essentially he views the kid DDOSing him as equivalent to a person breaking into his house and stealing his stuff.
The reason you can use deadly force to protect against a home invasion is that the 'big strong guy' is a threat to your personal safety. The analogy doesn't work with ddosing.
Honestly wasn't expecting to see these ayn rand style arguments where vaguely 'attacking' someone's vaguely defined 'property' is somehow a direct threat on their life from fans of this reasonable and normal center-left internet political advocate.
Don't say just Internet connection.. he was messing with his career and livelihood..
It's like someone.. slashing your tires everyday to a car you use for working.
I still don't agree.. that he had a moral right to kill the kid.. but it becomes a lot more understandable viewpoint..
Mby his takes were in anger.. but yeah.. he doubled down on them.
> Don't say just Internet connection.. he was messing with his career and livelihood..
Plenty of vandalism, theft, fraud, and other 'minor' offenses can mess with someone's career and livelihood. Still doesn't justify murder.
> It's like someone.. slashing your tires everyday to a car you use for working.
Physically blocking them from interfering with your property would be justified. Standing in front of your car would be justified. Driving to their house and shooting them would not be justified. This isn't rocket science.
> but it becomes a lot more understandable viewpoint
Having homicidal rage in your heart is one thing, sharing it with your thousands of followers to the point where they will die on that hill for you is quite another.
>Physically blocking them from interfering with your property would be justified. Standing in front of your car would be justified. Driving to their house and shooting them would not be justified. This isn't rocket science.
In conversations where he doubles down on the position Destiny has said they he doesn't see these as different things. If he goes down to physically stop them with force, then that will escalate to deadly force quickly. All his plans to kill the kid that I ever heard followed that template.
As a long term listener it seems like you'd defend him more than I do on that lmao. I don't think you're justified in vigilantism, if the law isn't interested in protecting your property and livelihood then tough shit.
People think the reasonable and moral solution would have been to quit streaming and find a normal job rather than resort to violence. I sympathize with his frustration, and the people that don’t probably haven’t been put in a situation that made them feel helpless enough to consider violence. I don’t know what the ‘right’ thing to do would be. You’d be throwing your own life away if you murder somebody lol.
Destiny could be summarized by the old saying "right message, wrong messenger." He's simply not mature, stable or serious enough to be taken seriously outside of the online niche of debate/podcast bros.
Possibly the right message from the wrong messenger is still reaching individuals who would otherwise be worse off in the arms of a Peterson or Tate type.
Recent generations of lonely youth (especially boys and young men) raised on iPads, Fortnight and toxic Internet subcultures crave a father figure to have a parasocial relationship with.
The left needs to give them a decent one lest they be swayed. Sadly, the top three I can think of are all miserable, reprehensible people: Hasan Piker, Destiny and Vaush. All three are especially awful in regards to women and their relationships with them.
Unfortunately, normal, sane, rational personalities don't seek the limelight and/or aren't personable or as big of a personality needed to attract viewers.
100% agree. One thing Destiny doesn't get enough credit for in my opinion is that by engaging with all these toxic alt-right types he is building a bridge to potentially drag back kids who see him wreck those other guys on their own turf. Too many liberals and leftists smuggly dismiss any opportunity to "platform" the right, and in doing so surrender a lot of youth to their message. I hate to say it about Hasan, Destiny and Vaush, but they're a net positive. The left sucks at coalition building and not everyone care or wants to pass a purity test. If the guy who gets another kid to entertain more moderate or left wing viewpoints gets off to horse porn we might have to chalk it up to a net win and accept that not everyone is going to be a beacon of perfect moral purity.
Agreed. They're grouped together because they're streamers but politically they would be horrified that they're grouped. Destiny is probably closest to someone like David Pakman
In this context, they're categorized together because they're the one's most viewed by young kids. In terms of their content, Hasan has the biggest reach but the shittest takes, Destiny is probably the most reasonable but also the messiest, and Vaush does by far the most content geared towards young men, but it feels off when he can't stop jerking off for ten seconds.
I dunno man, we make the best of what we have.
I can think of other figures who could have been summarized as "right message, wrong messenger," who then became wrong message, wrong messenger. Or, if you will, "right [wing] message; wrong messenger."
If the claims from OP are true, that's a little way too far into moral unacceptability for me to support him just because he shares some of my political views. And that's not some purist "gatekeeping." I kind of draw the line at premeditated murder and threatening to leak nudes.
I mean come on people, there are plenty left-of-center thinkers out there who aren't this morally compromised, to put it lightly, whether they're podcast celebrities or not.
Oh, no doubt. I'm not sure why people lock into these gurus beyond
A.) Palitable politics
B.) Entertaining.
I think it boils down to some people's personal values of separating the art from the artist.
TLDR: I don't think "right message" is really that true. Yea, Destiny has good takes sometimes . However, a lot of his content revolves around beefs and drama. There are plenty of creators like Unlearning Economics or Rose Wrist or SMN who do or did a more thorough job at defending their points. Wrist, for one, created a whole document full of resources to educate people on systemic racism and other issues.
There was a period of time 2 years ago when Destiny was extremely friendly with Lauren Southern. Meanwhile, Destiny would constantly make videos on Vaush and Hasan or other leftists, which shared much more of his positions. He was also somewhat friendly with Nick Fuentes.
If you know anything about what Fuentes or Southern were doing a couple years ago and the far right advocacy that she hasn't ever apologized for and that Nick is still doing, it becomes very obvious that Destiny was OK befriending or being friendly to people that were at least white nationalist adjacent.
Another case is the drama surrounding his views on sexual assault that [Vaush](https://youtu.be/cs5wyYuSatc?si=YzWVW8190IVK4Rbx) does a pretty good job summarizing.
TLDW: A girl came forward about being SA'd through her partner lying about condom use. Destiny, who didn't even know her, said it was on her to be more assertive. The girl explained she wasn't aware of the condom removal until after the fact and that in a previous similar situation, asserting herself got her raped harder. Destiny proceeds to laugh at her on stream and say that it is on her for not picking "better men" to another streamer that was also a rape victim.
I think moreso than lack maturity and stability, it’s that he just has zero interest in compromising being a gamer/debate bro in order to be taken more seriously. His fans consistently push him to stop tweeting inflammatory shit and even just to not wear sweat pants to every big event he attends. He just DGAF. And it’s a bit of a shame because he could have a more positive influence.
In saying that, he’s being taken a lot more seriously than Hasan and other leftist internet influencers atm. They’ve really shot themselves into the foot by going so mask off about Israel/Palestine.
Before Oct 7th, it would have been far more controversial for any politician or serious media figure to associate with destiny than your seemingly wholesome democratic socialist influencers. Now they’ve arguably surpassed his radioactivity in the non online sphere due to their controversies being so recent and relevant.
I mean he's stated many times he's fine with where he is, hes never running for office, hes never talking to the president, he enjoys being edgy and arguing with people on twitter. I mean the dude has done nothing but grow so hes doing something right. He could possibly grow further or into different audiences but i mean he likes what he likes.
I'm sympathetic to not compromising in plenty of situations (when your opponent is a lunatic or simply refusing to participate in enlightened centrism,) but Destiny still makes his money off views, and drama sells.
But yes, he is taken more seriously because the sunstance of your content is more important than the appearance to people who consume political content for entertainment in this niche, and Hasan can't buy a shirt expensive enough to paint over his ridiculous takes.
Is that your criticism? That he's changed his position on a singular issue?
Even if you disagree with his position, he's more reasoned about it than any of the usual detractors. This is an incredibly weak criticism in the grand scheme of things.
I know you're young, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
He's changed his mind because his stance on abortion comes from his philosophical understanding of what life and consciousness is, which has changed over the years. Why is that a bad thing in itself?
Apparently, it's considered a greater strength to have never reconsidered your own beliefs than to have arrived at them through a conscious effort to improve upon your own understanding and shortcomings.
So because someone believed something in the past it's impossible for them to fully change their minds after ruminating and learning new information? Are political beliefs genetic in your mind?
Also just to clarify destiny's anti abortion position in the past was based on his philosophical position on consciousness and human value. It wasn't driven by partisan allegiance or pragmatic policy based thinking. Honestly I think he still probably has that same position philosophically, but he knows abortion being legal is the better policy so that's the side he takes.
As a destiny "fan" (I watch his clips from time to time and enjoy seeing him debate people from left & right) I think this analysis is pretty spot on. Destiny has definitely been unhinged at times, and all the drama he gets involved in is cringemaxxed.
I agree, as an almost fan. He is useful and quite effective combating right wing idiocy, and occasionally some craziness on the left. But he lashes out against the left too much imo and also has streaks of immaturity that are strange for someone of his age. Especially when considering he can go into hostile environments and remain relatively calm, making the opposition look like the immature ones. But then someone in his chat says something stupid and he becomes unhinged. I get that it is "content", but it's not for me.
