American Politics

[shionoro]

This is incredibly dishonest.

What about it? This IS bully logic. There is no woman in the world that is less likely to get raped if you shame a woman like that. What did he even know about the exact circumstances of her rape? He acted in a self aggrandizing way, as if he knows her life better than she does, on limited information. Let's not act like he had her best interest or the best interest of rape victims in general in mind.

This is like claiming Destiny showing up in a restaurant without a camera and, after getting into a screaming match with a group of MAGA Republicans, people started claiming it's content. It would only be content if he chose to bring it on stream and monetize the conflict via debates and retellings of the story to thousands of viewers who want to co-miserate with him.

If he is there without a camera, just eating his food, and then is screamed at, that is not content. Because he had no way to know it would be seen by his audience. If his known twitter account (not a private one where nobody knows who he is) posts, he knows his audience will read it. The man has 300.000 followers. Let's not be absurd here and act like he is not conscious of that.

No, I don't think you're telling someone they shouldn't speak. In my heart of hearts. I think potentially, they could be shamed into not speaking because they'll fear the hurt feelings they'll have for speaking in the first place. And that's unfortunate. I think there's more at stake here than her feelings though.

I said "in effect", and you agree with me. You think that potentially (and honestly, quite likely), someone who is shamed after they speak about their feelings will not speak about their feelings again. And that is definitely a big stake, as other rape victims will see it if it is in front of an audience. If some random woman on twitter says men should accept boundaries, there is nothing at stake. You would have to explain to me how telling men to accept boundaries makes it more likely that women get raped and how shaming a woman who, in destiny's opinion, is at fault for her own rape is helpful. There is no realistic mechanism in which a woman goes "Oh, yeah, i should not be cautious in my sexual encounters because that woman on twitter said men were raping her and they shouldnt!". There is a very realistic mechanism of "That woman who complained about men raping her got humiliated on Twitter after the spoke out" making women less likely to speak about their abuse.

 

[xi0]

Because I want you to care about what's demonstrably right as opposed to optically right.

See, I just don't think this is only about optics. Certainly, when it comes to being a figurehead that someone takes seriously, a portion of that is about optics. But there's plenty of substantive things he's just wrong about. You don't agree there obviously, but c'est la vie.

Not "not liking him despite giving reasons." Letting those reasons blind you to the good that he does. is what's disheartening. I gave two examples of what I think you're doing. Either not being skeptical, or being selectively skeptical. If you're admitting you're selectively skeptical then you're admitting you're dishonest. In other words, yes I think your reasoning is irrational, if you are indeed deciding who's correct based on whether you like the person saying what they're saying or not. I think that the amount of good that Destiny does is several orders of magnitude greater than him saying a few gamer words. I think the canvasing, the fighting for progressive policies, the defense of liberal ideas in harsh environments no one else on the Left is willing to step foot in, and dogged attempts at presenting the truth even at great cost to himself is a value that every political commentator should have. I wish you felt the same. I'm sad that you don't.

It's not "blinding" me, I've acknowledged those potentially good things many times. You've read me doing just that. I just don't care to overlook all of the other mess because of that. Other things are more worth my time. I've never liked the way he's handled himself, he had both optically and demonstrably bad takes when it came to things like the BLM movement, your convo with shio reminded me of his terribly takes on sexual abuse. There's countless examples. The way he's behaved since October 7th is abhorrent to me, whether the majority of Americans give a fuck about that or whether it made any difference in the election is another thing.

That's an assumption I wouldn't be comfortable making without knowing the full context of the conversation. They could just be a fucking idiot. I remember training an employee at my job and we were talking about the newest Call of Duty game, and he mentioned that he hated seeing BLM all over everyone's profiles on the game because it was racist. This motherfucker was dumb, but he wasn't evil. He only shared this information with me because he thought I was hispanic instead of black (a lot of people think I'm hispanic because of my skin tone).

I coulda turned this poor cousin fucker into a white supremacist by turning up on him right then and there, but that's the wrong thing to do.

Racism is idiotic. You will very rarely see an intelligent, well-spoken person saying these kinds of things. Not to be patronizing, and I don't know who you grew up around, but white people are generally pretty racist and even moreso anti-black. The reasons for that and why that is can vary in different degrees of maliciousness.

Idk the context outside of what you've said but you would have been completely justified in doing so. Bad ideas and words should have consequences, especially in a professional setting. You decided to be charitable to him and you might have had good reasons, and the reality is he should be thanking his lucky stars that you were. I doubt much will change in these kinds of people without some form of intervention.

