Another Destiny vs Mr. Girl, very heated and confusion.

[Danioover9000]

   What are your thoughts on this? Another Sam Harris vs Deepak Chopra essentially?

 

[Danioover9000]

   This is a great video, demonstrating hypocrisy and double standards from all sides involved. Also, another powerful word 'obfuscation.' and 'obfuscate, obfuscating.'. Here's a definition from google:

Definitions

Definitions from Oxford Languages

verb

make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.

"The spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate their etymological origins"

Similar:

obscure

confuse

make obscure/unclear

blur

muddle

jumble

complicate

garble

muddy

cloud

befog

muddy the waters

Opposite:

clarify

bewilder (someone).

"The new rule is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them"

Similar:

bewilder

mystify

puzzle

perplex

baffle

confound

bemuse

   So, what is obfuscation? Why does obfuscation exist, and how is obfuscation and hypocrisy interconnected?

[Kksd74628]

@Danioover9000

How I perceived this video if I remember it correctly was that MrGirl didn't just get what Destiny was trying to show.

[Carl-Richard]

Holy shit Destiny is so weasely. Skip to when he talks to Vegan Gains:

 

Vegan Gains is being extremely precise and clear in his speech, and Destiny is being the complete opposite: he is literally stumped when he is asked to define what he means when he says "probably" for the 40th time of kneejerking the same obfuscating response.

Also notice how he hides behind "I don't care about pointing out dogwhistles, I only care what somebody says directly" and " I don't care about single tweets people have said, only a holistic account of something they've done or said in a specific context".

He has constructed a perfect fortress for weaseling himself away from reconciling the inconsistency between having enabled Fuentes' antics and his worldview.

EDIT: Vegan Gains did well in the beginning, but it went downhill pretty fast after he did the "it's the only logical conclusion" thing and when he called Fuentes and Hitler stupid.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Roy]

@Carl-Richard I don't know why so many people on here think Destiny is Yellow lmao, he is still very much knee deep in semantic bullshit and obsessed with the rationalization of everything in the world. Until he drops all this internet drama garbage, becomes more mature and does something with his life, he is going to be stuck.

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Roy said:

@Carl-Richard I don't know why so many people on here think Destiny is Yellow lmao, he is still very much knee deep in semantic bullshit and obsessed with the rationalization of everything in the world. Until he drops all this internet drama garbage, becomes more mature and does something with his life, he is going to be stuck.

I think it's because Destiny is a very unique character, truly a gem of originality. Really intelligent and well-spoken, mildly open-minded but also really inexperienced and dogmatic in a lot of topics. I'm a fan of his from my esports days but some takes he has and biases are a bit unfortunate to see. 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Roy said:

I don't know why so many people on here think Destiny is Yellow

He's not full solid Yellow, but he definitely exhibits some admirable Yellow traits, like his ability to think outside the box of progressive dogma. He clearly sees Green's biases. He's also good at seeing things from various points of view.

Of course he has a lot of immature Orange still that holds him back. And he's not deeply aware of his own biases.

He has some brilliant moments, and then some cringey ones where he gets too closed-minded and defensive.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Joel3102]

8 hours ago, Roy said:

@Carl-Richard I don't know why so many people on here think Destiny is Yellow

He has stated recently he’s distancing himself more and more from the streamer dramas. 
His main arc at the moment is focusing on empathising with opposing views and actually hearing them out to better have a chance of moving them over.

He definitely has a lot of yellow. There’s basically no other big YT channel in politics I’m interested in watching, it’s all just predictable dogma from either side 

[zurew]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Also notice how he hides behind "I don't care about pointing out dogwhistles, I only care what somebody says directly" and " I don't care about single tweets people have said, only a holistic account of something they've done or said in a specific context".

He has constructed a perfect fortress for weaseling himself away from reconciling the inconsistency between having enabled Fuentes' antics and his worldview.

If his goal is to try to get inside Nick's community and then slowly try to change their minds, then the act of labeling them x or y or to point out tweets here and there and be hostile about it, won't help with that. He is well aware that he enables Fuentes' antics and his worldview, but he is okay with that downside, because he sees an opportunity here [namely: trying to convert or move some Nazi's from their extreme ideology and wordview].

If your goal is to try to build a bridge between two extreme polarities (or at the very least to make them understand each other just a little bit better), then the act of labeling and the act of dimissing and ignoring them won't achieve much, thats why other tactics and methods need to be used.

Some of these labels have a lot of different meanings depending on the context. Why use these labels, when you can directly address and attack these ideas and present what  the problems are with these ideas(this way you don't cause nearly as much confusion compared to using labels that can be interpreted in 10 different ways depending who is interpreting it and depending on the context as well).

Btw I don't agree with Destiny using some of these labels in a joking way, because thats clearly misleading and makes things unnecessarily confusing, but other than that, I agree with most of his points on this matter.

Edited September 7, 2022 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

If your goal is to try to build a bridge between two extreme polarities (or at the very least to make them understand each other just a little bit better), then the act of labeling and the act of dimissing and ignoring them won't achieve much, thats why other tactics and methods need to be used.

