STATEMENT ON DR. KEVIN MACDONALD'S WORK 1.Professor Kevin MacDonald serves on the editorial board and has published widely in the White nationalist journal The Occidental Quarterly, a journal devoted to "the cultural, ethnic, and racial interests of Western European peoples,"i which has consistently tried to make “the case for inherited human inequality.”ii 2. MacDonald has advocated for the protection of the interests of “White European” Americans: ideally through the creation of a white ethnostate iii or failing that, through a return to the racially based restrictions of earlier U.S. immigration policy.iv He argues that white Europeans in the United States should limit non-white immigration in order to avoid “a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these people [white Europeans].”v 3. MacDonald's writings about Jews include the following: a. repeated desciptions of Jews as a threat to white, European civilization vi b. the characterization of Western anti-Semitism as a rational, defensive response to the presence of Jews and their “hyper-ethnocentrism” and collectivist culture; vii c. description of his own work as “rational anti-Semitism; ” d. the statement that he considers being called an anti-Semite a “badge of honor”; e. The argument that Jews support cultural relativism, multicultural policies and nonwhite immigration to the United States in order to undermine White European culture and maintain their own positions of superiority. 4. Throughout his writings, Dr. MacDonald insists that his generalizations about White Europeans, Jews, African-Americans and other groups have a genetic basis, and that these groups can be legitimately ranked along scales of positive and negative attributes, including loyalty, intelligence and so forth. MacDonald has argued that (Ashkenazic) Jews have specific abilities for intelligence, that White Europeans have a genetic predisposition for individualism, and that Blacks have lower abilities for intelligence. viii WHEREAS the Department of Linguistics has affirmed that, “We firmly and unequivocally disassociate ourselves from the positions on Jews, African-Americans, immigrants and other minority groups that he [Kevin MacDonald] has expressed in his writing and speech, and which have been widely used to legitimate the discriminatory agendas of a variety of hate groups who have associated themselves with his name”; While the Academic Senate defends Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s academic freedom and freedom of speech, as it does for all faculty, it firmly and unequivocally disassociates itself from the anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric views he has expressed. __________________________________________________
Destiny was on fire, rapping like a god and lauren was braindead. The only thing i didnt like is destiny keep saying "attack on democratic process, etc etc." He should say "attack on america" which it was, but apparently conservatives doesnt understand anything unless "america" word is used.
@@caseypdx503 he doesn't argue with her like he argues with other people. He gets emotional because he cares about her. He doesn't humiliate her and make her look stupid and weak like he's capable of doing, because he doesn't want to do that to his bff.
1.Professor Kevin MacDonald serves on the editorial board and has published widely in the White nationalist journal The Occidental Quarterly, a journal devoted to "the cultural, ethnic, and racial interests of Western European peoples,"i which has consistently tried to make “the case for inherited human inequality.”ii 2. MacDonald has advocated for the protection of the interests of “White European” Americans: ideally through the creation of a white ethnostate iii or failing that, through a return to the racially based restrictions of earlier U.S. immigration policy.iv He argues that white Europeans in the United States should limit non-white immigration in order to avoid “a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these people [white Europeans].”v 3. MacDonald's writings about Jews include the following: a. repeated desciptions of Jews as a threat to white, European civilization vi b. the characterization of Western anti-Semitism as a rational, defensive response to the presence of Jews and their “hyper-ethnocentrism” and collectivist culture; vii c. description of his own work as “rational anti-Semitism; ” d. the statement that he considers being called an anti-Semite a “badge of honor”; e. The argument that Jews support cultural relativism, multicultural policies and nonwhite immigration to the United States in order to undermine White European culture and maintain their own positions of superiority. 4. Throughout his writings, Dr. MacDonald insists that his generalizations about White Europeans, Jews, African-Americans and other groups have a genetic basis, and that these groups can be legitimately ranked along scales of positive and negative attributes, including loyalty, intelligence and so forth. MacDonald has argued that (Ashkenazic) Jews have specific abilities for intelligence, that White Europeans have a genetic predisposition for individualism, and that Blacks have lower abilities for intelligence. viii Psycho Idiot Bastard Is the Department of Linguistics affirmed that, “We firmly and unequivocally disassociate ourselves from the positions on Jews, African-Americans, immigrants and other minority groups that the Psycho Idiot Bastard [Kevin MacDonald] has expressed in his writing and speech, and which have been widely used to legitimate the discriminatory agendas of a variety of hate groups who have associated themselves with his name”; Psycho Idiot Bastard __________________________________________________
the funny thing is is that the crowd was literally chanting "hang mike pence" with a literal noose hanging on the grounds of the capital, but everyone in this comments just forgot about that
Bro imagine how bad this shit was because people believed something was going to happen January 6th, my biggest example is the grifter Christian walker
AOC was literally the member of congress who was too scared to go to the designated safe area. She was also the only one who was too scared to listen to the police. She's also the only one who accused a member of congress of trying to have her killed. And again, she wasn't even at the Capitol. In other words, she's being a ridiculous person, and her "trauma" deserves to be mocked.