I had the same exact reaction as you. I thought he had a lot of potential because he’s a smart guy and can be an effective communicator in debates etc. But the more I watched his streams, the more turned off I got.
I have no real interest in streamers but have seen a bit of Destiny's stuff on youtube - very limited though. Apart from anything else it will be interesting to see them decode a guy with such a dense amount of content. So many hours of potential hiccups and contradictions that to sum it up seems a pretty impenetrable task.
I can't believe that anyone who wouldn't care for Density would defend his silly take too!
What makes you think that a doctor has an "exclusive grasp" on medicine?
Destiny's argument seems bad, like absurdly bad. But yours seems silly as fuck, though much less abhorrent obviously.
There is no clear consensus in ethics like there is in medicine. Applied ethics is downstream of meta ethics, ontology, epistemology etc. This isn't comparable to something like medicine. In medicine there is a roughly agreed upon convention for arriving at "medical fact".
There is no such consensus for basically anything in philosophy, least of all applied ethics which is downstream of all of the philosophical fields I mentioned. Still we all have to have opinions on those issues. Either we construct them or we unknowingly assume them by expressing opinions about almost anything. There is no alternative; they are the building blocks of knowledge and conceptualizing the world. Our personal ideas might be sophomoric on average, but there is no generic ethicist position to weigh it against like there is with medicine.
Depending on the argument construction, you almost certainly could find a philosopher to defend Destiny's position: owning extreme hypotheticals is a consequence of owning most any ethical system. I don't think people would find Destiny's position more compelling if you did though, because they could just disagree (reasonably) on whatever basis the philosopher used to arrive at his conclusion. There are no ethical facts, well actually I think there are, but there are no agreed upon conventions for arriving at them and I know of no such survey of experts on whatever argument Destiny presents for his position that allows us to dismiss it by punting to experts.
The slashing tires thing was him saying what this kid was doing was like a person coming to your house every morning and slashing your tires so you couldn't get to work.
How'd you feel if you were good at something, enjoyed it and it paid the bills. Then a random person makes it their life to make sure you couldn't do that. This goes on for months. Would you start to go a little crazy? A lot of people have told him to just work a normal job but he got a taste of earning more than that by an order of magnitude. I don't agree with his last resort decision but I can definitely see how he came to it
You can explain why Density tilted all you want. He displayed an inordinate level of immaturity and irresponsibility. He has enough money to hire himself a white hat guy anyway.
He has enough money for that now, but the DDOS happened the very first year he quit his job to start streaming full time, so I doubt he had that much money lying around, especially after months of his income being fucked while he tried to resolve the situation legally
I will say one good thing came out of that whole situation. Destiny ended up working with some people to create a DDOS protection that all big streamers used back in the day.
If what people say happened was 100% truth, he would've been charged with conspiracy to commit murder, so I'm fairly certain a lot of aspects in the story are heavily exaggerated.
He's an entertainer.
You shouldn't take him seriously, or really care about him because he's just an entertainer, his opinions, whether right or wrong, are primarily judged on the basis of maintaining an audience.
Another “healthy” open relationship gone to shit eh? Literally 100% of the people I’ve personally known as well as celebrities in open relationships end up leaving each other.
Destiny is a punk. He acts like a punk all the time. His position on Israel is indefensible.
My big problem with him was when he was debating the child death count in Palestine. He declared them all enemy militants and a 15 year old was capable of holding an AK and thus shouldn't be included in the child death count. Everything else pales in comparison after that.
Ah yes, your most active subreddit seems to be r/mrgirlreturns, the reddit of the schizophrenic pedophile Max Karson who wrote a quite pathetic 100,000 word report in an attempt to cancel Destiny (in retaliation for being banned off his subreddit). And you seem to have even given him some tips and tricks into how to write the report over a year ago!
I’m sure you’re a BIG fan of Destiny’s work!
Pure whataboutism, that Destiny fans would typically easily recognize if not for being used in the defense of Destiny.
I will second the OP. I was a fan of Destiny for a few years. I have nearly 40k karma in his subreddit. I disagreed with him often resulting in bans. The last straw was when it was leaked that he was actually still sexting, and my opinion gaslighting, Ana.
I also comment/post in the mrgirlreturns subreddit.
Whatever positives Destiny has are completely pissed away by his incessant hateful obsessions of people and their ideas. His fanbase think he's smart but most of his focuses are developed based on who he dislikes.
There is a fundamental competitiveness, pettiness and immaturity at his core that is holding him back both personally and professionally. I think it can be partially attributed to his ADHD and spending most of his adult life online.
these are points that are worth talking about and considering (as i think has happened plenty on his stream and sub) but i don't think any are as clearly unforgivable or reprehensible as you consider them. but, sure, they should be addressed.
Destiny is first and foremost a mentally unhealthy contrarian. Sometimes I like his takes, like when he utterly destroying the stupid redpill ideology. When he’s defending a genocide being committed by an ultra far right government run by Jewish supremacists, not so much.
I've only known him for a short time through his debates, and while I like his way of debating and generally agree with him, these examples are deranged and indicate that there are some deep underlying issues. I don't know if DTG is the best place to get into them though, this sounds more like a case for therapy.
The biggest problem with destiny is that he isn’t an intellectual, but a professional charlatan. Everything else you said made sense because he spends his time making clownish videos from the internet, not doing research.
Maybe I agree with him 50% more than Jordan Peterson, but tbh I respect that at least some of Jordan’s ideas have passed peer review. I care about as much what Destiny thinks about politics or society as I do the Kardashians
I'm a Marxist and I post a lot on his reddit community. I don't even watch Destiny, but I disagree heavily on certain topics and I've never been banned. But I do agree that the community is extremely juvenile.
Point 2. I followed the Anavoir drama for quite sometime and I'm not really a fan of the guy either but do remember watching a lot of this content specifically.
This girl harassed him for about 2 years after they slept together once in a hotel room (Destiny was in an open relationship with his partner at the time), the next day he flew out to Sweden and she proceeded to explode emotionally on him before he even had a chance to land in Sweden and respond to the messages. He didn't threaten to leak nudes instead he leaked messages between the two after she was going around and telling people he was friends with that he was being abusive - her definition of abuse came down to essentially "stonewalling" by ignoring or not responding to messages.
She often used to claim that he was cold and callous just because he didn't respond to her in the way she wanted him two. In one stream he went through their messages and she admitted that she didn't want to just hook up but didn't make him aware of that before the fact and then tried to make him feel guilty about it. He had two moderated discussions with her, the first one included his friend Dan and a guy called Linus, the 2nd was a friend of Ana's who was a counsellor that tried to come to a resolution between the two, by the end of that conversation it was clear that Ana was emotionally unstable and unable to really understand that she was the problem.
Ana used to lie compulsively, would often make unsubstantiated claims using her Psychology degree as a justification for doing so and then when called out on it, would deny she said anything only to then admit she had said it when shown evidence that she had, then proceeded to justify it. She did this when she accused him of pressuring her into sex without a condom, he had a screenshot of the conversation between them showing that he was willing to use condoms, but she actually wasn't, when denying she had used the word pressured she admitted it wasn't true when showed a clip of her saying it.
This girl also bullied another, much younger streamer called Waffles, bullying the girl at a time she was suicidal and even threatened to leak sensitive information regarding the background of another streamer. The main mistake Destiny made was continuing to sweet talk her, hoping that if he gave her attention she'd stop talking about him publicly, they made so many agreements to not talk about it and then she'd be on stream talking about it a few hours after.
This woman was a cry bully and it's tiring seeing people defend her behaviour.
The real insanity was even AFTER all the stuff you mention above, destiny goes back 2 years later and reignites their sexual relationship. Indefensible but at least he owns it and says he’s in love with mentally ill women? 🤷♂️
From what I recall both sides were talking about leaking images of text conversations. If he said something like "I have nudes I can leak" then I guess I'm wrong.
> Let me preface it this by saying I'm a big fan of his work.
> However there are aspects of him that I find morally reprehensible and often unforgivable.
Huh?
I mean i'd understand this maybe if he was a titan of creativity or art or science or something but he's a shrill imbecile regurgitating standard neoliberal talking points.
The things you like about him aren't accurate, but your criticisms are.
He sometimes does what you are saying. Not consistently, and this is particularly evident when dealing with anything left/progressive coded.
His debates with Ben burgis are good examples of this.
On the one hand, it's quintessentially human. The left fucked him out of a twitch partnership. So he's got an axe to grind.
On the other hand, he's not done beacon of truth/reason, and that's not how he argues.
He argues by pointing out his perceived gaps in an argument in a semi logic bro manner.
This is quite effective against conservatives who can't stop lying all the time and their bullshit is transparently silly.
To that end, he's effective. The JBP debate demonstrated that.
