Yeah, and what did they even mean by "nothing ever happens in Georgia", Destiny LITERALLY helped Democrat senators get elected to obtain a Senate majority. Like what the fuck more do they want?
that gave me so much second-hand embarrassment bc i know the wheel-hamster in destiny’s brain instantly hit mach 10 on the whole “elite commie grifter” idea he adores so much
@@naschylobo Doesn't it defeat the notion that G is a slur word if you just throw it around so easily? I don't think you'd throw around the N and F words so easily.
Imagine shitting out a hot take on a panel while you’re feeling confident and then clearly walking back the take you had 5 seconds ago because some starcraft pro pressed you on the very first level of inquiry.
In some recess of my mind I'd want these people's self-assurance, but then I just come back to my happy place of being depressed by them having a following.
While throwing all the good faithed volunteers under the bus.. including many pragmatic socialists and a dozen or so long term live in canvasers who gave up months of their lives to try to help a city they'll never likely live in. Horrible take, pure vitriol.
Imagine pretending fulfilling patterns laid out for you by social engineers funded by mega Corps and dark government money is a meaningful endeavor especially when it is completely surrounded by a cushion of excuses for prepubescent rebellion fantasys. Your personality was designed for you
@@deathgang2017 Yeah when Destiny first brought up Dr. K I thought he was talking about the psychiatrist and I was like "wait, did he really say something that dumb!?" Eventually I realized who he was really talking about, but I almost lost faith in that guy, lol.
Dr. K trying to act like they are on a different level when it comes to economic policy, and then walking back all there points and getting shit on was very satisfying to watch.
@@wren4077 I thought so too, but I just used they to make sure, made this comment before watching the full video and seeing the part where she described herself as trans. Didn't see a problem since they is gender neutral, otherwise I would have edited the comment.
Some of them seem to understand basic economics tho, also the right is waaay worse on this point but leftist should of all things understand basic economics with the goals of the left being different economic changes, insted of just letting the top take the wheel, but atleast the right is worse when it comes to educating themselves and reading, it's all feels.
@@Juuk-D I feel like these people make the left more and more into a confession. They don't think you have to understand socialism or act after socialist ideals. The only thing they have to do is believe and that also instantly makes them a better person than someone who for example still acts on humanist ideals, but is more of a soc dem.
It reminded me of a video made about how the Skeptics/ anti SJWs are all a hivemind making the same videos every single time, and Chris Raygun commented on it like "SOOOO TRUUUUUU". Like...bro you're the exact person they're talking about.
My biggest problem with this debate is that no one brought up that money is considered speech by citizens United. That means both taxes and bribery laws are unconstitutional. You can’t say what people do with money anymore cuz you can’t tell people how to use their speech. It’s so clearly dumb. The decisions was terrible and lawyer after lawyer has critIcized it. Destiny was so wrong here, but none of the lefties had the intellectual capacity to argue.
“If you don’t believe in astrology then how do you use terms such as boomer, zoomer etc?” I don’t think I’ve heard such an awful take said so confidently in my life
Its actually making me mad irl. The first time I saw her was the other recent vod and I was peeved but I'm so mad that she gets a sort of preferential treatment by Cayes cause shes a smaller figure or a friend of Cayes' or whatever but gets to make as many personal attacks as possible.
It doesn't help that she's the archetypical "nu-male" stereotype. Ponytail, skinny white person, passive agressive and snarky, ect. EDIT : Did not realize that she was trans, apologizes, however my critique still applies to leftist stereotypes/ how conservatives see leftists.
I'm so confused. Is the dude who runs this stream supposed to be a moderator or just another panel participant? He spent half the time arguing with Destiny (really poorly) and shushing other members so he could try and get his gotchas.
Idk, he usualaly does a good job of just moderating, and yeah although he shouldn’t have participated I don’t think he was having malice or trying to get his gotchas. I think him making it a 1v1 was actually better because I think if he had just grouped up on destiny than it would have been worse, and he also said “hold on I’m working on something here and I might be hanging myself” so I think he went in knowing destiny would most likely beat him but just wanted to attempt at making his points because he disagreed.
He shows up mainly on Prime's panels a few times a month, because he doesn't have a whole lot of free time when law is heavily a part of the debate topics. Any other time he's working for his law stuff.
damn it took me 30 minutes to realize they weren't talking about the indian Dr. K and i was confused as hell the whole time why he's joining in politics
like, like, like... like, it's like, you know, like, accurate, like, what I mean is like, so, like... again it's not like, just like, that, like, you know, like that, you know
@@kkirT they refuse to define scale which is completely ridiculous. They are taking for granted that a corporation is just Google, coke, or melvin captial. When there are thousands of corporations of varrying sizes that you can't just blanket as evil.
I dont agree. I could have more of some of this aggressive moderating I think he gives everyone adequate time to respond and promptly shuts people up that interrupt.
@@wren4077 He literally forgot everyone in the room and just addressed destiny solely. when Pisco tried to join in he even got frustrated that his point - that him and destiny had been disusing for 20 minutes - wasn't getting brought up BY DESTINY. How is this good moderation? Panels like this almost always turn to a dumpsterfire when the moderation picks a side in the argument.
He is a shit moderator. If you get to the point that you need to yell over people you are not doing your job. Also he needs to not involve himself when he is playing the moderation role.
@@sa-mp5iw I don't that specifically is a valid criticism because everyone does stuff like that, but I wouldn't immediately just discount everything they're saying just because of that.
1:24:00 Pisco clearly and succinctly summarizes the point that Destiny and him were trying to make over the last hour, and it completely whooshes over everybody's head.
@@sohspm3576 I haven't gotten to listen to the rest of it, but for the part I had listened up to, and the part I quoted, that is 100% not what they were arguing. They were stating that many online leftist are arguing from a faulty foundation, and, because they are, that their arguments won’t necessarily logically follow. I forget who said it specifically (maybe Dr. K?), but it was brought up that no corporation should be allowed to lobby or provide campaign funds because all corporations are trying to negotiate from a self-serving standpoint. Pisco and Destiny pointed out that all groups are trying to argue from a self-serving standpoint, whether it be Unions, voters, outside foreign agents, et cetera. So stating that corporations shouldn’t be able to, completely misses the point.. Which is that all groups are acting in a self-serving manner, and that any group can argue for changes that benefit society or some that can harm society. You have to look at individual proposals and judge them on their merits, and not necessarily where they come from. Now, to the rest of your point.. What big change do you think Destiny is against? Personally, the only "big change" I have ever really heard him argue against from leftists was that communism isn't some miracle way of thinking that will fix everything. That many of the issues that plague America now with a capitalistic society could also just as well plague America with a communistic society.
wow, this is a shitshow is this like a royal rumble kinda thing where people get in fight a bit get thrown out then someone else comes in and then more people come in?
I gotta say, I have really came around to Destiny quite a bit, been watching for a long time, but this year in particular, he seems like one of the few sane and rational voices out there engaging in important discourse. Keep up the good work, my friend!
that's because he runs a campaign of consistently telling you day in day out how much more clever he is that every other content creator and how dumb everyon else is.
@@maximthefox You know what's funny is you're just describing him accurately and salty that he actually is smarter than everyone else on youtube, it's not hard to be most of these people are legitimately mentally challenged.
Anyone else get a strange satisfaction when the little green box around the individuals make a diagonal or vertical chain like tic-tac-toe/ connect 4? I get lost waiting for it to happen that I miss the discussion at times.
Also, do you think they (the leftist) are using corporation as a stand in for facsist? Like the way Mussolini and Gentlie used it. If yes, then are we not just rehashing the fight between international socialism and national socialism? You know, the "One Ring" to rule them all type fight of the 1920sthrough the 1980s.
I'm not really a fan of PrimeCayes, but I greatly appreciate his love for One Piece. His names for these debates like "Amazon Lily" and "The Reverie" gives me a happy feeling.
