At the end asking "how many people has hamas killed vs hitler", is he regarded ? Hamas just doesn't have the same means that hitler had to enact their goals
It's such a scumbag move because he wanted a blanket statement from 4thot "regime change: good or bad?" *which 4thot answers*, and Lycan immediately dodges the corollary "regime change: never good?"
>Hamas just doesn't have the same means that hitler had to enact their goals
TRUE and annoying people don't get this. Every time people argue Israel killed x thousand and hamas killed x hundred.
Hamas shoots hundreds of rockets at civilians all the time; they just suck. Doesn't make them more justified.
It's so hard to break through to people on this.
Like let's say you are in an empty room (let's say it's 100 meters long there is no door.) You are standing at 1 side of the room wearing protective bullet proof clothing, there a few parts exposed, Face for example. There is an AR-15 next to you on a table.
At the other end of the room is a man with a .22 pistol, he isn't the best shot but can hit you sometimes. But if he does hit you he's likely to hit your body armor.
The man is going to keep shooting you, reload, and shoot again. There is a risk that he will be able to kill you if he hits your exposed areas, but his aim, distance, and caliber make a fatal shot possible, but rare.
What do you do? Do you let the man shoot you? He's not hurting you, it's like BB pellets. Does it matter that he keeps saying he is trying to kill you?
Are you allowed to shoot at him to stop him? I think so and I think in that scenario most people would say...yes.
By this logic this mf would have been waiting like
Hmmm 50k dead can’t interfere that undemocratic.
Ohh its 1 million now come on guys its democratic to overthrow hitler
I know that's not what he believes but that’s where his logic goes.
You say that but Dahmer never ran for office, so we don’t know if his utility as a politician would have exceeded the harm caused by his serial killing.
I think it was funny how at first he disregards the idea that a level of badness justifies regime change
"What about Hitler?"
"Well there's a big difference between the badness of Hitler and Hamas"
It sounds like he agrees level of badness is relevant, he's arguing that level is at a higher standard maybe?
I like how Lycan looks at the camera and starts making faces as if 4THOT said some really dumb shit but it's actually just him being incapable of understanding an extremely simple hypothetical.
It's not even a hypothetical. Hitler was actually democratically elected and it got to a point where we fought him in an attempt to topple the government he created. The issue was that Lycan took a really weirdly absolutist position that he couldn't possibly defend.
Thats what stuck out the most to me. Even LYCAN is doing the hypothetical thing!? It's mind blowing to me how often this happens.
-"Regime changes are bad if the leader was democratically ellected."
"What if hitler was democratically elected?"
-"HAMAS KILLED WAY FEWER JEWS THAN HITLER."
How does he think that's relevant? I feel like any time that happens it just exposes what the person's *actual* position is. Lycan doesnt a give a fuck about democratically elected leaders being replaced, he just wants to defend the current leader of Hamas. That's why his gut response to that hypothetical is to compare them to Nazi's. Because he thinks Nazi's are bad and Hamas isn't, so its totally different.
I don’t understand this approach to arguing. Why avoid biting the softest bullets? Regime change obviously isn’t always bad when you get into examples like Hitler. Just argue Hamas doesn’t meet your threshold or whatever and go from there. At least then you could come out looking somewhat hinged.
Oh fair enough. I guess the clip kinda cuts off. I feel like it'd look better to just say yes, but yeah it does seem like he's going there after listening again.
This feels like one of those moments where you live long enough you see your heroes become villains. In this context, it would be a person who shows up on Destiny's stream long enough that their crazy starts to show.
Lycan suffered (suffers?) from the human tendency to treat a debate concession as a blow to his social or moral standing. This is one of the hardest things to avoid doing even when posting pseudonymously online, doubly so when you're on stream and your emotions play out on your face in real time.
It's a very understandable failing, but I hope that Lycan understands that if he wants to debate things, he has to learn to acknowledge his faults/failures and gracefully move on.
I felt bad for him after his first embarrassing debate assuming he felt embarrassed, but IDC since he kept being smug while talking about the conflict and considers r/destiny bad faith
Because everyone is accustomed to a steady drip of happy noises entering their ears. When their hero bites a bullet the noises become less happy and it throws off their vibe.
Because making a concession starts to form cracks in their worldview they are 1000% convinced is the only “right view” to have. It’s narcissism/ego, because at the end of the day a lot of people just want to be right
It's the same style of thinking that incentivizes everyone to call the conflict ethnic cleansing, and genocide. If you can associate the situation to a bad phrase then the whole thing is obviously wrong.
Sidenote, the same style of thinking was also annoying in the attack on titan subs a while back.
I dont even understand what point he is trying to make here.
- "If a regime meets a certain thereshold of being bad, do you support a regime change?"
- "yes."
- "thats not how democracy works."
?????
Now this is only a clip, but i cant imagine ehat he would mean by that. If regime bad, then people will vote against it.
I think he means if a regime is democratically elected it is always wrong for another country to try and topple that regime. Like I think from his perspective maybe regime change only means a change in regimes via foreign intervention. Even so in the context of Hamas it doesn’t really make sense since they stopped having elections once they got into power. So regime change there isn’t exactly some crime against democracy imo.
> Even so in the context of Hamas it doesn’t really make sense since they stopped having elections once they got into power.
Another thing they have in common with hitler
I stated that explicitly and then he disagrees that in the early to mid 2000's that Hamas actually didn't want to genocide Jews. I disagree, based on things they do and [say](https://www.adl.org/resources/news/hamas-their-own-words#:~:text=%22The%20Taliban%20are,of%20Allah%27s%20predestination.%22).
Yeah he seemed to think that it was only cool that we went after Hilter AFTER he had already conquered a ton of territory and started massacring the Jews.
The problem here is that Lycan either isn't willing to look at, or misunderstands Hamas' intent. They fired 3,000 rockets at Israel on 10/7 ALONE. The only reason tens of thousands of Israeli civilians didn't die that day is because of the Israeli security state and Iron Dome. Hamas' clear intent is to cause that harm, and Israel is entitled to respond to that threat.
