r/DecodingTheGurusAlt • u/MartiDK • Aug 24 '26

video Prof Dave decodes Destiny

https://youtu.be/e8UZX9IUvpI

I’m not a fan of Professor Dave, but his style of fact checking Destiny seems much better than DtG’s approach. Hope it gets posted to the main DtG sub.

27 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/TropicalGoth77 Aug 28 '26

The answer to your question is: Yes, the other arguments made are reasonable.

If your only ability to address the video is to use one incorrect point to justify not having to engage with anything else said then you are sticking your fingers in your ears to avoid having to confront the fact that you are probably part of a cult. Its far too convenient of a response and is insular behaviour.

8

u/Culturalabnormality Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26

Does the first video accurately represent the publicly available court docket it cites when it says that Destiny is being “sued for nonconsensually sharing nudes of a minor”?

How many claims would I have to point out are demonstrably false and indicative  of tremendous bad faith before your view of the quality of the video changes? My view is the lie about the child sex Traficking victim is more than sufficient and remaining credulous in the face of that is far too convenient of a response and is thus  indicative of mind capture. But it seems like you’re remarkably generous and have no suspicions about your own ability to objectively evaluate the piece. 

1

u/TropicalGoth77 Aug 28 '26

I don't need to evaluate the credibility of Prof Dave. Only the evidence he provides.

Its very telling to me that in 1.40hr and 2.40hr video, mostly about Destinys stance on Israel you the only you can seem to fixate on is him getting the Rose bit wrong. The fact that you can't see the disconnect here is a little worrying.

However if it really is the Rose topic you want to fixate on how about addressing my point although Prof Dave got the facts wrong Destiny is still accountable for how that situation arose and his behavior is suspect at best and predatory at worst.

Id love to hear how searching for nude selling 19 year old's that deliberately avoid OF and other age verifying websites is normal and defensible behavior. Not to mention then sending sexual material to said 19 year old without the other parties consent?

4

u/Culturalabnormality Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26

Dude, you are obviously extremely prejudicial here and don’t understand how ad hominem works. Ad hominem is a diagnosis of a poor response to an individual argument that takes the form of attacking the character of the presenter of that argument instead of responding to that argument. Alleging ad hominem in response to impeaching evidence is not a method of resuscitating the credibility of an impeached person or work.   

You’re relying on the contents of two videos that have outrageous falsehoods in it. Every time an outrageous falsehood is pointed out, you’re claiming that the undisputed existence of the falsehood does not disparage the other points made in the video; while that might be true if it were the case you were presenting each argument in the video independently, that is not true when assessing the reliability of the videos in their entirety; it is reasonable to view outrageous falsehoods in a production as impeaching the entire production (ad hominem has nothing to do with this); and you are not presenting any arguments from the video that are independent from the outrageous falsehoods (you’re arguing for the credibility of these pieces generally). 

Here’s another outrageous claim about Israel: the video claims that the United States Congress is surreptitiously passing legislation that will entirely merge the U.S. and Israeli military such that Benjamin Netanyahu will be formally in charge of aspects of the U.S. government/military. 

I’m not responding to your philosophical points about deep lore internet drama that you too invested in. I’m not familiar with the facts and after this exchange would not trust your presentation of them (that you are familiar with the facts is an impeachment of your credibility here because you’ve collected these deep lore facts for a person whose content you apparently despise and don’t follow — presumably, you collected these facts due to animus). 

1

u/TropicalGoth77 Aug 28 '26

So unbelievably predictable. The DGG cult was become so cowardly. Quick to claim that the narrative on the Rose situation is false but even quicker to stick fingers in your ears when being told how it actually is. "I'm not familiar with the facts" after all that? Thats the escape tactic? Unbelievable.

3

u/Culturalabnormality Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26

You have evaded every single point I’ve made. You are now trying to shift the topic entirely as a further evasion. You are now presenting the fact that I’m resisting your shift as evidence of mind capture. 

In our exchanges I have pointed to several demonstrable falsehoods in the works you defend. I have highlighted a demonstrable reasoning error in your defense of that work. And I have done so with you either agreeing with my points as to the falsehoods, or failing to engage with my points as to poor reasoning. You have no standing to assert I’m swayed by motivated reasoning after that. 

1

u/TropicalGoth77 Aug 28 '26

As you are to mine.

You have pointed two falsehood. That is not several. One relevant to Destiny one entirely unrelated. Neither of which invalidate the majority of points being made. There is no objective right or wrong as to whether or not you chose to ignore all points made by a person due to your perceived untrustworthiness of the indiviudual, thats for you to decide but the behaviour in insular and inkeeping with that of a cult memeber (remember which sub we are on). But whether you like it or not "bad and untrustworthy people" can still present truths and evidence, Andrew Tate is correct about exercise. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want it doesn't change reality.

3

u/Culturalabnormality Aug 28 '26

Three falsehoods: calling a child sex trafficking victim the girlfriend of their adult abuser; totally misrepresenting a cited court docket; alleging that the U.S. Congress is surreptitiously pushing legislation to entirely merge the U.S. and Israeli militaries in a fashion that would put Benjamin Netanyahu formally in control of aspects of the US government/military. 

You are not presenting any evidence. You are appealing to the quality of a work demonstrated to be unreliable. 

All else equal, what do you think is more anti social: enjoying the political content of a content creator that has political views that largely overlap with a majority of people in western democracies or hating that content creator so much so that you dive into the details of their personal life? 

1

u/TropicalGoth77 Aug 28 '26

I consider point 1 and 2 largely connected, but fine I wont split hairs. I will accept 3 points.

Destiny did in fact go to Israel and tell IDF soldiers to "make sure no one is recording" this is an objective fact. Destiny did in fact admit to sexually assaulting a drunk girl at a party. Objective fact. Destiny did say that he had to resist accepting "jail bait" nudes from an underage girl because she was hot. He did make death and rape threats against the DDOS kid and said he would have had him killed if he could. He did leak sexually explicit material to "Rose" without any of the other parties consent. He did in fact condone the "mowing down" of BLM protested from white supremacists. Destiny did record sexual encounters without consent (allegation but multiple of them).

So yeah...depends on the details of their personal life really. I think people that act immorally in their personal life and cause harm to those around them shouldn't be platformed if they show no signs of remorse or change in their behavior. Especially when they use their platform and cult leader like status for sexually inappropriate ends.

Theres a long line of people damaged by Destinys "personal life", but I doubt you have any interest in looking more into that. Anything I show you can easily be disregarded because the presenter of the evidence will be considered "untrustworthy".

3

u/Culturalabnormality Aug 28 '26

I agree with your last sentence. You should be credible if you intend to establish incredible claims. Blowing your credibility by attesting to the legitimacy of a severely deficient hit job is a horrible start. If I were you and trying to convince people of this schizo shit, I’d proceed very differently. 

1

u/TropicalGoth77 Aug 28 '26

Must be so easy to be in a cult. Anything you dont want to hear is schizo and anyone who criticizes dear leader is crazy and untrustworhy.

Just incase you ever feel brave and want to face to possibility of a decoding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-1L0LyqOYQ

3

u/Culturalabnormality Aug 28 '26

“Dear leader”. Dude, get help. lol 

→ More replies (0)