I think it's a bad trade-off in its current state: maximizing bridging a gap between communities vs. not doing anything to dampen Fuentes main strategy for spreading his views. The gap goes both ways, and he has no idea whether it's going in his favor or not. He should make a compromise to balance out the trade-off. If he doesn't call him a nazi (and I'll explain why I think he should), but he has no problems calling him fascist, racist, anti-semite etc., then that creates confusion. The last thing somebody needs who is on the bridge is confusion about which side is what.

When Vegan Gains went over Destiny's three criterias for his definition of nazi, we get to know that the only reason he doesn't call Nick Fuentes a nazi is because he thinks there is only a chance that he has genocidal intentions towards Jews, and that he would have to hear Fuentes say it directly in a conversation and unironically. That is so ridiculous. There is no universe where anybody will straight out admit "yeah, I actually want to kill Jews", so he will probably never get to call somebody a nazi. If Fuentes is the closest thing that somebody will ever get to an actual nazi, then he should be called that.

I still think he should continue engaging with him (I'm not fully in the Mr. Girl camp that he should not go on panels with him or not have normal conversations with him), but this autistic "probably"-dancing around the word nazi is a problem. If you're a serious thinker, you should value clear communication above almost anything else. Meta-irony, playing with words and frames is a great source of humor in some settings, but in other settings, it has to be treated seriously, particularly when dealing with Fuentes. 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

He should make a compromise to balance out the trade-off. If he doesn't call him a nazi (and I'll explain why I think he should), but he has no problems calling him fascist, racist, anti-semite etc., then that creates confusion.

I don't disagree with this, but some of these labels don't have as much meanings as others.

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

When Vegan Gains went over Destiny's three criterias for his definition of nazi, we get to know that the only reason he doesn't call Nick Fuentes a nazi is because he thinks there is only a chance that he has genocidal intentions towards Jews, and that he would have to hear Fuentes say it directly in a conversation and unironically. That is so ridiculous. There is no universe where anybody will straight out admit "yeah, I actually want to kill Jews", so he will probably never get to call somebody a nazi. If Fuentes is the closest thing that somebody will ever get to an actual nazi, then he deserves to be called that.

I don't think that would change anything in this instance, because if Destiny wants to be consistent with this take (which is to not use the label Nazi, because it has too many meanings and it makes things confusing and makes the other side defensive), then even if Nick would be perfect for all his criteria for being a Nazi, he wouldn't use it, to not make things confusing for others, because he can't just assume that all people will interpret that word the same way.

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

vs not doing anything to dampen Fuentes main strategy for spreading his views.

I don't think this is 100% true. He debates with him and attacks his ideas and dissects his ideas and he shows the holes in Nick's ideas, if thats not enough to repel people from Nick's ideology, then the label 'Nazi' won't do it either (imo).

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

but this autistic "probably"-dancing around the word nazi is a problem. If you're a serious thinker, you should value clear communication above almost anything else. Meta-irony, playing with words and frames is a great source of humor in some settings, but in other settings, it has to be treated seriously, particularly when dealing with Fuentes. 

Yeah, I agree either use it or don't use it but don't play around because that causes unnecessary confusion and that only helps Nick to spread his ideology.

Edited September 7, 2022 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't disagree with this, but some of these labels don't have as much meanings as others.

They do have meaning though, and you can influence that meaning in conversation by giving your own definition. You're not held captive by an absolute frame of meaning. Destiny has his own definition of nazi, and he can use that word, just like uses words like fascist, racist, and anti-Semite. However, the definition is also very restrictive, because he will probably never ever call somebody a nazi using that definition (again, perfect fortress).

 

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't think that would change anything in this instance, because if Destiny wants to be consistent with this take (which is to not use the label Nazi, because it has too many meanings and it makes things confusing and makes the other side defensive), then even if Nick would be perfect for all his criteria for being a Nazi, he wouldn't use it, to not make things confusing for others, because he can't just assume that all people will interpret that word the same way.

He can define the word in conversation, just like he defines any other word. He can then use the word in conversation, just like he uses any other word. If that makes Fuentes' audience defensive, it also makes Destiny's audience less confused. What that exactly looks like in terms of numbers, we can't know, but at least he is not sacrificing the integrity of clear communication and language.

 

19 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't think this is 100% true. He debates with him and attacks his ideas and dissects his ideas and he shows the holes in Nick's ideas, if thats not enough to repel people from Nick's ideology, then the label 'Nazi' won't do it either (imo).

Fuentes' main strategy is his meta-ironic identity. Destiny makes little reliable effort to poke holes in that.

[zurew]

39 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

They do have meaning though, and you can influence that meaning in conversation by giving your own definition. You're not held captive by an absolute frame of meaning.

but at least he is not sacrificing the integrity of clear communication and language.

I think with the word 'Nazi' even if you define it once, you will end up sacrificing the integrity of clear communcation and language, because people use that word for so many things and it has so many meanings, that people who won't see Destiny defining that word will misinterpret what he is reffering to - so the communication will be worse compared to outlining exactly Nick's ideology as clearly as possible, when questioned about it. 

