Orange Hitler this is a running joke among people that watch Steve’s content. He always loses, he is always “destroyed” regardless of who he is talking to, even in friendly conversations.
Wow. Really loved this one. The second half where you were talking about freedom of speech and censorship, I'm not sure I've ever been stuck on the fence more about any issue. Both did a fantastic job :) and it's not something I even knew I had conflicting thoughts about
Bit of a late reply, but I don't get the hand wringing that goes on with going after bigoted content creators ad revenue. Why should the rights of content creators be respected more than the people writing the letters to companies. If a content creator has the right to say what they want, to whomever they want; then why would someone writing to advertisers be denied that same right?
To play devils advocate, it becomes difficult when people who actually aren't bigoted (just controversial) get targeted. For example, let's say there is a content creator that says that the chemical attack by the syrian government was a false flag. That is a controversial opinion. I do not doubt that people who think that claim is outrageous would endlessly target that creator's revenue until they were deplatformed. A more civilized way to dissent to someone's opinion is making a video yourself, directly mentioning or showcasing their opinion, and make your case for why they are wrong.
I am not really sure of the value in creating hypothetical scenarios when we already have real world examples. Bill O'Reily was not targeted because of one or two fringe theories. It was the culmination of a lifetime of lies, intimidation, and sexual assault. The slippery slope arguments don't really hold water for me because the people who have had their advertisers targeted have made careers out of these practices. Boiling down every position to a case by case basis makes us miss the forest for the trees. Many of the people who get targeted by this tactic are not targeted for advocating a single fringe idea; more often it is a pattern of behavior that spans years, if not decades. So let me pose a real life scenario example; going again back to Bill O'Reilly. O' Reilly had the highest watched cable program in television. He was able to pay off multiple instances of sexual assault/harassment. Decades of calling out his lies and misrepresentations had no effect on his career. He only ever faced consequences when his advertisers were pressured. So of course the rightwing thinks that going after advertisers is out of bounds; its really the only way to pop their insular bubble. Also keep in mind the first part of this conversation. Destiny is constantly targeted by sustained attempts to silence him by any means fair or foul. Getting mass flagged and make false reports to the FBI accusing Destiny of harboring child porn; then they turn around and complain when consumers write letters to advertisers? The right is always trying to hold the left to a standard that they would never hold themselves to. If the right was actually interested in having reasonable debate and conversation, then I would say that going after advertisers is the wrong choice; but in the context of the world we actually live in, its the only real tool we have.
I would totally disagree that people aren't targeting for singular instances of controversy. A comedian, independent political commentator, or really anyone who has built an audience could say something some people don't like on twitter and lose his/her livelihood overnight. Some times these things happen even when there are false stories about someone (e.g., Jordan Chariton). "The right is always trying to hold the left to a standard that they would never hold themselves to.": I completely agree with that. But the solution to that problem is not to stoop to their level and fight fire with fire. Escalating this silencing war will only further polarize both sides, as well as give more power to establishment media. If independent creators become too scared to say anything that might upset a group of people, then all we get is the narrative spoon-fed to us by shitty cable news. We need to make it very clear that you can spew all the hate and ignorance you want on the right, because the left will win the battle of ideas. And if we let them say what they truly believe, not only will it expose their idiocy, but it will allow the left to hold THEM to the high standard of allowing the left to bash them endlessly without being silenced.
Ok....but I thought we were talking about the idea of going after someone's advertisers, not them personally. Jordan Chariton is sort of a weird example because although he was first accused in a Huffington Post blog, he was then accusedby Cenk himself on air. This wasn't some anonymous hate mob that slandered him. As far as I understand it, Chariton was never actually prosecuted for anything, and he sued YT and reached a settlement, so I am willing to give Chariton the benefit of the doubt that he did nothing wrong. However, his situation is nothing like what was described in the Pakman/Destiny conversation. People will say that innocent people are caught in the crossfire if this silencing war, but I believe that to be more perception rather than reality. I find it a bit strange to say that this is simultaneously a widespread problem, but the one example you give isn't really even an example at all. To be honest, I wish I agreed with you Stephen. I wish that we lived in a world where all sides come together, ideas are discussed, and, given time, the truth will win the day. Sad to say we don't live in that world. The right does not care one bit about what standard leftists hold them to. Hypocrisy is the stock and trade of conservative ideology. Shame means nothing to these people. They live in a completely closed loop where they listen to Rush Limbaugh on their way in to work, read some Breitbart during their lunchbreak, and catch Hannity/Carlson before they go to bed. On these programs and publications, the left is constantly slandered with every form of lie that you can think of. Leftists want to destroy America. Leftists want to turn us into communists. Leftists run pedophile sex rings. Leftists are both weak willed latte sipping sissies, but somehow are also jackbooted authoritarian thugs. These are lies that have been repeated for decades, and at no point has this rhetoric damaged a single conservative career. Conservatism has only gotten stronger since the right adopted this stance. The left didn't force this polarization, the right did it to themselves. The only way to get to these people is to pressure their advertisers. Money is the only form of speech that they understand. There is a great danger is allowing these kinds of lies to resonate through America. I base this belief off of a concept know as the "Overton Window." TLDR on it is that the more extreme views are allowed to be readily talked about, the more the discourse is shifted in its favor. The sad fact is that most Americans conform to centrism. That the most reasonable position to take is the center between two ideas. However, the more the right is able to inject their ideas into the discourse, this "center" shifts to the right. It is not that allowing people to advocate for ethnostates unchecked will inevitably lead to an ethnic cleansing, its that other rightwing ideas become more reasonable by comparison. For example, making criminal laws that target black people is extreme, but not compared to a policy that wants to create an ethnostate. However, the more ethnostates are allowed to be discussed, the more reasonable race based crime policy seems; because hey "its not like I'm advocating for an ethnostate." I know my responses have been long, but this is important. The main problem that the left has in my view is that they don't know how to win. Reasonable debate and discourse is how the left solves its internal problems and comes to consensus. Acting as though we can engage with the right in the exact same way as we engage with other leftists isn't just wrong, it's disastrous. The right would love to be treated on equal intellectual footing. It gives them legitimacy they have not earned. They will take your "understanding" and abuse it any way they can. For example, take a look at any anti-SJW TH-camr. Most of their videos enjoy a high ratio of likes/dislikes. Their comment sections are made up of their community and, for the most part, reasonable dissenters. Now pull up any TH-cam feminist. Especially videos that have been recently posted. Odds are they are swarmed by the aniti-SJW crowd and downvoted into oblivion. So much for the vanguards of "free speech." TH-cam is a good example of how the right would behave if it had control of everything. Does Fox News even pretend to be an objective anymore? Any time the right screams about how unfair they are being treated, just take a look at how their media operates. They shed crocodile tears at the idea of "liberal bias," but their own media are the worst offenders of bias. I will say this: It is good to be understanding of people's positions. Going after peoples livelihoods over disagreements is normally morally bankrupt and not who we should be as Americans. We need to always be willing to put ourselves in our opponent's shoes. We should try and remain as objective as possible and be open to new ideas; and follow the truth wherever it leads, even if that truth is uncomfortable. These aren't just good rules to follow in America, I believe them to be universal human truths. However.......when you are the only one playing by these rules, and you continue to be taken advantage of in your steadfast adherence to them, then you are just a chump. The best characterization of the right is that they are bully. Trying to reason with your bully, to find common ground, is all well and good, but at a certain point a smack in the mouth is justified. Going after advertisers is the lefts choice of last resort. It is a check and limit to what the right can get away with. Laura Ingram has, and will continue to spew lies and hatred, but I bet she won't dare lie about student activists again. I know it is disconcerting to know that the left will have to become underhanded in order to win; but we do have to win. Too much is at stake to fail. People's hopes, dreams, maybe even their very lives depend on the Left winning the war of ideas; and putting peoples lives at risk because we few don't want to dirty our hands is the definition of selfish.
