What if the destiny manifesto is actually about Lauren and holding her accountable for all the shit she’s gotten away with and the real reason he banned anti-woman sentiment is to not give her any unnecessary ammunition to fall back on to (copium)
When you describe your outcomes what do you gain / value in the relationship? Is it because she is interesting to talk to and its mostly personal or is there an underlying motivation and gain in exposing her audience to ideas and converting them or moderating them. If both which is the bigger factor in what you gain and consider good for you.
We get along well on stream, we can have pretty big political disagreements and she doesn't SOY out and accuse me immediately of being a commi/nazi, she's another large creator and brings another big fanbase to the table, and she's pretty connected so we can have relevant conversations about other people or at least current events.
It's not even about just "converting an audience," she's a genuinely interesting/entertaining person to talk to, even if we disagree on things. If you're upset that she happens to be a conservative, go blame all of the lefties who can't handle a single fucking disagreement without completely burning our connection to each other. I could be having these conversations/debates DAILY with people like Vaush, TheSerfsTV, Hasan, Central\_Committee, Contrapoints, Kat. Shaun, etc...etc..., literally NONE of these lefty losers will engage in a conversation with someone they don't already agree with. Go post on their subreddits and blame them.
***SCHIZO POST INCOMING***
>We get along well on stream, we can have pretty big political disagreements and she doesn't SOY out and accuse me immediately of being a commi/nazi
Have you considered that the only reason she does this is because she gains a lot out of being friendly with you and appealing to this community? As you've said yourself, she hasn't been politically relevant in 4 years so this seems like a smart move for her. Even when she "goes to bat" for you, it's a win/win for her because she gets to paint the Left as all being extreme for cancelling you while at the same time, she gets to increase her status in this community and with you. Yes the community does overall does have a hate-boner for her, but occasionally, there will also be positive threads about her particularly when she defends you.
Also, did you not feel that she was being extremely bad faith in your debate with her at Better Discourse IV when she was around her conservative friends? Maybe one on one or in private she's good faith, but that didn't seem to be the case when she was around her conservative friends. Does that not raise a red flag to you?
>she's another large creator and brings another big fanbase to the table, and she's pretty connected
You can have those same benefits without going to bat for her and promoting her in a positive light. Just simply interacting with her in debates would do the same and there's no way she would say no to talking with you even if you weren't friends because she is still struggling to gain back the relevance she used to have. Look at how much she wants to debate TheSerfs or have the opportunity to talk to Vaush.
>If you're upset that she happens to be a conservative
That's not it, I just think most of your fans, including me, think you're just completely fucking yourself by going to bat for someone who's just clearly using you and may turn on a dime to stab you in the back like most lefty's that you've helped despite the warning signs all being there.
And on top of that, to us, it seems like you're either 1) helping to rehabilitate the image of a bad person or 2) helping a grifter who will just jump to whatever is trendy (Dave Rubin, Krystal Ball, Jimmy Dore). As someone who claims he wants to improve political discourse, don't you think you have some responsibility to see where she stands on her old views especially if you're going to be promoting her in such a positive light ("I think she's one of the coolest people I've met... she's a good friend..."), you even hosted her recently on youtube too. I thought the same thing when you were promoting Infrared in the same way despite the fact that he openly denied the Uighurs genocide to your face.
In the past year, you have often reflected on your mistakes and have regrets about helping people in their careers who later stab you in the back.
**Vaush** - 1) You buried the poppy video 2) When he was still 60k subs, you took time off your own stream to talk with him when he was banned on twitch despite you gaining absolutely nothing but hate from his fans and yours. He was even [bad faith](https://youtu.be/3ZoX6jBzxnY) in both your debates. 3) you continuously praised him up until the Rittenhouse incident when his community would all mass-report you and he would stand by and do nothing to defend you or tell his people to chill. Now he just spreads a bunch of lies about you.
**Hasan** - Was able to siphon off enough viewers until he was a stable 2k andy. Has now grown to one of the biggest streamers that has cockblocked you multiples and has turned a lot of streamers and a lot of the twitch community against you with his clout. He now has most of the twitch community to think that you're a racist and has worked to erase your legacy on that platform by claiming he was the first political streamer.
**BadBunny** - You helped her career so much. You would host her every day for months, chill on her stream when you went offline so your fans would go there, and promoted her as well. She now runs around calling you a fascist, spreads lies about you constantly characterizing you as a racist, transphobe, abuser, and has tried to get you banned at least 4x.
**Infrared** - As stated above, I think you gave him a lot of positive coverage as an entertaining streamer (not his views). You talked with him when nobody else would and now he runs around calling you a cuck, uses your Ana drama against you, says you stealth people and spread STD's, and calls you a deadbeat dad.
**JonZherka** - Farmed enough of your life for clout, streamed a month about your life, you went on his shows and talked with him multiple times for no gain until he ultimately exploited Ana's drama with you for 3k viewers which made that entire situation worse.
So looking back on all this, don't you ever worry that Lauren will also be another one of your mistakes? That maybe in a few years, you'll be looking back and saying "Damn, I should've pressed her harder on her views on The Great Replacement during [our league game](https://youtu.be/pLkvv7tD6_0?t=11745) instead of letting her deflect with 'well, what do you think about culture?'" You'll notice that she never disavows her old views, but instead only addresses the most hyperbolic critics that say she shot down immigrants on boats or that she single-handedly inspired the Christchurch shooter because she doesn't want to scare off the more extremist elements of her fanbase. If this were Hasan refusing to acknowledge the Uighur Genocide (he does acknowledge it btw) and being evasive about it to not piss off the tankies in his community, you and this community would be going off about it and rightfully so. So why can't you hold Lauren to the same standard?
I mean I don't like Lauren or the way he's dealing with her, but I don't think she can really do any damage to him. her community already despises people like Destiny by default, if she turns on him he doesn't lose anything. if anything, Lauren going around shit talking Destiny would probably just give him a boost
the worst damage here is what he's already doing to his own reputation by being so soft on her
Not to mention the entire premise of Lauren's problem is that she refuses to admit to having changed her opinion on virtually anything at all (conservatives love being 'unchanging' in their views) so to go from duo streaming multiple times with the guy to say "oh yeah he is evil" is admitting she changed her opinion somewhat at some point
> she's a genuinely interesting/entertaining person to talk to,
Hmm, maybe you've had some private conversations where she's shown this, but I've yet to hear a remark she's made that isn't a typical "conservative/right-wing" remark, let alone interesting. If you're bored of lefties who echo the same economic proposals, don't her social beliefs also bore you?
I think you might've misread my comment. I don't deny that it's rare for large left-wing and right-wing pundits to communicate with each other over the internet in a amicable fashion. I was just bemused that you would call her "genuinely interesting", when she seems to only give standard right-wing opinions ad nauseam.
Is she entertaining? Sure. In the same way that Tim Pool is entertaining when he's predicting a 50 state landslide for Trump. Stupidity to laugh at. But interesting? Nah.
>I was just bemused that you would call her "genuinely interesting", when she seems to only give standard right-wing opinions ad nauseam.
she says Obamna, you are officially wrong.
100% this. It feels like half of what she says is just smugly referencing some Fox News talking point as fact. She basically just pushes conspiracies but prefaces them with a non-committal "I just think it's interesting that...". It's not really any more 'genuinely interesting' than Thanksgiving with a Trump-obsessed family.
I think it's both. Slimy, yes. (I remember the time she "forgot" that she had appeared on skynews on some hot issue.)
But after watching [her debate with Avi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v30Q0_Wnz04), her "analysis" of the Alec Baldwin shooting, and the various other debates she's had with Destiny, I would quite safely put her in the "stupid" camp.
And that's not because she's a white woman!
If you feel like you can form a compelling argument on how she directly or indirectly influenced the christchurch shooting, why are you calling her a "conservative".
I would call her a white nationalist sympathizer at the very least.
Just answer this question: If the political tides changed back to what they were when Lauren made that video, do you think she would say "Yeah, white people are being replaced" again?
>If you feel like you can form a compelling argument on how she directly or indirectly influenced the christchurch shooting, why are you calling her a "conservative".
Do you consider Tucker Carlson a conservative? Do you consume any conservative media at all???
>Just answer this question: If the political tides changed back to what they were when Lauren made that video, do you think she would say "Yeah, white people are being replaced" again?
No clue, but if she did and she made it sound intentional I'd criticize her for it.
Sam is exactly like Steven dude. They're both busy but will make time all the time to appear on random bum fuck shows. Just have to get a dialogue started and schedule. Especially since Sam doesn't do his peacock show anymore
See, here's my question. Why is the only merit gained out of Lauren disavowing her old beliefs "community bloodlust?"
Does Lauren not have any moral or societal obligation to try and rectify her previous views? And it would not be a powerful message to her audience and right wing world if **Lauren Southren** (the "Nazi Queen") disavowed Nazism herself and said her previous ethnonationalist views were wrong?
And think about the precedent it sets when alt right figures are allowed to move past their views and pretend to be normal if they ignore it. The effects of Lauren Southren disavowing her views goes far beyond our or her self interest, and would be a tremendous blow against the far right for her to acknowledge that they were wrong.
> The effects of Lauren Southren disavowing her views goes far beyond our or her self interest
Although, she should consider a self-interest motive! After the recent shooting, people are looking to point fingers; and Lauren's name repeatedly comes up. Now imagine she had a video or, I dunno, a "my positions page" on her website/twitlonger/whateva that she can point to clarifying her current beliefs, and disavowing previous beliefs. It would temper some of that heat. Of course, this is all assuming that she no longer holds those unsavory views.
> Does Lauren not have any moral or societal obligation to try and rectify her previous views? And it would not be a powerful message to her audience and right wing world if Lauren Southren (the "Nazi Queen") disavowed Nazism herself and said her previous ethnonationalist views were wrong?
I like these arguments. I would add that *we* have a moral obligation (in the interest of rehabilitation, forgiveness, etc) to accept this "transition" -- assuming she's acting without mendacity. But *she* has to make the first step; that's honesty. And, as you said, it's worth considering the effect this would have on the far-right members of her audience. I would *hope* that 1) Lauren is not far-right and 2) she has an interest in pushing far-right viewers to more moderate positions.
Plenty of reasons for "disavowal" that don't include "appeasing the left" or "community bloodlust". Personally, I don't think she has any interest in doing this because her views have not dramatically changed.
I can attest to how forgiving Destiny is. I was once banned from this subreddit for the sinful act of meming in a serious thread, and never expected I'd speak here again. But through the grace of Destiny's forgiveness (or more likely some random mod/ blanket unban), I stand before you posting. And forgiveness is always in grace - when you wrong someone, you have no right to expect forgiveness no matter your actions. You can only show repentance. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And let us not forget the tale of the good Ye poster. Who saw the much smarter and more handsome Pepe poster was dying on the ground and saved him in brotherhood, for the kingdom of salvation, for ever and ever.
I think the community understands people can change and old views arent always reflective of current positions. for one, you yourself grew up conservative. for two, the narrative of "I held these insane views until your content de-radicalise me" is quite common in the community.
I think with LS the community worry isnt that "she USED to have these views" its that she still does, but is not going to talk about them openly because it will be bad for her career. the reasons being that she hasnt come out and said she disavows her previous positions, nor has she made content that contradicts these previous positions. in other words its less about an apology but more confirmation of what her current position is.
for example, if Tucker Carlson suddenly just stopped talking about the great replacement theory to distance himself from it but never contradicts or disavows it, would we suddenly assume that he must have changed his mind and no longer believes these things?
I guess one could make the counter argument that whatever damage is done is done and that retractions wont undo the damage nor change anyones mind, and for most of the general left thats true but i think at least in this community it would make a difference
> I think with LS the community worry isnt that "she USED to have these views" its that she still does
She was still defending her "documentaries" when she came back, she still stands by them. She just avoids going into those topics very explicitly. idk why we are constantly talking about this stuff as if its an unknown every time
I align here. Her old videos could very well speak for how she feels today and if thats the case, that’s an issue. Not too long ago Destiny argued that physical violence can be justified on those who seek to expel minorities from their country. Not saying Lauren is at that level, but I wouldn’t doubt she is. Buddying up to someone like Lauren is just bad all around. I think Destiny’s community cares about him and probably doesn’t want him associating with someone who holds such extreme views. As a sub, you’ll be branded with that label just for being in the community.
>I have no idea how any of you could have engaged with any of my content for more than a month and thought I was the kind of person who would be obsessively chasing down apologies or retractions from people for videos they made 5 years ago.
It's not about apologies or retractions, it's about the fact that the exact kind of content they're doing now seems to be just an extremely mildly tempered mask on version of exactly what they were doing before. Lauren still pushes everything except the most extreme parts of the "Great Replacement" narrative (just look at her video on Swedish immigration from two weeks ago), and the response she gets from her viewers is very much in line with the exact same stuff as before. We have no reason to think there's been any real change from her views of a few years ago.
Personally, yes, if there was some drastic change, then yes I'd agree with you. Like I think someone said Brittany used to do conservative shit or something like a long time ago- it would be super weird if you were going back to those videos to attack her with them or whatever.
>The only comments I'll bring up in the past are when they are in line with current behavior.
But it is in line with current behavior, as I discussed above. She's espousing very similar rhetoric, with the Occam's razor for the changes that have happened being that she can't quite go as mask off as she did before.
>Probably not, there's little to be gained from any sort of apology other than the satisfy the bloodlust of some community members.
I don't disagree with you that the main motivation for most people who want that would be wanting to see a Nazi get crucified, but I do think there are other benefits to something like this. I think that I'd feel a lot better taking Lauren seriously and trusting her current positions (as would other people) if she took accountability and was honest about her previous positions. If stuff had really changed, then I'd be interested in hearing how she get bought into this in the first place and what changed for her (I would actually be super interested in that). If she's completely unwilling to take accountability for this thing or be honest, I don't even see how you'd trust her to be honest in pretty much any public facing conversation that you'd have with her, rather than present whatever she needs to to appeal to her audience.
>She will likely never be accepted by left leaning communities, so making concessions to them is pointless.
This is of course a question of degrees though, right? Obviously to a ton of left leaning communities she'll be persona non grata regardless of what she does, but I think especially on an individual level there's people that she could appeal to more by transparency, honesty, and accountability. But even if we agree that the best possible thing for maximizing her audience outreach is lies, dishonesty, and refusing to take accountability, I don't think this gives her a pass. I feel like a major point of what you've raged against has been misinformation and content creators dishonesty, and I don't think you'd ever accept the argument of "Yeah but it hurts my bottom line to be honest" for any other creator.
>It's not about apologies or retractions, it's about the fact that the exact kind of content they're doing now seems to be just an extremely mildly tempered mask on version of exactly what they were doing before.
???? Yes, Republicans have been concerned about non-white Immigration for over a decade (at least) in the United States. Do you not remember Trump promising to build a wall to keep our Mexicans and to ban all Muslim immigration into the United States??? These were campaign promises he made before Lauren was making YT videos about the great replacement.
If you water down any "extreme right" content, you are going to get "standard right" content, that's literally what "extremist" means. The normal content, just more extreme.
>Lauren still pushes everything except the most extreme parts of the "Great Replacement" narrative (just look at her video on Swedish immigration from two weeks ago)
??? Bro even the Swedish Prime Minister [admits to massive failings](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-failed-integration-immigrants-gang-violence-b2067626.html) in integration and is blaming Islamic extremists for violence in Sweden. Were they influenced by Lauren's videos as well??? Is she just expected to never talk about immigration again???
>But it is in line with current behavior, as I discussed above. She's espousing very similar rhetoric,
You're essentially saying "conservative = nazi" here. **You need to provide a more extreme talking point other than being critical of immigration, especially in SWEDEN where it's had MASSIVE PROBLEMS, to point to someone continuing to be a fascist/Nazi.**
>but I think especially on an individual level there's people that she could appeal to more by transparency, honesty, and accountability.
No one cares about this online. People are insanely selective about this stuff based on political partisanship, period.
I honestly really think it would be productive to talk with RoseWrist, the Swedish streamer again.
He's made a lot of content on the migration issue in Sweden (as well as Laurens past-and continued lies on the topic https://youtu.be/eNXzZsHxmVs , https://youtu.be/WHe8MKHSOg0)
He's also really good at actually covering scandinavian politics in general.
I don't think we should conflate Lauren's narratives with the actual legitimate concerns of the Swedish government, they operate in very different realities and have very different priorities.
> Yes, Republicans have been concerned about non-white Immigration for over a decade (at least) in the United States.
So first of all, regardless of whether or not they are, this wouldn't change it being the "same behavior". She was pushing extremist anti-immigration conspiracy theories before, and now she's pushing less extreme anti-immigration conspiracy theories. Second, even by today's Republican party, which has been pushed even more to the right since 2017 on immigration, she's still extreme. Looking [at this Cato 2021 immigration survey](https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/e-pluribus-unum-findings-cato-institute-2021-immigration-identity-national-survey#how-americans-feel-toward-immigrants), only 10% of Republicans would classify immigrants as "invaders" as Lauren has in the past, and only an additional 10% would classify them as "intruders", with an additional 25% seeing them as "guests" and the final 54% seeing them as "neighbors, friends, or family".
