In accordance with what I just said - In accordance with what I just said - In accordance with what I just said - In accordance with what I just said - In accordance with what I just said - In accordance with what I just said - In accordance with what I just said - In accordance with what I just said - In accordance with what I just said -
Sunday is such a waste of time. Completely incoherent while being unspeakably smug. I see he's also turned up the gain on his mic just to ensure there is no way anyone could find him bearable.
@@TurtleChad1ah, so you are the type of russian troll who will just sow discord in communities even if the person you pretend to shill to isn't explicitly pro-russian
I can't remember the topic off the top of my head but as far as I remember Sunday was saying (roughly paraphrasing here) "I just listed like 5 very well known and influential writers on this subject and you've read none of them" as a counter to Wicked Supreme saying he is interested in the topic. Someone who is actually interested in a topic would be hard pressed to have never heard of any of the most famous writers on it, no? I'm so confused how ever since that convo happened I've never seen anyone explain it this way. Everyone pretends the argument was "You can't have an opinion on this" or "I'm more of an expert than you" or something. I can't remember Sunday saying that he's particularly interested or knowledgeable on the subject lmao. It's like if someone said they are interested in philosophy and had never heard of Nietzche, Kant, Hegel, Plato, or Sartrè. Even if YOU had never read any of them and weren't interested in philosophy, would you not call bullshit on that??
@gabriellethings4608 are you under the impression that the 'camp david accorss', only refers to the 1978 agreement with egypt? did you just start to learn about this subject last week?
@gabriellethings4608 my man, the guy commented about the camp david *summit*, you commented confusing the camp david summit, with the camp david accords.... I put 'camp david accords', under quotation marks.. hoping you'll realize your mistake yourself........ you decided to double down on your ignorance and unearned confidence... go Google the camp david summit, and leave me alone.
President Sunday's bookcase has grown lol. He really changed his camera angle to get more of the bookcase in shot. Because you know what having lots of books means? It means you DIDN'T run
It's actually funny when loner has to speed up his statement so he can get it out before Sunday starts talking over him; it reminded me of when I use to start to curve my writing as I ran out of paper to write on in 2nd grade 😅 😂
I would call out this as an ad hom fallacy, but the video is more than enough evidence that your insults are justified. "The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
@@IRGeamer he's an insufferable misanthrope. Seems like the last person you'd ever want to sit next to in a bus or a bar...just an air of snobbery to him that is off-putting.
"Well, actually, you don't understand what policy actually is." This was such a painful watch. President Sunday takes pseudo intellectualism to professional levels.
I cannot begin to stress how hard Highschool was for Pres Sunday. That man may have broken the record for “Most bullied”. The fact he is still standing, is an incredible testament to his tenacity.
Are you actually ok with bullying? The simple fact is that 99% of people that write original comments on youtube have no moral axioms. You people just like the influencer and the attention seeking aspect. You have no clue how his Hs experience was. When lefties talk about projection they are often looking in a mirror.
It's wild that we seemingly have to remind people that they're supposed to hold positions because they're correct - not reason backwards to create justifications irrespective of that.
This was really inevitable when Sunday started saying "well, you couldn't have known you were right when you said that correct thing, so I was right to disagree, even though I was incorrect" a-la PF.
the day president sunday leaked a private chat for content was the day i stopped giving a crap about him. idk if i can endure a whole hour of that slimey guy
This is both funny & sad. If this was anyone but Sunday you could cut through it in five minutes with, "if you think that is policy how do you define unofficial policy?" But because it's Sunday it takes 3 hours to get there & it's only with him redefining policy & doctrine. Your read seems accurate he knows little on the actual topic so is latching onto something more in his wheelhouse which is being obtuse, obscure semantics, & Holocaust revision apparently. Fingers crossed you don't get doxxed.
Gish galloping has literally been the only way president Sunday tries to settle disagreements because he's such a pseudo intellectual he can't reframe his arguments mid debate.
As long as he is insisting it's policy he can ligtimize calling them racist , colonizers and oppressors and therefore they don't have a right to exist or to self determination. There for only Palestinian claims are valid and worse one could argue that all acts of violence are legitmate towards the Israelies, but he would be a hypocrite and a bigot if he gave one right to a group and not another legitmate group.
@wuuwbduiqwgbd Sorry for the delay, which is very hard to respond to. We need to have an agreement on the definition and then provide evidence and examples. I also wonder if it's possible that we can say for a particular state like Israel in some cases maybe and in other cases no. But more I think that every nation needs to self reflect on the crimes it committed and suffering it has committed and to come to terms and hold itself properly accountable, especially those people be it a private citizen, military personnel or member of government that has recently committed an unjust act of violence or encourages unjust act of violence. Now with all that out of the way comes the most important question which I feel hardly ever gets discussed, "How do we end the current on going suffering and work towards giving people a viable future?, that doesn't hinge on revenge"?