well, it's a matter perspective let's say the censorship topic which was really the only debate they had if I'm not allowed to contact the sponsors and say ''hey, this person is saying X do you support X?'' that would definitely be censorship. If that person then loses its sponsor's cause of it and thus money to get out the message, well that's just bad PR, not censorship
+Ke Lw got destroyed in this comment section.... I'm sorry yes its a meme... to be fair i have seen destiny destroy himself debating some propper nutjobs i can understand why he isent debateing natzis etc anymore after his kids school being doxxed etc. so much for freeze peach!
I think the big danger is that advertisers are huge these days. The free marketplace of ideas is going to be fought over by large media conglomerates. That's something that none of us should want for our discourse, but how is that avoidable when it's their money that's necessary to make a living online?
While I largely agree with the right of boycotting etc. The problem with commercial interests being able to dictate what gets a platform does mean they get to drive the narrative within what they think are their own, often short term and imperfect, interests. Creating a sort of Overton window. There need to be some protections but that is why some forms of social media should be viewed as a common good similar to the mail of old. Or something similar.
Alright so people contacting advertisers to try to get them to remove ads from a you tuber would be alright if the people contacting the advertisers were actually fair and honest. But here’s the thing, they never are. No one is going to contact David Pakman’s advertisers and tell them that he is a progressive host that does news and interviews, and give a few examples to give a fair impression of what the show is. No, what they will do is they will find a few examples of David saying something that could be considered offensive if taken out of context, then construct a narrative about how David is a child rapist or something and send that to the advertisers.
Creslin321 Or say that he regularly gives a platform to neo nazis and show misleading examples like Richard Spencer and that guy who killed a bunch of Jews at a recreational center.
Excellent discussion, going the way it should when fair minded people don't agree on some points but have the grace to respect the other's opinion and reasonably hash it out. Thanks for the fascinating exchange and hats off to Steven Bonnell for honestly considering a different opinion. I'll definitely be checking him out online. If honest debate could be again embraced in this country, we might survive all this mess after all.
Based on anecdotal evidence I've subscribed to Destiny. On boycotting, I think actions are perfectly fine to cause a boycott but simple speech is a blurry line. Sure you're allowed to boycott but harassing advertisers to drop support despite not being a legitimate consumer of what that advertiser sells doesn't seem a healthy way to run a democracy.
Harassing Huge companies? LOL.....Yeah right. You Americans are so hung up on free speech yet you really don't understand it. You could get a whole army to boycott someone for whatever reason and it's STILL up to those you want to boycott to do what they want. If they think that it's not worth it to have a boycott, well then they'll agree to those terms. If they couldn't care less, then they'll move on. IT"S UP TO THE BUSINESS TO DO WHAT IT WANTS. If they have common sense, then they'll figure it out what's best for them & their shareholders. If the army is using common sense or wanting the business to do what the majority of society expects, then they'll avoid a boycott. It's really not that difficult to understand but Americans get in a huff about it because they don't understand it.
I think if you go down the road that David was going down with advertisers, it comes to a point where the advertisers are buying the message that you are talking about and the things that you talk about will eventually adjust to the ideas that attract the most advertisers. Very similar to what is happening with mainstream media right now.
if I had money I would gladly would pay 300$ each one of them for a conversation about Morality and Ethics! I think David is the appropriate man to ask the accurate questions, so he can bring him a more conclusive and concise worldview
Apparently it's a meme among Mr. Bonnell's fans to say that he gets "destroyed" in a conversation, regardless of what sort of conversation is happening. Evidently, some people sometimes invert this phrase for added comedic effect.
Thanks for bringing one of the greatest political debate streamers of all time on for more exposure. Also I guess he does video games. I don't watch him for those.
Beppe He debates alt-right youtubers so unless you're into that political sphere you probs haven't heard of them. The Lauren Southern debate is pretty funny and he also does these "5 on 1" debates with a lot of alt-right sympathizers, check out any of his videos with Andy Warsky.
I've seen the one where he's consistently trying to strawman JF and later Tara (I quit watching when she joined). That's the only one I've seen. I can't stand many of the Warski podcasts. He brings on one interesting guest, and then he himself ruins it, and his other guests often do too. Lauren Southern is not alt right, she's a tradcon, and a impostor at that, she just parrots what she heard elsewhere. I am actually quite right wing. I don't know anybody he's debated. They seem like nobodies. And considering Steven's penchant for strawmanning, I can't see him honestly winning anything.
Beppe it sounds like you're making assumptions based on one debate where you didn't even watch the whole thing. JF is pretty ludicrous. Lauren Southern advocates for white nationalism and sympathizes with ethnostate pushers, if that's just traditional/average right to you, we hold different ideas on what extremism is. I don't consider most people he debates to be worth much to me, from Sargon, to Southern, to Warski, to Tonka, NoBullshit, Roaming and many other useless props. But their audiences have a very different regard for them.
Steven had a couple of lines like "usually the alt right says this and that", and then proceeded to respond to what he thought the alt right "usually" said, through which he derailed the entire conversation and they had to get Tara on to clarify her position. Somebody as obviously inept at debating as what I saw there, much like Carl Benjamin, is obviously not going to improve over the course of a couple of months. So yeah, if those names you mentioned are the only people he debated, then I'll stick with my current opinion of him. JF is pretty solid. What do you think is ludicrous about him? I couldn't care less about miss Southern, or Tara for that matter. Btw, if you accept the premise of race realism and the idea that different races/cultures can't really seem to live together in harmony, that people will inevitably gravitate towards their own "kind", etc etc etc, then white nationalism/ethnostatism isn't "extreme", obviously.