What if AOC and Ted Cruz play Among Us together and he often pushes to get her voted out as an imposter? She just forgot to specify "in a video game" at the end of her tweet.
There's no doubt in my mind that Lauren actually knows how serious 1/6 was. Anyone still claiming that Trump isn't directly responsible for the violence that day is either a lost cause or lying to you.
Lmao not only is he not responsible the dems are far more responsible by doing their shady maneuvering that caused bidens win look so illegitimate, and honestly in a world where we care about fair play and transparency it was illegitimate. It was legal but it definitely wasn't fair or at all the agreed upon game
yeah, destiny's position is basically "if you are going to act that confident that you are right, you better be willing to bet money on it, or you're full of shit." i agree with him.
I think I could get on board with defending AOC's tweet if she had said something like "almost got me killed". But "trying to get me killed" is too directly accusatory, at least from what I know of the situation currently. Maybe if Cruz was pointing to her directly as one of the major players in "the steal" or something her tweet might closer to defensible.
@@ade8890 I guess I just see a meaningful difference between the exasperated, in the moment exclamation uttered by the parent in the car vs. a tweet/written statement after the fact. I think the further you deviate from the common phrase the more time that has passed after the event the more people are going to take you literally. I looked up the tweet and the text is: "I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out. Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed. In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign." Maybe I could forgive the "trying to get me killed" in isolation, but in light of the previous: "almost had me murdered" the whole tweet seems pretty reckless IMHO.
@@ade8890 You think "Almost had me murdered" is a further extension of what you illustrated, I do not. I believe it too directly implies intent, and thus is a dangerous exaggeration. If AOC was inciting violence against the GOP I would probably agree that she is trying to get republicans killed. Though maybe something like Milkshaking would be violence, but without serious danger of killing. But advocating for any kind of violence is an extremely dangerous precedent, as you have no idea whether the people listening will take it further than you wanted. I might not agree that she was trying to get a specific Republican killed. The one level of removal of Ted's actions further breaks the analogy for me. He supported the overthrowing of our democratic election, and this resulted in violence, rather than he incited violence and this resulted in violence. I feel like the usage of "what are you trying to get me killed" type of phrases is mostly right after a near miss. Let's say one of my coworkers, Steve, did something stupid and reckless and nearly got me killed. I think it would be perfectly fine to shout something like: "Steve's trying to get me killed!" right after it happens. It might even be fine to bring it up in the future half joking, but maybe also to embarrass him or poke fun at him: "Remember that time that Steve tried to kill me?" But it is different to seriously and not in the heat of the moment frame it with as much intention is I believe she does. But at the end of the day it seems like we have different ideas around proper usage and parsing of language, and that is just going to vary with individuals.
@Ade It still doesn't seem like you quite understand me. I do see how encouraging right wing extremism is dangerous for democrats, and if a lawyer/the state can make a case against Ted or Trump for their rhetoric being criminal I would be interested in the result but probably not have too many feelings about it. While there is precident for using language in such a way broadly, the phrasing and context in this specific case feel like reckless exaggeration. It looks like AOC phrased it that way to characterize Ted as something closer to malevolent rather than dumb and reckless. This is effective messaging no doubt, but bending the truth or dishonest framing like this seems to only increase division, radicalisation, and violence. While AOC's use of language is not nakedly and obviously this, I see it as a step too far in that direction. Edit: I also don't see AOC's tweet as that abnormal, a lot of politicians put this level of spin on the truth, but it is bad every time.
I guess. But, the guy that failed to "assassinate" Reagan wasn't hired or told to do so. So Lauren using that word or "murder" is accurate enough. Destiny really thinks Jan 6 is worse than 99.9% of bad events that happened in America... I mean, at least he pointed out 9/11 was worse...