@@gergosoos2870formal and official doesn't mean announced to the public. Policy of the military and intelligence services aren't public yet they are still policy. There would be no way of seeing a policy directive sent to an internal beauro yet it's still government policy.
@@convenientEstelle yes but I wouldn't exactly call that policy a policy has to be clearly communicated to the people under that policy. It can be a word of mouth policy where there's no paper trail but it still has to be said ,recorded and enforced. If for instance a group within government conspired to do a bad thing I wouldn't call that policy I'd probably just call that a scandal or conspiracy. Following policy back from the consequences of not following it and the outcomes and intentions behind it isn't the same as people within government wanting to do a thing or this person did a thing therefore it's policy.
”I think holding genocide to a strict standard cheapens its use” Uhhhhhh.. I wonder if sunday thinks we should do away with 2nd/3rd degree murder and just call every murder an equal act? Like, there’s a clear distinction between premeditated and a ”crime of passion” whether he can admit that or not…
15:20 Definition. He is so squirrely. He is equivocating between *proposed* policy from people within the government and *actual* policy of the government. The second time he reads the definition, he stops after adopted, but he is banking on the next word, which is proposed.
In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said, In accordance with what I just said... Truly a master interlocutor.
Lonerbox,you need to understand. Gathering Ws left and right: that’s just what Sunday do. There’s nothing that can possibly stop such a force of nature.
Wait wait wait. In an old medieval monarchy, according to President Sundays version of 'Policy', would the Kings internal thoughts and whims count as 'Policy'? Like would his thoughts only be a 'directive' until he'd told them to a scribe, at which point they'd become a 'top-down order'? 😂😂😂
President Runday should maybe go for a hike instead of trying to make weird claims about things from 10 years before, that have nothing to do with the Nakba. Pathetic.
It is my policy that president sunday no longer be a streamer, in the sense that i want him to never be a streamer and will act on that desire given the chance
Policy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual. So long as it’s proposed, it’s policy. Google is a thing my friend. Use it. If you propose your desire to fly and attempt to carry out that desire, it’s your policy to fly. It’s not complicated.
best be careful loner.. Pres might call your boss or the college you graduated from to threaten your livelihood. he has a growing track record of that now. lol
I couldn’t imagine ever having a interesting talk with president Sunday, I would not be surprised if everyone forced to speak with him wants to shoot themselves after about five minutes.
I thought the "In accordance with" being repeated a gazillion times was a meme, but he keeps doing it constantly. Just whenever he needs to say something, even if lonerbox is already speaking, he just repeats his first few words. It's such an incredibly insecure thing to do, it exudes the energy of someone that used to get talked over - or otherwise felt like he wasn't paid attention to - a lot and is now compensating. And I say that as someone that used to be very insecure and was talked over a lot.
I'm curious about LB's assertion that a group's actions are a better determinant of intent than their rhetoric. When it comes to anything as complex as a national conflict, the ability to achieve goals changes with time and global developments. Something as seemingly innocuous as a storm across the globe will affect the availability of parts needed for some other thing which in turn results in a massive supply shortage which drastically alters the scope of what is achievable in a conflict. It seems like judging an event by its outcomes in this regard is necessarily going to mean that the intent behind most rhetoric is going to go unfulfilled. Simply because all conflicts are wars of logistics first and foremost. It just seems like regardless of intent, LB's method of evaluation is almost always going to result in a downgrading of any given conflict. Which seems contrary to the whole point of classifications like the G-word. Which are, at least in part, a social acknowledgement of "going too far" such that a body like a nation state gains the authority to intervene.
"Actions are louder than words." Politicians say many things at many different times that can, and often do, contradict each other. Whether it's in response, as you say, to situational achievable metrics or otherwise, it's up for debate in any specific situation. Cherry-picking historical quotations from one point in history to another does not inherently define a nation-state policy, which, yes, is very result-determined because a nation-state is an organism comprised of its polity, which also changes along with directed political goals, policies, and rhetoric. However, it can help make a case for one being in place.
It's quite frustrating just how much breathtaking condescension that Mr Sunday engages in, up to and including practically deepthroating the mic in order to shout down LB so he could give him the whole Websters' Dictionary Defines spiel.