Obviously, that's Destiny to a tee. He's the living embodiment of "The worse person you know just made a good point." It's just he's filled to over-flowing with good points, and that HAS to mean something.

The issue here is I don't think he's over-flowing with good points. On many things that matter he probably is, on many other things he isn't. Perhaps he has many more good points than bad, but the bad ones are baaaaad to me.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 16, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 16, 2024 ---

I can't even tell you how shocked I am

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 16, 2024 ---

 

[ninjabot]

On the Destiny topic: Whatever.

Next topic: As a way to fein an attempt to fight antisemitism on Twitch, without every actually having to punish their cash cow Hasan Piker, Twitch has added the word Zionist to it's list of potential slurs. I mean it's obvious people use it like a slur, but it's not a slur.

Twitch changes its hateful content policy to include ‘Zionist’ as potential slur following criticism

The policy change comes after critics of the Amazon-owned streaming service argued that hate toward Jewish people has prevailed on Twitch in the past year,

www.nbcnews.com

Even weirder, they're doing this to fight Destiny's friend Dan Saltman and his attack on Twitch, claiming they're all antisemitic... but isn't it gonna be MORE antisemitic to just call the Zionists they were attacking all year Jews now? That's counterproductive lol.

“We recognize that ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zionism’ also refer to a political movement,” Twitch wrote in its blog post. “Using the term to refer to the political movement, whether in a supportive or critical way, does not violate our Hateful Conduct policy. Our goal isn’t to stifle conversation about or criticism of an institution or ideology, but to prevent coded hate directed at individuals and groups of people.”

OH, I get it now. This is essentially a nothingburger.

 

[xi0]

Next topic: As a way to fein an attempt to fight antisemitism on Twitch, without every actually having to punish their cash cow Hasan Piker, Twitch has added the word Zionist to it's list of potential slurs. I mean it's obvious people use it like a slur, but it's not a slur.

Question - what exactly did he do that was worthy of punishment? I'm aware of course that a corporate entity doesn't have to actually give a fuck about controversy unless it costs them money. That's all I'm seeing here - otherwise you think the ADL or dishonest morons like Brianna Wu are making cogent points that people shouldn't laugh at.





Destiny and his community despise Hasan. But I don't actually see there being any sort of motivation having to do with morals or decency of any kind. The notion that he or one of his associates is the vanguard in fighting antisemitism on Twitch is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. There's no altruism going on here. The same kind of people flooded Twitch's report system to get Hasan banned for calling someone a "cracker"...

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 17, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 17, 2024 ---

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 17, 2024 ---

Even weirder, they're doing this to fight Destiny's friend Dan Saltman and his attack on Twitch, claiming they're all antisemitic... but isn't it gonna be MORE antisemitic to just call the Zionists they were attacking all year Jews now? That's counterproductive lol.

Looked further into this and now the guy you mentioned is posting about reporting a streamer on Twitch and personally emailing the CEO because of a joke involving playing the national anthem of North Korea and calling it KPop.




Even if someone wanted to suggest some aspect of this is in poor taste, who the fuck would call this violent extremism? So off-color jokes are worth fucking over the revenue-stream of hundreds or thousands of streamers? Because we dislike a streamer or a CEO? Who does this benefit exactly? Who is being protected?

 

[ninjabot]

Question - what exactly did he do that was worthy of punishment? I'm aware of course that a corporate entity doesn't have to actually give a fuck about controversy unless it costs them money. That's all I'm seeing here - otherwise you think the ADL or dishonest morons like Brianna Wu are making cogent points that people shouldn't laugh at.

All of the things I keep posting here that are usually ignored (M3J did apologia for some of it finally, months after the first time I posted it).

ONCE MORE FROM THE TOP:

https://wiki.destiny.gg/view/Hasan_Piker%27s_Support_of_Known_Terrorist_Organizations_on_Twitch

Though really, he's not exclusively the reason DGG are tearing down Twitch. Dan Clancy is the main target because he's the one that keeps allowing Hasan to get away with this kind of thing, as well as being responsible for things like the Twitch Israeli ban and looking the other way during that anti-semitic politics panel last month that caused a lot of Hasan's waiting room streamers to get banned.

Secondly, fuck Brianna Wu, but she's right on this one. We just got through doing the "bad person, correct takes" argument, so I'm not getting into that again.

