American Politics

[ninjabot]

You didn't supply me with anything new that we haven't gone over already, and a couple things that we do know but you wouldn't know if you didn't watch the conversations about it later (like the fact it's confirmed by the victim it was casual sex, and that this has happened to her in 3 casual sex encounters, and she's had one violent rape as well). So I stopped with a potential huge response and will just answer the last question:

Destiny is right that casual sex is more dangerous than monogamous sex, and if one is going to engage in casual sex, they should have a strong understanding of boundaries and how to maintain them. If they do not, then they will continue to be exploited by rapists in casual encounters, but in committed non-casual encounters with a partner that they can trust, they are in much less danger of a potential rape. He said this in a mean way, but he said this.

In mental health, avoiding things that trigger you is called "accomodation". It's a negative coping mechanism and is not beneficial towards their mental health. So him absolving her of the responsibility to standing up for herself, is committing harm to her. Or at the very least enabling her. He's wrong to do that. You're wrong to do that. He's right to tell her not to pursue casual sex

It's counter productive to preach that No means No, only to tell women not to worry about saying no when it actually matters.

 

[shionoro]

Destiny is right that casual sex is more dangerous than monogamous sex, and if one is going to engage in casual sex, they should have a strong understanding of boundaries and how to maintain them. If they do not, then they will continue to be exploited by rapists in casual encounters, but in committed non-casual encounters with a partner that they can trust, they are in much less danger of a potential rape. He said this in a mean way, but he said this.

And where did Destiny get the context what kind of sex that woman had? And how exactly is the baseline for "casual sex"? You are claiming she did not "understand boundaries and how to maintain them". Which woman can? What does she have to do? Are there surefires ways for women not to get raped? If yes, what are they? Is a woman who was raped supposed to forever only have sex with her boyfriend? If so, what's with daterape or rape in a relationship, does that not exist? How was she supposed to stand up for herself exactly and where is the source for rape victims speaking out about that men should respect boundaries is a negative coping mechanism?

I genuinely do not understand the angle here. It is more dangerous to leave the house than to stay inside. Does that mean a person who is not a martial arts expert shouldnt go to a nightclub because there might be aggressive drunks?

 

[ninjabot]

And where did Destiny get the context what kind of sex that woman had? And how exactly is the baseline for "casual sex"? You are claiming she did not "understand boundaries and how to maintain them". Which woman can? What does she have to do? Are there surefires ways for women not to get raped? If yes, what are they? Is a woman who was raped supposed to forever only have sex with her boyfriend? If so, what's with daterape or rape in a relationship, does that not exist?

From the victim. This became a near monthlong debate panel/tweet exchange in twitchpol when it happened, with the victim supplying extra information throughout. That's how we know it happened to her 3 times, and they were all in casual sex encounters.

For the rest of the questions, no one has made the assertion that this is a surefire way to prevent rape, and I think you know that. This is dishonest framing. I even typed in the last post that you're "less likely to get raped in monogamous relationships than in casual sexual encounters". And in the same way that I would say a woman with weak boundaries shouldn't have sex with strangers, I'd say that a woman who is raped by a their boyfriend shouldn't have that boyfriend any more.

I genuinely do not understand the angle here. It is more dangerous to leave the house than to stay inside. Does that mean a person who is not a martial arts expert shouldnt go to a nightclub because there might be aggressive drunks?

You're lying.

 

[shionoro]

From the victim. This became a near monthlong debate panel/tweet exchange in twitchpol when it happened, with the victim supplying extra information throughout. That's how we know it happened to her 3 times, and they were all in casual sex encounters.

Are there links to that?

For the rest of the questions, no one has made the assertion that this is a surefire way to prevent rape, and I think you know that. This is dishonest framing. I even typed in the last post that you're "less likely to get raped in monogamous relationships than in casual sexual encounters". And in the same way that I would say a woman with weak boundaries shouldn't have sex with strangers, I'd say that a woman who is raped by a their boyfriend shouldn't have that boyfriend any more.

It is not dishonest, it is the foundation of your argument. If there is no surefire way to uphold your boundaries, what are you accusing that woman of? You say she can only have sex if she can uphold boundaries, then there must be a way to do that. If there isn't, you cannot tell her she should do something that is impossible. Elseways the word "weak" makes no sense, because you just claim her boundaries are weak, not telling how exactly to have strong enough boundaries.

Nobody said a woman should stay with a boyfriend that abuses her. I do not know why you bring that up. It is a very flawed comparison.

You're lying.

