MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
I finally finished watching this stream in which Destiny gets blacked by conservatives (and one Libertarian) and all throughout Destiny looks like both a raging sexist and a petulant child.
At first, Destiny is just verbally abusing this poor woman called Kat Kanada on her opinions regarding J6, the contentious status of J6 as an insurrection and because she isn't flat-earther levels dedicated to the subject, asserting she shouldn't have an opinion on the subject and she should be bullied relentlessly for having one. It should be noted that even though Destiny is aggressive and vicious toward his other opponents in this debate, he's not nearly as vicious toward the men as he is toward this particular Canadian woman.
It's pretty clear that Destiny thinks he's picking at low hanging fruit with this woman, but even then she's still going toe-to-toe with him and driving him to angry outbursts and cutting her off any time she makes any kind of reasonable point to prevent her from building a case against his position and just doing his usual gish gallop bullshit.
As other "conservatives" are brought on, there's one guy by the name of Rob Noerr at the hour and twelve minute mark who stands above the rest in his information on J6, states that the 7 electorates Trump brought forward were a legal strategy and not an act of insurrection, and he starts comparing J6 to the May 29th riot (he says it happened on May 31st, I don't know) at the White House that caused the Secret Service to escort Trump to the WH bunker, and asked whether or not this also counts as an insurrection. Interestingly, Rob Noerr has debated Destiny before and brings up that Destiny once had a much more nuanced and moderate opinion on J6, and referred to it as a riot rather than an insurrection at the time it happened. Destiny rebuffs this claim by saying that he was less informed on the matter before, and because he's better informed now, he feels confident to call it a proper insurrection. Destiny concedes that yes, the May 29th riot would count as an insurrection.
What I find interesting here is no one capitalizes on the revelation that Destiny just admitted that May 29th was an insurrection, because now anybody could claim that support for Joe Biden or the Democrat party as a whole is in support of insurrectionism because the participants were in large part Democrat voters. It's a real shame nobody attacked this angle to killshot Destiny's constant drumming of J6, because he goes on and on about it and adamantly refuses any refutation of his narrative whatsoever.
Rob Noerr tries to elaborate on this point by pointing out the FBI never investigated the May 29th riots and Destiny jumps on this, bringing up Hunter Biden as an example of the FBI investigating their own. Noerr describes the Hunter Biden fiasco as a token show of prosecutorial objectivity and that the investigation into Hunter Biden's gun charge was actually a coverup of his bigger crimes, such as his dirty dealings with Ukraine and China on behalf of Joe Biden. The argument escalates until Destiny just laughs Noerr off and calls it absurd that two whistleblowers could possibly bend the FBI to their will, ect.
Rob Noerr remarks how Destiny always maligns how he has to deal with low information debate opponents, but now that he's dealing with someone who's high info he can't handle it. In the middle of Noerr's monologue, Destiny gets up from his chair, leaves and comes back to inform Rob Noerr that he's been ignored the whole time he was talking. Destiny then tries to force the discussion back toward J6 and tries to get Noerr to concede that J6 was a proper insurrection due to the alternative electorates. Noerr states that the electorates were alternatives and not illegal, and Destiny rebuffs that by stating the 7 electorates weren't certified by their States legislatures. Destiny further claims that the electorate's claim to be certified by state legislatures was fraudulent.
I don't know the details of this case but I have serious doubt that Trump managed to get seven different people to come forward and willfully commit fraud on his behalf, his claim that all seven of these people were frauds is highly dubious.
Rob Noerr then claims that Destiny is changing the subject because he knows he's getting BTFO.
Rob Noerr then asks Destiny an interesting rhetorical question, which is what would've happened had Mike Pence certified the 7 electorates instead of the original electorates, and Noerr's answer is it would've caused a constitutional crises and ended up in the Supreme Court. Destiny calls this retarded as there would be no defendant nor plaintiff to make the alternative electorate, and he keeps asking who would even bring the case.
Noerr replies that one of the states would have brought the case forward, Destiny mentions that Texas tried doing the same thing to Pennsylvania and were told to kick rocks. Noerr replies that the reason why Texas were told to fuck off was because Texas has no legal right to dictate how Pennsylvania handles their elections, and this case would have been different because it would've been a Federal challenge.
Destiny then asks what if they did bring it to the Supreme Court and what they would even be challenging, and Noerr replies that they would be challenging the legitimacy of the alternative electorates because there was cause to believe there was already election fraud.
Rob Noerr then brings up the two Hawaiian state selectors, and Destiny rebukes this by stating both Hawaiian electors were verified by the state. At this point Kat Kanada cuts in and states someone else wants a turn and Destiny gives the last word to Rob Noerr. Rob Noerr then states that the way each state chooses to adjudicate their elections is their prerogative and there would have been nothing illegal with replacing the current electorates with the alternatives, nor would there have been anything illegal about Donald Trump suggesting replacement electorates.
Next up is Darwin to Jesus, who asks Destiny the Paradox of Tolerance question regarding Democracy, and whether or not it's a Democratic act to kill Fascists to prevent them from voting against Democracy. Destiny simply gives the non-answer that he's disappointed half the country is supporting an insurrectionist. What's funny about this is earlier in the stream, Destiny made the Revolutionary war an example of the Paradox of Tolerance where he describes the Continental Army shooting at the British to secure American Democracy from the British Empire, which is retarded because the British Empire was a Monarchy. When asked if Destiny would mind if half of America were wiped out to accommodate his political hegemony, he says it would be tragic, but not as tragic as that same half being alive to support an insurrectionist. I don't think Destiny hears himself at all as he says this shit.
