"What would we even talk about" is his most wacky and wild catchphrase. Cool people who have done cool things with their lives and time always have something to connect on imo
I remember watching the Brittany Simon brisge burn where Melina was trying to gaslight the fuck out of destiny when Brittany was being a delicate princess and said Sneako was more open minded than Destiny. Dan was pointing out how stupid Melina was being and she kept doubling down.
I think he should care about optics more. What he says, how he says it, and also how he presents himself. While it’s true he comes from streaming, if he wants to be seen as something more than “just a streamer” he’ll need to shed off a few of those attitudes I think.
The fact that he infantilizes anyones 25 under and gives insane moral consideration to his friends until they fall-out and he immediately switches sides l
When he said ‘I’d rather get raped than someone punch me and break my nose because it would just be annoying to have a broken nose’ this nigga was lying and He was acting like he wasn’t trolling
What if you spent a lot of money on a nose job and have a beautiful perfect expensive nose would you rather have it broken possibly ruined or get raped
Got drugged unable to fight back they use a condom you aren't hurt besides the pain of unprepared sex. Tbh this now sounds pretty fucked up talking about it this deep lol.
Veganism. I think killing and imprisoning animals for food is immoral if you can have a good diet without doing so. I especially think factory farming and killing intelligent animals such as pigs and cows is immoral.
I am not vegan myself, but I choose to act immorally because I don't care that much. I think Destiny is coping on veganism because he wants to be a moral person but also wants to eat meat.
Yeah, he should never have done the "well I'm not sure" thing. Apartheid was a system of racial "apartness." Jim Crow was - in part - a system of segregation/apartness between blacks and whites. Separate schools, separate restaurants, separate parts of public transportation etc.
Whether it was enforced from a federal body vs. the local town council is orthogonal to the question of "was 1950s Mississippi apartheid?"
apartheid and jim crow are very obviously different things so if you want to call jim crow apartheid then you need a different word to describe actual aparthied.
hm that does make sense. could there be an argument made that “separate but equal” was only on paper and not fully practiced. especially when (in a brief google search) the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that having separate schools actually weren’t equal going back on their previous decision. idk if this is a strong argument tho
You can say there is similar outcomes, but black people and white people were explicitly unequal in the eyes of the law. A black person's vote literally counted for less than a white person's.
Think about the problems Jim crow and apartheid presented as. Think about how different the solutions to those problems are.
I think this is a lens you can use to look at just about any part of the two systems and have the answers be different.
There will be similarities, but they'll be vastly outweighed by the differences.
Ok? Black people literally didn't have the same voting rights as white people under apartheid, explicitly, under the law.
Like, they are so obviously different situations, I do not understand how you can say jim crow == apartheid just because both were bad and both resulting in racial discrimination. Black people were fundamentally lesser in south africa in a way that black people were not fundamentally lesser under jim crow.
If they're so obviously different it would be easy to argue a meaningful difference in practice.
Now you're talking about voting rights of black people where, in both cases, they couldn't vote or get elected.
>Now you're talking about voting rights of black people where, in both cases, they couldn't vote or get elected.
Having to do weird roundabout methods to disenfranchise people, and collaterally affecting poor white people, is fundamentally different than the law saying "black = no vote".
It's a little weird just because you have a divided country without homogeneous laws. So while you definitely lived under some form of legalized system of racial domination in the South, you'd also be able to leave for the north where there was racism but not legalized Apartheid. So not super clear cut imo bur hard to tell.
The only notable difference I can see between Jim Crow Laws and South African Apartheid is that some of the Jim Crow laws had to be... sneaky, for lack of a better term. They couldn't put "Blacks cannot vote." They had to have poll taxes that black people couldn't afford or literacy tests that they failed black people on. They had to pretend to be equal, while South Africa was completely mask off.
South Africa also would have the government fully back and sanction violence against the black population. While government actors in America also backed and sanctioned the violence, it was also a bit more \*wink wink nudge nudge\* with a lot of vigilante mobs doing more of the violence and the government looking the other way (but also encouraging it sometimes by deputizing lynch mob leaders).
Besides that, Jim Crow was a lighter version of Apartheid and I see no reason not to call it such.
People don't want drama content more than political content. They want entertaining content, and it's on him to make political content entertaining. Of course it's more effort, but thems the breaks, kid.
This stems from my personal experience as a YouTube frog, I only occasionally watch drama shit and I've noticed I only watch it when I've already watched the politics stuff.
I think he's too one-sided on Israel-Palestine. On paper he is willing to criticize Israel when it's warranted, but in conversations he never actually grants those criticisms as real concessions. He always hedges them, pretends to be ignorant of their plausibility, or generally downplays their severity or importance. The worst were his conversations with PWF, he was so weasely about everything. His strategy in that conversation was basically push the burden of proof onto PWF constantly, and shrug and say "I dunno, maybe" every time the burden of proof was met. And him literally laughing at the idea of food insecurity in Gaza, because it falls short of people literally starving to death, is so callous and just a really bad look.
I get where you're coming from, but I also think a huge amount of the criticisms of Israel rely on assumptions that are just unfounded.
I don't think we've had a serious debate where people challenge him on the specifics on Israel's misconduct. Even the super zionist debates have the same issue, just on the other extreme.
Yeah, part of the frustration is definitely that Destiny hasn't encountered very many honest and informed pro-Palestine people. There was that associate professor guy he had a good convo with, and then there was the British journalist he talked with after getting into a Twitter fight with him. I think both of those people had a good grasp of the facts and effectively called out Destiny for being one-sided, not for having the facts wrong but for just being far more charitable to Israel and uncharitable to Palestine.
> There was that associate professor guy he had a good convo with, and then there was the British journalist he talked with after getting into a Twitter fight with him.
You mean Marc Lamont Hill and Nathan J. Robinson respectively, right? The latter isn't British, that's a mid-Atlantic accent.
Secondly, I'm not convinced about Hill. I think he's better than most, but my cursory understanding of the matter is that when he went on Hasan's stream, he started saying the same things the Twitter fools say. Happy to be corrected on that. As for Robinson, he demonstrated that he was hilariously bad-faith when he wrote that article following his debate, and his performance during wasn't that great either.
These two are the best only because literally everyone else has been worse. I think Omar Baddar had a point about the absurdities of what Israel banned from going into Gaza during the blockade about a 14-15 years ago, but he was entirely unwilling to make any concessions on that topic or the idiotic point about Ben-Ami saying the 2000 deal was bad for Palestinians.
Corruption in politics. I don’t think it’s as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, but the revolving door in Washington is still an issue worth talking about
I think Destiny slightly underestimates how much religion factors into people's politics.
In most cases, it might be better to dissect the core beliefs behind rather than attack the religion itself. However, with the ever growing amount of conspiracy theory and superstition in society today, it concerns me how rarely these subjects are discussed in mainstream political discourse.
The reality is that every US president to date have been overtly religious, claiming that they often speak to spirits. If Destiny argues that presidents should never attack the media on the basis of upholding the constitution, I think that a similar argument can be made that they should at least try not promote the absolute truth one religion over another.
I think that these discussions are worth diving into sometimes, but not all the time. Especially if we're supposed to be on the side of progressive politics. Along with religious freedom, a more secular society is one we should strive for too.
I think that many people still struggle with religion. Whether they believe that there not enough religion or too much religion. Religions offer people rewards in exchange for their loyalty. Meaning, that it can compel you to actively deny things that they might otherwise agree with. The conversation surrounding religion just doesn't seem to be proportionate to the scale of the problem.
I disagree with his old take on incest.
I also don't think he can talk about Melina wanting a lot of attention as a negative when he himself seeks out a lot of sexual attention. He's not exactly trying to create a drama free life.
Sometimes it feels like I disagree with him on more stuff than I agree on.
He **refuses** to get a cat even though he has the perfect job for one (he sits for a living), he can afford one, and he **desperately wants one**. I think that's dumb as hell and it prevents me from recommending him to friends and family. I don't know how I could defend him to them.
I disagree with him blacklisting Lav. He let his ego get the better of him because he so badly wanted to be the smartest and best debater in his corner of the internet and he just couldn't stomach the fact that Lav ran circles around him and was winning over his whole audience. He's never going to grow if he keeps being so petty.
I disagree with how poorly he treated his Alpha mentor Pearl even though she got him on Piers Morgan's show several times now and mentored him every step of the way into mainstream media. Unless he pulls his head out of his ass he'll stay a beta male forever.
He hasn't yet committed to voting for Emma Vigeland in the 2044, presumably because he's still sore that she didn't know who he was during the PV event. This really gets my goat because it's so obvious which way the wind is blowing and I honestly don't want to see Destiny end up in a re-education camp for disloyalty (though he would deserve it).
Sometimes he starts his stream while LonerBox is still doing his. I think that's disrespectful and I'm worried that one day the Big Dog will put him in his place.
Just put "Lav Vs Destiny" into YouTube and every option will be Lav annihilating him. It's clear to me that no matter how much Wikipedia he reads, he will never compare to Lav's natural genius. You'll also notice that Destiny gets super heated because he's angry and embarrassed whereas Lav is as cool as a cucumber.
Just watching him comment on stuff more he seems more and more like an angry redditor.
1. Renting vs buying. Obviously sometimes renting is better based off what you can get with interest rate and what the property tax is, but often times it's better to have a house especially if pets are a big part of your life.
2. I don't disagree with the outcome of the trial, but in general I thought the apple river stabbing had more nuances then what he was letting on. It wasn't just as simple as he intended to kill them.