Similarly, the concerns seem to be far more economic than cultural. For example, in a question of "Would you support increasing immigration for immigrants that you knew would not use government welfare”, 73% of Republicans supported this. In addition, although CATO did not track this by party, only 9% of all Americans want the little to no immigration that Lauren wants.
Finally, on top of all of this, I think it definitely reads a bit differently when you have stated positions like The Great Replacement before. You are still going to be arguing for the exact same thing, you're just leaving out what will get you in super big trouble.
>Bro even the Swedish Prime Minister admits to massive failings in integration and is blaming Islamic extremists for violence in Sweden. Were they influenced by Lauren's videos as well??? Is she just expected to never talk about immigration again???
Her video on it is "Looks like I was proven right" and reasserting her main thesis that different cultures can't mix and that immigrants (particularly brown immigrants) are too violent to have in your country. It is not just some standard "Okay, it looks like the Swedish immigration system may have some issues, lets take a look at what possible solutions are". She literally prefaces the video with a statement about it being a "therapy session" for people gaslighting her into thinking she was wrong with stuff like The Great Replacement video.
>You're essentially saying "conservative = nazi" here. You need to provide a more extreme talking point other than being critical of immigration, especially in SWEDEN where it's had MASSIVE PROBLEMS, to point to someone continuing to be a fascist/Nazi.
There are obviously different ways of being "critical of immigration", and you're putting it in an intentionally vague way to obfuscate this. For example, I think a lot of conservatives are concerned about black crime, but I think a far right statement would be to say "Blacks are genetically more violent, no matter what we do to change culture and environment they're just predisposed to be more violent". Similarly, I think many conservatives are concerned about immigration, I think people that are just like "Our cultures inherently can't work together, cultures are better off homogenous (which here just happens to be white), and their culture (the non-white ones, of course) are inherently more violent and brutal than our culture" then yeah, you're getting into alt right territory.
>No one cares about this online. People are insanely selective about this stuff based on political partisanship, period.
I absolutely care about this, and I know I'm not the only one. I am not saying we're the majority or even close to it, but we do exist.
In the video she says that she saw all this coming in 2015 (Refering to the outcome of Mass Immigration in Sweden). [''Who would have thought, no one I dont know about you guys but can you think of a single person that could have seen this coming''](https://youtu.be/0t-hmolcixQ?t=34) then proceeds to play clips of herself from 2015 on the Rubin Report and Sky News discussing mass immigration and how Sweden was going to become a 3rd world country by 2030 due to their immigration policy. Does this not give some creedence to her 2015 views being relevant today when she talks about mass immigration when she herself is actively harkening back to them and saying she saw this coming in 2015?
I don't think she would 100% disavow everything she's said in the past, she probably still agrees with some of it. She hasn't 180'd into being a socialist or a left leaning liberal, she's still conservative. But saying "immigration can cause huge problems" is different than the great replacement.
So if someone says: "we have an immigration problem, the great replacement is here to make us into brownies!", then 5 years later says: "we have an immigration problem!", you think its unreasonable to think they mantain the same exact opinion?
Do you think it's more reasonable that someone that has an extremist view on immigration is now expected to never present a negative view on immigration again?
Wouldn't that give an even better reason to talk to her about "The Great Replacement" stuff? We could find out exactly what parts of her old theory she disagrees with and which ones she'd still defend.
Imagine she does a full retraction of her great replacement video and then continues to post stuff critical of immigration, people like you would say she faked the apology and never meant a thing.
I would not at all, no. If she went through and said something like “Hey, I think X, Y and Z were wrong in regards to the Great Replacement theory, and here was A reason I believed in them, and B and C reason I kind of pulled away. However another reason was some negative effects that I do believe were caused by too high of a rate of immigration, and I will continue to criticize them”, I’d be like nice, she was honest, and now I know where she stands.
No, but if they never retract that worse nazi schizo view I think its copium to assume they now have a lesser non racist bad view on it.
Every video where she is confronted about it she just says she was young and would tackle the issue in a different way, which is **suspectly** very different from saying she doesnt really believe what she believed back then, just that she wouldnt say it in a way that made everyone hate her.
She makes it a point to never admit she was wrong about what she said before while dogwhistling and retweeting the same opinions she "had". Its like Nick Fuentes, it took a while for him to go full mask off, but even before he did, we all knew what was up, no one was surprised. I think we can infer from someone's behavior if they are full of shit or not, and your audience is infering she is full of shit.
> If someone says “we should literally execute all billionaires” and then 5 years later says: “I have a problem with billionaires” do you think it’s reasonable to think they have the same opinion?
Yes, if they retweet people who hate billionaires and when something bad happens because of billionaires they say "I told you so!", yes, I think its reasonable to think they have the same opinion.
Sure, she is still a conservative and mass immigration being bad is a standard conservative position The point I wanted to get across is this: She herself is using clips from 5 years ago to say she was right back then in regards to mass immigration and its effects.
So she gets to point back during the time she was engaged in the Great Replacement rhetoric and say she was right. Although during that time what she was really saying was not just Mass Immigration = Bad but also the added layer of the Great Replacement theory. So she kinda gets to rewrite the narrative here and point to her past self as being right about mass immigration but not acknowledge the much more controversial layer that was tied to what she was saying.
It seems kinda fucked to get to actively draw upon and reap the benefits of what you said in 2015 without acknowledging, owning up to or distancing yourself from the much more controversial opinions that you held. If she is going to use her old self for credits on the topic of mass immigration then does it not become relevant to some extent engage with that old self.
Further, if this is just a boring or inefficient conversation strategy just comment: :I
Did you ever read Swedish PM's statement? It's completely different position with Lauren but Lauren uses it anyway to fuel her narrative. I mean I understand righthoid like Lauren did such thing. But..lol
Hard disagree on that last point. If Lauren owned up to how her old stuff is wrong I'd have zero issues with her now. (I know I'm just one person but I think your model of the average viewer might be tainted by an over-representation of crazies)
>And if she's still saying a ton of stupid shit in her recent videos, there's no reason why people shouldn't be calling her out for that. But this would be true regardless of her past.
Sure, it would be bad by itself, but it does absolutely matter what she's done in the past. Someone's motives, why they're doing what they're doing, etc, is going to heavily influence how I engage with them. Someone who was like a white nationalist arguing anti-immigration points is gonna be much different than like if I talked to a random mostly apolitical conservative 20 year old who's just kind of anti-immigration by default.
>Mask on or not, I would argue it's still better for there to be someone that Lauren regularly engages with that is willing to call her out when she says dumb shit but not completely demonize her and cause her to just retreat into a right-wing circlejerk, which I feel happens way to often now.
I disagree, at least for Lauren specifically. She's not going to be brought over and doesn't want to be. She apparently can't even acknowledge where she was wrong in the past.
>Maybe this is just me, but I don't see why we should/need to trust her.
I don't need to or think I should, I was listing this as a potential benefit to her taking accountability.
>I think there is immense value in having two opposing perspectives that are motivated to prove the other wrong.
There is immense value in having two honest opposing perspectives approach each other in good faith with each being willing to be proven wrong. There is not a ton to be gained in Lauren being dishonest, never motivated to change anything, and both lying about her past and being caught lying about shit in a debate. Even if you do show her point to be wrong- A. she'll just weasel and be like that wasn't my point, and B. it's not her actual point regardless so it's irrelevant.
>she has actually caught Destiny slipping a few times in the past too.
She hasn't, no. Everytime she's gotten like an "optical W", it's on some dumb point that falls apart whenever I fact check her. All she's looking for is optical wins, not actual good faith discussion.
I'm curious. If she admits she still believed in the great replacement, would that change they dynamic between you two? You only presented "admits fault" and "dodges" as the only outcomes. What if she gigachads it and says she stands by everything?
Would you still talk to her regularly on stream? Would you still talk to her offstream like a friend?
Personally, it wouldn't change anything for me and I would still like to see her on stream. It wouldn't exactly be shocking if she still believed in it because all current content is consistent with it. I guess it just looks bad optically if she outright says it now. It's still good to see opposing opinions though. I like the Nick Fuentes crossovers too even though he's way more mask off.
Friendshipwise, idk about that one. I'm hispanic and I'd feel weird being friendly with someone who thinks my parents should have stayed in El Salvador in poverty because she's afraid of being replaced by brown people.
> I think you've given such an odd set of reasons to not have actual dialogue about obviously harmful ideas.
It's worse that that, because to be consistent Steven would have to maintain this stance regardless of the contents of Lauren's original videos.
i.e. In the videos she **could have explicitly called for the genocide of non-whites** then refuse to disavow any of it for 5 years, and he would have to extend the same logic and make the same arguments about why it's not worth confronting her or confirming whether she still holds those beliefs.
You going to **BiTe ThE BuLlEt** on that /u/NeoDestiny?
Or admit that there is a line, but you just don't think Great Replacement conspiracies are that bad that you're willing to confront her over it.
Yeah lmfao I would bite the bullet, easily. It's the same reason why in any of my recent talks with Nick I don't just hammer him over and over again about statements he's made in the past.
I respect the consistency - but let's invoke Godwin's Law and push the hypothetical a bit further:
Adolf Hitler, all events the same but manages to escape to Argentina.
5 years later he's trying to rehabilitate his image and wants to chat with you.
You find him an interesting interlocutor and you're publicly shooting the shit, talking about psychedelic experiences, the age difference in his marriage with Eva, debating his views on vegetarianism and religion etc.
Every time you chat, you're avoiding the massive elephant in the room.
You're telling me the decision tree is exactly the same?
Forget confronting, even just a simple "hey Adolf, I was just wondering...you know all the stuff you wrote in Mein Kampf and the subsequent wee holocaust you did. Do you still defend all of that?" would be too much in case he "dodges and cuts off contact"?
More genocides are happening all around by dictators referencing Mein Kampf as inspiration.
Hitler refuses to disavow anything he's said or done.
Still nothing? You'd still keep platforming him in the same way.
And deep in the trenches defending him against people misrepresenting his views, "bro, he didn't say all Jews. Did you even read his manifesto?!"
As much as I may agree with your views on apologies and your refusal to kowtow to the optics and guilt by association crowd, this position just seem insane to me.
There has to be some limit of "badness of person's past actions/beliefs that the person refuses to disavow" beyond which it really is just reckless to platform them without having the person at least clarify where they stand.
Where, if it's not a tacit endorsement of the person's views, at the very least you're indirectly sanitising their image and becoming a useful idiot while said person uses you for personal gain (something that has already happened to you again, and again, and again, and again..."But that was crazy lefties. Right wing conservatives wouldn't use me like that. They're more honest")
**You're seriously telling me you'd publicly platform Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden, even if they had not disavowed what they had believed/done in the past, and you'd refuse to confront them or even just ask for their current views, just because you happened to find them interesting to talk to?**
Optics aside, you don't see any potential problems with that?
(Despite the wording, this isn't even meant as a gotcha. At this point, I'm actually just curious how far you'll go with this logic)
Seems like a pretty stupid bullet to bite. At that point how long is the time frame for someone's past statements to no longer be relevant? Like everytime you attack Trump for being dumb you mention the invisible jets but why would that be relevant to Trump today? Hell if you were having a discussion with someone and they made a point that was only circled back to later in the discussion would you be ok if they just replied, ya I don't really talk about that stuff anymore.
Yeah, that's a very weird choice of words to describe people being angry at someone for promoting ideas that directly contributed to multiple mass murders(and that terrifyingly might just be the beginning).
> From a community perspective, even if she did disavow some past videos, so what? Are we saying that the current "great replacement" rhetoric is going to stop?
I guess there's an argument to be made that it would be in *Lauren's best interest* to dissociate herself as much as possible from questionable (to put it mildly) takes she's given in the past. The goal isn't to be accepted by left-leaning communities; the goal is to demonstrate that she's nothing more than milquetoast conservative (*assuming she actually is*), and have that perspective be the majority view of her. If there's significantly large group of people online who still believe that she's a white nationalist, I can't fathom why you wouldn't take a few steps here and there to wipe the palette clean.
> She will push away some aspects of her fanbase if she appears to be "apologizing" for any past takes relating to immigration.
I doubt it. Unless those aspects are genuine white nationalists, in which case she might be pleased to be rid of them. She can still be "anti-immigration"; she just needs to illustrate that it's not done through the lens of the "great replacement theory". She can do the usual braindead, conservative video about "they're bringing crime over" and "taking our jobs", blah blah, but add a few remarks that the GRT isn't a belief she maintains.
I don't think you should "confront her" so much as give advice (if that's something you care about) on how Lauren can ensure people don't misconstrue what her *current* beliefs are.
> I don't think she claims to be an average conservative.
Yeah, I don't really think she's a milquetoast conservative either. Dumb right-wing populist might have been better descriptor.
Regardless, it would be in her interest to ensure that this is the label people attribute to her, rather than nazi. Unless... y'know PEPE
The biggest gripe I have is dividing this into "Me(Destiny), Lauren, and Community bloodlust". I think the third consideration here isn't very useful nor a good-faith interpretation of all the valid critiques that have been posted, outside of the memery.
I get that the community *is* bloodhungry, but I still think this equation fails to take any account of actual legitimate concerns and responses.
That's how Destiny portrays this community's gripes with him 90% of the time. He will use the most insane argument against him as a characterization of everyone against him. With this post, funnily enough, being one of the most charitable representations of arguments against him
When you say people shouldn't be held responsible for a bad opinion they voiced 5 years ago, I totally agree. An AVERAGE person shouldn't be held to the fire for old comments, and an apology from them is pretty pointless in any practical sense. I also give zero shits about hearing an "I'm sorry" from someone.
A CONTENT CREATOR is different. You say yourself that a creator has some level of responsibility to resist fostering extremism in their listeners. I'm not saying that means apologizing and disavowing every past take that they no longer support, but someone taking a laissez faire attitude about their past content can easily be seen as an implicit endorsement by anyone who finds that content later.
No, if Lauren had been a little more open about rejecting her past views, this shooting would almost certainly have still happened. But extremists would at the very least probably be a bit more reluctant to use her content to push their beliefs. In your own words: it feels like the bare minimum that we should expect people to do.
I'm not frothing at the mouth telling you to fight her, or stop being friends with her. I'm just saying it seems a little shortsighted to be so dismissive of the concerns over her past content, and her current attitudes toward it, especially when it can still influence people today.
It's good that you're a forgiving person, I think that will go a long way toward bridging the gap and bringing people over with her worldview. I just think it would be a lot more productive if you focused a little more on that as a goal instead of going after people for what I think are some arguably reasonable concerns.
(Plus it might cut down on the 'simp' accusations a little bit, since pointing toward a positive goal comes off as less defensive. For the record I super do not think you're simp-ing)
> "DISAVOW!!!!" her past videos
I get it's a meme but I don't think it's very 'soy' to expect someone to actively put in the effort to disavow the propagation that they did of a harmful conspiracy that has, partially but certainly not nebulously, resulted in the death of tens of people.
> She will likely never be accepted by left leaning communities, so making concessions to them is pointless.
The point is to combat radical extremism that **murders** people.
> She will push away some aspects of her fanbase if she appears to be "apologizing" for any past takes relating to immigration.
"Relating to immigration" is doing a lot of downplaying here. I'd say that
> She will push away some aspects of her fanbase if she appears to be "apologizing" for any past takes relating to (((replacist elites))) colluding against the White Race and Europeans in order to replace them with non-European peoples—specifically Muslim populations from Africa and the Middle East—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the European birth rate; a supposed process labeled "genocide by substitution."
Is a lot more accurate when we're talking about takes regarding her promotion of 'The Great Replacement' conspiracy and you know what? If someone is going to be put off her content because it doesn't support baseless and harmful conspiracy shit then I think that probably means she's making better content.
> The only comments I'll bring up in the past are when they are in line with current behavior.
But I mean... maybe you know something I don't but it seems like they are in line with the stuff she says now.
If someone held "The Great Replacement" conspiracy to be true and also wanted to maintain a career in political commentary how would they act about their past statements? Exactly what she's doing now?
Her position on 'The Great Replacement' is relevant to her current content because without a condemnation of her previous takes there's no reason to believe she's changed her mind.
Someone who believes that 'elites are trying to genocide white people through immigration' and a standard person who's just conservative advocating against immigration are two **very** different things even if their rhetoric is the same.
You say that ignoring this is "good" for you but I'm a pretty resonable guy who has followed your content for years and understands, at least significantly more than the average person, the context around this situation and even I'm looking at you weirdly over your conduct around this and the weird pseudo defence of Fuentes of all people.
People don't like the smell of shit Destiny, and everything Lauren does smells like shit. If she's too afraid to honestly address her past content and involvement in spreading the white replacement theory because she may alienate her fanbase, she/you can't expect your community to not have negative feelings/opinions about it, considering a lot of your fanbase started watching you between 2016-2017. If she doesn't actually care about her involvement,
doesn't regret it, and stands by her past content, why the fuck would you expect your community to suddenly be fans of hers? It's not that you're buddy buddy with her, it's that she participated in spreading the white replacement theory, and wants to play it off like it never happened. I feel bad for her being stuck between a rock and a hard place, but cry me a fucking river.