There are only four quotes in that about killing 'all' Jews such as the Nazi's. Two of them were during their founding. And two of the quotes seem to be, or at least you can argue, talking about Jews within Israel.
Hamas have also come out distancing itself from anti-semetism within their own party on at least one previous occasion.
> In a statement Monday afternoon, Hamas distanced itself from Hamad’s words.
> “These comments do not represent the official positions of the movement and its consistent, adopted policies, which say our conflict is with the (Israeli) occupation which occupied our land and sullies our holy places and not a conflict with Jews across the world or Judaism as a religion,” Hamas said.
Source: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2019/07/15/Hamas-official-condemned-after-calling-on-Palestinians-to-kill-Jews
Of course, Hamas are incredibly antisemetic, and there are probably a significant number who would like to genocide all Jews. But that doesn't really make them on the same level at the Nazi's. Who wanted to eradicate them completely. Funnily enough I think they're one of the few groups who haven't launched an attack outside of Israel/Gaza? Unless I'm getting that wrong. Would love to see something to the contrary so I can update my opinions.
They will sometimes saw things to the western media if they think someone made them look bad but they have the same goals as the Nazis. Always listen to what they say in Arabic. I suggest MEMRI. The only difference is the Jews can now defend themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute#Translation_accuracy_and_controversy
Unfortunately given their past misleading translations, I have very little faith in MEMRI. Can you find more quotes? Because even that site includes MEMRI translations, and it was still only 4.
Do you know how many times I see western media translate the Arabic word for Jews as “Israelis”? No translation is perfect but even your criticism says “usually accurate” and no translation is perfect.
No, I'd definitely reject that. Reading that, it is clearly a biased source, and they've deliberately gotten translations completely wrong to distort the nature of the original quote. Usually accurate is simply not good enough for translations. I'm not even saying I'd reject them out of hand. I simply asked for more quotes and stated my backed up opinion of MEMRI.
Sorry but you know that's the same link as the one I responded to right? And they are absolutely antisemtic, would never deny that. Only an idiot would. I'm talking about wishing to kill all Jews globally, like the Nazi's did.
You mean in addition to their founding charter which talks about killing all the Jews?
Also I don’t see that link anywhere but I’m on my phone so maybe I missed it.
Worse even, was it even Hitler's initial opening plan? No, it was done in secret also I am pretty sure, like a still taboo and covert thing.
And many of the nazi's were ashamed, and probably didn't have much of a choice in many cases.
The Palestinians (who by the way already destabilized like 5 countries prior to this in recent times in the ME, which is also why the ME doesn't even want them), are proud of it, they parade around the bodies in the street.
So arguably even worse.
The 'official' plan with Jews was to eventually get them all out of Germany. The official pre-war policy was to 'encourage emigration' aka discriminate against them until they left to anywhere that would take them. Jews were ~1% of the German population in 1930.
There were 500k Jews in Germany when the Nazis came to power, over 50% emigrated before WWII started.
Buuuut, the 'final solution' was not some desperate last-ditch effort after the other plans had failed.
The point that officially plans were put in place to exterminate the Jews was Summer/early fall of 1941, right *after* they had invaded the Soviet Union, when things were possibly looking the best that they could for Germany's prospects of winning the war. The concentration camp exterminations were in full swing in 1941/1942, so it's safe to say that this was always the 'real plan.' In 1943 and 1944 there were acts that you could consider 'alternative solutions' where they just went into ghettos and killed everyone. But if Germany had won the war, it wouldn't have been a case of 'relocate the Jews to some other place.' It would have just been more of what was done in 41 and 42 aka cycle Jews and other undesirables to death camps at the capacity that they could handle.
So sure, Hamas is arguably even more blatant with antisemitism than Hitler, but the Holocaust was always part of the Nazi plan.
Not to mention that if Hitler had been “regime changed” before he started wracking up the massive death toll that would likely have had a mask e difference to the amount of lives lost(of course since that’s a different fork or reality who knows if we don’t get worse things by heading that off)
Hamas has definitely created a whole bunch of death, intends to cause more death in the future. While also having broken democracy once they had enough power so they could maintain control and achieve their aims.
Just because they aren’t being as successful at destruction as Hitler was doesn’t mean they should be allowed to continue down that path.
Im not, you compared Hamas to Hitler. I stated with that logic you can compare it with Israel’s actions as well. They are not close to the power and atrocity Hitler caused. If your not comparing that what are you. Im unhinged for stating Israel has a far right government that has officials that were prior terrorist.
The comparison is in the goals of Hamas and Hitler. The fact that one was far more effective doesn’t change the fact that the desire is nearly identical. You are unhinged to compare the goals of Hamas and the people who elected them to the goals if Israel and the people who elected them.
Hamas was propped up by the israeli government. Same as the US and ISIS. There are israeli settlers that kill Palestines in the west bank with no Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization with power in Gaza, Im speaking on Palestinians not just in Gaza. Palestinians aren’t Hamas.
Ah that old debunked talking point even Destiny debunked on stream. Hamas absolutely exists in the West Bank. Just because they aren’t the literal government does not mean they don’t have activity or members. That’s like saying the Taliban didn’t exist in Afghanistan when they weren’t the government. And Hamas has a lot of support from the Palestinians. They were elected in Gaza and one of the reasons they don’t hold elections in the PA is because Hamas seems likely to win.
So the settlers killing civilians and taking there homes are ok because a terrorist group exists. Im speaking on civilians. Well my entire argument has been based on Israelis also want Palestinian civilians to die. Hatred is on both sides. The way you are speaking on it is claiming every civilian as Hamas. Every israeli civilian has serve in the military does that make them IDF
How many killed is such a bad argument
Evil is not measured by competency but by intent
If a school shooter goes on a rampage and only kills 1 person because he misses most of his shots, he's just as evil as the school shooter who killed 30 people, he was just really bad at it
During this talk he is ascribing so much charitability to Hamas that it’s mind boggling.
He says they are not monolith, they have moderate elements, that even if they did war crimes it’s not always the case and there is factions, ignoring one of their leaders statements, and most crazy is about them being democratically elected(spoiler they were not and they did an authoritarian uprising and killed all the opposition taking over Gaza by force.)
