I didn't realise Destiny was George W Bush astral projecting.

@jemt1631

19 сағат бұрын

Is our streamers learning?

Also when Destiny mentions “should everyone from history have the right to return to a place if their people were expelled” like the premise is SO ridiculous, is he forgetting that Israel’s existence is actually predicated on that idea?

@bigboy2217

23 сағат бұрын

No, it isn’t. Like at all. First, the idea is ridiculous because it implodes in practice as nobody could ever reasonably be sorted to precise ethnicities, the infrastructure and populations are wildly different from when their “people” left, and history itself isn’t actually the start of time so the initial claims are always going to be unknowable. Israel was predicated as a state for ethnic Jews to escape widespread persecution all across the world because there were no nations that would safe harbor them without problems. That project was actually prior to WWII, which gave them a much stronger claim to the idea that their persecution was real and widespread to comical degrees. Their legal grounds for the state were a result of Britain’s efforts to relocate the Jews to that area and promising them a homeland. Of course Britain also promised it to other groups, which is bad, but that doesn’t mean the Jewish claim is some radical idea of “our people came from here”. It’s true that the land has some religious significance, but that geopolitically reductionist. Their arguments for their state never were contingent on some historical claim to the land from their ancestors.

I checked the comments section over at MDD. Holy cow. Destiny has made clones and they're multiplying in their stupidity and/or craven cynicism.

@Account.for.Comment

2 күн бұрын

Have you sort it by "Newest Tab". Destiny fan clubs would eagerly look for his debate, upvote their opinions to support for it. The ones that just discover the debate, more comments stating the obvious and pretty much what I expect to see.

@Infernovogel

2 күн бұрын

Say what you will about Destiny, he's really good at bringing an army of simps down on the comment section.

@organicod2438

2 күн бұрын

Flood the zone. Where have we seen that before?

@halflifezherka

2 күн бұрын

​@@organicod2438huh?

@bengreen171

2 күн бұрын

It's even worse on his own channel. No critique of the issues - just complaining Gen Zers whining that they didn't have the attention span to listen to someone who wasn't speaking at 2x speed.

Ben should've broken out the old Sam Ceder "I don't care"

@sidekick8211

Күн бұрын

Destiny would go turbo “oh okay I guess you don’t care about Palestinians because” and then motor mouth egregious aspersions at Ben dragging the whole thing down

Hi I’m destiny rather than making an argument or responding to points I ask you a question then cut you off 2 seconds into your response then complain that you don’t answer questions.

@bigboy2217

22 сағат бұрын

You are sooooo coping. There was a point after Ben yapped 80% of the total talking time like 30 minutes in, where Ben literally admitted he was hogging the mic. Then destiny asked a simple yes or no question and Ben proceeded to yap again about how he disliked the question and avoiding just giving a straight answer. The entire debate was Ben being unwilling to find any factual common ground EVEN WHEN HE AGREED WITH DESTINY. He was terrified to just let the facts sit so destiny could make a real dialogue. Dude just loves to hear himself talk.

@AvantTom

21 сағат бұрын

@@bigboy2217 the thing is, it makes sense for Ben to do most of the talking because Destiny was mostly asking him questions rather than making any points. You lose the right to equal speaking time when you only ask loaded questions the whole time, because you have to give your opponent a chance to answer. Destiny wasn’t interested in what Ben’s answers were, he was waiting for Ben to say yes, and the second he didn’t say yes he cut him off. It’s very annoying

@bigboy2217

20 сағат бұрын

@@AvantTom His questions weren't loaded. A loaded question has a premise baked in that is false making answering actually impossible. Questions like "when did you stop hitting your dog?" implies you do in fact hit your dog, which if false would be a loaded question. That's not what happened here. Ben essentially had a laundry list of talking points. At every moment for the first hour of the discussion he took every opportunity to restate essentially his entire position in as long winded a way as possible. If destiny asked a pointed question like "did isreal have the support of the US in X year?" etc, that's NOT loaded. It's just an uncomfortable descriptive fact ben already does know the answer to but is afraid to engage with. It's extra frustrating when ben does end up agreeing with destiny after another diatribe. Even if destiny is a dishonest actor in other convos, this was certainly not one of them. This was a disaster for ben, no matter how much he copes.

Bonelli learned what a "yes ladder" is.

Nothing in the history of this channel has more firmly undermined the central "giving an argument is important" thesis as much as these recent Brianna Wu and Destiny videos. They don't listen or care about the words you're saying whatsoever, they're just amusing themselves that your sense of decorum makes you engage in these language games with them.