@Lord Dank Its the responsibility of the host to decide where does he want thr conversation to go. In thr beginning when he had an opportunity to decide, he decided that he wanted to know why destiny dislikes lefty econ takes, destiny answered, and because of that it revolved mostly around him. There is no 'destiny constantly derails convos. to be hyper focused on him', it's not that hard to understand.
"Who is begging for less regulation on foods" Weirdly in my personal life its always been anti-gmo types who will argue against food regulation im pretty sure because they think food regulations hurt farms or something....
And there are people in general that are just anti pretty much all regulation as they see it as harmful to small business which has like a 90% approval
"If I could prove that there was a specific type of food that caused cancer, heart disease and addiction would you support the government implementing things to reduce it's consumption?" >Omg of course "So you support a sugar tax?" 😠😡🤬😠 No I just like paying extra for my junk food because it says NON GMO on it!
@@Mrraerae many American farmers will just go out of business. That's why politicians with a weird warm feeling towards "small farmers" are gonna resist subsidy cuts while pretending they are self made independent Americans.
@@papaofthejohns5882 thats why it sucks if I can't watch shit because the Episodes are shit when it comes to time then it ruines the whole Show for me .
@@frenkysprod.4223 That's stupid. That's like saying you cant read war and peace because its too long come up with better reasoning other than too many episodes.
Seems like people have a really hard time distinguishing argument ad absurdum and straw-manning. You take their epistomology and/or rhetoric and show how that it leads to weird conclusions. They hear the weird conclusion and think 'I don't believe that, he is straw-manning me' or 'he takes up irrelevant things' or 'he is moving the goal posts'.
To be fair the there is a fine line between the two and doing one can fall into the other. Once I had a conversation about borders and the person attempted to do an ad absurdum and asked if I'm for open borders why dont we just move everyone into the United States right now.
@@adamgentile7953 I would say that that was just a failed and stupid ad absurdum. He wasn't saying that you believe it, he was asking (maybe in a disingenuous manner) what would prevent that from taking place given what you've said. You can always reject the absurdity by pointing out how your reasoning would prevent the absurd scenario. The strawman version would be assuming that you want everyone to get into the US and starting to argue against that.
Hasan called Attack On Titan trash and a mecha anime. Shit got me fucked up for a week. But destiny saying new characters come out and die after makes it hard to disagree with that take.
Hasan Piker probably dislikes Attack on Titan because it doesn't have enough bi African American disabled transmen who go by the pronouns ze/zer. But Destiny is right about Attack On Titan killing characters that don't need to be killed and who's deaths dont leave an impact on the audience except for disappointment that the characters relationships didn't expand further in the story.
I'm really glad I'm rewatching these videos because I was never really interested when it first came out. Now I'm learning about politics in a much more pragmatic way.
"Political scientist" whos published sitting through pure hyperbolic arguments when they could have just done root cause to then talk about the actual issue. This is BASIC methodology of problem identification and analysis. Its basically a 3 hour conversation with absolutely no direction or point, just ego bouncing for airtime and clout.
I'm sure Dr. K has done great work in his specific field, but I hope he realized that he can't flesh out an argument in an online debate. I cant even disagree or agree with his takes because he was that bad at communicating them.
If you disagree vehemently with someone and then you learn something new that forces you to change your argument, you can no longer be as strong in your disagreement. That just looks like you have an issue with the person and not their argument. When Dr. K talks it's never anything fundamentally based in reality. It's all emotional. "I don't get you guys, everyone hates Citizens United" basically means "I am in a tribe and you guys aren't."
Economics isn't supposed to be "predictive" just explanatory. It is just supposed to say "given this set of conditions, this will happen" but knowing that set of conditions is truly met in a real economy is often impossible.
That is very much true. These empty skulls like Dr K need to stick to issues that they're familiar with, such as going into women's bathroom while having male genitals.