When a company advertises on your content or sponsors you, you are pretty much a figure for that company. If you say something that is controversial or something that can harm the companys sales then that company should stop sponsoring you. And I dont see a problem with people making advertisers aware of the thing content creators say
Yeah, because he only debates nobodies. I just scrolled through a couple of his debates and I recognise nobody (from the alt right), with whom I'm familiar with. Unless you wanna view JF as alt right. I'm sure you'll disagree so, could you kindly give me a couple of "big names" he's debated?
This is all gonna depend on who you consider alt right, but Lauren southern is a big one. Plenty of ethno state people however, Nick Fuentes, James Allsup, Tara Mccarthy etc. A lot of the people Destiny talks to however consider themselves classical liberal or(and?) centrist sceptics so it's hard to say if you'd consider any of them alt right. He mostly also talks with people that want to talk, that's why he often ends up with people of various levels of intelligence.
Yeah I don't care about Lauren. I wouldn't consider her alt right either but she's sure popular. I'll check out his debate with Nick, that ought to be interesting. Thanks
@@jesperburns well the alt right debates nobodies as well. The alt right also constantly talks about "race realism" which I'd think is probably not Destiny's strongest topic.
Contacting sponsors to try to convince them to drop someone is definitely not censorship in any way because it doesn't prevent the person from still speaking.
No one is entitled to ad revenue. Much of the advertising that BS and morally deplroable stuff have today is owed only to the fact that automated systems do a sloppy job at placing advertisements where the advertisers would really like to advertise. Back in the day they would have to walk around or make phone calls and sell the advertisements themselves. Nazis would have only a rather minimal success with this process, when compared with an automated system that works as an obfuscation layer between the advertiser and the content, which the advertiser may think it's just funny cat videos or something like that.
That's just capitalism for you: if companies don't want to advertise on a site that has questionable content and they don't want their product associated with those messages, it's not censorship. They're not legally obligated to advertise, and if the majority of people and purchasing power/money is on one side of a TH-cam video or website message, companies are going to advertise. They're just following the money.
The problem with drawing an analogy between the free market of ideas and advertisers pulling out is that in practise it is absolutely no analogy at all: An ideal free market of ideas distributes attention based on the actual merit of anyone's arguments. Reason and facts and would be the guiding factors or if not that at least a reflection of a somewhat democratic process. Genuine consensus would be the guiding force - not PR-panic driven by profit-motives. However with advisers the latter is exactly the case. All it takes is one barely credible news source to make a claim about ads on so-called "extremist" videos and advertisers will pull out just for the sake of damage-control, no matter if there is any merit to the claims let alone that there is any consensus on the claims. It is no coincidence that every coastal corporation will jump through every hoop imaginable in order to stay politically correct in the face of the most baseless complains concerning identity politics, even though the vast majority of Americans does not give two fucks about political correctness and feels like identity politics are completely overblown at the moment. This is not a free market that adheres to ideas but one that adheres to the ones who cry wolf first.
14:10 - David, this particular line was deeply upsetting - "what can any individual do about that?" The purveyors of news must take patterns of behavior into account - Ex. Instead of "Trump claims X", "Trump, well known for his spectacular lies and falsehoods, has claimed that X, which is of course total balls" The correct course of action is to frame Trump by the patterns of his behavior - trump is able to go ham because media continues to refer to him by his office, and treat each action he makes in his capacity of the office as though they're in a vacuum. The gravity of the situation is always starting from 1 and building up... So I guess the "what can be done?" answer for most people is to get angry be vocal in pushing for this change in media ethics.
I can't belive David who is the victim of the adpocalypse, supports systematically targeting people's advertisers as a means of shutting them down. Advertisers are in no way obligated to support any person, but I consider systematically going after people's advertisers a low blow. Its basically a form of deplatforming which David has criticized in the past and I assume he opposes.
The issue with the fast food joint is that the company doesn't support them ideas (from what I understand) it's just the CEO. You might say "well by employing him they do support it" which is the issue. The company is now dictating to him what he can and can't do in his free time. This is a dangerous place to go.
I really don't think it's censorship to contact advertisers and voice your concerns with whom they advertise. If your message is important to get out, you'll get it out whether you're getting paid or not. And if enough people like what you say, they'll do what they can to donate money to you so you can say it.
I fully disagree with Destiny's opinion on "censorship". I hope someone goes in to a more elaborate debate with him on this so he understands how he is being silly about it. Censorship is illegal, de-platforming is not and there is a difference between those definitions. Censorship tries to stop someone from saying something, not from getting their message out there (through platforming). De-platforming does the opposite, it does not target the ability of someone to say what they want but it does target their ability to spread their message. And even in the USA you are not entitled to advertisers/a platform, especially not when talking between two private citizens.
The ending argument about speech is something I've been debating my partner for months. We can't agree; we're basically on each of these two sides of the argument. Either argument has issues, I think, and that's what it boils down to.
from what i know of Destiny, he seems pretty legit, though, i gotta side with David on the advertiser thing, and i'm libertarian, more or less, and what David says is pretty much in line with how i think. sure, it sucks losing ad revenue, but you're not entitled to advertiser's money. i wanted to make a fun 90 minute dance mix, using all copyrighted music, because i find that there's a lot of leeway in doing that on TH-cam, they just end up monetising your video, so they make money, and that's it. well, there was a single hangup blocking my mix, to my surprise it wasn't Katy Perry or Rihanna, no, it was daft punk/Warner Music Group. now if that's WMG's policy, then that's tough luck for me, it sucks, oh it really does suck, trust me, i'm going to have to figure a different song in that part of the mix, re-export the WAV, change some details in the video project file, export a WMV, re-upload to TH-cam, and hope whatever song i use next isn't blocked... but that's just how the world is, and any day, any time, a copyright holder can look at one of my Mixtopia mixes and flag it if they so choose, but i knew what i was getting into, sometimes you gotta push for fun, and it all comes with a cost, you gotta hope for the best, be humble, and try to stay respectful and understanding.
I think Destiny could've made his point about censorship via removal of the income that allows someone to have a platform if he went with the argument of Trans content creators being demonetized because mentioning LGBTQ+ topics is enough to get them demonetized, or how the Trans TH-camr Ty Turner recently posted via Twitter about how his channel received a strike after he put out a video talking about and displaying a bottle of testosterone.
No, David Freedom of speech goes both ways freedom to speak and freedom to listen to speech. people are already subscribed, they have already clicked on the content. Taking away a persons when they are not specifically not excluded by the advertiser isnt damaging to the advertiser it is an algorithm they have chosen because the free market chose this platform and these "viewers" that already exist and would be consuming the content anyways. removing revenue only hurts freedom for both the creator and the consumer.