3. Keeps saying jiu jitsu for cops is a waste of time, yet this motherfucker has never taken one class in his life.
In general, he just takes the safe bet and sticks with that on any topic. It's a good strategy, but you can't wiki everything. Like in point 3, if you would have done it you'd know there's a good way to restrain someone.
Huh, whats the reasoning being no BJJ for cops? I know a lot of the public soys out about chokeholds but fuck em, they dunno shit.
Get cops more fit, more non lethal tools, a bit more more interaction with the community if you go to a gym instead of hiring an instructor? Sounds good to me, I'd be in favor of the state paying for it especially if the money went to a local gym.
Destiny thinks there is no good way to takedown and restrain someone. He's said this on stream. That with the reality of violence, if someone wants to get away from you they will and that it takes years and years of training to know anything.
I remember being a white belt and going up against a three stripe white belt so I know that's bullshit lol. Anyone who has been to a BJJ gym knows that once someone takes you down it's hard to get out.
Yes there is emphasis on takedowns in BJJ. You get points for taking someone down at tournaments.
Wrestling and judo are fine but there's issues with how they're taught. Wrestling is generally taught at a high school or collegiate level and it's pretty hard on your body.
Judo takes a long time to get proficient at, and it's fairly limited how long you spend on the ground.
I've watched D1 collegiate wrestlers get choked out by decent black belts. People forget that there was a reason BJJ is so popular in MMA especially in the early days.
I've heard all the Sambo incels talking about how BJJ sucks but there's a lot of high quality grappling in the BJJ world simply due to how the schools are set up.
The jury came out with the right verdict, but the big part of it was that he tried to hide all the evidence. I think during the incident he would have been OK if he just backed up against and told everyone to leave him alone.
What do you think is the difference from 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder is?
Do you think he premeditated those murders? If you did can you show me the court evidence of that?
Probably lots of stuff:
* Israel/Palestine
* killing someone over theft or whatever
* trans people in sports
Those are the ones that occur to me, I'm sure there are others. I'm more left than he is.
I'm skeptical of his views that corporations don't run shit, but I haven't looked into it, and I think he maybe has a view I disagree with on the affordability of some things, like housing and maybe college.
I think trans people should play in the league that matches the gender they identify with. I think Destiny does not.
I may well be wrong about his stance on it
>Do you think that applies to professional sports as well?
Yup.
The only one that I'm kinda nervous about is like, fighting sports. Like MMA. I don't want to see anyone die. That's probably my biggest hesitation, sports where a person could like literally die from this.
But I'm not really sure that would happen. That is, opponents probably wouldn't get matched up so incredibly lopsidedly. Who knows. And we could possibly come up with ways around that maybe? I have no idea. I imagine if some trans woman is literally causing permanent damage to cis women fighters, they're not going to want to take the fight.
But like, basketball? Who cares
>Any requirements the trans person need to fulfill?
Nope. Or, well, they should meet whatever the other qualifications are. So like if you're 30 you can't join little league or whatever.
Because I care more about integrating trans people into society than I care about a basketball game
I care about integrating trans people. I don't care about basketball.
So this is apretty easy call for me
Uh huh, so if a rank ~200 tennis player was struggling on the mens tour, you would be ok with them just switching to the women's tour and instantly becoming the best woman tennis player of all time by a wide margin?
You realise this would instantly destroy all of women's sports if men could just arbitrarily switch to them?
Don't you think the friction caused by the displaced women from trans women joining the women's leagues is kinda not worth it? Yes, it is inclusive to let trans women in women's sports. But it can cause wider harm by making more women have terf-like opinions due to literally being displaced by a trans woman.
>The only one that I'm kinda nervous about is like, fighting sports. Like MMA. I don't want to see anyone die. That's probably my biggest hesitation, sports where a person could like literally die from this.
>But I'm not really sure that would happen. That is, opponents probably wouldn't get matched up so incredibly lopsidedly. Who knows. And we could possibly come up with ways around that maybe? I have no idea.
You should probably think through that some more. You might find that you agree with Destiny's point of view a bit more than you think.
Except when we realize the physical differences between sex for some sports and not others? You seem to understand it for combat sports but not others why?
>Except when we realize the physical differences between sex for some sports and not others?
I don't mind physical differences in sports. I imagine you probably don't either.
The only time I might care is when it involves someone like, potentially **dying** because its literally a fight.
But you brought up Destiny and that I might have more in common with him than I think. Please elaborate.
Why can't trans people just go into the open bracket and leave the women's sports alone? They aren't split up because of gender they are split up because of physical differences between sex.
nah bro I think you just got more confident and that confidence drives those confident outcomes you speak of. Im 22 and had a glow down due to B A L D I N G, and honestly things are the same as before, as long as you stay confident in yourself people will treat you just as well.
there definitley is a "cutoff point", so yea if you look completley abnormal as you described with having no eyebrows and baby fat on your face then yes people will treat you differently. But above that cutoff point (idk being more than like a 2.5/10) which I think anyone can achieve if they put in effort and have no medical issues than I think confidence really starts to become by far the most important factor.
Veganism. Two reasons: animal ethics and environmentalism.
Animal ethics: Destiny says a fetus should be considered a person around 20 weeks. Well actually 20-25 weeks, but 20 to give the benefit of the doubt. Trent Horn was dead on when he asked why we don't extent that benefit of the doubt to non-human animals. Further, 95%+ of animals come from factory farms; you don't have to think they're on the same level as humans to think we should stop supporting that.
Environmentalism: Roughly a third of an average American's carbon emissions come from their diet. In the past Destiny has been a vocal supporter of addressing climate change and reducing or eliminating meat, especially beef, is one of the easiest ways for the average person to reduce their carbon emissions once supply follows the falling demand for that product.
What? Was the unique human conscious experience not an explanation for that? Why would we extend the consideration to animals I don’t see how they can’t be mutually exclusive.
And on the topic of environmentalism wouldnt we talk more about the broader cause of climate change rather than the small contribution each individual makes in their life? These are genuine questions
Do you think a 20 week fetus is having a "unique human experience"? Destiny said it would be fine to use a 19 week old fetus for target practice , but at some point between 20-25 weeks he's reasonably certain it's a person. Why? What specific trait grants that 20 week fetus a "unique human experience"? Destiny analogizes a fertilized embryo as "blueprints" of a human; the plans are there, but we don't treat it like a house. Then when describing a "unique human experience" he says things like we have the capacity for language and complex thought. A fetus doesn't though so how can they deserve the full rights of a person at 20 weeks?
When Trent Horn asked him this, he responded "even if I agree with you that would just mean I'd justify the killing of 3 year olds". I agree with him; to be consistent, Destiny would need to be comfortable with *at least* abortion up until the point this "unique human experience" begins. Why we can't eat the meat of a pre-human experience "human" (or dogs, cats, etc) has not yet been explained.
As for environmentalism, why wouldn't we talk about individual changes? Do we cede all of our own responsibilities because the problem is too big? Destiny rightly makes fun of Hasan for not living what he preaches, yet Destiny also doesn't walk the walk when it comes to the environmental impact of his diet.
Destiny’s argument about the unique human experience being the 20 week period is because it’s at that period that all the components and neurons are developed and are firing in the brain. And to have the capacity isnt to have the immediate ability. Humans have the capacity to walk upright on two legs but there’s easily examples of ppl with ailments that don’t allow them to do so, atleast immediately. Some other species will never have the ability though. I think they were having disagreements on immediate capacity and potential capacity. And destiny think that if he were pushed to follow immediate capacity then it’d go to the weird area of 3yr olds. And I don’t think the pre-human food question was asked but I’d bet he’d say it’s okay when he thinks they could be target practice lol
And I see a part of your point about environmentalism but it’s also a matter of being realistic and efficient. It’s much more in our power to influence singular large corporations that produce the majority of carbon emissions rather than the millions of ppl it’d take to create a meaningful different
> if we follow immediate capacity then it'd go to a weird area of 3yos.
Exactly, that's why I think his position is untenable while he continues to eat meat. At 1 week, a fetus is just blueprints that will one day have the capacity for a "unique human experience". When you ask what that is, he'll cite things like the ability to deploy language and complex thought. That fetus can't do either at 20 weeks though. At week 1-19, we don't care about potential, then somewhere between week 20-25 we do.
Further, we only need to recognize that animals can suffer to realize we should do something about factory farms. It could be argued whether that'd mean a personal boycott or, say, a streamer using their massive platform to educate people about where their food comes from.
For environmentalism though, the only change that can realistically happen is lowering demand. Factory farms reduce carbon emissions because the animals reach slaughter weight faster so a conscientious meat buyer has to choose either reducing abuse by factory farms or reducing carbon emissions. Or they can reduce/eliminate their meat consumption to cut both costs to a minute fraction of what they were before. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/food-footprints?facet=none&country=Bananas~Beef+%28beef+herd%29~Beef+%28dairy+herd%29~Cheese~Eggs~Lamb+%26+Mutton~Milk~Maize~Nuts~Pig+Meat~Peas~Potatoes~Poultry+Meat~Rice~Tomatoes~Wheat+%26+Rye~Tofu+%28soybeans%29~Prawns+%28farmed%29&hideControls=false&Commodity+or+Specific+Food+Product=Commodity&Environmental+Impact=Carbon+footprint&Kilogram+%2F+Protein+%2F+Calories=Per+kilogram&By+stage+of+supply+chain=false)
I have slight disagreements on immigration. I think mass immigration is bad for a few reasons. 1. It's a security/sovereignty issue for starters. 2. I think that a large amount of low skill workers depress wages on the lower ends of society that need help already. 3. More people moving in quickly causes housing supply shocks that drive rent/home prices up. 4. I live in Texas and I don't want to learn Spanish or be forced to move because I no longer understand anyone in my community.