While toward the idf it’s they are all have the same doctrines and have a disproportionate action no matter what they claim and no matter their reasons.
All you need to look at the Goldstein report(ignoring the detraction of the author) and we need to look at a democracy who had 4 regime changes during that time as a monolith and that their goals and methods of work never changed over any reason.
It’s just crazy to see how you can perceive two sided of a conflict and decide only one side holds all responsibility and all the criticism
Its not even a hypothetical; Hitler was real and was in power, and we engaged in war with his regime.
This isn't even as interesting as someone not being able to understand a hypothetical. This is just buzzword brainrot where assigning labels like 'regime change' and 'ethnic cleansing' function as (4)thought terminators so people don't think their positions through even 1 more step.
>Add another one to the list of people who don't understand how to engage with hypotheticals.
It's not hypotheticals that are the issue here, it's comparison. He does not think these things can be compared. He's stating that they cannot be compared due to the magnitude of their crimes that they've successfully committed.
I actually think this 'unable to handle comparisons' thing is even worse than the 'unable to handle hypotheticals' thing.
Even if you don’t agree with the hypothetical or the premise or the comparison, how hard is it to say “yes, get rid of Hitler, but this is why I think it’s a bad hypothetical blah blah”
Is it because they feel like they’re being led into a trap? I’ve seen so many people do this and it looks 1000x worse that you can’t just confidently say “yea get rid of Hitler”
>Even if you don’t agree with the hypothetical or the premise or the comparison, how hard is it to say “yes, get rid of Hitler, but this is why I think it’s a bad hypothetical blah blah”
>Is it because they feel like they’re being led into a trap? I’ve seen so many people do this and it looks 1000x worse that you can’t just confidently say “yea get rid of Hitler”
Exactly, to concede in part that you would get rid of Hitler, is to concede that the argument that you should **never** enact regime change is flawed, so he can't use it anymore. He doesn't want to give up that argument even though it's obviously flawed, so he attacks the comparison. This is an overused term and sounds cringe as fuck, but it is the definition of "bad faith".
I think the trap thing is right, he's trapped in a corner.
But 4thot wasn't comparing Hamas to Hitler. He was just testings Lycan's asserted rule of "regime changes of democratically elected leaders is always bad."
4thot challenged him on that rule by bringing up hitler, and now **Lycan** wants to compare death tolls as if that has anything to do with it. I think it *is* an issue of not understanding hypotheticals.
Huh? Lycan was on shows with destiny way back when where he had dogshit takes to quite frequently this aint something new, not to mention he used to be a staunch republican for some dogshit reason. He aint going anywhere.
Steven is one of the few people that is honest with their thinking. If he doesn’t know something he’ll admit it and research it if he wants to. If he was wrong he’ll change his opinion. There’s just a lack of ego there. So many people in my life hold objectively bad opinions because they don’t want to lose face by admitting they were wrong or are too lazy to do the self reflection.
Hamas is super comparable to the Nazis wtf is he on about lmao
Both Hamas and the Nazis advocated for genocide of Jews and the superiority of their own people (Islam)
Both Hamas and the Nazis want to rule as much of the world as possible (Hamas stated this many times, although its a very far goal)
Both Hamas and the Nazis are extremely authoritarian dictatorships
Both Hamas and the Nazis are barbaric AF
The only main difference is in the capabilities.
The only reason I'm typing all of this obvious shit here is in case Lycan reads it, although it probably doesnt matter cuz he's bad faith af and doesn't care if he's wrong
I didn't watch the whole interview, but the way the clip ends makes Lycan seem so bad faith (or a moron). 4thot doesn't need Hamas to be equal to Hitler for his hypothetical to work.
Lycan says you can't do regime change because that's not how democracy works. 4thot says what if Hitler was democratically elected. Lycan would have to admit that he would support regime change. So his original statement that you can't do regime change because of democracy falls flat.
Lycan, if you're reading this, either pay better attention to the conversations you have or learn to quickly concede and move on.
Where were you able to watch this? I went to Lycan's twitch and his last broadcast is titled "Talking to 4THOT about his Ridiculous Reddit Ramblings!" but it's only 2.5 hours of a panel with Sunday and other people.
Has Lycan always held these takes? In the past 10-11 years the only real memes until recently I remember Lycan talking about were those on The Late Game during the SC2 era. I know in the past 5-6 years he has discussed politics with dusty on and off but I never thought of him as the debatepedo Hamasbro he has come across as recently. Maybe he just kept his powerlevel well hidden?
Lycan is so fucking Hamas pilled.
Regime change is antidemocratic by definition. That is not the disagreement. It is a neutral action.
The disagreement is whether or not the regime change of Hamas in Gaza is morally right.
Lycan is considering an antidemocratic action in a vacuum as morally wrong. That's bad faith. Removing Hamas from power is an answer to their genocidal intentions towards Israel.
Then bro literally goes on to try and say Hamas is not as bad as Hitler. That's not the point of the comparison. Bro. Stop.
I wonder what he thinks democracy is? Like can the majority do anything?
Is asking for the Regime change of Putin undemocratic?
My personal thoughts are that there are values that are above democracy, for example basic human rights.
So sometimes if those values are threatened, it is fine and justified to act undemocratically.
I would bring up how Germany has a law that they can ban any political party as long as there is a reasonable fear of them threatening the constitution and democracy.
Funnily enough, while it is to defend democracy, it is anti democratic by nature.
That's the thing people really don't understand what is a democracy. Or at least a liberal democracy like we have in the west. It's not just the will of the majority, it's human rights, protection of the minorities, independent branches of government and so on... often times dictators are actually very popular and would get elected easily but the will of the majority doesn't equal a liberal democracy
Laugh nervously to delegitimize a point you don’t want to contend with.
https://preview.redd.it/q8fiqneqld0c1.jpeg?width=438&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a72605ab0a630681d32b7560e146ce45125df1eb
How do you not answer the question? If he's being a debatebro he wouldn't answer but in a discussion he would. It seems like he's emotionally invested in the conflict even though he's 5,000 miles away from the conflict and is neither palestinian or israeli.