39 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Fuentes' main strategy is his meta-ironic identity. Destiny makes little reliable effort to poke holes in that.

I think the labeling approach is a worse method to try to reveal Nick's real identity. With the labeling approach you just assume some things that Nick's stands for, don't question him , not let him to outline the things he stands for, and people will just demonize him based on assumptions about him and repel his audience or people will agree with Nick not knowing what he really stands for.

Opposite to that, if you actually let him to outline his stuff and dig deeper and deeper and try to corner him with questions, then you can have a chance to make him reveal his real identity, so everyone can see him what he really is and his side won't get as defensive either.

Edited September 7, 2022 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, zurew said:

I think with the word 'Nazi' even if you define it once, you will end up sacrificing the integrity of clear communcation and language, because people use that word for so many things and it has so many meanings, that people who won't see Destiny defining that word will misinterpret what he is reffering to - so the communication will be worse compared to outlining exactly Nick's ideology as clearly as possible, when questioned about it. Also, why would he leave room for confusion (with using a label), why not do an expressive approach, where you outline exactly what Nick's ideology is and what Nick's ideology stands for , when questioned about it.

"Fascist" and "racist" are just as poisoned as "nazi" (unless there is a way to quantify that), so there is a double-standard there when he calls him those things and not nazi. He apparently doesn't care about your idea of integrity when it comes to those words. 

He has fixated himself on one word which he has deemed as important for strategic gains, and that double-standard is the integrity I'm saying he is sacrificing.

 

9 hours ago, zurew said:

I think the labeling approach is a worse method to try to reveal Nick's real identity. With the labeling approach you just assume some things that Nick's stands for, don't question him , not let him to outline the things he stands for, and people will just demonize him based on assumptions about him and repel his audience.

You label him after you find out his actual views, just like with "fascist", "racist" etc.

 

9 hours ago, zurew said:

Opposite to that, if you actually let him to outline his stuff and dig deeper and deeper and try to corner him with questions, then you can have a chance to make him reveal his real identity, so everyone can see him what he really is and his side won't get as defensive either.

Labeling him does not inherently hinder that process. It makes it easier in one way (the utility of categories) and harder in another (defensiveness). If you don't have a word for something, or if you're actively omitting using a word that fits that position, you're making it harder to get a grip on him. That is why words and categories exist, to make it easier to grip something. If that makes him defensive, ok, then they can talk about that. If Fuentes is truly reasonable, then he won't automatically shut down if you lay out exactly why his views fit with your definition of nazi. What makes him shut down is the mindless labeling twitter leftists do. Destiny should do exactly what you're advocating here AND be able to label things reasonably.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Fascist" and "racist" are just as poisoned as "nazi" (unless there is a way to quantify that), so there is a double-standard there when he calls him those things and not nazi.

I agree with the word "fascist" as being as poisoned as the word "Nazi", but not with the word racist ,but it would be hard to argue and to count how poisoned these words are - I agree on that. 

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

He has fixated himself on one word which he has deemed as important for strategic gains, and that double-standard is the integrity I'm saying he is sacrificing.

Lets assume for a moment that he actually believes that the word 'Nazi' is more poisoned than the other words that you listed above - If thats what he believes in his mind , would his approach still be unreasonable or bad? (Btw, I absolutely don't rule out that he is doing all this for strategic gains, because he absolutely has stage orange motivations a lot of times)

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Labelling him does not inherently hinder that process. It makes it easier in one way (the utility of categories) and harder in another (defensiveness). If you don't have a word for something, or if you're actively omitting using a word that fits that position, you're making it harder to get a grip on him.

I would agree with you, if the label we are talking about wouldn't have so many different meanings - thats why I said, that he should rather outline extensively and precisely what Nick's positions are, when questioned about it, because this way people can do their categorization on their own,  based on their own definitions.

So this way the clarity is better, the communication is better, and there is less confusion . 

[Kksd74628]

@zurew

Having own definitions itself is laughable. The very fact that our communication right now works is because we share definitions of these words that you read. If you mean different thing that I do then use different word and if this word doesn't exist in our vocabulary then we have to add that to the vocabulary. This thing I am talking about is problem in spiritual groups as well, because they fight about the definitions instead of the thing that happened. Point is to convey information, not to have opinion about definition that should be a fact in the first place.

[Carl-Richard]

@Kksd74628

So when we define a word in a discussion, that word no longer has any use?

[Kksd74628]

@Carl-Richard

I am not sure if I got what you meant, but I agree that showing the definition of a word in conversation if it's needed is just a good thing. 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Kksd74628 said:

@Carl-Richard

I am not sure if I got what you meant, but I agree that showing the definition of a word in conversation if it's needed is just a good thing. 

Then why is having own definitions laughable?

[Kksd74628]

@Carl-Richard

Wait a second, what you misunderstood. I thought own definion is something that you only by yourself agree and is different from original definition of that word. I think we shouldn't have own definitions, but just straight agree and play with the definitions that are given. For example we don't make own ideas of number 4, because otherwise we couldn't do math together and same goes to words in conversations. Saying that we disagree on definition is laughable, because it means that either one of the debaters or both don't know the real definition.