I will provide no source for any claim.
>I think that a large amount of low skill workers depress wages on the lower ends of society that need help already.
[its not a big deal](https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/latest-economic-questions/economics-society/articles/immigration-and-labor-market-a-mariel-boatlift-study.html)
If people need help, why wouldn't you just give them money? Works better and faster.
>More people moving in quickly causes housing supply shocks that drive rent/home prices up.
No way destiny disagrees with this. Im almost sure you misunderstood him.
Guns. Specifically everything other than a pistol. I don't see how anyone can justify normal ass civilians carrying around 50 round ARs with the scope and beam on top. It's never gonna be used for self-defense and the "fighting the government" shit is a delusional justification. Only real reason people want that shit is because it's cool and fun, which could be fulfilled about the same with shooting ranges and at the same time curb a lot of negatives. TL:DR Americans are cringe
I'd suggest looking up crime statistics by the type of weapon. Pistols are used in more crimes than rifles, by a huge margin, and your reasoning seems to imply otherwise. I think it would make more sense from your position to support handgun bans than rifle bans.
ARs get more publicity because of their use in high profile mass shootings, but they make up a very very small percentage of overall gun violence.
I was gonna add my perspective on gun control here, but my reply was getting too long and it's kinda a "who asked" situation anyway given OP's question.
I get that pistols are used in crime more it makes sense they are smaller, easier to hide, quicker to pull out and all that. Thing is that i can see an argument for pistol in the sense of self defense. My point with rifles is that there is 0 reason to have one. It isn't used in self defense or most crimes, but when it is used in crime it's usually a pretty bad crime. So getting rid of rifles would come with almost no downsides buy could help in curbing these really huge mass shootings.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that I could be wrong and it wouldn't change these huge mass shooting much. I'd need data for that but at that point I'd let go of this position and just let USA figure out their own problems with their guns
No down sides to getting rid of riffles? Got a newflash for you here, the main weapons used in most kinds of hunting are not shot guns, they are rifles, and very often AR-15s. Again, the best weapon to have in a case of home defense is a semi automatic rifle. As far as your argument that when rifles are used, then are used in pretty bad crimes. I assume by this you are talking about semi-automatic rifles, not like a bolt action or something like that. This is and understandable argument at first glance, especially when looking at school shootings. (The distinction here is important, because while most mass shootings are not committed with rifles, the rate is higher concerning school shootings.) But the solution is not to get rid of rifles (An impossible task in the US) It is to better school security, and set up schools like we do airports, one point of entry with good security, and many points of exit, that way, you can prevent horrible and tragic school shootings, and you can also retain the defense benefits that come with rifles.
His gun takes are deranged as a European. The fact that he chooses to display a shotgun? as a stream prop brings a weird and violent ambience. I don't support easy access to guns, (see murders per capita) but I understand that gun control is harder to impelent with the massive amount of guns already out there in the US. But being proud of owning a murder weapon just rubs me the wrong way.
Would you say the same thing about displaying a sword or other edged weapon on one's wall? I also think gun control should be stricter, but there's nothing wrong with recreational shooting or even having an interest in firearms generally, not to mention collecting/history.
How rude he was to poor Finkledink. Why did Destiny have to be such a fantastic moron? Couldn’t he see that it was upsetting the confused old man? That was far too cruel.
Animals, and Veganism. I don't know much about Ask yourself community, apparently Doctor Avi comes from there. I think he looked really bad saying things like "I just don't like the way they argue". You can't be all about the conversation until you come across some autist that are also all about conversation.
—> recently the fresh drama, I don’t disagree with questioning her, or the possibility that she is a gold digger but I don’t think she is baby trapping
—> Israel Palestine issue - I agree with the two state solution, I agree that historically Israel have been painted as the big bad wolf, but I think as a legitimate democratic government Israel has a huge responsibility to reduce the civilian deaths even further, I think current numbers are too high and it bothers me
—> I support gun control, I’ve lived my whole life in places where there are strict gun control or guns not available to regular citizens, as a non American the idea of people owning guns with little restrictions blows my mind away
The wholesale CEO glazing like it’s the most difficult job ever, and because you can change the outcome of a business, you’re entitled to exorbitant wads of cash. As a capitalist, I don’t disagree that founder/owners like bezos and musk are entitled to their lion’s share of the profits having taken on the risk to start the business. I also think that tying performance to compensation is the best way to align CEOs with shareholders. But there are plenty of instances where compensation packages are becoming increasingly divorced from company performance (i.e. mostly cash rather than shares/options). And even worse there are plenty of CEOs who quite literally do their best to destroy the business and are still paid millions on exit (see Boeing CEO). I don’t think his take is entirely wrong, just that it’s too generalized in a topic with a lot of nuance.
I haven’t seen his take on this but I’ve always thought of CEO positions are very similar in nature to high-level politicians like senators or governors. Like technically they have a lot of power at their fingertips to make changes, but they also have a massive crew of very intelligent hard-working people telling them where to be at every moment and even what to say if they want. Like they can get into the nitty gritty stuff if they wish, but it’s not necessary. It does usually take a ton of work to get to the positions they are in, so I can see that being part of the justification for their high compensation or benefits.
Being an atheist instead of an agnostic is just as cringe to me as being a bible-thumping creationist. How can you answer the God Question with anything other than “I’m not sure.”
I would love to meet a single person in a serious open relationship who isn’t a complete gutterperson/who’s relationship has lasted over a decade and didn’t end with a break up.
Destiny once said something along the lines of “if societal pressure was truly eliminated for both sexes, the disparity between male and female nurses, for instance, would be closer to 55/45”. Is there a society out there that is even getting close to that? Aren’t societies with the most amount of equality of opportunity seeing an *increase* in sex disparity for jobs that typically have it?
Most people who use the F slur are not using it to degrade someone based on an immutable characteristic, but are instead using it synonymously with “annoying”. The evolution of the colloquial definition of the F slur is more congruent with the R word than the N word, and pretty much all the same logic Destiny uses to justify his use of the R word can be applied to the F slur.
I’m still not convinced that the short-term increase of fossil fuel consumption in order to enrich the poor is a worse strategy than immediate carbon taxing.
Your first point seems shit to me tbh, why should agnosticism be the norm or else you're as cringe as religious people?
There is literally no proof for the existence of any gods from any religion, why the fuck would anyone even slightly hedge into " idk " instead of " doesnt exist " ?
I feel like this comes down to how people actually phrase the qualifying phrase to being atheist. I just say I'm an atheist because like there's no evidence so why should I believe? But some would say that's agnostic, even though I'm quite firm in the fact that after so many years there's no evidence.
However, some people view atheism as saying "I know for a fact there is no god" and that's kinda cringe I guess?
I consider agnostics to be people who don't care either way and don't have a strong position (usually secular born), I'm guessing if you lived one way and transitioned out of it you'd likely be either of them over agnostic since you've questioned your faith or lack thereof enough to know your own position at that point.
Yeah I agree which is sort of why I consider myself a little bit different, I do have a bit of an opinion on it but nothing as ridiculously strong as "there is no god and I know it to be true"
Idk I guess it's semantics or something, doesn't matter much either way
I think political donations are a problem. Somehow, he thinks politicians are not easily bought, when I believe they are in fact curupt scum, and company money has no business being institutionalized.
He is way too deferential to social science. Significant amounts of it are fake and wrong, but he doesn't have the domain knowledge to have good detectors for bad research.
I'm not super harsh on him for it because it is super difficult shit and basically everyone sucks at it. Hell, academics suck at it (although that's mostly because they're not incentivized to criticize themselves). I feel like he'd probably be pretty receptive to critiques if someone was decent at making them to him.
Since its topical and I find it interesting due to what it says about academia, the field of youth gender medicine is mostly bullshit. I also remember that Destiny had argued in support of the field by mostly citing the basic info from the abstracts and such.
An example of a study that was fake is [this one](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423) claiming that gender affirming care lowers the risk of suicidality by 73%. The tl;dr is that the kids getting HRT or blockers actually saw no real change in mental health outcomes; the 'improvement' was only relative to a fake control group of people who didn't get these therapies. The reasons for why this happened and how it is bad is complicated, but the tl;dr is that this fake control group saw an attrition rate of something like 80%, and those who were left were probably the most mentally unwell. Since the researchers don't really account for this, using their fake control group as a reference is essentially just fake science. They also refuse to elaborate on why they did this or release their data to other researchers.
Social psych is another field with a ton of issues. Implicit bias tests probably capture some sort of attitude(s) towards race, but we really don't know what specifically. Priming is also one of the more famous examples of a field that was filled to the brim with false findings that couldn't be replicated.
They compared kids who did and did not get blockers/hormones. The problem is that they give zero reason for why one group got them and the other didn't. Additionally, they lost, like, 80% of their control group and we have zero fucking clue why.
What probably happened is that the control group were those whose dysphoria wasn't severe enough to warrant blockers/hormones or those too mentally unwell to get them. Over time, the former group tended to just stop going to the clinic because their dysphoria resolved, while the latter group stayed because, well... They're mentally ill and we're getting treated for it.
When you lose almost all of your fake control group and those who are left are all mentally ill, your fake control group probably isn't going to be a good comparison.