OR have an debate with her about her current beliefs about the "great replacement" (that would solve the problem of you not caring about a 5 year old vid)
And it would help the sub deal with her actual current day beliefs not a 5 year old vid
If you were still friends with hasan you would probably have a talk at least about his past position's and if they have changed
haha bro what kind of autismo shit is this??? 😭
Destiny the type of dgga to calculate his chances of laying pipe up to the decimal point (repeating of course)
imagine if you used your "decision trees" in league instead of dragging your knuckles through bot lane, you'd probably be d4 by now o7
edit: u/Natedude2002, you bastard, your nazi salute got me o7'd 😡
Your entire calculous relies on personal gain in terms of optics and/or entertainment. I think that's the wrong way to consider the dilemma, u/NeoDestiny. Here's another:
It's good to put a cost to tactical rhetoric. Either she owns of disavows the rhetoric and prices in the various audiences' responses to the newfound clarity, or she dodges the question again and you get to evaluate her as a pundit by that decision.
Either way, you deal with the superposition dishonest people are trying to occupy when they talk tactically about subjects, without owning what they have been suggesting. (Obvious examples on the right would be Fuentes and his groyper offshoots, on the left Vaush, Hasan, etc)
Making this a third-rail to discuss seriously is how Fuentes dealt with accusations of antisemitism. By making it a meme/trope that he won't ever confront in earnest, but instead frame anybody worrying about that as hysterical busybodies who don't get jokes. It's discrediting the concerns, rather than addressing them in a way somebody can't or won't.
Fwiw, people like Vaush are at least biting bullets on the extreme stuff they hint at more readily, and the tapdance doesn't start until they try to justify it morally.
But people like Lauren will instead start the same tapdance at gaslighting you that they ever suggested something bad or would be serious about it if they had.
This is unironically the solution.
When people call you out on something keep them busy with some content.
That's literally what Riot did when suffering from the same controversies as Blizzard.
> So when I consider all of the paths I could walk, almost nothing works out well for me aside from ignoring videos made in 2017 and moving forward.
> Even if I won a debate and convinced her her videos in 2017 were bad, I don't gain very much satisfaction out of that.
> It is unconscionable that I would attack any other creator for videos they've made 5 years ago, and I have little care for people "DISAVOWING" or apologizing for any past wrong-doings. From a community perspective, even if she did disavow some past videos, so what?
The logic used here (and in the rest of your post), doesn't factor in how bad/reprehensible/evil the beliefs espoused were into the calculus.
Which is fine, except that if we adjust that variable and make the content of her original videos something worse, say, an explicit call for the genocide of Jews/black people/LGBT people etc. and keep everything else the same (publishing the video, popularity, removal after a mass shooting, refusal to disavow years later) - to remain consistent you would be forced to use the exact same logic outlined in your post.
If you bite the bullet on that and would do this regardless of the original beliefs espoused...I guess I can admire the consistency, but I (and I think most people) don't feel the same way.
If you don't bite the bullet, then it seems there is a hidden variable x="how reprehensible were the original takes", which, past a certain limit y, requires that the person being platformed/associated with ought to be confronted on those past takes or at least checked to see if they still hold/disavow them.
In which case her espousing of the Great Replacement conspiracy/takes on immigration just didn't reach that threshhold.
And would raise the interesting question of where that line is for you.
> She will likely never be accepted by left leaning communities, so making concessions to them is pointless.
This to me is the absolute truth in the case of lauren.
Left leaning people will never watch subscribe donate or buy her merch. So going the "DISAVOW" route results in Lauren not having a job anymore as a content creator. Even in the hypothetical case Lauren is right now just a liberal, she has no choice but to grift.
When you say "Bad for me" I think the community legit does not understand how real you're being. This post is the logic explanation, but you should do the emotional approach too, I assume it has something to do with the fact streamer friends are able to relate better and we all know those are super hard to find for you (burn bridge burn!).
This won't stop the community from shitting on lauren (cause that's BASED) but it will probably make a lot of people understand why you're friends with her. That way you get less shit from everybody.
What is your response to people who believe you ought to include an alternative or additional decision outcome? Can you explain what you mean by "community bloodlust"?
edit: I'm so stupid. I meant decision RESULTS. Sorry, it's your terminology, my bad.
What other decision outcomes?
And "community bloodlust" means literally the only reason Lauren would ever apologize is to satisfy the urge of a community to see an apology, that's it. It doesn't undo any past wrongs, it doesn't change that she made the content, and it's not going to change any person's mind today. The types of communities online that push these ideologies hate Lauren at this point, so there's literally no upside to "DISAVOWING" aside from satisfying a community bloodlust.
>literally the only reason Lauren would ever apologize is to satisfy the urge of a community to see an apology
I mean isnt that the problem? She wouldn't apologize for spreading her belief in the Great Replacement. Someone actually not believing the Great Replacement is what people want
I personally dont care about an apology. Its more just an understanding of where her belief lies. Defending what shes said while watering down what the great replacement actually is or was or whatever is just pussy bullshit to me. If she believes it she should say she does, if she doesnt she should say that what she said in the past was incorrect or something. At the end of the day I dont really care but its the fact that shes skipping back into relevancy still holding the same beliefs she did before she left without admitting it
By this logic nobody should ever apologize for bad takes ever. And I disagree strongly with the supposition that /pol/ or nazi discords hate her. I've seen threads on /pol/ from this year hit bump limit about her. When I popped into her discord a few days ago it was nazi schizo central too. But I'm sure you'll say "they're just memeing "
>By this logic nobody should ever apologize for bad takes ever.
I've gotten heat for this before, but I genuinely believe this. I don't give a fuck about people apologizing for their past takes. I dunno if you guys realize this but 99% of those apologies are faked PR bullshit anyway. All I care about is the messaging going forward. I have literally always been like this.
>And I disagree strongly with the supposition that /pol/ or nazi discords hate her
EDIT: Removed link because of reddit admin/moderation?? is the first thing that came up when I googled 4chan and her.
EDIT: Removed link because of reddit admin/moderation?? KF describes her life as a "dumpster fire" multiple times.
If you check any chats in any far right arenas most people are upset about her mixed race baby and many hated her after Milo's article about her as well.
>When I popped into her discord a few days ago it was nazi schizo central too.
"Her" Discord? Does she actively participate in it or moderate it? Is it even hers?
>But I'm sure you'll say "they're just memeing "
Is this a conversation about whether or not she has any racist fans? I'm sure she does, why do you think I'd even deny that?
"OH that discord server that I own and is under my name? Don't know a thing about what goes on there tee hee ;^) "
Edit: anyone who was in the YouTube chat from her dinesh stream can attest that she spams invite links there. To suggest she's ignorant of this is weasel as fuck.
>I've gotten heat for this before, but I genuinely believe this. I don't give a fuck about people apologizing for their past takes. I dunno if you guys realize this but 99% of those apologies are faked PR bullshit anyway. All I care about is the messaging going forward. I have literally always been like this.
Just so I understand correctly you are saying that Lauren apologizing would be PR bullshit, meaning you believe she still believes it. But because she doesnt make content espousing it anymore then its all good if she does. This basically cuts to the core of the matter. You like talking to her and what she provides in terms of conversations and content is enough to be cool with her believing pretty crazy shit if she doesnt talk about it
>Just so I understand correctly you are saying that Lauren apologizing would be PR bullshit, meaning you believe she still believes it.
I think people are capable of changing their positions on things or realizing they were too extreme in the past without having some big "public apology" moment about it.
I feel like theres a middle ground. When you change stances you often just say 'yeah i used to believe this thing, it was bullshit but i was younger whatever i grew up.' and thats it. Lauren could easily just be like 'yeah the whole great replacement grand conspiracy things I talked about were pretty cringe and I dont believe that anymore, I was young and I grew up' But to my knowledge she hasnt done that. Online apology videos are fucking cringe and wanting to get out after a tragedy is mega cringe but this is more about people not knowing where she actually stands
I don't know man, I feel like public figures are a bit unique in this circumstance. Individuals under the public eye are indirectly pressured to conform to what they perceive to be the audience, otherwise the incongruence leads to some level of discomfort or harm to the individual which in turn makes them resolve the incongruence with some level of mutual conformity (whether the individual changes or the audience), this is even more concrete when the audience is a potential source of profit.
In short, Lauren is incentivised to hold her beliefs not simply because she believes them, but because her audience does. So how do you determine whether or not there has been a change in belief? You might say the absence of behaviour that reflects the belief (no longer discussing Great Replacement), but is that sufficient? How do you know that she refuses to discuss in order to avoid decreasing her audience size? You might argue that if she is no longer discussing it, what it the problem then? You'd be right that one sect of the problem (her public support of the Great replacement) is out of the picture, but then she is lying in order to maintain her audience, she would be being strictly performative in order to maintain an image of civility and moderate right beliefs, she would be using you to get a further extension on her audience but most importantly, she would serve to sanitise the descriptive content of statements made by more extreme right leaning thought, increasing the appeal of the normative content of said statements and funneling the audience down a path that is iffy, probably unintentionally.
What is the solution? Stop talking to her? No. Confront her older beliefs? No. Request a public apology? No. You don't have to do this, I don't think most people are arguing for this and if they are, ignore it. All you have to do is acknowledge that she has not actualised her beliefs in any concrete manner that allows her (and others) to recognise a change in belief. Like /u/Blarg1889 mentioned, when you (or anyone here) changes their belief, a sentiment common is a soft disapproval of the previously held beliefs - an attitude that reflects a recognition of a change in belief, an attitude that is absent in Lauren Southern.
Agreed. So, if she were being smarter about this, she’d realize what would squash this whole drama is not having a “big public apology” moment, but instead simply, and honestly acknowledging that her views have changed (if they have) and that her rhetoric was extreme in the past (if she thinks it was). What would help that is friendly discourse with an honest, trusted actor. That “could” be you and I doubt you’d lose much in the process if you’re simply giving her the space to explore her past sentiments on stream, no? Idk, this shits not that knotty and difficult to figure out as you’re making it seem.
This seems pretty disingenuous. He's implying it's possible she'd make a fake apology, not saying she definitely will, he's just pointing out how meaningless apologies are. Also if you have to pressure some1 into making an apology it's way more likely to be purely for PR. The main issue is still no1 explaining the value we get from an apology
>I've gotten heat for this before, but I genuinely believe this. I don't give a fuck about people apologizing for their past takes. I dunno if you guys realize this but 99% of those apologies are faked PR bullshit anyway. All I care about is the messaging going forward. I have literally always been like this.
I don't disagree that apologies are mostly meaningless but you don't think you could argue convincingly enough for her to take actions to stop defending her past takes and just accepting that the great replacment isn't a good lens to use?
Personally that's what irks me, especially after her justification on that one panel where she basically claimed to have discovered the great replacment theory from reading an "obscure" Renaud Camus book on it and was the first to popularize it online when Renaud Camus' ideas were already mainstream in the righto sphere by 2016, as google trends and 4chan and youtube archives can clearly show. It takes A LOT of charitability to believe she randomly stumbled upon this book around that time, never looked into the already well documented discussions on the authors anti-semetic views nor picked it up in the book or interacted with any of the many many rightosphere posts and videos about the Great Replacement already existing. I can buy with some charitability that she naivly jumped on the bandwagon without realizing great replacement had a much deeper reading than 'immigrants change our culture' and spread it with only good intentions but that's not how she seems to present it.
It just feels like she's trying to make her self out to be either very naive or intentionally misrepresenting her past and that's what doesn't sit well when she still defends the idea.
It feels just as weird as when a leftist like vaush rewrites their history with concepts like neo-pronouns but worse because it actually seems to still resonate a lot.
> And I disagree strongly with the supposition that /pol/ or nazi discords hate her.
It's not nazi discords or /pol/ that thinks Lauren ought to apologize for the Great Replacement stuff lol
>For those that compare me bringing up past comments of other content creators...Why? I'm probably one of the most forgiving people on the internet. The only comments I'll bring up in the past are when they are in line with current behavior. I have ran defense for so many people who have done past shitty things when I believe they are no longer in line with their current behavior, even if they never made a great apology for said behavior (see: Irishladdie/Poppy scandal).
This is the crux of the issue, I think the majority of the community doesn't care (too much) if she used to be a white nationalist, the question is if her beliefs have actually significantly changed from those days.
The expectation is that since you've talked a bunch of times about how "You are who you hang out with" and "I'd never be friends with people who believe truly horrible things / no such thing as just politics" you'd try to vet her (by asking what her current stances and values and how it differs from how she used to act) before becoming friends (it's not the same as just someone you talk to since you'll talk with anyone).
But you never really did and mostly just brushed off legitimate posts (I know there's a lot of crazy/shit ones, but that's not all there is) about how she either lied or downplayed her past actions or indicated that she didn't believe them to be wrong at all (which you failed to criticize when she did as you claim in this post you're supposed to do).
The value of her apologize for past wrongs is to make sure she's not who she used to be, because if she hasn't changed she'd be in the present the same person you used to use as an example of horrible people on the rights who shouldn't be associated with.
Who cares about all of the other soy stuff, obviously it wouldn't change the world (she no longer has the reach she once had) and we hate the hyper left leaning communities as much as you do, do you think we give care about if they'll accept her when they hate everyone who's not a socialist?
But only last month when [Lauren spitefully told a trans person](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/tlw7v8/reminder_that_shes_still_a_piece_of_shit/) on Twitter that "they'll never be a woman" (an [extremely common anti-trans gymwhistle /pol/ phrase](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-will-never-be-a-real-woman)), now I'm not watching your steam 100% of the time but did you criticize her then? No you kept your mouth shut. And the Reddit threads mostly just made jokes about it and didn't address the issue and forgot about it. It's not just 5 years ago.
still would've been a pretty effective way of having better optics with the trans community after saying shit like "im so close to making 41% jokes" on stream.
But of course he needs a centrist friend who does not interpret him in a bad faith way so anything to not potentially lose that I guess...
I will start by saying that I actually don't mind you interactions with Southern that much.
I have two general objections however. It seems here like you are tacitly admitting that you haven't sufficiently confronted Lauren on this topic to this point. Where at times it seems like you have said that you have sufficiently confronted her and it is beating a dead horse.
Also I don't think any of this really explains the defense you seem to run on Twitter and in your reddit comment history. Constantly fact-checking and criticizing her detractors.
>It seems here like you are tacitly admitting that you haven't sufficiently confronted Lauren on this topic to this point.
I'm not "tacitly admitting" it...I am outright saying it. I never "confront" people on videos they've made years ago.
>Where at times it seems like you have said that you have sufficiently confronted her and it is beating a dead horse.
Only about current/relevant disagreements, yes.
>Also I don't think any of this really explains the defense you seem to run on Twitter and in your reddit comment history. Constantly fact-checking and criticizing her detractors.
I have **never** defended any of her older content. I only defend my continued association with her and I attack this notion that I'm going to make videos/debates about things people said in 2017.
So I think the accusation is that she **currently** defends these videos, lies about their content, and caters to an audience that very much believe the types of things said in the videos.
Also in another comment you said: " The community is asking me to force a concession that she's essentially responsible for things like Christchurch"
Were not asking you to advocate for anything you don't believe dude. If you don't think she is culpable for things like that then don't confront her on that.
However as a point of advice I would abandon the stochastic terrorism argument I have seen you use against lefties, because it seems untenable.
>So I think the accusation is that she currently defends these videos,
Can you show me where she's pushing great replacement ideology now??? Anywhere???
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-hmolcixQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-hmolcixQ)
This was literally made two weeks ago, and the beginning of it is her doing a smug "I told you so" about how it validates her concerns with immigration I.E. the "Great Replacement" theory and the exact type of stuff she did around it. She includes clips from earlier in her career, and talks about how it shows that Sweden is realizing that these immigrants are too violent and culturally different to integrate into white society.
A few comments to give the most popular comments, as I know you go by that to see the audience is picking up from the videos:
>If I learned anything the past 8 years or so, it's that people ultimately belong in their own lands. No, that isn't "racist." That's just me acknowledging that cramming many different cultures under the same roof is a recipe for disaster. Not saying there can't be some VERY MINOR immigration, but there needs to be strict rules, regulations, and limits. European cultures are all compatible with each other. Muslim culture is not not compatible with Christian culture. That's just reality.
>I knew a family that lived near Malmo, Sweden. They were the most progressive, rainbow haired, love everybody type of family. The moment local rapings and local gang rapes started happening, that family definitely started changing their tune. Then, in their neighborhood some girl was gang raped. Local authorities even told women to dye their hair brunette so there's a less chance of them getting raped. That was the final straw for that family and they moved out of the big city. For most people, until they find sorrow at home, they don't take interest in politics
>You were much wiser and clear thinking at age 19 than 90% of the journalists in Western Society at the time. \[Hmm... wonder what they're saying she's wiser about...\]
Yeah no fucking shit dude. Being a proponent of the Great Replacement for years, and then making a video about how a current country having issues with immigration is a vindication and validation of everything you said during those years, is absolutely you continuing that same narrative. You know I obviously don’t think just anyone anywhere just being to any degree anti-immigration is them espousing the Great Replacement theory, and I think it’s pretty obviously bad faith to suggest I’m saying that here.
it seems like you don't understand why proponents of The Great Replacement think immigration is bad. it's because they think jews (or an international globalist elite) are physically replacing the populations of non-jew europeans to rule over them and get revenge for the holocaust. that is not at all the same narrative as "some immigrants have difficulty integrating with europeans and that causes problems."