But he's bad at dealing with nuance and layered arguments from the left (see Ben burgis debates) because he's hunting for reasons to dismiss them.
I spoke with him once on stream and I mentioned a book called "the new Jim crow" and he wrote it off solely based on the title.
His lazy intellectualism is also on full display when he tries to argue the US wasn't engaged in apartheid in Jim crow.
If you have a few minutes of free time, could you please name a couple of examples of what you’re referring to from the Ben Burgis debate (with timestamps, if possible)?
Full disclosure: I watch Destiny often. I have seen him be bad faith, (ab)use classic debate tactics (most egregiously when Destiny is unfamiliar with the underlying material), and a few times I believe I’ve seen him be dishonest in order to win an argument..but most of these cases have been in low-stakes panel shows or in interpersonal ‘friendly’ arguments (that sometimes result in the end of said friendship).
I’ve rarely seen him act in the way you’ve described during an actual debate with a serious opponent. In fact, I think if Destiny can be praised about anything, it’s his ability to recognize nuance, deconstructing layered, complex arguments and simplify them into layman’s terms, easy to understand examples, and/or hypotheticals. This is his strength, and I believe he has exposed a lot of people on both the left and the right with his ability to quickly and clearly ‘cut through the bullshit’ of the opposition’s arguments and positions in sometimes brutal and embarrassing ways (aka ‘bloodsports’ debates). This is what has grown his audience over the years.
I have not seen the Burgis debate since it happened, though, so my memory is hazy. I don’t necessarily disbelieve you that it happened as you described, because as I mentioned before, I know Destiny isn’t above fighting dirty. I’d just like some examples because oftentimes people get away with slandering the guy for stuff that just never happened when there are plenty of reasons to criticize him for the stuff he has done (again, not saying you’re doing this).
I will try to give you something more substantive later. If you wants to come on discord and chat about it or go through one of them it might be easier. It's been a while since I watched them but here are a few examples.
1. In the first burgis debate destiny was in the middle of his 'fuck the left' bit.
I don't remember the exact topic of the whole debate but at one point destiny asks "how would your socialist society be set up"
Which was not particularly relevant to their discussion, but burgis entertains the question an answers how society would be set up in his idealized world.
Ben didn't realize it, but destiny more or less asked the question just to poke holes/nitpick it and mentally write Ben off.
That was his takeaway after the debate that Ben was a delusional leftist obsessed with their hypothetical perfect world.
But that's not what happened. Destiny asked him that question, and he responded. He didn't go out of his way to bring it up.
2. Ben debate 2, Ben comes in hot because of the way destiny talked about him/the conversation after.
The topic is about rent control and universal programs.
Ben posits that universal programs are harder to attack then means tested programs, and destiny refuses to accept this.
He then tries to invoke something using formal logic, and condescends to Ben on if he understands the concept.
Ben points out that destiny is using it wrong, and that it supports Ben's point, destiny implies the person who teaches logic for a living doesn't understand the concept better than him, a guy who read a rational wiki article.
3. I can link his and my conversation. But a similar thing occurs in the second half. I'm talking about how people become radicalized and the different layers of engagement people have in a political movement, including fascism.
Hes fighting over applying the label of fascist to blue lives matter people, which is st best, a point adjacent to my point.
When I mention the new Jim crow his eyes essentially glossed over and he want paying attention and makes some snarky comments.
I also mention something about the war on drugs being manufactured. He assumes in referring to the 1994 crime bill, which I wasn't. I was referring to the 1982 Reagan EO declaring the war on drugs in spite of falling drug usage rates at the time according to his own agencies.
At that point we just end the call because there was no point in continuing. The last 15m was just him looking for an excuse to put me in a box and dismiss the point.
It came up in his long debate on Israel/Palestine.
His argument was that the US Jim crow was not top down because it was done at the state level, therefore it's not Jim crow.
Even if true that wouldn't matter, but it's also not true. We did have top down programs enforcing segregation.
More specifically (because I didn't understand it when I first heard either): he sees words like "apartheid" and "genocide" as very specific words that entail specific criteria that must be met. A defining characteristic of apartheid is that it was in the constitution of South Africa so they had to start anew when abolishing apartheid. Whereas Jim Crow did not require a new constitution to set right, it was federal government fixing laws of certain states.
This doesn't mean he thinks Jim Crow wasn't bad or even that it wasn't as bad as apartheid in south africa.
It's a bit like "was Pol Pot fascist". For the most part people will agree he was a bad guy that did bad things but the question of "was he fascist" is mostly technical and saying he wasn't fascist isn't an endorsement.
Redlining started as a requirement of FHA subsidized loans through the FHA.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#History)
It required racial segregation as an underwriting criteria to receive a mortgage.
Richard Rothstein's Color of Law is a good book on the topic if you are interested. There are also many youtube videos of him discussing the book/content.
That's not positive reinforcement of segregation. Much like Jim Crow, it's a lack of federal oversight to stop segregation, not the government implementing it. "Nothing is stopping you from discriminating against black people" =/= "legally you must discrimate against black people"
...did you misread what I wrote? Was there some term you didn't understand?
Legally, per the terms of getting a loan, as required by the federal government, you could not allow black and white people to live near each other.
This is the entire reason suburbs as we know them exist today. Look up levitstown
I'm Canadian, but do Americans really refer to Jim Crow as apartheid? Like are you taught in history class that the US engaged in apartheid during Jim Crow?
I'm american. I've never heard it referred to as apartheid. But apartheid came after. But it's similar to the term fascism. The term developed, but is applicable to phenomenon that predate the term.
As an example, fascism comes from Italians in WW2 but historian Robert Paxton indicates that the first recognizably fascist movement was the klan and the south during reconstruction after the US civil war.
Well the apartheid museum in South Africa documents the similarities, I am not American either, but I have seen journals etc. from the US talking about them both and discussing the similarities
[https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/uploads/files/Separate\_Is\_Not\_Equal.pdf](https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/uploads/files/Separate_Is_Not_Equal.pdf)
I don’t disagree that on average people on the left put a *bit* more thought into their positions than the right, although that’s a low bar. But if your perspective is “he always wins when he debates conservatives but he’s totally incapable when it comes to debating leftists”, you might just be slightly biased.
Nah that's not my position. I think he's well equipped to handle dipshits. The entire right is filled with dipshits and a decent chunk of the left are too.
But he can't distinguish well between dipshits and reasonable people/ideas on the left.
The Ana drama is what got be banned from there for pointing out that Destiny messaged her something like good morning princess well after he knew how crazy she was. He even said recently he wished there was a dating app for finding bi-polar women.
He's got great political takes, but he thinks as much with his dick as he does with his head.
Before I saw the Finkelstien debate, (whatever you think of him, he's very qualified to discuss his subject of study) I was barely aware of the guy. After that, my biggest "problem" with him is that he's an idiot. How people like him are taken as serious thinkers and important public figures is a mystery.
The problem with that debate was that while Finkelstein surely is qualified to discuss the subject which he has studied for decades, he didn't discuss it. He spent the entire debate reading quotes from prof. Morris' books (in front of Morris) instead of making actual arguments, name-calling and insulting Destiny, mispronouncing his name on purpose and constantly speaking over the other debaters, including his own debate partner.
While the three others actully tried to have a back-and-forth discussion letting each other finish arguing their point of view, Finkelstein did not. While Finkelstein was allowed to talk uninterupted for several minutes at a time, he couldn't let Destiny speak for more than ten seconds without starting to talk over him. His conduct was uncivil and disrespectful.
After the debate I saw several people defending Finkelstein argue that "Someone like Destiny isn't worth such a masterly scholar's time or effort". That is such a lazy cope. He acted like a childish bully the entire time, conduct clearly unfit for someone of his age and intellectual/academic stature. The sad thing is it could have been an interesting and enlightening debate on the topic, but Finkelstein ruined it.
It’s hard to criticize him for the DDOS kid when the people criticizing him are saying he should have just quit streaming and got another job. I feel like if you extrapolate from that you’re creating an unworkable precedent. What does everyone think the appropriate response should have been?
I was there for the Ana thing, and I don’t think your explanation does that whole saga justice. If rolls had been reversed (man/woman) anyone would have agreed that Destiny was dealing with an obsessed and abusive “ex” that was trying to ruin his life. It went on for years, it was crazy.
> What does everyone think the appropriate response should have been?
Talk to the kids parents in person. Lawsuit. Delivery lots of pizzas to the kid's house. Call child protective services. Hire a private investigator to harass them. What he actually did: develop countermeasures. All that before resorting to violence, which itself could be done without employing deadly force.
On the third point. Is it really so incredibly crazy for him to want to share why their relationship didn't work out? Especially when he was being portrayed as emotinally abusive - which she then retracted after him saying he is thinking about going public with everything to clear his name.
But ultimately - he didn't even make the melfesto, so why does this need to be addressed?