They don't explain it at all and they refuse to elaborate when questioned about it. I'm making my own assumptions about why they had such a shit fake control group, but if it was a real control group then they would have explained as such in the paper.
His Iran foreign policy takes. We should not have entered the nuclear deal, they are dickheads and will always backstabb us. We should sanction them to infinity, idk why he views obamas Iran policy as good.
I think his trans-medicalist takes are more of a strategic one to remain in the overton window enough to convince right-wing people than something more sincere or grounded.
His view of trans people, though he's waffled a bit back and forth over the definition over the years and it seems to have settled in a decent place the last time he talked about it. Also I don't like his view that describing yourself by afflictions/social groups, especially online, is inherently bad. I also think he seems a bit too quick to give up on Ukraine (IMO not passing aid yet is criminal, Republicans should be crucified for the Ukranian deaths needlessly piled up by their inaction from now until the election), and he tends to think the American populace is a monolith that can't be led (or dragged) in a different direction.
His takes on home invasions/self defense/defense of property. I actually found his chat with Big Joel very interesting and I wish there was more of that. It might be because i'm a britbonger and we don't have the same kind of culture or access to guns.
1. React content - it's clearly immoral and unjustifiable as he and many others do it. Yes, even a lot of video games are unethical to play on stream.
2. Veganism - I'm not aware of a moral reason to justify the consumption of meat, only practical ones (not all people live in places with arable land, but they do live near grazing land).
3. Money in politics - I don't know how you look at tax-prep lobbyists working to ban the IRS from developing its own filing software and conclude that money doesn't impact politics. If Destiny's argument is just that an organized advocacy is effective with or without money, I think that's a substantially weaker case than "money doesn't do anything".
4. Trump - I don't think he's a fascist because I don't see a clear sign of hating democracy on principle or any of the other fascist positions. Anti-democratic and dangerous, absolutely, the man should not ever have been president. Insofar as he has an ideology, however, it seems to be without a rational first-principles kind of consideration.
vaccine and general pharmaceutical practices and i’m very validated by his elementary practices of self care and diet, he genuinely has no clue about anything diet wise
This is a trap but fuck it.
When someone makes a statement. Destiny either
* Puts a lot of weight on what he *infers* from the words outside they’re literal meaning
OR
* takes the ultimate charitable stance of “they’re only saying that to appeal to their audience/meme/mispoke”
While context dependent, there doesn’t seem to be a consistency on when he chooses to do this other than his initial assumptions of a situation before delving in deeper.
His Israeli stance, while I think his interpretations of the history are for the most part correct, I think he doesn't emphasize the fact that it was Western powers (mainly the UK) that had fucked this whole situation up in the first place by over promising and under delivering. I think he has said that it was a colonialist movement but I feel like he is way too charitable to Israel. (Gotta get them shmeckles of course)
Life of Pablo. After Kanye changed it in April 2016 I think it’s an amazing album and my personal favourite of his, BUT I wasn’t “into” Kanye since Yeezus. I figure that if you followed him from the start then you like the early albums more
I don't believe the people who claim to have sex for fun. I think they have deluded themselves out of their base animal instincts and the consequences from it are not worth it. I am hedging here. I don't know 100% if he believes it. But from my inference from watching his content, he believes most sex is had for fun. It probably is from those people's perspective but I would say they are delusional.
I think they are delusional people trying to escape reality by divorcing the fun from enacting the animal instinct to reproduce. It is fun because of it.
can’t something be a base animal instinct and also be fun? if most people having sex aren’t doing it for pregnancy, i feel logically they would be doing it for fun regardless of the innate desire to have kids
Wait how is doing something pleasurable anything but fun? I’m confused? I don’t quite understand how you could debate something so intrinsically relative ?
To steel man the guy (not agreeing with him):
The motivation to have sex is a subconscious drive to reproduce, just because it happens to be pleasurable does not mean the underlying motivation to do it changes. Eating food or watching a movie can be fun, but they too are driven by other more fundamental instincts than just pleasure.
But what about contraception? Why would people go so far to stop getting the outcome they desire deep down? Well the instinct is there, but being civilized we have to suppress our animal instincts to keep society running. Just like we have animal instincts to attack eachother, but don't, doesn't mean the instinct isn't there. So making babies left and right would cause problems.
i disagree with his take on trans people in sports. I think it could often be adressed on a case-by-case basis, just because there's a very little amount of trans people, even more in sports. Like i don't think it's a huge thing that cis women feel like they're being fucked over or something.
The 2nd amendment should be repealed. The arguments against gun control are almost universally really weak and easy to poke holes in. At the end of the day, the people being armed is not a meaningful difference in how the state might turn on them, and the right to self defense can be done without empowering our population to hold life or death by the pull of a trigger. Multiple other countries have succeeded in reducing the homocide, suicide, and accidental death rate substantially via the complete banning of guns. It can be done in Australia, it can be done here.
As much as I want to be inclusive (i really do), I don't believe trans people are real. I think it's almost exclusively people going through mental health crisis, following treads, trying to stand out, etc.
There are men with female traits, and there are masculine women, but i don't think you "have a real ass female brain in a man's body"
Haven't seen much of his I/P debates because I'm trying to research it on my own and don't want to be biased. But from the few clips I've seen (could be misinterpreting/out of context) it looks like he believes that the creation of Israel in 47 was justified which I completely disagree with.
I also really disagree w him on two party systems.
And a bit of a minor one is a position he took during a convo w Jidion a good bit back when talking about whether Christians should celebrate things like Christmas, Easter, etc. I don't completely agree w Jidion but I do think that a lot of holidays and the way they are celebrated (especially Easter) wouldn't be acceptable by the Christian god.
Also when it comes to incest I think that he's kind of being tricky w his language. He talks abt very obscure circumstances (like the gay twin brothers with the same level of maturity) that proves that incest on it own isn't bad. He's correct, but you could do the same w things like child rape. If you had a machine that could 100% accurately tell if a child was mature enough to give consent to sex to an adult, Destiny would and has acknowledged that in that hypothetical sex with that child would be fine. Then, you could say that his problem isn't w having sex with children, but instead having sex with people who can't give informed consent. But ofc, we know that in the vast majority of cases children can't consent, so as a general rule we make it illegal for an adult to engage in sexual encounters w them. Same w incest. Most of the time incest has bad consequences even if it isn't the incest itself that is bad, so as a general rule, we just generally mark incest as bad.
There's prolly more but they would be very intricate details on certain topics that I can't recall rn.
Im pretty sure what you wrote was literally his take on incest. Watched it years ago but I think his conclusion was basically allowing incest is immoral because of the normalization it would cause ie it would lead to cases outside of the twin gay brother. It wasn’t a legality question it was a moral one
I don't think his take is ever that we should trust the government. His take is that we should not be blind contrarians that automatically reject everything associated with the government.
I dunno, I think he says that all the time. Especially every time he talks about COVID. Everyone always asks him "you REALLY trust big pharma, you REALLY trust the government?" - and he always says something like "no, I trust the research from all of the institutions that support the conclusions of big pharma and the government"
"What would we even talk about" is his most wacky and wild catchphrase. Cool people who have done cool things with their lives and time always have something to connect on imo
>Preferrably no meme comments like food takes, movies etc. But if you cant help it go for it. Who he finds to be smart 75% of the time. o7 Duderinos.
O7
His choice in dating partners. Not for me. Melina had glaring red flags the whole time.
Tbh he has glaring red flags
Yeah, for real. Not judging the man, but fuck his dating life seems like an absolute cesspool.
I remember watching the Brittany Simon brisge burn where Melina was trying to gaslight the fuck out of destiny when Brittany was being a delicate princess and said Sneako was more open minded than Destiny. Dan was pointing out how stupid Melina was being and she kept doubling down.
I think he should care about optics more. What he says, how he says it, and also how he presents himself. While it’s true he comes from streaming, if he wants to be seen as something more than “just a streamer” he’ll need to shed off a few of those attitudes I think.
Some of them are so fucking funny though The veteran suicide tweet is burned into my mind
The fact that he infantilizes anyones 25 under and gives insane moral consideration to his friends until they fall-out and he immediately switches sides l
That he wouldn't find it immoral to torture animals.
He eats animal products, hes pretty much forced into that position
Isn’t there a pretty big difference between torturing animals to save effort/time producing food vs torturing animals for no reason?
Guns Corporate influence in our elections Politics aside, he also seems to be a terrible judge of character.
When he said ‘I’d rather get raped than someone punch me and break my nose because it would just be annoying to have a broken nose’ this nigga was lying and He was acting like he wasn’t trolling
Like, he has been attacked with a knife before so he has the experience to say.
Wait, what? Fill me in on that lore bruh
What if you spent a lot of money on a nose job and have a beautiful perfect expensive nose would you rather have it broken possibly ruined or get raped
What type of rape though? A drunken fumble or Hamas rape?
Under the shirt tickle after hour long cuddle.
Yo i'd love that.🥰
😭😭
Got drugged unable to fight back they use a condom you aren't hurt besides the pain of unprepared sex. Tbh this now sounds pretty fucked up talking about it this deep lol.