I was a hardcore liberal and decided to try to understand the right and combate their rhetoric by watching their content. Now I come back to the liberal side and you sound insane
Destiny says the left tries to attack his advertising and the right has tried to get his son killed by the police but still continues to be a bit of a fence sitter even coming down on the rights side on some issues. Just shows how hardcore the right wing progamming can be. There's nothing wrong with dampening the message of hate speech by going through advertisers and Destiny really should be smart enough to see this.
I really don't like Pakman's view of free speech. It isn't like advertisers have a moral compass and don't want to support people with morally regnant views. They are just skittish and they'll back away from content creators if they receive the slightest criticism from anyone.
pakman was wrong on this one. unpopular views will fade out rather quickly. you cant have a small radical group shutting down speech and going to advertisers when that s not the reality of what the entire population feels as a whole.
30:00 But if you let advertisers (what you call the free market) decide who's speech is tolerated and who's is not then I think you'll find yourself in a very financially conservative world very soon.
I somewhat agree with Destiny in regards to free speech. The free marketplace of ideas is inherently flawed as a self regulating balance. Intelligence and critical thinking must dominate ideally for a free marketplace of ideas to function and quite frankly people are dumb. I don't think it can survive all the money and special interests involved in trying to actively subvert true and valid speech to promote false. The biggest litmus has already happened in how the world/media has noticed that we currently live in a post-fact era. This means that the free marketplace of ideas has already failed and is dead in the water.
Don't always agree with Destiny, but he fights the good fight, and I can't say I envy the kind of people that he has to deal with. However, I have a bit of an issue with people like Stephen labeling themselves as "big free speech guys." Bill Maher falls in this category as well. They are not more for free speech than any other typical American, they just draw the line at a different place. They will advocate to the ends of the earth for content creators, but will limit the speech of consumers. If it is ok to exercise your free speech rights in favor of ethno states, then why isn't it my right to exercise my free speech in opposing that view?
Destiny is right that the dongle thing shouldn't have blown up but those people's jobs weren't making dongle jokes. They got targeted by a thin skinned asshole and they were the victims. If those guys had a youtube channel making dongle jokes and someone told their advertiser I think it would be up to the advertiser to make an educated decision
I am a sort of hybrid position of both Destiny's position on censorship and David's position on advertiser choice. Obviously, you should not be able to force a particular advertiser to support particular content that they don't want to support. But, it is obviously a form of censorship to not enable the easier platforming of ideas. And I have had a left wing belief that solves both of those issues with 1 thing: abolish copyright as it exists today, and establish a publicly funded central grant for the production of digital media, and establish a central public website that well organizes and provides free at point of use access to all digital media. Each person in society will be allocated a share of that public fund that is based half on a standard minimum amount of money, and half based on how much taxes you pay into the system. You will, as a citizen, be able to allocate a portion of your share of the grant to ongoing patronage of a person or project, and another portion of your share will be allocated to the media that you view, according to how often you view a piece of media. Advertising would no longer be necessary to fund the vast majority of media, and would not be an issue that needs to be considered. This is the next logical progression in society on the issue of media creation in general. And it solves both of Destiny's and Davids problem: All people are socially enabled to speak their mind and to get their speech out, and no individual company has to pay specifically for anyones bad speech. The government pays for it, and the company only pays the taxes to counter the monetary inflation that otherwise would occur from that government spending.
David doesnt understands that the free marketplace of ideas is not the same as a free market economy. It term of advertisers, they should only support ideas that the majority have or in the very center in order to reach the most people, aka offend the least amount of people. Going after advertisers is using the free market economy to kill the free market of ideas.
Holy shit, +Destiny is an actual liberal and isn’t an ass?! *Insta-sub!* My only exposure to him was what he did with +JonTron and DMCAing +Sargon of Akkad, so I always had a really bad view of him. Glad to hear that he’s actually a decent person and a non-SJW, actual liberal, tho! :~D
"im a center left" pretty way of saying neo liberal as in I am secretly a Republican but don't have the stones to put of the red shirt, grats on being the problem. Why is a 29 year old ex cleaner qualified to rule on who is and who is not well equipped to debate/wrong or right?
Debate got destroyed in this destination
Destroy debate in this got destinyed.
Destroyed Got Bestinyed in this Agreement.
Destiny got destroyed in this debate.
Orange Hitler this is a running joke among people that watch Steve’s content. He always loses, he is always “destroyed” regardless of who he is talking to, even in friendly conversations.
I love running gags
DgDitD
It's a bit of a stretch to call it a joke.
As always
So happy to see Destiny back on the DPS!
Wow. Really loved this one. The second half where you were talking about freedom of speech and censorship, I'm not sure I've ever been stuck on the fence more about any issue. Both did a fantastic job :) and it's not something I even knew I had conflicting thoughts about
Bit of a late reply, but I don't get the hand wringing that goes on with going after bigoted content creators ad revenue. Why should the rights of content creators be respected more than the people writing the letters to companies. If a content creator has the right to say what they want, to whomever they want; then why would someone writing to advertisers be denied that same right?
To play devils advocate, it becomes difficult when people who actually aren't bigoted (just controversial) get targeted. For example, let's say there is a content creator that says that the chemical attack by the syrian government was a false flag. That is a controversial opinion. I do not doubt that people who think that claim is outrageous would endlessly target that creator's revenue until they were deplatformed. A more civilized way to dissent to someone's opinion is making a video yourself, directly mentioning or showcasing their opinion, and make your case for why they are wrong.
I am not really sure of the value in creating hypothetical scenarios when we already have real world examples. Bill O'Reily was not targeted because of one or two fringe theories. It was the culmination of a lifetime of lies, intimidation, and sexual assault. The slippery slope arguments don't really hold water for me because the people who have had their advertisers targeted have made careers out of these practices. Boiling down every position to a case by case basis makes us miss the forest for the trees. Many of the people who get targeted by this tactic are not targeted for advocating a single fringe idea; more often it is a pattern of behavior that spans years, if not decades.
So let me pose a real life scenario example; going again back to Bill O'Reilly. O' Reilly had the highest watched cable program in television. He was able to pay off multiple instances of sexual assault/harassment. Decades of calling out his lies and misrepresentations had no effect on his career. He only ever faced consequences when his advertisers were pressured. So of course the rightwing thinks that going after advertisers is out of bounds; its really the only way to pop their insular bubble.
Also keep in mind the first part of this conversation. Destiny is constantly targeted by sustained attempts to silence him by any means fair or foul. Getting mass flagged and make false reports to the FBI accusing Destiny of harboring child porn; then they turn around and complain when consumers write letters to advertisers? The right is always trying to hold the left to a standard that they would never hold themselves to. If the right was actually interested in having reasonable debate and conversation, then I would say that going after advertisers is the wrong choice; but in the context of the world we actually live in, its the only real tool we have.