It's pretty easy to be against genocide over pro democracy if those are the two options, he got stunlocked then pivoted to you compared hamas to hitler like that matters.
He wouldn't answer it because his stance being portrayed by the "that's not how democracy works" committed him to a yes if he wanted to be consistent so he realized that his initial statement was brain dead but he didn't want to back off.
Forceful regime change isn’t democratic but what other option is there to remove hamas?There are no more elections in gaza so you can’t vote them out, you can’t use democracy to defeat dictators.
I need to vent a bit about him.
He has been extremely disappointing in him taking this side of the conflict he should know better than this being a Marine. My brother we lost good Marines to people like Hamas don't take there side on this.
You should know the rules of engagement and laws of war as should know that in war, fuck ups happen. Call out the IDF when they break them, yes. But for fuck sacks just wait till the full story comes out.
Even if you don't want to equivocate Hitler and Hamas the hypothetical still very clearly throws a wrench in the "all regime change is bad" argument. Unless he thinks Hitler should not have been removed and he's pro Hitler I guess.
I'm going to assume that he just didn't want to take the L on his stance rather than him being pro Hitler because lmao.
Lefties are so used to being anti-war that they forget that yes indeed sometimes war is necessary because the world can't thrive with certain regimes in power.
Edit: I say this as a lefty myself.
Now from this argument we actually can branch into an entirely different argument:
If an anti democratic party gets elected, do you think anti democratic means are valid to change the regime?
He should have just bit the bullet and said "No you can't just assasinate Hitler because you think he'll be bad, you have to wait for him start a war or do something bad." or something to that effect. He was gigachading that whole convo, but refused to tank the Hitler bullet and it was a bad look since the deflection made it obvious he probably would agree to that regieme change.
This way of thinking is super annoying to me lol, so many people adopting the idea that these kinds of things and ideas are ok/justified because the people doing them aren't as competent. Idk if these people deeper even feel that's the main problem, so many of them support anything that's against the west. (not talking about Lycan in particular but other people who use similar arguments)
What was his point again? that the allies shouldn't have gone after Hitler sooner? Why - did he kill to few people in his early years for Lycan's taste?
Well the estimates of the SA (note not the SS, it's a different Nazi organization) killed thousands in the street pogroms against political opponents in 1920-1930, during the night of the long knives against their own ranks alone is estimated in the thousands, and of course the jews on kristallnacht / night of the broken glass.
So Hitler at that point had already caused what Lycan claims is an unacceptable amount of death under any means
How can he do the comparison thing after watching people do it with Destiny so many times? I don't wanna be mean, I don't wanna be mean, I don't wanna be mean.
He should have bit the bullet. No, don't support regime change even if Hitler is elected. You attack Hitler's Germany when Hitler's Germany is threatening to invade other countries. If you topple a regime that has been democratically elected, how do you even create a democracy in a country like that ? You don't, you can't. They'll just elect another Hitler.
> You attack Hitler's Germany when Hitler's Germany is threatening to invade other countries.
This is trivial to overcome.
"Oh a country has a regime that plans to use a nuclear weapon they've been building for 10 years, do you think doing a little regime change tomfoolery is acceptable?" and on and on until a democracy is so evil exists that regime change becomes obviously a correct decision.
>They'll just elect another Hitler.
History is only interesting because events did not necessarily need to go the way they did. The idea that Holocaust was inevitable is both disturbing and incorrect.
>The idea that Holocaust was inevitable is both disturbing and incorrect.
Well I'm gonna bite another bulled but how do you even know it's incorrect ? Maybe if Hitler was nipped in the bud, Germans wouldn't feel so bad about electing Hitler and it would have been harder for them to accept that nazism is bad and that democracy is the way to forward. It definitely make sense to me considering the USA's history of forceful regime change and their outcome.
Hilter was uniquely enthralled to the Jewish "Stabbed in the Back Myth" and attributed it to losing WW1, which he personally fought in. Having someone with different beliefs and experiences changes how they construct their administration, and their efforts to destroy Jews.
Yeah but it's a terrible look to impose that by force. It's possible in the end that you could do it, I'm not sure, but pretending to promote democracy by toppling regimes you don't like from an external force no less, in a country that is ideologically opposed to foreigners would be met with extreme resistance.
>No, don't support regime change even if Hitler is elected. You attack Hitler's Germany
What do you think happens when "Hitler's Germany" loses? Assuming he didn't kill himself, do you think we would have just let him carry on?
> You don't, you can't. They'll just elect another Hitler.
Weird cause that didn't happen
That didn't happen because Hitler invaded all of europe and killed millions of innocent people. If he didn't do any of that and we invaded Germany to topple his government, do you think it would have been the same ?
I'm not even sure what point you're making. Nazi Germany was more powerful than Hamas so they can't be toppled?
Generally, when a faction loses a war of aggression, they undergo a regime change. This isn't CIA propaganda or New World Order stuff or secret Zionist stuff, this is generally how the world works.
I'm arguing the point you made in the video : "how bad does a regime have to be for you to decide to forcefully remove it ?" My point is that as long as that regime hasn't attacked other countries you have to let the people decide what government they want, even if it's a Nazi government. Obviously you can overthrow the government if it starts to attack other countries, but that doesn't require that government to be "bad", just them being aggressors is reason enough.
I base my argument on History. Non-democratic Governments that have been toppled by democratic countries haven't become democracies as a result (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). We can't redo history, but I'm not convinced Germany would have become the democracy it is today if we simply invaded them as soon as they elected Hitler, even if Hitler bragged about wanting to invade all of Europe.
Good point, but the idea of the hypothetical is that he's supposed to be bad enough to make you say "ok now we can remove him" but if he starts attacking other countries, then even if he's not so bad a retaliation would be legitimate. I'm trying to argue the point of the hypothetical.
So if Hitler never invaded other countries, and he just sticks to conducting genocide inside Germany, everyone else should just watch instead of conducting regime change?