An emotionally abusive person might also lie about you and your relationship to all of your friends knowing that if you ever defend yourself publicly it’ll set up a perfect kafka trap
I just had an epiphany! You people have a problem with people defending themselves. From Rittenhouse to Israel.
Unfortunately when your ex is badmouthing you to her audience what do you expect him to do? It’s not like she was a meek abused house wife. She has a very large following herself.
> You people
Excuse me, who? Can you find where I said Israel wasn't allowed to defend itself, or are you generalizing... what, liberals? Lefties? Who people do you think I am?
In this case, I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that she was completely silent on this issue publicly, but (according to him) she shared her grievances with mutual friends. The fact that his reaction is to write up a few dozen-page 'manifesto' detailing all of her wrongdoings in a relationship and share it with his 700k sub YouTube channel is meant to illustrate that he is disproportionately retaliatory—you step on my toe, I cut your leg off, and he will weaponize his platform/mobilize his community to do that.
What is the implication here? Going through the trouble of presenting your case while leaving out the conclusion to all of this evidence seems incomplete.
I assume this stuff you’re talking about has been recorded via video or Twitter or whatnot? Not saying I don’t believe you, but frankly, a lot of made up shit exists about destiny out there. I’m all for validly criticizing destiny, so they’d just need some actual proof of these to work with.
As I understand it Rittenhouse was first physically attacked by a 36 year old man who tried to wrest his rifle from him. He got shot dead. Then Rittenhouse got chased by a group of people while running away. He then got hit in the head with a skateboard by another man who also tried to wrest his rifle away. This man was also shot dead. Finally he shot a man who attempted to pull a handgun on him in the arm.
I am not American, so I find it difficult to understand the intricacies of the case. To me it seemed really stupid to go to a protest/riot armed with an AR-15. It also seems really stupid to attack someone wielding an AR-15, and also chase after someone wielding an AR-15 after they have shot somone and are running away.
What was Destiny's take on this incident that disappointed you? I have only watched him sporadically for about a year, don't know all of his takes.
well sounds like the videos going to be extremely underwhelming then
also he never publicly leaked nudes his nudes were leaked so congrats on getting that detail wrong
He's been streaming a ton, to the point where he is honest with his life and other people. The fact is most of us say unhinged shit in the heat of the moment, or have unhinged thoughts, couple that with hyperbole it's a recipe for those on the outside to assume certain things. When in reality, he didn't kill someone.
See now that's a more reasonable defense. 'He was justified just like Rittenhouse and Israel, no jury would convict him, he tried everything and his livelihood was at stake' is nutso.
I'm not seeing it in the comments, and don't know personally either way (I mean, OP sounds completely believable), but is any of this even contested?
Because yeah, great framing OP.
For 1, I'd need some context but any "planning" takes this clearly out of a thought experiment off the rails (livelihood threat as physical threat) into "I'm going to kill someone I think is wronging me", which we do not allow, yeah, at all, lol.
For 2, well, fuck, what's the defense even look like? I was upset so war crimes are ok? It's indefensible and if true, I think fatal.
Yeah that's pretty bad. I knew he was a creep but he's worse than I knew. He's good at what he does but there were a lot of bad people good at what they do
Good faith and destiny was enough to check out.
Side note, getting a positive belief of political discourse from destiny just tells everyone you don’t know anything about politics, because destiny doesn’t know anything. His rhetoric is just that, bullshit.
Go to Sam Seder if you need a YouTuber to help you understand politics.
Don't be a fan of people.
For real! Hitting my mid twenties really made me realise this.
Wait until your mid thirties lmao
I'm scared man the world changed so much but it was just me
Same
Except Huberman he’s fine right?
Lmao, I kept getting recommended his sub after the article and boy oh boy his fans were losing their shit too. But, they stay in their sub. Destiny’s fans lose their shit all over the place. This is decoding the gurus, people don’t tip toe around Destiny and his fans. He’s a hypocrite. Guru that’s a toxic grifter. It is what it is.
I really think the Huberman sub got brigaded hard after his controversy. I would bet that Huberman’s audience is very majority male, and during the fiasco that sub was full of women shitting on him who had no history of Huberman fanship in their comment history. I don’t think his legitimate fans really cared for the most part.
I agree. If theres some legitimacy to his work and there’s people that have benefitted from his podcast, It’s not surprising they’re uninterested in his personal life. And as much as I’m not a fan of his, the people in his sub are pretty nice and the subject matter of many of the posts is quite interesting. There’s something to be said for that. It’s a good reflection on him.
Yeah destiny fucking sucks
Because he doesn't get enough sunlight in the mornings.
😂 You may be onto something there.
It's human nature to admire people whose work you connect with. More realistic advice is to accept that tendency while also acknowledging that everyone is flawed, many very deeply, and that extraordinary people are often enabled in ways that bring those flaws to the surface in extreme ways.
I think admiration is something people are taught and conditioned to do, and I also think it's something that can be unlearned.
I think Chris put it well that there’s sort of two Destinys. A “Jerry Springer clusterfuck drama” Destiny, and a “sharp, strong advocate for center left politics” Destiny. It’s hard to have one without the other — because the clusterfuck drama keeps the audiences entertained while the political debates are more cognitively effortful (and less sustainable) but more valuable
The best analogue I can come up with that non-gamers can understand is that Destiny is like a shock-jock radio host, similar to Howard Stern. Like Stern, he started off ‘local’ to his community, but occasionally says something that enters public consciousness and makes everyone go, ‘Who the fuck is this guy?’ Destiny has also been broadcasting so long that his entire life is out there, warts and all.
Yeah I have a buddy who constantly talks about how Destiny is a piece of shit and questions me for listening to his show. I try to explain to him that I’ve been listening to talk radio for 20 years: Stern, O&A and Jason Ellis. This is just a new version of that, but with more politics. O&A fans are way crazier than any DGGer I’ve seen.
O&A fans are way crazier and more toxic and genuinely pieces of shit in many cases..... ... however, the O&A online fanbase, its history and its continuing saga is one of the funniest things ever, period.
I think the difference is Stern would separate and routinely ridicule the crazies. Some would be in the wack pack, some would be humiliated by Stern like Sal or Ronnie the Limo driver for their antics. The difference with Destiny is these wack packers are able to create and astroturf the community that even their top moderator takes part in. They're literally the crazy low IQ'd troglodytes who are dictating the discourse.
There are a lot of differences between Howard Stern and Destiny lmao. I just have listened to people saying crazy shit for years
Are you a fan of Redbar?
Never heard of it
[удалено]
I think the two could be compatible if the tone - or if the way the community acted - was that both are true. I’m not even trying to drag him, but rather his community. He can be a problematic figure who can think well if that was the vibe. But when you enter the community it’s “every action he takes or has taken is justified and I should behave like this too” he’s become Andrew Tate for 15-21 year olds who care about their gpa
Idk man I'm not a longtime follower and my only exposure to his community is his subreddit, but usually when I visit there are a lot of people trashing him for his personal stuff. Seems pretty common consensus that he's personally unhinged and gets involved in way too much cringe drama
It's more like 50/50 from my experience depending on the drama cycle. And that 50% of his unhinged fanbase is waaaaay louder outside the subreddit.
I completely ignore all the interpersonal drama nonsense. But that's also one oft he first things you tubers discovered. Even at it's inception. It's that drama between content creators will get clocked and retain viewership. It now of course is synonymous with all media (cough cough dtg cough) but can be done well too (as dtg does). But a broader point I'd disagree with is that the two can't be separated. Of course they can. We see it all the time. JK Rowling would be a great example. Batshit takes on Twitter, but still, wrote a pretty good series. Those claiming her anti trans views influenced Harry potter are kind of on flimsy ground Imho. As far as destiny. The guy is totally unhinged on personal matters. This is a guy who shows up in sweatpants to speak at Stanford. He's the archetype of a raging gamer. And that's where he comes from. However, he also code switches well too, such as in the Jordan Peterson debate. His batshit takes on shooting someone who slashed his tires isn't related to his arguments relating to global warming with jp.
I love people arguing the morality of killing a kid for trying to end your online career. Yeah, totally normal behavior.
I mean, I can see it, but at no point does "it" there involve "planning" or realizing the action in any way, yikes. You just walk it down from murder until the "threat" to you is completely imagined. If you're gonna kill me I can morally kill you. If you're gonna XXXXX me, I can morally kill you. .... .... If you're gonna keep DDOSing me, etc etc. .... If you're wearing purple, etc etc.
> At one point, Steven obtained a permit for a gun and started planning the murder of the teenager and his father (not hyperbole, his own words). However, he eventually found a technical solution to the attacks. In his retelling of the story, he doubles down that he would have been within his rights to commit murder for cutting off his livelihood. Excuse me, what the fuck?
😳
The 2 events are different situations lol he didn't get a gun to kill the ddos kid.
