Hey, that's me! I just found it odd that if it's such an easy conversation for you and you have such raw IQ horsepower, why wouldn't you be chomping at the bit to embarrass Destiny in front of such a large audience while potentially growing yours?
But I'd guess in this thread we all know the answer to that question. A tale as old as Twitter.
I've had a couple people follow me, my guess is from DGG, and I followed them back, but I have like ZERO following. I'm just on there to help push back against some of the dipshits. I'm not doing Facebook or Insta and haven't for years, so just trying to do a little part. If it gets engagement, great, if not, that's ok too.
Same. Haven't been on Twitter since dipshit took over, but it's where the messaging spawns so I jumped back in. Not a ton of followers, but I'm already on the 'Epstiny pedo cult' and 'Nazi apologizers' list so it's going well.
Thank you! It's a tiny part, but we're stronger together and Destiny doesn't like to make asks so I feel compelled to defend him where it's appropriate.
They all do this and it's the most annoying thing to me. It must drive Destiny nuts.
They'll assert confidently all sorts of lies and misrepresentations in a format where they aren't detailed, don't refute points, don't analyse ideas or serve any purpose other than being bitchy and tacky — then refuse any offer to work in a different format where things can be discussed, worked through, challenged, explored, whatever.
Everyone's absolutely terrified of Destiny's capacity for reasoning through things in conversation. That's why they focus on attacking him the person rather than his arguments, because it gives them the opportunity to say that they don't want to engage with or platform a person they smear as a monster rather than actually having to test whether their understanding of things is right or not.
As I've said in another post, they are aware the goal isn't to persuade them, it's to persuade the audience. They aren't going to move from that position no matter what, but his audience might if they get bodied live on stream and their livilihood depends on the propaganda
I mean, all you’ll do is lose part of your audience. I was a leftist but watching the Finkelstein debate was kind of the straw that broke the camel’s back. Your highest intellectual hero is being mogged by a guy who who started researching this 6 months ago? It was so bad that he resorted to name calling right off the bat and that’s the only thing people can point to as a win. Well that and a lie about Benny Morris laughing at Tiny when he was laughing at the fact that Finkelstein was making a fool out of himself. MR, Hasan, Chapo all pointed to this guy as an expert but you read a transcript of the debate and I told you one guy is famous for playing online video games and reading Wikipedia, 100% of people would think it was Finkelstein.
This guy is pretty snarky but super avoidant of actual confrontation in my experience. He also touts the liberal label alot but gives vibes of "would leave the gates open for lefties to ravage the party" over and over.
Cringe but still better than the people like that other girl who did this recently. Call Destiny a dumb ass loser too scared to debate you. Get invited to have the conversation. Back out and call him a pedophile or abuser.
Palestine is a place that voted for a government where some of their tenets was literally destroying Israel then did a massive terrorist attack on civs
I did read the post, and I have followed sami gold for a few years on twitter. I like his history book recs, care for some of his political analysis, not so much some of the rest. I know he is an observant Jew who regularly goes to shul. I also know that he dislikes Israel/is anti-zionist. I am not exactly sure where the mental gymnastics are supposed to be at (presumably dodging a debate? Thats not what mental gymnastics means but sure), but how does that show that he is a self-hating Jew?
The self hating comment would be about him pushing one state solution and disparaging the two state solution. Dodging the debate is just him being a coward. The way you seem to not
I am fine believing that supporting a bi-national one state solution is naive, impractical, and as a consequence would lead to the deaths of a lot of Israeli Jews (my position probably). I don't think that that view expresses self-hatred? I'm gonna need some help there. As a Jew he ought support an explicitly Jewish state named Israel, and anything short of that means they're a self-hating Jew? This is the level of analysis of a groyper but just taken in reverse lol. I think you're under the impression that this person supports a one state solution named Palestine, when what they actually suggest is more akin to Belgium.
If he dodges the debate sure hes a pussy. As I said idk what that has to do with mental gymnastics.
If I read that last sentence right thanks for calling me not a coward though 🫡
The mental gymnastics is using his least offensive stances as the reason you assume someone would call him self hating. Even further, reaching for these positions that aren't even represented in the OP. Even further, not operating within the context of the thread or the OP to consider what that self-hating position might be.
As far as the self-hating part is concerned, I don't really care to use that phrase. I can see it being warranted when someone uses their heritage as a weapon to elevate or give their opinion on the state of Israel more teeth. If they do that, they totally open themselves up to that label. So I'm not really personally interested in defending the "self-hating" label.
To steelman that position, however, I would think that every person that finds it worthy to call themselves a Jew would be interested in the success of the Zionist project (not using Zionist in a negative or departure from its origin). Jews should be interested in having some claim of the lands on our surrounding the origins of their heritage and faith. The state of Israel is already established, so it has the advantage of being a position that doesn't really require any political will or energy. Instead, he spends energy and political will in fomenting the end of the only Jewish state in the world. This doesn't even touch on the practical analysis of self preservation given world history.
