*Socrates:* The law is the moral *Charmides:* Omkay. Shall we fuck now? *Socrates:* I already destroyed ur butthole with logic and facts but sure bend over
I could give him a pass on that for being misinformed but as soon as he called him "steven bonnell the THIRD" it became pretty obvious that this asshole was just mislabeling Destiny to try and get him mad or something. The kind of thing you'd expect from someone stupid enough to make some of the statements he made in later parts of this debate.
We apologize for ted cruz, Beiber, Faith Goldy, the Neckbeard from The Rebel and others but remain firm that they are not applicable for the return policy and are now your problem.
Yeah I agree, pretty disappointed in his stance here. Not advocating for violence but advocating for violence based on who someone votes for. Awful stance
@@orcho141 he says that it's possible to justify violence based on things people have voted for, but he'd object to it on pragmatic grounds currently, it's a completely reasonable stance.
@@orcho141 it's both reasonable and pragmatic how is it not? General claim "X can be justified" specific contextual pragmatic claim "X may be morally justifiable, but the costs are to high". That's reasonable and pragmatic, that's not a matter of opinion. I don't understand your question what's winning people over got to do with it?
The distant future apparently..... if the right-wing terrorism, control and manipulation of gov't and media hadn't scewed everything, based on the real scale of politics, Destiny isn't even left - not even center left. That's just childish.
It just means he doesn't like Destiny. In practice, I think "far" has less to do with your distance from the center than how much people are bothered by you.
17:56 this hypothetical, I call the "house analogy", is commonly used by conservatives in order to frame the idea of immigration (open borders) and immigrants in a bad light.
*Smash-ter* It is a good argument, if it is moral to kick a person out of your house that did not have a permission to come into a house, it is moral to kick out illegal immigrant out of a country that did not have permission to come into the country!
It's also absurd to suggest that kicking him out would even be an option under those circumstances, because under the scenario described he officially copped that house.
@@StarWarrior008 nope it really isn't. you are giving a person the same level of agency as a government with multiple branches filled with checks and balances and a police force to back it up.
@@StarWarrior008 because it is a far more nuanced issue than you make it out to be. most individuals don't have access to the means or resources to help someone in a troubled state. the government however is designed to cater to a massive population including asylum seekers who are allowed under law to come to the us
He’s been uploading a ten minute clip like every single day. Not sure why you’re complaining about way more consistent content just because it all isn’t just debates with retards.
Ummm do you have any idea what Stalin even fucking did??? Destiny is advocating for the same type of shit that brought the USSR down in the first place. By executing/imprisoning your political opponents because they might implement policies that you disgree with. It's EXACTLY what Stalin fucking did
"Gay 12 year old kid: Steven Bonnel, I see you are an honorable man" I promptly lost my shit right here, that analogy had me almost on the verge of tears. I originally was almost tuning this debate out but then when he went on that tangent it grabbed me by the root.
@@ChillAssTurtle you know whats really scary? People that still use the word "autistic" to describe whatever trait in a person they don't like. Now THAT keeps me up at night.
Yea he's all black and white. Until nuance is needed to defend whiteness and America. Then it's revisionist history and good faith arguments needing to be accepted in his favor. With people like this, it's not just what they believe. It's how they think that makes a strong moral argument for preemptive violence. They can't be reasoned with. You are literally dealing with lizard brain animals. There's no reasoning with a viper. Similarly, there's no reasoning with a far right person or white nationalist. Their lack of critical thinking forces their opponents to deal with them on primal levels. What they want is violence. So stop crying and accept it. What they really want is non whites to be passive while they wreak havoc on them. Nothing doing.
It's actually insane how these people cannot comprehend a hypothetical. They like know what the word means but can't have rational thoughts about it. It's wild.
Destiny somehow thinks people legitimately have the right to vote against illegal immigrants being able to stay in America but it's also morally fine if one of them kills you for doing that.......wtf. Destiny went off the rails.
I, Hypocrite: "You literally called her a Nazi!" Destiny: "No I didn't, I never called her a Nazi" I, Hypocrite: "Umm... uh... umm... well, I mean, you might have said something that mentioned Nazis when you talked to her. Lets just move on." *5 minutes later* I, Hypocrite: "You're such a hypocrite, all you do is call people Nazis!" Destiny: "No I don't, when have I ever done that?" I, Hypocrite: "Umm... let's just move on." *5 minutes later* You're so disingenuous and all you do is just dog whistle! Oh, by the way, did you now that every Muslim that has ever existed was inherently violent?" Destiny: "How is that true? What are the stats on that?" I, Hypocrite: "Umm... let's just move on" I'm sensing a pattern here.
I talked to him on Twitter before. He actually doesn't know the difference between advocating for something and saying something is morally *justified*. He straight up said to think something is morally justified, you have to advocate for it.
@@walliswallis909 I think it's morally justifiable to defend your property. However, if I'm chilling at the homie's and a mentally challenged homeless man wanders onto his yard and taps on the window, I'm not going to suggest to the homie that he put a slug through his head.
@@walliswallis909 Lemme use an extreme example to explain. Piss drinking fetish. That is morally neutral, and justified. If people wanna drink piss, all power to you brother, get your rocks off however you want ]with other consenting adults, freedom baby. That doesnt mean though that I'm advertising piss drinking, that people should drink piss, and that those who aren't drinking piss are missing out on something they need. Campaigning, advertising, convincing, would be advocating. Piss drinking is neutral and justified, but not something I'd advocate for.
@@veryfitting doesn't every ideology think the same? it's pure hypocritical to criticize someone when you yourself would shut your opponent down at the first chance you have.
@@TheSolder777 how exactly do you think that? I'm quoting from a conversation between Richard Spencer and one of his cronies a on stream. It's hypocrisy to use free speech to get into power then diminish it.
@@veryfitting how exactly did you answer my question, by telling me what your opponents wants? free speech doesn't get you elected, ideas do, and since the average western iq has decreased and thanks to media propaganda, i doubt that someone like him will get elected.
"Morals are literally the same as laws btw" -I, Hypocrite "Laws could be wrong tho but democracy will fix that" - I, Hypocrite, noted lover of democracy to fix things he sees as arbitrarily immoral, unlike kicking out kids/young adults who've never lived in another country
Whilst not completely articulated, he was making a moral defence of the rule of law in that the use of force is justified subject to the legality of the procedures from which it stems. If there isn't such an assumption within discourse then we all might as well be anarchists, for no means of force the state imposes is justified. Once we justify force outside of the rule of law, then anyone's claim to force is as good as anyone elses. This is one of the fundamental assumptions behind social contract theory, in that we enable the state to have the monopoly on force so we don't have to fight each other. This, I suspect, is I, Hypocrite's unspoken starting position.
@@MrWicked360 I don't think so. It looks to me he was just attemtping to make Destiny commit character assassination by saying he advocates killing people on the right. And considering it appears there is evidence he attempts to paint this picture regularly about the left strengthens my belief in that.
@@MDCU-pu8cc You're attributing malicious intent to him. I ordinarily don't like to do this because it gives the discussion a disservice as then the conversation is no longer about the ideas put forward, especially when there is a seemingly more probable alternative explanation. It is completely possible that he was not trying to character assassinate Destiny and genuinely believed that Destiny defended political violence. Especially considering that he appeared to genuinely believe that Destiny was an objectivist about morality in relation to his consequentialism. Destiny didn't help himself in this regard as every time I, Hypocrite asked Destiny about his own morality, Destiny would defer to consequentialism. Once you have this impression of Destiny, it does appear as though Destiny is subtly supporting violence, for it becomes an ontologically meaningless statement to say that you see how it could be justified whilst not justifying it yourself. It would be akin to saying that you believe killing children is wrong in all instances, but you can see how some people might justify their act and that you would not fault them if they went through with it. If you were true to your belief about opposing the killing of children, you would surely still fault someone who killed a child and attempted to justify it. Clearly the original belief was not particularly strong if you were to cave at the first sight of an opposing justification. This is where the confusion is insofar as I, Hypocrite is concerned, and it is evident that this is how he is seeing the discussion by the way in which he responds to Destiny. I, Hypocrite is attempting to hold Destiny to his moral consequentialism, in the belief that Destiny is an objectivist regarding it. Destiny responds as though I, Hypocrite is simply lacking nuance in not being able to recognise levels of justification. This is a misunderstanding of I, Hypocrite however, and the misunderstanding is borne out of the fact that I, Hypocrite misunderstands that Destiny is not an objectivist. If Destiny had made that point clear early on, then the discussion would have been completely different.
@@MDCU-pu8cc I respectfully disagree. I have outlined what I believe his thought process to be and my outlining is wholly consistent with everything he said and how he framed his argument. I do believe he was sincere in his position and was not attempting to character assassinate Destiny. The contrary position is not obvious when there is a legitimate alternative that makes sense with the things he said.