What's further ironic is that Destiny thinks it's absurd for Republicans to expect to be treated as normal for supporting an insurrectionist right after stating the Revolutionary War that started the very country he claims to defend so dearly was in itself an insurrectionist plot. Destiny routinely complains that everyone else has goldfish memory but he can't see the parallels and hypocrisy in the comparisons he himself makes.
Darwin to Jesus then asks Destiny if the way he's talking isn't indicative of how politics brainwashes you, and Destiny starts insulting him by basically calling him a guppy looking up at him from a murky scum pond. I think that of all the horrible things Destiny has had to say since the assassination attempt, this is oddly the most deplorable, because it doesn't simply speak to his warped worldview but to his unwarranted sense of superiority. It's clear Destiny doesn't deem himself superior on the merits of his information or personal ability, but as to whether or not the opinion you hold differs in any way from his own. Throughout the rest of this debate, Destiny continues to use this guppy in a scum pond comparison as an insult to everyone talking to him.
Destiny then starts saying that all Republicans are anti-rule of law because they support an insurrectionist and he's afraid to advocate for any law and order in the presence of a conservative, which is hypocritical because Destiny already admitted that May 29th was in itself an insurrection lead by Democrat voters, so by his own logic the left are anti-rule of law as well. It just doesn't count because he plays goalie for their side.
Destiny ends his debate with Darwin to Jesus by saying he thinks that the American experiment is reaching its end should Donald Trump be elected for his second term. This is obviously absurd and overblown, but moreover, it raises the question as to why so many leftists are so convinced that a second Donald Trump term would be the end of the American experiment, and my conclusion is that it's not a warning or natural consequence of Trump entering office, but a threat that the left will make it happen should he get reelected as an act of spite.
I'm going to jump ahead to Lauren Southern's turn since I'm not too keen on describing the entire ten person debate and only discussing highlights I find interesting, and her turn is about the last interesting perspective. Lauren Southern's debate is a return to the Hawaiian delegation argument, but with the added twist that Republican Party of New Mexico's Chairman Steve Pearce had stated that New Mexico had faced numerous challenges regarding the presidential election that could go before a court, and so since there was election fraud contention in New Mexico, the 7 electorates were to cast their votes by the deadline according to Federal Statute in the event the election outcome changed and a Democratic attorney agreed that Republican electors did not violate the law but is now seeking to make this process illegal for both Republicans and Democrats, Pearce said referring to the 1960 Nixon election which involved the electorates in Hawaii calling for Kennedy despite being originally called for Nixon.
Destiny's response is to continue calling the 7 alternative electorates fraudulent despite evidence to the contrary presented to him on multiple occasions. Destiny's claim to these people all being retarded is rooted in the simple fact that they don't accept the premise of his narrative that the 7 electorates were frauds, and he can't conceive that the pretenses he wants to enforce for this debate to give himself a field advantage could be wrong.
Destiny goes on to say that the legal statute the Democrat attorney was referencing was state law, but the article being cited by Southern was very clearly describing the legality of all 7 electorates, which means it's Federal law being cited, but Destiny can't allow himself to be wrong or proven wrong ever so he has to intentionally misconstrue what was being said to make it irrelevant.
Destiny then implies the Hawaiian delegate case is irrelevant & desperate case law straw grasping by mockingly saying "In the year 1427, there was a British king once and he talked to a feudal lord and they were doing their play electorate college for their children, they actually did this thing common law says-- bullshit."
The next debate with Christian Lamar is not especially interesting, beyond the fact that Destiny puts him on mute for the majority of his presentation, letting him make his argument to an audience of no one except the other "conservatives" in the chat, basically pulling the same stunt with Rob Noerr but for Lamar's entire portion of the debate. Destiny is such a douche to pull this move. It must be easy to act like your opponents are talking nonsense when you intentionally ignore everything they're saying.
Destiny's response to every salient point is to call everyone retarded, dismiss these points out of hand as they don't adhere to his bottlenecked rhetoric and definitions of terms. Destiny will ask a rhetorical question, and when the answer given dissatisfies him, he explodes in anger and reiterates the question to try and force the answer he wants to hear.
One last thing I want to mention is something I observed while looking over the Darwin to Jesus portion, this debate between Destiny and these ten people feels more like a defendant on the stand being interviewed by a jury of his peers one by one, and Destiny even behaves like an unruly criminal on stand, throwing tantrums, deflecting responsibility and criticism at every turn and refusing to concede any point with any dirty trick or demeaning insult he can. What I find most interesting is that each of these "conservatives" have their own unique angle & subject matter of debating Destiny, from the legal definition of what counts as an insurrection to the inhuman monstrosity of condemning half a nation essentially to death. Looking at Destiny's behavior through this lens, I'm convinced that Steven is on some sort of narcotics, his behavior is erratic and beyond the scope of all his prior behavior. The old Destiny of just a few years ago who debated Jim and claimed to be compassionate wouldn't have callously laughed at a conservative shielding his daughter from gunfire nor would he have said something as repugnant as his parents being deserving of death should they be in support of Donald Trump. The only thing Destiny is missing at this point is his own Boogie-esque rug-pull scam to complete his Scumbag Steve phase.
Last edited:
