Talk:Destiny (person)

	This YouTube related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Appears to be more or less composed of meaningless who-said-she-said-he-said nonsensical bullshit and drama that no one cares about, except for an insular group of YouTube viewers.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

His position on ableism is now more complicated

One of his general positions is described as "He seems to have a problem with not using ableist slurs.", but since this was added his position seems to have changed. On his community discord ableist slurs are banned, but this seems to be at odds with the fact that he will still, on occasion, uses them himself. From a quick search, the only thing I can find where he addresses his position on ableist slurs are at this link https://youtu.be/4UAvbomI6hc?t=911, in which he explains that using ableist slurs is probably bad. ^{— Unsigned, by: 104.38.179.165 / talk / contribs}

"He wrote a 10,000-word manifesto justifying the use of the n-word in-private among people who were not black."

Why does this link to a Tweet and not to the "manifesto" the Tweeter is referring to? I personally don't believe the characterization by them is fair, it's more of a lefty manifesto with some public vs private language (read: n-word justifying) thrown in there. ^{— Unsigned, by: 122.148.234.17 / talk / contribs}

Possible New Addition to Page

Destiny doesn't think Ben Shapiro is racist: https://twitter.com/OOCdestiny/status/1360352486045925381

He also called Big Joel "subhuman" for tweeting about their debate afterwards, thinks the left engages in as much disinformation as the right, and thinks PhilosophyTube should delete her channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W3q5fs_97k

Should we add these to the page? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2605:6400:20:1993:0:0:0:0 / talk}

Seems like he also resorts to deontology instead of utilitarianism in this debate. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2A0B:F4C0:16C:5:0:0:0:1 / talk}

He is debating Nick Fuentes on the Killstream this Friday

Should be a good show. --2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:CFB:ECEB:840D:E951 (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"Good," "bad"

Why are we ranking what's "good" and "bad" here as if we are the ultimate arbiters of such subjective judgements? What makes the fact that Destiny has "debated" leftists and rightists "good"? That's almost a meaningless statement. Why not analyze Destiny's positions in those debates rather than just listing them off as "good". This article doesn't do a good job of telling us why this is good beyond Destiny taking credit for the deradicalization of a few far-rightists. Carthage (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"He said" and then "they said" and then...

Yesterday a BoN came along, saying that the subject of this article has said that he is "pro-genocide" and linked the clips. Today another BoN is saying that the clips are out of context. Frankly I can't give two fucks about this whole episode, since I am a grown ass man who has to go to work and I can't, unfortunately, make clips of Twitch streamers to keep as receipts for when they say stupid shit, nor do I have the time to scour the interwebs while performing complicated mental gymnastics to stan for some dickhead who plays video games while a camera is pointed at him. Not judging you two by the way. Just saying that I am so uninterested in this crap that I don't even know where to begin. For reasons I can't even begin to explain I volunteered my sorry ass to keep this place tidy. So how about you two have your little spat here on the Talk page and come to a consensus before mucking about the Main space?

Good? Good.

Wherever you go, there you are. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 09:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm the second BoN you mentioned. Figured I should make an account.

Don't worry tho, I'm not terribly concerned with being judged either way. Regardless, here are just the basic reasons the section should be removed that without any use of mental gymnastics:

1. There aren't multiple clips, it is only one clip that was just cut differently in the 2 links.

2. Contrary to what the relevant section says, the clip was from about a month before the war began, when he knew next to nothing about the conflict. It was a brief comment in a discussion with some friends, not him giving a serious take. Not to mention how he immediately took it back when talking to his friend that did know a lot more about the conflict. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG7-rwT2Z6M

3. In no way can this clip be used to represent his views since his relevant views on the conflict have only been shaped after doing research into it after the war began. Using a clip from before he had any relevant knowledge to somehow comment on any recent view he has on a 2-state solution or about the broader conflict is just patently absurd.

Hopefully now the section can be removed or replaced with a correct one based on his actual views that he expressed in his recent content on the conflict. - RainbowLorikeet (Talk) 10:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC), Edited 11:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you account for this then? Carthage (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I was creating a thread to post this and asking how should we add to the article, but I had an edit conflict. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

In response to Carthage - If you watch just a few more seconds from the clip until he finished his statement, he says it's because "genocide requires special intent". That is to say, it isn't enough to show bad things/death to categorize something as genocide. The legal term, which he already invoked earlier in the debate, is "dolus specialis".

RainbowLorikeet (Talk) 0:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Then Destiny is being a denialist, as intent has been expressed from the highest levels of the Israeli government. Carthage (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether the standard of dolus specialis has been met his is for the ICJ to decide at the moment based on the case South Africa provided (which as I referenced, Destiny disputes in the same debate), and if it is reconcilable with Israel's other procedures in the war.