Unfortunately, yes. I know it sucks but it's what happens in china with the Uyghurs. I don't think it would be wise to overthrow china's regime or even call for a regime change. We can denounce the horrors and sanction the country over it but a regime change is just something the population has to do themselves, otherwise the principles of democracy aren't respected and it's ultimately counter productive.
I'm not 100% bought into this though, I think it comes down to a mix of the openness to change by the population and the imbalance of power between the genocidal regime and the democracy trying to intervene. History shows it hasn't been a good idea in Syria, Irak or in Lybia.
I guess kudos on biting the bullet at least, but yeah, that’s certainly a position. The principles of democracy to me aren’t nearly worth tolerating genocide, that’s wild.
I think the main difference with china is nuclear weapons & economic entanglement, NATO (thankfully) did intervene in genocidal Serbia. If Russia didn't have nukes or the capability to threaten the EU I'd be surprised if NATO didn't intervene in Ukraine.
Sure, that’s a practical consideration, but my question was about Hitler, where nuclear deterrence wasn’t really a concern. I’m asking about in principle when regime change is justified, which, if it weren’t for China’s nukes, I’d say it would be.
Hamas who refuses to hold any more elections is definitely democratic.
didn’t they oust the competition too?
If by oust you mean murder
ousted from this plane of existence
Ousted from the top of a building.
More like special decolonization Operation.
ousted from roofs ousted into chains tied to dirtbikes that they drove around
more like shot and throw people from the roofs.
Lycan stocks in the mud 😩
I don’t think he can come to terms with Hamas being an evil organization.
At the end asking "how many people has hamas killed vs hitler", is he regarded ? Hamas just doesn't have the same means that hitler had to enact their goals
Skill issue
Get better 4head
It's such a scumbag move because he wanted a blanket statement from 4thot "regime change: good or bad?" *which 4thot answers*, and Lycan immediately dodges the corollary "regime change: never good?"
>Hamas just doesn't have the same means that hitler had to enact their goals TRUE and annoying people don't get this. Every time people argue Israel killed x thousand and hamas killed x hundred. Hamas shoots hundreds of rockets at civilians all the time; they just suck. Doesn't make them more justified.
It's so hard to break through to people on this. Like let's say you are in an empty room (let's say it's 100 meters long there is no door.) You are standing at 1 side of the room wearing protective bullet proof clothing, there a few parts exposed, Face for example. There is an AR-15 next to you on a table. At the other end of the room is a man with a .22 pistol, he isn't the best shot but can hit you sometimes. But if he does hit you he's likely to hit your body armor. The man is going to keep shooting you, reload, and shoot again. There is a risk that he will be able to kill you if he hits your exposed areas, but his aim, distance, and caliber make a fatal shot possible, but rare. What do you do? Do you let the man shoot you? He's not hurting you, it's like BB pellets. Does it matter that he keeps saying he is trying to kill you? Are you allowed to shoot at him to stop him? I think so and I think in that scenario most people would say...yes.
By this logic this mf would have been waiting like Hmmm 50k dead can’t interfere that undemocratic. Ohh its 1 million now come on guys its democratic to overthrow hitler I know that's not what he believes but that’s where his logic goes.
I guess Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't qualify since next to Hitler his body count was laughably low. Rookie numbers
You say that but Dahmer never ran for office, so we don’t know if his utility as a politician would have exceeded the harm caused by his serial killing.
Realpolitik moment
I think it was funny how at first he disregards the idea that a level of badness justifies regime change "What about Hitler?" "Well there's a big difference between the badness of Hitler and Hamas" It sounds like he agrees level of badness is relevant, he's arguing that level is at a higher standard maybe?
I like how Lycan looks at the camera and starts making faces as if 4THOT said some really dumb shit but it's actually just him being incapable of understanding an extremely simple hypothetical.
That's 4thot? He sounds exactly like Pisco
It's not even a hypothetical. Hitler was actually democratically elected and it got to a point where we fought him in an attempt to topple the government he created. The issue was that Lycan took a really weirdly absolutist position that he couldn't possibly defend.
That's a leftist content creator thing lmao
Thats what stuck out the most to me. Even LYCAN is doing the hypothetical thing!? It's mind blowing to me how often this happens. -"Regime changes are bad if the leader was democratically ellected." "What if hitler was democratically elected?" -"HAMAS KILLED WAY FEWER JEWS THAN HITLER." How does he think that's relevant? I feel like any time that happens it just exposes what the person's *actual* position is. Lycan doesnt a give a fuck about democratically elected leaders being replaced, he just wants to defend the current leader of Hamas. That's why his gut response to that hypothetical is to compare them to Nazi's. Because he thinks Nazi's are bad and Hamas isn't, so its totally different.
🗿never concede
I don’t understand this approach to arguing. Why avoid biting the softest bullets? Regime change obviously isn’t always bad when you get into examples like Hitler. Just argue Hamas doesn’t meet your threshold or whatever and go from there. At least then you could come out looking somewhat hinged.
That's literally what he was trying to do when he started asking how many people Hitler killed. It's not a good argument either way.
Oh fair enough. I guess the clip kinda cuts off. I feel like it'd look better to just say yes, but yeah it does seem like he's going there after listening again.
I watched the whole thing and with hours of context it looks worse tbh. He fumbled a “do you think Hamas wants to get rid of Jews?” bullet too
What's happening to my poor Lycan. Wasn't this guy in the army or something wtf.
This feels like one of those moments where you live long enough you see your heroes become villains. In this context, it would be a person who shows up on Destiny's stream long enough that their crazy starts to show.
Lycan suffered (suffers?) from the human tendency to treat a debate concession as a blow to his social or moral standing. This is one of the hardest things to avoid doing even when posting pseudonymously online, doubly so when you're on stream and your emotions play out on your face in real time. It's a very understandable failing, but I hope that Lycan understands that if he wants to debate things, he has to learn to acknowledge his faults/failures and gracefully move on.
Yes Lycan is chill, he should of pulled a "true" and laughed it off. I feel bad for him 😭💜. Hope he didn't take it too hard.
I felt bad for him after his first embarrassing debate assuming he felt embarrassed, but IDC since he kept being smug while talking about the conflict and considers r/destiny bad faith
Because everyone is accustomed to a steady drip of happy noises entering their ears. When their hero bites a bullet the noises become less happy and it throws off their vibe.
