Talk:Destiny (person)/Archive1

Does he have a significant enough following
Does he have a significant enough following for us to care about him? I want you to check this page to see why I'm asking this. 15:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He's a pretty popular left-wing YouTuber with a following large enough to meet our standards. 15:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good then. Thanks for checking. 16:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * i mean i'd say so, he does have 204k subscribers Dukeofcurls (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see it in the article, but Destiny admits that he uses the n-word all the time and in a very convoluted line of reasoning, used his half-Cuban heritage as an excuse for why he gets to say it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/dlreiq/destiny_gives_himself_the_nword_pass/ 108.70.12.24 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad?
How are his debates/drama with for example Mike from PA and Peter Coffin bad? It's the people he debated that came out looking bad. For example, Mike from PA accused Destiny of doxxing him by showing a news article about him running for public office which displayed his full name (to proof he lies about being a lawyer), while Mike uses his full name for various social media accounts, or at least for Medium, and has tweeted out his full name 3 months before that. Isn't that clearly arguing in bad faith? How is Destiny in the wrong for exposing that? I don't think these people are infallible by default just because they're lefties. Dapperedavid (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree here. I don't think this article is very fair. I disagree with most claims made in the "Bad" section. Firstly, he began to debate leftists, not in an attempt at balance as the article puts it, but because he was worried that much of his community was becoming radicalized. I've been in the community for a while, and I can tell you with certainty that Marxists were becoming a significant part of his fanbase. Destiny really began to get into lefty debates when actual tankies were brigading his subreddit. Making him out to be a centrist is pretty ridiculous. He is still solidly in a center-left position and is constantly critical of the Trump administration and Republican party. Just because he debates the furthest possible fringes of the left along doesn't make him a centrist. The fact that we now have Thought Slime in the external links, who would disagree with much of what this wiki says about Marxism, and whose main critique of Destiny is how liberal he is, is a bit strange.


 * In addition, while I agree that his fanbase did not really appreciate the lefty debates for the most part, I don't think this is a good metric for his performance. In my opinion, he did a pretty good job exposing poor arguments on the far left. He demonstrated that Peter Coffin wasn't very honest in his representation of him, that Noncompete's and Ben Burgis' ideal societies would be very difficult to construct and that Mike and Caleb were for the most part, dishonest actors. Really, the beginning of the lefty debates are very similar to when he started debating conservatives. Destiny had a whole lot of conservatives in his fanbase when he started to discuss politics. They didn't really appreciate his attacks on the president, or really any of his content. This doesn't make it invalid. KGlife (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Raven's political edits are usually amateurish at best
and this is no exception. It reads like something a fanboy would write. I recommend reverting it. — Oxyaena Harass  18:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * what? I dislike Destiny. What do you object to?  19:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me except for the part where he links communism twice in one paragraph. 19:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

He advocated for violence on BLM protesters
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1299877252579155968 Jesus christ, I never thought he'd say something like this. StudentofPhilosophy (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

On Missionality
Well man, sup? It's 04:50 am where I am right now so forgive me for the incoming textwall. I'm so dizzy and groggy. Don't say I didn't warn ya. I'll try and argue for this article being here (though I'm not fully convinced that it should be, but bare with me. Also by the time I have written this someone will probably be here before me with a snarky one liner or something, but whatever).

Firstly: "So he's got a quarter of a million followers, so what?"

No, that's what I thought as well, but check his Twitch. Man's got almost SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND followers. That's madness. I watched all of five minutes of footage of this guy while I was fixing the bare urls, and I couldn't believe it. How can anyone stand to watch this lad for any length of time? His voice and attitude are grating. But a shit ton of people DO watch him. That's the thing. If you want to argue that he doesn't meet notability requirements, then that argument isn't convincing. He is very popular and well known, and his fanbase might even grow and get bigger. Also, think of all the people who aren't his subs. The people who hate him still know him. They still watch clips of his debates. Those sub numbers don't tell the full story here.

Second point: "Is this really missional, or is is just a pile of YouTube and Twitter bullshit?"