“It’a not my job to educate you” is probably one of the worst things to say in a debate. It feels like making an argument from a losing position. This debate is for the audience, not Lauren. You’re trying to make your case to the audience. When you won’t explain your ideas it feels like you are disingenuous, or you don’t understand your own beliefs.
I'm pretty sure this debate was for Lauren lol. I understand what you're saying, but I would argue he's not thinking about the audience here he's thinking about the person he's talking too. Also I think he said that because Lauren didn't do the research for the Ted Cruz story, and she's trying to make him on the spot look up quotes which details the debate into one that's about reading and a bunch of quiet time, which I don't think Destiny wanted to do at that time.
I think that was more about the fact that Lauren thinks she knows everything about January 6th because she was there, when she clearly hasn't done any research into what happened that she couldn't directly see or hear. She's talked about it so much and her understanding of it has always been terrible because she just assumes that she knows exactly what happened at every time and place because she saw some of it.
This wasn’t a debate though. Plus it’s not that he didn’t want to explain his ideas it’s more that he didn’t want to have to explain the entire event, like a play by play. That would take HOURS and would just an easy way for Lauren to get out of actually engaging with her claims
@@TheRiviaWitcher because being a tad bit hyperbolic doesnt really change the fact that there is some justification to the statement. How big the fish was does not change the fact it was caught. On top of that lauren southern uses this hyperbole whenever it suits her
@@Chaelsonen "trying to get me killed" implies intent on Cruz's part which is a pretty gross hyperbole in my opinion. Her statement does not seem to be justified, and if it is then Destiny failed to demonstrate how.
@@TheRiviaWitcher "pretty gross hyperbole" is in itself pretty gross hyperbole, its 3 words, 2 of them contradict eachother but all meaning really super duper, extra?
@@Lightningkuriboh So 800 idiots with an invisible fire extinguisher are a threat to our democracy? OK Mr. big brain, what exactly was it that Trump said that invoked the riots? Would it have been ok if he said China rigged the election and ran a 3 year coup against Biden instead?
You need to find different things to love my guy, A few gold nuggets from Destiny is not something to get excited over. (He wants that pussy) that's the only reason lauren is continuing to appear on his channel.
Of course this would be Lauren’s position! C’mon Destiny, do you forget that this kind of accusation was labeled against her? That her rhetoric led to political violence and she always rejected it? If she agrees with you she will be undermining her own position and accepting her own guilt on past violence.
it's so true, if Cruz's rhetoric had led to bloodshed, then her, supporting Cruz and trump and modern rightwing as a whole, did too. and she cant take that responsibility.
I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but Lauren changed AOC’s actual tweet and kept reiterating it. AOC actually said “you almost had me murdered”, while Lauren kept repeating “he tried to get me killed”. I read Lauren’s version as AOC implying intention to Ted Cruz while her actual tweet seems to be accusing Cruz of incompetency or negligence not malice. Really disappointing the conversation got stuck here when the actual discussion probably should’ve focused more on whether or not there was lethal neglect.
Thats directly implying Cruz orchestrated a means of attempting to directly have AOC killed. So yes it clearly is highlighting the intent implication cruz when its clearly not the case. Cruz never wanted people dead, he wanted similarly to many other people, for the government to conduct proper national audit of the election before confirming Joe Biden or the results as provided. But every democrat and in part mainstream republican were blinking like glassy eyed goldfish ignoring the obvious that people had concern on the basis of the vote and it thus lead to January 6th.
@@SuboptimalPrime I think “had” implies intention. Like if you use it in the future-tense “I have to go to the store”. Now “got” would work like “I almost got into a car accident”. It’s small, but that detail should matter on this scale of an accusation.
I really love that all the sudden right wingers are very very focused on the exact meaning of words in their most literal interpretation after years and years of ignoring how downright incoherent Trump is in every one of his statements. It makes this whole thing feel extra bad faith because it is literally impossible to be consistent and approve of the way Trump uses words and also think AOC was out of line
Trump isn't as incoherent as the MSM clips out of context make him out to be. He's still crazy, but there was a six year hit job focused on making him look worse.
@@Kittylover074 Maybe that's because our entire lives are not focused on Trump and we can also support someone without agreeing with every word out of his mouth? 🤔 Just a thought.
