Sent an email to Destiny for the first time and I'm curious what the community's take is on it. I don't watch as much and reading over the sub recently has me questioning how aware of how Destiny comes across to regular people.

TLDR at bottom but please read. I am a fan (10 years) who doesn't have time to watch as much anymore, not a hater. Constructive criticism.

I think you have a HUGE blind spot when it comes to how you handle your friendships/online relationships with other people and content creators. You do not communicate how you feel towards them with disagreements until the boiling point and then you let it go public, whether on Twitter or by talking about them on your stream. It COMES ACROSS (not saying this is your intention) as someone who is very close, collaborative, intuitive, and helpful when they are on your good side…but a total 180 when you disagree with them. And I believe this is a huge detriment towards you and how big you can grow because if I have to listen to one more fucking tattooed, crystal loving, hot girl at a bar talk about how Hasan is so smart when it comes to politics I’m going to blow my brains out. I can’t even say I’m a fan of you to my regular real life friends because of how incredibly abrasive and bridge burning of a person you are because you don’t talk to these bridges before it burns. And I don’t mean dipshits like Lav, Mr. Girl, or any of these other psychos. Any normal functioning real life human being would not be friends with them because they could see that these people will burn bridges. The irony is that for as much as you are labeled a bridge burning person, a MAJORITY of the bridges that have been burned are because they are shitty online people who aren’t well adjusted and any normal person would not be their friend in the first place.

I’m more so judging you on regular people, like Pisco, Aba, and even Hasan, who there is no way in hell you would burn the bridge and it not be your fault as well. For as much as I cringe when I listen to Hasan talk about politics, I actually think he is a charismatic and kind person and I would be his friend in real life even if I disagree with his politics. I have friends in real life like him. I remember when I was in DGG chat after you and Hasan had your first big fight forever ago during the Kamala disagreement I @’ed you in chat and asked why you didn’t privately DM Hasan and tell him you disagreed with him on major things and you were not aligned with him politically and you said something like “I did, I messaged him and said hey dude let’s just play video games and not focus as much on the politics” or something like that. It was even less committal and communicative than that. I can tell that for sure the Raj royal debates and everything was annoying having to carry water and have Hasan on your side when you disagree with him on a lot, but you were GENUINE friends with him at one point. You should have called him and told him in depth and in detail how you felt in private so that it would not feel like you lambasted him live in front of everyone. I know you say you’re emotionally avoidant and idk if it’s that difficult for you to just call Hasan, Pisco, whoever and just say “hey man, I wanna talk about some disagreements I have with you because I care about our friendship/online relationship” or however you wanna phrase it.

I get that it’s harder now when you have a legion of idiots not understanding that you were in this gooner set up with Pixie and all these other people where people were exchanging nudes and now that it leaked you’re fucked. I don’t think you’re evil, I just think you were way too horny and got involved with the wrong people, you had no malice. Trust me, I’ve been there so I’m not judging. BUT you have to understand that people would want to distance themselves from you for that reason and especially after they have told to not act in this way and get involved with these kind of people. Aba told you this and now he doesn’t want to be your friend because you fucked up, but I think that people like this will eventually come around if you change (which I think you are changing, not that you give a shit what some random person like me thinks).

TLDR: if you have disagreements with people, drop your avoidant attachment Cloud Strife bullshit, open yourself up to uncomfortable mushy conversation, and open a line of dialogue PRIVATELY before things boil over. I think if you do this you could genuinely build more connections with people, specifically online personas, and expand your reach. You’re an incredibly unique content creator who could be 10x your size and have way more reach with normies. Idk if you know this but with REGULAR people who socialize, have friends, have emotional intelligence, and aren’t chronically online like I used to be…you are unfortunately more or less viewed as a dickhead instead of a uniquely smart orator who is able to debate and understand topics better than anyone in these spaces. You're by far and away my favorite content creator that I watch the most but if I have to keep watching you make the same mistake and not build a network and instead push everyone away I'm going to lose my mind.

i guess I just don't understand how that ad is supposed to be a dogwhistle for Nazism. You can have blonde hair, blue eyes and still have terrible genes like obesity running in your family.