I would totally disagree that people aren't targeting for singular instances of controversy. A comedian, independent political commentator, or really anyone who has built an audience could say something some people don't like on twitter and lose his/her livelihood overnight. Some times these things happen even when there are false stories about someone (e.g., Jordan Chariton).
"The right is always trying to hold the left to a standard that they would never hold themselves to.": I completely agree with that. But the solution to that problem is not to stoop to their level and fight fire with fire. Escalating this silencing war will only further polarize both sides, as well as give more power to establishment media. If independent creators become too scared to say anything that might upset a group of people, then all we get is the narrative spoon-fed to us by shitty cable news.
We need to make it very clear that you can spew all the hate and ignorance you want on the right, because the left will win the battle of ideas. And if we let them say what they truly believe, not only will it expose their idiocy, but it will allow the left to hold THEM to the high standard of allowing the left to bash them endlessly without being silenced.
Ok....but I thought we were talking about the idea of going after someone's advertisers, not them personally. Jordan Chariton is sort of a weird example because although he was first accused in a Huffington Post blog, he was then accusedby Cenk himself on air. This wasn't some anonymous hate mob that slandered him. As far as I understand it, Chariton was never actually prosecuted for anything, and he sued YT and reached a settlement, so I am willing to give Chariton the benefit of the doubt that he did nothing wrong. However, his situation is nothing like what was described in the Pakman/Destiny conversation. People will say that innocent people are caught in the crossfire if this silencing war, but I believe that to be more perception rather than reality. I find it a bit strange to say that this is simultaneously a widespread problem, but the one example you give isn't really even an example at all.
To be honest, I wish I agreed with you Stephen. I wish that we lived in a world where all sides come together, ideas are discussed, and, given time, the truth will win the day. Sad to say we don't live in that world. The right does not care one bit about what standard leftists hold them to. Hypocrisy is the stock and trade of conservative ideology. Shame means nothing to these people. They live in a completely closed loop where they listen to Rush Limbaugh on their way in to work, read some Breitbart during their lunchbreak, and catch Hannity/Carlson before they go to bed. On these programs and publications, the left is constantly slandered with every form of lie that you can think of. Leftists want to destroy America. Leftists want to turn us into communists. Leftists run pedophile sex rings. Leftists are both weak willed latte sipping sissies, but somehow are also jackbooted authoritarian thugs. These are lies that have been repeated for decades, and at no point has this rhetoric damaged a single conservative career. Conservatism has only gotten stronger since the right adopted this stance. The left didn't force this polarization, the right did it to themselves.
The only way to get to these people is to pressure their advertisers. Money is the only form of speech that they understand. There is a great danger is allowing these kinds of lies to resonate through America. I base this belief off of a concept know as the "Overton Window." TLDR on it is that the more extreme views are allowed to be readily talked about, the more the discourse is shifted in its favor. The sad fact is that most Americans conform to centrism. That the most reasonable position to take is the center between two ideas. However, the more the right is able to inject their ideas into the discourse, this "center" shifts to the right. It is not that allowing people to advocate for ethnostates unchecked will inevitably lead to an ethnic cleansing, its that other rightwing ideas become more reasonable by comparison. For example, making criminal laws that target black people is extreme, but not compared to a policy that wants to create an ethnostate. However, the more ethnostates are allowed to be discussed, the more reasonable race based crime policy seems; because hey "its not like I'm advocating for an ethnostate."
I know my responses have been long, but this is important. The main problem that the left has in my view is that they don't know how to win. Reasonable debate and discourse is how the left solves its internal problems and comes to consensus. Acting as though we can engage with the right in the exact same way as we engage with other leftists isn't just wrong, it's disastrous. The right would love to be treated on equal intellectual footing. It gives them legitimacy they have not earned. They will take your "understanding" and abuse it any way they can. For example, take a look at any anti-SJW TH-camr. Most of their videos enjoy a high ratio of likes/dislikes. Their comment sections are made up of their community and, for the most part, reasonable dissenters. Now pull up any TH-cam feminist. Especially videos that have been recently posted. Odds are they are swarmed by the aniti-SJW crowd and downvoted into oblivion. So much for the vanguards of "free speech."
TH-cam is a good example of how the right would behave if it had control of everything. Does Fox News even pretend to be an objective anymore? Any time the right screams about how unfair they are being treated, just take a look at how their media operates. They shed crocodile tears at the idea of "liberal bias," but their own media are the worst offenders of bias. I will say this: It is good to be understanding of people's positions. Going after peoples livelihoods over disagreements is normally morally bankrupt and not who we should be as Americans. We need to always be willing to put ourselves in our opponent's shoes. We should try and remain as objective as possible and be open to new ideas; and follow the truth wherever it leads, even if that truth is uncomfortable. These aren't just good rules to follow in America, I believe them to be universal human truths.
However.......when you are the only one playing by these rules, and you continue to be taken advantage of in your steadfast adherence to them, then you are just a chump. The best characterization of the right is that they are bully. Trying to reason with your bully, to find common ground, is all well and good, but at a certain point a smack in the mouth is justified. Going after advertisers is the lefts choice of last resort. It is a check and limit to what the right can get away with. Laura Ingram has, and will continue to spew lies and hatred, but I bet she won't dare lie about student activists again. I know it is disconcerting to know that the left will have to become underhanded in order to win; but we do have to win. Too much is at stake to fail. People's hopes, dreams, maybe even their very lives depend on the Left winning the war of ideas; and putting peoples lives at risk because we few don't want to dirty our hands is the definition of selfish.
You need to collaborate with this guy more often. Well done
as jesse lee peterson would say "Amazing"
omg i lol"d
relevant today lol
BEYTA!
AMAZINGA BEEEEEEYYYYTAAA
David Pakman got destroyed in this debate.
No, Destiny just DESTROYED Destiny in this debate.
well, it's a matter perspective let's say the censorship topic which was really the only debate they had if I'm not allowed to contact the sponsors and say ''hey, this person is saying X do you support X?'' that would definitely be censorship.
If that person then loses its sponsor's cause of it and thus money to get out the message, well that's just bad PR, not censorship
+Ke Lw Brett could be making fun of a Destiny meme where he gets tons of comments saying how he got destroyed in any video he talks with someone.
+Ke Lw got destroyed in this comment section.... I'm sorry yes its a meme... to be fair i have seen destiny destroy himself debating some propper nutjobs i can understand why he isent debateing natzis etc anymore after his kids school being doxxed etc. so much for freeze peach!
Dpaksitnygodnisty!?
I think the big danger is that advertisers are huge these days. The free marketplace of ideas is going to be fought over by large media conglomerates. That's something that none of us should want for our discourse, but how is that avoidable when it's their money that's necessary to make a living online?
Thanks for having Stephen on your show David. Awesome. Bring him back. More videos!