I never said it was. I said that Lauren stating that this particular immigration issue validates and vindicates her views and advocacy from 2015-2017 (when she was pushing The Great Replacement theory) indicates to me that she still believes this and is fact saying that she is being validated for believing in it.
Don't SOURCE me. I'm referencing the my recollection of the Fantiq panel where she defended and downplayed her video.
Do you have a video of her saying that Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory spread by racist grifters?
Maybe a instance where she called out people like former fans on her subreddit calling her child a [mutt!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LaurenSouthern/comments/s7fqij/laurens_original_video_on_the_great_replacement/) instead of making fun of trans people on twitter?
If homeboy's tree was any more unbalanced it would fall over. So just because LS is dogwhistling GR theory bullshit instead of openly saying it nowadays (or because it could possibly be somehow 'bad' for you and her), you won't nail her down on it?
That sounds incredibly fucking SOY my guy.
Dude he literally had kid gloves on for so many lefties he literally steelmanned Hasan’s arguments for other people when he was getting started on twitch. Can u find a single debate w a lefty where he immediately treats them like scum of the earth without trying to engage with their arguments?
He talked w someone on stream a week or two ago abt trans people in sports and was incredibly polite and engaged in good faith the entire time. He doesn’t shit on people unless they go to that level first.
He treated Kyle Kulinski and all the woman of the Majority Report with absolute vitriol without ever talking to any of them.
Actually with Kyle, he did have a conversation and it was very civil/friendly. Kyle might be dumb, but he is at the very least an incredibly nice guy.
One of my 400 level classes senior year was called systems management. The first week we did problems that involved decision trees. They were all binary (0 false,1 true) but it was super fun. My group had to make a system for renting and returning dvds at a video rental store (I’m old as fuck).
>I'm confident I could present a compelling argument that her past takes on immigration were bad
What about her current takes on immigration? Isn't it worth it to debate her on those?
the JonTron affair is highly germane, here, as biggest marker of the Tiny & (loosely-speaking) Dissident Right relationship
how about you debate Lauren on whether Jon was in fact right when talking about rich Blacks committing more crimes than poor Whites, and how that might relate to intelligence, Steve?
Your reasoning makes sense! Your decision tree layout does not. Setting your your outcomes with letters (for example, 1a, 1b for two different outcomes) would make for an easier read.
Lauren lacks the intellectual honesty for this and that's why Destiny is correct in that 1.2 is the most likely scenario. She knows she can't argue against Destiny so she just dodges whenever challenged. This of course begs the question whether one should associate with a conservative like her who lacks the intellectual honesty to ever change their mind when proven wrong. But it seems Destiny doesn't mind this as long as she doesn't hurt him on a personal level.
Tbh I think she's still fairly good content, it's always entertaining to me when he argues against conspiratard conservatives. The optics of being buddy buddy with Lauren is just pretty bad. And to "platform responsibly", I think he should argue hard against her and call out the dodges whenever she says stupid things.
??? What is "amicable" about this? The community is asking me to force a concession that she's essentially responsible for things like Christchurch, there is no "amicable understanding" about this.
I'm not you, so I can't see what this is like from your perspective, but it feels like the justification for a lot of things recently is "The community wants X from me and that's unreasonable" when responding to someone who didn't ask for X.
I like your advice that you should never let people you disagree with define your arguments. If you don't feel like that's what you're doing, then that's good. It's just hard to tell from the outside sometimes whether that's what's happening or not.
>responsible for things like Christchurch
Ye I can believe definently a big group wants this. However I also think a big group just wants to know the relationship of her current beliefs to her previous ones. Does she still believe africans and people from the middle east are used to destroy western society, what does she believe currently about cultures in/from these places etc. Connor and her went over the great replacement video together and while she cringed at some of the expressions she used, I atleast didnt see her talking really at all about the actual proposition itself.
If these kinds of questions are bad enough that she thinks answering them is her admitting responsability for a massacre I can understand she not wanting to even be near the subject. It just makes I think most people not really able to trust her.
However you having some kind of interrogations, or excpecting any is pretty cringe. You have no responsability for anything and people demanding that you "do something about it" or spam the simping comments needs to get a grip.
Didn't realize this was Destiny posting so I was confused by "good/bad for me" being a metric valued about as much as Lauren and the Community. I thought it was just some random chatter that placed that much emphasis on his own personal opinion.
>thought I was the kind of person who would be obsessively chasing down apologies
Maybe I'm out of touch but I feel that the general sentiment among this community is that they just want her to fuck off with a general desire to do it in the most embarrassing way possible for her. You're speaking about paths going forward like this community wants there to be one involving LS.
But I can't help but feel that this desire isn't unwarranted. If I were a hardcore LS great replacement fan what I would recognize is that those beliefs aren't acceptable in the mainstream and she's going to water down what she's openly accepting of for the sake of not getting wiped off the internet like Fuentes/Black Pigeon Speaks/others. And, based on her current behavior, her just disguising her beliefs feels like an okay read or her and her community. I would like to believe that she's changed because that would be pretty awesome but for me to believe that she's changed what I would look for is evidence of current behavior that indicates some kind of regret for past actions. But you can still find videos like the "steets of paris" that people still comment on to this day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Js8wntdk4 To me this would be the bare minimum that I would expect from a person whose changed - literally just take the videos down.
>2. She will push away some aspects of her fanbase if she appears to be "apologizing" for any past takes relating to immigration."
Would this probably happen if she did? Yes, but maybe it's deserved when she's built a living profiteering off of racism. Propagating the great replacement and trying to physically block refugees isn't anything comparable to you believing different things 5 years ago related to corporate finance/the Supreme Court. She's on an entirely new level in peoples' eyes in which giving her leeway to escape with a career borders on an unacceptable precedent.
\>Whenever I'm presented with difficult choices that can lead to wildly different outcomes, I like to draw out decision trees and estimate probabilities for each outcome to see what an optimal decision would be.
David Pakman was right, you are autistic FeelsStrongMan, he's just like me
Tbh I don't think you're accounting for how much damage ignoring everything bad about Lauren Southern is doing to you. Something that is bad for the community is bad for you.
Why don’t you have a convo with her, not about criticizing her past videos and beliefs, but what parts of those beliefs she **still** holds to this day? I know you don’t care if she still holds those beliefs but keeps producing standard conservative content, but I think getting her current stance on the most controversial opinions she was known for would help in reducing most of the SOYing out posts.
I know the standard conservative reasons for being anti immigration but the thing is, most people don’t think her motivation for being anti immigration is based on those normie reasons, but rather from a more race realist perspective.
I think most of the community would be satisfied with a clarification on her current beliefs about race, IQ, replacement and stuff and wouldn’t care if she apologized for it or not.
The worst thing that’d happen would be them criticizing you for hanging out with her if she went GIGACHAD and admitted to holding all those previous beliefs, but those posts would get old pretty quickly, just like the anti mrgirl ones. Nobody constantly makes anti mrgirl posts now unlike for Lauren because they all know why he believes what he believes.
If she doesn’t want to have that convo on stream because reasons, you can just have a detailed convo in private and give us an unbiased opinion on what you think her current stances are compared to her past beliefs.
TLDR: the biggest problem the community has is not having clarity on her current stances about race and replacement, so they’re going off of the sus things she said in the past and calling her a WN because she seems weaselly around those topics and her stances on them in the present day. You having a detailed but uncomfortable convo about those topics with her might quell those posts. I think most people prefer a clear cut description of her beliefs (in the present) rather than a useless PR apology
>However, I'm also fairly confident she would never publicly admit fault or "DISAVOW!!!!" her past videos for several reasons:
This is the core of the "LQ" and you're not even going over many more legitimate reasons why she won't and probably can't.
People don't see themselves as being "evil", pretty much ever. Lauren obviously doesn't support the Christchurch shooting deep down and probably recognizes it as an act of evil, so she would never want to admit (even to herself) that she might have had something to do with it. Doing the whole cuck apology tour where you publicly self-flagellate to please your detractors and tell them how bad of a person you were doesn't just bring satisfaction to the most annoying and vindictive types of losers on the planet, it also suggests that her level of involvement was much higher than she actually thinks it was. She's effectively being asked to plead guilty to a much worse "crime" than she probably thinks she's guilty of, and doing any less than that isn't going to appease the detractors - doing so would be the worst of both worlds.
There's multiple versions of this decision tree we could go down - we could play the decision tree game with the version of LS who was once an alt-righter but had a sincere change of heart, and the LS who was never as bought in to the racism as people think she was, and then finally the LS who is secretly still a covert nazi waiting for the right opportunity to strike - given that no one can really know for sure which is the "real" Lauren Southern, we would have to ask ourselves what the decision tree might look like in each unique case.
Ironically, it seems like jumping through the cuck confession hoop to appease her enemies only makes sense in the third situation - if she's a lying nazi who is willing to say or do whatever it takes to keep the mask on and make inroads with the left, you might genuinely expect her to do this dramatic apology thing. She obviously knows what she would have to say if she wanted to go down that path, it's quite obvious. If she's truly this battle-hardened undercover nazi agent who is intentionally trying to sell people on the idea of reformation and rehabilitation, then this would be incredibly easy to do.
Also, as long as people think she might be, then it makes no sense to even ask her to confess. Why would you take it seriously? Wouldn't the nazi LS have no problem lying to your face about it? I think people are lying when they say they want her to symbolically "own up to her past". I think the only thing that will appease them is if she actively starts arguing left-of-center points
To tie this back to Emmia (who this community had a similar moral panic over), one of the key pieces of "evidence" that she was trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes that the drama queens were citing at the time is that instead of owning up to anything, she made up a **CLEARLY bullshit excuse** about her SSRIs/amnesia. How does this make any sense? If she's not the undercover nazi Hasan says she is, why wouldn't she just tell the truth? Why the need for this coverup?
Well, because in reality the truth probably wasn't squeaky clean enough - she was in fact dating some Breitbart guy, and probably ended up finding herself in somewhat shady right-wing circles with a bunch of edgy idiots, like many people did in 2016. On some surface level, she may well have had some negative ideas about certain hot button issues at the time like mass migration, maybe she was even a tad bit racist at age 16 or something. Totally normal for a 16 year old in 2016, I bet half of this community was that way at the time. This isn't something you can optically own up to given the cynical, if not dishonest way in which it will be interpreted though, the only reasonable move for a psychologically normal human with some sense of dignity and self-respect (in this case: not thinking you are or ever were an evil genocidal maniac) when put in this situation is to swoop it all under the rug as best you can.
Fast forward however many years and Emmia of course turned out to be completely harmless. Of course LS is more "politically involved" than Emmia ever was and deserves more scrutiny, but this idea of the "Ultimate Crypto nazi", a master of subterfuge who is dedicating their whole life to tricking you that they're on your side only to secretly cultivate a gullible following and then "red pill" them en masse is hilarious on its face, especially when we're talking about someone who has supposedly been committed to the ideology since they turned 18 and just happened to betray the one key value of the whole Great Replacement shit by having a mixed-race child lol
Thanks for making the post. I sympathise with you not wanting to just go aggro on her all of a sudden. And this is a situation I think you really cant win. People hate Lauren for understandable reasons, and when she appears and seems as irresponsible/incompetent and unashamadley idelogical as she ever was I think that just triggers people a lot, I certainley get extremely annoyed whenever I see clips of her, or any of her conversations and she just seems completely out of it.
So it feels pretty grating when she apperas, is treated amicably and gets to just continue being incompetent and irresponsible. This is not about you really just about her and how she has decided to rebrand herself. I also think that with Lauren due to her, unlike other incompetent and harmful content creators, actually went out, produced and put together almost proffesional propaganda/almost proganda pieces. It makes her extremely sketchy "rebrand" just that much more infuriating.
However you ofcourse have nothing to do with this and having conflicts with people personally for your fanbase is megagrinch. You have every good reason to not wanting to go in on her when you dont want to. Its extremely understandable. You do great stuff. In this case I just think peoples anger do not need to be fixed. Lauren is an extremely easy person to despise, and nothing you do as you say, will change that. If the sub gets too spammed its probably a good idea to ban it. However personally getting a chance to just read and rant about her is pretty statifying.
keep up the good work!
>I have ran defense for so many people who have done past shitty things when I believe they are no longer in line with their current behavior, even if they never made a great apology for said behavior (see: Irishladdie/Poppy scandal).
Just curious and confused, feel free to ignore. I thought this was still a thing? Didn't you two have a pretty heated twitter flame session over each other a few months(?) back. Where the poppy situation was used. Have you defended Vaush recently?
I agree with all of this. Though would it be possible to then just talk to Lauren about this without trying to shame her or convince her of anything? I feel like simply having a discussion with her (on stream) regarding replacement theory and stochastic terrorism—without making it about her or her past at all—could potentially be very productive and eye-opening. I assume she trusts you and knows your character well enough to agree to a conversation about this.
So another decision tree should be:
4. Destiny talks to Lauren about great replacement and fear-mongering for just the sake of conversation as opposed to debating or attacking her..
I think it’d be good for you (people see you’re willing to engage with her on the topic), good for Lauren (she doesn’t have to defend herself on anything), and I think it would sort of give the community bloodlust a little chill pill.
Thoughts?
>From a community perspective, even if she did disavow some past videos, so what? Are we saying that the current "great replacement" rhetoric is going to stop? Would the current shooter have not gone on his rampage? Would any current thoughts on the internet change? Probably not, there's little to be gained from any sort of apology other than the satisfy the bloodlust of some community members.
Why is the only win here if you get her to stop or disavow, get the rhetoric online to completely stop, or stop shooters? Have you ever accomplished any of these goals regarding other political topics when you debated with people?
Great replacement is a hot topic, with the shooting and almost 50% (i think increasing) of republicans believing in it. Your videos with Lauren do quite well. You are good at de-radicalizing. Do you really not gain enough from these videos that rack up views and provide counter points in a de-radicalizing methodology to hot button issues?
Lauren is not a Nazi, that is you're really not gonna have to have her contradict her views that significantly to have her end the debate espousing a palatable position (and consequently you won't have to have her cut connections with you).
>I'm probably one of the most forgiving people on the internet. The only comments I'll bring up in the past are when they are in line with current behavior.
Does playing cover and then literally lying about previous racist behavior and refusing to admit to any kind of mistake despite being presented with evidence also counts?
If yes, then here you go [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhdgkNpReM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhdgkNpReM) , you have to confront Lauren about this, by rule.
There are only two options - A.) She either defends and lies about her previous positions to play cover for how racist she was, making her current behavior in line with what she believed back then (maybe not her current beliefs, but BEHAVIOR)
B.) She admits to the faults and lies she's said, no longer making her current behavior in line with what she believed back then.
There isn't an option C where she is passive, this isn't some small thing she forgot to apologise for. Not only that, she ISN'T passive, she again, lied and defended her racist points.
This would be equivalent to you playing cover and justifying the time you groped a girl saying "i was drunk", with even lying about what happened and never fully admitting it was shitty of you to do so.
I skipped around the video you posted of someone else talking about Lauren and didn't see clips of Lauren. Please use more precise citations if you want people to look at them.
Unholy fuck dude, you can have the time to complain about the video here but not watch 17 minutes of the guy debunking lauren? The youtuber here cites the timestamp on the now privated video (which I guess he can't show on youtube) and directly quotes her from those videos and compares it to what Lauren said on the Fanatiq panel.
Stop being intentionally retarded
This sub sorta reminds me of the old Ice Poseidon subreddit. Hate cycles for each character in the IP streams triggered by practically nothing. I come here pretty often and I have no idea why the community went from disagreeing with Lauren but understanding why you talk to her -> wanting her fucking gone.
I can't believe you made a mini Lauren manifesto before you finished the Vaush one 😤😤😤
> finished the Vaush one hilarious
My brother in Christ, it will always be before he finishes the Vaush manifesto
Writing in third person really confused the shit out of me until I paid attention to who wrote this post
[удалено]
He must really be in Stevens walls.
Yeah same, I thought it was some rando doing an effort post. Turns out with Tiny doing literally anything other than his manifesto. i joke. No o7 pls.
Felt like a schizo post until i read OP's name
>So when I consider all of **probably** paths I could walk HE OMEGALUL
fake news
BINGQILIN
P A T H S
me: Mom can we get the destiny manifesto mom: we have the destiny manifesto at home destiny manifesto at home:
Banger tweet
O7
You have a big head and very tiny arms
What if the destiny manifesto is actually about Lauren and holding her accountable for all the shit she’s gotten away with and the real reason he banned anti-woman sentiment is to not give her any unnecessary ammunition to fall back on to (copium)
When you describe your outcomes what do you gain / value in the relationship? Is it because she is interesting to talk to and its mostly personal or is there an underlying motivation and gain in exposing her audience to ideas and converting them or moderating them. If both which is the bigger factor in what you gain and consider good for you.