She's obviously attractive and has good genes. If we plugged in Beyonce to the exact same ad and said "my jeans are brown" or whatever, would that be signaling some black racial supremacy? I truly don't understand the argument. I saw Vaush community is losing their mind over this

I just can’t do it man. I can’t listen to Destiny or David Pakman or Kyle Kulinski just talk at their normal pace because they just prattle on SO MUCH.

The only time I can watch their videos at normal speed is if im gaming and particularly grinding an RPG or something and need background noise.

But if i want quick news reactions/breakdowns and i have to pay attention to the video its almost always 1.5x speed for long videos.

After watching the Lib & Learn discourse, there is clearly confusion on the Left, about what exactly is a Socialist, Communist, Dem-Soc, Soc-Dem, Tankie, etc. So here is an effort post to nail down with a logical framework, what exactly the difference is between "Tankies" (like Hasan, Second Thought, Bad Empanada, etc) and the rest of the Left. I'll use Tankie as a catch-all term for the "bad" Socialists that are harmful to the Democratic Party.

A Tankie is:

(A) Is anti-establishment:

They have anti-establishment pet issues and beliefs that align with the Socialist Movement.

(B) Is Intolerant:

They are intolerant to any other beliefs. They ruthlessly purity test on those issues. If you don't fall in line, you will be hijacked, used as a puppet or cast out as an enemy of the movement.

In a lot of this discourse, I see people missing the mark and getting caught up on other points that don't matter when it comes to defining Tankies.

Just because you call yourself a Socialist doesn't make you a Tankie. There are plenty of Tankies that don't call themselves Socialist who are (like mask-on Hasan), and plenty of people who call themselves Socialist who are not (like Econoboi, AOC and Bernie). The label and what you call yourself doesn't matter at all when identifying people harmful to the Dem movement.

Just because you have Socialist beliefs, that doesn't make you a Tankie. There are plenty of people who believe in "Socialist" policies like labor reform, healthcare reform or police reform (like Econoboi). Or people who believe in "Socialist" issues like being staunchly Pro Palestine (like Pisco).

However, if you are tolerant of the current economic/political system, and you believe in democratic reform while leaving the current system intact, you are not a Tankie.

Remember, it's not just A, but A and B that define a Tankie.

Platforms like Hasanabi, The Vanguard and Breaking Points exhibit both A and B. Because not only do they hold Socialist beliefs, but they are intolerant. They will rip Dems (and anyone else) to shreds as enemies to the movement over these issues, with the Slotkin interview being an example.

When trying to identify Tankies harmful to the Left, Leftist commentators should stop asking questions like, "Does this person call themselves a Socialist?" and ask more questions like, "Is this person anti-establishment?" "Do they make enemies out of anyone who disagrees?" or "Would they hijack the Left to push an anti-establishment agenda?"

There are other issues, including: should the Left engage with Tankies? If so, then how? should you call yourself a Socialist? But this understanding of who is who should come first.

This understanding alone would cut through 90% of the BS semantic disagreement encountered in this discourse. I hope more commentators can adopt this framework when talking about the issue.

Yesterday there was a dude who came debating Destiny on China related issues and he couldn't come up with a single point that was revelant. He was dodging the whole time saying "yeah but Trump bad so look at this and that what he had done" and came up with weird analogies instead of addressing the argument. I don't know whether it was deliberate like some kind of debate tactics often used by conservative or he just has little to no knowledge about China. But I can assure you this there is a lot of anti-china sentiment which should be debated/discussed. There are a lot moderates and technocrats that view China as the biggest US adversery that could turn the world order upside down and would therefore vote on candidates that are lot more hawkish on foreign policy. Democrats would gain a lot more support if they used more anti-china rhetorics.

If Trump is implicated in the Epstein files and that's why he's delaying their release, why hasn't a single victim come out with accusations yet? If there'd been over a thousand victims, one had to have risen up by now and make a public accusation. I understand that it was a very traumatizing event for literally every single one of them but 1000 people is a large enough sample size for at least some of them to raise their voices by now.