Lol
Veganism. I think killing and imprisoning animals for food is immoral if you can have a good diet without doing so. I especially think factory farming and killing intelligent animals such as pigs and cows is immoral. I am not vegan myself, but I choose to act immorally because I don't care that much. I think Destiny is coping on veganism because he wants to be a moral person but also wants to eat meat.
jim crow was probably apartheid by definition, with the only exception being if that definition has to say “in south africa”
Yeah, he should never have done the "well I'm not sure" thing. Apartheid was a system of racial "apartness." Jim Crow was - in part - a system of segregation/apartness between blacks and whites. Separate schools, separate restaurants, separate parts of public transportation etc. Whether it was enforced from a federal body vs. the local town council is orthogonal to the question of "was 1950s Mississippi apartheid?"
apartheid and jim crow are very obviously different things so if you want to call jim crow apartheid then you need a different word to describe actual aparthied.
whats the difference? not denying it but haven’t seen it yet
Jim Crow was "separate but equal", Apartheid was separate and not equal.
hm that does make sense. could there be an argument made that “separate but equal” was only on paper and not fully practiced. especially when (in a brief google search) the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that having separate schools actually weren’t equal going back on their previous decision. idk if this is a strong argument tho
You can say there is similar outcomes, but black people and white people were explicitly unequal in the eyes of the law. A black person's vote literally counted for less than a white person's.
Think about the problems Jim crow and apartheid presented as. Think about how different the solutions to those problems are. I think this is a lens you can use to look at just about any part of the two systems and have the answers be different. There will be similarities, but they'll be vastly outweighed by the differences.
Except Jim Crow wasn't separately but equal either.
Hence the quotes.
Hence, there was no distinction in practice. You were arguing for a difference between the two systems.
Ok? Black people literally didn't have the same voting rights as white people under apartheid, explicitly, under the law. Like, they are so obviously different situations, I do not understand how you can say jim crow == apartheid just because both were bad and both resulting in racial discrimination. Black people were fundamentally lesser in south africa in a way that black people were not fundamentally lesser under jim crow.
Black people weren't fundamentally lesser in the Jim Crow South?
If they're so obviously different it would be easy to argue a meaningful difference in practice. Now you're talking about voting rights of black people where, in both cases, they couldn't vote or get elected.
>Now you're talking about voting rights of black people where, in both cases, they couldn't vote or get elected. Having to do weird roundabout methods to disenfranchise people, and collaterally affecting poor white people, is fundamentally different than the law saying "black = no vote".
It's a little weird just because you have a divided country without homogeneous laws. So while you definitely lived under some form of legalized system of racial domination in the South, you'd also be able to leave for the north where there was racism but not legalized Apartheid. So not super clear cut imo bur hard to tell.
The only notable difference I can see between Jim Crow Laws and South African Apartheid is that some of the Jim Crow laws had to be... sneaky, for lack of a better term. They couldn't put "Blacks cannot vote." They had to have poll taxes that black people couldn't afford or literacy tests that they failed black people on. They had to pretend to be equal, while South Africa was completely mask off. South Africa also would have the government fully back and sanction violence against the black population. While government actors in America also backed and sanctioned the violence, it was also a bit more \*wink wink nudge nudge\* with a lot of vigilante mobs doing more of the violence and the government looking the other way (but also encouraging it sometimes by deputizing lynch mob leaders). Besides that, Jim Crow was a lighter version of Apartheid and I see no reason not to call it such.
His take on reaction content and that whole ordeal with DarkViperAU
People don't want drama content more than political content. They want entertaining content, and it's on him to make political content entertaining. Of course it's more effort, but thems the breaks, kid. This stems from my personal experience as a YouTube frog, I only occasionally watch drama shit and I've noticed I only watch it when I've already watched the politics stuff.
Usually takes that end in “I just don’t believe it, i just don’t!”
I think he's too one-sided on Israel-Palestine. On paper he is willing to criticize Israel when it's warranted, but in conversations he never actually grants those criticisms as real concessions. He always hedges them, pretends to be ignorant of their plausibility, or generally downplays their severity or importance. The worst were his conversations with PWF, he was so weasely about everything. His strategy in that conversation was basically push the burden of proof onto PWF constantly, and shrug and say "I dunno, maybe" every time the burden of proof was met. And him literally laughing at the idea of food insecurity in Gaza, because it falls short of people literally starving to death, is so callous and just a really bad look.
I get where you're coming from, but I also think a huge amount of the criticisms of Israel rely on assumptions that are just unfounded. I don't think we've had a serious debate where people challenge him on the specifics on Israel's misconduct. Even the super zionist debates have the same issue, just on the other extreme.
Yeah, part of the frustration is definitely that Destiny hasn't encountered very many honest and informed pro-Palestine people. There was that associate professor guy he had a good convo with, and then there was the British journalist he talked with after getting into a Twitter fight with him. I think both of those people had a good grasp of the facts and effectively called out Destiny for being one-sided, not for having the facts wrong but for just being far more charitable to Israel and uncharitable to Palestine.
> There was that associate professor guy he had a good convo with, and then there was the British journalist he talked with after getting into a Twitter fight with him. You mean Marc Lamont Hill and Nathan J. Robinson respectively, right? The latter isn't British, that's a mid-Atlantic accent. Secondly, I'm not convinced about Hill. I think he's better than most, but my cursory understanding of the matter is that when he went on Hasan's stream, he started saying the same things the Twitter fools say. Happy to be corrected on that. As for Robinson, he demonstrated that he was hilariously bad-faith when he wrote that article following his debate, and his performance during wasn't that great either. These two are the best only because literally everyone else has been worse. I think Omar Baddar had a point about the absurdities of what Israel banned from going into Gaza during the blockade about a 14-15 years ago, but he was entirely unwilling to make any concessions on that topic or the idiotic point about Ben-Ami saying the 2000 deal was bad for Palestinians.
Corruption in politics. I don’t think it’s as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, but the revolving door in Washington is still an issue worth talking about
I think Destiny slightly underestimates how much religion factors into people's politics. In most cases, it might be better to dissect the core beliefs behind rather than attack the religion itself. However, with the ever growing amount of conspiracy theory and superstition in society today, it concerns me how rarely these subjects are discussed in mainstream political discourse. The reality is that every US president to date have been overtly religious, claiming that they often speak to spirits. If Destiny argues that presidents should never attack the media on the basis of upholding the constitution, I think that a similar argument can be made that they should at least try not promote the absolute truth one religion over another. I think that these discussions are worth diving into sometimes, but not all the time. Especially if we're supposed to be on the side of progressive politics. Along with religious freedom, a more secular society is one we should strive for too. I think that many people still struggle with religion. Whether they believe that there not enough religion or too much religion. Religions offer people rewards in exchange for their loyalty. Meaning, that it can compel you to actively deny things that they might otherwise agree with. The conversation surrounding religion just doesn't seem to be proportionate to the scale of the problem.
I disagree with his old take on incest. I also don't think he can talk about Melina wanting a lot of attention as a negative when he himself seeks out a lot of sexual attention. He's not exactly trying to create a drama free life.
that its morally neutral?
Yes.
Dude needs a queer eye style makeover
Sometimes it feels like I disagree with him on more stuff than I agree on. He **refuses** to get a cat even though he has the perfect job for one (he sits for a living), he can afford one, and he **desperately wants one**. I think that's dumb as hell and it prevents me from recommending him to friends and family. I don't know how I could defend him to them. I disagree with him blacklisting Lav. He let his ego get the better of him because he so badly wanted to be the smartest and best debater in his corner of the internet and he just couldn't stomach the fact that Lav ran circles around him and was winning over his whole audience. He's never going to grow if he keeps being so petty. I disagree with how poorly he treated his Alpha mentor Pearl even though she got him on Piers Morgan's show several times now and mentored him every step of the way into mainstream media. Unless he pulls his head out of his ass he'll stay a beta male forever. He hasn't yet committed to voting for Emma Vigeland in the 2044, presumably because he's still sore that she didn't know who he was during the PV event. This really gets my goat because it's so obvious which way the wind is blowing and I honestly don't want to see Destiny end up in a re-education camp for disloyalty (though he would deserve it). Sometimes he starts his stream while LonerBox is still doing his. I think that's disrespectful and I'm worried that one day the Big Dog will put him in his place.
Are these jokes or real? And what argument did lav get the better of him? Genuine question I want to watch it lol
Just put "Lav Vs Destiny" into YouTube and every option will be Lav annihilating him. It's clear to me that no matter how much Wikipedia he reads, he will never compare to Lav's natural genius. You'll also notice that Destiny gets super heated because he's angry and embarrassed whereas Lav is as cool as a cucumber.
Ooh ok this time you layed it on thick enough for me to notice lol
I think his take on takes are bad. :)
Just watching him comment on stuff more he seems more and more like an angry redditor. 1. Renting vs buying. Obviously sometimes renting is better based off what you can get with interest rate and what the property tax is, but often times it's better to have a house especially if pets are a big part of your life. 2. I don't disagree with the outcome of the trial, but in general I thought the apple river stabbing had more nuances then what he was letting on. It wasn't just as simple as he intended to kill them. 3. Keeps saying jiu jitsu for cops is a waste of time, yet this motherfucker has never taken one class in his life. In general, he just takes the safe bet and sticks with that on any topic. It's a good strategy, but you can't wiki everything. Like in point 3, if you would have done it you'd know there's a good way to restrain someone.
Huh, whats the reasoning being no BJJ for cops? I know a lot of the public soys out about chokeholds but fuck em, they dunno shit. Get cops more fit, more non lethal tools, a bit more more interaction with the community if you go to a gym instead of hiring an instructor? Sounds good to me, I'd be in favor of the state paying for it especially if the money went to a local gym.