4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Twitter and YouTube ARE media though. They are the new, social forms of media. You know the way the horse and cart became irrelevant when cars became a thing? Well, newspapers and radio stations are struggling to make ends meet these days, cause they are becoming increasingly less relevant. When we walk down the street, or sit on a bus, how many of the young people are reading a physical version of The Times to get their political opinions? How many of them listen to a conventional radio station to get a news update? None. Zero, nada, zilch. They are all walking around, heads hunched over their screens. The world is different man. See this debate between Buckley and Chomsky? Yeah, no, those fecking days are gone. Kids ain't getting their political opinions, or their current affairs, or their worldviews from shit like the TV. This is gonna sound dumb, but gamer bros like this Destiny kid are the equivalents of political analysts - and it will only get worse when the next crop of kids grow older. You know I talked to like, a seven year old boy not that long ago, and I swear to you the lad was a walking internet meme. Every damn joke he made was a reference to some video game I never heard of. I got my phone when I was 14, a shitty nokia flip phone. This kid got his dad's smartphone at FIVE! Ya reckon our younger user base knows who the fuck Rush Limbaugh is? Their parents do. But we are on the internet Cosmik. We too are a new type of media, and our readers ain't the Chomsky/Buckley generation. They are the YouTube/Twitter drama generation. By the God's man, the President of the United State TWEETS whenever he feels like it. Twitter drama is the new norm. (Yes I know. Let that shit sink in man. It hit me fucking hard. It hits me every time the newsreader opens with "Donald Trump did a stupid on the internet again!"). If Elon Musk's Twitter drama has an effect on the stock market, we can't hand wave it away as irrelevant. This bullshit affects the real world around us. The Christchurch shooter was radicalized online through this edgy online gamer bollox. Of course it's relevant.

Third: "Please explain why this article furthers RationalWiki's mission, and why it should not be proposed for consignment to the bit bucket."

Right, so what does Destiny do? He does what we do. Like, quite literally, he talks to cranks, some of whom are anti-science, some of whom are authoritarians, analyses their ideas, sometimes refutes them. This is a long read but please read it man, just, the entire thing. All the door to door bible thumpers, the old foggies with their nonsense? They will kick the bucket soon. Horse and cart, getting replaced by the car. No popular radio presenters will remain in the future. No real papers. No tuning in to panel discussions on TV. This nonsense? This BULLSHIT of edgy gamer bros radicalising kids into becoming neo-fascists, or de-radicalizing them? That's here to stay. That's the future. And if Destiny is idolised (and don't ask me why the fuck, but he is), if kids look up to him, get their political opinions from him, and some of these opinions are potentially shit, then yeah, I reckon we should keep tabs on him. And people like him. We can platform him if he does good, and debunk if he does bad. It's what we would do to a popular, controversial radio presenter. And I reckon we should do it to these folks too.

Write me a counter argument man, I hope I wasn't like, nasty or something. I can't tell right now cause I'm sleepy. I'm sorry if I was. You and I don't truly understand this, cause we are "boomers" (I'm in my twenties, and I can't relate to any of the young people I meet, they treat me like I'm their grandpa or some shit). So I tried to adopt their viewpoint. It looks silly from the outside to us. But to them? To them, this shit means the world. Adios. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 04:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to respond. The NYT article is especially informative. I concede that the topic is missional, but the article as written doesn't seem to convey that very well. The article is rather light on context and is focused on what this guy does in the social media world instead of the part he plays in combatting the alt-right and radical thought so prevalent on newer platforms like YouTube. My purpose in putting up the missionality and 'significantly problematic' banners was to spur contributors here to improve the article. I'm still on the wire as to whether Destiny needs an article of his own, or if his activities are better served as citations and examples in a higher level article that deals in general with extremist and radical voices on social media. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we add part about Destiny making false accusations to Hasan Piker and calling all leftists authoritarians?
User GrammarCommie has been removing my additions showing Destiny accusing Hasan of being sponsored by CashApp and for being a hypocrite for streaming on Twitch and his statement claiming that all lefties are authoritarians. Should we add these to the page?