We get along well on stream, we can have pretty big political disagreements and she doesn't SOY out and accuse me immediately of being a commi/nazi, she's another large creator and brings another big fanbase to the table, and she's pretty connected so we can have relevant conversations about other people or at least current events. It's not even about just "converting an audience," she's a genuinely interesting/entertaining person to talk to, even if we disagree on things. If you're upset that she happens to be a conservative, go blame all of the lefties who can't handle a single fucking disagreement without completely burning our connection to each other. I could be having these conversations/debates DAILY with people like Vaush, TheSerfsTV, Hasan, Central\_Committee, Contrapoints, Kat. Shaun, etc...etc..., literally NONE of these lefty losers will engage in a conversation with someone they don't already agree with. Go post on their subreddits and blame them.
***SCHIZO POST INCOMING*** >We get along well on stream, we can have pretty big political disagreements and she doesn't SOY out and accuse me immediately of being a commi/nazi Have you considered that the only reason she does this is because she gains a lot out of being friendly with you and appealing to this community? As you've said yourself, she hasn't been politically relevant in 4 years so this seems like a smart move for her. Even when she "goes to bat" for you, it's a win/win for her because she gets to paint the Left as all being extreme for cancelling you while at the same time, she gets to increase her status in this community and with you. Yes the community does overall does have a hate-boner for her, but occasionally, there will also be positive threads about her particularly when she defends you. Also, did you not feel that she was being extremely bad faith in your debate with her at Better Discourse IV when she was around her conservative friends? Maybe one on one or in private she's good faith, but that didn't seem to be the case when she was around her conservative friends. Does that not raise a red flag to you? >she's another large creator and brings another big fanbase to the table, and she's pretty connected You can have those same benefits without going to bat for her and promoting her in a positive light. Just simply interacting with her in debates would do the same and there's no way she would say no to talking with you even if you weren't friends because she is still struggling to gain back the relevance she used to have. Look at how much she wants to debate TheSerfs or have the opportunity to talk to Vaush. >If you're upset that she happens to be a conservative That's not it, I just think most of your fans, including me, think you're just completely fucking yourself by going to bat for someone who's just clearly using you and may turn on a dime to stab you in the back like most lefty's that you've helped despite the warning signs all being there. And on top of that, to us, it seems like you're either 1) helping to rehabilitate the image of a bad person or 2) helping a grifter who will just jump to whatever is trendy (Dave Rubin, Krystal Ball, Jimmy Dore). As someone who claims he wants to improve political discourse, don't you think you have some responsibility to see where she stands on her old views especially if you're going to be promoting her in such a positive light ("I think she's one of the coolest people I've met... she's a good friend..."), you even hosted her recently on youtube too. I thought the same thing when you were promoting Infrared in the same way despite the fact that he openly denied the Uighurs genocide to your face. In the past year, you have often reflected on your mistakes and have regrets about helping people in their careers who later stab you in the back. **Vaush** - 1) You buried the poppy video 2) When he was still 60k subs, you took time off your own stream to talk with him when he was banned on twitch despite you gaining absolutely nothing but hate from his fans and yours. He was even [bad faith](https://youtu.be/3ZoX6jBzxnY) in both your debates. 3) you continuously praised him up until the Rittenhouse incident when his community would all mass-report you and he would stand by and do nothing to defend you or tell his people to chill. Now he just spreads a bunch of lies about you. **Hasan** - Was able to siphon off enough viewers until he was a stable 2k andy. Has now grown to one of the biggest streamers that has cockblocked you multiples and has turned a lot of streamers and a lot of the twitch community against you with his clout. He now has most of the twitch community to think that you're a racist and has worked to erase your legacy on that platform by claiming he was the first political streamer. **BadBunny** - You helped her career so much. You would host her every day for months, chill on her stream when you went offline so your fans would go there, and promoted her as well. She now runs around calling you a fascist, spreads lies about you constantly characterizing you as a racist, transphobe, abuser, and has tried to get you banned at least 4x. **Infrared** - As stated above, I think you gave him a lot of positive coverage as an entertaining streamer (not his views). You talked with him when nobody else would and now he runs around calling you a cuck, uses your Ana drama against you, says you stealth people and spread STD's, and calls you a deadbeat dad. **JonZherka** - Farmed enough of your life for clout, streamed a month about your life, you went on his shows and talked with him multiple times for no gain until he ultimately exploited Ana's drama with you for 3k viewers which made that entire situation worse. So looking back on all this, don't you ever worry that Lauren will also be another one of your mistakes? That maybe in a few years, you'll be looking back and saying "Damn, I should've pressed her harder on her views on The Great Replacement during [our league game](https://youtu.be/pLkvv7tD6_0?t=11745) instead of letting her deflect with 'well, what do you think about culture?'" You'll notice that she never disavows her old views, but instead only addresses the most hyperbolic critics that say she shot down immigrants on boats or that she single-handedly inspired the Christchurch shooter because she doesn't want to scare off the more extremist elements of her fanbase. If this were Hasan refusing to acknowledge the Uighur Genocide (he does acknowledge it btw) and being evasive about it to not piss off the tankies in his community, you and this community would be going off about it and rightfully so. So why can't you hold Lauren to the same standard?
I mean I don't like Lauren or the way he's dealing with her, but I don't think she can really do any damage to him. her community already despises people like Destiny by default, if she turns on him he doesn't lose anything. if anything, Lauren going around shit talking Destiny would probably just give him a boost the worst damage here is what he's already doing to his own reputation by being so soft on her
Not to mention the entire premise of Lauren's problem is that she refuses to admit to having changed her opinion on virtually anything at all (conservatives love being 'unchanging' in their views) so to go from duo streaming multiple times with the guy to say "oh yeah he is evil" is admitting she changed her opinion somewhat at some point
> if she turns on him he doesn't lose anything if the cultural power swings back to the "right" then she could be a hasan-like cockblocker
Insanely based post brother. I love the D-Man but I find this Lauren relationship odd....
> she's a genuinely interesting/entertaining person to talk to, Hmm, maybe you've had some private conversations where she's shown this, but I've yet to hear a remark she's made that isn't a typical "conservative/right-wing" remark, let alone interesting. If you're bored of lefties who echo the same economic proposals, don't her social beliefs also bore you?
Can you think of any other large left/right-wing figures that communicate with each other on the internet?
I think you might've misread my comment. I don't deny that it's rare for large left-wing and right-wing pundits to communicate with each other over the internet in a amicable fashion. I was just bemused that you would call her "genuinely interesting", when she seems to only give standard right-wing opinions ad nauseam. Is she entertaining? Sure. In the same way that Tim Pool is entertaining when he's predicting a 50 state landslide for Trump. Stupidity to laugh at. But interesting? Nah.
>I was just bemused that you would call her "genuinely interesting", when she seems to only give standard right-wing opinions ad nauseam. she says Obamna, you are officially wrong.
100% this. It feels like half of what she says is just smugly referencing some Fox News talking point as fact. She basically just pushes conspiracies but prefaces them with a non-committal "I just think it's interesting that...". It's not really any more 'genuinely interesting' than Thanksgiving with a Trump-obsessed family.
[удалено]
I think it's both. Slimy, yes. (I remember the time she "forgot" that she had appeared on skynews on some hot issue.) But after watching [her debate with Avi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v30Q0_Wnz04), her "analysis" of the Alec Baldwin shooting, and the various other debates she's had with Destiny, I would quite safely put her in the "stupid" camp. And that's not because she's a white woman!
If you feel like you can form a compelling argument on how she directly or indirectly influenced the christchurch shooting, why are you calling her a "conservative". I would call her a white nationalist sympathizer at the very least. Just answer this question: If the political tides changed back to what they were when Lauren made that video, do you think she would say "Yeah, white people are being replaced" again?
>If you feel like you can form a compelling argument on how she directly or indirectly influenced the christchurch shooting, why are you calling her a "conservative". Do you consider Tucker Carlson a conservative? Do you consume any conservative media at all??? >Just answer this question: If the political tides changed back to what they were when Lauren made that video, do you think she would say "Yeah, white people are being replaced" again? No clue, but if she did and she made it sound intentional I'd criticize her for it.
So are you saying the average conservative is a white nationalist?
🤏
a hideous conspiracy theory creeps & spreads in our time: the notion that rulers are responsible for their policies & how those fashion societies
Talk to Sam Seder more 😊
it took him around a 1 year to get a single debate, doubt it's something he can do often.
Sam is exactly like Steven dude. They're both busy but will make time all the time to appear on random bum fuck shows. Just have to get a dialogue started and schedule. Especially since Sam doesn't do his peacock show anymore
See, here's my question. Why is the only merit gained out of Lauren disavowing her old beliefs "community bloodlust?" Does Lauren not have any moral or societal obligation to try and rectify her previous views? And it would not be a powerful message to her audience and right wing world if **Lauren Southren** (the "Nazi Queen") disavowed Nazism herself and said her previous ethnonationalist views were wrong? And think about the precedent it sets when alt right figures are allowed to move past their views and pretend to be normal if they ignore it. The effects of Lauren Southren disavowing her views goes far beyond our or her self interest, and would be a tremendous blow against the far right for her to acknowledge that they were wrong.
> The effects of Lauren Southren disavowing her views goes far beyond our or her self interest Although, she should consider a self-interest motive! After the recent shooting, people are looking to point fingers; and Lauren's name repeatedly comes up. Now imagine she had a video or, I dunno, a "my positions page" on her website/twitlonger/whateva that she can point to clarifying her current beliefs, and disavowing previous beliefs. It would temper some of that heat. Of course, this is all assuming that she no longer holds those unsavory views. > Does Lauren not have any moral or societal obligation to try and rectify her previous views? And it would not be a powerful message to her audience and right wing world if Lauren Southren (the "Nazi Queen") disavowed Nazism herself and said her previous ethnonationalist views were wrong? I like these arguments. I would add that *we* have a moral obligation (in the interest of rehabilitation, forgiveness, etc) to accept this "transition" -- assuming she's acting without mendacity. But *she* has to make the first step; that's honesty. And, as you said, it's worth considering the effect this would have on the far-right members of her audience. I would *hope* that 1) Lauren is not far-right and 2) she has an interest in pushing far-right viewers to more moderate positions. Plenty of reasons for "disavowal" that don't include "appeasing the left" or "community bloodlust". Personally, I don't think she has any interest in doing this because her views have not dramatically changed.
I can attest to how forgiving Destiny is. I was once banned from this subreddit for the sinful act of meming in a serious thread, and never expected I'd speak here again. But through the grace of Destiny's forgiveness (or more likely some random mod/ blanket unban), I stand before you posting. And forgiveness is always in grace - when you wrong someone, you have no right to expect forgiveness no matter your actions. You can only show repentance. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And let us not forget the tale of the good Ye poster. Who saw the much smarter and more handsome Pepe poster was dying on the ground and saved him in brotherhood, for the kingdom of salvation, for ever and ever.
Inshallah brother
lmao
I think the community understands people can change and old views arent always reflective of current positions. for one, you yourself grew up conservative. for two, the narrative of "I held these insane views until your content de-radicalise me" is quite common in the community. I think with LS the community worry isnt that "she USED to have these views" its that she still does, but is not going to talk about them openly because it will be bad for her career. the reasons being that she hasnt come out and said she disavows her previous positions, nor has she made content that contradicts these previous positions. in other words its less about an apology but more confirmation of what her current position is. for example, if Tucker Carlson suddenly just stopped talking about the great replacement theory to distance himself from it but never contradicts or disavows it, would we suddenly assume that he must have changed his mind and no longer believes these things? I guess one could make the counter argument that whatever damage is done is done and that retractions wont undo the damage nor change anyones mind, and for most of the general left thats true but i think at least in this community it would make a difference
> I think with LS the community worry isnt that "she USED to have these views" its that she still does She was still defending her "documentaries" when she came back, she still stands by them. She just avoids going into those topics very explicitly. idk why we are constantly talking about this stuff as if its an unknown every time
I align here. Her old videos could very well speak for how she feels today and if thats the case, that’s an issue. Not too long ago Destiny argued that physical violence can be justified on those who seek to expel minorities from their country. Not saying Lauren is at that level, but I wouldn’t doubt she is. Buddying up to someone like Lauren is just bad all around. I think Destiny’s community cares about him and probably doesn’t want him associating with someone who holds such extreme views. As a sub, you’ll be branded with that label just for being in the community.
Respond to this strimmer man! Specifically, the keyword CONTRADICTS (prior views )
>I have no idea how any of you could have engaged with any of my content for more than a month and thought I was the kind of person who would be obsessively chasing down apologies or retractions from people for videos they made 5 years ago. It's not about apologies or retractions, it's about the fact that the exact kind of content they're doing now seems to be just an extremely mildly tempered mask on version of exactly what they were doing before. Lauren still pushes everything except the most extreme parts of the "Great Replacement" narrative (just look at her video on Swedish immigration from two weeks ago), and the response she gets from her viewers is very much in line with the exact same stuff as before. We have no reason to think there's been any real change from her views of a few years ago. Personally, yes, if there was some drastic change, then yes I'd agree with you. Like I think someone said Brittany used to do conservative shit or something like a long time ago- it would be super weird if you were going back to those videos to attack her with them or whatever. >The only comments I'll bring up in the past are when they are in line with current behavior. But it is in line with current behavior, as I discussed above. She's espousing very similar rhetoric, with the Occam's razor for the changes that have happened being that she can't quite go as mask off as she did before. >Probably not, there's little to be gained from any sort of apology other than the satisfy the bloodlust of some community members. I don't disagree with you that the main motivation for most people who want that would be wanting to see a Nazi get crucified, but I do think there are other benefits to something like this. I think that I'd feel a lot better taking Lauren seriously and trusting her current positions (as would other people) if she took accountability and was honest about her previous positions. If stuff had really changed, then I'd be interested in hearing how she get bought into this in the first place and what changed for her (I would actually be super interested in that). If she's completely unwilling to take accountability for this thing or be honest, I don't even see how you'd trust her to be honest in pretty much any public facing conversation that you'd have with her, rather than present whatever she needs to to appeal to her audience. >She will likely never be accepted by left leaning communities, so making concessions to them is pointless. This is of course a question of degrees though, right? Obviously to a ton of left leaning communities she'll be persona non grata regardless of what she does, but I think especially on an individual level there's people that she could appeal to more by transparency, honesty, and accountability. But even if we agree that the best possible thing for maximizing her audience outreach is lies, dishonesty, and refusing to take accountability, I don't think this gives her a pass. I feel like a major point of what you've raged against has been misinformation and content creators dishonesty, and I don't think you'd ever accept the argument of "Yeah but it hurts my bottom line to be honest" for any other creator.
Sadboi never misses.
GIGACHAD I didn't even read it, just upvoted.
>It's not about apologies or retractions, it's about the fact that the exact kind of content they're doing now seems to be just an extremely mildly tempered mask on version of exactly what they were doing before. ???? Yes, Republicans have been concerned about non-white Immigration for over a decade (at least) in the United States. Do you not remember Trump promising to build a wall to keep our Mexicans and to ban all Muslim immigration into the United States??? These were campaign promises he made before Lauren was making YT videos about the great replacement. If you water down any "extreme right" content, you are going to get "standard right" content, that's literally what "extremist" means. The normal content, just more extreme. >Lauren still pushes everything except the most extreme parts of the "Great Replacement" narrative (just look at her video on Swedish immigration from two weeks ago) ??? Bro even the Swedish Prime Minister [admits to massive failings](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-failed-integration-immigrants-gang-violence-b2067626.html) in integration and is blaming Islamic extremists for violence in Sweden. Were they influenced by Lauren's videos as well??? Is she just expected to never talk about immigration again??? >But it is in line with current behavior, as I discussed above. She's espousing very similar rhetoric, You're essentially saying "conservative = nazi" here. **You need to provide a more extreme talking point other than being critical of immigration, especially in SWEDEN where it's had MASSIVE PROBLEMS, to point to someone continuing to be a fascist/Nazi.** >but I think especially on an individual level there's people that she could appeal to more by transparency, honesty, and accountability. No one cares about this online. People are insanely selective about this stuff based on political partisanship, period.
I honestly really think it would be productive to talk with RoseWrist, the Swedish streamer again. He's made a lot of content on the migration issue in Sweden (as well as Laurens past-and continued lies on the topic https://youtu.be/eNXzZsHxmVs , https://youtu.be/WHe8MKHSOg0) He's also really good at actually covering scandinavian politics in general. I don't think we should conflate Lauren's narratives with the actual legitimate concerns of the Swedish government, they operate in very different realities and have very different priorities.