RainbowLorikeet (Talk) 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the ICJ didn't even rule that Serbia committed genocide. Israel also has a high bar to clear when the ICJ has already ruled that Israel is "plausibly committing genocide."

Anyone arguing that Israel isn't attempting to remove the Palestinian presence from Gaza entirely would have to explain why Israel is systematically targeting Palestinian cultural landmarks including cemeteries. Or why Israel is deliberately causing a famine in Gaza, among other things. Carthage (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

First, they still ruled a genocide has been committed in Srebrenica.

Second, as Judge Nolte stated in point 5 of his declaration, "The Court is not asked, in the present phase of the proceedings, to determine whether South Africa’s allegations of genocide are well founded".

The standard of plausibility is not particularly high, since he also states in point 14, which I urge you to read in full, that Israel's other actions (like the ones the article I linked above details) "while not conclusive, make it at least plausible that its military operation is not being conducted with genocidal intent". Throughout the relevant ICJ documents on the case it's evident, one of the many reasons is that they have not granted the most extreme measures requested.

For these reasons, we ought to at least wait for developments in the ICJ case. Additionally, this feels like it's becoming a rehash of the ICJ case. I hope we both understand that this page is probably not the appropriate one to debate this topic on (I'm not even here to make the case it's not, I simply was giving the relevant context for the ICJ case that was debated). If you would like to make that case in spite of an official ruling by a qualified body, I think it would be more appropriate to first put it in a section in Israel's page or in a page of it's own before claiming it in a youtuber's page.

Also, Destiny to my knowledge has talked about the things you mentioned.

Hopefully we can agree at least on this. Best wishes, RainbowLorikeet (Talk) 13:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Dolus specialis, context:

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and

2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:

Killing members of the group

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

It is said that proving the intent is the difficult part, and I hear there may or may not be a verbal expression of genocidal intent already, making this point moot. Though, we need to keep in mind that a verbal admission of guilt does not prove guilt and, also, a singular individual has very little power in the hierarchy. I don't know what that verbal expression of genocidal intent looks like. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It also wasn't random soldiers saying this (well it was, but not only), but also people at the top of the hierarchy. It would be reasonable to consider that small detail a relevant data point. Carthage (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the points ULTRACOMFY & Carthage. I would just like to again point out that this is Destiny's page. Since in the debate they were relating it to the ICJ case, I think any discussion of his points should be rooted in that context. Also, as I already linked, Destiny exclusively discusses the statements from Israel's officials (President & Finance Minister), and to the best of my knowledge regular soldiers were not mentioned.

RainbowLorikeet (Talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar with Destiny on YouTube. He makes his money by making arguments based upon whatever knowledge he has at the time. He is also a quibbler. If he said "Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza," I expect he would agree with the statement " Israel is committing Mass killings in Gaza." Some actually believe the public thinks there is a difference, when there is no useful moral distinction between the mass killing of unarmed civilians and genocide that the general public would recognize.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why we are doing this again since literally nothing changed since the previous edit, but here is why the edit I was reverting was clearly incorrect and dishonest:

1. Contrary to what the edit says, the clip was from about a month before the war even began, when Destiny knew next to nothing about the conflict. It was a brief comment in a discussion with some friends, not him giving a serious take. Not to mention how he immediately took it back when talking to his friend that did know a lot more about the conflict. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG7-rwT2Z6M

2. In no way can this clip be used to represent his views since his relevant views on the conflict have only been shaped after doing research into it after the war began. Using a clip from before he had any relevant knowledge to somehow comment on any recent view he has on a 2-state solution or about the broader conflict is just patently absurd.

3. On top of this, the positions that were described before (which are actually his positions), are exclusively backed up by conversations he had AFTER the war began.

4. No further discussion was made in this topic before the edit was added, even though this edit was basically the same as the one that this topic was made over.

Because of this, the edit should be reverted. RainbowLorikeet (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If you feel the need to debate the semantics of genocide to defend your idol, then maybe your idol isn't worth being put on a pedestal. And honestly, even if his views are different now, that doesn't change the fact he said these things in the first place. Saying heinous shit based off of sloppy research is inexcusable. Carthage (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Carthage, you didn't respond substantively to my points at all. I'll ignore the comment about him being my "idol" since that's very much untrue (I could name probably 20 different topics in which Destiny's takes are totally absurd, not that it matters at all). Moreover, I literally argued before - directly to you - that this isn't a debate about genocide or the semantics thereof, but you still think that it is for some reason. This is just me pointing out clear factual mistakes in the edit that you insist on keeping. You did nothing to rebut them or look into them for several days, and now you insist on keeping said factual errors (which you should know by now are indeed totally incorrect).

Hence, I will restore my edit, with the addition of adding a mention of the comment in the 'the ugly section'. RainbowLorikeet (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)