Sunday wants to semantically change the meaning of the word policy in order to get someone to sort something into policy if they do that he would immediately start treating the word policy with the same weight as the original meaning
These conversations are very problematic especially the you things like "ethnic cleans was a policy " or "Zionism is inherently racist" I think it is fair to say "acts of ethnic cleansing were committed" and maybe even "are being committed" I think both past and present it is fair to say/debate that "excessive force was used" "war crimes were/have been committed" "A particular belligerent party is not being accountable and/or needs to be held accountable" "You can say particular member of parliament/governing body or military are racist extremist and should be held accountable or removed" But when you start saying or implying things like "Ethnic cleansing was baked into Zionism" or "Zionism is inherently racist" it an attempt to dehumanize and de-legitimize. To be specific de-legitimize Israeli/Jews right to self determination. If you believe in one groups right self determination than to be morally consistent you should extend that to all. Therefore who Pro Israel Advocates make claims that Palestine never existed or Palestinian identity never existed or try to associate only with terrorism and terrorists like Hamas it is equally as bad. When Palestinians aren't clear about the right of return or argue that they should have the right to an unlimited right of return at some later date it is also equally bad. Because again it is one group trying to undermine to exist. Maybe it just the algorithms but I feel that these conversations and debates over semantics where youtubers and academics cherry pick statements and historical events or even UN resolutions to justify their positions has been spreading and as long as where stuck where each side has to justify its right to exist, to its identity and right to self determination we will never have peace and the bloodshed and suffering will continue.
Let me add that Biden putting pressure to hold settlers accountable and stop settlement expansion is a step in the right direction maybe its even 20-30 years too late because it''s possible it would have given Palestinian moderates a chance...just maybe
I've even heard lately people with strong pro Palestinian leanings argue that Jews didn't need Israel for their safety and in fact it made them less safe. And yet the Palestinians did need a state to be safe this seems widely inconsistent and hypocritical
But we're not talking about Zionism as talked about before Theodor Herzl, a sort of "ideal, inoffensive" Zionism. We're talking about a Zionism, defined by Theodor Herzl, that was explicitly about ethnically cleansing the native population wherever it landed, to establish a Jewish State. Even you have implied it in your comment. "de-legitimize Israeli/Jews right to self determination" The project of giving a certain population supremacy in a Liberal democratic State necessarily involves at the very least disenfranchisement of the people belonging to different groups, and at worst expulsion or extermination. The later happened as soon as Israel was formed, and both are happening right now with Israel refusing to allow Palestinians in the West Bank to represent themselves in the institutions that rule over them, and the IDF ethnically cleansing Gaza.
This is all about the threshold of what is a policy. Sunday thinks that people in power saying they want a thing, some of that thing happening, and them allowing it some of the time makes a policy. Lonerbox has a higher standard, with more coordination, occurrences, and tolerance of the thing being necessary.
An example of a policy could be: "we will create X situation and we don't care what is done to achieve that goal." The directive or order might be "do y z and ABC because the outcome will be goal x"
"We will not negotiate with terrorists" is a bit of a weird example... Yes, the US and I think other countries have it as a policy, but in the US' case it gets violated a TON... The policy isn't there to do what it says, it's just there to dissuade it from happening... But they absolute will and have done it many, many times since often it's to the benefit of the US to not have like American citizens dying when simple negotiations that don't matter as much as the lives of their citizens could've saved them... Obviously they're going to negotiate when its to the benefit of Americans... It's just kinda an open secret... They just hope to mitigate it with their policy... But yeah, I mean, just look at how they negotiated with the Taliban who they consider terrorists as one example...
this really is a matter of context, because if you are talking about terrorism in US borders it is one thing and beyond its another. Ultimatley at some point if you want peace you are going to have to negotiate with someone you once considered your enemy. Israel and the PLO is a prime example.
@@NoamGub Regardless of if it's domestic or international terrorism, the US is gunna negotiate with terrorists if it seems to be the right call... They negotiated with the Taliban and they'll negotiate with the crazy nut who's got like 30 hostages some of whom he kills every few minutes while reading a holy book to them... Maybe to just get that dude to calm down and stop executing people for a bit while a sniper takes position, or maybe they genuinely give this person what small demands he might have in order to save these people... It's smart to pretend to rule it out to dissuade it from happening, but it's always stupid to actually rule it out as an option...
That's a wierd one mostly a "made for tv policy" sure Bush the lesser said it aloud in the early aughts, but it's never been a real thing. It's a popular line from 80's and 90's action flicks but when it comes to reality it's never been the case, just something said to impress the average, checked out American. Tough guy talk more than policy.
It’s so crazy how this guy doesn’t even realize that when loaner box is giving his argument back to him better that may be it’s possible that box has thought about it just a little bit more than he has
I like how he goes "That's exactly like the cultural revolution being decentralized" then five minutes later says "I think you can call it a policy if you can attach to an individual, a group, or to a government, or to a movement" like what the fuck why is this dancing around the definition of policy????
The problem is PS is choosing to die on a hill with a word and choose to be hyper focused on the word *policy* and being nebulous with the understanding of the definition. If he wanted to be consistent, he wouldn't be constantly fluttering around the conversation. However, it wasn't about the use of the word 'policy' because that amount of obtusenes is darange. He just didn't want to accept that he had misunderstood and so he didn't want to move on without you agreeing with him, which is path.
He doesn't understand the difference between policy and defacto policy. We specific use the term defacto policy to differentiate situations where a group or organization is acting in a manner that is policy without there being an explicit policy written down. To him, there is no distinction. All actions of a group is policy if no one is punished.