Destiny got destroyed in this video. I’ve seen literally thousands of videos on TH-cam and there algorithm tells me so
While I largely agree with the right of boycotting etc. The problem with commercial interests being able to dictate what gets a platform does mean they get to drive the narrative within what they think are their own, often short term and imperfect, interests. Creating a sort of Overton window. There need to be some protections but that is why some forms of social media should be viewed as a common good similar to the mail of old. Or something similar.
Hyde Hill Very good point. Boycotts based on milquetoast liberal outrage may just reinforce the status quo and give undue power to corporations.
Alright so people contacting advertisers to try to get them to remove ads from a you tuber would be alright if the people contacting the advertisers were actually fair and honest. But here’s the thing, they never are.
No one is going to contact David Pakman’s advertisers and tell them that he is a progressive host that does news and interviews, and give a few examples to give a fair impression of what the show is.
No, what they will do is they will find a few examples of David saying something that could be considered offensive if taken out of context, then construct a narrative about how David is a child rapist or something and send that to the advertisers.
Creslin321 Or say that he regularly gives a platform to neo nazis and show misleading examples like Richard Spencer and that guy who killed a bunch of Jews at a recreational center.
Asch (1951) study on conformity (Normative social influence) is the one referenced at 11:15
Finaly my daily dose of confirmation bias .
Jorge Zorros Xamaica They do actually have a minidebate towards the end.
Destiny got -
smelled!
Excellent discussion, going the way it should when fair minded people don't agree on some points but have the grace to respect the other's opinion and reasonably hash it out. Thanks for the fascinating exchange and hats off to Steven Bonnell for honestly considering a different opinion. I'll definitely be checking him out online. If honest debate could be again embraced in this country, we might survive all this mess after all.
I'm really liking these segments with Destiny. Very interesting stuff got covered here, and I hope you have him back!
Based on anecdotal evidence I've subscribed to Destiny. On boycotting, I think actions are perfectly fine to cause a boycott but simple speech is a blurry line. Sure you're allowed to boycott but harassing advertisers to drop support despite not being a legitimate consumer of what that advertiser sells doesn't seem a healthy way to run a democracy.
Harassing Huge companies? LOL.....Yeah right. You Americans are so hung up on free speech yet you really don't understand it. You could get a whole army to boycott someone for whatever reason and it's STILL up to those you want to boycott to do what they want. If they think that it's not worth it to have a boycott, well then they'll agree to those terms. If they couldn't care less, then they'll move on. IT"S UP TO THE BUSINESS TO DO WHAT IT WANTS. If they have common sense, then they'll figure it out what's best for them & their shareholders. If the army is using common sense or wanting the business to do what the majority of society expects, then they'll avoid a boycott. It's really not that difficult to understand but Americans get in a huff about it because they don't understand it.
destroyed debate in this destiny got
Got destroyed in this debate, Destiny did.
I think if you go down the road that David was going down with advertisers, it comes to a point where the advertisers are buying the message that you are talking about and the things that you talk about will eventually adjust to the ideas that attract the most advertisers. Very similar to what is happening with mainstream media right now.
if I had money I would gladly would pay 300$ each one of them for a conversation about Morality and Ethics!
I think David is the appropriate man to ask the accurate questions, so he can bring him a more conclusive and concise worldview
Pakman got Destinyed
if you are insinuating that Mr. Pakman got rekt, then please point me to the arguments that make you perceive that.
Apparently it's a meme among Mr. Bonnell's fans to say that he gets "destroyed" in a conversation, regardless of what sort of conversation is happening. Evidently, some people sometimes invert this phrase for added comedic effect.
I like both Pakman and Destiny, and was just joining in on the bandwagon :P
GODSTINY
Thanks for bringing one of the greatest political debate streamers of all time on for more exposure. Also I guess he does video games. I don't watch him for those.
Who has this Destiny dude debated that is worth anything in the political arena? Aside from maybe JF.
Beppe He debates alt-right youtubers so unless you're into that political sphere you probs haven't heard of them. The Lauren Southern debate is pretty funny and he also does these "5 on 1" debates with a lot of alt-right sympathizers, check out any of his videos with Andy Warsky.
I've seen the one where he's consistently trying to strawman JF and later Tara (I quit watching when she joined). That's the only one I've seen.
I can't stand many of the Warski podcasts. He brings on one interesting guest, and then he himself ruins it, and his other guests often do too.
Lauren Southern is not alt right, she's a tradcon, and a impostor at that, she just parrots what she heard elsewhere.
I am actually quite right wing. I don't know anybody he's debated. They seem like nobodies. And considering Steven's penchant for strawmanning, I can't see him honestly winning anything.
Beppe it sounds like you're making assumptions based on one debate where you didn't even watch the whole thing. JF is pretty ludicrous. Lauren Southern advocates for white nationalism and sympathizes with ethnostate pushers, if that's just traditional/average right to you, we hold different ideas on what extremism is. I don't consider most people he debates to be worth much to me, from Sargon, to Southern, to Warski, to Tonka, NoBullshit, Roaming and many other useless props. But their audiences have a very different regard for them.
Steven had a couple of lines like "usually the alt right says this and that", and then proceeded to respond to what he thought the alt right "usually" said, through which he derailed the entire conversation and they had to get Tara on to clarify her position.
Somebody as obviously inept at debating as what I saw there, much like Carl Benjamin, is obviously not going to improve over the course of a couple of months.
So yeah, if those names you mentioned are the only people he debated, then I'll stick with my current opinion of him.
JF is pretty solid. What do you think is ludicrous about him?
I couldn't care less about miss Southern, or Tara for that matter.
Btw, if you accept the premise of race realism and the idea that different races/cultures can't really seem to live together in harmony, that people will inevitably gravitate towards their own "kind", etc etc etc, then white nationalism/ethnostatism isn't "extreme", obviously.
So pleased that this is topic is being discussed.
One of my favorite guests.
When a company advertises on your content or sponsors you, you are pretty much a figure for that company. If you say something that is controversial or something that can harm the companys sales then that company should stop sponsoring you. And I dont see a problem with people making advertisers aware of the thing content creators say
Pakman engaging in debate with Destiny is far more edifying compared to 90 percent of the other opponents Steve debates, lol.
Yeah, because he only debates nobodies. I just scrolled through a couple of his debates and I recognise nobody (from the alt right), with whom I'm familiar with. Unless you wanna view JF as alt right.
I'm sure you'll disagree so, could you kindly give me a couple of "big names" he's debated?
This is all gonna depend on who you consider alt right, but Lauren southern is a big one. Plenty of ethno state people however, Nick Fuentes, James Allsup, Tara Mccarthy etc. A lot of the people Destiny talks to however consider themselves classical liberal or(and?) centrist sceptics so it's hard to say if you'd consider any of them alt right. He mostly also talks with people that want to talk, that's why he often ends up with people of various levels of intelligence.