Destiny and his community despise Hasan. But I don't actually see there being any sort of motivation having to do with morals or decency of any kind. The notion that he or one of his associates is the vanguard in fighting antisemitism on Twitch is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. There's no altruism going on here. The same kind of people flooded Twitch's report system to get Hasan banned for calling someone a "cracker"...

The same motivation he has for organizing canvassing for dem candidates and helping with door to door knocking. Same reason he debates. He wants to promote liberalism and fight those that are anti-liberal. Regardless of the side it's coming from.

For the first bolded point, it's literally true. No one brought this to light before Steven and Dan because no one criticizes Hasan on Twitch. His only pushback is from Destiny and political streamers in his orbit. For fuck's sake, since you're dead set on accepting what Hasan says over Destiny, he admits that Dan is responsible for it, and I've been posting all his efforts on this site for the past couple of weeks.

Dan is responsible for the site that plays twitch advertisments, followed by unhinged Hasan statements. that played before or after them to get advertisers to see what kind of antisemitism they're unintentionally promoting with their products. https://advertiseontwitch.com/

Dan is ALSO the one that created the Twitch or Terrorist game I've posted here twice, and streamers have been playing it on stream to get the word out on what kind of behavior flies at Twitch. You know, where they put up a quote and try to guess if it was a terrorist or a twitch streamer who said it. twitchorterrorist.com

And he's done all of this without Steven's help or motivation, because Destiny isn't pro deplatforming. He'd much rather have Hasan still be able to stream, but be reprimanded extremely harshly for the harm he's causing to the political landscape.

And for the second bolded point, that's a pretty strong, unprovable claim. And I can't trust you'd be able to recognize an altruistic act from Destiny if it walked up to you and asked you who you voted for in the 2024 election.

Looked further into this and now the guy you mentioned is posting about reporting a streamer on Twitch and personally emailing the CEO because of a joke involving playing the national anthem of North Korea and calling it KPop.

It's because Hasan is flaunting the fact that he's dodging all of these bullets while costing Twitch thousands of dollars, getting his friends thrown under the bus to take bans meant for him, and not correcting his language or behavior despite any of it. The more Hasan acts non-plused, the more Dan's gonna turn the screws. Dan is Jewish by the way. He does have a personal stake against the Settler Babies guy.

Even if someone wanted to suggest some aspect of this is in poor taste, who the fuck would call this violent extremism? So off-color jokes are worth fucking over the revenue-stream of hundreds or thousands of streamers? Because we dislike a streamer or a CEO? Who does this benefit exactly? Who is being protected?

This part specifically isn't. It's all the stuff leading up to it, including the Israeli account ban, the Houthi glazing, the anti-semitic panel, etc. This harmless joke here is intended to be him playing up his radical nature as just being the quirky radical leftist amongst his friends. The guy in the seat next to him is the guy who got scared to death because he ended up on the Israeli nightly news for the stunt Hasan pulled up in the wiki above I posted, where he's playing terrorist propaganda music for his unwitting friend, which caused him, a non-politics streamer, to be mistaken for a terrorist sympathizer ala Hasan. He's literally recreating the events of that stream, except with extra people there.

It's why Dan's typing the word TODAY in all caps. Because it shows that Hasan has learned nothing, which means Dan Clancy has learned nothing.

As for who is protected, and who this benefits? Liberals and the left in general only serve to benefit if the biggest left-leaning politics streamer wasn't a radical stochastic terrorist that glorifies Houthi pirates to the point of having them on his stream. It protects the young age bracket eating up Hasan's content because he's not radicalizing them if he's not allowed to do shit like this. It helps and protects left-leaning Jewish people that felt mortified that the party they align with is lead by people who are preaching anti-semitism. It protects non political streamers that are losing ad revenue as advertisers flee from Twitch thanks to Hasan and his ilk making the platform seem like a brand risk.

 

[shionoro]

One has to be aware that being a streamer automatically encourages behavior that gives attention. And that attention is indirectly translated into money and fame.

Much like with politicians, it is impossible to separate the behavior of a streamer (edgy, altruistic, factual, clownish) from that logic. So when streamers have beef with each other, even if the ymight truly hate each other, what they actually do is creating content that mutually benefits them.