Steven is totally wrong here. If AOC said something like "Cruz's actions led to a dangerous situation where I felt my life was in danger," that would be one thing. But her using the word "trying" to get her killed is totally different and preposterous.
So you think it would be a complete misuse of language if someone talking about a time they almost got hit by a drunk driver said "They were trying to kill me!"?
@@jakoblynas8016 100% Yes I'll add that Destiny used a similar example, but when he said it (in one version) he said "It's 'like' they were trying kill me' and that word "like" changes the sentence in an interesting way that proves my point. "Like" = "as if" - it's "as if they were trying to kill me" So the effect of their driving drunk would be the same effect as if they were driving with intent to kill me. And by comparing two different actions implies that they are indeed two different actions "trying to kill" versus "driving drunk"
@@ExperimentalGamer81 I agree that the "like" in that instance made it disanalogous, I felt so at the time of hearing it. But that was only one instance, and in the others, you have to acknowledge that they are entirely realistic, if strictly incorrect, uses of language, of the kind that occur all the time, with a pretty clear meaning in the context.
@@ExperimentalGamer81 So the scenario of someone describing the drunk driving situation by saying "They were trying to kill me!" is unfathomable to you?
I usually side with Destiny on this but I think someone saying "this guy's trying to kill me" about some rando or a friend is vastly different from a politician saying "you tried to kill me/you're trying to kill me" to another politician so extremely politically opposed to them.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 Can't forget that. I just thought my comment was more pertinent to the overall argument but that would be a buzzer beater to pull out receipts on what you brought up lol
The capital building across the street is getting stormed and flooded by tens of thousands of people. You see smoke and breaking glass. Trump signs and American flags. People calling for democrat heads. I’m sure I’d be scared for my life as the literal face of the young left movement.
I'm a Destiny fan, and I gotta say he looked unhinged here. AOC is being ridiculous, and Steven not recognizing that is even more ridiculous. AOC was literally the only member of congress who did not trust the capital police, and she is the only member of congress who accused Ted Cruz (or any other Senator) of trying to have her murdered. Also, there is zero evidence Cruz's rhetoric even comes close to that of Vaush's. I hate to say it, but this is Steven's Scalia fascist moment, and all of his faux righteous indignation and anger can't cover up the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I felt the same way about destiny I mean he’s actually arguing that saying someone is trying to get me killed is some people said things that made others not do anything but I felt like someone might kill me. I mean, that’s why he’s screaming the whole time. He has no point but wants everyone to think Lauren is the crazy one
Bad take, Steven. "Trying to get me killed" is very different from "Almost got me killed". The word "trying" implies there is an intent to kill and it's not just an unintended consequence of your actions. Even in your own example you said "It was like he was trying to kill me". You didn't say "He was trying to kill me!" It was like (it looked like) and literally claiming you tried to kill me...very different.
Have you never heard someone ask “are you trying to get me killed?!” when someone does something incredibly stupid or dangerous? That’s exactly what Trumps enablers did when they caused so much outrage and hatred over a lie. Jan 6 was the result.
Yeah, what weak statement, a direct insurrectionary assault on the federal government and democracy itself, the system under which the entirety of America is run, is obviously way more important and impactful on the lives of everyone in America than a single terrorist attack on New York..
He used 9/11 to say something along the lines of "worst since" to illustrate that the right apparently disagrees with this statement as they don't consider the 6th to have been such a big deal.
How so? I felt Lauren was being bad faith asking what did Ted Cruz say, to tie him to j6 potential violence. Meanwhile ted Cruz was going to vote to decertify the election.
Steve makes fun of Lauren for saying to link an exact tweet at 29:55, and then not even 15 seconds later he unironically wants Lauren to link her an exact tweet at 30:07. Steve lost this debate so hard and was being ridiculously bad faith and uncharitable. At no point did he ever try to steel man her position and the fact that he was so triggered shows just how badly he was owned.
Most insanely true thing Destiny said, "wait 6 months". I'm actually an ex Vaush fan turned Destiny fan in 2021, purely because Vaush posed him as bad faith in the Rittenhouse debates, I thought he was unhinged till more facts came out, and now I'm a proud Daliban agent. In shallah we will prevail
You know what is really liberating? Being a free agent. Lauren is on team conversative so she has defend Jan 6th. Just let it go. Disavow the idiots and move on with your life.