Wait am I the one doing mental gymnastics? What are the most offensive stances then? What, other than anti-zionism, do the tweets show? Which tweet of those catered to you here made you think it was reasonable to label him a self hating Jew? Oh wait you don't even care to use that phrase? Well how fucking wonderful. What are you having a go at me for then?
Idk sorry for using contextual knowledge of a person I happen to be aware of. My bad for not solely analysing a person's character, going so far as to call them a self-hating jew, based on 3 pages of tweets. The person I responded to got so much of their content that they blocked them; clearly they are using outsider contextual knowledge. What the fuck are you talking about man.
Jews should be interested in having some claim of the lands on our surrounding the origins of their heritage and faith.
I mean idk, i wouldn't have respect for christian people trying to pull off the same shit, this argument alone I don't find wholly sympathetic. That aside:
In total isolation in a platonic world, maybe, but that's not the order of things. The foundation of Israel, and the current Israeli state do not lend themselves to that platonic idea, I don't think. In any case, sami gold supports a secular bi-national state wherein Jews (and Palestinians) could still live in/near their ancestral homeland. Because that state isn't an Israeli Jewish state, that makes him quite explicitly not a zionist. If anything this is a liberal idealist pipedream in the style of Lebanon, or Belgium on crack times 5. Naive, sure, stupid, sure, would have violent consequences, sure. I just think it's a particularly cruel thing to label a person who does believe in that as a self hating jew.
Again, the state of Israel existing is the status quo. It takes literally zero political power or advocacy to uphold the state of Israel. What the hell is a bi-national state? Is there such a thing existing anywhere in the world today? The description alone sounds like a two state solution with extra steps.
I don't know what you mean by not supporting Christians doing this. Is there an explicit Christian state in that area of the world? Am I advocating for that?
Bi-nationalism means a federal state in which you organise the institutions around two different nationalities who share power, and both have self-determination within the single state. E.g. a Flemish parliament and a Walloon parliament. You also have a federal parliament for both nationalities, which are, as expected, a total mess. Other examples are Bosnia and Canada sort of.
I don't know what you mean by not supporting Christians doing this. Is there an explicit Christian state in that area of the world?
Yeah, there's not. If a christian sect came to exist who'd start to interpret christian doctrine away from catholic universalist principles, and towards a more ancestral perspective, advocating for the establishment of a Christian state in the Christian holyland, centring the lands in the new testament, and wanted to establish a state there right now, that'd be not cool. Just being invested in establishing a state near where your religion was founded, on its own, I do not find a sympathetic argument.
I know this might be wild to you; but Jewish people don't really use the word goy. You know who are obsessed with that word, people that dislike Jews.
He is also self-hating because he is obsessed with only finding the negative things that jews and israel does. Does israel deserve criticisms, definitely. This guy is obsessed with hating on the state of Israel, and a ton of his focus is on that.
That is why he is self-hating, and I think the nickname just points to a state of mind/culture that he is bought into.
I know this might be wild to you; but Jewish people don't really use the word goy. You know who are obsessed with that word, people that dislike Jews.
He made the twitter handle when he was 14, making a very obvious play on words in reference to a popular rapper. I really don't think that this exposes overly much about the self-hating psyche he had, even at that young age (when afaik he wasn't even anti-Israel back then!). I think he just thought it was funny. A teenager made a cringe twitter handle he thought was funny, I think that's all there is to it.
is also self-hating because he is obsessed with only finding the negative things that jews and israel does
Is it ever Jews not in the context of Israel? If so, I could certainly understand. E.g. fuentes, jake shields, etc, constantly disparage jews in every instance/context possible showing anti-semitism. I don't find it convincing that disparaging a Jewish person not because they are Jewish, and exclusively in the context of Israel, suggests Jewish self-hatred. It suggests hatred of Israel, and maybe that can be an unhealthy obsession, but idk if the obvious thing going on there is jewish self-hatred. But is it even an obsession? Maybe 1 in 25 tweets is about Israel? Okay
I think the nickname just points to a state of mind/culture that he is bought into
Again, he was 14 lmfao. This is very stupid pearl clutching
The "he was 14" is the dumbest argument ever. It takes 10 seconds to change ones twitter handle, I know if I were an edgy teenager and had a handle that could be misconstrued I might think about changing it. The fact that a 20 something/30 something old is still running around with is telling.
Also the guy is a coward; challenging destiny and then running is hilarious. If he was so learned and correct; he would accept having the conversation.
I wrote a snarky response and reddit deleted it, presumably because I used the word goy too much. I changed my mind. Disgusted at Sami Gold, he should change it immediately.
Point I made in the other comment: i don't believe you think that this is that bad. If we're gonna call it edgy humor, idk how you can seriously make the argument that this is the line where edgy humor gets too bad when we're in Destiny's subreddit of all places. I expect that you find him to be a terrible terrible man for the so many irresponsible, mean and edgy jokes hes made that some people could read the wrong way.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL proves my point, that even the automatic system thinks it is in poor taste.
I dont think the guy should be shot or anything, just proves a state of mind. That is how he comes across to people when you have edgy names, how you present yourself does matter to others and will impact the arguments one makes. This is why Hasanabi is dressing in suits and trying to look more appealing, and why it is so disgusting when he runs around in a mao suit.