Thus it seems ill advised to give them too much relevance, as a streamer is never going to be a source that one should put too much trust in (as there will always be an interest to have viewership rather than be unbiased or true)

 

[ninjabot]

Thus it seems ill advised to give them too much relevance, as a streamer is never going to be a source that one should put too much trust in (as there will always be an interest to have viewership rather than be unbiased or true)

This is the exact reason why people are claiming to flock to alternative media instead of legacy media for their political news. You can say this exact thing about anyone. You can accuse legacy news media of having a profit motive that requires them to keep rage-baiting viewers instead of informing them because it grants them greater ratings, especially in a climate where cable tv is on it's way out and instead people are watching podcasters and social media influencers for their political takes. You can accuse streamers of causing drama amongst themselves because drama draws attention better than research and daily news streams.

At least with political streamers you get to watch the source that they're getting their news from, and at least with debaters you get to see people contend with arguments by rebutting them and correcting misinformation.

Ideally, you wouldn't rely on a streamer as your exclusive source of news. But also ideally, you'd accept true statements from whatever source they come from. Skepticism is worthless if it's selective or even worse, emotionally driven.

 

[shionoro]

This is the exact reason why people are claiming to flock to alternative media instead of legacy media for their political news. You can say this exact thing about anyone. You can accuse legacy news media of having a profit motive that requires them to keep rage-baiting viewers instead of informing them because it grants them greater ratings, especially in a climate where cable tv is on it's way out and instead people are watching podcasters and social media influencers for their political takes. You can accuse streamers of causing drama amongst themselves because drama draws attention better than research and daily news streams.

At least with political streamers you get to watch the source that they're getting their news from, and at least with debaters you get to see people contend with arguments by rebutting them and correcting misinformation.

Ideally, you wouldn't rely on a streamer as your exclusive source of news. But also ideally, you'd accept true statements from whatever source they come from. Skepticism is worthless if it's selective or even worse, emotionally driven.

The big difference is the brand loyalty and the relationship to the streamer by the fans. If i try to get my news via print media like the guardian, the outlet DOES have some incentive to give me news that make me want to keep reading, for example news that make me angry or excite me. That is true for all newsmedia. However, the journalist has no incentive to sell himself as a figure of trust to you.

If the guardian makes a bad article or has a policy that makes him report selectively, that might misinform me but there are other news media out there and I might still get the information elsewhere without batting much of an eye. But if I listen to a streamer for hundreds of hours, I form a relationship to him. If he misinforms me, that means he betrays me. if he is biased, i have an actual emotional investment to lose that I just dont have with a media outlet that has many faceless journalists.

That makes it a lot harder to accurately judge the information, because streamers intermix personal content with political content.

Hasan plays some NK propaganda song because he knows that this is going to be a story (or at least hopes so) and strenghtens his brand with the people who are up for his content. A guardian journalist does not have to think of this kind of brand creation, he does not have the incentive to be edgy in his articles (on the contrary, outside of opinion pieces, there is an incentive to not use that kind of language or antic). In the same light, it shouldnt be assuemd that destiny goes after Hasan because he finds Hasan's content horrible. it might very well be that destiny truly does think so, but you cannot separate it from the giant incentive to go after Hasan because it creates content via drama and strenghtens destiny's brand.

 

[ninjabot]

The big difference is the brand loyalty and the relationship to the streamer by the fans. If i try to get my news via print media like the guardian, the outlet DOES have some incentive to give me news that make me want to keep reading, for example news that make me angry or excite me. That is true for all newsmedia. However, the journalist has no incentive to sell himself as a figure of trust to you.

Sure, but the streamer doesn't have to sell himself as a figure of trust that hard, they just have to appeal to your biases and your emotions. Destiny would be a lot bigger and a lot richer if he would moderate his positions based on the emotions of his viewers. He's excised entire swathes of his fanbase multiple times. In fact, that's how I became a Vaush fan for a few years during the arc where Steven was attacking Leftists more than he was attacking Conservatives, because at the time I only cared about watching political content that agreed with me, and Steven wasn't doing that. So I sought politcal commentators who's content consisted almost exclusively of them attacking conservatives. The Serfs, Vaush, TYT, Xanderhal, Kyle Kulinksi, Sam Seder.

I've come a long way since then by checking my biases and listening to more than just one person about any particular topic, thanks in great part to Destiny debating these people and being correct about factual things they were wrong about.

If the guardian makes a bad article or has a policy that makes him report selectively, that might misinform me but there are other news media out there and I might still get the information elsewhere without batting much of an eye. But if I listen to a streamer for hundreds of hours, I form a relationship to him. If he misinforms me, that means he betrays me. if he is biased, i have an actual emotional investment to lose that I just dont have with a media outlet that has many faceless journalists.