I'm on team conservative and I don't defend Jan 6th. It was an embarrssment and it showed me some of those cries from the left were legitimate. Trumptards are almost as lobotomised as progressives. I struggle with who's worse
@@kurtadams9740 So going to back to this free agent thing. I can literally say yeah the Democrats are acting extremely hypocritical and have some very selective amnesia regarding the last 6 years. So here is my fair and consistent prescription when BLM says "Fry them like Bacon" regarding killing cops and MAGA peeps say "Hang Mike Pence" with nooses regarding sitting VP who is trying to ratify an election, your credibility is severely damaged and the onus is on you to win it back. Doesn't matter how justified you were until your rhetoric crosses that line.
If a person's entire living depends on their political position, like Lauren's is.. Do we honestly think we could ever get her to honestly change her mind? It'd risk torpedoing her among her base, potentially tanking her income streams, right? So what do we do?
yeah but, some of them are trying to jump wagons but just cant because of their past. Politics and youtbubers or live streamers have years of content, many regulars are jumping to the politics side. H3H3 for example, using hasan to show people he hates ted cruz or what ever. btw destiny is a pioner of this shit
No we can't reasonably expect that. You're right, she's in too deep. That's why there's no point engaging with her besides pointed criticism. Maybe i'm biased because i'm Australian, but her content inspired an Australian neo-nazi to gun down 51 innocent men women and children. She has not learned or grown since that. Early on she realised she could make a quick buck peddling white replacement conspiracy nonsense, and it led to people dying. I would say the same about any of the other content creators who's views influenced the Christchurch killer. She's beyond saving or helping, just like they are. Destiny is being horrifically irresponsible (or being taken advantage of) every single time he speaks with her, or speaks positively about her. She's a cancerous stain on public discourse.
I'm 99% sure that Destiny would completely be taking Laurens position on AOCs delusions if this were a Republican in similar circumstances and saying the same things.
Nah, Destiny is right, it's the opposite. If BLM was storming the capitol Lauren would be jumping in defending the Republicans talking about their PTSD and blaming the inflammatory rhetoric from Democrats. I think Destiny would agree.
Because Vaush didn’t technically say to go out and kill people. That was the point… Someone technically not saying something, doesn’t mean they aren’t saying it. Let alone insinuating it…
@@DDogg43777 Vaush said if a group of proudboys goes through a protest zone with guns then people should be able to shoot through windows at them. Ted Cruz questioned the results of the election. Big difference.
@@DDogg43777 Yep. I wanted to help guide destiny and Lauren through this debate so much, because they (her in particular) got so caught up in the entire intent part of "getting me killed". In which case being dumb and negligent is okay as long as the intent isn't there (in Laurens opinion). It's very obvious that a politician shouldn't be that negligent, and legally you can still be held accountable for your lack of IQ or negligence depending on the circumstances. I really don't like Laurens way of making every debate be about semantics, rather than the topic at hand.
Why is Steven dying on this hill? Saying someone is trying to kill you vs it was like someone was trying to kill you is completely different. Saying someone was trying implies intent 100%.
AOC was absolutely unhinged and her statements on Jan 6th were wildly exaggerated. Feels unfaithful when Destiny defends her saying things like "you almost had me murdered." Never thought I'd be agreeing more with Lauren than Destiny.
@@dreamshakejunya Because she was not even close to being murdered and accusing Ted Cruz implies an intention behind it. It is absolutely wild to say that he was trying to have her harmed in any way, let alone actually literally mudered. The rest of your comment was just virtue signalling.
@@Kody_El_Durado It's what that unhinged Dilbert artist said about Trump when he was debating someone on whether Trump was competent. He said it in response to quotes of his ridiculous rhetoric and lies. Trumpists parrotted it for years.
I think their relationship is one of the more important things in the political sphere. It has the potential to demonstrate the ability to be friends with someone who has opposite political views from yourself, something a lot more common 50 years ago. I hope the can remain friends.
yep back when both sides agreed that the blacks and mexicans need to stay out of our neighborhood and schools (joe biden was against "forced busing" in the 70's), the political options were small and disagreement with the state was un-american because the commies were around the corner. Jokes aside anyone who lies to your face like Lauren does not have respect for you they don't see you as a friend they see you as putty for them to mold and manipulate
I like How Lauren moved the goal post from "Did AOC feel threatened on Jan. 6th" to "was AOC justified in saying ted cruz was trying to get you get her killed" (based off what he promoted) and she still lost.