The problem with political discourse on large panels like this is that some people will try to engage with the topic and then other people come in with quips and meme comments that derail the conversation. It's not even just slowing down the conversation, there were multiple occasions where someone is responding to a question, a dumb comment details it, and people start complaining that the response is off topic because they've forgotten why it started. Destiny was talking about how individuals without money could make change, someone says some meme shit, and Destiny gets told that he's being off topic because he isn't talking about money in politics.
"Economics is like astrology": Destiny: "No it's not" "Well, i mean you're correct that's it not like astrology, I just meant that it's not a hard science like pure mathemat... oh crap, I just crashed my bike in a wall going backwards."
When Pisco joined, disparity in discourse between him and Destiny vs. rest of pannel was actually depressing. Gonna need an Unlearning Economics video on this panel lmao.
@@Retotion I would get it if they were coming at Destiny for kinda understating the influence of corporate power in lobbying/politics, but they don’t offer any suitable alternative. One guy said the Yang thing where everyone gets $100 dollars a year to donate to campaigns, but nothing substantive.
"I'm reading the judges statement right here" "Okay, no. The judges recognized.....I think..." I'm not sure if some of these people are forreal or just bad faith, but either way it's fucking wild.
Problems in Germany caused by university being free: 1. Massive classrooms with over 300 students in which some people have to stand the whole time and the proffessor rarely has time to answer every students questions. 2. Not enough housing. If you don't choose a university in a big city you run into problems of not finding an apartment or even a room, resulting in them being way to expensive (happened to me, only found a 15m² room which would cost me nearly 2000€ a month, had to decline the acceptance cause of that). 3. Sometimes classes don't get enough applications, therefore universities makes alot of ads to get people who barely finished highschool in those classes resulting them wasting at least 1 semester of their lifes. 4. The quality of universities dropped significantly since they made it free, don't know how specifically but out proffessor told us so. I think in 2011 you had to pay 600€ every semester (which isn't much compared to US) but dropping nearly trippled to students every year. Sadly the number of graduates barely increased.
I think it might be a bit of an exaggeration to say this covers all of his participation on the platform oh, but I do think this was a bad showing and a bad panel performance and yes irresponsible
No. That’s not one a competent person would argue. Someone who knows their shit, would say that corporations already hold undo levels or power and influence in our democracy via lobbying, and that they don’t need a further leg up advocating for their interests over the average person. If you’re using a freedom of speech idea that corporations should be able to have the right as people to protected speech, I’d say no. I’d say your vote is your protected means of speaking out about how you feel politically in this context. Id further that by saying that corporations can choose to back via endorsements whoever they want, and that individuals within the corporation would still be able to exercise their own political opinions, just that the corporations wouldn't be able to throw money around. that's its. its that simple. I’d then further that by saying we don’t need any money in politics And that we should do what other, more democratic countries do and hold publicly funded elections where each person running gets a set amount to campaign no and more or no less, ensuring it’s a level, more equitable playing field. That way no elections are swayed just by virtue of having more money to throw around for propagandizing your preferred politician. That’s literally the easiest solution. And to act like we couldn’t do away with citizens United and enact what I’m talking about is being willfully disingenuous. If we did have publicly funded elections, we’d never have to have this argument about the corrosive aspects that allowing money in politics can have.
@@jayt7178 By your logic though, media organizations are corporations. Can they not make political commentary or statements if we get rid of Citizens United?
The panel doesn't seem to be interested in the truth, in the problem or issue. Some just want to talk about their headline issue: Corporations control everything, are evil, etc. They don't engage with the arguments and with the reality. They don't like that issues are not reducible to simple statements such as corporations bad.
Dr K just proves how useless PoliSci degrees can be lol Her takes on lobbying is ridiculous. As students when I was in Uni, our SGA took students and drove down to our capital to lobby for Open Resource funding with students from our sister universities. I guess we shouldn't be allowed to do that.
In Germany College costs like 300 bucks a year. We have a system that allows a fixed number of participants per degree course at each individual university. If there are more applicants than the university has seats they impose a NC (it basically makes it so the people with the best A level exams get in first. Some of the available university places are also reserved to get in by chance). While this system is not perfect and could be made better it still seems 100 times more fair and accessible than paying 60k a year for studying.