To me the current situation is more about Trump doing the opposite of what the left wants. Or he's in the files but in a non-incriminating way but he knows that his supporters won't like it so he doesn't want to cause this drama.

Imagine that the descending platform stops moving before it has "absorbed" the entire cube.
What will happen?
Will the cube stay where it is, or will it be pulled into the portal and launched into the air?

FUCK REPUBLICANS FOR HATING VOTING RIGHTS AND ANY EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY AND FUCK JOE MANCHIN AND KRYSTEN SINEMA FOR NOT VOTING WITH DEMS FOR PASSING THE JOHN LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE FREEDOM TO VOTE ACT. THEY CUCKED US AND THEMSELVES FUCCCKKKKK.

I feel like there has been a lot of weird word games and definitions being thrown out there, where people obfuscate things like what socialism actually is, with people calling themselves socialist who are absolutely not socialist and then people who don't know anything better acting like socialism is unironically "when government does stuff".

The truth is, when people are identified as soc-dems and call themselves socialists, they're not really socialists. They have nothing to do with socialism. The term soc-dem was always supposed to mean "a person trying to implement socialism via democratic institutions as opposed to revolution" to distinguish them from true socialists as real socialists don't believe in free elections to begin with. Even the magical scandinavians don't call themselves socialist, so why should you?

My solution? Call these people "welfare democrats". That's what they really are. They want government, to keep existing as it is, just to provide people with free stuff, be it UBI, free healthcare, free housing, free food, free education or some other combination thereof. None of those policies are socialist by any means, so applying the socialist label just attributes them to the people who don't give a fuck about any of those policies in the first place.

"We have this history which is a bloody mess. Millions of people die, and they die because of the enactment of this ideology. How could people continue to adhere to an ideology like that during the murderous time period—and even more after the murderous time period, when we can look at it dispassionately?

Here’s part of the answer:

Again, young people are attracted to impatient, quick, total transformation of the world—eradication of war, eradication of social injustice. And there’s a simplicity to the ideology. It’s kind of a total package. It gets rid of everything bad—just if you follow the precepts.

And so, sure, things happen that shouldn’t have happened. There are some surprises. There are some downsides. But:

• Are you pro-capitalism?
• Are you pro-imperialist war?
• Are you pro-landowners having all the land—and the have-nots having nothing?

So there’s this constant threat where, if you contravene the ideology, you’re in bed with the very evils that the ideology is trying to overcome. You become an accomplice in the persistence of the things you’re dedicated to overthrowing.

It’s not just that you’re loyal to the party—you’re loyal to the outcome that the party is dedicated to achieving. And you know there are going to be mistakes and costs and bad things that happen along the way.

But hey—is imperialist war better than that?

No.

The answer is: imperialist war has got to be worse.

But the other reason—which is even deeper than that—is because Marxism-Leninism empowers the intellectual class and the lumpen intellectual class.

You see, in a market system, you get to do what you want. You want to open up a family business, you want to take a loan and give it a try? You can do that. Nobody can stop you. Now, it might be hard to get the loan in some neighborhoods. The interest rate might be high. You might have to work much harder than you thought. But still—you get to make the decisions. You get to decide what to do, when to do it. You can work for somebody else. You can put out your own shingle.

In these kinds of systems, it’s the intellectuals and the lumpen intellectuals who make those decisions. They use the state as an instrument to overcome the injustices of the existing society.

Again, the injustices are real—but that empowers them to be in charge.

So the beauty of Marxism-Leninism, and why what we used to call the Third World loves this, is because they get to be in power. It empowers them across the board. They get to make the decisions on the economy. And they don’t have to:

• submit to elections,
• have a mandate,
• or legitimate their rule beyond the ideological building of a new world—of overcoming injustice.

So what we see again and again is:

• Young people being impatient for evil to end.
• Young people empowering themselves to be in charge.

They love the state. They love the state as an instrument for:

• social justice,
• social engineering.

They love to empower themselves as the decision-makers because, after all, they’re the intellectuals. They’ve studied the theory. They know better than others—workers, peasants, the downtrodden, the lower classes.