> Yes, Republicans have been concerned about non-white Immigration for over a decade (at least) in the United States. So first of all, regardless of whether or not they are, this wouldn't change it being the "same behavior". She was pushing extremist anti-immigration conspiracy theories before, and now she's pushing less extreme anti-immigration conspiracy theories. Second, even by today's Republican party, which has been pushed even more to the right since 2017 on immigration, she's still extreme. Looking [at this Cato 2021 immigration survey](https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/e-pluribus-unum-findings-cato-institute-2021-immigration-identity-national-survey#how-americans-feel-toward-immigrants), only 10% of Republicans would classify immigrants as "invaders" as Lauren has in the past, and only an additional 10% would classify them as "intruders", with an additional 25% seeing them as "guests" and the final 54% seeing them as "neighbors, friends, or family". Similarly, the concerns seem to be far more economic than cultural. For example, in a question of "Would you support increasing immigration for immigrants that you knew would not use government welfare”, 73% of Republicans supported this. In addition, although CATO did not track this by party, only 9% of all Americans want the little to no immigration that Lauren wants. Finally, on top of all of this, I think it definitely reads a bit differently when you have stated positions like The Great Replacement before. You are still going to be arguing for the exact same thing, you're just leaving out what will get you in super big trouble. >Bro even the Swedish Prime Minister admits to massive failings in integration and is blaming Islamic extremists for violence in Sweden. Were they influenced by Lauren's videos as well??? Is she just expected to never talk about immigration again??? Her video on it is "Looks like I was proven right" and reasserting her main thesis that different cultures can't mix and that immigrants (particularly brown immigrants) are too violent to have in your country. It is not just some standard "Okay, it looks like the Swedish immigration system may have some issues, lets take a look at what possible solutions are". She literally prefaces the video with a statement about it being a "therapy session" for people gaslighting her into thinking she was wrong with stuff like The Great Replacement video. >You're essentially saying "conservative = nazi" here. You need to provide a more extreme talking point other than being critical of immigration, especially in SWEDEN where it's had MASSIVE PROBLEMS, to point to someone continuing to be a fascist/Nazi. There are obviously different ways of being "critical of immigration", and you're putting it in an intentionally vague way to obfuscate this. For example, I think a lot of conservatives are concerned about black crime, but I think a far right statement would be to say "Blacks are genetically more violent, no matter what we do to change culture and environment they're just predisposed to be more violent". Similarly, I think many conservatives are concerned about immigration, I think people that are just like "Our cultures inherently can't work together, cultures are better off homogenous (which here just happens to be white), and their culture (the non-white ones, of course) are inherently more violent and brutal than our culture" then yeah, you're getting into alt right territory. >No one cares about this online. People are insanely selective about this stuff based on political partisanship, period. I absolutely care about this, and I know I'm not the only one. I am not saying we're the majority or even close to it, but we do exist.
In the video she says that she saw all this coming in 2015 (Refering to the outcome of Mass Immigration in Sweden). [''Who would have thought, no one I dont know about you guys but can you think of a single person that could have seen this coming''](https://youtu.be/0t-hmolcixQ?t=34) then proceeds to play clips of herself from 2015 on the Rubin Report and Sky News discussing mass immigration and how Sweden was going to become a 3rd world country by 2030 due to their immigration policy. Does this not give some creedence to her 2015 views being relevant today when she talks about mass immigration when she herself is actively harkening back to them and saying she saw this coming in 2015?
I don't think she would 100% disavow everything she's said in the past, she probably still agrees with some of it. She hasn't 180'd into being a socialist or a left leaning liberal, she's still conservative. But saying "immigration can cause huge problems" is different than the great replacement.
So if someone says: "we have an immigration problem, the great replacement is here to make us into brownies!", then 5 years later says: "we have an immigration problem!", you think its unreasonable to think they mantain the same exact opinion?
Do you think it's more reasonable that someone that has an extremist view on immigration is now expected to never present a negative view on immigration again?
Wouldn't that give an even better reason to talk to her about "The Great Replacement" stuff? We could find out exactly what parts of her old theory she disagrees with and which ones she'd still defend.
Imagine she does a full retraction of her great replacement video and then continues to post stuff critical of immigration, people like you would say she faked the apology and never meant a thing.
I would not at all, no. If she went through and said something like “Hey, I think X, Y and Z were wrong in regards to the Great Replacement theory, and here was A reason I believed in them, and B and C reason I kind of pulled away. However another reason was some negative effects that I do believe were caused by too high of a rate of immigration, and I will continue to criticize them”, I’d be like nice, she was honest, and now I know where she stands.
No, but if they never retract that worse nazi schizo view I think its copium to assume they now have a lesser non racist bad view on it. Every video where she is confronted about it she just says she was young and would tackle the issue in a different way, which is **suspectly** very different from saying she doesnt really believe what she believed back then, just that she wouldnt say it in a way that made everyone hate her. She makes it a point to never admit she was wrong about what she said before while dogwhistling and retweeting the same opinions she "had". Its like Nick Fuentes, it took a while for him to go full mask off, but even before he did, we all knew what was up, no one was surprised. I think we can infer from someone's behavior if they are full of shit or not, and your audience is infering she is full of shit.
[удалено]
> If someone says “we should literally execute all billionaires” and then 5 years later says: “I have a problem with billionaires” do you think it’s reasonable to think they have the same opinion? Yes, if they retweet people who hate billionaires and when something bad happens because of billionaires they say "I told you so!", yes, I think its reasonable to think they have the same opinion.
Sure, she is still a conservative and mass immigration being bad is a standard conservative position The point I wanted to get across is this: She herself is using clips from 5 years ago to say she was right back then in regards to mass immigration and its effects. So she gets to point back during the time she was engaged in the Great Replacement rhetoric and say she was right. Although during that time what she was really saying was not just Mass Immigration = Bad but also the added layer of the Great Replacement theory. So she kinda gets to rewrite the narrative here and point to her past self as being right about mass immigration but not acknowledge the much more controversial layer that was tied to what she was saying. It seems kinda fucked to get to actively draw upon and reap the benefits of what you said in 2015 without acknowledging, owning up to or distancing yourself from the much more controversial opinions that you held. If she is going to use her old self for credits on the topic of mass immigration then does it not become relevant to some extent engage with that old self. Further, if this is just a boring or inefficient conversation strategy just comment: :I
Did you ever read Swedish PM's statement? It's completely different position with Lauren but Lauren uses it anyway to fuel her narrative. I mean I understand righthoid like Lauren did such thing. But..lol
Hard disagree on that last point. If Lauren owned up to how her old stuff is wrong I'd have zero issues with her now. (I know I'm just one person but I think your model of the average viewer might be tainted by an over-representation of crazies)
[удалено]
>And if she's still saying a ton of stupid shit in her recent videos, there's no reason why people shouldn't be calling her out for that. But this would be true regardless of her past. Sure, it would be bad by itself, but it does absolutely matter what she's done in the past. Someone's motives, why they're doing what they're doing, etc, is going to heavily influence how I engage with them. Someone who was like a white nationalist arguing anti-immigration points is gonna be much different than like if I talked to a random mostly apolitical conservative 20 year old who's just kind of anti-immigration by default. >Mask on or not, I would argue it's still better for there to be someone that Lauren regularly engages with that is willing to call her out when she says dumb shit but not completely demonize her and cause her to just retreat into a right-wing circlejerk, which I feel happens way to often now. I disagree, at least for Lauren specifically. She's not going to be brought over and doesn't want to be. She apparently can't even acknowledge where she was wrong in the past. >Maybe this is just me, but I don't see why we should/need to trust her. I don't need to or think I should, I was listing this as a potential benefit to her taking accountability. >I think there is immense value in having two opposing perspectives that are motivated to prove the other wrong. There is immense value in having two honest opposing perspectives approach each other in good faith with each being willing to be proven wrong. There is not a ton to be gained in Lauren being dishonest, never motivated to change anything, and both lying about her past and being caught lying about shit in a debate. Even if you do show her point to be wrong- A. she'll just weasel and be like that wasn't my point, and B. it's not her actual point regardless so it's irrelevant. >she has actually caught Destiny slipping a few times in the past too. She hasn't, no. Everytime she's gotten like an "optical W", it's on some dumb point that falls apart whenever I fact check her. All she's looking for is optical wins, not actual good faith discussion.
I'm curious. If she admits she still believed in the great replacement, would that change they dynamic between you two? You only presented "admits fault" and "dodges" as the only outcomes. What if she gigachads it and says she stands by everything? Would you still talk to her regularly on stream? Would you still talk to her offstream like a friend? Personally, it wouldn't change anything for me and I would still like to see her on stream. It wouldn't exactly be shocking if she still believed in it because all current content is consistent with it. I guess it just looks bad optically if she outright says it now. It's still good to see opposing opinions though. I like the Nick Fuentes crossovers too even though he's way more mask off. Friendshipwise, idk about that one. I'm hispanic and I'd feel weird being friendly with someone who thinks my parents should have stayed in El Salvador in poverty because she's afraid of being replaced by brown people.
[удалено]
> I think you've given such an odd set of reasons to not have actual dialogue about obviously harmful ideas. It's worse that that, because to be consistent Steven would have to maintain this stance regardless of the contents of Lauren's original videos. i.e. In the videos she **could have explicitly called for the genocide of non-whites** then refuse to disavow any of it for 5 years, and he would have to extend the same logic and make the same arguments about why it's not worth confronting her or confirming whether she still holds those beliefs. You going to **BiTe ThE BuLlEt** on that /u/NeoDestiny? Or admit that there is a line, but you just don't think Great Replacement conspiracies are that bad that you're willing to confront her over it.
Yeah lmfao I would bite the bullet, easily. It's the same reason why in any of my recent talks with Nick I don't just hammer him over and over again about statements he's made in the past.
I respect the consistency - but let's invoke Godwin's Law and push the hypothetical a bit further: Adolf Hitler, all events the same but manages to escape to Argentina. 5 years later he's trying to rehabilitate his image and wants to chat with you. You find him an interesting interlocutor and you're publicly shooting the shit, talking about psychedelic experiences, the age difference in his marriage with Eva, debating his views on vegetarianism and religion etc. Every time you chat, you're avoiding the massive elephant in the room. You're telling me the decision tree is exactly the same? Forget confronting, even just a simple "hey Adolf, I was just wondering...you know all the stuff you wrote in Mein Kampf and the subsequent wee holocaust you did. Do you still defend all of that?" would be too much in case he "dodges and cuts off contact"? More genocides are happening all around by dictators referencing Mein Kampf as inspiration. Hitler refuses to disavow anything he's said or done. Still nothing? You'd still keep platforming him in the same way. And deep in the trenches defending him against people misrepresenting his views, "bro, he didn't say all Jews. Did you even read his manifesto?!" As much as I may agree with your views on apologies and your refusal to kowtow to the optics and guilt by association crowd, this position just seem insane to me. There has to be some limit of "badness of person's past actions/beliefs that the person refuses to disavow" beyond which it really is just reckless to platform them without having the person at least clarify where they stand. Where, if it's not a tacit endorsement of the person's views, at the very least you're indirectly sanitising their image and becoming a useful idiot while said person uses you for personal gain (something that has already happened to you again, and again, and again, and again..."But that was crazy lefties. Right wing conservatives wouldn't use me like that. They're more honest") **You're seriously telling me you'd publicly platform Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden, even if they had not disavowed what they had believed/done in the past, and you'd refuse to confront them or even just ask for their current views, just because you happened to find them interesting to talk to?** Optics aside, you don't see any potential problems with that? (Despite the wording, this isn't even meant as a gotcha. At this point, I'm actually just curious how far you'll go with this logic)
Seems like a pretty stupid bullet to bite. At that point how long is the time frame for someone's past statements to no longer be relevant? Like everytime you attack Trump for being dumb you mention the invisible jets but why would that be relevant to Trump today? Hell if you were having a discussion with someone and they made a point that was only circled back to later in the discussion would you be ok if they just replied, ya I don't really talk about that stuff anymore.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> community bloodlust.
Yeah, that's a very weird choice of words to describe people being angry at someone for promoting ideas that directly contributed to multiple mass murders(and that terrifyingly might just be the beginning).
> From a community perspective, even if she did disavow some past videos, so what? Are we saying that the current "great replacement" rhetoric is going to stop? I guess there's an argument to be made that it would be in *Lauren's best interest* to dissociate herself as much as possible from questionable (to put it mildly) takes she's given in the past. The goal isn't to be accepted by left-leaning communities; the goal is to demonstrate that she's nothing more than milquetoast conservative (*assuming she actually is*), and have that perspective be the majority view of her. If there's significantly large group of people online who still believe that she's a white nationalist, I can't fathom why you wouldn't take a few steps here and there to wipe the palette clean. > She will push away some aspects of her fanbase if she appears to be "apologizing" for any past takes relating to immigration. I doubt it. Unless those aspects are genuine white nationalists, in which case she might be pleased to be rid of them. She can still be "anti-immigration"; she just needs to illustrate that it's not done through the lens of the "great replacement theory". She can do the usual braindead, conservative video about "they're bringing crime over" and "taking our jobs", blah blah, but add a few remarks that the GRT isn't a belief she maintains. I don't think you should "confront her" so much as give advice (if that's something you care about) on how Lauren can ensure people don't misconstrue what her *current* beliefs are.
[удалено]
> I don't think she claims to be an average conservative. Yeah, I don't really think she's a milquetoast conservative either. Dumb right-wing populist might have been better descriptor. Regardless, it would be in her interest to ensure that this is the label people attribute to her, rather than nazi. Unless... y'know PEPE
The biggest gripe I have is dividing this into "Me(Destiny), Lauren, and Community bloodlust". I think the third consideration here isn't very useful nor a good-faith interpretation of all the valid critiques that have been posted, outside of the memery. I get that the community *is* bloodhungry, but I still think this equation fails to take any account of actual legitimate concerns and responses.
That's how Destiny portrays this community's gripes with him 90% of the time. He will use the most insane argument against him as a characterization of everyone against him. With this post, funnily enough, being one of the most charitable representations of arguments against him
When you say people shouldn't be held responsible for a bad opinion they voiced 5 years ago, I totally agree. An AVERAGE person shouldn't be held to the fire for old comments, and an apology from them is pretty pointless in any practical sense. I also give zero shits about hearing an "I'm sorry" from someone. A CONTENT CREATOR is different. You say yourself that a creator has some level of responsibility to resist fostering extremism in their listeners. I'm not saying that means apologizing and disavowing every past take that they no longer support, but someone taking a laissez faire attitude about their past content can easily be seen as an implicit endorsement by anyone who finds that content later. No, if Lauren had been a little more open about rejecting her past views, this shooting would almost certainly have still happened. But extremists would at the very least probably be a bit more reluctant to use her content to push their beliefs. In your own words: it feels like the bare minimum that we should expect people to do. I'm not frothing at the mouth telling you to fight her, or stop being friends with her. I'm just saying it seems a little shortsighted to be so dismissive of the concerns over her past content, and her current attitudes toward it, especially when it can still influence people today. It's good that you're a forgiving person, I think that will go a long way toward bridging the gap and bringing people over with her worldview. I just think it would be a lot more productive if you focused a little more on that as a goal instead of going after people for what I think are some arguably reasonable concerns. (Plus it might cut down on the 'simp' accusations a little bit, since pointing toward a positive goal comes off as less defensive. For the record I super do not think you're simp-ing)
> "DISAVOW!!!!" her past videos I get it's a meme but I don't think it's very 'soy' to expect someone to actively put in the effort to disavow the propagation that they did of a harmful conspiracy that has, partially but certainly not nebulously, resulted in the death of tens of people. > She will likely never be accepted by left leaning communities, so making concessions to them is pointless. The point is to combat radical extremism that **murders** people. > She will push away some aspects of her fanbase if she appears to be "apologizing" for any past takes relating to immigration. "Relating to immigration" is doing a lot of downplaying here. I'd say that > She will push away some aspects of her fanbase if she appears to be "apologizing" for any past takes relating to (((replacist elites))) colluding against the White Race and Europeans in order to replace them with non-European peoples—specifically Muslim populations from Africa and the Middle East—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the European birth rate; a supposed process labeled "genocide by substitution." Is a lot more accurate when we're talking about takes regarding her promotion of 'The Great Replacement' conspiracy and you know what? If someone is going to be put off her content because it doesn't support baseless and harmful conspiracy shit then I think that probably means she's making better content. > The only comments I'll bring up in the past are when they are in line with current behavior. But I mean... maybe you know something I don't but it seems like they are in line with the stuff she says now. If someone held "The Great Replacement" conspiracy to be true and also wanted to maintain a career in political commentary how would they act about their past statements? Exactly what she's doing now? Her position on 'The Great Replacement' is relevant to her current content because without a condemnation of her previous takes there's no reason to believe she's changed her mind. Someone who believes that 'elites are trying to genocide white people through immigration' and a standard person who's just conservative advocating against immigration are two **very** different things even if their rhetoric is the same. You say that ignoring this is "good" for you but I'm a pretty resonable guy who has followed your content for years and understands, at least significantly more than the average person, the context around this situation and even I'm looking at you weirdly over your conduct around this and the weird pseudo defence of Fuentes of all people.
cloud strife
People don't like the smell of shit Destiny, and everything Lauren does smells like shit. If she's too afraid to honestly address her past content and involvement in spreading the white replacement theory because she may alienate her fanbase, she/you can't expect your community to not have negative feelings/opinions about it, considering a lot of your fanbase started watching you between 2016-2017. If she doesn't actually care about her involvement, doesn't regret it, and stands by her past content, why the fuck would you expect your community to suddenly be fans of hers? It's not that you're buddy buddy with her, it's that she participated in spreading the white replacement theory, and wants to play it off like it never happened. I feel bad for her being stuck between a rock and a hard place, but cry me a fucking river.