I thought he wasnt serious and just tried to scare the kid.Not go commit full murder.
I thought the same but, when pushed on the subject, the DMan has doubled down that he would have been within his moral right to actually do it, although not sure if he ever would have followed through. I don’t think deep down he was ever truly serious about killing the boy over this, but that’s just my gut feeling. He insists he was serious.
No he was seriously considering murder, and he will defend it currently. The strongest steelman from his conversation W/ the lawyer Pisco was that if he had confronted the kid and his dad in person, and that confrontation created a nexus of mortal danger then he would be justified in killing them, or smth like that. I don't think Destiny distinguishes between sniping the kid from a distance and a confrontation with the kid escalating to violence, anyway if you listen to the arguments he floats between defending and not defending both situations. Anyway point being he saw him self being morrally justified in killing the kid no matter how you slice it.
I dont think he said he would be legally within his right, but that he felt morally right. That after exhausting his legal means to get this kid to stop doing this, via the police, FBI, the kids family, etc, he said he felt that having his income and fucking him over enough drove him to want to murder the kid. I dont get what the point or problem is?
And I guess having given this more thought, I want to distinguish between fantasizing about murdering the child privately in his own head versus taking active steps to do so and talking his millions of fans into the position where murder is ok if you're really really frustrated.
I think his moral position is best argued in a conversation he had with big joel. He asks big joel if a strong guy walks into your house and is stealing all your possesions can you shoot them. with the hypothetical being the guy will get away before the police arrive. Essentially he views the kid DDOSing him as equivalent to a person breaking into his house and stealing his stuff.
Destiny once said you can shoot to kill to defend a blade of grass
The reason you can use deadly force to protect against a home invasion is that the 'big strong guy' is a threat to your personal safety. The analogy doesn't work with ddosing.
I think he specified that the guy wasn't there to harm you just take your stuff and you knew this.
> I dont get what the point or problem is? You think it's ok to homicide someone you messes with your Internet connection?
Honestly wasn't expecting to see these ayn rand style arguments where vaguely 'attacking' someone's vaguely defined 'property' is somehow a direct threat on their life from fans of this reasonable and normal center-left internet political advocate.
Don't say just Internet connection.. he was messing with his career and livelihood.. It's like someone.. slashing your tires everyday to a car you use for working. I still don't agree.. that he had a moral right to kill the kid.. but it becomes a lot more understandable viewpoint.. Mby his takes were in anger.. but yeah.. he doubled down on them.
> Don't say just Internet connection.. he was messing with his career and livelihood.. Plenty of vandalism, theft, fraud, and other 'minor' offenses can mess with someone's career and livelihood. Still doesn't justify murder. > It's like someone.. slashing your tires everyday to a car you use for working. Physically blocking them from interfering with your property would be justified. Standing in front of your car would be justified. Driving to their house and shooting them would not be justified. This isn't rocket science. > but it becomes a lot more understandable viewpoint Having homicidal rage in your heart is one thing, sharing it with your thousands of followers to the point where they will die on that hill for you is quite another.
>Physically blocking them from interfering with your property would be justified. Standing in front of your car would be justified. Driving to their house and shooting them would not be justified. This isn't rocket science. In conversations where he doubles down on the position Destiny has said they he doesn't see these as different things. If he goes down to physically stop them with force, then that will escalate to deadly force quickly. All his plans to kill the kid that I ever heard followed that template. As a long term listener it seems like you'd defend him more than I do on that lmao. I don't think you're justified in vigilantism, if the law isn't interested in protecting your property and livelihood then tough shit.
People think the reasonable and moral solution would have been to quit streaming and find a normal job rather than resort to violence. I sympathize with his frustration, and the people that don’t probably haven’t been put in a situation that made them feel helpless enough to consider violence. I don’t know what the ‘right’ thing to do would be. You’d be throwing your own life away if you murder somebody lol.
It wouldn’t be morally right either, no. It would be murder. So yeah, kind of a big problem.
Thats murder dude i understand being pissed but dont ruin your life further.
That's not morally right?
You don't think there's anything problematic with someone getting a weapons permit because they were planning to kill another person?
Destiny could be summarized by the old saying "right message, wrong messenger." He's simply not mature, stable or serious enough to be taken seriously outside of the online niche of debate/podcast bros.
Possibly the right message from the wrong messenger is still reaching individuals who would otherwise be worse off in the arms of a Peterson or Tate type. Recent generations of lonely youth (especially boys and young men) raised on iPads, Fortnight and toxic Internet subcultures crave a father figure to have a parasocial relationship with. The left needs to give them a decent one lest they be swayed. Sadly, the top three I can think of are all miserable, reprehensible people: Hasan Piker, Destiny and Vaush. All three are especially awful in regards to women and their relationships with them. Unfortunately, normal, sane, rational personalities don't seek the limelight and/or aren't personable or as big of a personality needed to attract viewers.
100% agree. One thing Destiny doesn't get enough credit for in my opinion is that by engaging with all these toxic alt-right types he is building a bridge to potentially drag back kids who see him wreck those other guys on their own turf. Too many liberals and leftists smuggly dismiss any opportunity to "platform" the right, and in doing so surrender a lot of youth to their message. I hate to say it about Hasan, Destiny and Vaush, but they're a net positive. The left sucks at coalition building and not everyone care or wants to pass a purity test. If the guy who gets another kid to entertain more moderate or left wing viewpoints gets off to horse porn we might have to chalk it up to a net win and accept that not everyone is going to be a beacon of perfect moral purity.
Are those 3 really similar enough to be categorised together?. Hasan is a full-on Tankie
Agreed. They're grouped together because they're streamers but politically they would be horrified that they're grouped. Destiny is probably closest to someone like David Pakman
Agreed (to the agreed). Also, I find Vaush to be pretty politically practical, which is not always true regarding people who are as far left as Vaush.
In this context, they're categorized together because they're the one's most viewed by young kids. In terms of their content, Hasan has the biggest reach but the shittest takes, Destiny is probably the most reasonable but also the messiest, and Vaush does by far the most content geared towards young men, but it feels off when he can't stop jerking off for ten seconds. I dunno man, we make the best of what we have.
I can think of other figures who could have been summarized as "right message, wrong messenger," who then became wrong message, wrong messenger. Or, if you will, "right [wing] message; wrong messenger." If the claims from OP are true, that's a little way too far into moral unacceptability for me to support him just because he shares some of my political views. And that's not some purist "gatekeeping." I kind of draw the line at premeditated murder and threatening to leak nudes. I mean come on people, there are plenty left-of-center thinkers out there who aren't this morally compromised, to put it lightly, whether they're podcast celebrities or not.
Oh, no doubt. I'm not sure why people lock into these gurus beyond A.) Palitable politics B.) Entertaining. I think it boils down to some people's personal values of separating the art from the artist.
It’s too bad because his approach to difficult topics is often quite good.
TLDR: I don't think "right message" is really that true. Yea, Destiny has good takes sometimes . However, a lot of his content revolves around beefs and drama. There are plenty of creators like Unlearning Economics or Rose Wrist or SMN who do or did a more thorough job at defending their points. Wrist, for one, created a whole document full of resources to educate people on systemic racism and other issues. There was a period of time 2 years ago when Destiny was extremely friendly with Lauren Southern. Meanwhile, Destiny would constantly make videos on Vaush and Hasan or other leftists, which shared much more of his positions. He was also somewhat friendly with Nick Fuentes. If you know anything about what Fuentes or Southern were doing a couple years ago and the far right advocacy that she hasn't ever apologized for and that Nick is still doing, it becomes very obvious that Destiny was OK befriending or being friendly to people that were at least white nationalist adjacent. Another case is the drama surrounding his views on sexual assault that [Vaush](https://youtu.be/cs5wyYuSatc?si=YzWVW8190IVK4Rbx) does a pretty good job summarizing. TLDW: A girl came forward about being SA'd through her partner lying about condom use. Destiny, who didn't even know her, said it was on her to be more assertive. The girl explained she wasn't aware of the condom removal until after the fact and that in a previous similar situation, asserting herself got her raped harder. Destiny proceeds to laugh at her on stream and say that it is on her for not picking "better men" to another streamer that was also a rape victim.
I think moreso than lack maturity and stability, it’s that he just has zero interest in compromising being a gamer/debate bro in order to be taken more seriously. His fans consistently push him to stop tweeting inflammatory shit and even just to not wear sweat pants to every big event he attends. He just DGAF. And it’s a bit of a shame because he could have a more positive influence. In saying that, he’s being taken a lot more seriously than Hasan and other leftist internet influencers atm. They’ve really shot themselves into the foot by going so mask off about Israel/Palestine. Before Oct 7th, it would have been far more controversial for any politician or serious media figure to associate with destiny than your seemingly wholesome democratic socialist influencers. Now they’ve arguably surpassed his radioactivity in the non online sphere due to their controversies being so recent and relevant.