About what? I am just trying to highlight your own logic to you. The foundation of your argument is that someone who cannot keep themselves safe should not go into a situation that bears risks. But you wouldnt accept that logic with other circumstances (rightfully so). It only makes sense if the risk is very probable or if there is a reliable way to prevent it. Both is not true in case of rape. You cannot prevent rape reliably, not even if you just have sex with people you are dating. That is true even if you communicate your boundaries very forcefully and doing so might even put you at a higher risk to get physically attacked than if you kept silent, so it is a choice that can hardly be criticised.

 

[ninjabot]

Are there links to that?

I don't see the tweets anymore, but I know one of the videos where it's brought up:


Stealthed in 3 different casual sex encounters, violently raped in another. At the 23 minute point.

It is not dishonest, it is the foundation of your argument. If there is no surefire way to uphold your boundaries, what are you accusing that woman of? You say she can only have sex if she can uphold boundaries, then there must be a way to do that. If there isn't, you cannot tell her she should do something that is impossible. Elseways the word "weak" makes no sense, because you just claim her boundaries are week, not telling how exactly to have strong boundaries.

It's absolutely dishonest, because I keep emphasizing casual sex, and you keep changing it to just sex. You also compared this to sex with a boyfriend which again would not be casual sex, it'd be monogamous sex. And I haven't accused the woman of anything. Neither has Destiny. Except of having weak boundaries. But strong sexual boundaries would be. And you're right, I didn't supply strong sexual boundaries because only the one matters right here: the need to wear a condom. And she attempted to enforce it, but only in a situation where it's most likely to be violated (casual sex). Sexual boundaries include rules that you and your partner are willing to uphold in order to continue with a sexual encounter. Rules that have enforceable consequences.

1: Agreed upon sexual acts
2: Right to rescend consent
3: When is flexibility okay, and when is it not (flexibility meaning how far can you bend a boundary before it's considered a violation)
4: Demonstrations of trustworthiness (established before the sex even starts)

And I know you're gonna try it, so I'm cutting you off before you can: You can NOT accuse me of claiming this will prevent rape 100% of the time.

Nobody said a womans hould stay with a boyfriend that abuses her.

I know, I was saying that in both the casual sex or monogamous sex you should have a strong understanding of boundaries.

About what?

You're lying about not knowing my angle. I've told it to you too much by this point, it's impossible for you not to be able to steelman my argument. But you're super good at strawmanning it.

 

[shionoro]

@ninjabot

Stealthed in 3 different casual sex encounters, violently raped in another. At the 23 minute point.

Around that point Destiny repeats that the girl KNEW that the guy slipped the condom off. This already starts with him misrepresenting the case again. Aside from that I didnt find it from minute 23-27, can you specify the time?

[Found it now at minute 27, but it is just Destiny claiming that she was stealthed by 3 guys. Would have loved to see what the girl actually said, he misrepresented that whole thing before, so he is hardly trustworthy. There was also nothing about what the exact contexts of the rapes were]

It's absolutely dishonest, because I keep emphasizing casual sex, and you keep changing it to just sex. You also compared this to sex with a boyfriend which again would not be casual sex, it'd be monogamous sex. And I haven't accused the woman of anything. Neither has Destiny. Except of having weak boundaries. But strong sexual boundaries would be. And you're right, I didn't supply strong sexual boundaries because only the one matters right here: the need to wear a condom. And she attempted to enforce it, but only in a situation where it's most likely to be violated (casual sex). Sexual boundaries include rules that you and your partner are willing to uphold in order to continue with a sexual encounter. Rules that have enforceable consequences.

1: Agreed upon sexual acts
2: Right to rescend consent
3: When is flexibility okay, and when is it not (flexibility meaning how far can you bend a boundary before it's considered a violation)
4: Demonstrations of trustworthiness (established before the sex even starts)

And I know you're gonna try it, so I'm cutting you off before you can: You can NOT accuse me of claiming this will prevent rape 100% of the time.

It is the same argument. You effectively say women should not have casual sex, PERIOD, because upholding boundaries is impossible if a man is determined to cross them, since men are stronger. If you admit there is no sureway to prevent it, and women should not have casual sex (whatever you mean by that) unless they can uphold their boundaries, you are saying they should not have casual sex at all.

The woman in question put her boundary very clearly, it was still crossed. At that point, her decision was only whether she wanted to start an argument with the guy, which potentially brings her in danger, or to leave. You cannot blame her for not putting herself in danger, and you can hardly claim only women who are willing to bring themselves in danger by confronting abusive men should be able to have sex with someone they do not know for long. And I did bring up the boyfriend or date scenario because overstepping boundaries happens in these scenarios, too. It isn't like it is exclusive to casual sex.