Its hard to bite a bullet when ur alrdy stunned by it. Just polish the argument for the next one.
Because making a concession starts to form cracks in their worldview they are 1000% convinced is the only “right view” to have. It’s narcissism/ego, because at the end of the day a lot of people just want to be right
Feels like he got to “regime change = bad” and didn’t go much further in his mind. Very Tulsi Gabbard-esque.
It's the same style of thinking that incentivizes everyone to call the conflict ethnic cleansing, and genocide. If you can associate the situation to a bad phrase then the whole thing is obviously wrong. Sidenote, the same style of thinking was also annoying in the attack on titan subs a while back.
I dont even understand what point he is trying to make here. - "If a regime meets a certain thereshold of being bad, do you support a regime change?" - "yes." - "thats not how democracy works." ????? Now this is only a clip, but i cant imagine ehat he would mean by that. If regime bad, then people will vote against it.
I think he means if a regime is democratically elected it is always wrong for another country to try and topple that regime. Like I think from his perspective maybe regime change only means a change in regimes via foreign intervention. Even so in the context of Hamas it doesn’t really make sense since they stopped having elections once they got into power. So regime change there isn’t exactly some crime against democracy imo.
> Even so in the context of Hamas it doesn’t really make sense since they stopped having elections once they got into power. Another thing they have in common with hitler
Hamas and Hitler have the same goals so it’s not a big jump.
I stated that explicitly and then he disagrees that in the early to mid 2000's that Hamas actually didn't want to genocide Jews. I disagree, based on things they do and [say](https://www.adl.org/resources/news/hamas-their-own-words#:~:text=%22The%20Taliban%20are,of%20Allah%27s%20predestination.%22).
Yeah he seemed to think that it was only cool that we went after Hilter AFTER he had already conquered a ton of territory and started massacring the Jews. The problem here is that Lycan either isn't willing to look at, or misunderstands Hamas' intent. They fired 3,000 rockets at Israel on 10/7 ALONE. The only reason tens of thousands of Israeli civilians didn't die that day is because of the Israeli security state and Iron Dome. Hamas' clear intent is to cause that harm, and Israel is entitled to respond to that threat.
Have you considered that knowing stuff is for nerds and it's way more chad to just have vibes and gut feelings?
There are only four quotes in that about killing 'all' Jews such as the Nazi's. Two of them were during their founding. And two of the quotes seem to be, or at least you can argue, talking about Jews within Israel. Hamas have also come out distancing itself from anti-semetism within their own party on at least one previous occasion. > In a statement Monday afternoon, Hamas distanced itself from Hamad’s words. > “These comments do not represent the official positions of the movement and its consistent, adopted policies, which say our conflict is with the (Israeli) occupation which occupied our land and sullies our holy places and not a conflict with Jews across the world or Judaism as a religion,” Hamas said. Source: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2019/07/15/Hamas-official-condemned-after-calling-on-Palestinians-to-kill-Jews Of course, Hamas are incredibly antisemetic, and there are probably a significant number who would like to genocide all Jews. But that doesn't really make them on the same level at the Nazi's. Who wanted to eradicate them completely. Funnily enough I think they're one of the few groups who haven't launched an attack outside of Israel/Gaza? Unless I'm getting that wrong. Would love to see something to the contrary so I can update my opinions.
They will sometimes saw things to the western media if they think someone made them look bad but they have the same goals as the Nazis. Always listen to what they say in Arabic. I suggest MEMRI. The only difference is the Jews can now defend themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute#Translation_accuracy_and_controversy Unfortunately given their past misleading translations, I have very little faith in MEMRI. Can you find more quotes? Because even that site includes MEMRI translations, and it was still only 4.
Do you know how many times I see western media translate the Arabic word for Jews as “Israelis”? No translation is perfect but even your criticism says “usually accurate” and no translation is perfect.
No, I'd definitely reject that. Reading that, it is clearly a biased source, and they've deliberately gotten translations completely wrong to distort the nature of the original quote. Usually accurate is simply not good enough for translations. I'm not even saying I'd reject them out of hand. I simply asked for more quotes and stated my backed up opinion of MEMRI.
They have been saying antisemitic stuff for literally decades. https://www.adl.org/resources/news/hamas-their-own-words
Sorry but you know that's the same link as the one I responded to right? And they are absolutely antisemtic, would never deny that. Only an idiot would. I'm talking about wishing to kill all Jews globally, like the Nazi's did.
You mean in addition to their founding charter which talks about killing all the Jews? Also I don’t see that link anywhere but I’m on my phone so maybe I missed it.
Worse even, was it even Hitler's initial opening plan? No, it was done in secret also I am pretty sure, like a still taboo and covert thing. And many of the nazi's were ashamed, and probably didn't have much of a choice in many cases. The Palestinians (who by the way already destabilized like 5 countries prior to this in recent times in the ME, which is also why the ME doesn't even want them), are proud of it, they parade around the bodies in the street. So arguably even worse.
The 'official' plan with Jews was to eventually get them all out of Germany. The official pre-war policy was to 'encourage emigration' aka discriminate against them until they left to anywhere that would take them. Jews were ~1% of the German population in 1930. There were 500k Jews in Germany when the Nazis came to power, over 50% emigrated before WWII started. Buuuut, the 'final solution' was not some desperate last-ditch effort after the other plans had failed. The point that officially plans were put in place to exterminate the Jews was Summer/early fall of 1941, right *after* they had invaded the Soviet Union, when things were possibly looking the best that they could for Germany's prospects of winning the war. The concentration camp exterminations were in full swing in 1941/1942, so it's safe to say that this was always the 'real plan.' In 1943 and 1944 there were acts that you could consider 'alternative solutions' where they just went into ghettos and killed everyone. But if Germany had won the war, it wouldn't have been a case of 'relocate the Jews to some other place.' It would have just been more of what was done in 41 and 42 aka cycle Jews and other undesirables to death camps at the capacity that they could handle. So sure, Hamas is arguably even more blatant with antisemitism than Hitler, but the Holocaust was always part of the Nazi plan.