@christophergreen6595

14 сағат бұрын

It's almost classic 'manufacturing consent' but in a new medium. Their goal isn't to debate, it's to make the conversation about what they say it should be about.

It's amazing how Stephan and Ben Shapiro always sound like they're being played back at 1.5x - 2x normal speed when they talk, depending on how triggered they are.

its amazing how hard destiny is avoiding having the actual debate

@bigboy2217

22 сағат бұрын

Ironic.

@sashag2196

2 сағат бұрын

@@bigboy2217 whats ironic?

@bigboy2217

2 сағат бұрын

@@sashag2196 Ben spends the majority of his time evading a real conversation and instead doing monologues of barely relevant points instead of answering basic yes or no questions. Literally at one point early on he acknowledges he’s monopolizing the mic, then destiny’s first sentence was just a yes or no question, and Ben waffles for another several paragraphs because the answer was “yes” and he was uncomfortable just saying yes and letting the dialogue resume. He was so terrified of gotchas that he talked like three times as much as destiny the first hour or so of the convo, charitably.

What frustrating debate-bro sh!t...

@bigboy2217

22 сағат бұрын

From Ben? Correct.

28:05 To be fair Destiny did say that he thinks that Israel is not doing anything Illegal.

Ben, I think you should have fought him on the pragmatic point in a different way. The working class here, in Gaza, and in Israel gets nothing from this conflict. Global capitalism is driving the conflict because the Palestine liberation movement is a threat to consolidating the entire gulf states. I don’t think it’s a good contention and worth identifying with the US imperialist state as a socialist. The most pragmatic thing to do for the working class of the US is to divest immediately in this nonsense and invest in jobs, wipe out debt for workers, massive infrastructure including high speed rail, and projects that increase worker power. As we build worker power we can actually have more effective solidarity with our comrades and working class people in Palestine and Israel. Just my take!

@CyberDandy

Күн бұрын

yeah this is more how I see things as well and the type of argument strategy I would recommend

@StuntpilootStef

23 сағат бұрын

Then you'll meander into a discussion about economics while you should be tackling the ethics of the US involvement in Israel.

@CyberDandy

19 сағат бұрын

@@StuntpilootStef the ethics isn’t the hard part lol. The ability for anyone in my position to make a dent in US policy is the hard part. Even getting the Left to be less insane seems impossible these days.

@StuntpilootStef

14 сағат бұрын

@@CyberDandy But isn't the whole point of this debate whether or not we should support Israel over its current actions? What does an economic debate do to change that?

@CyberDandy

13 сағат бұрын

@@StuntpilootStef what I am trying to emphasize among other things is that this debate was not about what “we” think, it was about what the United States should do. So it’s mostly a speculative question unless you have some impact on US policy. To speculatively answer the question, you need to assess what the interests are of the United States in Israel specifically and the Middle East generally. Historically, those interests have been mostly economic and security interests: oil, counterterrorism, high-tech sector investments, etc. It is more than a human rights debate, especially when your other choices - as the United States - for protecting your interests also have remarkably bad human rights records.

6:26 bad interpretation. don’t know if it’s bad faith or not

Destiny wants to reference external factors (Israels neighbors actions) but refuses to go further. As if The level of acceptable response is dictated by those closest to you on the map. Lets not apply that logic anywhere outside of Israel’s “self defense” rights though. Otherwise his argument might be revealed for how ridiculous it is.

I still think that the way the debate was framed as “should the United States support Israel?” lead Destiny down the path of assuming current US foreign policy in general is the focus, so by the logic of those policies in the region, Israel still makes sense as an ally to support; while on the other hand it lead Ben down the path of demonstrating that Israel’s behavior is objectionable enough to discontinue support regardless of how the US relates to other countries in the region. The problem is that Destiny never really makes his case clear enough for Ben to counter it head-on. If Destiny did make it clear that what he is doing is defending US foreign policy more than he is defending Israel’s behavior, it would have been possible for Ben to get into the details of what broader changes Ben would want to see the US make in its foreign policy. Like, I’m sure Israel isn’t the only bad actor that Ben thinks the US should stop supporting; but, we don’t get any picture of what Ben thinks the alternatives are for the US. Personally, I think I look at international relations a bit more like Destiny. States seem more like players on various teams to me than independent, autonomous entities that relate one-on-one to each other. The one-on-one stuff happens, of course, but overall I think the group dynamics are stronger. So when it comes to Israel, I think there is a lot to consider about what team Israel is on, could be on instead, and what it contributes to the overall projects it shares with the United States and other countries. But at the same time this is assuming that I want the United States and its team to win. So “should the United States support Israel?” to me is a question that I answer according to what the United States’ mission has been and not a question I answer as if I feel like the United States represents my own interests, standards, and goals. Basically, it is not the same question as “do you think your representatives should support Israel?” I don’t identify with the Untied States enough to think of it that way. Like… should the leader of global capitalism and wars against the enemies of capital support a state very similar to it in the Middle East? Yeah it should and that’s why we should oppose both.

@Account.for.Comment

2 күн бұрын

Maybe you haven't caught on the realist school by Measheimer and other US diplomats and academics. US support for that state had been unprofitable investment for a long time. It cost soft power in the International organizations that US and the world funded, plenty of weapons that could be used some place else, intelligence exchange ( which Destiny argued for) had been terrible as it has shown since 10-7, and plenty of escslation that the US don't want. The only reason US still pour billions support that that they support American democracy by pouring millions into political candidates they want to win. Other than that it is inertia.

@jemt1631

Күн бұрын

I think that's a bit of a shallow analysis. Egypt or Saudi Arabia moreso seem like a much better country to support. Israel is a dead end that will lead nowhere. The US wants a client state to farm out security/oversight in the region to facilitate a pivot to China. Israel in that role will never be accepted by the other countries in the region. Israel is ultimately an albatross to the US's global and regional interests.

@organicod2438

Күн бұрын

If only Destiny had actually stated his position clearly at the beginning, instead of asking silly questions that were completely besides the point you mentioned. That is the entire purpose for an opening statement, which Ben laid out very well, but Destiny failed to outline clearly. Furthermore, if we follow your line of thinking, it would have us ending at supporting an active ethnic cleansing and apartheid, which Ben pointed out, all for the sake of a hypothetical and unproven benefit, or at the actual expense of US taxpayer dollars to the detriment of actual US welfare programs, etc.

@CyberDandy

Күн бұрын

@@organicod2438 I think if you re-read my comment you’ll see that I addressed a lot of these things. Especially the end. Yeah, it does leave the United States at a position of supporting ethnic cleansing and other bad things. That’s who I think the Unified States is… a state that does things even worse than Israel has.

@CyberDandy

Күн бұрын

@@Account.for.Comment no I haven’t heard of that school of realism. I’ll check it out.

all these destiny simps in these comments, destiny lost bro

Somehow destiny is very intelligent and incredibly stupid

Lost to bisexual lighting. How will the Left ever win. lol

@StuntpilootStef

Күн бұрын

Destiny didn't even try to have a moral discussion. What are you talking about.

It seems to me that the arguments put forth by both Ben and Destiny are, whether they intend them to be or not, anti-state, pro anarcho capitalist arguments. Each agree that the attempts by one group to gain political control over the other have proved catastrophic. On the other hand to the extent that these groups have been able to work together to mutual advantage, it has been exclusively along the axis of free market, free enterprise capitalism. The solution is thus neither two states nor one. The only possible solution is no states at all.

No, not the feared Destiny aka the iPad Baby Wikipedia Champ Mr. Bonerelli Debate-a-Roni himself! He's the champ at debating himself into a divorce-a-roni, but not good at much else lol.

I’m still unsure as to whether Ben is a racial essentialist…

@entiretotal7207

Күн бұрын

Where do you get that sense?

It's issues like this where Destiny's unquestioning support of the mythical 'liberalism is virtuous' position is exposed for what it is. I thought we'd got to the point where 'the ends justify the means' wasn't seen as a good foundation for policy. It's a shame, because when it comes down to it, Destiny is not the real enemy.

@organicod2438

Күн бұрын

Merely an enabler who influences a large number of people, which can have a significant impact on continuing such policies.

@bengreen171

Күн бұрын

@@organicod2438 yeah. It's unfortunate, because he's mostly a valuable voice when it comes to social issues and the actual tenets of liberalism.

@organicod2438

Күн бұрын

@@bengreen171 I think I would mostly agree, but at the same time he clearly has some issues with moral consistency. His discussion with Alex O'connor shows at the minimum that he is primarily self-serving, and that foundation is not a stable one for leftist political ideology.

@bengreen171

Күн бұрын

@@organicod2438 that's probably a fair point - though I would say that being self serving doesn't necessitate f*cking other people over, and I would say that his moral compass is mostly fine...ish. I don't remember much of his chat with O'Connor other than the impression I got was that he genuinely seemed to want to learn from him. But yeah - his 'my property is worth more than your life' attitude can lead him down bad paths.