Yeah I don't care about Lauren. I wouldn't consider her alt right either but she's sure popular. I'll check out his debate with Nick, that ought to be interesting. Thanks
Tyrone Slyce I've never seen Pakman lose a debate honestly. The guy is really fucking sharp.
@@jesperburns well the alt right debates nobodies as well. The alt right also constantly talks about "race realism" which I'd think is probably not Destiny's strongest topic.
Contacting sponsors to try to convince them to drop someone is definitely not censorship in any way because it doesn't prevent the person from still speaking.
No one is entitled to ad revenue. Much of the advertising that BS and morally deplroable stuff have today is owed only to the fact that automated systems do a sloppy job at placing advertisements where the advertisers would really like to advertise. Back in the day they would have to walk around or make phone calls and sell the advertisements themselves. Nazis would have only a rather minimal success with this process, when compared with an automated system that works as an obfuscation layer between the advertiser and the content, which the advertiser may think it's just funny cat videos or something like that.
In the free marketplace of ideas, attention is the currency. The quality of ideas is only of secondary consideration to the packaging.
Great interview!
That's just capitalism for you: if companies don't want to advertise on a site that has questionable content and they don't want their product associated with those messages, it's not censorship. They're not legally obligated to advertise, and if the majority of people and purchasing power/money is on one side of a TH-cam video or website message, companies are going to advertise. They're just following the money.
Very few people argue in bad faith. Mostly people who are famous (for holding some position) do.
Hanlon's razor, basically.
The problem with drawing an analogy between the free market of ideas and advertisers pulling out is that in practise it is absolutely no analogy at all:
An ideal free market of ideas distributes attention based on the actual merit of anyone's arguments. Reason and facts and would be the guiding factors or if not that at least a reflection of a somewhat democratic process. Genuine consensus would be the guiding force - not PR-panic driven by profit-motives.
However with advisers the latter is exactly the case. All it takes is one barely credible news source to make a claim about ads on so-called "extremist" videos and advertisers will pull out just for the sake of damage-control, no matter if there is any merit to the claims let alone that there is any consensus on the claims.
It is no coincidence that every coastal corporation will jump through every hoop imaginable in order to stay politically correct in the face of the most baseless complains concerning identity politics, even though the vast majority of Americans does not give two fucks about political correctness and feels like identity politics are completely overblown at the moment.
This is not a free market that adheres to ideas but one that adheres to the ones who cry wolf first.
14:10 - David, this particular line was deeply upsetting - "what can any individual do about that?"
The purveyors of news must take patterns of behavior into account - Ex. Instead of "Trump claims X", "Trump, well known for his spectacular lies and falsehoods, has claimed that X, which is of course total balls"
The correct course of action is to frame Trump by the patterns of his behavior - trump is able to go ham because media continues to refer to him by his office, and treat each action he makes in his capacity of the office as though they're in a vacuum. The gravity of the situation is always starting from 1 and building up...
So I guess the "what can be done?" answer for most people is to get angry be vocal in pushing for this change in media ethics.
Destroyed Got Bestinyed in this Agreement.
Good vid, enjoyed watching :)
I can't belive David who is the victim of the adpocalypse, supports systematically targeting people's advertisers as a means of shutting them down. Advertisers are in no way obligated to support any person, but I consider systematically going after people's advertisers a low blow. Its basically a form of deplatforming which David has criticized in the past and I assume he opposes.
Advertisement for this video was clickbait add that said Do you stand with Trump? And had a flashing yes and no, in red and blue respectively. XD
james senft I got an ad that said "wish Trump a happy birthday" and showed a bunch of pictures of him smiling
EvilOvercats I just find it hilarious that TH-cam keeps playing conservative advertisements on progressive TH-cam channels
The free marketplace of ideas by advertisement doesn't work if advertisement isn't decided on a case by case basis.
The issue with the fast food joint is that the company doesn't support them ideas (from what I understand) it's just the CEO. You might say "well by employing him they do support it" which is the issue. The company is now dictating to him what he can and can't do in his free time. This is a dangerous place to go.
I really don't think it's censorship to contact advertisers and voice your concerns with whom they advertise. If your message is important to get out, you'll get it out whether you're getting paid or not. And if enough people like what you say, they'll do what they can to donate money to you so you can say it.
Destiny Got Pakmaned in this David.
I fully disagree with Destiny's opinion on "censorship". I hope someone goes in to a more elaborate debate with him on this so he understands how he is being silly about it. Censorship is illegal, de-platforming is not and there is a difference between those definitions. Censorship tries to stop someone from saying something, not from getting their message out there (through platforming). De-platforming does the opposite, it does not target the ability of someone to say what they want but it does target their ability to spread their message.
And even in the USA you are not entitled to advertisers/a platform, especially not when talking between two private citizens.
He changed his views on this after the whole Andy Warsky thing, i think. This interview is a little older.
The ending argument about speech is something I've been debating my partner for months. We can't agree; we're basically on each of these two sides of the argument. Either argument has issues, I think, and that's what it boils down to.
david got truly g'nomed in this debate
“So Destiny, why are you always right and what can we do to stop the people you don’t like?”
Debate got destinied in this pakman
from what i know of Destiny, he seems pretty legit, though, i gotta side with David on the advertiser thing, and i'm libertarian, more or less, and what David says is pretty much in line with how i think. sure, it sucks losing ad revenue, but you're not entitled to advertiser's money.
i wanted to make a fun 90 minute dance mix, using all copyrighted music, because i find that there's a lot of leeway in doing that on TH-cam, they just end up monetising your video, so they make money, and that's it. well, there was a single hangup blocking my mix, to my surprise it wasn't Katy Perry or Rihanna, no, it was daft punk/Warner Music Group.
now if that's WMG's policy, then that's tough luck for me, it sucks, oh it really does suck, trust me, i'm going to have to figure a different song in that part of the mix, re-export the WAV, change some details in the video project file, export a WMV, re-upload to TH-cam, and hope whatever song i use next isn't blocked...
but that's just how the world is, and any day, any time, a copyright holder can look at one of my Mixtopia mixes and flag it if they so choose, but i knew what i was getting into, sometimes you gotta push for fun, and it all comes with a cost, you gotta hope for the best, be humble, and try to stay respectful and understanding.
I think Destiny could've made his point about censorship via removal of the income that allows someone to have a platform if he went with the argument of Trans content creators being demonetized because mentioning LGBTQ+ topics is enough to get them demonetized, or how the Trans TH-camr Ty Turner recently posted via Twitter about how his channel received a strike after he put out a video talking about and displaying a bottle of testosterone.
What they were taking about the first 10 minutes is referred to as moral reasoning. Jonathan Haidt has alot of information on it.