I know, I was saying that in both the casual sex or monogamous sex you should have a strong understanding of boundaries.

Which is a meaningless condition unless you can tell me a surefire way to uphold them. The woman put boundaries. You said that yourself, you fault her because she tried to put them when having sex in a way you claim is riskier than with a fixed boyfriend. But that hardly means didnt put boundaries or it is her fault. As I said before, going out to a nightclub is riskier than going to a houseparty of trusted friends, but still nobody could be faulted if some drunk decides to beat them up at a nightclub.

You're lying about not knowing my angle. I've told it to you too much by this point, it's impossible for you not to be able to steelman my argument. But you're super good at strawmanning it.

I am not strawmanning anything. I am telling you your logic makes little sense. You keep claiming women can only have casual sex if they can put boundaries but refuse to tell me how that exactly looks like in practice if men just cross them. That is intellectual cowardice.

 

[ninjabot]

Around that point Destiny repeats that the girl KNEW that the guy slipped the condom off. This already starts with him misrepresenting the case again. Aside from that I didnt find it from minute 23-27, can you specify the time?

This is after she clarified with the new tweets, but he's defending the claim he made with the information he had to begin with. Spectre calls him out on it and he admits as much far later in the video. Remember: Destiny's broad point is about stealthing and sexual boundaries, not this girl's main anecdote. It doesn't change the argument.

And my mistake, I meant 27 minutes, and 23 seconds.

It is the same argument. You say women should not have casual sex, PERIOD, because upholding boundaries is impossible if a man is determined to cross them, since men are stronger. If you admit there is no sureway to prevent it, and women should not have casual sex (whatever you mean by that) unless they can uphold their boundaries, you are saying they should not have casual sex at all.

It's not the same argument because while I did say casual sex period, I didn't say all sex period. Maybe casual sex means something different in America than it does in Germany. Over here it refers to sex outside of a committed relationship, usually (this is the major point) with strangers. Do you see what I mean now when I say it's more dangerous than monogamous sex, especially for people with weak sexual boundaries? It's because strangers are more likely to be pushy when it comes to boundaries than committed partners are because they have no emotional, financial, social or legal connection to you that could be compromised by their abusive behavior. They can violate you and disappear into the wind with no way of having consequences placed upon them. That's always been the point. His point. My point.

A woman with weak sexual boundaries should not have sex with people like this. They should be in a committed, monogamous relationship, where they're in less danger.

The woman in question put her boundary very clearly, it was still crossed. At that point, her decision was only whether she wanted to start an argument with the guy, which potentially brings her in danger, or to leave. You cannot blame her for not putting herself in danger, and you can hardly claim only women who are willing to bring themselves in danger by confronting abusive men should be able to have sex with someone they do not know for long. And I did bring up the boyfriend or date scenario because overstepping boundaries happens in these scenarios, too. It isn't like it is exclusive to casual sex.

It could put her in danger, but it might not. The reason rapists stealth women during sex instead of just going ahead and violently assaulting them is because they don't want the confrontation and violence that comes with a violent rape. If they're that avoidant of confrontation, they're probably not the kinda guy to close-fist punch a girl in the face if she's not gonna let him keep having unprotected sex. But there's always the possibility that they are. That's why casual sexual encounters are frowned upon. They're a game of Russian Roulette.

Which is a meaningless condition unless you can tell me a surefire way to uphold them. The woman put boundaries.

No it isn't. Sex within a committed, monogamous relationship wouldn't 100% prevent rape of course, but we take precautions where we can, when we can. No one's arguing for a perfect solution because there is no perfect solution. We're arguing for preventative measures for people that need them. This woman needs them.

I am not strawmanning anything. I am telling you your logic makes little sense. You keep claiming women can only have casual sex if they can put boundaries but refuse to tell me how that exactly looks like in practice if men just cross them. That is intellectual cowardice.

I literally gave you an entire list of sexual boundaries, and explained why I didn't even need to do that much because we already know which particular boundary she failed at: enforcing the use of a condom.

A boundary isn't a boundary if it's not maintained. If she has to double-check mid sex encounter to be sure she isn't being stealthed, she could do that. If she can't, another option is only having sex she can trust not to take the condom off. You can't guarantee finding these people in casual sexual encounters, so casual sexual encounters should be avoided.