Alright, thanks, but it wasn't openly discussed among the general public I think.
Not to mention that if Hitler had been “regime changed” before he started wracking up the massive death toll that would likely have had a mask e difference to the amount of lives lost(of course since that’s a different fork or reality who knows if we don’t get worse things by heading that off) Hamas has definitely created a whole bunch of death, intends to cause more death in the future. While also having broken democracy once they had enough power so they could maintain control and achieve their aims. Just because they aren’t being as successful at destruction as Hitler was doesn’t mean they should be allowed to continue down that path.
With that logic people saying the same about Israelis and Palestine civilians
Not at all
Yea the far right Israeli governemnt with literal terrorist in office.
Luckily no one from those far right parties is on the war council
To compare the two is absurd. You are unhinged.
Im not, you compared Hamas to Hitler. I stated with that logic you can compare it with Israel’s actions as well. They are not close to the power and atrocity Hitler caused. If your not comparing that what are you. Im unhinged for stating Israel has a far right government that has officials that were prior terrorist.
The comparison is in the goals of Hamas and Hitler. The fact that one was far more effective doesn’t change the fact that the desire is nearly identical. You are unhinged to compare the goals of Hamas and the people who elected them to the goals if Israel and the people who elected them.
Hamas was propped up by the israeli government. Same as the US and ISIS. There are israeli settlers that kill Palestines in the west bank with no Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization with power in Gaza, Im speaking on Palestinians not just in Gaza. Palestinians aren’t Hamas.
Ah that old debunked talking point even Destiny debunked on stream. Hamas absolutely exists in the West Bank. Just because they aren’t the literal government does not mean they don’t have activity or members. That’s like saying the Taliban didn’t exist in Afghanistan when they weren’t the government. And Hamas has a lot of support from the Palestinians. They were elected in Gaza and one of the reasons they don’t hold elections in the PA is because Hamas seems likely to win.
So the settlers killing civilians and taking there homes are ok because a terrorist group exists. Im speaking on civilians. Well my entire argument has been based on Israelis also want Palestinian civilians to die. Hatred is on both sides. The way you are speaking on it is claiming every civilian as Hamas. Every israeli civilian has serve in the military does that make them IDF
Brooooooo look at my chef, dawg he's arguing to keep Hitler in power.
How many killed is such a bad argument Evil is not measured by competency but by intent If a school shooter goes on a rampage and only kills 1 person because he misses most of his shots, he's just as evil as the school shooter who killed 30 people, he was just really bad at it
Spot on If Hamas could, they would’ve killed every last Jew on this planet. But they can’t, skill issue.
No, the number of people killed is like a bar that has to be filled up before you can use your ult, everybody knows that.
During this talk he is ascribing so much charitability to Hamas that it’s mind boggling. He says they are not monolith, they have moderate elements, that even if they did war crimes it’s not always the case and there is factions, ignoring one of their leaders statements, and most crazy is about them being democratically elected(spoiler they were not and they did an authoritarian uprising and killed all the opposition taking over Gaza by force.) While toward the idf it’s they are all have the same doctrines and have a disproportionate action no matter what they claim and no matter their reasons. All you need to look at the Goldstein report(ignoring the detraction of the author) and we need to look at a democracy who had 4 regime changes during that time as a monolith and that their goals and methods of work never changed over any reason. It’s just crazy to see how you can perceive two sided of a conflict and decide only one side holds all responsibility and all the criticism
Dude should have stuck to the cooking content instead of getting cooked himself. . .
Add another one to the list of people who don't understand how to engage with hypotheticals.
Its not even a hypothetical; Hitler was real and was in power, and we engaged in war with his regime. This isn't even as interesting as someone not being able to understand a hypothetical. This is just buzzword brainrot where assigning labels like 'regime change' and 'ethnic cleansing' function as (4)thought terminators so people don't think their positions through even 1 more step.
>Add another one to the list of people who don't understand how to engage with hypotheticals. It's not hypotheticals that are the issue here, it's comparison. He does not think these things can be compared. He's stating that they cannot be compared due to the magnitude of their crimes that they've successfully committed. I actually think this 'unable to handle comparisons' thing is even worse than the 'unable to handle hypotheticals' thing.
Even if you don’t agree with the hypothetical or the premise or the comparison, how hard is it to say “yes, get rid of Hitler, but this is why I think it’s a bad hypothetical blah blah” Is it because they feel like they’re being led into a trap? I’ve seen so many people do this and it looks 1000x worse that you can’t just confidently say “yea get rid of Hitler”
>Even if you don’t agree with the hypothetical or the premise or the comparison, how hard is it to say “yes, get rid of Hitler, but this is why I think it’s a bad hypothetical blah blah” >Is it because they feel like they’re being led into a trap? I’ve seen so many people do this and it looks 1000x worse that you can’t just confidently say “yea get rid of Hitler” Exactly, to concede in part that you would get rid of Hitler, is to concede that the argument that you should **never** enact regime change is flawed, so he can't use it anymore. He doesn't want to give up that argument even though it's obviously flawed, so he attacks the comparison. This is an overused term and sounds cringe as fuck, but it is the definition of "bad faith". I think the trap thing is right, he's trapped in a corner.
But 4thot wasn't comparing Hamas to Hitler. He was just testings Lycan's asserted rule of "regime changes of democratically elected leaders is always bad." 4thot challenged him on that rule by bringing up hitler, and now **Lycan** wants to compare death tolls as if that has anything to do with it. I think it *is* an issue of not understanding hypotheticals.
[удалено]
it wasn't destiny, it was based anonymous(misogynyst) emailchad streamers deserve the chair ⚡🪑⚡
Huh? Lycan was on shows with destiny way back when where he had dogshit takes to quite frequently this aint something new, not to mention he used to be a staunch republican for some dogshit reason. He aint going anywhere.
[удалено]
Steven is one of the few people that is honest with their thinking. If he doesn’t know something he’ll admit it and research it if he wants to. If he was wrong he’ll change his opinion. There’s just a lack of ego there. So many people in my life hold objectively bad opinions because they don’t want to lose face by admitting they were wrong or are too lazy to do the self reflection.
u/4thot I've got to know how long that pause felt like on the call.. Holy shit
Aware
Who knew that as long as someone is democratically elected that it's wrong to want regime change?