Revolutionary War, Civil War, no political violence in the US... Edit: As a Canadian, he should have nothing to say since he can't vote in the US so his opinion is moot.
Being against free speech is far left extremist, yes. You are probably too dumb to understand that he is against free speech and admit it in this video.
@Jack Haha, you think the federal troop action was against peaceful protests!? THANK YOU FOR PROVING THE PSY OPS THEY HAVE ON YOU PEOPLE ARE WORKING. Trying to burn down a federal building does not make you a peaceful protester, geez.
Hypocrite for the most part was unbearable to listen to but he was right that Destiny is dancing around the topic when he says killing conservative voters is justified. Destiny is saying it's morally justified to murder conservative voters, I'm sorry but saying you find an action to be morally justified is an endorsement of that action. If someone kills another in self defense, the moral justification of self defense is something that our society has endorsed to be a proper course of action. Literally anyone can come up with any moral justification for anything they do, but to say you agree with their justification is literally what endorsing means.
someone can be morally justified in doing something, but you don't necessarily think someone should do it, this isn't really something that's hard to understand I don't get how people don't get this
Because lots of people have a full on retard interpretation of what morality is, where it comes from, and how actions are determined to be moral or immoral.
People like this are so tough to talk to. They trot out these same talking points as if they're these massively impressive Tesla brain thoughts and at the same time they can't understand basic concepts such as "political violence can be morally justified" or how certain policies impact other people. These people sound like the exact reverse of what so many of us sound like. In essence having to think about an answer and working beyond yes or no usually melts these people's brains.
Wow so in the first few minutes the person interviewing Destiny says he is a free speech absolutist, yet says at the same time he thinks Destiny should be de-platformed because Destiny has talked about political violence. Not in the sense that he is calling for it, but just having a discussion on why political violence has been one of the main reasons this country exists. Fuck me if Destiny is "Far Left" that is proof that the Overton Window is to the Far Right in this country.
He doesn't say he is an absolutist, just that he is an advocate for free speech. He then states that he does not support free speech rights in terms of calls to violence. He initially was under the impression that Destiny sincerely made calls to violence against conservatives. Thus, he was in favour of de-platforming Destiny. This is logically consistent, the only problem being that Destiny doesn't actually call for violence, which he clarified to the individual in question throughout the discussion. Given that fact, I imagine if you now asked him whether he would still de-platform Destiny he would say no. So, his position is still logically consistent.
ᴅI Abyss Well I wondered if he said that when I typed "absolutist" so thanks for clarification. Still this whole discussion about whether political violence can be justified is a silly debate to me. For starters it is awfully subjective. The idea that the victors (US) have dictated that speech that is "violent" is not ok is ironic knowing it is the main reason why this country even exists as it does right now. So no States, for any reason, or group of people in this country could ever rise up to decide their own self determination without going through violence because there are no ways to peacefully have that debate within our system. Seems like a problem to say political violence is "bad" and have no methods for that anger to channel into instead.
@@jadebrownofficial Yeah, I mostly agree. I believe that if a state wants to legitimately revoke the citizens' right to violence, than the citizen must have some means by which they can actually impact the state. Otherwise, the citizen always gets a raw deal for they submit their power for nothing in return. Ideally, the citizens' power should be exercised through democratic under the rule of law so that peace is maintained. However, there is a legitimate argument in the US to claim that the citizen does not have any power in a relevant regard in this capacity due to the structure of the political system. And thus consequently, violence should be acceptable. Whether you accept that line of reasoning will depend on how politically sovereign you consider the citizen to be.
"I think political violence can be morally justified, but I don't necessarily believe that it is always the most effective action to take." "I can't comprehend that, so let's just agree that you want to murder all conservatives indiscriminately and chalk up any nuance to being 'wishy washy'. Also, any further arguments are pointless."
He knows he was just attemtping to goad destiny into characters assassination by saying he advocates killing people on the right. Probably so he could slander the left.
it's just baffling how much I Hypocrite is tying human rights to being a citizen of the country you're in. human rights do not depend on whether or not you are a citizen, but on the fact that you're human. simple as that. and every one that has their livelihood/life threatened is morally justified to fight back. an illegal immigrant that is attacked by a mob and hurts or kills some of them in selfdefense is morally justified, citizen or not. and one of the major reasons why there are so many illegal immigrants is the fact that the US does not fully adhere to the human rights conventions. Every person asking for asylum has to be taken in until their claim is verified and either approved or rejected. but the USA is literally blocking people from doing so (so are a lot of European countries). they are illegal because the USA illegally prevents them from claiming asylum in a legal manner.
and if my math lessons taught me one thing than it is that illegal plus illegal equals to human rights are non negotiable so stop diverting the conversation
@@Boulder7685 that was supposed to be meant towards the argument of legal status as a qualifier for human life and I didn't really feel like it should go with my original comment. but I have no issue keeping me own conversation going :D
What Hypocrite was really fishing for was something that he could clip and then distribute among other right wingers. Or just use it to deplatform Destiny. Thats why he got pissed off at a nuanced position, because he was trying to bait you for material.
I'm usually on board with Destiny but this conversation was very wishy washy. I actually agree with the other guy. He's saying "well some people could morally justify political violence." Well duh normally people that commit political violence usually think they are morally right. But at the same time he's saying "I don't support it, but someone could morally support it." Anyone can morally support anything...I just think this is a really dumb argument by Destiny.
What's weird about I, Hypocrite is the fact that to this day he uses the Socrates profile picture, who was a great critic of rhetoric, as a knack that doesn't help arrive one at the truth. I, Hypocrite doesn't provide his audience with any tools to build logical conclusions, but just spews shit like any other Greek tyrant that was good with words, that Socrates in ALL Plato's texts was so critical of.
"I've never thought of committing political violence against Saudi Arabia" "WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU CALLED SOPH A NAZI" Am I having a stroke right now?
The Saudi Arabia question was an easy, 'No' for me but to be fair to Destiny, he admits to only being well versed in American politics. Now as for why you can't really say that Yemini citizens are morally justified in killing Saudi Arabian citizens is because Saudi Arabia is one of the few absolute monarchies in the world. They didn't 'vote' the current government in, and I think it's a bit much for people to expect for normal Saudi citizens to protest, riot and/or overthrow the current monarchy for it's horrendous foreign policy at the very real risk of losing their relatively high standard of living or even facing state persecution for speaking out against the state's foreign policy.That's my two cents.
One thing I wish Destiny would of brought up around the 21:00 minute mark is that before the 14th amendment naturalized a lot of former slaves, they weren't considered citizens. Because of this many states had people committing open acts of violence against former slaves because they weren't naturalized yet, they didn't have the protections of citizenship. This whole argument of "they aren't citizens so they have no right philosophically to cause harm to citizens is kind of absurd. It's like, did former slaves have the right to fight against people who wanted to lynch them, terrorize them, etc??? Absurd shit.
The Russian revolution - killing the Imperial Romanov family, since the rest of the country were eating rocks. The French Revolution - described as one of the bloodiest events in modern history, also because ppl were eating rocks. What if they hadn’t happened?
If the French Revolution didn't happen, chances are that the American would likely not have happened and we would've kept leaving in Mercantile capitalism with monarchs as heads of state.
@@bimbowithadegree420 The American Revolution predated the French one and directly inspired the French Revolution. How did you not know that and get it backwards?
The I,hypocrite upload of this debate has some of the most depressing comments. How can people be so dense to not understand the distinction between a personal belief and an empathetic understanding of another's position..
One of the things I really like about Destiny is that he often tries to see things through other people's points of view. People like the dude he's arguing with don't seem to understand that truth can exist outside of their own point of view. This is something I've found with people in general, that they will argue their point of view refusing to acknowledge the reason why others think and behave how they do.
36:34 I don't know about the voting system in Saudi Arabia Well maybe you should have thought about that before you called Soph a Nazi Wait what did I blackout at that point...
Also the responsibility of the voter on the action of its government is LITERALLY the point of democracy, people are involved and vote on what actions the country should take (via through the people they vote) the fact that people don't understand that is just unbelievable I thought this was basic like civics or even philosophy 101, like these people literally don't understand what democracy is like Oh my god
33:15 My problem with destiny's point here, is he hasnt established the boundaries of when violence would be justified. He basically just says if you feel like its justified then it could be justified.. Like, if somebody thinks destinys position on allowing illegals to stay, makes their family unsafe, would they be justified in shooting destiny? Or any other democrat? Voting has consequences, thats true. One of those consequences shouldnt be that you get murdered by other civilians. If you want to justify political violence against the state in these circumstances, then you are much more solid ground, but to justify murdering your neighbor because of how they voted is pretty immoral.. Also, the civil war and revolution doesnt apply at all here. Forming a new government and fighting a war for that government's sovereignty isnt even close to the same as murdering people that voted wrong..