That makes it a lot harder to accurately judge the information, because streamers intermix personal content with political content.

I agree with everything except the bolded, because once again, if you're watching the streamer do research in real-time, you can't accuse them of misinformation. Or you can, but you'd have to accuse them of misinterpreting the information instead. In addition to that, I'd argue the one advantage of political commentators is that they can be corrected in real time via other commentators (think of it as peer review), where as I dunno how quickly The Guardian would correct a non-truth that they published. I also don't even know how you'd get in touch with them to force them to do so. Certainly they have editors and they double check their work, but shit gets through.

And to be clear, I never said that streamers are the best path toward truth and knowledge. I'm just pushing back on the idea that they can't be relied on for truth because the people relying on them have parasocial relationships with them. Rhetoric in a debate can only take you so far. Eventually someone's going to call you out on something you lied about, or were wrong about, or you'll be stonewalled by a topic you didn't educate yourself on. This hasn't happened with Stephen. But if it did, that's fine, because no one should rely on any one source for their information, and I don't.

Hasan plays some NK propaganda song because he knows that this is going to be a story (or at least hopes so) and strenghtens his brand with the people who are up for his content. A guardian journalist does not have to think of this kind of brand creation, he does not have the incentive to be edgy in his articles (on the contrary, outside of opinion pieces, there is an incentive to not use that kind of language or antic). In the same light, it shouldnt be assuemd that destiny goes after Hasan because he finds Hasan's content horrible. it might very well be that destiny truly does think so, but you cannot separate it from the giant incentive to go after Hasan because it creates content via drama and strenghtens destiny's brand.

Sure, but I don't have to seperate it, because it doesn't effect to thruth of his claims. I'm saying all of your points are valid, they're just not justification for dismissing true claims based solely on the source it came from. You don't have to justify not taking Destiny's word when he says things, you have to justify not taking Destiny's word when he's right.

And you can't do that. Niether can xi0, nor M3J, nor Hasan. What you can do is bring up mean words he's said and hope that sways people from stepping out of their echo chambers long enough to hear a different point of view.

And not for nothing, but the reason why Destiny attacks Hasan and Hasan attacks Destiny aren't the same, and it goes deeper than "Hasan and Destiny hate each other" or "Drama leads to more views, and more views leads to more money."

Destiny attacks Hasan for what he says on stream, because he can't get him to debate him, so the only way Hasan gets any pushback is through Desitny making videos on the shit he says. Hasan attacks Destiny to defend against the attacks on what he says on stream (The attacks aren't defenses against Destiny's claims, they're just a mantra of "N-word manifesto, cuck, divorced by his wife). Personal attacks. In fact, Hasan went like, 2 straight years without responding to Destiny's content on his own stream for fear of being ushered toward a debate by his chat... but he's gradually been losing subscribers because he doesn't do political content with other political streamers, he only does it with "normies" that can't push back on his propaganda. Even his orbiters never get chances to do content with him, because Hasan refuses to grant clout to anyone. They have to settle for replaying Hasan's content on their own streams for an hour before going life inorder to draw Hasan fans to their content. THEN they stream all day until Hasan comes on, and then leave because their entire viewer base leaves to watch Hasan's content. To make up for this loss in subs he's going out of his way to watch more Destiny content to leach viewers, hoping that Destiny's rising stardom will translate into more clout for himself. He's complained live about not getting to go on Piers Morgan as much as Destiny does, but won't go on episodes where Destiny will be on.

 

[shionoro]

@ninjabot

I am not saying that streamers necessarily misinform their viewers on purpose. I am saying that every streamer, even those who could be bigger if they wanted to, have a brand and have to do some things to retain their base viewership. Some might min/max a lot, some might be fine if they just have "enough" viewers, but they all need to survive at least. As far as I can follow you, part of Destiny's brand is that he is a good debater. Your enjoyment of him would probably be way lower if you thought he often loses debates or does simply not do them anymore. So he knows his conflict oriented content is popular and, unless he wants to rebrand himself, he is going to do it. That does not mean he doesnt like to do it, but it is still a strong incentive. Much like Hasan might be an actual jackass, but he also knows his fans like it when he acts out, so he has an incentive to do it. And you might even be right that Hasan fears his brand might be hurt if he loses a debate against Destiny. All of these people (including others like Vaush and what you have) are conscious of their brand and their viewership, because they have to be. This is a job, just like Politician (who also might want to do good but has to get votes). And that reality can have hidden effects.