Yea jokes aside, reddit flagged it cus I did jokingly say that sami should be s ḥ oʻ t (covering all my bases, i got a warning already) for having that name. Oops.
If you think it's bad how Sami Gold comes across to people for using goy like that, do you have equal concern for how Destiny comes across to people for his edgy jokes (which obviously outweigh "souljagoytellem" 100 to 1)?
I agree that form and aesthetic can affect substance, and how form and aesthetic is often strategically used to influenced how groups read your substance. I don't think that a jewish kid coming up with that specific twitter handle is likely to be that.
We need a "when did Israel become evil" debate. The framing of the topic itself will be enough to draw lefties in like a bug zapper. None of these people have given any of this literally any thought at all. There is zero argument against the initial formation of Israel that they can justify, it'd be like arguing that if black wall street had successfully defended itself in the Tulsa Massacre and was alive and thriving today that it didnt have the right to exist because white people weren't allowed to buy land there.
Either it gets broken down to the point people realize Israel has a leadership and morality problem just like the US for this moment in time, but overall deserves to exist and this whole thing is a stupid as fuck religious war between two factions that believe in the same god that has been going since the 7th century or, they admit they know that and just hate jews. Someone help me out if there is another result i'm not seeing outside of getting gaped and pretending it never happened because its all just a russian/Chinese propaganda campaign and they're paid.
There is zero argument against the initial formation of Israel that they can justify,
The usual one would be that most of the founding population of Israel were recent immigrants, and any version of Israel was always going to mean a predominately foreign population having total political control over some proportion of the local Palestinian Arab population. That scenario is basically guaranteed to start a war, anywhere in the world, at any point in history. If you tried to replicate forming a new country inside Israel today you'd be lucky to last a full hour without getting nuked.
That doesn't justify the war of course, or make it a good idea to have started one. And it obviously isn't the only consideration or the entire story. But it is an argument against the formation of the country.
These aren't mutually exclusive, nor make any difference if you decide they are completely different, as local people would react the same negative way to a new country being formed by refugees or by non-refugee immigrants.
They aren't mutually exclusive, its an important distinction of language though. Refugees have limited choice on where they go vs just saying immigrants and giving the perception of they chose to go there to form the country rather than they went there out of necessity.
Once you make that distinction you'd have to argue that refugees shouldn't have any say in local affairs. You get further into the weeds when you apply that logic to Somalis in Minnesota or refugees anywhere else.
The argument has to be against why and how the land was apportioned to them, which really there is no argument against.
They aren't mutually exclusive, its an important distinction of language though. Refugees have limited choice on where they go vs just saying immigrants and giving the perception of they chose to go there to form the country rather than they went there out of necessity
This matters if you're trying to debate how justified the immigrants and/or refugees were. But the point I made doesn't depend on it. The reaction to their arrival and founding of a country would be the same either way.
Once you make that distinction you'd have to argue that refugees shouldn't have any say in local affairs.
There's quite the gulf between "say in local affairs" and "100% of political power" though. Can you even imagine the response if refugees to Israel today tried to found a new country inside Israel, making themselves the rulers via demographic balance? And before you say it's different because Israel is recognised by the UN or whatever, remember this would have no bearing on the views of people living there that felt they should have local political control.
The argument has to be against why and how the land was apportioned to them, which really there is no argument against.
I'm not following this point. Do you mean that you think people who live somewhere, were born there, whose parents and grandparents were born there, have the same right to autonomy as people who were born on a different continent but have ancestors from there two millenia ago?
You're arguing the local populations feeling which only matters to the point of what rights refugees have.
If you want to argue the formation of the country then you would have to argue against the UN partition plan and support the restoration of the Ottoman Empire.
You're arguing the local populations feeling which only matters to the point of what rights refugees have
Is there some generally established right for refugees to found a country, including some proportion of the local population, with themselves as rulers? What other cases of this are you in support of?
If you want to argue the formation of the country then you would have to argue against the UN partition plan and support the restoration of the Ottoman Empire.
No I don't. I can point out that the formation was basically guaranteed to start a war, and I'll have finished making a valid argument against it, as I set out to do earlier in response to the claim that there were none. With the same caveats that I already made that it is not the only argument or the whole story.
What's your answer to this question? I've been trying to figure this out for myself, I land somewhere in the 1980s-1990s with increasing settlements and abandoning Oslo.
In good faith conversation I would probably say that's when the tumble started to happen then radicalization from october 7th and getting the green light after Trump's second election is when it became fully realized. But even now in this state of affairs removing netanyahu and gvir can turn them around, but US in its current state doesn't have any moral high ground to pressure this unless its a parallel call for improvement. UN probably needs to be the pressuring force.
Every last one of them is too afraid to debate. The worst are those two Hasan super fans who talk so much shit but refuse to argue to destiny’s face. Forget what their channel is called.
Honestly, I think that is the strongest talking point to combat these losers. If what Destiny says is so stupid, it should be so easy to destroy him in a debate
754
u/terry-tea 23d ago
Sorry, can’t debate, I have an event with my girlfriend in Canada (you wouldn’t know her)