This is really reaching. This is like old Destiny again, like I've stepped back in time 3 years and you're just trying to rhetoric your way into a win.
How is it reaching? The AOC tweet implies gross negligence, and Lauren appears to not understand that word choice matters when she says shit like “assassinate”.
@@cambienvenu "trying" implies intent, not gross negligence. Destiny was reaching hard and I dont even understand why he wouldnt just admit AOC was overreacting on this one and move on.
@@cambienvenu Impressive double somersault, now do the triple backflip mental gymnastic please? Nah but to be serious, I don't think that's the implication at all of her tweet, and I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. And since it's such a serious accusation, AOC shouldn't have made it unless she can really back it up - and she can't.
@@TheRiviaWitcher good thing AOC never said trying, she said "almost had". That is Lauren's dumb misquoting and Destiny shouldn't of let her get away with it.
@@Seasmhach Wait really? They both kept repeating the word trying dozens of times and she never even said it? Lol, That entire debate was worthless then.
Triggered AF at the discussion of the word “trying”. Destiny was gaslit from the beginning. “Almost had me murdered” is not “trying to have me killed”.
Destiny "Show me the AOC Quote..." Lauren provides the tweet with quote. Lauren, "Show me the Ted Cruz Quote.',,," Destiny, "I'm not here to educate you."
When destiny asked for a quote it was literally the specific quote they were arguing over. One that they had both seen before; he just wanted to check what it said. Lauren was asking for multiple quotes from someone in the middle of a conversation that was not planned at all. Her whole thing was wanting to get quotes of him saying, or eluding, that he wants to have AOC killed.. which is stupid for a multitude of reasons, one being that she never said "have me killed" she said "get me killed". You can get someone killed be putting them in a dangerous situation, however having someone killed can ONLY mean hiring or coercing people to kill someone. What AOC said was definitely a bit too over the top but it's incredibly far removed from what lauren is accusing her of saying... Especially since if you actually listen to the start of the convo, destiny only really needs to explain how her fears were justified. He'd already said she could've worded it better.
@@elliedavies7138 So, do you think, if someone can not prove a specific incriminating statement was made, maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't use it in an argument, as a statement of fact? Because doing that makes it look like the person is just making things up to prove a point?
@@papabull8993 it's almost like you didn't read the part about "have someone killed" versus "get someone killed"... His endorsement of trump and his speech could have got people killed. That's different than him having someone killed.. like as in hiring someone to kill someone else
@@tcritt watch the videos of it. Some areas had really violent people. Others had people walking through in the designated areas and looking around. Some entrances had people fight cops to get in while others had cops telling the protestors "I dont agree with you, but I respect your protest" while holding the door open.
@@barneystinson2781 Yeah, seen them. What's your point? The guys walking about calmly don't make the other shit better. It just means not everyone was violent or involved in something with the same level of premeditation. The thing is though... nobody is saying they were. What's your special non-MSNBC insight I'm supposed to be gleaning from your comment?
Neither of them seem to have picked up on the difference between "you almost had me murdered" and "you TRIED to have me murdered". The first doesn't require intentionality, and it absolutely covers actions that result from irresponsible rhetoric.
@@dogeatdog6157 Of course. "Have me murdered" CAN mean that it's intentional. But I'm just saying that it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that. Frankly I don't think that even AOC would stand by the idea that Cruz actively attempted to get people to murder her. It's a fairly absurd position to defend. The more relevant conversation is about whether his rhetoric contributed to what happened, and whether he therefore carries a meaningful portion of the moral responsibility.
@@dogeatdog6157 yes because what people know about the structure of the mob implies that direct orders were given to a hit man. This was a riot directly or otherwise instigated by politicians, you can say that those politicians almost had people killed without always saying that it was with intent.
The comments here are so weird and all over the place. I kinda get why Destiny insults his audience. Not that anyone specifically deserves it. But holy crap does it run the whole gambit of literally any take possible.
*run the gamut It's a word that AFAIK has never been uttered by anyone ever except in this one phrase, but there it is nontheless. More you know and so forth
I wonder about Steven's thoughts on the guy that was arrested and admitted he was going to assassinate Kavanaugh. Is Chuck Schumer responsible because of his rhetoric? I'm only 45 minutes into the video so maybe this does get brought up.
We don't talk about that, nor Rand Paul getting a punctured lung from an attack, nor Steve Scalise and other Republicans getting shot at. We have to respect AOC having PTSD from something in the building across the street from her.