I sometimes wonder if I should volunteer to be on one of these shows because I could have had a much more productive conversation with Destiny about this without allowing myself to go off into the rhetorical weeds with no tangible results as the guest did. I'm new to this show but the host is obviously extremely intelligent. I am far right conservative but I think if I had been in this conversation we could have established some more solid arguments on both sides and even agreed on a couple critical points regarding political violence. This is such an important issue since the American system is failing due to the effect of polarization and this is not a hypothetical subject. It is actually one that needs to be solved to prevent a breakdown of our system. There are a few critical factors. 1. As a result of the American political evolution both left and right have identified areas of principle in their own philosophy that neither side believes they should have to relinquish or compromise on based on a pure democracy, which is actually why we live in a republic not a pure democracy. The founders were not able to solve this because they establish hard boundaries in the Constitution but also prescribed the possibility of taxation without limit, so clearly they were simply hoping that democracy itself could be a temporary solution. 2. Both sides agree to some extent that Locke and Rousseau were correct that the social contract requires a citizen to compromise to a certain extent since by accepting the benefits, protections and relative safety of a civilized society the citizen must agree not to take matters into their own hands in regard to violence. This obligates them to accept policy as a result of that process to some extent contrary to their own principles in order to live with others. 3. Both sides agree that violence is only justified if all other options have utterly failed and there is literally no other alternative such as foreign invasion, the punishment of criminals or simple self defense when no authority is immediately available. 4. The intellectual portion of both left and right agree that to some extent we are being played against each other by elite interests. The powerful often drive policy which is damaging to both sides by hurting simultaneously the economic equality important to the left and the principles of liberty sought by the right. Both ideals are being subtracted, and this symmetric attack is causing both left and right to blame each other rather than the third party. The guest kept trying to show that Destiny was contradicting himself which he was not because the host was (ironically) saying exactly what a conservative would say in that there are extreme cases in which violence could be morally justified theoretically but it is almost without exception unadvisable or civil strife would be a constant and no political system could survive. This is exactly what I would say. The critical question is: What is a person's moral obligation to relinquish a portion of their own principle in order to live peacefully with others when both sides in fact yearn for political systems which are considered by some to be incompatible. It is an impossible dilemma. Fortunately there are still a limited number of intellectuals on both sides who are still negotiating and perhaps they can help us avert disaster by finding the right balance of compromises.
Weird how a grown person can’t wrap their head around the concept that there is a difference between saying something is “morally justified” and “advocate for” Of course it’s obvious he’s a dishonest actor when he leads with “most famous for streaming with Hassan “ then a few sentences later saying “I’m not as experienced a debater as you!”
I think Destiny’s arguments here were terribly inconsistent, and I don’t think he actually believes a lot of what he said. It seemed like he was just trying to win the argument.
@@SomersBugtopia >republican voters are wholly responsible the platforms the party pursues, it's their fault for not voting 3rd party e.g. hawkish policies that destroy civilizations >im partly responsible for what the hawkish democratic policies and I don't vote 3rd party because not enough americans vote for different parties Ah yes, very consistent. Do you always have your knee pads on when watching Destiny's videos?
@@yarkieee American voters are responsible and they're also responsible for being partisan because that's how they prefer to vote, and hence both sides are responsible. However the Republican votes are actively victimizing a group that could come up and bite them in the ass, but this could happen with Democrats too but it isn't currently. There, you understand?
I am kind of shocked and disappointed in Destiny here. As inflammatory as his opponent is, Destiny is kind of advocating for violence here, and I'm not cool with that. Especially in 2022 with hindsight, but even so he'd surely admit that the WORST thing about Fascists was not their idea on borders but their USE OF VIOLENCE.
according to destinys logic, someone who murders would be morally justified by killing the officers trying to arrest him for that murder since they are technically trying to violently lock him up.
This was a good debate b/c I think Destiny is off-base in a lot of areas, and I'm developing a mini, lay-person algorithm to try to contextualize how to perceive and justify political violence, which I'll post later..... Regarding conservatives' "lack of nuance," I can't speak for all conservatives in all contexts, but the nuance btw someone "being homophobic" and "engaging in homophobic action" is lost when the consequences for being publicly labelled as either are equally severe. This is why lefties get pissed when people try to parse Trump as "is he racist, or is he engaging in racist rhetoric?" For the purpose of a philosophical discussion there's a huge distinction worth discussing; but for lefties there is no distinction, he's embodying a close enough proximity to racism such that he should suffer severe consequences. This matters even more in a real-world context where a person could be "using 1-time racist language," and that gets communicated to their employer and they lose their job. In this context, it doesn't matter if you "are" racist or "acted" racist, the consequences come down as you effectively being a racist in totality. Hence why the distinction probably doesn't matter to IH b/c the severe consequences would be the same. It's actually a very materialist view IH has, such that the distinctions only matter in terms of real-world consequences--all other discussion is just masturbatory philosophizing.
basically Hypocrite's argument rests solely on assuming that if Destiny says that _some_ violent action may be justified, that he is prepared to endorse _any_ violence, however extreme. Clearly the violence has to be proportional to the offense in order to be justified. So a DACA recipient is not justified in indiscriminately killing conservative voters, but probably would be in some kind of civil disobedience, or other agitation of Conservative law makers and their supporters. Likewise while Yemen would be justified in waging total war against the Saudi state, this stops short of killing "all muslims in Saudi Arabia" which would be genocide.
@@badbadnotgoodgoodgodnotbad2930 yeah the point about proportionality is brought to his attention but only right at the end. Hopefully he'll incorporate it into his arguments next time.
Density got measurably harmed in this debate. Realtalk, longtime Dusty fan here and still like him as a person, but putting him with the extreme left is very plausible at this point. Calling for political violence or taking your distance to people, even close friends, just because you disagree with them politically is an extreme position to take, there's no denying it.
@@pepesilvia5936 There is this fancy new invention called nuance. With that we can understand there is a huge difference between not condemning an action and being obligated to perform it. More people should try it out.
Please...Is Destiny actually supporting political violence and murder here? Im so fucking confused. Like is he actually saying this shit is okay or is he just trying to add nuance?
@@samsmith3645 That’s pure moral relativism and can justify disgusting acts such as 9/11 where innocent people were murdered, not the perpetrators of crimes in the Middle East. We should recognize moral relativism has no place in actually justifying terrorism, for we, arguably, should be striving to develop past this archaic/violent part of human history, not justifying its current use because humans have been awful for so long. If ISIS purely went after military targets/politicians, Destiny’s points would ring much truer since they are pursuing action against the individual perpetrators. Though, when the retaliation is burning churches, killing Christians, and murdering civilians...that is evil and should be 100% condemned just as all civilian murders by US drone strikes and all liable political actors should be tried for it as well. Don’t know why you guys don’t just make this last point rather than justifying the murder of civilians :/
@@samsmith3645 I agree on that initial point, but only in a morally relativistic way. Just because they can morally justify it does not make it morally justifiable by the standards we should be encouraging (i.e. don't kill for political power). I totally agree and moral relativism is GREAT for that sort of explanatory analysis. That said, when we start using moral relativism on current events and stop short of condemning political violence... I think that is indicative of a lack of moral foundation to condemn the bad things in society. :/ I agree Christianity is a product of the times, though arguing that that is all it is is a bit of an overstatement. :P I've done a ton of research into the Resurrection and I'd say it is very likely Jesus is/was the Son of God and I'd be happy to share my findings/logic with you :) While I agree I do want that clear cut answer, I'd say there is for many things, such as condemning political violence and not encouraging it. I see Destiny stopping short of just that because he does not think it is right to force his standards on others which I tend to agree with. That said, some standards do need to be enforced and should be pushed by everyone that wants a more productive political discourse, such as political violence being evil. I appreciate you being so friendly Jelly, thank you and have a great evening. :)
@@samsmith3645 Hahaha, it isn't. XD That said, the only better place is probably Discord to chat over a mic :P Well, if you don't mind, would you like to discuss what's your morals? It would be a great exercise for me to understand another perspective :) I will and you too Jelly! :)
Things you need to be a Freeze Peach Advocate: 1. a fedora/neckbeard (either or both) 2. white skin 3. a burning need to say the n-word 4. no background knowledge of what you're talking about ever
"It's been that way for all of human history" is not a good argument, as, at one point, slavery had been with humans for all of human history, and forms of slavery still exist today.