@@italianwaffle5592 I've tried reading up on it but apparently they offer a similar standard. And while Germany is much more free in regards to studying any subject you want for free the us still has more clout globally. (Harvard and stuff)
If the people could be labeled that would be terrific. I have no idea who any of these people are so when they address each other I’m just like ???? PrimeCayes you gotta help me out
Not sure if you'll see this or not, but around 1:57:10, Prime mentions having wealthy/elite students attend the same schools as those who are not. They did this in NY actually, they covered it on a podcast like last year, I'll look up the name. When they did this, it was a shit show. Parents who have money joined the PTA, ended up taking over and having their own PTA because wealthy/elites have money and connections others don't. They ended up having a school within a school, one with classes pushed for by wealthy parents and other classes for the rest. Found the podcast. Nice White Parent on This American Life. Covers everything Prime is talking about here. This experiment he is talking about has been tried before in the US and has failed.
Why the fuck does Dr. K make fun of Destiny for not canvassing in LA? Like, what would be the point of that? California is already the most liberal state in the US. Georgia was literally the tossing point on whether the Democrats could even remotely do anything in the next 2 years or if any attempt to make better policies would ultimately be crushed by McConnell. Shouldn't someone with a PhD in Political Science be able to understand this?
This is a open panel. Anyone can come on. Open panel for Prime is late though. Tends to start ~9pm PST/12am EST. They also send to go early in the morning.
Because Germany is brought up frequently in the free education debate, you might want to have some pointers: 1. Germany has decreasing quality of education. Currently there are no schools in the top 20 of any ranking in any discipline, not even engineering. This was completely different 50 years ago, where German Unis were leading in multiple subjects. The value of German education has been decreasing over the last 50 years due to the "free" education. 2. In order to have free universities, Germany needs to discriminate by educational achievement much more than other countries. So in order to study some subjects, you must have close to perfect grades in Abitur (equivalent to High School Diploma). In order to achieve this, wealthy parents buy private tutoring. In the end you are replacing direct funding with high school costs, such as tutoring. The result is that kids from wealthier backgrounds are still getting all the university spots and the social mobility has declined overall. This is despite the Ausbildung System, a traineeship program, which works incredibly well and has been the foundation of German success in the past. Free university has been a complete failure for Germany.
1. Is Germany's decreasing quality of education caused by making education tuition free and tax funded? 2. By what metric is Germany's quality of education decreasing? 3. How many students entering university rely on private tutoring and what is the expense? 4. Do you have evidence that making education tuition free and tax funded causes less social mobility. Citation will help.
@@DieNibelungenliad 1 & 2. That is an assumption, which is based on personal experience and the measurement of the quality of Germany education by school rankings. TU Munich is the highest ranked university for Germany on rank 50, there are a total of 3 schools in the top 100. This from a country, which holds more than 100 Nobel laureates and has a history in science like very few other countries. So how can it be that a scientific country like Germany cannot produce a single university that ranks in the top 10 of the world? It seems like all conditions are met from a social/educational pov. So my assumption is that there is something in the organization of the universities, which causes this problem. However I would not go for any proactive claims. What I would say is that Germany is not a good example to use for tuition-free education. I dont know why Germany is always brought up to demonstrate how great tuition free education can work, because the results are rather bad. 3. Around 25% of students get tutoring with a total expense of around 1.5 billion Euro per year: www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article6017186/Jeder-vierte-deutsche-Schueler-bekommt-Nachhilfe.html 4. Again I would not claim that tuition free universities cause the decline in social mobility. There is a decline in social mobility in Germany and tuition free universities are not helping to prevent this. If somebody claims that tuition free education causes an uprise in social mobility, they would have to prove the affirmative. Here is a paper to demonstrate that social mobility is drifting apart in Germany, despite free education: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0001699319868524?journalCode=asja - Here is an article talking about the degree of problems, Germany is facing: www.dw.com/en/germanys-social-mobility-among-poorest-worse-than-in-the-united-states-oecd/a-44245702