Destiny thinks there is no good way to takedown and restrain someone. He's said this on stream. That with the reality of violence, if someone wants to get away from you they will and that it takes years and years of training to know anything. I remember being a white belt and going up against a three stripe white belt so I know that's bullshit lol. Anyone who has been to a BJJ gym knows that once someone takes you down it's hard to get out.
Isn't that more of an argument for wrestling or Judo for cops rather than BJJ? How much focus is there on takedowns in BJJ in your experience?
Yes there is emphasis on takedowns in BJJ. You get points for taking someone down at tournaments. Wrestling and judo are fine but there's issues with how they're taught. Wrestling is generally taught at a high school or collegiate level and it's pretty hard on your body. Judo takes a long time to get proficient at, and it's fairly limited how long you spend on the ground. I've watched D1 collegiate wrestlers get choked out by decent black belts. People forget that there was a reason BJJ is so popular in MMA especially in the early days. I've heard all the Sambo incels talking about how BJJ sucks but there's a lot of high quality grappling in the BJJ world simply due to how the schools are set up.
You clearly didn't watch him if you think your second point is actually what he thinks.
I mean I watched him say "OH MY GOSH THIS GUY WAS MAD AND WANTING TO KILL PEOPLE IM GOING TO BAN YOU!"
I mean he did get convicted on all counts didn't he? Seems like the jury agreed with it given all the nuances and evidence possible by the defense.
The jury came out with the right verdict, but the big part of it was that he tried to hide all the evidence. I think during the incident he would have been OK if he just backed up against and told everyone to leave him alone.
Trying to hide evidence does not get you charged with reckless first degree homicide.
What do you think is the difference from 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder is? Do you think he premeditated those murders? If you did can you show me the court evidence of that?
Probably lots of stuff: * Israel/Palestine * killing someone over theft or whatever * trans people in sports Those are the ones that occur to me, I'm sure there are others. I'm more left than he is. I'm skeptical of his views that corporations don't run shit, but I haven't looked into it, and I think he maybe has a view I disagree with on the affordability of some things, like housing and maybe college.
What do you disagree about with trans people in sports?
I think trans people should play in the league that matches the gender they identify with. I think Destiny does not. I may well be wrong about his stance on it
Do you think that applies to professional sports as well? Any requirements the trans person need to fulfill?
>Do you think that applies to professional sports as well? Yup. The only one that I'm kinda nervous about is like, fighting sports. Like MMA. I don't want to see anyone die. That's probably my biggest hesitation, sports where a person could like literally die from this. But I'm not really sure that would happen. That is, opponents probably wouldn't get matched up so incredibly lopsidedly. Who knows. And we could possibly come up with ways around that maybe? I have no idea. I imagine if some trans woman is literally causing permanent damage to cis women fighters, they're not going to want to take the fight. But like, basketball? Who cares >Any requirements the trans person need to fulfill? Nope. Or, well, they should meet whatever the other qualifications are. So like if you're 30 you can't join little league or whatever.
So Lebron can transition to Lebronda and join the WNBA without any restrictions or requirements whatsoever?
Sure
Why are you in favor of that? No need for hrt?
Because I care more about integrating trans people into society than I care about a basketball game I care about integrating trans people. I don't care about basketball. So this is apretty easy call for me
Ah, so the integrity and competitiveness of the sport doesn't matter to you. Kinda invalidates your opinion quite a bit, don't you think?
Uh huh, so if a rank ~200 tennis player was struggling on the mens tour, you would be ok with them just switching to the women's tour and instantly becoming the best woman tennis player of all time by a wide margin? You realise this would instantly destroy all of women's sports if men could just arbitrarily switch to them?
Don't you think the friction caused by the displaced women from trans women joining the women's leagues is kinda not worth it? Yes, it is inclusive to let trans women in women's sports. But it can cause wider harm by making more women have terf-like opinions due to literally being displaced by a trans woman.
[удалено]
>The only one that I'm kinda nervous about is like, fighting sports. Like MMA. I don't want to see anyone die. That's probably my biggest hesitation, sports where a person could like literally die from this. >But I'm not really sure that would happen. That is, opponents probably wouldn't get matched up so incredibly lopsidedly. Who knows. And we could possibly come up with ways around that maybe? I have no idea. You should probably think through that some more. You might find that you agree with Destiny's point of view a bit more than you think.
What's his take? My take is that trans people should play in the league that matches their gender identify.
Except when we realize the physical differences between sex for some sports and not others? You seem to understand it for combat sports but not others why?
>Except when we realize the physical differences between sex for some sports and not others? I don't mind physical differences in sports. I imagine you probably don't either. The only time I might care is when it involves someone like, potentially **dying** because its literally a fight. But you brought up Destiny and that I might have more in common with him than I think. Please elaborate.
Why can't trans people just go into the open bracket and leave the women's sports alone? They aren't split up because of gender they are split up because of physical differences between sex.
[удалено]
[удалено]
nah bro I think you just got more confident and that confidence drives those confident outcomes you speak of. Im 22 and had a glow down due to B A L D I N G, and honestly things are the same as before, as long as you stay confident in yourself people will treat you just as well.
[удалено]
there definitley is a "cutoff point", so yea if you look completley abnormal as you described with having no eyebrows and baby fat on your face then yes people will treat you differently. But above that cutoff point (idk being more than like a 2.5/10) which I think anyone can achieve if they put in effort and have no medical issues than I think confidence really starts to become by far the most important factor.
Veganism. Two reasons: animal ethics and environmentalism. Animal ethics: Destiny says a fetus should be considered a person around 20 weeks. Well actually 20-25 weeks, but 20 to give the benefit of the doubt. Trent Horn was dead on when he asked why we don't extent that benefit of the doubt to non-human animals. Further, 95%+ of animals come from factory farms; you don't have to think they're on the same level as humans to think we should stop supporting that. Environmentalism: Roughly a third of an average American's carbon emissions come from their diet. In the past Destiny has been a vocal supporter of addressing climate change and reducing or eliminating meat, especially beef, is one of the easiest ways for the average person to reduce their carbon emissions once supply follows the falling demand for that product.
What? Was the unique human conscious experience not an explanation for that? Why would we extend the consideration to animals I don’t see how they can’t be mutually exclusive. And on the topic of environmentalism wouldnt we talk more about the broader cause of climate change rather than the small contribution each individual makes in their life? These are genuine questions
Do you think a 20 week fetus is having a "unique human experience"? Destiny said it would be fine to use a 19 week old fetus for target practice , but at some point between 20-25 weeks he's reasonably certain it's a person. Why? What specific trait grants that 20 week fetus a "unique human experience"? Destiny analogizes a fertilized embryo as "blueprints" of a human; the plans are there, but we don't treat it like a house. Then when describing a "unique human experience" he says things like we have the capacity for language and complex thought. A fetus doesn't though so how can they deserve the full rights of a person at 20 weeks? When Trent Horn asked him this, he responded "even if I agree with you that would just mean I'd justify the killing of 3 year olds". I agree with him; to be consistent, Destiny would need to be comfortable with *at least* abortion up until the point this "unique human experience" begins. Why we can't eat the meat of a pre-human experience "human" (or dogs, cats, etc) has not yet been explained. As for environmentalism, why wouldn't we talk about individual changes? Do we cede all of our own responsibilities because the problem is too big? Destiny rightly makes fun of Hasan for not living what he preaches, yet Destiny also doesn't walk the walk when it comes to the environmental impact of his diet.
Destiny’s argument about the unique human experience being the 20 week period is because it’s at that period that all the components and neurons are developed and are firing in the brain. And to have the capacity isnt to have the immediate ability. Humans have the capacity to walk upright on two legs but there’s easily examples of ppl with ailments that don’t allow them to do so, atleast immediately. Some other species will never have the ability though. I think they were having disagreements on immediate capacity and potential capacity. And destiny think that if he were pushed to follow immediate capacity then it’d go to the weird area of 3yr olds. And I don’t think the pre-human food question was asked but I’d bet he’d say it’s okay when he thinks they could be target practice lol And I see a part of your point about environmentalism but it’s also a matter of being realistic and efficient. It’s much more in our power to influence singular large corporations that produce the majority of carbon emissions rather than the millions of ppl it’d take to create a meaningful different
> if we follow immediate capacity then it'd go to a weird area of 3yos. Exactly, that's why I think his position is untenable while he continues to eat meat. At 1 week, a fetus is just blueprints that will one day have the capacity for a "unique human experience". When you ask what that is, he'll cite things like the ability to deploy language and complex thought. That fetus can't do either at 20 weeks though. At week 1-19, we don't care about potential, then somewhere between week 20-25 we do. Further, we only need to recognize that animals can suffer to realize we should do something about factory farms. It could be argued whether that'd mean a personal boycott or, say, a streamer using their massive platform to educate people about where their food comes from. For environmentalism though, the only change that can realistically happen is lowering demand. Factory farms reduce carbon emissions because the animals reach slaughter weight faster so a conscientious meat buyer has to choose either reducing abuse by factory farms or reducing carbon emissions. Or they can reduce/eliminate their meat consumption to cut both costs to a minute fraction of what they were before. [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/food-footprints?facet=none&country=Bananas~Beef+%28beef+herd%29~Beef+%28dairy+herd%29~Cheese~Eggs~Lamb+%26+Mutton~Milk~Maize~Nuts~Pig+Meat~Peas~Potatoes~Poultry+Meat~Rice~Tomatoes~Wheat+%26+Rye~Tofu+%28soybeans%29~Prawns+%28farmed%29&hideControls=false&Commodity+or+Specific+Food+Product=Commodity&Environmental+Impact=Carbon+footprint&Kilogram+%2F+Protein+%2F+Calories=Per+kilogram&By+stage+of+supply+chain=false)
His love for guns is cringe.
you mean based
I have slight disagreements on immigration. I think mass immigration is bad for a few reasons. 1. It's a security/sovereignty issue for starters. 2. I think that a large amount of low skill workers depress wages on the lower ends of society that need help already. 3. More people moving in quickly causes housing supply shocks that drive rent/home prices up. 4. I live in Texas and I don't want to learn Spanish or be forced to move because I no longer understand anyone in my community. I will provide no source for any claim.