Using Destiny's idiotic logic, using supporting slavery isn't a controversial stance because it was used throughout history and used during the founding of the country, this man is truly an intellectual heavy weight
@thesparitan Point is moral relativism is stupid when justifying bad actions. Moral relativism justifies slavery and means, if this was the reigning ideological justification, abolitionists would be no more morally justified than slave owners and abolition would have never happened. This is why some are baffled by the commitment to moral relativity since it is such a baffling point to commit to rather than only use it as an explanatory means to see why they do what the do. I, Hypocrite and folks like myself don’t think political violence is ever justified and will happily condemn it in every instance, regardless of them finding it morally justifiable. Simply because some cultures justify it doesn’t mean it should be acceptable anymore! Destiny skips this last step and just reasons it can be morally justifiable which is basically green-lighting political violence as long as you find it politically justifiable since he’s soft on actually condemning any such action. Soooo, I get yours and Destiny’s point, but it’s not a good one considering how you stop one step short of condemning the bad things that, when excused from society, will make us all better off, the same way slavery was slowly and painfully excised from society :)
@thesparitan Then why does Destiny stick by the idea that it can be morally justified to kill conservatives? Seems pretty morally relativistic to make this point then not condemn anybody that believes in it. "Political Violence" My point is violence in service of modern politics, not historical violence against evil, tyranny, genocide, etc. No, not being dishonest, you are just defining my term of "political violence" in the most general sense rather than the very specific sense of current political violence. :P
@thesparitan Name the policy that justifies murdering conservatives. Also, that's a MASSIVE assumption on what each individual believes in and why they vote, for some conservatives only vote Republican because it is not Democrat. :P There's logical inconsistencies within this perspective that should never make it morally justifiable unless you are going to go the moral relativistic route in which even slavery can be morally justifiable which I'd say isn't productive to society anymore :P Soooo, then say the last part clearly. Explain why it's wrong to murder conservatives for their voting record. I don't think this is an argument you want to support. Ok, now you are getting morally relativistic to avoid my points which is really uncool. -_- My problem comes when Destiny doesn't take a hard stance against the moral justification for killing conservatives, but will take a hard stance against something like gun regulations in debate. I, Hypocrite, while not exactly a master of his craft, does call out Destiny correctly and unfortunately doesn't nail him on why he doesn't condemn political murder outright and as vehemently as he fights for a multitude of other issues. TDLR: I get the moral relativistic point on certain actions being morally justifiable. That said, it doesn't mean it should be if we want to progress as a society, just as society has progressed in the past. Sorry for the length, tried to be thorough. Have a good day :)
@thesparitan Healthcare: so if we don't support taxpayer funded healthcare, you can kill us? Immigration: We aren't seeking to deport dreamers, we want our borders secure and people coming in legally. We want criminals deported, those wanting to stay at least legalized, and dreamers a pathway to citizenship if not already gained from being an anchor baby. You really don't know what we think :P Foreign Wars: Last I checked, Trump is more isolationist than Obama and every administration is guilty of this. Though kill conservatives for it anyways :P CIA back groups? You'll need to enlighten me on that one. :P Also, don't see how this is a conservative problem when the FBI is compromised against Trump. And you can kill us for these things...good luck considering we are also pro-2nd amendment! XD Also, do want to note how conservatives don't want to go out and kill leftists outside of the extreme fringe Boogaloo Boys who has zero support from any serious political commentator and I 100% condemn anybody calling for killing leftists or anybody for political reasons.
Destiny is correct. “People can fuck for the things you do”. And this should be considered when we vote and implement policy. That’s why I voted for Ron Paul.
within the first 4 minutes he has adequately demonstrated his namesake >i became anti-sjw bc i dont want people losing their jobs over political disagreement >you should be deplatformed for advocating violence
I really enjoy Destiny and I’ve been listening for a long time, but this whole political violence edgy meme bullshit was so transparent from the beginning, all you had was DACA and “defending yourself” against people trying to deport you. I’m so glad someone called him on this hypocrisy and made him take a personal stance instead of weaseling around his excuses. I’m glad I can continue to watch and enjoy knowing we agree on most points and he’s not taking the next step in ACTUAL left extremist views.
"It's the law so it's moral" - what a true heir of a greek philosopher ...
Yes I was thinking the same!
Club Penguin is one hell of a salon.
*Socrates:* The law is the moral
*Charmides:* Omkay. Shall we fuck now?
*Socrates:* I already destroyed ur butthole with logic and facts but sure bend over
Yeah just like slavery, racism, sexist, and ableism. Those were part of the law so that must be morally.
Western civilization's philosophy in all its supremacy
best known from streaming with hasan piker... lmao
haHasan
Sad Potato this started off sooo wrong. Hassan leaches Destiny... how does he not understand.
*"WIFFLE WAFFLING"*
yeh, thats what people think when they think of destiny. Fucking hasan piker.
I could give him a pass on that for being misinformed but as soon as he called him "steven bonnell the THIRD" it became pretty obvious that this asshole was just mislabeling Destiny to try and get him mad or something. The kind of thing you'd expect from someone stupid enough to make some of the statements he made in later parts of this debate.
When Canada sends it's people, they are not sending their best
We apologize for ted cruz, Beiber, Faith Goldy, the Neckbeard from The Rebel and others but remain firm that they are not applicable for the return policy and are now your problem.
@@grantsampson776 MegaLOL!!!
@@grantsampson776 I still think americans should demand refunds.
They’re bringing hockey, they’re bringing syrup, they’re racists, and some of them I assume are good people.
On behalf of all Canadians, I’m so sorry
Destiny became a far left extremist in this debate
Yeah I agree, pretty disappointed in his stance here. Not advocating for violence but advocating for violence based on who someone votes for. Awful stance
@@orcho141 he says that it's possible to justify violence based on things people have voted for, but he'd object to it on pragmatic grounds currently, it's a completely reasonable stance.
@@pietzsche I don't think it's reasonable or pragmatic. Who would that win over?
@@orcho141 it's both reasonable and pragmatic how is it not? General claim "X can be justified" specific contextual pragmatic claim "X may be morally justifiable, but the costs are to high". That's reasonable and pragmatic, that's not a matter of opinion. I don't understand your question what's winning people over got to do with it?
@@orcho141 the comment was ironic and there are so many philosophical reasons to excuse violence why are you so mad about that?
"Destiny is a far left streamer..."
Woah, is this guy from the future? 😉
I think he said extremist lmao
Leftstiny is about 45% complete.
Ohhhhhhh, hahaaa, yeah! That’s probably true
The distant future apparently..... if the right-wing terrorism, control and manipulation of gov't and media hadn't scewed everything, based on the real scale of politics, Destiny isn't even left - not even center left. That's just childish.
⚒We can only hope⚒
Hasan's far left nephew got called a Destiny in this debate
This is a very underrated comment.
If destiny is far left I guess I just got promoted to comrade
If I,hypocrite only knew how much farther left you can go ;)
Would probably make me CEO of a Gulag.
He’s an anti-sjw. Center-left is synonymous with far-left extremist to him
He's the mythical purple man. Right libertarian
It just means he doesn't like Destiny. In practice, I think "far" has less to do with your distance from the center than how much people are bothered by you.
>Not equipped to have a geopolitical discussion
>Why don't you know the entire political and religious history of Saudi Arabia? GOTEM
if you are discussing geopolitics, arabian history is a must, it would be like not knowing what the british empire was.
17:56 this hypothetical, I call the "house analogy", is commonly used by conservatives in order to frame the idea of immigration (open borders) and immigrants in a bad light.
Is this *THE* Smash-ter?
*Smash-ter*
It is a good argument, if it is moral to kick a person out of your house that did not have a permission to come into a house, it is moral to kick out illegal immigrant out of a country that did not have permission to come into the country!
It's also absurd to suggest that kicking him out would even be an option under those circumstances, because under the scenario described he officially copped that house.
@@StarWarrior008 nope it really isn't. you are giving a person the same level of agency as a government with multiple branches filled with checks and balances and a police force to back it up.
@@StarWarrior008 because it is a far more nuanced issue than you make it out to be. most individuals don't have access to the means or resources to help someone in a troubled state. the government however is designed to cater to a massive population including asylum seekers who are allowed under law to come to the us
finally an hour new video instead of the 10 min clips youve been uploading a lot lately
Shit I wish it was even longer
He's trying to get through to right wingers, they have a 10 min attention span lol
i like the clips.
He’s been uploading a ten minute clip like every single day. Not sure why you’re complaining about way more consistent content just because it all isn’t just debates with retards.
@@RawMaterialENT wrong, that would be 2 sargons so too long
Destiny a “far left extremest”?! Wtf does that mean I am Stalin?
Don't insult Comrade Stalin, blyat.
Anything left of Hitler is clearly Stalin, duh.
Ummm do you have any idea what Stalin even fucking did??? Destiny is advocating for the same type of shit that brought the USSR down in the first place. By executing/imprisoning your political opponents because they might implement policies that you disgree with.
It's EXACTLY what Stalin fucking did
EsotericOccultist he is right wing like the fucking Democrats. And he has clearly moved even farther right on like almost all issues.
@@EsotericOccultist imagine calling right wing centrists libtards... Fucking normie
"Gay 12 year old kid: Steven Bonnel, I see you are an honorable man"
I promptly lost my shit right here, that analogy had me almost on the verge of tears. I originally was almost tuning this debate out but then when he went on that tangent it grabbed me by the root.
Is your root ok?