 

[shionoro]

It's not the same argument because while I did say casual sex period, I didn't say all sex period. Maybe casual sex means something different in America than it does in Germany. Over here it refers to sex outside of a committed relationship, usually (this is the major point) with strangers. Do you see what I mean now when I say it's more dangerous than monogamous sex, especially for people with weak sexual boundaries? It's because strangers are more likely to be pushy when it comes to boundaries than committed partners are because they have no emotional, financial, social or legal connection to you that could be compromised by their abusive behavior. They can violate you and disappear into the wind with no way of having consequences placed upon them. That's always been the point. His point. My point.

A woman with weak sexual boundaries should not have sex with people like this. They should be in a committed, monogamous relationship, where they're in less danger.

Again, what is "weak" here? what are stronger sexual boundaries in a tinder situation, for example? Which women are allowed by destiny to have casual sex, what exactly must they do? In CONCRETE terms.

It could put her in danger, but it might not. The reason rapists stealth women during sex instead of just going ahead and violently assaulting them is because they don't want the confrontation and violence that comes with a violent rape. If they're that avoidant of confrontation, they're probably not the kinda guy to close-fist punch a girl in the face if she's not gonna let him keep having unprotected sex. But there's always the possibility that they are. That's why casual sexual encounters are frowned upon. They're a game of Russian Roulette.

That is a claim without basis. You cannot first claim that casual sex is super dangerous and then suddenly it isn't dangerous to confront people who have shown they push over boundaries. Whether stealthers are more or less confrontative is headcanon.

No it isn't. Sex within a committed, monogamous relationship wouldn't 100% prevent rape of course, but we take precautions where we can, when we can. No one's arguing for a perfect solution because there is no perfect solution. We're arguing for preventative measures for people that need them. This woman needs them.

Why does that woman need them but other women do not? What is the concrete difference? And why does that not apply to other social situations like going to nightclubs without knowing kickboxing?

I literally gave you an entire list of sexual boundaries, and explained why I didn't even need to do that much because we already know which particular boundary she failed at: enforcing the use of a condom.

A boundary isn't a boundary if it's not maintained. If she has to double-check mid sex encounter to be sure she isn't being stealthed, she could do that. If she can't, another option is only having sex she can trust not to take the condom off. You can't guarantee finding these people in casual sexual encounters, so casual sexual encounters should be avoided.

ENFORCING is no boundary. A boundary is making clear what you want. My question is how she is supposed to enforce that as a physically weaker person. You now say she should have constantly check whether she is being stealthed (which kinda excludes having fun while having sex) or "make sure she can trust the person".

Both is just vague nonsense outside of reality. A headstrong, cautious woman can get raped just the same in any encounter with a man. Making things more or less likely is mostly something you cannot quantatively prove or outline. It is your personal estimation. There is no way for a woman to overcome your condition for having casual sex. Because you just go full circle with your argumentation: If a woman gets stealthed, obviously she was not able to uphold her boundaries, so she should not have had casual sex. Same for rape when it comes to Destiny, he said that when a woman said she was raped even tho she said no. What you are not saying is what exactly it is that a woman must do to have casual sex with your blessing, at least not in any concrete terms.

Your argument always boils down to "If a woman has not taken any possible measure to make the likelihood of rape less likely, she is to blame" (and stealthing is rape, unless what Destiny thinks in that video). And that, again, is a logic you would never accept in any other circumstance.

 

[ninjabot]

Again, what is "weak" here? what are stronger sexual boundaries in a tinder situation, for example? Which women are allowed by destiny to have casual sex, what exactly must they do?

Weak refers to insufficient. And everyone's allowed to have casual sex. Just like everyone's allowed to drink alcohol. But if someone can't hold their booze, or if they're a violent drunk, they shouldn't drink alcohol. Just like people that can't enforce their sexual boundaries should be having casual sex.

It's really not complicated: don't put yourself in dangerous situations. Super simple. Uncontroversial to anyone not emotionally invested in making it controversial.

That is a claim without basis. You cannot first claim that casual sex is super dangerous and then suddenly it isn't dangerous to confront people who have shown they push over boundaries. Whether stealthers are more or less confrontative is headcanon.

The basis is in the definition. It's called "stealthing" for a reason. It's sneaking unprotected sex on a woman you've tricked into trusting you in hopes that she won't notice. Violent rapists have no need for deception because they're taking the sex violently. And I never said casual sex isn't dangerous, I said if a rapist is going out of their way to avoid violence, they're probably going to continue trying to avoid violence. For someone that seems not to like debaters you're intentionally orchestrating the most badfaith interpretations of what I'm saying in hopes of a rhetorical gotcha.