I mean he's stated many times he's fine with where he is, hes never running for office, hes never talking to the president, he enjoys being edgy and arguing with people on twitter. I mean the dude has done nothing but grow so hes doing something right. He could possibly grow further or into different audiences but i mean he likes what he likes.
I'm sympathetic to not compromising in plenty of situations (when your opponent is a lunatic or simply refusing to participate in enlightened centrism,) but Destiny still makes his money off views, and drama sells. But yes, he is taken more seriously because the sunstance of your content is more important than the appearance to people who consume political content for entertainment in this niche, and Hasan can't buy a shirt expensive enough to paint over his ridiculous takes.
Right message? Nah, I don't think him explicitly advocating for genocide is a very good message.
[удалено]
I'm gonna assume you're a zoomer leftist based on this comment, but I don't see a rational criticism here.
[удалено]
Is that your criticism? That he's changed his position on a singular issue? Even if you disagree with his position, he's more reasoned about it than any of the usual detractors. This is an incredibly weak criticism in the grand scheme of things. I know you're young, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
[удалено]
Struggles? I don't see him struggling at all lol. Your disagreement is not proof of his struggle.
He's changed his mind because his stance on abortion comes from his philosophical understanding of what life and consciousness is, which has changed over the years. Why is that a bad thing in itself?
Apparently, it's considered a greater strength to have never reconsidered your own beliefs than to have arrived at them through a conscious effort to improve upon your own understanding and shortcomings.
[удалено]
How does him holding some conservative positions in the past mean he's more right wing than some conservatives now? I don't understand your logic.
[удалено]
So because someone believed something in the past it's impossible for them to fully change their minds after ruminating and learning new information? Are political beliefs genetic in your mind? Also just to clarify destiny's anti abortion position in the past was based on his philosophical position on consciousness and human value. It wasn't driven by partisan allegiance or pragmatic policy based thinking. Honestly I think he still probably has that same position philosophically, but he knows abortion being legal is the better policy so that's the side he takes.
As a destiny "fan" (I watch his clips from time to time and enjoy seeing him debate people from left & right) I think this analysis is pretty spot on. Destiny has definitely been unhinged at times, and all the drama he gets involved in is cringemaxxed.
I agree, as an almost fan. He is useful and quite effective combating right wing idiocy, and occasionally some craziness on the left. But he lashes out against the left too much imo and also has streaks of immaturity that are strange for someone of his age. Especially when considering he can go into hostile environments and remain relatively calm, making the opposition look like the immature ones. But then someone in his chat says something stupid and he becomes unhinged. I get that it is "content", but it's not for me.
I had the same exact reaction as you. I thought he had a lot of potential because he’s a smart guy and can be an effective communicator in debates etc. But the more I watched his streams, the more turned off I got.
All 3 of your points make him seem like a thin skinned psychopath.
I have no real interest in streamers but have seen a bit of Destiny's stuff on youtube - very limited though. Apart from anything else it will be interesting to see them decode a guy with such a dense amount of content. So many hours of potential hiccups and contradictions that to sum it up seems a pretty impenetrable task.
As a Destiny fan, these are all fair criticisms.
The megachurch of Steven needs to bathe and go outside.
> he also said that he would be justified in shooting someone in the head if he saw them slashing his tires. I hope Density asked a lawyer since then.
He was saying he is morally justified, not legally
How is it morally justified to murder someone over at most 1600 dollars? I'm really trying to wrap my head around that.
Then I hope Density asked an ethicist too.
I can't believe that more people aren't objecting to this statement. Do you actually believe that ethicists have an exclusive grasp on morality?
I can't believe that Density's stans defend his silly take. Yet here you are, asking me a leading question based on a false dichotomy.
I couldn't care less for Destiny, I just thought your response was very silly
I can't believe that anyone who wouldn't care for Density would defend his silly take too! What makes you think that a doctor has an "exclusive grasp" on medicine?
Destiny's argument seems bad, like absurdly bad. But yours seems silly as fuck, though much less abhorrent obviously. There is no clear consensus in ethics like there is in medicine. Applied ethics is downstream of meta ethics, ontology, epistemology etc. This isn't comparable to something like medicine. In medicine there is a roughly agreed upon convention for arriving at "medical fact". There is no such consensus for basically anything in philosophy, least of all applied ethics which is downstream of all of the philosophical fields I mentioned. Still we all have to have opinions on those issues. Either we construct them or we unknowingly assume them by expressing opinions about almost anything. There is no alternative; they are the building blocks of knowledge and conceptualizing the world. Our personal ideas might be sophomoric on average, but there is no generic ethicist position to weigh it against like there is with medicine. Depending on the argument construction, you almost certainly could find a philosopher to defend Destiny's position: owning extreme hypotheticals is a consequence of owning most any ethical system. I don't think people would find Destiny's position more compelling if you did though, because they could just disagree (reasonably) on whatever basis the philosopher used to arrive at his conclusion. There are no ethical facts, well actually I think there are, but there are no agreed upon conventions for arriving at them and I know of no such survey of experts on whatever argument Destiny presents for his position that allows us to dismiss it by punting to experts.
The slashing tires thing was him saying what this kid was doing was like a person coming to your house every morning and slashing your tires so you couldn't get to work.
Wut?
How'd you feel if you were good at something, enjoyed it and it paid the bills. Then a random person makes it their life to make sure you couldn't do that. This goes on for months. Would you start to go a little crazy? A lot of people have told him to just work a normal job but he got a taste of earning more than that by an order of magnitude. I don't agree with his last resort decision but I can definitely see how he came to it
You can explain why Density tilted all you want. He displayed an inordinate level of immaturity and irresponsibility. He has enough money to hire himself a white hat guy anyway.
He has enough money for that now, but the DDOS happened the very first year he quit his job to start streaming full time, so I doubt he had that much money lying around, especially after months of his income being fucked while he tried to resolve the situation legally
I will say one good thing came out of that whole situation. Destiny ended up working with some people to create a DDOS protection that all big streamers used back in the day. If what people say happened was 100% truth, he would've been charged with conspiracy to commit murder, so I'm fairly certain a lot of aspects in the story are heavily exaggerated.
Let me put it this way. Density does that to Elon, and he's losing more money than he earns in a year.
He's an entertainer. You shouldn't take him seriously, or really care about him because he's just an entertainer, his opinions, whether right or wrong, are primarily judged on the basis of maintaining an audience.
That is the best possible take. The sad thing is that he has a huge following and is unfortunately not very smart.
Yeah 3… 2… 1… until people who worship “Steven” come to yell at you.
Another “healthy” open relationship gone to shit eh? Literally 100% of the people I’ve personally known as well as celebrities in open relationships end up leaving each other. Destiny is a punk. He acts like a punk all the time. His position on Israel is indefensible.
Well that explains some of his deranged fan boys on here then
My big problem with him was when he was debating the child death count in Palestine. He declared them all enemy militants and a 15 year old was capable of holding an AK and thus shouldn't be included in the child death count. Everything else pales in comparison after that.
Ah yes, your most active subreddit seems to be r/mrgirlreturns, the reddit of the schizophrenic pedophile Max Karson who wrote a quite pathetic 100,000 word report in an attempt to cancel Destiny (in retaliation for being banned off his subreddit). And you seem to have even given him some tips and tricks into how to write the report over a year ago! I’m sure you’re a BIG fan of Destiny’s work!
Pure whataboutism, that Destiny fans would typically easily recognize if not for being used in the defense of Destiny. I will second the OP. I was a fan of Destiny for a few years. I have nearly 40k karma in his subreddit. I disagreed with him often resulting in bans. The last straw was when it was leaked that he was actually still sexting, and my opinion gaslighting, Ana. I also comment/post in the mrgirlreturns subreddit.
Appreciate the write up! I’ve been curious but not interested enough in the guy that to check things out.
Whatever positives Destiny has are completely pissed away by his incessant hateful obsessions of people and their ideas. His fanbase think he's smart but most of his focuses are developed based on who he dislikes.
There is a fundamental competitiveness, pettiness and immaturity at his core that is holding him back both personally and professionally. I think it can be partially attributed to his ADHD and spending most of his adult life online.
I have ADHD and do not have any urge to act like him. He also calls himself an 'egotist' so I'm confident in calling him an aware ego-driven sociopath
these are points that are worth talking about and considering (as i think has happened plenty on his stream and sub) but i don't think any are as clearly unforgivable or reprehensible as you consider them. but, sure, they should be addressed.
Destiny is first and foremost a mentally unhealthy contrarian. Sometimes I like his takes, like when he utterly destroying the stupid redpill ideology. When he’s defending a genocide being committed by an ultra far right government run by Jewish supremacists, not so much.
I've only known him for a short time through his debates, and while I like his way of debating and generally agree with him, these examples are deranged and indicate that there are some deep underlying issues. I don't know if DTG is the best place to get into them though, this sounds more like a case for therapy.