For example, fans of debaters often become more convinced to apply the logic of conflict to a political discussion (because the streamer they follow does, because that is what his audience clicks). Someone has to win and someone has to lose. Facts are weapons. That is a logic that is really flawed in my opinion, but it is popular. I am old enough to remember the good old atheist vs muslim debates in which each side claimed to have destroyed each other. I can assure you that none of these destructions had any real effect except making people angrier at each other.

Someone who prepares for a debate he intends to win is, in my opinion, unlikely to find a deeper understanding for the conflict or how to solve it. Because he is searching for wepaons he wants to use, having an invulnerable armor of facts that support their view, but also making it harder to broaden that view. And the people who follow that debate get taken on that ride, too, narrowing their view.

Debate logic sometimes suggests things that are not true, and this next pragraph, in my opinion, is an example of that:

And you can't do that. Niether can xi0, nor M3J, nor Hasan. What you can do is bring up mean words he's said and hope that sways people from stepping out of their echo chambers long enough to hear a different point of view.

What do you mean here by me hoping to sway people from stepping out of their echo chambers? That is a pretty heavy accusation (not just for me, also for the others). But I can assure you that nothing is further from the truth. I did not know who he even is until like 2 days ago and I find Hasan obnoxious. There is no hidden motive, just my honest opinion. Why would I do anything else?

For the record, my criticism was not about "mean words", my criticism is that Destiny's attacks against that woman show a severe lack of knowledge about rape. But for argument's sake, I want to ask you: If my criticism would just be that destiny was behaving unethically by mocking a rape survivor without need, would that not be a very fair criticism? You said:

In her defense, I'd never say the things he said, and not just for fear of backlash from other people. It's because I wouldn't want to hurt this dumb girl's feelings. But when it comes to facts I don't CARE ABOUT THE MORALIZING. I care that he's RIGHT. When the fuck did we become a post-fact nation where it's okay to dismiss truth because it hurts our feelings!?

But why is it more important to you that he is "right", than that he is in the wrong? I think that kind of debate logic here narrows the view on the issue, which, in this case, is much larger than the question of whether her rape could have been prevented by other behavior or not.

It is a true statement that she wouldnt get dateraped if she would never have sex again. It is also a true statement that there would not be teen pregnancies if teenagers did not have sex. But I think taking that stance on teen pregnancies shows one knows nothing about the complex issue of teens and sexuality, much like I think that applying this "gotcha" debate logic against a rape victim is very problematic and leads to false conclusion and actions.

 

[M3J]

It's subjective framing, but kinda? I'd make it clear that I don't really give a shit about the feud they've had. I think Destiny and his close associates are generally sociopathic and Hasan is a fragile egomaniac. I think the whole deplatforming angle going on is hypocritical to say the least though. You know where I stand on Gaza and the notion that discussions that involve criticisms of Israel not only as a state but also as a concept being anti-Semitic is complete horseshit.

These two camps don't like eachother, so using any excuse to smear eachother is what is going on. Destiny is an edgelord so I find him to be more reprehensible. I thought that long before I was even aware of who Hasan is though.

I'm asking you as you know more about those two than I do, and you're not biased towards destiny like ninjabot is.

All of the things I keep posting here that are usually ignored (M3J did apologia for some of it finally, months after the first time I posted it).

ONCE MORE FROM THE TOP:

https://wiki.destiny.gg/view/Hasan_Piker's_Support_of_Known_Terrorist_Organizations_on_Twitch

It's called reacting to new information. Why would most people keep the same views they had months ago when new information has been out, like Israel actually being guilty of sexual assault and not Hamas? Hasan can go fuck himself for all I care, but most of the views he has on Middle East actually makes sense.

Actually quite wild how you brought up my apologia few times, but you've either stayed quiet on Israel being exposed of crimes that they accused Hamas of while pointing out anything bad about Hamas even when debunked. Again, it implies you actually don't have an issue with Israel's horrific actions like you claim, when you keep deflecting and ignoring facts.

Also, quite ironic that you use a Wiki source that's very biased and from a source that has no understanding of what's going on in the Middle East, unlike the person that the article is about.





I... don't get how Zionist is a slur or can be considered a slur when it was coined by a Zionist. It was never meant to be a slur, and it's not used as a slur or insult. Zionists are more likely to be anti-semitic than the people criticizing Zionism, if anything, and it's quite hilarious that Twitch wants to ban the term.