@organicod2438

Күн бұрын

@@bengreen171 The issue I have with him a lot of the time is that he's often contrarian for the sake of an argument, which I totally understand, to a certain degree, but he is also flippant on some points and then often his ego doesn't allow him to back down on certain points. I just find him really immature, mainly. I think he is very intelligent, but immature in his approach. I do agree he is willing to learn, but he's also not willing to reflect on himself, or be compassionate. His take on I/P has brought him back to the mainstream, but honestly, I think it will also shift him right on a few other issues because of how his take on this issue will feed into his capitalist tendencies.

date with density! haa Simpsons reference

Ben, you should really read more from broader sources on the topic of Israel/Palestine. Destiny seemed to have a much more thorough knowledge of the region and you kept dodging pointed questions posed to you.

@StuntpilootStef

Күн бұрын

Destiny was only interested in talking about trade, whereas this debate was about the moral issue. Ben explained this so many times I lost count. He didn't dodge anything.

@AionAndroid

19 сағат бұрын

​@StuntpiloottStef Destiny's points had nothing to do with trade

@StuntpilootStef

19 сағат бұрын

@@AionAndroid Really? His only point was that Israel is such a great ally and we shouldn't give away our strategic position on military and trade in the region. That was his entire opening and he never went any further than that.

@AionAndroid

19 сағат бұрын

@@StuntpilootStef Yes thank you for the correction, and when Ben responded, he couldn't refute any points, it's bad that the guy who read wikipedia had a way better command of the facts than Ben did who with all due respect decided to engage in yapping

@StuntpilootStef

14 сағат бұрын

@@AionAndroid Again with the nonspecific responses. Why can you people never get specific in any way? Ben refuted the premise in that this is a debate on the morality of being partners with Israel. Simply stating we are and what it gets us doesn't really matter, does it? Ben explained this multiple times, but just like with Destiny himself it seems to have flown right by you.

Destiny is such a screeching child, great job remaining civil.

Not sure about Destiny’s telepathic abilities, but he is on smart drugs. So, theres that.

@AionAndroid

19 сағат бұрын

Adderall is smart drugs? I want what you're smoking

Ben Burgis gives good arguments! 👍

42:56 I don't think Destiny is implying that the US needs to ship weapons. I think he just thinks that the norm in the middle east is worst than what Israel is doing. So we should just accept that their action is not that bad. And they are forced to do their atrocities to prevent those other nations.

1:26:48 Okay, so Ben wants "a non-essentialist reason" why there can't be a single democratic state for the Israelis and the Palestinians. But you don't have to look far for one. The history of Lebanon provides strong evidence that this plan is unlikely to work and very likely to cause even more bloodshed. There are many other examples of multiethnic states imploding into sectarian violence, but Lebanon has more than enough common features: a history of colonial favoritism and grievance, religion as a wedge issue, political Islam amd religious fascism, equal-sized ethnic blocs, outside powers in proxy conflict (which, in the hypothetical Republic of Israel-Palestine, would include at least Iran, the Gulf States and the U.S.)... A two-state solution is also unlikely to bring peace, because the prologue to many modern wars is a "two-state solution" that one state eventually rejected. It strains credibility to think an independent Palestine, once capable of standing on its own two feet, would not continue to fight Israel over borders, resources, proxy influence, and most of all, control of al-Aqsa/the Temple Mount. But the old two-state solution is still preferable to forcing into existence a Lebanon-type country with civil war programmed into its DNA.

These debates are such missed opportunities but Ben you need to take the blame here just as much as Destiny does A few years ago people started to say "you're not trying to persuade your opponent, you're trying to persuade their audience". I think this is a mistake, its led us down the path of trying to steamroll opponents an make them look stupid in front of their audience, but how on earth is this useful (and does it ever even really work) I think we need to move past this, and actually go back to trying to persuade the opponent directly, build consensus. Now maybe this isn't possible with people who are too far apart, but this really shouldn't be the case most of the time. In an increasingly polarised world the idea of persuasion or building consensus seems to have become anathema, and I think this is a mistake. People who have different opinion aren't the enemy (and if they are we live in a society populated with permanent enemies which I just don;'t think is true) Being right isn't enough. Far from it. If I'm in a room and its 30F and everyone else thinks its 82F I'm not going to succeed in getting the heating turned on no matter how right I am about the the temperature

@SvalbardSleeperDistrict

2 күн бұрын

"persuade the opponent directly, build consensus" With entities like Mr Bonarelli? Are you serious?