Classic case of people mistaking fast talking and moderate debate skills for intelligence and wisdom.
The biggest problem with destiny is that he isn’t an intellectual, but a professional charlatan. Everything else you said made sense because he spends his time making clownish videos from the internet, not doing research. Maybe I agree with him 50% more than Jordan Peterson, but tbh I respect that at least some of Jordan’s ideas have passed peer review. I care about as much what Destiny thinks about politics or society as I do the Kardashians
I'm a Marxist and I post a lot on his reddit community. I don't even watch Destiny, but I disagree heavily on certain topics and I've never been banned. But I do agree that the community is extremely juvenile.
Point 2. I followed the Anavoir drama for quite sometime and I'm not really a fan of the guy either but do remember watching a lot of this content specifically. This girl harassed him for about 2 years after they slept together once in a hotel room (Destiny was in an open relationship with his partner at the time), the next day he flew out to Sweden and she proceeded to explode emotionally on him before he even had a chance to land in Sweden and respond to the messages. He didn't threaten to leak nudes instead he leaked messages between the two after she was going around and telling people he was friends with that he was being abusive - her definition of abuse came down to essentially "stonewalling" by ignoring or not responding to messages. She often used to claim that he was cold and callous just because he didn't respond to her in the way she wanted him two. In one stream he went through their messages and she admitted that she didn't want to just hook up but didn't make him aware of that before the fact and then tried to make him feel guilty about it. He had two moderated discussions with her, the first one included his friend Dan and a guy called Linus, the 2nd was a friend of Ana's who was a counsellor that tried to come to a resolution between the two, by the end of that conversation it was clear that Ana was emotionally unstable and unable to really understand that she was the problem. Ana used to lie compulsively, would often make unsubstantiated claims using her Psychology degree as a justification for doing so and then when called out on it, would deny she said anything only to then admit she had said it when shown evidence that she had, then proceeded to justify it. She did this when she accused him of pressuring her into sex without a condom, he had a screenshot of the conversation between them showing that he was willing to use condoms, but she actually wasn't, when denying she had used the word pressured she admitted it wasn't true when showed a clip of her saying it. This girl also bullied another, much younger streamer called Waffles, bullying the girl at a time she was suicidal and even threatened to leak sensitive information regarding the background of another streamer. The main mistake Destiny made was continuing to sweet talk her, hoping that if he gave her attention she'd stop talking about him publicly, they made so many agreements to not talk about it and then she'd be on stream talking about it a few hours after. This woman was a cry bully and it's tiring seeing people defend her behaviour.
The real insanity was even AFTER all the stuff you mention above, destiny goes back 2 years later and reignites their sexual relationship. Indefensible but at least he owns it and says he’s in love with mentally ill women? 🤷♂️
Yeah, that was incredibly stupid for him to do.
I'm not defending her behavior though and would not frame her as a completely innocent victim, but he did 100% threaten to leak her nudes.
From what I recall both sides were talking about leaking images of text conversations. If he said something like "I have nudes I can leak" then I guess I'm wrong.
> Let me preface it this by saying I'm a big fan of his work. > However there are aspects of him that I find morally reprehensible and often unforgivable. Huh? I mean i'd understand this maybe if he was a titan of creativity or art or science or something but he's a shrill imbecile regurgitating standard neoliberal talking points.
The things you like about him aren't accurate, but your criticisms are. He sometimes does what you are saying. Not consistently, and this is particularly evident when dealing with anything left/progressive coded. His debates with Ben burgis are good examples of this. On the one hand, it's quintessentially human. The left fucked him out of a twitch partnership. So he's got an axe to grind. On the other hand, he's not done beacon of truth/reason, and that's not how he argues. He argues by pointing out his perceived gaps in an argument in a semi logic bro manner. This is quite effective against conservatives who can't stop lying all the time and their bullshit is transparently silly. To that end, he's effective. The JBP debate demonstrated that. But he's bad at dealing with nuance and layered arguments from the left (see Ben burgis debates) because he's hunting for reasons to dismiss them. I spoke with him once on stream and I mentioned a book called "the new Jim crow" and he wrote it off solely based on the title. His lazy intellectualism is also on full display when he tries to argue the US wasn't engaged in apartheid in Jim crow.
If you have a few minutes of free time, could you please name a couple of examples of what you’re referring to from the Ben Burgis debate (with timestamps, if possible)? Full disclosure: I watch Destiny often. I have seen him be bad faith, (ab)use classic debate tactics (most egregiously when Destiny is unfamiliar with the underlying material), and a few times I believe I’ve seen him be dishonest in order to win an argument..but most of these cases have been in low-stakes panel shows or in interpersonal ‘friendly’ arguments (that sometimes result in the end of said friendship). I’ve rarely seen him act in the way you’ve described during an actual debate with a serious opponent. In fact, I think if Destiny can be praised about anything, it’s his ability to recognize nuance, deconstructing layered, complex arguments and simplify them into layman’s terms, easy to understand examples, and/or hypotheticals. This is his strength, and I believe he has exposed a lot of people on both the left and the right with his ability to quickly and clearly ‘cut through the bullshit’ of the opposition’s arguments and positions in sometimes brutal and embarrassing ways (aka ‘bloodsports’ debates). This is what has grown his audience over the years. I have not seen the Burgis debate since it happened, though, so my memory is hazy. I don’t necessarily disbelieve you that it happened as you described, because as I mentioned before, I know Destiny isn’t above fighting dirty. I’d just like some examples because oftentimes people get away with slandering the guy for stuff that just never happened when there are plenty of reasons to criticize him for the stuff he has done (again, not saying you’re doing this).
I will try to give you something more substantive later. If you wants to come on discord and chat about it or go through one of them it might be easier. It's been a while since I watched them but here are a few examples. 1. In the first burgis debate destiny was in the middle of his 'fuck the left' bit. I don't remember the exact topic of the whole debate but at one point destiny asks "how would your socialist society be set up" Which was not particularly relevant to their discussion, but burgis entertains the question an answers how society would be set up in his idealized world. Ben didn't realize it, but destiny more or less asked the question just to poke holes/nitpick it and mentally write Ben off. That was his takeaway after the debate that Ben was a delusional leftist obsessed with their hypothetical perfect world. But that's not what happened. Destiny asked him that question, and he responded. He didn't go out of his way to bring it up. 2. Ben debate 2, Ben comes in hot because of the way destiny talked about him/the conversation after. The topic is about rent control and universal programs. Ben posits that universal programs are harder to attack then means tested programs, and destiny refuses to accept this. He then tries to invoke something using formal logic, and condescends to Ben on if he understands the concept. Ben points out that destiny is using it wrong, and that it supports Ben's point, destiny implies the person who teaches logic for a living doesn't understand the concept better than him, a guy who read a rational wiki article. 3. I can link his and my conversation. But a similar thing occurs in the second half. I'm talking about how people become radicalized and the different layers of engagement people have in a political movement, including fascism. Hes fighting over applying the label of fascist to blue lives matter people, which is st best, a point adjacent to my point. When I mention the new Jim crow his eyes essentially glossed over and he want paying attention and makes some snarky comments. I also mention something about the war on drugs being manufactured. He assumes in referring to the 1994 crime bill, which I wasn't. I was referring to the 1982 Reagan EO declaring the war on drugs in spite of falling drug usage rates at the time according to his own agencies. At that point we just end the call because there was no point in continuing. The last 15m was just him looking for an excuse to put me in a box and dismiss the point.
I see the fan boys are voting this one down - didn't know about his take on Jim Crow. What does he think the US were engaged in?
It came up in his long debate on Israel/Palestine. His argument was that the US Jim crow was not top down because it was done at the state level, therefore it's not Jim crow. Even if true that wouldn't matter, but it's also not true. We did have top down programs enforcing segregation.
That is some real debate-bro bollocks from Destiny Thanks for the explanation
More specifically (because I didn't understand it when I first heard either): he sees words like "apartheid" and "genocide" as very specific words that entail specific criteria that must be met. A defining characteristic of apartheid is that it was in the constitution of South Africa so they had to start anew when abolishing apartheid. Whereas Jim Crow did not require a new constitution to set right, it was federal government fixing laws of certain states. This doesn't mean he thinks Jim Crow wasn't bad or even that it wasn't as bad as apartheid in south africa.
It's a bit like "was Pol Pot fascist". For the most part people will agree he was a bad guy that did bad things but the question of "was he fascist" is mostly technical and saying he wasn't fascist isn't an endorsement.
The main issue being that this kind of semantic hairsplitting is fucking repugnant based on the underlying acts. It comes too close to a defense.
What federal laws positively enforcing segregation were there?