Far left extremist 😂
This guy blocked me for simply liking a tweet he disagreed with.
what a pussy
What happened to people on the right saying that they want to have "A MarketPlace of ideas"
@@kyoungt14 A marketplace of right wing ideas, had to correct that.
Title: "Advocating for political violence", intro: "But she's 18!" uhhh I guess I can see where this one is going.
>20% a fringe minority
Aaalrighty then.
And then destiny checks the stat two minutes later and finds out that it's over 80%.
*Rocket Relm*
2 minutes? It’s like 20 seconds
@@rocketrelm1125 no, that was a different statistic
I, Hypocrite? Literally leaving my chair right now to make popcorn, this is gonna be a train wreck. lol
Woz your newer videos getting a lot of hate is a damn shame. Keep up the good work buddy
I'm losing brain cells listening to this debate
@@ChillAssTurtle you know whats really scary? People that still use the word "autistic" to describe whatever trait in a person they don't like. Now THAT keeps me up at night.
@@BPOOP1000 It's an improper/incorrect use of the word. However, I would hope you're being hyperbolic that, THAT is what keeps you up at night.
@@BPOOP1000 true!
so he lives up to his name
a freaking hypocrite
Right wingers are, so fucking stupid.
Offtopic but how does it make you feel knowing that Vagabond is probably never going to have an ending?
@@MsLeon0001 it will
Same with berserk
Dude please dont hurt me man
@@mohsinking100 I don't know about vagabond but Miura is never going to finish berserk.
@@StGeorgedragonhunter dude i have been waiting for more than 12 years so i think i have the right to say that
its gonna end at some point
First minute and 30 seconds and he's already shown how incapable he is at understanding anything about Destiny or his statements.
Yea he's all black and white. Until nuance is needed to defend whiteness and America. Then it's revisionist history and good faith arguments needing to be accepted in his favor. With people like this, it's not just what they believe. It's how they think that makes a strong moral argument for preemptive violence. They can't be reasoned with. You are literally dealing with lizard brain animals. There's no reasoning with a viper. Similarly, there's no reasoning with a far right person or white nationalist. Their lack of critical thinking forces their opponents to deal with them on primal levels. What they want is violence. So stop crying and accept it. What they really want is non whites to be passive while they wreak havoc on them. Nothing doing.
It's actually insane how these people cannot comprehend a hypothetical. They like know what the word means but can't have rational thoughts about it. It's wild.
if you're talking about the intro clip, you're definitely wrong
Destiny somehow thinks people legitimately have the right to vote against illegal immigrants being able to stay in America but it's also morally fine if one of them kills you for doing that.......wtf. Destiny went off the rails.
Good video Hasans friend!
Cenks nephew's friend LOL
@@KickinAss1000 all roads lead to cenk
@@icantthinkofabetteraccount9031 thanks for tagging me. I should update my comment, cenks nephews ex friend*
I, Steve Bonnell, have a dream in this debate.
You're not Martin Luther King Junior, you're not!
@@Nersius Coachella sucked that year
Destiny evicted a naked homeless gay kid who was turning tricks and other things I won't get into in this debate.
America killed nuance, spread the word.
Destiny is not nuonced, his opinion on almost everything is entirely predictable. That is not indicative of nuonce.
@@jakepenfold8092 Uhhh...
A. Non sequitur.
B. I never made that claim. Yikes.
you spelled *Nuance wrong twice 🤚
I, Hypocrite: "You literally called her a Nazi!"
Destiny: "No I didn't, I never called her a Nazi"
I, Hypocrite: "Umm... uh... umm... well, I mean, you might have said something that mentioned Nazis when you talked to her. Lets just move on."
*5 minutes later*
I, Hypocrite: "You're such a hypocrite, all you do is call people Nazis!"
Destiny: "No I don't, when have I ever done that?"
I, Hypocrite: "Umm... let's just move on."
*5 minutes later*
You're so disingenuous and all you do is just dog whistle! Oh, by the way, did you now that every Muslim that has ever existed was inherently violent?"
Destiny: "How is that true? What are the stats on that?"
I, Hypocrite: "Umm... let's just move on"
I'm sensing a pattern here.
Hey's dog whistling to his viewer, someone not paying attention may only hear something being called into question
I talked to him on Twitter before. He actually doesn't know the difference between advocating for something and saying something is morally *justified*. He straight up said to think something is morally justified, you have to advocate for it.
What would you say is the difference between the two? Not trying to be a dick, it's just something I never thought of before.
@@walliswallis909 I think it's morally justifiable to defend your property. However, if I'm chilling at the homie's and a mentally challenged homeless man wanders onto his yard and taps on the window, I'm not going to suggest to the homie that he put a slug through his head.
@@walliswallis909 Lemme use an extreme example to explain. Piss drinking fetish. That is morally neutral, and justified. If people wanna drink piss, all power to you brother, get your rocks off however you want ]with other consenting adults, freedom baby. That doesnt mean though that I'm advertising piss drinking, that people should drink piss, and that those who aren't drinking piss are missing out on something they need. Campaigning, advertising, convincing, would be advocating. Piss drinking is neutral and justified, but not something I'd advocate for.
i enjoyed the debate until you went on a 30 minute rant about agender robots
What is that phrase from? It's really familiar. The agender robot thing
crazyjak56 apex legends lol
@@scapegoht9537 Okay, but someone in particular was ranting about it
@@crazyjak56 the quartering
@@yanggang8231 Ooookay. That's what it was.
These Alt-Right clowns are, so freaking predictable.
The alt-right only support free speech until they're in power.
"Muh alt-right"
@@veryfitting doesn't every ideology think the same? it's pure hypocritical to criticize someone when you yourself would shut your opponent down at the first chance you have.
@@TheSolder777 how exactly do you think that? I'm quoting from a conversation between Richard Spencer and one of his cronies a on stream. It's hypocrisy to use free speech to get into power then diminish it.
@@veryfitting how exactly did you answer my question, by telling me what your opponents wants? free speech doesn't get you elected, ideas do, and since the average western iq has decreased and thanks to media propaganda, i doubt that someone like him will get elected.
"Destiny is a far left extremist"
..... i wish lol
I, Hypocrit: Heh if you want to end world hunger so much why arent you personally growing food for everyone in the world? I'm very intelligent!
You donate money to charity? Why don't you personally invent the cure for cancer?
"Morals are literally the same as laws btw" -I, Hypocrite
"Laws could be wrong tho but democracy will fix that" - I, Hypocrite, noted lover of democracy to fix things he sees as arbitrarily immoral, unlike kicking out kids/young adults who've never lived in another country
Whilst not completely articulated, he was making a moral defence of the rule of law in that the use of force is justified subject to the legality of the procedures from which it stems. If there isn't such an assumption within discourse then we all might as well be anarchists, for no means of force the state imposes is justified. Once we justify force outside of the rule of law, then anyone's claim to force is as good as anyone elses. This is one of the fundamental assumptions behind social contract theory, in that we enable the state to have the monopoly on force so we don't have to fight each other. This, I suspect, is I, Hypocrite's unspoken starting position.
@@MrWicked360 I don't think so. It looks to me he was just attemtping to make Destiny commit character assassination by saying he advocates killing people on the right. And considering it appears there is evidence he attempts to paint this picture regularly about the left strengthens my belief in that.
@@MDCU-pu8cc You're attributing malicious intent to him. I ordinarily don't like to do this because it gives the discussion a disservice as then the conversation is no longer about the ideas put forward, especially when there is a seemingly more probable alternative explanation. It is completely possible that he was not trying to character assassinate Destiny and genuinely believed that Destiny defended political violence. Especially considering that he appeared to genuinely believe that Destiny was an objectivist about morality in relation to his consequentialism. Destiny didn't help himself in this regard as every time I, Hypocrite asked Destiny about his own morality, Destiny would defer to consequentialism. Once you have this impression of Destiny, it does appear as though Destiny is subtly supporting violence, for it becomes an ontologically meaningless statement to say that you see how it could be justified whilst not justifying it yourself. It would be akin to saying that you believe killing children is wrong in all instances, but you can see how some people might justify their act and that you would not fault them if they went through with it. If you were true to your belief about opposing the killing of children, you would surely still fault someone who killed a child and attempted to justify it. Clearly the original belief was not particularly strong if you were to cave at the first sight of an opposing justification. This is where the confusion is insofar as I, Hypocrite is concerned, and it is evident that this is how he is seeing the discussion by the way in which he responds to Destiny. I, Hypocrite is attempting to hold Destiny to his moral consequentialism, in the belief that Destiny is an objectivist regarding it. Destiny responds as though I, Hypocrite is simply lacking nuance in not being able to recognise levels of justification. This is a misunderstanding of I, Hypocrite however, and the misunderstanding is borne out of the fact that I, Hypocrite misunderstands that Destiny is not an objectivist. If Destiny had made that point clear early on, then the discussion would have been completely different.
@@MrWicked360 Yeah, but it is clear that was his intent and I don't care to bullshyt around the obvious truth for no reason. There is no alternative.