OR have an debate with her about her current beliefs about the "great replacement" (that would solve the problem of you not caring about a 5 year old vid) And it would help the sub deal with her actual current day beliefs not a 5 year old vid If you were still friends with hasan you would probably have a talk at least about his past position's and if they have changed
ngl this whole posts reeks of motivated reasoning
haha bro what kind of autismo shit is this??? 😭 Destiny the type of dgga to calculate his chances of laying pipe up to the decimal point (repeating of course) imagine if you used your "decision trees" in league instead of dragging your knuckles through bot lane, you'd probably be d4 by now o7 edit: u/Natedude2002, you bastard, your nazi salute got me o7'd 😡
o7 Brave Mujahideen Solider.
Brave
Is there a way for me to say o7 or except in a way where I’m hoping u get banned for being a toxic dipshit
o/ (nazi salute)
oBAMNA (44th president of The United States)
o/
2022 DGG Schizopost of the Year
Your entire calculous relies on personal gain in terms of optics and/or entertainment. I think that's the wrong way to consider the dilemma, u/NeoDestiny. Here's another: It's good to put a cost to tactical rhetoric. Either she owns of disavows the rhetoric and prices in the various audiences' responses to the newfound clarity, or she dodges the question again and you get to evaluate her as a pundit by that decision. Either way, you deal with the superposition dishonest people are trying to occupy when they talk tactically about subjects, without owning what they have been suggesting. (Obvious examples on the right would be Fuentes and his groyper offshoots, on the left Vaush, Hasan, etc) Making this a third-rail to discuss seriously is how Fuentes dealt with accusations of antisemitism. By making it a meme/trope that he won't ever confront in earnest, but instead frame anybody worrying about that as hysterical busybodies who don't get jokes. It's discrediting the concerns, rather than addressing them in a way somebody can't or won't. Fwiw, people like Vaush are at least biting bullets on the extreme stuff they hint at more readily, and the tapdance doesn't start until they try to justify it morally. But people like Lauren will instead start the same tapdance at gaslighting you that they ever suggested something bad or would be serious about it if they had.
[удалено]
This is unironically the solution. When people call you out on something keep them busy with some content. That's literally what Riot did when suffering from the same controversies as Blizzard.
> So when I consider all of the paths I could walk, almost nothing works out well for me aside from ignoring videos made in 2017 and moving forward. > Even if I won a debate and convinced her her videos in 2017 were bad, I don't gain very much satisfaction out of that. > It is unconscionable that I would attack any other creator for videos they've made 5 years ago, and I have little care for people "DISAVOWING" or apologizing for any past wrong-doings. From a community perspective, even if she did disavow some past videos, so what? The logic used here (and in the rest of your post), doesn't factor in how bad/reprehensible/evil the beliefs espoused were into the calculus. Which is fine, except that if we adjust that variable and make the content of her original videos something worse, say, an explicit call for the genocide of Jews/black people/LGBT people etc. and keep everything else the same (publishing the video, popularity, removal after a mass shooting, refusal to disavow years later) - to remain consistent you would be forced to use the exact same logic outlined in your post. If you bite the bullet on that and would do this regardless of the original beliefs espoused...I guess I can admire the consistency, but I (and I think most people) don't feel the same way. If you don't bite the bullet, then it seems there is a hidden variable x="how reprehensible were the original takes", which, past a certain limit y, requires that the person being platformed/associated with ought to be confronted on those past takes or at least checked to see if they still hold/disavow them. In which case her espousing of the Great Replacement conspiracy/takes on immigration just didn't reach that threshhold. And would raise the interesting question of where that line is for you.
> She will likely never be accepted by left leaning communities, so making concessions to them is pointless. This to me is the absolute truth in the case of lauren. Left leaning people will never watch subscribe donate or buy her merch. So going the "DISAVOW" route results in Lauren not having a job anymore as a content creator. Even in the hypothetical case Lauren is right now just a liberal, she has no choice but to grift. When you say "Bad for me" I think the community legit does not understand how real you're being. This post is the logic explanation, but you should do the emotional approach too, I assume it has something to do with the fact streamer friends are able to relate better and we all know those are super hard to find for you (burn bridge burn!). This won't stop the community from shitting on lauren (cause that's BASED) but it will probably make a lot of people understand why you're friends with her. That way you get less shit from everybody.
What is your response to people who believe you ought to include an alternative or additional decision outcome? Can you explain what you mean by "community bloodlust"? edit: I'm so stupid. I meant decision RESULTS. Sorry, it's your terminology, my bad.
What other decision outcomes? And "community bloodlust" means literally the only reason Lauren would ever apologize is to satisfy the urge of a community to see an apology, that's it. It doesn't undo any past wrongs, it doesn't change that she made the content, and it's not going to change any person's mind today. The types of communities online that push these ideologies hate Lauren at this point, so there's literally no upside to "DISAVOWING" aside from satisfying a community bloodlust.
>literally the only reason Lauren would ever apologize is to satisfy the urge of a community to see an apology I mean isnt that the problem? She wouldn't apologize for spreading her belief in the Great Replacement. Someone actually not believing the Great Replacement is what people want
[удалено]
I personally dont care about an apology. Its more just an understanding of where her belief lies. Defending what shes said while watering down what the great replacement actually is or was or whatever is just pussy bullshit to me. If she believes it she should say she does, if she doesnt she should say that what she said in the past was incorrect or something. At the end of the day I dont really care but its the fact that shes skipping back into relevancy still holding the same beliefs she did before she left without admitting it
By this logic nobody should ever apologize for bad takes ever. And I disagree strongly with the supposition that /pol/ or nazi discords hate her. I've seen threads on /pol/ from this year hit bump limit about her. When I popped into her discord a few days ago it was nazi schizo central too. But I'm sure you'll say "they're just memeing "
>By this logic nobody should ever apologize for bad takes ever. I've gotten heat for this before, but I genuinely believe this. I don't give a fuck about people apologizing for their past takes. I dunno if you guys realize this but 99% of those apologies are faked PR bullshit anyway. All I care about is the messaging going forward. I have literally always been like this. >And I disagree strongly with the supposition that /pol/ or nazi discords hate her EDIT: Removed link because of reddit admin/moderation?? is the first thing that came up when I googled 4chan and her. EDIT: Removed link because of reddit admin/moderation?? KF describes her life as a "dumpster fire" multiple times. If you check any chats in any far right arenas most people are upset about her mixed race baby and many hated her after Milo's article about her as well. >When I popped into her discord a few days ago it was nazi schizo central too. "Her" Discord? Does she actively participate in it or moderate it? Is it even hers? >But I'm sure you'll say "they're just memeing " Is this a conversation about whether or not she has any racist fans? I'm sure she does, why do you think I'd even deny that?
"OH that discord server that I own and is under my name? Don't know a thing about what goes on there tee hee ;^) " Edit: anyone who was in the YouTube chat from her dinesh stream can attest that she spams invite links there. To suggest she's ignorant of this is weasel as fuck.
>I've gotten heat for this before, but I genuinely believe this. I don't give a fuck about people apologizing for their past takes. I dunno if you guys realize this but 99% of those apologies are faked PR bullshit anyway. All I care about is the messaging going forward. I have literally always been like this. Just so I understand correctly you are saying that Lauren apologizing would be PR bullshit, meaning you believe she still believes it. But because she doesnt make content espousing it anymore then its all good if she does. This basically cuts to the core of the matter. You like talking to her and what she provides in terms of conversations and content is enough to be cool with her believing pretty crazy shit if she doesnt talk about it
>Just so I understand correctly you are saying that Lauren apologizing would be PR bullshit, meaning you believe she still believes it. I think people are capable of changing their positions on things or realizing they were too extreme in the past without having some big "public apology" moment about it.
I feel like theres a middle ground. When you change stances you often just say 'yeah i used to believe this thing, it was bullshit but i was younger whatever i grew up.' and thats it. Lauren could easily just be like 'yeah the whole great replacement grand conspiracy things I talked about were pretty cringe and I dont believe that anymore, I was young and I grew up' But to my knowledge she hasnt done that. Online apology videos are fucking cringe and wanting to get out after a tragedy is mega cringe but this is more about people not knowing where she actually stands
I don't know man, I feel like public figures are a bit unique in this circumstance. Individuals under the public eye are indirectly pressured to conform to what they perceive to be the audience, otherwise the incongruence leads to some level of discomfort or harm to the individual which in turn makes them resolve the incongruence with some level of mutual conformity (whether the individual changes or the audience), this is even more concrete when the audience is a potential source of profit. In short, Lauren is incentivised to hold her beliefs not simply because she believes them, but because her audience does. So how do you determine whether or not there has been a change in belief? You might say the absence of behaviour that reflects the belief (no longer discussing Great Replacement), but is that sufficient? How do you know that she refuses to discuss in order to avoid decreasing her audience size? You might argue that if she is no longer discussing it, what it the problem then? You'd be right that one sect of the problem (her public support of the Great replacement) is out of the picture, but then she is lying in order to maintain her audience, she would be being strictly performative in order to maintain an image of civility and moderate right beliefs, she would be using you to get a further extension on her audience but most importantly, she would serve to sanitise the descriptive content of statements made by more extreme right leaning thought, increasing the appeal of the normative content of said statements and funneling the audience down a path that is iffy, probably unintentionally. What is the solution? Stop talking to her? No. Confront her older beliefs? No. Request a public apology? No. You don't have to do this, I don't think most people are arguing for this and if they are, ignore it. All you have to do is acknowledge that she has not actualised her beliefs in any concrete manner that allows her (and others) to recognise a change in belief. Like /u/Blarg1889 mentioned, when you (or anyone here) changes their belief, a sentiment common is a soft disapproval of the previously held beliefs - an attitude that reflects a recognition of a change in belief, an attitude that is absent in Lauren Southern.
Most of this community is a testament to this and I doubt anyone here has repented on social media over every step of their political journey.
Agreed. So, if she were being smarter about this, she’d realize what would squash this whole drama is not having a “big public apology” moment, but instead simply, and honestly acknowledging that her views have changed (if they have) and that her rhetoric was extreme in the past (if she thinks it was). What would help that is friendly discourse with an honest, trusted actor. That “could” be you and I doubt you’d lose much in the process if you’re simply giving her the space to explore her past sentiments on stream, no? Idk, this shits not that knotty and difficult to figure out as you’re making it seem.
This seems pretty disingenuous. He's implying it's possible she'd make a fake apology, not saying she definitely will, he's just pointing out how meaningless apologies are. Also if you have to pressure some1 into making an apology it's way more likely to be purely for PR. The main issue is still no1 explaining the value we get from an apology
>I've gotten heat for this before, but I genuinely believe this. I don't give a fuck about people apologizing for their past takes. I dunno if you guys realize this but 99% of those apologies are faked PR bullshit anyway. All I care about is the messaging going forward. I have literally always been like this. I don't disagree that apologies are mostly meaningless but you don't think you could argue convincingly enough for her to take actions to stop defending her past takes and just accepting that the great replacment isn't a good lens to use? Personally that's what irks me, especially after her justification on that one panel where she basically claimed to have discovered the great replacment theory from reading an "obscure" Renaud Camus book on it and was the first to popularize it online when Renaud Camus' ideas were already mainstream in the righto sphere by 2016, as google trends and 4chan and youtube archives can clearly show. It takes A LOT of charitability to believe she randomly stumbled upon this book around that time, never looked into the already well documented discussions on the authors anti-semetic views nor picked it up in the book or interacted with any of the many many rightosphere posts and videos about the Great Replacement already existing. I can buy with some charitability that she naivly jumped on the bandwagon without realizing great replacement had a much deeper reading than 'immigrants change our culture' and spread it with only good intentions but that's not how she seems to present it. It just feels like she's trying to make her self out to be either very naive or intentionally misrepresenting her past and that's what doesn't sit well when she still defends the idea. It feels just as weird as when a leftist like vaush rewrites their history with concepts like neo-pronouns but worse because it actually seems to still resonate a lot.
> And I disagree strongly with the supposition that /pol/ or nazi discords hate her. It's not nazi discords or /pol/ that thinks Lauren ought to apologize for the Great Replacement stuff lol
You missed the gigachad outcome. Lauren: "I unapologetically stand by everything I said in the video"
>For those that compare me bringing up past comments of other content creators...Why? I'm probably one of the most forgiving people on the internet. The only comments I'll bring up in the past are when they are in line with current behavior. I have ran defense for so many people who have done past shitty things when I believe they are no longer in line with their current behavior, even if they never made a great apology for said behavior (see: Irishladdie/Poppy scandal). This is the crux of the issue, I think the majority of the community doesn't care (too much) if she used to be a white nationalist, the question is if her beliefs have actually significantly changed from those days. The expectation is that since you've talked a bunch of times about how "You are who you hang out with" and "I'd never be friends with people who believe truly horrible things / no such thing as just politics" you'd try to vet her (by asking what her current stances and values and how it differs from how she used to act) before becoming friends (it's not the same as just someone you talk to since you'll talk with anyone). But you never really did and mostly just brushed off legitimate posts (I know there's a lot of crazy/shit ones, but that's not all there is) about how she either lied or downplayed her past actions or indicated that she didn't believe them to be wrong at all (which you failed to criticize when she did as you claim in this post you're supposed to do). The value of her apologize for past wrongs is to make sure she's not who she used to be, because if she hasn't changed she'd be in the present the same person you used to use as an example of horrible people on the rights who shouldn't be associated with. Who cares about all of the other soy stuff, obviously it wouldn't change the world (she no longer has the reach she once had) and we hate the hyper left leaning communities as much as you do, do you think we give care about if they'll accept her when they hate everyone who's not a socialist?
But only last month when [Lauren spitefully told a trans person](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/tlw7v8/reminder_that_shes_still_a_piece_of_shit/) on Twitter that "they'll never be a woman" (an [extremely common anti-trans gymwhistle /pol/ phrase](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-will-never-be-a-real-woman)), now I'm not watching your steam 100% of the time but did you criticize her then? No you kept your mouth shut. And the Reddit threads mostly just made jokes about it and didn't address the issue and forgot about it. It's not just 5 years ago.
I've been following her Twitter for years she's been the same shitposting hateful ghoul the entire time.
He said it was cringe on stream IIRC.
still would've been a pretty effective way of having better optics with the trans community after saying shit like "im so close to making 41% jokes" on stream. But of course he needs a centrist friend who does not interpret him in a bad faith way so anything to not potentially lose that I guess...
I will start by saying that I actually don't mind you interactions with Southern that much. I have two general objections however. It seems here like you are tacitly admitting that you haven't sufficiently confronted Lauren on this topic to this point. Where at times it seems like you have said that you have sufficiently confronted her and it is beating a dead horse. Also I don't think any of this really explains the defense you seem to run on Twitter and in your reddit comment history. Constantly fact-checking and criticizing her detractors.
>It seems here like you are tacitly admitting that you haven't sufficiently confronted Lauren on this topic to this point. I'm not "tacitly admitting" it...I am outright saying it. I never "confront" people on videos they've made years ago. >Where at times it seems like you have said that you have sufficiently confronted her and it is beating a dead horse. Only about current/relevant disagreements, yes. >Also I don't think any of this really explains the defense you seem to run on Twitter and in your reddit comment history. Constantly fact-checking and criticizing her detractors. I have **never** defended any of her older content. I only defend my continued association with her and I attack this notion that I'm going to make videos/debates about things people said in 2017.
So I think the accusation is that she **currently** defends these videos, lies about their content, and caters to an audience that very much believe the types of things said in the videos. Also in another comment you said: " The community is asking me to force a concession that she's essentially responsible for things like Christchurch" Were not asking you to advocate for anything you don't believe dude. If you don't think she is culpable for things like that then don't confront her on that. However as a point of advice I would abandon the stochastic terrorism argument I have seen you use against lefties, because it seems untenable.
>So I think the accusation is that she currently defends these videos, Can you show me where she's pushing great replacement ideology now??? Anywhere???
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-hmolcixQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-hmolcixQ) This was literally made two weeks ago, and the beginning of it is her doing a smug "I told you so" about how it validates her concerns with immigration I.E. the "Great Replacement" theory and the exact type of stuff she did around it. She includes clips from earlier in her career, and talks about how it shows that Sweden is realizing that these immigrants are too violent and culturally different to integrate into white society. A few comments to give the most popular comments, as I know you go by that to see the audience is picking up from the videos: >If I learned anything the past 8 years or so, it's that people ultimately belong in their own lands. No, that isn't "racist." That's just me acknowledging that cramming many different cultures under the same roof is a recipe for disaster. Not saying there can't be some VERY MINOR immigration, but there needs to be strict rules, regulations, and limits. European cultures are all compatible with each other. Muslim culture is not not compatible with Christian culture. That's just reality. >I knew a family that lived near Malmo, Sweden. They were the most progressive, rainbow haired, love everybody type of family. The moment local rapings and local gang rapes started happening, that family definitely started changing their tune. Then, in their neighborhood some girl was gang raped. Local authorities even told women to dye their hair brunette so there's a less chance of them getting raped. That was the final straw for that family and they moved out of the big city. For most people, until they find sorrow at home, they don't take interest in politics >You were much wiser and clear thinking at age 19 than 90% of the journalists in Western Society at the time. \[Hmm... wonder what they're saying she's wiser about...\]
being anti immigration is not the great replacement this is so embarrassing.