 * No one cares about any of this silly internet drama. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not internet drama. It's a false accusation made to his audience without evidence even though he could have asked his moderators to verify as they watch Hasan's streams as well. And his claim that Kulinski is as dumb as Pool and Sargon as well as his claim that all leftists are authoritarian is significant in showing how he feels about leftism and leftist content creators (even though Kulinski is a socdem). —Sunkara talk stalk 05:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe the second thing, the claim about leftists is worthy of inclusion, maybe. The first thing seems like it might be too minor to be worth mentioning on its own. SolPyre (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel like the part about Hasan shows that Destiny is willing to lie and make arguments he knows are bad to denigrate leftists. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2A0B:F4C0:16C:1:0:0:0:1 / talk
 * I've made my position on this clear in the edit summaries, but I'll make it here again for the record. The Hasan thing is drama-y. It isn't worth mentioning on its own. The video of him making blanket statements about leftists could be useful to illustrate his blind spots in that area, but I'd prefer a slightly longer runtime if possible. I'd also prefer it came from his channel if possible, because (and this should have gone without saying) I want to cross my Ts and dot my Is on a major Streaming personality who has a history of losing his shit over criticism. Also it's just better quality sourcing in general. Ok? Is that clear now? 22:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Hasan thing definitely shows that he is willing to lie to attack leftists and use illegitimate arguments. I don't see what context would justify the other things he said or why the exact source matters. Regardless, people are also removing his "just move" argument, even though it was something he specifically said as seen in the source. I also notice that the people doing this are centrists and self-identified anti-communists. They might be a bit biased.
 * Dear gods and goddesses fucking orally and anally above and below, I never said it justifies what he said. Never. Are you too fucking stupid to understand that? Are you too fucking stupid to read my fucking post laying out my fucking position and reasoning? Are you that fucking dense, you fucking ignorant twit!?!?!? I said I wanted to fucking "Dot my Is and cross my Ts". Are you illiterate? Are you a bot? Are you fucking troll? How the everloving fuck did you get "justify" out of any of what I fucking said!!?!?!? 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh... above and below, nice. Yeah, I've come around to your point on this one GC. Sunkara/BoN is starting to throw up flags now anyway. SolPyre (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's either Sunkara abusing multiple IPs, or a brigading game in progress. What fun. -- Goatspeed. 06:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fascist
Is there any truth for the description of the Kenosha shooter as a "fascist"? Like did he say he supports fascism? Otherwise it needs to go. --217.248.155.241 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2021/01/14/prosecutors-kyle-rittenhouse-white-supremacist-proud-boys/ &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2605:6400:20:1993:0:0:0:0 / talk

What is the reason my edits were removed?
Is there any reason in particular you reverted my edits, ? I feel my edits were constructive and helped the article appear more neutral. I added a source from his own website. I made a new section for his canvassing efforts. I removed a section of hearsay. What did I do wrong? -Slybirdz


 * Your contributions appeared to be whitewashing the subject. Your proposed changes appeared to substantially change the tone and content of the article and making the article more neutral is not necessarily our goal. I suggest you discuss your proposed changes here on the talk page before making substantial edits. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel the article is in desperate need of a revamp. When you opt to have headers like "The good," "The bad," "The ugly," it gives a very unprofessional feeling that makes the reader unsure about the article's intention. It doesn't help that there is a deliberately dopey picture at the forefront. Like, it's literally the first thing you see. Nothing about this article seems genuine. Not to mention the unnecessary conversation in the middle of it that feels like an advertisement for NonCompete. And also the random ThoughtSlime video inserted into the "External links" section. Reworking the tone of this article should be a top priority. --Slybirdz (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Destiny and his Kenosha comments
Hi there! Just wanted to let you all know that Destiny clarifies his Kenosha position here: https://positions.destiny.gg/docs/current_events#kyle-rittenhouse-mowing-down-protestors

I hope this could help improve this article a bit more factually.

Have a good one! &mdash; Unsigned, by: Camden / talk / contribs
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Link is irrelevant
I believe I was justified in removing the link because it's a critique for one of Destiny's debates from someone he has never interacted with. Sure, the topic of the video is about a debate Destiny did, but in my opinion, that doesn't justify it being at the end of the article. Why put a critique to one of his debates in the external links section, but not the debate itself? It doesn't make sense to me. Slybirdz (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. What makes this particular critique of destiny special? I’m sure there are loads. Christopher (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone actually want the video included, or is this just a case of people blindly reverting any edit made by someone who’s clearly new to wikis (so doesn’t know you’re not meant to edit war) and a Destiny fanboy? Christopher (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ll ask one more time and remove it if nobody objects. If anyone does, I don’t care enough to argue with them. Christopher (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a particularly compelling reason to remove it, considering some articles have SNL skits in their external links section. There's clearly a broad set of criteria.-Flandres (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If any articles have SNL skits in their external links they should probably go as well, but as I said I don’t care enough to fight over this page specifically. Christopher (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we removing this link or not? Slybirdz (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinion is split, it stays by default (standard policy is to keep the article as it was when a dispute occurs) until one or two more people weigh in. Christopher (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Some rollbacks
I rolled back some edits that might have had some merit but reeked of whitewashing. Can someone more familiar with Destiny add back in anything that was justified? Queexchthonic murmurings 13:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)