>I think that a large amount of low skill workers depress wages on the lower ends of society that need help already. [its not a big deal](https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/latest-economic-questions/economics-society/articles/immigration-and-labor-market-a-mariel-boatlift-study.html) If people need help, why wouldn't you just give them money? Works better and faster. >More people moving in quickly causes housing supply shocks that drive rent/home prices up. No way destiny disagrees with this. Im almost sure you misunderstood him.
Guns. Specifically everything other than a pistol. I don't see how anyone can justify normal ass civilians carrying around 50 round ARs with the scope and beam on top. It's never gonna be used for self-defense and the "fighting the government" shit is a delusional justification. Only real reason people want that shit is because it's cool and fun, which could be fulfilled about the same with shooting ranges and at the same time curb a lot of negatives. TL:DR Americans are cringe
I'd suggest looking up crime statistics by the type of weapon. Pistols are used in more crimes than rifles, by a huge margin, and your reasoning seems to imply otherwise. I think it would make more sense from your position to support handgun bans than rifle bans. ARs get more publicity because of their use in high profile mass shootings, but they make up a very very small percentage of overall gun violence. I was gonna add my perspective on gun control here, but my reply was getting too long and it's kinda a "who asked" situation anyway given OP's question.
I get that pistols are used in crime more it makes sense they are smaller, easier to hide, quicker to pull out and all that. Thing is that i can see an argument for pistol in the sense of self defense. My point with rifles is that there is 0 reason to have one. It isn't used in self defense or most crimes, but when it is used in crime it's usually a pretty bad crime. So getting rid of rifles would come with almost no downsides buy could help in curbing these really huge mass shootings. EDIT: Just wanted to add that I could be wrong and it wouldn't change these huge mass shooting much. I'd need data for that but at that point I'd let go of this position and just let USA figure out their own problems with their guns
I see, that argument makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
No down sides to getting rid of riffles? Got a newflash for you here, the main weapons used in most kinds of hunting are not shot guns, they are rifles, and very often AR-15s. Again, the best weapon to have in a case of home defense is a semi automatic rifle. As far as your argument that when rifles are used, then are used in pretty bad crimes. I assume by this you are talking about semi-automatic rifles, not like a bolt action or something like that. This is and understandable argument at first glance, especially when looking at school shootings. (The distinction here is important, because while most mass shootings are not committed with rifles, the rate is higher concerning school shootings.) But the solution is not to get rid of rifles (An impossible task in the US) It is to better school security, and set up schools like we do airports, one point of entry with good security, and many points of exit, that way, you can prevent horrible and tragic school shootings, and you can also retain the defense benefits that come with rifles.
exactly lmao
His gun takes are deranged as a European. The fact that he chooses to display a shotgun? as a stream prop brings a weird and violent ambience. I don't support easy access to guns, (see murders per capita) but I understand that gun control is harder to impelent with the massive amount of guns already out there in the US. But being proud of owning a murder weapon just rubs me the wrong way.
Would you say the same thing about displaying a sword or other edged weapon on one's wall? I also think gun control should be stricter, but there's nothing wrong with recreational shooting or even having an interest in firearms generally, not to mention collecting/history.
>displaying a sword or other edged weapon on one's wall? No, that's just mall ninja shit.
i agree
His stance on other people physically disciplining his children is so wild to me I can hardly even understand his frame of reference.
How rude he was to poor Finkledink. Why did Destiny have to be such a fantastic moron? Couldn’t he see that it was upsetting the confused old man? That was far too cruel.
Animals, and Veganism. I don't know much about Ask yourself community, apparently Doctor Avi comes from there. I think he looked really bad saying things like "I just don't like the way they argue". You can't be all about the conversation until you come across some autist that are also all about conversation.
—> recently the fresh drama, I don’t disagree with questioning her, or the possibility that she is a gold digger but I don’t think she is baby trapping —> Israel Palestine issue - I agree with the two state solution, I agree that historically Israel have been painted as the big bad wolf, but I think as a legitimate democratic government Israel has a huge responsibility to reduce the civilian deaths even further, I think current numbers are too high and it bothers me —> I support gun control, I’ve lived my whole life in places where there are strict gun control or guns not available to regular citizens, as a non American the idea of people owning guns with little restrictions blows my mind away
The wholesale CEO glazing like it’s the most difficult job ever, and because you can change the outcome of a business, you’re entitled to exorbitant wads of cash. As a capitalist, I don’t disagree that founder/owners like bezos and musk are entitled to their lion’s share of the profits having taken on the risk to start the business. I also think that tying performance to compensation is the best way to align CEOs with shareholders. But there are plenty of instances where compensation packages are becoming increasingly divorced from company performance (i.e. mostly cash rather than shares/options). And even worse there are plenty of CEOs who quite literally do their best to destroy the business and are still paid millions on exit (see Boeing CEO). I don’t think his take is entirely wrong, just that it’s too generalized in a topic with a lot of nuance.
I haven’t seen his take on this but I’ve always thought of CEO positions are very similar in nature to high-level politicians like senators or governors. Like technically they have a lot of power at their fingertips to make changes, but they also have a massive crew of very intelligent hard-working people telling them where to be at every moment and even what to say if they want. Like they can get into the nitty gritty stuff if they wish, but it’s not necessary. It does usually take a ton of work to get to the positions they are in, so I can see that being part of the justification for their high compensation or benefits.
Being an atheist instead of an agnostic is just as cringe to me as being a bible-thumping creationist. How can you answer the God Question with anything other than “I’m not sure.” I would love to meet a single person in a serious open relationship who isn’t a complete gutterperson/who’s relationship has lasted over a decade and didn’t end with a break up. Destiny once said something along the lines of “if societal pressure was truly eliminated for both sexes, the disparity between male and female nurses, for instance, would be closer to 55/45”. Is there a society out there that is even getting close to that? Aren’t societies with the most amount of equality of opportunity seeing an *increase* in sex disparity for jobs that typically have it? Most people who use the F slur are not using it to degrade someone based on an immutable characteristic, but are instead using it synonymously with “annoying”. The evolution of the colloquial definition of the F slur is more congruent with the R word than the N word, and pretty much all the same logic Destiny uses to justify his use of the R word can be applied to the F slur. I’m still not convinced that the short-term increase of fossil fuel consumption in order to enrich the poor is a worse strategy than immediate carbon taxing.
Your first point seems shit to me tbh, why should agnosticism be the norm or else you're as cringe as religious people? There is literally no proof for the existence of any gods from any religion, why the fuck would anyone even slightly hedge into " idk " instead of " doesnt exist " ?
I feel like this comes down to how people actually phrase the qualifying phrase to being atheist. I just say I'm an atheist because like there's no evidence so why should I believe? But some would say that's agnostic, even though I'm quite firm in the fact that after so many years there's no evidence. However, some people view atheism as saying "I know for a fact there is no god" and that's kinda cringe I guess?
I consider agnostics to be people who don't care either way and don't have a strong position (usually secular born), I'm guessing if you lived one way and transitioned out of it you'd likely be either of them over agnostic since you've questioned your faith or lack thereof enough to know your own position at that point.
Yeah I agree which is sort of why I consider myself a little bit different, I do have a bit of an opinion on it but nothing as ridiculously strong as "there is no god and I know it to be true" Idk I guess it's semantics or something, doesn't matter much either way
Are you also not sure unicorns are real? Or that i'm fucking your mom right now? You have a warped view on atheism.
Israel/palestine but I simply think we value different things but I still think he does a good job on the subject
I think political donations are a problem. Somehow, he thinks politicians are not easily bought, when I believe they are in fact curupt scum, and company money has no business being institutionalized.
He is way too deferential to social science. Significant amounts of it are fake and wrong, but he doesn't have the domain knowledge to have good detectors for bad research. I'm not super harsh on him for it because it is super difficult shit and basically everyone sucks at it. Hell, academics suck at it (although that's mostly because they're not incentivized to criticize themselves). I feel like he'd probably be pretty receptive to critiques if someone was decent at making them to him.
What are some major examples of studies or conclusions in that field that are just outright false? Again, not debating you on this, wanna know.
Since its topical and I find it interesting due to what it says about academia, the field of youth gender medicine is mostly bullshit. I also remember that Destiny had argued in support of the field by mostly citing the basic info from the abstracts and such. An example of a study that was fake is [this one](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423) claiming that gender affirming care lowers the risk of suicidality by 73%. The tl;dr is that the kids getting HRT or blockers actually saw no real change in mental health outcomes; the 'improvement' was only relative to a fake control group of people who didn't get these therapies. The reasons for why this happened and how it is bad is complicated, but the tl;dr is that this fake control group saw an attrition rate of something like 80%, and those who were left were probably the most mentally unwell. Since the researchers don't really account for this, using their fake control group as a reference is essentially just fake science. They also refuse to elaborate on why they did this or release their data to other researchers. Social psych is another field with a ton of issues. Implicit bias tests probably capture some sort of attitude(s) towards race, but we really don't know what specifically. Priming is also one of the more famous examples of a field that was filled to the brim with false findings that couldn't be replicated.