No more league, please.
I can't help but feel thrown off everytime it cuts back to david in front of that massive photo of destiny with his fist out lol
No, David Freedom of speech goes both ways freedom to speak and freedom to listen to speech. people are already subscribed, they have already clicked on the content. Taking away a persons when they are not specifically not excluded by the advertiser isnt damaging to the advertiser it is an algorithm they have chosen because the free market chose this platform and these "viewers" that already exist and would be consuming the content anyways. removing revenue only hurts freedom for both the creator and the consumer.
Pseudo-intellectual is a guy who disagrees with you, and can back it up with facts and logic.
Did Destiny confuse Millennial Woes and Count Dankula whoa 7:10
I was a hardcore liberal and decided to try to understand the right and combate their rhetoric by watching their content. Now I come back to the liberal side and you sound insane
Then you probably didn't use fact based or data driven arguments to jusify your liberalism.
I didn't realize he was unbanned...?
Destiny says the left tries to attack his advertising and the right has tried to get his son killed by the police but still continues to be a bit of a fence sitter even coming down on the rights side on some issues. Just shows how hardcore the right wing progamming can be. There's nothing wrong with dampening the message of hate speech by going through advertisers and Destiny really should be smart enough to see this.
You can’t be Christian and vote Democrat. The two don’t mix.
10 hours ago · Twitter Jessie Lee Peterson ...jordan peter's son.
I really don't like Pakman's view of free speech. It isn't like advertisers have a moral compass and don't want to support people with morally regnant views. They are just skittish and they'll back away from content creators if they receive the slightest criticism from anyone.
Great invterview!
pakman was wrong on this one. unpopular views will fade out rather quickly. you cant have a small radical group shutting down speech and going to advertisers when that s not the reality of what the entire population feels as a whole.
David should become a gamer
Gotta be honest, I did for the most part write SB off... I am glad that I listened, I did kind of find a little bit of common ground.... Thanks David.
30:00 But if you let advertisers (what you call the free market) decide who's speech is tolerated and who's is not then I think you'll find yourself in a very financially conservative world very soon.
I somewhat agree with Destiny in regards to free speech. The free marketplace of ideas is inherently flawed as a self regulating balance. Intelligence and critical thinking must dominate ideally for a free marketplace of ideas to function and quite frankly people are dumb. I don't think it can survive all the money and special interests involved in trying to actively subvert true and valid speech to promote false. The biggest litmus has already happened in how the world/media has noticed that we currently live in a post-fact era. This means that the free marketplace of ideas has already failed and is dead in the water.
Pakman falsified Destiny in this debate
holy shit destiny got debated in this destroyed
wait, so I HAVE to go to Chick-Fil-A Destiny? hyperbole much?
Don't always agree with Destiny, but he fights the good fight, and I can't say I envy the kind of people that he has to deal with. However, I have a bit of an issue with people like Stephen labeling themselves as "big free speech guys." Bill Maher falls in this category as well. They are not more for free speech than any other typical American, they just draw the line at a different place. They will advocate to the ends of the earth for content creators, but will limit the speech of consumers. If it is ok to exercise your free speech rights in favor of ethno states, then why isn't it my right to exercise my free speech in opposing that view?
I want to know, what other model Mecerdes makes then a Benz?
Taking a stats class, watching seeing *some videos* literally isn't a way to collect data.
Destiny is right that the dongle thing shouldn't have blown up but those people's jobs weren't making dongle jokes. They got targeted by a thin skinned asshole and they were the victims. If those guys had a youtube channel making dongle jokes and someone told their advertiser I think it would be up to the advertiser to make an educated decision
I am a sort of hybrid position of both Destiny's position on censorship and David's position on advertiser choice. Obviously, you should not be able to force a particular advertiser to support particular content that they don't want to support. But, it is obviously a form of censorship to not enable the easier platforming of ideas. And I have had a left wing belief that solves both of those issues with 1 thing:
abolish copyright as it exists today, and establish a publicly funded central grant for the production of digital media, and establish a central public website that well organizes and provides free at point of use access to all digital media. Each person in society will be allocated a share of that public fund that is based half on a standard minimum amount of money, and half based on how much taxes you pay into the system. You will, as a citizen, be able to allocate a portion of your share of the grant to ongoing patronage of a person or project, and another portion of your share will be allocated to the media that you view, according to how often you view a piece of media. Advertising would no longer be necessary to fund the vast majority of media, and would not be an issue that needs to be considered.
This is the next logical progression in society on the issue of media creation in general. And it solves both of Destiny's and Davids problem: All people are socially enabled to speak their mind and to get their speech out, and no individual company has to pay specifically for anyones bad speech. The government pays for it, and the company only pays the taxes to counter the monetary inflation that otherwise would occur from that government spending.
oh, I thought it was about Destiny 2 talks.
Can someone explain the "DESTINY got destroyed in this debate" joke please ?
Destiny wins every debate he is in, so people jokingly pretend that he always loses.
Pakman got DESTROYED in this destiny!
David doesnt understands that the free marketplace of ideas is not the same as a free market economy. It term of advertisers, they should only support ideas that the majority have or in the very center in order to reach the most people, aka offend the least amount of people. Going after advertisers is using the free market economy to kill the free market of ideas.
Density talks.
This went by so fast
Just to check I skipped to a random part of the video and sure enough destiny is getting interrupted, again. Does he do this to all his guests?
Destiny considers himself center left in the US? So I guess that means he's a right winger in the rest of the world?
why does the only exaple about the right is the ethno state, that doesn't do it any justice.
The actual god himself
Wow two intellectual power houses
This guy is way too on edge. Calm the fuck down man.
Destinay budday dawg mydewd.
whuddup muhdood
Destiny is wrong when it comes to the advertisement and suppression of speech
GODSTINY PogChamp
Holy shit, +Destiny is an actual liberal and isn’t an ass?! *Insta-sub!* My only exposure to him was what he did with +JonTron and DMCAing +Sargon of Akkad, so I always had a really bad view of him.
Glad to hear that he’s actually a decent person and a non-SJW, actual liberal, tho! :~D
His name isn't Steven Bonnel. It's Steven Destiny Bonneli I (the first)
That dude is creeeeeepy.
Destiny 2020
Good stuff
"im a center left" pretty way of saying neo liberal as in I am secretly a Republican but don't have the stones to put of the red shirt, grats on being the problem. Why is a 29 year old ex cleaner qualified to rule on who is and who is not well equipped to debate/wrong or right?
Palest dude ever.
Still dont see how he is against.abortion. bad arguments but at least he isn't Lauren southern dumb
He isn'T against it as far as I know. He sai dhe is for it due to practical reasons but morally opposed.
MagnificentXXBastard morally opposed in comparison to what? Forcing women to stay pregnant?
Yes.