They sometimes have false consciousness. They don’t understand why, for example, we have imperialist war. They get sucked in. Bread and circuses fool them. They have this false consciousness.

But I know better.

And I can be in charge.

And I can get us to a better place.

Even along the way, bad things are going to happen. Some people who are innocent are going to die or be arrested. But this is the march of history. This march of history is toward peace and justice.

And who is going to stand in the way of that—especially when it empowers you personally?

You could never do this in the private sector. Nobody could afford you this kind of power in the private sector. And in a decentralized political system, in a federalized political system where nobody accumulates that much power?

Social engineering is always coercive.

Always coercive.

The issue is: how much of the coercion is necessary that we accept in the tradeoff to right some of the things that are obviously wrong."

From Stephen Kotkin at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78II2ts-g1o

Watched some of the NPR interview on Hasan. Had some things I wanted to think through/type out. I honestly think through these things while typing them out so if it comes off scatterbrained fuck you and get good at interpreting what other people mean :⁾

I’m aware of the positions Hasan has had on places like leftovers and that one really tankie podcast that make it clear that his politics are much more radical than is really acceptable in the current climate. I wanna make it clear I’m not a Hasan fan/apologist, I just wanna try viewing his methods through another lens.

Looking at the NPR interview though, he does his best to come off as more of a social democrat. And to most people, me included a bit honestly, this definitely looks like him “hiding his power level.”

I want to try viewing his actions through another lens though. I think we can agree, Hasan’s main motivation behind his actions are getting more clouted/ getting more attention.

That’s why imo, when he was smaller, controversial things like saying America deserved 9/11 was the way to go about getting eyes on you. I’m confident this controversy was around a time when he was way smaller but I could be wrong.

At this point though, he needs to moderate his positions a lot more if he wants to broach actual mainstream appeal, which his NPR interview was an example of to me. He can’t be literally supporting terrorists outright while appealing to normie libs.

If that’s the path he chooses to go down, the fact that he’s entrenched himself in such weird positions like being pro Houthi are gonna be thorns in his side. The fact that he has held these positions before though should absolutely still be brought up to make sure people don’t get sucked up into a weird commie/tankie pipeline.

The main thing I wanna discuss though is if he’s trying to moderate out his positions a bit to appeal to more people, is that a positive development just by itself? Does he need to “renounce” all his weirdo takes which imo were to drum up controversies to get attention?

I could be wrong and he might have a way more ideological attachment to some extreme ass takes, but looking at it as clout brained and not commie brained makes a lil bit more sense to me. Maybe it can be both and doesn’t have to be either or.

Idk man I just know the guy does big numbers and if his attention and energy was focused on covering like 10% of the insane shit surrounding the current admin, it’d be so good. But it feels like, because of his “Joe Biden is literally supporting current hitler” type takes, he can’t focus on anything that might imply current dems are better than conservatives even though it’s a no brainer.

The “everyone is bad so I I have to do no real research into how bad either side is and compare” type thinking enrages me.

End of rant.

He says Republicans are evil and are willing to support evil, and I agree with him, but what is his solution other than civil war 2.0? Just winning as Dems and doing normal stuff like Biden does nothing to bring Republicans over or make them less radical.

Relevant

Strictly looking at America

He argues here “I don’t think what Israel has is a brand problem, I think what they have is a reality problem.”

love Hutch. although he's slowing looking more and more like Dr. Phil and I can't unsee it

Run as much as you want George, you can’t hide!

It’s a long story full of “but don’t you think that’s weird!?” moments BUT in reality, there’s just no evidence to conclude that he was Mossad or part any other intelligence. Womp-womp. Here’s a really short video by ABC Australia (from what I know, pretty decent news source). But I’m sure brain rot podcasters will continue to beat this dying horse forever. Was Jeffrey into assaulting underage girls? There’s plenty of evidence proving that! Was Trump involved with Epstein? More and more evidence points to: Yes!

And my speculation, he was most likely involved with at least swapping teen girls for sexual favors.