@@MDCU-pu8cc I respectfully disagree. I have outlined what I believe his thought process to be and my outlining is wholly consistent with everything he said and how he framed his argument. I do believe he was sincere in his position and was not attempting to character assassinate Destiny. The contrary position is not obvious when there is a legitimate alternative that makes sense with the things he said.
Revolutionary War, Civil War, no political violence in the US...
Edit: As a Canadian, he should have nothing to say since he can't vote in the US so his opinion is moot.
>Destiny
>far left extremist
LMFAO
Being against free speech is far left extremist, yes. You are probably too dumb to understand that he is against free speech and admit it in this video.
No, being fat left does not inherently make you anti free speech. You’re missing the y-axis (authoritarian-libertarian) on the the political spectrum
@Jack Haha, you think the federal troop action was against peaceful protests!? THANK YOU FOR PROVING THE PSY OPS THEY HAVE ON YOU PEOPLE ARE WORKING. Trying to burn down a federal building does not make you a peaceful protester, geez.
Hypocrite for the most part was unbearable to listen to but he was right that Destiny is dancing around the topic when he says killing conservative voters is justified. Destiny is saying it's morally justified to murder conservative voters, I'm sorry but saying you find an action to be morally justified is an endorsement of that action.
If someone kills another in self defense, the moral justification of self defense is something that our society has endorsed to be a proper course of action. Literally anyone can come up with any moral justification for anything they do, but to say you agree with their justification is literally what endorsing means.
someone can be morally justified in doing something, but you don't necessarily think someone should do it, this isn't really something that's hard to understand I don't get how people don't get this
Because its nuanced and grey. Not black and white.
Because lots of people have a full on retard interpretation of what morality is, where it comes from, and how actions are determined to be moral or immoral.
Because it sounds like to a cop out to normies.
People like this are so tough to talk to. They trot out these same talking points as if they're these massively impressive Tesla brain thoughts and at the same time they can't understand basic concepts such as "political violence can be morally justified" or how certain policies impact other people. These people sound like the exact reverse of what so many of us sound like.
In essence having to think about an answer and working beyond yes or no usually melts these people's brains.
!!!!!
Wow so in the first few minutes the person interviewing Destiny says he is a free speech absolutist, yet says at the same time he thinks Destiny should be de-platformed because Destiny has talked about political violence. Not in the sense that he is calling for it, but just having a discussion on why political violence has been one of the main reasons this country exists. Fuck me if Destiny is "Far Left" that is proof that the Overton Window is to the Far Right in this country.
He doesn't say he is an absolutist, just that he is an advocate for free speech. He then states that he does not support free speech rights in terms of calls to violence. He initially was under the impression that Destiny sincerely made calls to violence against conservatives. Thus, he was in favour of de-platforming Destiny. This is logically consistent, the only problem being that Destiny doesn't actually call for violence, which he clarified to the individual in question throughout the discussion. Given that fact, I imagine if you now asked him whether he would still de-platform Destiny he would say no. So, his position is still logically consistent.
ᴅI Abyss Well I wondered if he said that when I typed "absolutist" so thanks for clarification. Still this whole discussion about whether political violence can be justified is a silly debate to me. For starters it is awfully subjective. The idea that the victors (US) have dictated that speech that is "violent" is not ok is ironic knowing it is the main reason why this country even exists as it does right now. So no States, for any reason, or group of people in this country could ever rise up to decide their own self determination without going through violence because there are no ways to peacefully have that debate within our system. Seems like a problem to say political violence is "bad" and have no methods for that anger to channel into instead.
@@jadebrownofficial Yeah, I mostly agree. I believe that if a state wants to legitimately revoke the citizens' right to violence, than the citizen must have some means by which they can actually impact the state. Otherwise, the citizen always gets a raw deal for they submit their power for nothing in return. Ideally, the citizens' power should be exercised through democratic under the rule of law so that peace is maintained. However, there is a legitimate argument in the US to claim that the citizen does not have any power in a relevant regard in this capacity due to the structure of the political system. And thus consequently, violence should be acceptable. Whether you accept that line of reasoning will depend on how politically sovereign you consider the citizen to be.
Its wild how his walnut mind cannot process that Destiny feels that a certain set of* conditions are necessary to advocate or enact violence.
"I think political violence can be morally justified, but I don't necessarily believe that it is always the most effective action to take."
"I can't comprehend that, so let's just agree that you want to murder all conservatives indiscriminately and chalk up any nuance to being 'wishy washy'. Also, any further arguments are pointless."
He knows he was just attemtping to goad destiny into characters assassination by saying he advocates killing people on the right. Probably so he could slander the left.
Unless it is in active self-defense, it is a promotion of terrorism.
No an incitement, but a promotion.
it's just baffling how much I Hypocrite is tying human rights to being a citizen of the country you're in.
human rights do not depend on whether or not you are a citizen, but on the fact that you're human. simple as that. and every one that has their livelihood/life threatened is morally justified to fight back.
an illegal immigrant that is attacked by a mob and hurts or kills some of them in selfdefense is morally justified, citizen or not.
and one of the major reasons why there are so many illegal immigrants is the fact that the US does not fully adhere to the human rights conventions. Every person asking for asylum has to be taken in until their claim is verified and either approved or rejected. but the USA is literally blocking people from doing so (so are a lot of European countries). they are illegal because the USA illegally prevents them from claiming asylum in a legal manner.
and if my math lessons taught me one thing than it is that illegal plus illegal equals to human rights are non negotiable so stop diverting the conversation
Yeah! Stop diverting from the conversation empty comment thread!
@@Boulder7685 that was supposed to be meant towards the argument of legal status as a qualifier for human life and I didn't really feel like it should go with my original comment.
but I have no issue keeping me own conversation going :D
Alain de Benoist- Beyond Human Rights
There is no such thing as human rights lol
What Hypocrite was really fishing for was something that he could clip and then distribute among other right wingers. Or just use it to deplatform Destiny.
Thats why he got pissed off at a nuanced position, because he was trying to bait you for material.
You mean a gotcha moment
This is exactly it. His entire schtick is sound bites he can strawman people with. Look up his debate on circumcision. It's abysmally bad.
I'm usually on board with Destiny but this conversation was very wishy washy. I actually agree with the other guy. He's saying "well some people could morally justify political violence." Well duh normally people that commit political violence usually think they are morally right. But at the same time he's saying "I don't support it, but someone could morally support it." Anyone can morally support anything...I just think this is a really dumb argument by Destiny.
Destiny got wiffle waffled in this debate.
What's weird about I, Hypocrite is the fact that to this day he uses the Socrates profile picture, who was a great critic of rhetoric, as a knack that doesn't help arrive one at the truth. I, Hypocrite doesn't provide his audience with any tools to build logical conclusions, but just spews shit like any other Greek tyrant that was good with words, that Socrates in ALL Plato's texts was so critical of.
"I've never thought of committing political violence against Saudi Arabia"
"WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU CALLED SOPH A NAZI"
Am I having a stroke right now?
I'm going to bed. Maybe in the morning, dude.
Maybe not even then.
No. You watch and support Destiny
Watch it now, wtf is your problem
You fucking scrumbag watch the goddamn video asshole.
@@ASquidWithC4 still haven't.
The Saudi Arabia question was an easy, 'No' for me but to be fair to Destiny, he admits to only being well versed in American politics. Now as for why you can't really say that Yemini citizens are morally justified in killing Saudi Arabian citizens is because Saudi Arabia is one of the few absolute monarchies in the world. They didn't 'vote' the current government in, and I think it's a bit much for people to expect for normal Saudi citizens to protest, riot and/or overthrow the current monarchy for it's horrendous foreign policy at the very real risk of losing their relatively high standard of living or even facing state persecution for speaking out against the state's foreign policy.That's my two cents.
"I'm not equipped to tackle a geopolitical discussion, but YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT SAUDI ARABIA BEFORE CALLING A NON-SAUDI A NAZI"
Detiny's argument distilled: I don't agree with it, but I understand.
Exactly.
One thing I wish Destiny would of brought up around the 21:00 minute mark is that before the 14th amendment naturalized a lot of former slaves, they weren't considered citizens. Because of this many states had people committing open acts of violence against former slaves because they weren't naturalized yet, they didn't have the protections of citizenship. This whole argument of "they aren't citizens so they have no right philosophically to cause harm to citizens is kind of absurd. It's like, did former slaves have the right to fight against people who wanted to lynch them, terrorize them, etc??? Absurd shit.
Or even if it wasn't lynching but threatening to deport former slaves "back to Africa" (which was a real position at the time)
The Russian revolution - killing the Imperial Romanov family, since the rest of the country were eating rocks.
The French Revolution - described as one of the bloodiest events in modern history, also because ppl were eating rocks.
What if they hadn’t happened?
Acceleration I thought the Israel/Palestine point was quite good too, but sometimes you have to simplify it even further.