 

[shionoro]

When we talked before about how Democrats are often in support of the rightwing measures but like to be a little nicer about it, I meant something liket his:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-ho...g-nonprofits-accused-of-supporting-terrorism/ [note that Iike using sourceslike this pro Israel one because then nobody can accuse me of giving the news a framing of my liking. The source is obviously biased]

Basically, that bill, which a considerable amount of House democrats voiced support for, would give the treasury department (and with it, the government) the power to unilaterally decide to deny tax-exemption from nonprofits if it decides that the nonprofit supports terrorist organizations. Currently, nonprofits can also lose their tax-exemption if they are proven in court to be in support of terrorist organizations. But the difference is that the treasury department can decide on its own without having to prove anything.

At a September hearing, Robert Harvey, an expert at Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, explained that the government would not be required to disclose how it reached its determination or to provide any evidence of wrongdoing.

“As I understand it, all the Treasurer has to do to deny tax exemption is to mail a notice to the organization involved saying: ‘You’re a terrorist-supporting organization, we have found you are providing material support, and you’re denied your exemption?’” Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett asked Harvey, according to The Intercept.

“That’s correct, Mr. Doggett,” Harvey replied.

The organization that is attacked can file a court claim in 90 days, but it then needs to win the court case obviously (which takes effort even if the claim is unsubstantiated). Basically, the government can just mass-accuse organizations it doesnt like nonstop to harrass them (and obviously also win even some unsubstatiated cases if it gets lucky). It does not have to commit any effort to do that.

The ADL and pro Israel House democrats back it and with a republican Senate, it is very likely that it will pass.

This is not just going to hurt the pro Gaza movement. The government can obviously change the list of terrorist organizations if it wants to accuse someone. For example, who says BLM is not a terrorist organization? Or who says a climate activist like Roger Hallam is not a terrorist and every organization that deals with extinction rebellion thus loses their tax exemption?

 

[kkck]

At this point I think it's warranted to have a thread to discuss toxic and inflammatory political commentators.

 

[M3J]

At this point I think it's warranted to have a thread to discuss toxic and inflammatory political commentators.

Make said thread, or someone interested in discussing that can. Either way, Hasan and Destiny don't seem like the people I would care to debate or discuss stuff with, especially Destiny. Man seems like a horrible person, especially with the way he responded to a victim of sexual assaults.

And according to his Wiki, he got fired from a waitering job because he's an asshole lmfao



But yeah, another reason why Democrats struggled to win in 2016 and 2024 is because for the most part, they in some way support right-wing policies. I liked a lot of what Harris promised, but Biden promised those too and did not carry out a lot of them, didn't even seem to fight hard to do that when blocked by the SCOTUS. I think 2020 was just a lucky moment for Biden because of how badly Trump fumbled.

 

[kkck]

I can't really look at the current election results and think "yeah, democrats lost because they weren't progressive/inclusive enough". I get not loving biden but damn, his presidency wasn't outright awful for democrats. With kamala you got at least a continuation for that. Instead sheer democrat apathy got trump into the WH. Trump might be a barely coherent old man but he won against kamala on policy, even if said policy is a bunch of catchphrases no one knows how to turn into a plan.

 

[shionoro]

I can't really look at the current election results and think "yeah, democrats lost because they weren't progressive/inclusive enough". I get not loving biden but damn, his presidency wasn't outright awful for democrats. With kamala you got at least a continuation for that. Instead sheer democrat apathy got trump into the WH. Trump might be a barely coherent old man but he won against kamala on policy, even if said policy is a bunch of catchphrases no one knows how to turn into a plan.

I really liked Biden. I think he was a fantastic president for the hand he was dealt and would have loved a second term. But it is much harder nowadays to stay in power, as basically most governments globally are unpopular.

Basically, people are dissatisfied with the status quo. But both moderate republicans and democrats stand for that and defend it. Trump is radically against the status quo (much like Milai, or really most right extremist parties in the western world), not just in policy, but also in style (which is what leftists in parties tend to avoid). I think that scratched the itch people had, even a second time.

This will fade now that republicans are in power, just like it did after trump's first presidency, when trump similarly was just upholding the status quo and trying to navigate around covid. Still, democrats would be well advised to run on something that isn't close to the age-old democrat establishment. It really has to be someone that isn't close to clinton, pelosi or obama.

 

[kkck]

I really liked Biden. I think he was a fantastic president for the hand he was dealt and would have loved a second term. But it is much harder nowadays to stay in power, as basically most governments globally are unpopular.