@jascu4251

Күн бұрын

@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict Absolutely. Either the person you're debating with is worth engaging with, or they're not The sun is more effective than the wind at making some take their jacket off, no matter who they are. Across the political spectrum there seems to be a reluctance to believe in persuasion - if someone currently thinks something bad they will always think it, so whats the point. I think this is a mistake

@SvalbardSleeperDistrict

Күн бұрын

@@jascu4251 I don't know about mistakes, but if you've seen anything from that bad-faith entity and his bad-faith follower gang, calling for persuasion and compromise is beyond naive.

@jascu4251

Күн бұрын

@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict Great username by the way! whats it a reference to? I think the problem is that everyone thinks everyone else is bad faith (and they may all be correct in this assumption too!), but where this leads to I think is too much focus on the characters of individuals (of which there is already too much parasociality already!) and not enough on the topic. This ends up with endless back and forth that are really just monologue by first person followed by monologue by second person. I think should engage with the opponent the same way whether they are bad faith or not, or don't engage at all. I think this grift/badfaith thing has to be put away now, its becoming the main topic of almost every debate instead of the debate topic itself!

@murraycnc

Күн бұрын

@@jascu4251 This is such a tough subject. Using Destiny as an example, I might argue that he's not worth engaging with because he does not argue in good faith. However, engaging with and steamrolling him might be worthwhile because his nonsense requires refutation. Will it change the minds of his audience? Not likely, but to new viewers, this could be worthwhile. Overall, I'm inclined to agree with what you said, but there is a tremendous burden on debate participants to assess their opponent and strategise accordingly. Addressing your debate opponent directly is only going to work if they are willing to listen and learn. Destiny is a regurgitation machine. He does not listen and he never stops to consider his opponent's perspective. He rarely, if ever, actually debates his perspective. He trips over definitions early in each debate and halts the actual conversation to be had. I suspect he does this because his ideas are not actually well-considered and it doesn't take him long to realise that he is out of his depth, so he prevents the conversation from advancing past "let's agree on definitions." Additionally, Destiny strains himself to remain composed in debates. He speaks more slowly and is more thorough with his talking points early in a debate, but when pushed just a little bit, his civil facade crumbles. He gets frustrated and begins his gish galloping and personal insulting. My strategy would be to push him to that limit as early as possible in conversation so he can embarrass himself, because he isn't going to listen to the other side anyway.

damage control?

@StuntpilootStef

Күн бұрын

For what?

@tonybanks1035

Күн бұрын

@@StuntpilootStef lol, yeah right

@StuntpilootStef

23 сағат бұрын

@@tonybanks1035 That was a question, for what? Because it was a moral discussion about the Gaza war that only Ben bothered to apply ethics to. Destiny only wanted to talk about trade and strategic locations.

@tonybanks1035

22 сағат бұрын

@@StuntpilootStef if I had to judge Ben's approach to ethics through that debate, I'd say he's completely clueless. Ethics isn't an abstract topic. Ben has strictly no knowledge of the domain it's being applied to. This was embarrassingly obvious.

@StuntpilootStef

19 сағат бұрын

@@tonybanks1035 Name an instance that made that clear, just one. It's funny you're accusing Ben of being vague while never being specific on anything yourself.

You tried to refute every tiny thing at the beginning so you ended up arguing over tiny things the entire time. You were the debate bro in that disaster

@jemt1631

Күн бұрын

Apparently you didn't watch the debate. Ben repeatedly tells Destiny his questions are irrelevant and that he'd like to move on to things that are actually relevant. Destiny repeatedly refused.

@AionAndroid

19 сағат бұрын

​@@jemt1631his questions weren't irrelevant they were all on point Why should us stop supporting Israel when the positive factors outweigh the negatives, destiny went point by point for the factors and Ben kept waffling around instead of answering the questions and refuting points? Ben next tried to morally squeeze out a optics you're racist and got mirror forced (yes yugioh reference lol)

@jemt1631

19 сағат бұрын

@@AionAndroid Except destiny explicitly said his questions didn't have any bearing on Ben's arguments. Apparently you didn't watch the debate or couldn't understand it. He didn't accuse him of racial essentialism. Non racist people engage in essentialism. It's quite common but ultimately fallacious. The idea that Arabs share the same culture is bizarre and essentialist. Palestinians have a pretty long standing desire for democracy. The Palestinian resistance groups wanted to overthrow King Hussein in Jordan in the 70s and install a democracy. That was one of the main reasons why PLO etc were disliked by the Arab leaders was because of their opposition to the dictatorships in Arab countries. The Arab spring was a mass popular movement for democracy in Arab countries.

Nothing like a good ol’ cope stream