Why does that woman need them but other women do not? What is the concrete difference? And why does that not apply to other social situations like going to nightclubs without knowing kickboxing?

Because this woman has expressed an exceptional lack of self-perservation and most women don't. And there are other ways to avoid having boundaries overcome in these other situations that you think are analogous. Some of the ways women protect themselves in nightclubs include:

1: not taking open drinks from strangers
2: never going anywhere alone (buddy system)
3: scheduled check-ins with friends

And wouldn't you know it, they still get to enjoy their nightclubs. All they had to do is take some safety precautions! Funny how that works.

ENFORCING is no boundary. A boundary is making clear what you want. My question is how she is supposed to enforce that as a physically weaker person. You now say she should have constantly check whether she is being stealthed (which kinda excludes having fun while having sex) or "make sure she can trust the person".

By paying attention and voicing discontent. You think you can trick me into saying "It's her fault she was raped because she didn't fight back", when that's never been my argument. Because you know damn well that if he's a violent rapist, he's just going to continue. But if he ISN'T, then he won't. And the only way to find that out is to push back. The fact he didn't force himself on her demonstrates that he's probably not violent, so you either take the risk or you don't. And I don't believe you if you're gonna claim she's not the type to take risks, or it's not worth it to take the risk, because every time she has casual sex she's taking an INSANE risk. She's putting herself in danger every time she hops in bed with someone she doesn't know, so she doesn't get that excuse.

Both is just vague nonsense outside of reality. A headstrong, cautious woman can get raped just the same in any encounter with a man. Making things more or less likely is mostly something you cannot quantatively prove or outline. It is your personal estimation. There is no way for a woman to overcome your condition for having casual sex. Because you just go full circle with your argumentation: If a woman gets stealthed, obviously she was not able to uphold her boundaries, so she should not have had casual sex. Same for rape when it comes to Destiny, he said that when a woman said she was raped even tho she said no. What you are not saying is what exactly it is that a woman must do to have casual sex with your blessing, at least not in any concrete terms.

I can't explain it any better than I have. Which is just as well, because you'd deliberately pick the least good faith response to it anyway. I wish you cared about rape victims as much as I did.

 

[shionoro]

The basis is in the definition. It's called "stealthing" for a reason. It's sneaking unprotected sex on a woman you've tricked into trusting you in hopes that she won't notice. Violent rapists have no need for deception because they're taking the sex violently. And I never said casual sex isn't dangerous, I said if a rapist is going out of their way to avoid violence, they're probably going to continue trying to avoid violence. For someone that seems not to like debaters you're intentionally orchestrating the most badfaith interpretations of what I'm saying in hopes of a rhetorical gotcha.

Yeah, and Trump is less likely to be corrupt because he is rich, right? This is your headcanon, let's not pretend otherwise. The fact someone takes off a condom does not make him less likely to be violent, it just means he thought it'd be less trouble to do it this way.

If we go by your very own logic of women having to minimize the risk of suffering, then not confronting a man is the choice you would have to advise them if you were honest.

Because this woman has expressed an exceptional lack of self-perservation and most women don't. And there are other ways to avoid having boundaries overcome in these other situations that you think are analogous. Some of the ways women protect themselves in nightclubs include:

1: not taking open drinks from strangers
2: never going anywhere alone (buddy system)
3: scheduled check-ins with friends

And wouldn't you know it, they still get to enjoy their nightclubs. All they had to do is take some safety precautions! Funny how that works.

How has she expressed more lack of self preservation than any other woman going on a tinder date and having sex afterwards?

By paying attention and voicing discontent. You think you can trick me into saying "It's her fault she was raped because she didn't fight back", when that's never been my argument. Because you know damn well that if he's a violent rapist, he's just going to continue. But if he ISN'T, then he won't. And the only way to find that out is to push back. The fact he didn't force himself on her demonstrates that he's probably not violent, so you either take the risk or you don't. And I don't believe you if you're gonna claim she's not the type to take risks, or it's not worth it to take the risk, because every time she has casual sex she's taking an INSANE risk. She's putting herself in danger every time she hops in bed with someone she doesn't know, so she doesn't get that excuse.

It is also the only way to find out whether he will beat you black and blue for it, and in your logic, a woman has to do everything she can to minimize risk. It is completely dishonest to now claim she has to put herself in danger or not be a true victim (that is what Destiny said). In case of her rape, she spoke out and then he got rougher. Destiny laughed about that, it was a joy for him to hear that it seems. What is your take on that?