If the French Revolution didn't happen, chances are that the American would likely not have happened and we would've kept leaving in Mercantile capitalism with monarchs as heads of state.
@@bimbowithadegree420 The American Revolution predated the French one and directly inspired the French Revolution. How did you not know that and get it backwards?
The I,hypocrite upload of this debate has some of the most depressing comments. How can people be so dense to not understand the distinction between a personal belief and an empathetic understanding of another's position..
Does this guy not understand that different scenario' s could happen therefore a legitimate answer is "could be"
My god this man is so simple it's hard to listen
I'm in MENSA.
"I'm totally cereal" this guy has some of the weirdest ways of talking. But I like it, I'm being totally cereal.
We say no to pay to win South Park.
It's a South Park reference. Al Gore says it there
He managed to fuse 'waffle on' with 'flip-flop', and using 'wiffle' (which is like a plastic ball game).
you work for EA or something?
@@whitedude416 erm yes, how can I help you?
LOL Destiny still believes the USA is a democracy
Oh god not I hypocrite...........
Ironic destiny is against political violence here but then calls for political violence in 2020
Destiny got Politically Aggressed in this debate
One of the things I really like about Destiny is that he often tries to see things through other people's points of view. People like the dude he's arguing with don't seem to understand that truth can exist outside of their own point of view. This is something I've found with people in general, that they will argue their point of view refusing to acknowledge the reason why others think and behave how they do.
"i waited for Soph to be 18"-Destiny
Wow I'm shocked you posted this ... Destiny.... This is crazy man
36:34 I don't know about the voting system in Saudi Arabia
Well maybe you should have thought about that before you called Soph a Nazi
Wait what did I blackout at that point...
XD happy I'm not the only one who caught that shit. This guy is a fucking idiot. Don't know how Destiny didn't catch him on that 😂
ihypocrite is like Hades. He’s not welcomed onto the Twitch political sphere council because he’s too weird.
Also the responsibility of the voter on the action of its government is LITERALLY the point of democracy, people are involved and vote on what actions the country should take (via through the people they vote) the fact that people don't understand that is just unbelievable I thought this was basic like civics or even philosophy 101, like these people literally don't understand what democracy is like Oh my god
the ba'ath party oppressed the shia majority and the kurds, because the ba'ath party was sunni
just to correct what destiny said at 47:00
33:15
My problem with destiny's point here, is he hasnt established the boundaries of when violence would be justified. He basically just says if you feel like its justified then it could be justified..
Like, if somebody thinks destinys position on allowing illegals to stay, makes their family unsafe, would they be justified in shooting destiny? Or any other democrat?
Voting has consequences, thats true. One of those consequences shouldnt be that you get murdered by other civilians. If you want to justify political violence against the state in these circumstances, then you are much more solid ground, but to justify murdering your neighbor because of how they voted is pretty immoral..
Also, the civil war and revolution doesnt apply at all here. Forming a new government and fighting a war for that government's sovereignty isnt even close to the same as murdering people that voted wrong..
Imagine having a poll that you cite and then say but it's probably lower than this, like what no wonder he calls himself a hypocrite.
Destiny's service records from when he was an enlisted antifa super soldier was exposed in this debate
I sometimes wonder if I should volunteer to be on one of these shows because I could have had a much more productive conversation with Destiny about this without allowing myself to go off into the rhetorical weeds with no tangible results as the guest did.
I'm new to this show but the host is obviously extremely intelligent. I am far right conservative but I think if I had been in this conversation we could have established some more solid arguments on both sides and even agreed on a couple critical points regarding political violence. This is such an important issue since the American system is failing due to the effect of polarization and this is not a hypothetical subject. It is actually one that needs to be solved to prevent a breakdown of our system.
There are a few critical factors.
1. As a result of the American political evolution both left and right have identified areas of principle in their own philosophy that neither side believes they should have to relinquish or compromise on based on a pure democracy, which is actually why we live in a republic not a pure democracy. The founders were not able to solve this because they establish hard boundaries in the Constitution but also prescribed the possibility of taxation without limit, so clearly they were simply hoping that democracy itself could be a temporary solution.
2. Both sides agree to some extent that Locke and Rousseau were correct that the social contract requires a citizen to compromise to a certain extent since by accepting the benefits, protections and relative safety of a civilized society the citizen must agree not to take matters into their own hands in regard to violence. This obligates them to accept policy as a result of that process to some extent contrary to their own principles in order to live with others.
3. Both sides agree that violence is only justified if all other options have utterly failed and there is literally no other alternative such as foreign invasion, the punishment of criminals or simple self defense when no authority is immediately available.
4. The intellectual portion of both left and right agree that to some extent we are being played against each other by elite interests. The powerful often drive policy which is damaging to both sides by hurting simultaneously the economic equality important to the left and the principles of liberty sought by the right. Both ideals are being subtracted, and this symmetric attack is causing both left and right to blame each other rather than the third party.
The guest kept trying to show that Destiny was contradicting himself which he was not because the host was (ironically) saying exactly what a conservative would say in that there are extreme cases in which violence could be morally justified theoretically but it is almost without exception unadvisable or civil strife would be a constant and no political system could survive. This is exactly what I would say.
The critical question is: What is a person's moral obligation to relinquish a portion of their own principle in order to live peacefully with others when both sides in fact yearn for political systems which are considered by some to be incompatible. It is an impossible dilemma. Fortunately there are still a limited number of intellectuals on both sides who are still negotiating and perhaps they can help us avert disaster by finding the right balance of compromises.
Worst destiny performance ive seen
Don’t think destiny argued well here
Weird how a grown person can’t wrap their head around the concept that there is a difference between saying something is “morally justified” and “advocate for”
Of course it’s obvious he’s a dishonest actor when he leads with “most famous for streaming with Hassan “ then a few sentences later saying “I’m not as experienced a debater as you!”
ihypocrite is mad because a dwarf stole his gf, that’s his villain backstory. The guy has a huge complex with shorter dudes.
I think Destiny’s arguments here were terribly inconsistent, and I don’t think he actually believes a lot of what he said. It seemed like he was just trying to win the argument.
He was actually entirely consistent here.
@@SomersBugtopia
>republican voters are wholly responsible the platforms the party pursues, it's their fault for not voting 3rd party e.g. hawkish policies that destroy civilizations
>im partly responsible for what the hawkish democratic policies and I don't vote 3rd party because not enough americans vote for different parties
Ah yes, very consistent. Do you always have your knee pads on when watching Destiny's videos?
@@yarkieee American voters are responsible and they're also responsible for being partisan because that's how they prefer to vote, and hence both sides are responsible. However the Republican votes are actively victimizing a group that could come up and bite them in the ass, but this could happen with Democrats too but it isn't currently.
There, you understand?
Is the person he's debating Badger from Breaking Bad?
I am kind of shocked and disappointed in Destiny here. As inflammatory as his opponent is, Destiny is kind of advocating for violence here, and I'm not cool with that. Especially in 2022 with hindsight, but even so he'd surely admit that the WORST thing about Fascists was not their idea on borders but their USE OF VIOLENCE.
according to destinys logic, someone who murders would be morally justified by killing the officers trying to arrest him for that murder since they are technically trying to violently lock him up.
>2016-2018 Destiny debate after debate >2019 Destiny debate every 3 weeks and no discord call ins dosen’t count.
This was a good debate b/c I think Destiny is off-base in a lot of areas, and I'm developing a mini, lay-person algorithm to try to contextualize how to perceive and justify political violence, which I'll post later.....
Regarding conservatives' "lack of nuance," I can't speak for all conservatives in all contexts, but the nuance btw someone "being homophobic" and "engaging in homophobic action" is lost when the consequences for being publicly labelled as either are equally severe.
This is why lefties get pissed when people try to parse Trump as "is he racist, or is he engaging in racist rhetoric?" For the purpose of a philosophical discussion there's a huge distinction worth discussing; but for lefties there is no distinction, he's embodying a close enough proximity to racism such that he should suffer severe consequences.
This matters even more in a real-world context where a person could be "using 1-time racist language," and that gets communicated to their employer and they lose their job. In this context, it doesn't matter if you "are" racist or "acted" racist, the consequences come down as you effectively being a racist in totality. Hence why the distinction probably doesn't matter to IH b/c the severe consequences would be the same.
It's actually a very materialist view IH has, such that the distinctions only matter in terms of real-world consequences--all other discussion is just masturbatory philosophizing.
basically Hypocrite's argument rests solely on assuming that if Destiny says that _some_ violent action may be justified, that he is prepared to endorse _any_ violence, however extreme. Clearly the violence has to be proportional to the offense in order to be justified. So a DACA recipient is not justified in indiscriminately killing conservative voters, but probably would be in some kind of civil disobedience, or other agitation of Conservative law makers and their supporters. Likewise while Yemen would be justified in waging total war against the Saudi state, this stops short of killing "all muslims in Saudi Arabia" which would be genocide.
weakboson None of these factors were mentioned when he advocated for the use of violence towards people with conservative beliefs.