Basically, people are dissatisfied with the status quo. But both moderate republicans and democrats stand for that and defend it. Trump is radically against the status quo (much like Milai, or really most right extremist parties in the western world), not just in policy, but also in style (which is what leftists in parties tend to avoid). I think that scratched the itch people had, even a second time.

This will fade now that republicans are in power, just like it did after trump's first presidency, when trump similarly was just upholding the status quo and trying to navigate around covid. Still, democrats would be well advised to run on something that isn't close to the age-old democrat establishment. It really has to be someone that isn't close to clinton, pelosi or obama.

Hmmm, I don't really buy that biden could do much of anything for the past year. He was just an old man whose cabinet covered for. And when election time came it was just imposible to hide. Maybe he started out ok, in line with what a president whose main mandate was to not be trump but, he deteriorated too fast.

I don't like putting milei and trump in the same basket. I didn't like him at first, he seemed to clownish, but in power he has taken reasonable measures to bring inflation to heel. Unfortunately the bulk of the news around him appear to be in line with "austerity bad" even though anywhere in the world measures to control inflation are recessive...

Who knows, maybe trump destroys enough of obamas-bidens legacy that democrats finally move on from them. One can dream...

 

[M3J]

I can't really look at the current election results and think "yeah, democrats lost because they weren't progressive/inclusive enough". I get not loving biden but damn, his presidency wasn't outright awful for democrats. With kamala you got at least a continuation for that. Instead sheer democrat apathy got trump into the WH. Trump might be a barely coherent old man but he won against kamala on policy, even if said policy is a bunch of catchphrases no one knows how to turn into a plan.

I mean, it makes sense that they lost because they weren't progressive enough, given a lot of voters that'd vote for Democrats would actually want progressive policies. Trump had some legit policies though, on top of saying stupid things that people agree with.

FYI legit policies are not the same as good policies, and I am not saying his policies are good. Most, if not all, make no sense to anyone with common sense.

 

[kkck]

I mean, it makes sense that they lost because they weren't progressive enough, given a lot of voters that'd vote for Democrats would actually want progressive policies. Trump had some legit policies though, on top of saying stupid things that people agree with.

FYI legit policies are not the same as good policies, and I am not saying his policies are good. Most, if not all, make no sense to anyone with common sense.

I mean, this time around democrats lost ground on minorities while trump gained on them. As it turns out gen z which 2 months ago I could have swore the internet said was further left than millenials turned out to be surprisingly conservative. I didn't watch the debate between trump and harris but it clearly didn't hurt him THAT much nor gave democrats a reason to show up en mass to vote. Or to remind them what a trump presidency actually was. Maybe I am misremembering but looking back it almost looks like the debate just made kamala seem more unlikable than she already was. Swing voters who supported trump said they did so on the economy, border and security or something and by all appearances it's democrats that suffered electorally over the culture war stuff. And this considering the economy under trump and under biden was largely the same, except during some portion of the pandemic which hurt trump. Maybe US folk do need one whole year to be able to tell how kamala and trump are different policy wise but otherwise.. Where do progressive policies fit into this scenario? Back in 2016 getting bernie and his supporters on board was a whole thing for democrats (which they failed to do). Where was that now?

 

[M3J]

I mean, this time around democrats lost ground on minorities while trump gained on them. As it turns out gen z which 2 months ago I could have swore the internet said was further left than millenials turned out to be surprisingly conservative. I didn't watch the debate between trump and harris but it clearly didn't hurt him THAT much nor gave democrats a reason to show up en mass to vote. Or to remind them what a trump presidency actually was. Maybe I am misremembering but looking back it almost looks like the debate just made kamala seem more unlikable than she already was. Swing voters who supported trump said they did so on the economy, border and security or something and by all appearances it's democrats that suffered electorally over the culture war stuff. And this considering the economy under trump and under biden was largely the same, except during some portion of the pandemic which hurt trump. Maybe US folk do need one whole year to be able to tell how kamala and trump are different policy wise but otherwise.. Where do progressive policies fit into this scenario? Back in 2016 getting bernie and his supporters on board was a whole thing for democrats (which they failed to do). Where was that now?

I think Harris's continuation of Biden's unpopular policies did not help her look better. You also had people who don't understand economy or how to research believing Trump's bullshit, like higher tariffs helping the economy that Biden fucked up.

Not sure where it'd fit tbh, especially if republicans fear monger by calling anything progressive as radical left and get people scared