 

[ninjabot]

Yeah, and Trump is less likely to be corrupt because he is rich, right? This is your headcanon, let's not pretend otherwise. The fact someone takes off a condom does not make him less likely to be violent, it just means he thought it'd be less trouble to do it this way.

I disagree. VIolent rapists aren't the most patient men.

If we go by your very own logic of women having to minimize the risk of suffering, then not confronting a man is the choice you would have to advise them if you were honest.

You can't keep jumping to extremes to make my stances seem absurd. You should realize that if you have to jump to extremes that aren't analogous then you don't have a strong counter argument.

How has she expressed more lack of self preservation than any other woman going on a tinder date and having sex afterwards?

I think the average tinder date takes better precautions because Tinder has safety features to help promote safe interactions.

Safety features

With 43 billion matches to date, Tinder® is the world’s most popular dating app, making it the place to meet new people.

policies.tinder.com

.

Then again she never says whether these men were met through Tinder so we don't know if she used Tinder and those precautions didn't help.

It is also the only way to find out whether he will beat you black and blue for it, and in your logic, a woman has to do everything she can to minimize risk. It is completely dishonest to now claim she has to put herself in danger or not be a true victim. In case of her rape, she spoke out and then he got rougher. Destiny laughed about that, it was a joy for him to hear that it seems. What is your take on that?

It was unhinged and unfortunate, I said that already. He was laughing at how she worded it. Instead of saying "it made things worse" she said "He raped me harder". It's just something that takes you by surprise to hear said out loud.

I haven't changed any positions, I've always held that she should do her best to mitigate danger. And if she can put herself in danger in the pursuit of casual sex, she can put herself in danger in the pursuit of maintaining her sexual boundaries. Both put her in danger. Also, not for nothing, but I noticed you never posted the tweet where she said she didn't THINK that stealthing was sexual assault in the beginning, and after all her friends (see: twitter randos) mentioned it online... where she admits she decided not to go through with any police reports in order to avoid more trauma. So even when the danger is gone she's not motivated to take the steps to stand up for her violated autonomy. Both of us seem to care more about her safety than she does.

Which is why I'm just gonna drop it. Seriously. For real this time. No more replies about this. At least not until we hear on the news about her eventual death, her body found under a bridge; pale with purple bruises along the neck and extremities. Cause of death: strangulation during sexual intercourse.

 

[shionoro]

Which is why I'm just gonna drop it. Seriously. For real this time. No more replies about this.

That's fine, we can agree to disagree. It is kinda offtopical here, anyway.

 

[M3J]

This is what Hasan used to do before he learned the socialist grift was more lucrative for him: Brotips. He was a less abrasive Andrew Tate. I didn't bother posting any of this, or the story about the brothel where he fucked hookers shortly before the brothel was investigated for having underage sex workers there... or the story about the 17-year old girl he allegedly fucked in his mid 20's, because I hate his politics. I don't need to attack his character to make his politics look bad.

I wish Destiny's detractors had the same integrity.

That's not integrity, that's a you problem. It also confirms that these streamers who talk politics are often people that cannot be taken seriously, for the most part. These things are related to his politics, as is his character.

So, it is confirmed that Hasan and Destiny are pieces of shit. Now we can avoid using them as sources or mentioning them, along with most streamers, if not all.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 22, 2024, Original Post Date: Nov 22, 2024 ---

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.

What the fuck? Stealthing is rape if the consent for sex was based on the usage of condom, and one party knowingly removes the condom. Despite what that cunt says, I hope she knows none of it is her fault, it's the men who chose to rape her. She deserves justice.

 

[ninjabot]

That's not integrity, that's a you problem.

It's both. My problem is trying to maintain integrity when surrounded by people who have none. It's my cross to bear. Woe is me.

So, it is confirmed that Hasan and Destiny are pieces of shit. Now we can avoid using them as sources or mentioning them, along with most streamers, if not all.

Even if you don't link bullshit from Hasan, I've seen you share things from people more unhinged than him, like zei_squirrel and Bad Empanada, both of whom are Hamas supporters that wish death on Zionists. Bad Empanada has doxed several streamers. He's a streamer himself. He's even jokingly said "if there is evidence of Hamas raping Zionists link it to me because I'm horny" or something to that effect. Which of course, I don't care about him saying. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Destiny tone policing.

As for not posting stuff from Destiny, he makes up for being a piece of shit by being well-informed and more willing to talk than any other political commentator you know. No matter how edgy he is, he's earned his spot on the Mt. Rushmore of political figures. And you're only going to hear more about him in the future once he starts his media company, whether I post about him here or not.