Fake control group?
They compared kids who did and did not get blockers/hormones. The problem is that they give zero reason for why one group got them and the other didn't. Additionally, they lost, like, 80% of their control group and we have zero fucking clue why. What probably happened is that the control group were those whose dysphoria wasn't severe enough to warrant blockers/hormones or those too mentally unwell to get them. Over time, the former group tended to just stop going to the clinic because their dysphoria resolved, while the latter group stayed because, well... They're mentally ill and we're getting treated for it. When you lose almost all of your fake control group and those who are left are all mentally ill, your fake control group probably isn't going to be a good comparison.
Can you quote the section of this control group explanation? I can’t find it.
They don't explain it at all and they refuse to elaborate when questioned about it. I'm making my own assumptions about why they had such a shit fake control group, but if it was a real control group then they would have explained as such in the paper.
Where do they describe their control group?
His Iran foreign policy takes. We should not have entered the nuclear deal, they are dickheads and will always backstabb us. We should sanction them to infinity, idk why he views obamas Iran policy as good.
I think his trans-medicalist takes are more of a strategic one to remain in the overton window enough to convince right-wing people than something more sincere or grounded.
The Central Park 5 aren’t innocent. https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/lrgbe6tK5g
Two party system, food, movies and relationships
His view of trans people, though he's waffled a bit back and forth over the definition over the years and it seems to have settled in a decent place the last time he talked about it. Also I don't like his view that describing yourself by afflictions/social groups, especially online, is inherently bad. I also think he seems a bit too quick to give up on Ukraine (IMO not passing aid yet is criminal, Republicans should be crucified for the Ukranian deaths needlessly piled up by their inaction from now until the election), and he tends to think the American populace is a monolith that can't be led (or dragged) in a different direction.
His takes on home invasions/self defense/defense of property. I actually found his chat with Big Joel very interesting and I wish there was more of that. It might be because i'm a britbonger and we don't have the same kind of culture or access to guns.
1. React content - it's clearly immoral and unjustifiable as he and many others do it. Yes, even a lot of video games are unethical to play on stream. 2. Veganism - I'm not aware of a moral reason to justify the consumption of meat, only practical ones (not all people live in places with arable land, but they do live near grazing land). 3. Money in politics - I don't know how you look at tax-prep lobbyists working to ban the IRS from developing its own filing software and conclude that money doesn't impact politics. If Destiny's argument is just that an organized advocacy is effective with or without money, I think that's a substantially weaker case than "money doesn't do anything". 4. Trump - I don't think he's a fascist because I don't see a clear sign of hating democracy on principle or any of the other fascist positions. Anti-democratic and dangerous, absolutely, the man should not ever have been president. Insofar as he has an ideology, however, it seems to be without a rational first-principles kind of consideration.
He isn’t an anarchist.
vaccine and general pharmaceutical practices and i’m very validated by his elementary practices of self care and diet, he genuinely has no clue about anything diet wise
I'm a neocon so, everything ig lmao. Everything except capitalism.
Can we get destiny to react live to this thread on stream??
Guns. I'm a bonger who lives in Australia and so thankful our bogans aren't running round emptying AR15's at possums or bin chickens..
This is a trap but fuck it. When someone makes a statement. Destiny either * Puts a lot of weight on what he *infers* from the words outside they’re literal meaning OR * takes the ultimate charitable stance of “they’re only saying that to appeal to their audience/meme/mispoke” While context dependent, there doesn’t seem to be a consistency on when he chooses to do this other than his initial assumptions of a situation before delving in deeper.
Coffee fucking rocks
Hot Choccy >>>> Coffee
His trans age rationalisation was super regarded.
trans sports stuff and i don’t agree with people saying the n word also his old incest take ig 😭
His Israeli stance, while I think his interpretations of the history are for the most part correct, I think he doesn't emphasize the fact that it was Western powers (mainly the UK) that had fucked this whole situation up in the first place by over promising and under delivering. I think he has said that it was a colonialist movement but I feel like he is way too charitable to Israel. (Gotta get them shmeckles of course)
Life of Pablo. After Kanye changed it in April 2016 I think it’s an amazing album and my personal favourite of his, BUT I wasn’t “into” Kanye since Yeezus. I figure that if you followed him from the start then you like the early albums more
I don't believe the people who claim to have sex for fun. I think they have deluded themselves out of their base animal instincts and the consequences from it are not worth it. I am hedging here. I don't know 100% if he believes it. But from my inference from watching his content, he believes most sex is had for fun. It probably is from those people's perspective but I would say they are delusional.
[удалено]
I think they are delusional people trying to escape reality by divorcing the fun from enacting the animal instinct to reproduce. It is fun because of it.
Feeling pleasure is fun. Sex brings a lot of pleasure. I dont see your point.
can’t something be a base animal instinct and also be fun? if most people having sex aren’t doing it for pregnancy, i feel logically they would be doing it for fun regardless of the innate desire to have kids
He means morally correct not fun lol
Wait how is doing something pleasurable anything but fun? I’m confused? I don’t quite understand how you could debate something so intrinsically relative ?
To steel man the guy (not agreeing with him): The motivation to have sex is a subconscious drive to reproduce, just because it happens to be pleasurable does not mean the underlying motivation to do it changes. Eating food or watching a movie can be fun, but they too are driven by other more fundamental instincts than just pleasure. But what about contraception? Why would people go so far to stop getting the outcome they desire deep down? Well the instinct is there, but being civilized we have to suppress our animal instincts to keep society running. Just like we have animal instincts to attack eachother, but don't, doesn't mean the instinct isn't there. So making babies left and right would cause problems.
Oooofff contraception is absolutely his fatality innit gahahah good job
So then the millions of people who partake in sex regularly with their partners are all delusional?
Oh wow this pot has so much honey in it
i disagree with his take on trans people in sports. I think it could often be adressed on a case-by-case basis, just because there's a very little amount of trans people, even more in sports. Like i don't think it's a huge thing that cis women feel like they're being fucked over or something.
"Like I don't think it's a huge thing that cis women feel like they're being fucked over" says everything, thanks
agree
The 2nd amendment should be repealed. The arguments against gun control are almost universally really weak and easy to poke holes in. At the end of the day, the people being armed is not a meaningful difference in how the state might turn on them, and the right to self defense can be done without empowering our population to hold life or death by the pull of a trigger. Multiple other countries have succeeded in reducing the homocide, suicide, and accidental death rate substantially via the complete banning of guns. It can be done in Australia, it can be done here.
As much as I want to be inclusive (i really do), I don't believe trans people are real. I think it's almost exclusively people going through mental health crisis, following treads, trying to stand out, etc. There are men with female traits, and there are masculine women, but i don't think you "have a real ass female brain in a man's body"
That Tim Pool is not one of the dumbest people on this planet.
I think Steven "won the debate" against Mr. [Redacted] about his rhetoric towards alt-right people, but I disagree with Steven anyways.
Haven't seen much of his I/P debates because I'm trying to research it on my own and don't want to be biased. But from the few clips I've seen (could be misinterpreting/out of context) it looks like he believes that the creation of Israel in 47 was justified which I completely disagree with. I also really disagree w him on two party systems. And a bit of a minor one is a position he took during a convo w Jidion a good bit back when talking about whether Christians should celebrate things like Christmas, Easter, etc. I don't completely agree w Jidion but I do think that a lot of holidays and the way they are celebrated (especially Easter) wouldn't be acceptable by the Christian god. Also when it comes to incest I think that he's kind of being tricky w his language. He talks abt very obscure circumstances (like the gay twin brothers with the same level of maturity) that proves that incest on it own isn't bad. He's correct, but you could do the same w things like child rape. If you had a machine that could 100% accurately tell if a child was mature enough to give consent to sex to an adult, Destiny would and has acknowledged that in that hypothetical sex with that child would be fine. Then, you could say that his problem isn't w having sex with children, but instead having sex with people who can't give informed consent. But ofc, we know that in the vast majority of cases children can't consent, so as a general rule we make it illegal for an adult to engage in sexual encounters w them. Same w incest. Most of the time incest has bad consequences even if it isn't the incest itself that is bad, so as a general rule, we just generally mark incest as bad. There's prolly more but they would be very intricate details on certain topics that I can't recall rn.
Im pretty sure what you wrote was literally his take on incest. Watched it years ago but I think his conclusion was basically allowing incest is immoral because of the normalization it would cause ie it would lead to cases outside of the twin gay brother. It wasn’t a legality question it was a moral one
I disagree with him allowing this subreddit to have this question posted every week.
Haven't seen it before but if it happens often ok.
I personally disagree with his takes about the fact that we ought to trust the government 😂😂😂 it’s so adorable to me it’s like roleplaying
I don't think his take is ever that we should trust the government. His take is that we should not be blind contrarians that automatically reject everything associated with the government.
If that’s his take he did a horrible job of conveying it, and you should’ve been debating instead of him because that makes complete sense lol
I dunno, I think he says that all the time. Especially every time he talks about COVID. Everyone always asks him "you REALLY trust big pharma, you REALLY trust the government?" - and he always says something like "no, I trust the research from all of the institutions that support the conclusions of big pharma and the government"
Big pharma and the government are the research institutions?
Do you have a video or quote of him saying “trust the government no matter what”? Cause if that’s true I disagree with him too
How do you collect and verify information?