I didn't mean to imply you have a vendetta against him to ruin his reputation broadly. I meant, currently, in this thread, you're being hyperbolic because he made you angry, and the way to strike back is to reduce him to someone that shouldn't be listened to by us, here, in this thread. You didn't say "I'm not going to listen to him because he's mean" you said "No one should listen to him about anything." That's a prescription for everyone here.
I said he cannot be trusted because he has shown to have very strong opinions with very little knowledge in the matter of rape. That is a facutal issue I have with him. It makes me angry that someone who knows so little then humiliates a woman while claiming intellectual superiority on the matter, but that is hardly something I am doing wrong. It also makes me angry Hasan said that baby settlers thing and you have no issue with that.
You claim that I am not talking about the facts, but when I started bringing up factual questions about your argumentation, you didnt answer them last time we talked about this (namely, what is the exact mechanism that Destiny's actions here protect women from rape and what is the mechanism that the woman who made this tweet leads to any negative consequence for rape victims?)
So we can absolutely go through this matter tweet by tweet and look at what Destiny actually said and what that woman actually said and why I think he is BOTH obviously misinformed and unethical.
And you've got tweets from angry anti-fans and clip-chimped examples of him saying mean things. That's not enough to deduce he shouldn't be trusted on anything.
I am not saying anything about other content where he might have been right. I am saying that someone who takes a topic as delicate as rape and is so horribly wrong about it and ALSO, in ADDITION to being wrong so insanely vile, should not be trusted on any other topic. Not knowing any other of Hasan's content, I wouldnt trust him either after the baby settlers thing. Because it is obviousl he felt very comfortable saying dangerous bullshit about a very delicate topic without any remorse or reflection, and it is very likely that he moves like that with other topics, too. Much like Destiny.
And for the record, it is not like I think the other stances you cited in your defense of him were right 8for example the BLM one). But why talk about more than one instead of the one I found most indefensible?
I was being glib. You don't want to stop people from stepping out of their echo chamber. But you're using rhetoric that stops people from hearing from someone outside of their echo chamber, so it's a side effect of your wording.
Which people? We are not in a debate. Who here is in an echo chamber and prevented by me listening to destiny? There is no basis for that accusation in a thread with less than 10 active participants. By that same logic, I could accuse you of just showing destiny in a good light because you want people to join the cult. But that would be unfair of me, right? Because you are just speaking your mind.
It doesn't bother me talking about him at all. I wouldn't keep posting his content if I didn't want to bring your attention to him. Just because I'm attacking you for being biased doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it. There'd be no problem if you could attack his ideas instead of his tone though. Maybe you think you're attacking his ideas instead of his tone. Maybe you think I'm wrong for pointing it out his argument is right despite being aggressive. But I have the benefit of knowing the full extent of his content from 2016 to now. And you've got tweets from angry anti-fans and clip-chimped examples of him saying mean things. That's not enough to deduce he shouldn't be trusted on anything.
But I am attacking his ideas. This is as if i attacked Donald Trump for saying Mexicans bring crime and saying that is racist bullshit, because the issue of crime is far more complex than that. It is both unethical (because it makes mexicans a target) AND it is misinformed because shutting out mexicans is not going to ease crime. Two things, something being unethical and being wrong, are not mutually exclusive. In fact they often go together, and this case is one of them.
Maybe we can go like this: What about his argument was being right exactly?
This is the original tweet:
"a dude slipped his condom off during sex after I asked him to wear one this week and it’s been bothering me, but I was too awkward to say anything. not even the first time this has happened, stop doing this men !!
There are no details in this tweet. It is unclear whether she noticed while the act was happening, just that she didnt say anything here. She specifies in the comments that she did not think about it as SA when it happened, but later thought about it that way. There is nothing indicating here that she is not an adult able of consent. This is a situation in which most people would be confused at first and get angry later when they think about it. We do not know whether she or both were drunk, what the circumstances were or anything else.
Destiny then retweets a user called WindMaves (I have no picture source but I can link you the video on youtube), who retweeted the original tweet and added: "If you knew he took off the condom and you couldnt even bring yourself to say anything, you shouldn't be having casual sex."
This is not a statement of fact. This is a statement of OPINION and a stupid one at that. Because a) he implies that she knew about the condom being taken off and b) it is a stupid stance that a woman should not have sex (casual or else) if she does not fight back in a scary situation. Quite a lot of women (and men) would not go as far as to fight someone who sexually assaulted them (because it is dangerous). Claiming that is the norm is like saying "you cannot complain if you got robbed when you didnt fight back". This is because it is a scary situation that might bring physical danger if you fight back, so it is not irrational to first bring yourself out of danger. To claim someone SHOULD fight back OR BE MOCKED FOR IT, is, as I said, an opinion and not one that matches reality or is commonly used in other potentially dangerous situations.
But destiny liked this very stupid opinion. There is nothing factually correct about that (being an opinion), he just liked it. He could just aswell have liked the opinion "Real men would never get raped", it would be just as misguided and there is nothing that inherently can be called correct or incorrect about it because it is an opinion.
But destiny even doubled down here, not knowing any context at all, but feeling like he should absolutely humiliate this rape victim. He said [source in the link below]:
"She literally said "it felt awkward" to watch a guy stealh her. Just voice an opinion, have a little bit of agency over your life, you don't have to be a victim all the time, and you sure as fuck can't expect to be treated like an adult if you won't act like one."
He follows the OPINION of the other guys and even states that a woman who does not speak out in such a potentially dangerous situation should not be seen as an adult. Again, nothing about that is factual. That is his opinion and not one that takes the danger of the situation into account. And he adds a moral dimension himself here, not talking about anything factual but claiming she "has to be the victim all the time" without ever having interacted with her aside from reading one tweet. He makes up a person there without knowing her or the context, without any basis except that she does not like it if men take off the condom without her consent and was afraid after one man did that to her.
Then the woman replied to Destiny, saying:
"dude I've been actually raped and saying no just made him rape me harder. I noticed what had happened after he pulled out, it's not incomprehensible that I would rather just want to walk away from that situation than start a confrontation."
So she clears up that both tweeters got the context wrong. She didn't know he took off the condom until after the act. Speaking out would have meant to face someone who already crossed one boundary without even anything to gain (because the situation was over). She added that she already made the experience of rape, in which she clearly said "no" and the man just got even rougher with her. So she already had that horrible experience of men not accepting this boundary once and even being more rough to her and that is why she preferred to keep silent in that situation. That is completely rational behavior and she did nothing wrong about that. Whether ethically or factually, there is nothing irrational in about her actions. It isn't even clear what kind of sex she had, what her relationship to both men was or any of the context. That is all headcanon.
Destiny replied to that in his stream, laughing his ass off about her phrasing "he raped me harder". He then says it seems like she should not have casual sex (again claiming to know whether the sex was casual or with someone she knew). What exactly is "right" about that? He doubled down on his OPINION without taking the context of the situation or the new facts into account or making any factual statement.
He first said she should have spoken out, then she says she did, then he laughs and keep humiliating her. She did what he said she should have done, and Destiny still thinks she is stupid and worthy of mockery.
Please tell me what exactly was right, "technically" or otherwise, about what he said? That women shouldnt have sex unless they can fight off men or die trying? That a woman who was raped once should never have sex again if she is afraid when another man oversteps her boundaries? What is the actual argument here?