 

[M3J]

Dang, the ego. Shame you've proven otherwise.

Interestingly, Google only says he doxxed one streamer, and I can't find any instances of him saying that. Closest was this:
You may not care, but I do. People who are okay with or joke about rape shouldn't get any attention or platform regardless of their views.

He is not informed on the Middle East, at the very least. He's lacking knowledge and is obviously biased, but the hilarity is that you're the only one that I've seen talk about him or care about him. He is and was pretty much irrelevant, and it didn't help that his views especially on Israel are incorrect. Hasan's only relevant in mainstream because he knows more about the Middle East and with what's going on with Israel and Palestine.

Neither have earned their spot on anything, and Destiny is the perfect example of what turns people away from Democrats even if he allegedly got conservatives to become liberals.

Actually, I can see why Destiny tries so hard to be edgy and be a piece of shit. Only way for him to be relevant.




On a different subject:


Dunno how true this is, but it's not a surprise as to how Dems lost.

 

[ninjabot]

You may not care, but I do. People who are okay with or joke about rape shouldn't get any attention or platform regardless of their views.

1:51 in the video, his tweet about jerking off to Hamas rape.

At 3:24 he justifies 9/11, just like Hasan does.

More at 4:59, including calling for another 9/11 and anti-semitic talking points (referring to people dying at the world trade as "Little Eichmanns"

Defends the use of airliners for terrorist attacks at 5:22

At 5:47, points out that there are political officials promoting the genocide in Gaza while also pointing out how "easy it is to get a gun in America), the implication being one should kill these genocide promoting politicians, president Biden named in the tweet

More promotion of terrorist acts with assault rifles at 6:10

States that "Zionists anywhere are combatants", implying that their deaths are justified, because there's no such thing as a civilian Zionist. Not even Israeli Zionists, just Zionists. This is a tweet at 6:46

At 7:15 he says the same, but not about Zionists, but anyone that spreads "Zionist propaganda". Meaning people like me who provide pushback against pro-Palestinian arguments are "combatants" and thus, worthy of killing to prevent genocide

At 7:56 he justifies the murder of 90% of Israelis

At 8:26 he says "if you think Israel should exist, that means you're pro genocide and any acts performed against you are permissable". Again: he wants not just Zionists dead, but non Zionists that are pro Israel dead too.

More calls for murder at 9:14

At 9:25, Amir Tibon, a pro piece activist who's a strong critic of Netanyahu and writer for Haaretz, was a victim of the Oct. 7th attack in the sense that he, his wife, and two young children had to hide in a panic room while Hamas militants stalked the area around them. Bad Empanada's response to this was: "You are a colonial settler living in a Nahal Military settlement, 5km from the colonial frontier. You choose to live there to be a human shield for Israeli colonialism, just like a frontier settler in the 19th century US. You got your wish. I hope you get it again."

Further calls him a valid target at 11:39.

Calls for bombing Tel-Aviv at 11:45

"I see nothing wrong with dismembering disgusting occupying colonizer soldiers." at 11:50 Referring to the Ramala lynching.

Weird joke at 12:52 about joining Hamas so Israeli hostages will fall in love with him and become his "Jihad Friends".

Poll at 13:08 about Hamas releasing hostages or taking more. His audience is just as fucked as he is.

13:18: I don't care about a hippie trust funder who just had to rave outside of a concentration camp", referring to the murder of that one Israeli civilian woman who had her dress torn off her. Shani Louk.

14 minutes: more threats.

More at 14:31, with a side of torture.

Celebrates Hezbolla at 15:22 due to an attack that killed 85 people

Fantasizes about Israeli bloodlines being erased by Arab men impregnating all Jewish women at 16:08

At 16:30 the jerking off to Hamas rapes is mentioned again. Just showing it a second time cause it's one of the more unhinged tweets.

Whataboutism to distract from the death of an Israeli woman at 17:32

17:45 More Shani Louk hate. Pointing out people only care because she looks white.

I'm gonna stop there because you get my point, hopefully. I just wrote out all these time stamps because I didn't expect you to watch the video. But I just wanted to make sure you didn't try to downplay how evil Bad Empanada was by ignoring all his most heinous tweets.