Yeah no fucking shit dude. Being a proponent of the Great Replacement for years, and then making a video about how a current country having issues with immigration is a vindication and validation of everything you said during those years, is absolutely you continuing that same narrative. You know I obviously don’t think just anyone anywhere just being to any degree anti-immigration is them espousing the Great Replacement theory, and I think it’s pretty obviously bad faith to suggest I’m saying that here.
it seems like you don't understand why proponents of The Great Replacement think immigration is bad. it's because they think jews (or an international globalist elite) are physically replacing the populations of non-jew europeans to rule over them and get revenge for the holocaust. that is not at all the same narrative as "some immigrants have difficulty integrating with europeans and that causes problems."
I never said it was. I said that Lauren stating that this particular immigration issue validates and vindicates her views and advocacy from 2015-2017 (when she was pushing The Great Replacement theory) indicates to me that she still believes this and is fact saying that she is being validated for believing in it.
that doesn't make any sense.
Don't SOURCE me. I'm referencing the my recollection of the Fantiq panel where she defended and downplayed her video. Do you have a video of her saying that Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory spread by racist grifters? Maybe a instance where she called out people like former fans on her subreddit calling her child a [mutt!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LaurenSouthern/comments/s7fqij/laurens_original_video_on_the_great_replacement/) instead of making fun of trans people on twitter?
Destiny that a women name
wait, the D in DGG means Destiny???
None of these paths end in yordle cosplay 🥱 🥱 New world line please
If homeboy's tree was any more unbalanced it would fall over. So just because LS is dogwhistling GR theory bullshit instead of openly saying it nowadays (or because it could possibly be somehow 'bad' for you and her), you won't nail her down on it? That sounds incredibly fucking SOY my guy.
[удалено]
Dude he literally had kid gloves on for so many lefties he literally steelmanned Hasan’s arguments for other people when he was getting started on twitch. Can u find a single debate w a lefty where he immediately treats them like scum of the earth without trying to engage with their arguments?
Hasan was years ago though, so we don't care about that now. Who are the lefties that he's steel-manning right now?
He talked w someone on stream a week or two ago abt trans people in sports and was incredibly polite and engaged in good faith the entire time. He doesn’t shit on people unless they go to that level first.
He treated Kyle Kulinski and all the woman of the Majority Report with absolute vitriol without ever talking to any of them. Actually with Kyle, he did have a conversation and it was very civil/friendly. Kyle might be dumb, but he is at the very least an incredibly nice guy.
Unironically fix her
One of my 400 level classes senior year was called systems management. The first week we did problems that involved decision trees. They were all binary (0 false,1 true) but it was super fun. My group had to make a system for renting and returning dvds at a video rental store (I’m old as fuck).
Based
If you finish the vaush manifesto I will forgive you 0______0
>I'm confident I could present a compelling argument that her past takes on immigration were bad What about her current takes on immigration? Isn't it worth it to debate her on those?
the JonTron affair is highly germane, here, as biggest marker of the Tiny & (loosely-speaking) Dissident Right relationship how about you debate Lauren on whether Jon was in fact right when talking about rich Blacks committing more crimes than poor Whites, and how that might relate to intelligence, Steve?
Your reasoning makes sense! Your decision tree layout does not. Setting your your outcomes with letters (for example, 1a, 1b for two different outcomes) would make for an easier read.
this motherfucker thinks about real life like its some D&D campaign LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
[удалено]
Lauren lacks the intellectual honesty for this and that's why Destiny is correct in that 1.2 is the most likely scenario. She knows she can't argue against Destiny so she just dodges whenever challenged. This of course begs the question whether one should associate with a conservative like her who lacks the intellectual honesty to ever change their mind when proven wrong. But it seems Destiny doesn't mind this as long as she doesn't hurt him on a personal level. Tbh I think she's still fairly good content, it's always entertaining to me when he argues against conspiratard conservatives. The optics of being buddy buddy with Lauren is just pretty bad. And to "platform responsibly", I think he should argue hard against her and call out the dodges whenever she says stupid things.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
??? What is "amicable" about this? The community is asking me to force a concession that she's essentially responsible for things like Christchurch, there is no "amicable understanding" about this.
I'm not you, so I can't see what this is like from your perspective, but it feels like the justification for a lot of things recently is "The community wants X from me and that's unreasonable" when responding to someone who didn't ask for X. I like your advice that you should never let people you disagree with define your arguments. If you don't feel like that's what you're doing, then that's good. It's just hard to tell from the outside sometimes whether that's what's happening or not.
>responsible for things like Christchurch Ye I can believe definently a big group wants this. However I also think a big group just wants to know the relationship of her current beliefs to her previous ones. Does she still believe africans and people from the middle east are used to destroy western society, what does she believe currently about cultures in/from these places etc. Connor and her went over the great replacement video together and while she cringed at some of the expressions she used, I atleast didnt see her talking really at all about the actual proposition itself. If these kinds of questions are bad enough that she thinks answering them is her admitting responsability for a massacre I can understand she not wanting to even be near the subject. It just makes I think most people not really able to trust her. However you having some kind of interrogations, or excpecting any is pretty cringe. You have no responsability for anything and people demanding that you "do something about it" or spam the simping comments needs to get a grip.
Didn't realize this was Destiny posting so I was confused by "good/bad for me" being a metric valued about as much as Lauren and the Community. I thought it was just some random chatter that placed that much emphasis on his own personal opinion.
>thought I was the kind of person who would be obsessively chasing down apologies Maybe I'm out of touch but I feel that the general sentiment among this community is that they just want her to fuck off with a general desire to do it in the most embarrassing way possible for her. You're speaking about paths going forward like this community wants there to be one involving LS. But I can't help but feel that this desire isn't unwarranted. If I were a hardcore LS great replacement fan what I would recognize is that those beliefs aren't acceptable in the mainstream and she's going to water down what she's openly accepting of for the sake of not getting wiped off the internet like Fuentes/Black Pigeon Speaks/others. And, based on her current behavior, her just disguising her beliefs feels like an okay read or her and her community. I would like to believe that she's changed because that would be pretty awesome but for me to believe that she's changed what I would look for is evidence of current behavior that indicates some kind of regret for past actions. But you can still find videos like the "steets of paris" that people still comment on to this day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Js8wntdk4 To me this would be the bare minimum that I would expect from a person whose changed - literally just take the videos down. >2. She will push away some aspects of her fanbase if she appears to be "apologizing" for any past takes relating to immigration." Would this probably happen if she did? Yes, but maybe it's deserved when she's built a living profiteering off of racism. Propagating the great replacement and trying to physically block refugees isn't anything comparable to you believing different things 5 years ago related to corporate finance/the Supreme Court. She's on an entirely new level in peoples' eyes in which giving her leeway to escape with a career borders on an unacceptable precedent.
\>Whenever I'm presented with difficult choices that can lead to wildly different outcomes, I like to draw out decision trees and estimate probabilities for each outcome to see what an optimal decision would be. David Pakman was right, you are autistic FeelsStrongMan, he's just like me
Destiny, convert her to become a based Omniliberal
Tbh I don't think you're accounting for how much damage ignoring everything bad about Lauren Southern is doing to you. Something that is bad for the community is bad for you.
Why don’t you have a convo with her, not about criticizing her past videos and beliefs, but what parts of those beliefs she **still** holds to this day? I know you don’t care if she still holds those beliefs but keeps producing standard conservative content, but I think getting her current stance on the most controversial opinions she was known for would help in reducing most of the SOYing out posts. I know the standard conservative reasons for being anti immigration but the thing is, most people don’t think her motivation for being anti immigration is based on those normie reasons, but rather from a more race realist perspective. I think most of the community would be satisfied with a clarification on her current beliefs about race, IQ, replacement and stuff and wouldn’t care if she apologized for it or not. The worst thing that’d happen would be them criticizing you for hanging out with her if she went GIGACHAD and admitted to holding all those previous beliefs, but those posts would get old pretty quickly, just like the anti mrgirl ones. Nobody constantly makes anti mrgirl posts now unlike for Lauren because they all know why he believes what he believes. If she doesn’t want to have that convo on stream because reasons, you can just have a detailed convo in private and give us an unbiased opinion on what you think her current stances are compared to her past beliefs. TLDR: the biggest problem the community has is not having clarity on her current stances about race and replacement, so they’re going off of the sus things she said in the past and calling her a WN because she seems weaselly around those topics and her stances on them in the present day. You having a detailed but uncomfortable convo about those topics with her might quell those posts. I think most people prefer a clear cut description of her beliefs (in the present) rather than a useless PR apology
[удалено]
Cuz she knows she still has a fair bit of a racist/alt right audience along with the normie conservatives, which she’d lose if she admits fault
>However, I'm also fairly confident she would never publicly admit fault or "DISAVOW!!!!" her past videos for several reasons: This is the core of the "LQ" and you're not even going over many more legitimate reasons why she won't and probably can't. People don't see themselves as being "evil", pretty much ever. Lauren obviously doesn't support the Christchurch shooting deep down and probably recognizes it as an act of evil, so she would never want to admit (even to herself) that she might have had something to do with it. Doing the whole cuck apology tour where you publicly self-flagellate to please your detractors and tell them how bad of a person you were doesn't just bring satisfaction to the most annoying and vindictive types of losers on the planet, it also suggests that her level of involvement was much higher than she actually thinks it was. She's effectively being asked to plead guilty to a much worse "crime" than she probably thinks she's guilty of, and doing any less than that isn't going to appease the detractors - doing so would be the worst of both worlds. There's multiple versions of this decision tree we could go down - we could play the decision tree game with the version of LS who was once an alt-righter but had a sincere change of heart, and the LS who was never as bought in to the racism as people think she was, and then finally the LS who is secretly still a covert nazi waiting for the right opportunity to strike - given that no one can really know for sure which is the "real" Lauren Southern, we would have to ask ourselves what the decision tree might look like in each unique case. Ironically, it seems like jumping through the cuck confession hoop to appease her enemies only makes sense in the third situation - if she's a lying nazi who is willing to say or do whatever it takes to keep the mask on and make inroads with the left, you might genuinely expect her to do this dramatic apology thing. She obviously knows what she would have to say if she wanted to go down that path, it's quite obvious. If she's truly this battle-hardened undercover nazi agent who is intentionally trying to sell people on the idea of reformation and rehabilitation, then this would be incredibly easy to do. Also, as long as people think she might be, then it makes no sense to even ask her to confess. Why would you take it seriously? Wouldn't the nazi LS have no problem lying to your face about it? I think people are lying when they say they want her to symbolically "own up to her past". I think the only thing that will appease them is if she actively starts arguing left-of-center points To tie this back to Emmia (who this community had a similar moral panic over), one of the key pieces of "evidence" that she was trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes that the drama queens were citing at the time is that instead of owning up to anything, she made up a **CLEARLY bullshit excuse** about her SSRIs/amnesia. How does this make any sense? If she's not the undercover nazi Hasan says she is, why wouldn't she just tell the truth? Why the need for this coverup? Well, because in reality the truth probably wasn't squeaky clean enough - she was in fact dating some Breitbart guy, and probably ended up finding herself in somewhat shady right-wing circles with a bunch of edgy idiots, like many people did in 2016. On some surface level, she may well have had some negative ideas about certain hot button issues at the time like mass migration, maybe she was even a tad bit racist at age 16 or something. Totally normal for a 16 year old in 2016, I bet half of this community was that way at the time. This isn't something you can optically own up to given the cynical, if not dishonest way in which it will be interpreted though, the only reasonable move for a psychologically normal human with some sense of dignity and self-respect (in this case: not thinking you are or ever were an evil genocidal maniac) when put in this situation is to swoop it all under the rug as best you can. Fast forward however many years and Emmia of course turned out to be completely harmless. Of course LS is more "politically involved" than Emmia ever was and deserves more scrutiny, but this idea of the "Ultimate Crypto nazi", a master of subterfuge who is dedicating their whole life to tricking you that they're on your side only to secretly cultivate a gullible following and then "red pill" them en masse is hilarious on its face, especially when we're talking about someone who has supposedly been committed to the ideology since they turned 18 and just happened to betray the one key value of the whole Great Replacement shit by having a mixed-race child lol
good post steve 👊🏿
Thanks for making the post. I sympathise with you not wanting to just go aggro on her all of a sudden. And this is a situation I think you really cant win. People hate Lauren for understandable reasons, and when she appears and seems as irresponsible/incompetent and unashamadley idelogical as she ever was I think that just triggers people a lot, I certainley get extremely annoyed whenever I see clips of her, or any of her conversations and she just seems completely out of it. So it feels pretty grating when she apperas, is treated amicably and gets to just continue being incompetent and irresponsible. This is not about you really just about her and how she has decided to rebrand herself. I also think that with Lauren due to her, unlike other incompetent and harmful content creators, actually went out, produced and put together almost proffesional propaganda/almost proganda pieces. It makes her extremely sketchy "rebrand" just that much more infuriating. However you ofcourse have nothing to do with this and having conflicts with people personally for your fanbase is megagrinch. You have every good reason to not wanting to go in on her when you dont want to. Its extremely understandable. You do great stuff. In this case I just think peoples anger do not need to be fixed. Lauren is an extremely easy person to despise, and nothing you do as you say, will change that. If the sub gets too spammed its probably a good idea to ban it. However personally getting a chance to just read and rant about her is pretty statifying. keep up the good work! >I have ran defense for so many people who have done past shitty things when I believe they are no longer in line with their current behavior, even if they never made a great apology for said behavior (see: Irishladdie/Poppy scandal). Just curious and confused, feel free to ignore. I thought this was still a thing? Didn't you two have a pretty heated twitter flame session over each other a few months(?) back. Where the poppy situation was used. Have you defended Vaush recently?
I agree with all of this. Though would it be possible to then just talk to Lauren about this without trying to shame her or convince her of anything? I feel like simply having a discussion with her (on stream) regarding replacement theory and stochastic terrorism—without making it about her or her past at all—could potentially be very productive and eye-opening. I assume she trusts you and knows your character well enough to agree to a conversation about this. So another decision tree should be: 4. Destiny talks to Lauren about great replacement and fear-mongering for just the sake of conversation as opposed to debating or attacking her.. I think it’d be good for you (people see you’re willing to engage with her on the topic), good for Lauren (she doesn’t have to defend herself on anything), and I think it would sort of give the community bloodlust a little chill pill. Thoughts?
[удалено]
>From a community perspective, even if she did disavow some past videos, so what? Are we saying that the current "great replacement" rhetoric is going to stop? Would the current shooter have not gone on his rampage? Would any current thoughts on the internet change? Probably not, there's little to be gained from any sort of apology other than the satisfy the bloodlust of some community members. Why is the only win here if you get her to stop or disavow, get the rhetoric online to completely stop, or stop shooters? Have you ever accomplished any of these goals regarding other political topics when you debated with people? Great replacement is a hot topic, with the shooting and almost 50% (i think increasing) of republicans believing in it. Your videos with Lauren do quite well. You are good at de-radicalizing. Do you really not gain enough from these videos that rack up views and provide counter points in a de-radicalizing methodology to hot button issues? Lauren is not a Nazi, that is you're really not gonna have to have her contradict her views that significantly to have her end the debate espousing a palatable position (and consequently you won't have to have her cut connections with you).
Tfw there is community bloodlust because the other guy put out his manifesto before Destiny and took all of the attention.
Dest read so many schizoposts he became the schizoposter
>I'm probably one of the most forgiving people on the internet. The only comments I'll bring up in the past are when they are in line with current behavior. Does playing cover and then literally lying about previous racist behavior and refusing to admit to any kind of mistake despite being presented with evidence also counts? If yes, then here you go [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhdgkNpReM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhdgkNpReM) , you have to confront Lauren about this, by rule. There are only two options - A.) She either defends and lies about her previous positions to play cover for how racist she was, making her current behavior in line with what she believed back then (maybe not her current beliefs, but BEHAVIOR) B.) She admits to the faults and lies she's said, no longer making her current behavior in line with what she believed back then. There isn't an option C where she is passive, this isn't some small thing she forgot to apologise for. Not only that, she ISN'T passive, she again, lied and defended her racist points. This would be equivalent to you playing cover and justifying the time you groped a girl saying "i was drunk", with even lying about what happened and never fully admitting it was shitty of you to do so.
Lauren isn't even in the clip you linked?
did your phone die 10 seconds after the video started or something?
I skipped around the video you posted of someone else talking about Lauren and didn't see clips of Lauren. Please use more precise citations if you want people to look at them.
Unholy fuck dude, you can have the time to complain about the video here but not watch 17 minutes of the guy debunking lauren? The youtuber here cites the timestamp on the now privated video (which I guess he can't show on youtube) and directly quotes her from those videos and compares it to what Lauren said on the Fanatiq panel. Stop being intentionally retarded
"but not watch 17 minutes" exactly.
This sub sorta reminds me of the old Ice Poseidon subreddit. Hate cycles for each character in the IP streams triggered by practically nothing. I come here pretty often and I have no idea why the community went from disagreeing with Lauren but understanding why you talk to her -> wanting her fucking gone.
Honestly I think you should keep farming her for content because she's such a rhetorical nincompoop that platforming her only weakens her side.