@@badbadnotgoodgoodgodnotbad2930 yeah the point about proportionality is brought to his attention but only right at the end. Hopefully he'll incorporate it into his arguments next time.
weakboson because he truely supports violence against conservatives
“Let me throw an anec... uuuhhh, a hyper... uhh, a hypothetical. You like those hypotheticals, right?”
lol
This guy is literally incapable of stepping into other people's shoes.
Took less than 30 seconds to misrepresent you, that was quick
Density got measurably harmed in this debate.
Realtalk, longtime Dusty fan here and still like him as a person, but putting him with the extreme left is very plausible at this point. Calling for political violence or taking your distance to people, even close friends, just because you disagree with them politically is an extreme position to take, there's no denying it.
Destiny became a Marxist-Leninist in this debate
That’s not a good thing. Lol
I hypocrite consistently destroyed destiny in the last 30 minutes, exposed his attitude
So you’re implying Destiny was destroying him for the previous 1 hour prior to that, nice man! Based
"I don't like people going after peoples jobs" about one minute after saying "I think you should be deplatformed"
Destiny: Killing a trespasser *could* be morally justified.
I, Hypocrite: So you think everyone *should* kill anyone who comes onto their property?
Hahahaha, this is exactly why I never have people over: I'd be morally obligated to kill them.
@@pepesilvia5936 There is this fancy new invention called nuance. With that we can understand there is a huge difference between not condemning an action and being obligated to perform it. More people should try it out.
Please...Is Destiny actually supporting political violence and murder here? Im so fucking confused. Like is he actually saying this shit is okay or is he just trying to add nuance?
@@samsmith3645
That’s pure moral relativism and can justify disgusting acts such as 9/11 where innocent people were murdered, not the perpetrators of crimes in the Middle East.
We should recognize moral relativism has no place in actually justifying terrorism, for we, arguably, should be striving to develop past this archaic/violent part of human history, not justifying its current use because humans have been awful for so long.
If ISIS purely went after military targets/politicians, Destiny’s points would ring much truer since they are pursuing action against the individual perpetrators.
Though, when the retaliation is burning churches, killing Christians, and murdering civilians...that is evil and should be 100% condemned just as all civilian murders by US drone strikes and all liable political actors should be tried for it as well.
Don’t know why you guys don’t just make this last point rather than justifying the murder of civilians :/
@@samsmith3645
I agree on that initial point, but only in a morally relativistic way. Just because they can morally justify it does not make it morally justifiable by the standards we should be encouraging (i.e. don't kill for political power).
I totally agree and moral relativism is GREAT for that sort of explanatory analysis. That said, when we start using moral relativism on current events and stop short of condemning political violence... I think that is indicative of a lack of moral foundation to condemn the bad things in society. :/
I agree Christianity is a product of the times, though arguing that that is all it is is a bit of an overstatement. :P
I've done a ton of research into the Resurrection and I'd say it is very likely Jesus is/was the Son of God and I'd be happy to share my findings/logic with you :)
While I agree I do want that clear cut answer, I'd say there is for many things, such as condemning political violence and not encouraging it.
I see Destiny stopping short of just that because he does not think it is right to force his standards on others which I tend to agree with.
That said, some standards do need to be enforced and should be pushed by everyone that wants a more productive political discourse, such as political violence being evil.
I appreciate you being so friendly Jelly, thank you and have a great evening. :)
@@samsmith3645
Hahaha, it isn't. XD
That said, the only better place is probably Discord to chat over a mic :P
Well, if you don't mind, would you like to discuss what's your morals? It would be a great exercise for me to understand another perspective :)
I will and you too Jelly! :)
I, Hyprocrite keeps saying destiny is weasling around, yet he weasle when trying to claim that destiny called Soth a nazi!
Things you need to be a Freeze Peach Advocate:
1. a fedora/neckbeard (either or both)
2. white skin
3. a burning need to say the n-word
4. no background knowledge of what you're talking about ever
Political violence is bad unless it's the law, then it's good!!
Why are so many Canadian alt-righter? And why are they so concerned and outspoken about US immigration policy?
We just send our worst to you guys enjoy eh.
Because they don't have to worry about Healthcare
Because they already have a strong welfare state so they only have to worry about social policies
Wait, so you can understand the justification for an argument without necessarily agreeing with it?
That's unpossible.
So dumb yet so smug.
"It's been that way for all of human history" is not a good argument, as, at one point, slavery had been with humans for all of human history, and forms of slavery still exist today.
Using Destiny's idiotic logic, using supporting slavery isn't a controversial stance because it was used throughout history and used during the founding of the country, this man is truly an intellectual heavy weight
no its not you dumb fuck. Is that seriously what you thought of after listening to this video?
@thesparitan
Point is moral relativism is stupid when justifying bad actions.
Moral relativism justifies slavery and means, if this was the reigning ideological justification, abolitionists would be no more morally justified than slave owners and abolition would have never happened.
This is why some are baffled by the commitment to moral relativity since it is such a baffling point to commit to rather than only use it as an explanatory means to see why they do what the do.
I, Hypocrite and folks like myself don’t think political violence is ever justified and will happily condemn it in every instance, regardless of them finding it morally justifiable. Simply because some cultures justify it doesn’t mean it should be acceptable anymore!
Destiny skips this last step and just reasons it can be morally justifiable which is basically green-lighting political violence as long as you find it politically justifiable since he’s soft on actually condemning any such action.
Soooo, I get yours and Destiny’s point, but it’s not a good one considering how you stop one step short of condemning the bad things that, when excused from society, will make us all better off, the same way slavery was slowly and painfully excised from society :)
@thesparitan
Then why does Destiny stick by the idea that it can be morally justified to kill conservatives?
Seems pretty morally relativistic to make this point then not condemn anybody that believes in it.
"Political Violence"
My point is violence in service of modern politics, not historical violence against evil, tyranny, genocide, etc.
No, not being dishonest, you are just defining my term of "political violence" in the most general sense rather than the very specific sense of current political violence. :P
@thesparitan
Name the policy that justifies murdering conservatives.
Also, that's a MASSIVE assumption on what each individual believes in and why they vote, for some conservatives only vote Republican because it is not Democrat. :P
There's logical inconsistencies within this perspective that should never make it morally justifiable unless you are going to go the moral relativistic route in which even slavery can be morally justifiable which I'd say isn't productive to society anymore :P
Soooo, then say the last part clearly. Explain why it's wrong to murder conservatives for their voting record.
I don't think this is an argument you want to support.
Ok, now you are getting morally relativistic to avoid my points which is really uncool. -_-
My problem comes when Destiny doesn't take a hard stance against the moral justification for killing conservatives, but will take a hard stance against something like gun regulations in debate.
I, Hypocrite, while not exactly a master of his craft, does call out Destiny correctly and unfortunately doesn't nail him on why he doesn't condemn political murder outright and as vehemently as he fights for a multitude of other issues.
TDLR: I get the moral relativistic point on certain actions being morally justifiable. That said, it doesn't mean it should be if we want to progress as a society, just as society has progressed in the past.
Sorry for the length, tried to be thorough. Have a good day :)
@thesparitan
Healthcare: so if we don't support taxpayer funded healthcare, you can kill us?
Immigration: We aren't seeking to deport dreamers, we want our borders secure and people coming in legally.
We want criminals deported, those wanting to stay at least legalized, and dreamers a pathway to citizenship if not already gained from being an anchor baby.
You really don't know what we think :P
Foreign Wars: Last I checked, Trump is more isolationist than Obama and every administration is guilty of this. Though kill conservatives for it anyways :P
CIA back groups? You'll need to enlighten me on that one. :P
Also, don't see how this is a conservative problem when the FBI is compromised against Trump.
And you can kill us for these things...good luck considering we are also pro-2nd amendment! XD
Also, do want to note how conservatives don't want to go out and kill leftists outside of the extreme fringe Boogaloo Boys who has zero support from any serious political commentator and I 100% condemn anybody calling for killing leftists or anybody for political reasons.
Destiny is correct. “People can fuck for the things you do”. And this should be considered when we vote and implement policy. That’s why I voted for Ron Paul.
within the first 4 minutes he has adequately demonstrated his namesake
>i became anti-sjw bc i dont want people losing their jobs over political disagreement
>you should be deplatformed for advocating violence
Unrelated, but I appreciate Destiny pronouncing muslim correctly.
Destiny justified 9/11 in this debate
9/11 justified this debate
I really enjoy Destiny and I’ve been listening for a long time, but this whole political violence edgy meme bullshit was so transparent from the beginning, all you had was DACA and “defending yourself” against people trying to deport you. I’m so glad someone called him on this hypocrisy and made him take a personal stance instead of weaseling around his excuses. I’m glad I can continue to watch and enjoy knowing we agree on most points and he’s not taking the next step in ACTUAL left extremist views.