More tweets from him btw.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231111205436/https://twitter.com/BadEmpanada/status/1723163929713446919?s=20

https://web.archive.org/web/20231028202500/https://twitter.com/BadEmpanadaa/status/1718298543163617563?s=20

https://web.archive.org/web/20231103111655/https://twitter.com/BadEmpanadaa/status/1717594190312247797?s=20

https://web.archive.org/web/20231111205821/https://twitter.com/BadEmpanada/status/1723067294597685529?s=20

https://web.archive.org/web/20231111211120/https://twitter.com/BadEmpanadaa/status/1723406108507681156?s=20

So yeah. The worst you got on Destiny is he's an edgy boy that says gamer words. At least the commentators I enjoy aren't actual monsters.

EDIT: OH YEAH, I'm not ignoring the video you posted by him, it's just that Bad Empanada claims that anyone who thinks Israel should exist is a genocide apologist, so the claim doesn't mean anything when he levies it against anyone. Likewise, Lonerbox answered a few of the claims he made in this video on his own stream. Destiny doesn't engage with him because well... I mean, he's a fucking psycho lmfao.

 

[shionoro]

Biden criticised the conviction of Netanjahu (by the ICC). I praise Biden a lot, but that is just a really sad note to go out on. It is the highest court in the world and the case is 100% legit, Biden has no place to criticise it and it is obviously unethical to do so (as it puts the personal geopolitical interests of America over justice).

It is also once again a reminder of why democrats in particular and mainstream politicians in general should not be trusted unless they have proven to stick with their "moral stances" when those are out of trend. They just don't mean them, at least not enough to defend them when it counts.

 

[M3J]

Drew Pavlov's video also popped up when I googled, and from what I've seen that dude is full of shit as well. Just confirms that we should be using legit sources, not streamers. I'll try to share sources I used to fact check instead of linking to the tweets itself if they're from streamers.

Israel is committing genocide, and people are still defending Israel and/or outright saying they want Palestinians to be decimated. So yeah, he's not wrong in calling people genocide apologist.



Biden and other Dems should start doing damage control and start looking to try to get support from the left back, if they want to have chances at winning, not be defending Netanyahu or Israel or advocate working with Trump and his cronies. Jeez, Dems are even worse than usual when they're so arrogant.

 

[ninjabot]

Drew Pavlov's video also popped up when I googled, and from what I've seen that dude is full of shit as well. Just confirms that we should be using legit sources, not streamers. I'll try to share sources I used to fact check instead of linking to the tweets itself if they're from streamers.

Legit sources are sources that can demonstrate the veracity of their claims. Doesn't matter how good of a person they are. That's the point. Bad Empanada has linked things that you retweet that you obviously accept as true. And yet, based on all of these tweets, he's an unhinged immoral piece of shit.

But that doesn't change any of the true things he's said, does it?

THAT is the point. Truth is truth whether it's said by an unhinged Hamas propagandist that wants to masturbate to the sight of Israelis being raped, or an edgy politics debater making fun of a girl for wanting people to feel bad about the really, really dumb decision she keeps making.

 

[shionoro]

Legit sources are sources that can demonstrate the veracity of their claims. Doesn't matter how good of a person they are. That's the point. Bad Empanada has linked things that you retweet that you obviously accept as true. And yet, based on all of these tweets, he's an unhinged immoral piece of shit.

But that doesn't change any of the true things he's said, does it?

THAT is the point. Truth is truth whether it's said by an unhinged Hamas propagandist that wants to masturbate to the sight of Israelis being raped, or an edgy politics debater making fun of a girl for wanting people to feel bad about the really, really dumb decision she keeps making.

If it was that simple, people would never be misled. One can cite only true facts and still lie in everal different ways. Someone who has proven their bias is very likely to lie and very unlikely to correct himself without pressure. So it does make a lot of sense to decide trust into a source not only by whether he was wrong sometimes or whether he has a lot of detail knowledge, but also by the mindset he moves forward with.

A lot of climate denialists know much more details about climate science than I do, having indepth shorthands of studies, graphs and so on. Some of them are even so good that they never lie, they just present facts in a way that pulls the truth into question.

The best example of this are lawyers, who strictly keep to the official facts when defending someone but know many tricks to present it in a way that sways their audience. It is clear they are biased (in fact the system is set up that way).

Generally, you can assume that someone who follows a debate mindset and is known to shout out very strong opüinions on a regular basis will use these techniques to win a debate, sometimes even unknowingly. As he is very unlikely to say "this is a topic that can be seen with many different angles and I will be very careful to dismiss even the people who say things I deem wrong". Someone who is a Hamas propagandist will definitely present the facts in a way that are good for Hamas, that is why I wouldnt trust him on that topic. Because I might not know enough to rip the truth from the lies.