No destiny definitely wouldn’t because destiny honestly doesn’t give a shit what the Democrats do he only complains about Republicans even though Democrats can do much worse and have them much worse. Do you notice how he calls Donald Trump one of the most fascist presidents but ignores the fact that Joe Biden literally set up a Ministry of truth, and also wanted to force people to take a vaccine. I don’t think Destiny even knows what the word fascist means.
I think he was trying to say that Jan 6th wasn't damaging in the same type of way - that instead of heavy property damage and loss of life, it resulted in damage to people's faith and trust in the system.
@@Darklordiban7 that’s a very entitled response that the deaths of people don’t matter against the harm done to the process. I’m not saying you’re saying that but it’s a really shitty perspective.
@@markgoodhart6258 The election lie, fake news etc.. rhetoric is really really bad. It's amazing how many people don't realize this. It's dictator 101 playbook. No faith and trust in systems can easily lead to civil wars which would lead to way more death and property damage than BLM.
@@Darklordiban7 you didn't need j6 for that to happen. It's inevitable given how incompatible our cultures are at this point. likely to see more similar events going forward. Case in point the media riling up lefties to try and assassinate supreme court judges.
19:58 Destiny loses yet another debate to Lauren Southern. Destiny himself has DIRECTLY said that when someone pulls the "It's not my job to educate you" Card when you ask them to defend a claim that that just made, then you know that they are arguing in bad faith and have lost. Destiny just did exactly what he said shows you that someone is losing.
He's losing this so bad. I usually watch his content and just expect him to win. My brain is like, i cant wait to see how he turns this one around. But reality is, he cant.
@@mistakilgore8034 In this case Lauren Southern is right. trump and the republicans SHOULD be blamed for what they ACTUALLY did, Trying to have AOC killed or even encourage people to harm ANYONE is not what they did. They did use strong inflammatory language HOWEVER ALL politicians have used almost identical words. In fact you can find videos on youtube of democrats saying far worse. I would like the videos to you but youtube wont allow people to leave links in comments. You should try something, Try listening to WHAT someone says and not decide if you think its right or wrong based on if you like them or not.
lauren just essentially said "you silly boy" after each argument made by destiny. it's borderline gaslighting because i know she KNOWS what he's saying is valid.
He made some fucking batshit points in this even turning against some of his points against Vaush to oppose Lauren. Not saying all of his points, but fuck some of it is pure debate bro arguing from an emotional state of mind!
The discussion should have ended when it was clear that Lauren thinks Jan 6th wasnt a big deal. If the event itself isnt a big deal, than any claims of trauma over the event will de facto seem like an overreaction.
@@Pegases0 we got another Lauren tier smooth brain in the comments. If you don’t care about our fundamental institutions being undermined, you’re too far gone, bozo.
@@CoomerGremlinDGGfan yes its actually healthy having people running in to the capitol looking to take politicians hostage every election cycle. That's just a symptom of healthy democracy and no fascist has ever done that ever.
Me @ a bad Uber driver: Jesus, are you trying to get me killed!? Uber driver: Look here ma'am if you're gonna accuse me of trying to assassinate you I'm gonna have to end the ride
@@connor4169 Oh how horrible for you that other people listen to someone you disagree with.. I am sorry to trigger you little one please give me a list of the approved people I can sub to that wont cause you to panic.
Nahhhhh Lauren looked pretty bad rage quitting twice, and believing “no evidence on hand now”= automatic win is cringe af. Destiny definitely pulled ahead here
I also liked the part where Destiny literally started the debate asking for exact quotes of the Twitter convo that started this whole thing and then he gets all buttmad when Lauren wants exact quotes to justify his claims
R u slow lol? She was the one making the claim. Of course she would have to provide the quote. Also, Destiny wasn’t mad that she asked for quotes, he was mad that she kept pressing him WHILE he was fishing for a source. She was being smug, and he was telling her to chill the fuck out so he can find it. This isn’t even comparable lol.
ikr, he's the guy that's famous for asking "you got a source for that bro". To be fair one can have off the cuff conversations, but not with such a serious accusation. The standards just need to be way higher for such an accusation.
Dude are you serious these are in no way comparable. This debate started because of Lauren's reply to the quote meaning that Lauren should have the quote on hand as that is what the debate is about. The debate wasn't planned to be about DeSantis so it would be ridiculous to expect destiny to have evidence on hand about DeSantis. Please use your brain you're the exact brain rot destiny hates in this community.