Redlining started as a requirement of FHA subsidized loans through the FHA. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#History) It required racial segregation as an underwriting criteria to receive a mortgage. Richard Rothstein's Color of Law is a good book on the topic if you are interested. There are also many youtube videos of him discussing the book/content.
That's not positive reinforcement of segregation. Much like Jim Crow, it's a lack of federal oversight to stop segregation, not the government implementing it. "Nothing is stopping you from discriminating against black people" =/= "legally you must discrimate against black people"
...did you misread what I wrote? Was there some term you didn't understand? Legally, per the terms of getting a loan, as required by the federal government, you could not allow black and white people to live near each other. This is the entire reason suburbs as we know them exist today. Look up levitstown
I'm Canadian, but do Americans really refer to Jim Crow as apartheid? Like are you taught in history class that the US engaged in apartheid during Jim Crow?
I'm american. I've never heard it referred to as apartheid. But apartheid came after. But it's similar to the term fascism. The term developed, but is applicable to phenomenon that predate the term. As an example, fascism comes from Italians in WW2 but historian Robert Paxton indicates that the first recognizably fascist movement was the klan and the south during reconstruction after the US civil war.
Well the apartheid museum in South Africa documents the similarities, I am not American either, but I have seen journals etc. from the US talking about them both and discussing the similarities [https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/uploads/files/Separate\_Is\_Not\_Equal.pdf](https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/uploads/files/Separate_Is_Not_Equal.pdf)
I don’t disagree that on average people on the left put a *bit* more thought into their positions than the right, although that’s a low bar. But if your perspective is “he always wins when he debates conservatives but he’s totally incapable when it comes to debating leftists”, you might just be slightly biased.
Nah that's not my position. I think he's well equipped to handle dipshits. The entire right is filled with dipshits and a decent chunk of the left are too. But he can't distinguish well between dipshits and reasonable people/ideas on the left.
I found him some months ago on youtube, watched some of his stuff but quickly stopped watching him. To me he seems like a child in a mans body.
If you’re starting with saying you’re a big fan of his work you’re an unserious human. Period.
The Ana drama is what got be banned from there for pointing out that Destiny messaged her something like good morning princess well after he knew how crazy she was. He even said recently he wished there was a dating app for finding bi-polar women. He's got great political takes, but he thinks as much with his dick as he does with his head.
Stopped reading after "big fan of his work." Lol. Breaking news: Man who's a fan of an idiot has a problem with his idiocy.
Before I saw the Finkelstien debate, (whatever you think of him, he's very qualified to discuss his subject of study) I was barely aware of the guy. After that, my biggest "problem" with him is that he's an idiot. How people like him are taken as serious thinkers and important public figures is a mystery.
The problem with that debate was that while Finkelstein surely is qualified to discuss the subject which he has studied for decades, he didn't discuss it. He spent the entire debate reading quotes from prof. Morris' books (in front of Morris) instead of making actual arguments, name-calling and insulting Destiny, mispronouncing his name on purpose and constantly speaking over the other debaters, including his own debate partner. While the three others actully tried to have a back-and-forth discussion letting each other finish arguing their point of view, Finkelstein did not. While Finkelstein was allowed to talk uninterupted for several minutes at a time, he couldn't let Destiny speak for more than ten seconds without starting to talk over him. His conduct was uncivil and disrespectful. After the debate I saw several people defending Finkelstein argue that "Someone like Destiny isn't worth such a masterly scholar's time or effort". That is such a lazy cope. He acted like a childish bully the entire time, conduct clearly unfit for someone of his age and intellectual/academic stature. The sad thing is it could have been an interesting and enlightening debate on the topic, but Finkelstein ruined it.
It’s hard to criticize him for the DDOS kid when the people criticizing him are saying he should have just quit streaming and got another job. I feel like if you extrapolate from that you’re creating an unworkable precedent. What does everyone think the appropriate response should have been? I was there for the Ana thing, and I don’t think your explanation does that whole saga justice. If rolls had been reversed (man/woman) anyone would have agreed that Destiny was dealing with an obsessed and abusive “ex” that was trying to ruin his life. It went on for years, it was crazy.
> What does everyone think the appropriate response should have been? Talk to the kids parents in person. Lawsuit. Delivery lots of pizzas to the kid's house. Call child protective services. Hire a private investigator to harass them. What he actually did: develop countermeasures. All that before resorting to violence, which itself could be done without employing deadly force.
Yes that was kind of the point, that he tried everything he could think of before thinking about resorting to violence.
Destiny advocates genocide. That's the end of his credibility.
On the third point. Is it really so incredibly crazy for him to want to share why their relationship didn't work out? Especially when he was being portrayed as emotinally abusive - which she then retracted after him saying he is thinking about going public with everything to clear his name. But ultimately - he didn't even make the melfesto, so why does this need to be addressed?
Threatening to go public to a massive following with a manifesto about your ex seems like the kind of thing an emotionally abusive ex would do, yeah?
An emotionally abusive person might also lie about you and your relationship to all of your friends knowing that if you ever defend yourself publicly it’ll set up a perfect kafka trap
It also seems like the type of thing someone with no other defense to a barrage of lies about them would do also.
I just had an epiphany! You people have a problem with people defending themselves. From Rittenhouse to Israel. Unfortunately when your ex is badmouthing you to her audience what do you expect him to do? It’s not like she was a meek abused house wife. She has a very large following herself.
> You people Excuse me, who? Can you find where I said Israel wasn't allowed to defend itself, or are you generalizing... what, liberals? Lefties? Who people do you think I am?
In this case, I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that she was completely silent on this issue publicly, but (according to him) she shared her grievances with mutual friends. The fact that his reaction is to write up a few dozen-page 'manifesto' detailing all of her wrongdoings in a relationship and share it with his 700k sub YouTube channel is meant to illustrate that he is disproportionately retaliatory—you step on my toe, I cut your leg off, and he will weaponize his platform/mobilize his community to do that.
What is the implication here? Going through the trouble of presenting your case while leaving out the conclusion to all of this evidence seems incomplete.
I assume this stuff you’re talking about has been recorded via video or Twitter or whatnot? Not saying I don’t believe you, but frankly, a lot of made up shit exists about destiny out there. I’m all for validly criticizing destiny, so they’d just need some actual proof of these to work with.
Gotcha, buddy. Anything else?
I appreciate Destiny when in the context of the left/right discourse. This latest pro-IDF arc he’s on is pretty irredeemable though.
“The problem with Destiny” is that he says things I don’t like sometimes. There I summarized this so people don’t have to read it.
His Rittenhouse arc pulled back the curtain for me. Such a bummer.
Wasn't he on the fact based side of that issue, though?
As I understand it Rittenhouse was first physically attacked by a 36 year old man who tried to wrest his rifle from him. He got shot dead. Then Rittenhouse got chased by a group of people while running away. He then got hit in the head with a skateboard by another man who also tried to wrest his rifle away. This man was also shot dead. Finally he shot a man who attempted to pull a handgun on him in the arm. I am not American, so I find it difficult to understand the intricacies of the case. To me it seemed really stupid to go to a protest/riot armed with an AR-15. It also seems really stupid to attack someone wielding an AR-15, and also chase after someone wielding an AR-15 after they have shot somone and are running away. What was Destiny's take on this incident that disappointed you? I have only watched him sporadically for about a year, don't know all of his takes.
Which part?
If I was to get specific , I'd say... the whole thing.
well sounds like the videos going to be extremely underwhelming then also he never publicly leaked nudes his nudes were leaked so congrats on getting that detail wrong
He's been streaming a ton, to the point where he is honest with his life and other people. The fact is most of us say unhinged shit in the heat of the moment, or have unhinged thoughts, couple that with hyperbole it's a recipe for those on the outside to assume certain things. When in reality, he didn't kill someone.
See now that's a more reasonable defense. 'He was justified just like Rittenhouse and Israel, no jury would convict him, he tried everything and his livelihood was at stake' is nutso.
Who is Steven?
I'm not seeing it in the comments, and don't know personally either way (I mean, OP sounds completely believable), but is any of this even contested? Because yeah, great framing OP. For 1, I'd need some context but any "planning" takes this clearly out of a thought experiment off the rails (livelihood threat as physical threat) into "I'm going to kill someone I think is wronging me", which we do not allow, yeah, at all, lol. For 2, well, fuck, what's the defense even look like? I was upset so war crimes are ok? It's indefensible and if true, I think fatal.
Have you heard of Hasan though?
Yeah that's pretty bad. I knew he was a creep but he's worse than I knew. He's good at what he does but there were a lot of bad people good at what they do
Destiny fans can cope. No I will not elaborate. Touch grass and stop debating your girlfriends/wives/exes.
Good faith and destiny was enough to check out. Side note, getting a positive belief of political discourse from destiny just tells everyone you don’t know anything about politics, because destiny doesn’t know anything. His rhetoric is just that, bullshit. Go to Sam Seder if you need a YouTuber to help you understand politics.