Destiny's later point about "I was driving and some guy tried to kill me" was off. When someone says that they are being clearly hyperbolic and obviously someone isnt literaly tryng to kill them. 0/10 Lauren Wins. Steven is no longer based.
@@tvnggg that would be convenient if destiny could read aoc's mind and know what she meant, but aoc's statement could be read both ways and the most extreme people would take the most extreme reading. and also these are the people that would actually act on aoc's tweet insane tweet. thats why she quickly deleted it
@@chrisjohnson-tn3gl i think the most reasonable interpretation of her tweet is that ted cruz's rhetoric lead to an event that almost had her severely harmed or even killed
Nah dest is 100% right it doesn't take a huge leap to believe aoc could be traumatized by the situation. Its entirely possible she exaggerates the trauna but its not possible for any of us to know so since the circumstances are reasonable that they could cause trauma its more reasonable to give her the benefit of the doubt
@@ataridc AOC doesn't have credibility. Besides I thought women were strong and equal to men? Whatever happened to that? AOC is contradicting the democrat messaging that women are their own independent beings that don't need men to coddle and protect them.
@@ataridc We've seen AOC lie about everything (even her OWN family member stated she was lying at one point), so surely I definitely believe HAS trauma... (rolls eyes sarcastically)
I imagine Jan 6th would cause some level of distress for anyone who is a sitting Congressperson, even if you were on vacation that day. If a mob broke into my office looking for me I’d consider that a bit traumatic
the attempted assassination of a supreme court justice seems like a good analogy to bring in here. Is Lauren "tweeting every fuckin day for the next 3 months" or has she made "15 youtube videos on this historic takeover" in response? Nope
Yes and no as noble causes can lead to bad events which were not the preferred situation such as the protests that lead to 3-4 months of riots even more Wild was people saying it was a protest while things are on fire
@@Channel-23s "fiery but mostly peaceful". (btw 2 billion worth of damage to the property of everyday people, thousands of police officers injured, 30 people killed by rioters hundreds of officers injured that may weekend in dc alone, along with the fire at st johns church, and the fire set to the white house itself, and many other fires in the city, and injury to 60 secret service members. talk about an insurrection. never forget the weekend of may 29, 2020)
AOC even spoke about her experience. But bc she was in another building connected to the capital, she’s apparently supposed to know the insurrections plan into what and where they were going. Which is in Lauren’s bad faith argument. She’s absolutely going off only tweets and her bias.
Idk dude. I think Lauren came out more sane on this one. Maybe destiny should stay calmer. Even though it's a cheap tactic, it really does help ground you as the more "sane" person
You don’t win argument by screaming. Destiny was completely unhinged. He simply cannot conceptualize that people can feel Jan six was bad but not the greatest even in human history.
20 mins in, destiny is kinda getting crushed here. Destiny really tried to equivicate Ted Cruzs cheerleading to someone with a mask firebombing buildings. Lauren is making decent points here. He's just too triggered to argue properly. Oh shit, just got to the "trying to get me killed" does not = "assassinate"... bruh what did destiny smoke before this one. Grasping at straws here
Don't think destiny did too well here but trying to get someone killed and assassinating someone are on a completely different scale, While i think its obvious Aoc had ample reason to be fearful on jan 6th ted cruz wasnt trying to kill her however he would bear some responsibility had she been killed
@@Olaf-nc9ii I agree the term assassinate is a stretch of what was said to make it sound bad. Not as big of a stretch as claiming ted cruz is actively attempting to get political rivals killed though. Its funny he get super picky about the term assassinate but if you try to look at AOCs tweet through the same lens its using a "childs interpretation"
Lauren looks incredibly unhinged an uninformed when she’s asking Steven what did Ted Cruz say? meanwhile ted Cruz was going to vote to decertify the election.
They are arguing about whether killed means with intent or without intent but it means both. It depends on context. Killed by drunk driver,killed be serial killer. The argument is did Cortez mean with intent or without intent
@@nostrings3169 What threat!? Trump had been demanding that Republican legislators attempt to overturn the results. He had also been demanding that Mike Pence overturn the results. He and his allies were clearly trying to cause a political crisis, and then a mob loyal to him attacked the capitol and attempts to violently force the Pence and the Congress to overturn the results.