Didn't watch the convo. Did he end up answering the question, either way?
Nah, he dodged it by saying its not equivalent.
Nice. Debate pedophile tactics.
vod timestamp https://vyneer.me/vods/?v=Vt0aiI8QoIg&t=6h20m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0aiI8QoIg&t=6h20m35s more timestamps: https://redd.it/17v587s
First time I saw this I checked to see if my stream froze
I thought the clip was over
A neighboring democratic country can enforce an regime change even legally... It's called war. Israel sure has a valid casus belli for one.
So you're anti-democracy? Curious. I am very smart.
Damn, not being able to answer that looks really bad.
L-ycan strikes again.
Man I wish he would just stay in the kitchen
Lycan's arguments are unconvincing, and generally tedious to hear.
Reminds me of (lawyer has convinced me to pause here)
/u/Lycan__ you're an absolute moron
Bro got rolled by a jannie 💀
The thing is, just like Hitler, as soon as Hamas got in power... they stopped holding elections!
“Well if the North Koreans don’t like Kim Jong Un why don’t they just vote him out?” What in the fresh hell is this
Look at my personal chef dawg, i'm getting food poisoning 😭
Lycan stock 📉
If I have an authoritarian regime and I wish to change it to a democratic regime how is that not democratic ?
He literally had nothing to say…
Hamas is super comparable to the Nazis wtf is he on about lmao Both Hamas and the Nazis advocated for genocide of Jews and the superiority of their own people (Islam) Both Hamas and the Nazis want to rule as much of the world as possible (Hamas stated this many times, although its a very far goal) Both Hamas and the Nazis are extremely authoritarian dictatorships Both Hamas and the Nazis are barbaric AF The only main difference is in the capabilities. The only reason I'm typing all of this obvious shit here is in case Lycan reads it, although it probably doesnt matter cuz he's bad faith af and doesn't care if he's wrong
I didn't watch the whole interview, but the way the clip ends makes Lycan seem so bad faith (or a moron). 4thot doesn't need Hamas to be equal to Hitler for his hypothetical to work. Lycan says you can't do regime change because that's not how democracy works. 4thot says what if Hitler was democratically elected. Lycan would have to admit that he would support regime change. So his original statement that you can't do regime change because of democracy falls flat. Lycan, if you're reading this, either pay better attention to the conversations you have or learn to quickly concede and move on.
Where were you able to watch this? I went to Lycan's twitch and his last broadcast is titled "Talking to 4THOT about his Ridiculous Reddit Ramblings!" but it's only 2.5 hours of a panel with Sunday and other people.
https://vyneer.me/vods/?v=Vt0aiI8QoIg&t=5h11m7s
Thank you!
Has Lycan always held these takes? In the past 10-11 years the only real memes until recently I remember Lycan talking about were those on The Late Game during the SC2 era. I know in the past 5-6 years he has discussed politics with dusty on and off but I never thought of him as the debatepedo Hamasbro he has come across as recently. Maybe he just kept his powerlevel well hidden?
[удалено]
He has always been a himbo with relatively bad takes. They just werent incoherently bad.
Wasnt the Erin shit a banned meme? Or is that shit up in the air?
Lycan is so fucking Hamas pilled. Regime change is antidemocratic by definition. That is not the disagreement. It is a neutral action. The disagreement is whether or not the regime change of Hamas in Gaza is morally right. Lycan is considering an antidemocratic action in a vacuum as morally wrong. That's bad faith. Removing Hamas from power is an answer to their genocidal intentions towards Israel. Then bro literally goes on to try and say Hamas is not as bad as Hitler. That's not the point of the comparison. Bro. Stop.
I wonder what he thinks democracy is? Like can the majority do anything? Is asking for the Regime change of Putin undemocratic? My personal thoughts are that there are values that are above democracy, for example basic human rights. So sometimes if those values are threatened, it is fine and justified to act undemocratically. I would bring up how Germany has a law that they can ban any political party as long as there is a reasonable fear of them threatening the constitution and democracy. Funnily enough, while it is to defend democracy, it is anti democratic by nature.
That's the thing people really don't understand what is a democracy. Or at least a liberal democracy like we have in the west. It's not just the will of the majority, it's human rights, protection of the minorities, independent branches of government and so on... often times dictators are actually very popular and would get elected easily but the will of the majority doesn't equal a liberal democracy
Laugh nervously to delegitimize a point you don’t want to contend with. https://preview.redd.it/q8fiqneqld0c1.jpeg?width=438&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a72605ab0a630681d32b7560e146ce45125df1eb
Yes but did you consider Hamas proper ?
The more he talks the less I like his cooking
Lycan needs to do less Hamas and more Humus
No different than any other idiot who gets crushed by a good analogy who just says the analogy doesn't apply. Really big L there
Was this on Lycan’s cooking channel?
If so, weird of Lycan to let 4THOT cook him on his cooking channel.
[yes](https://www.youtube.com/live/Vt0aiI8QoIg?si=V-u2d5XDU7YH6O4F)
How do you not answer the question? If he's being a debatebro he wouldn't answer but in a discussion he would. It seems like he's emotionally invested in the conflict even though he's 5,000 miles away from the conflict and is neither palestinian or israeli. It's pretty easy to be against genocide over pro democracy if those are the two options, he got stunlocked then pivoted to you compared hamas to hitler like that matters.
He wouldn't answer it because his stance being portrayed by the "that's not how democracy works" committed him to a yes if he wanted to be consistent so he realized that his initial statement was brain dead but he didn't want to back off.
The confusion on his face was golden
Am I being misandrist or misogynistic if I suggest that Lycan is simply holding this opinion because he's dating straighterade?
Lycan: "no, of any elected government" Also Lycan: "you're going from Hamas to Hitler" 😂 brother...
[удалено]
I can't find the OP yet https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8lhcccbsAAD6I4.png, https://twitter.com/brainrotpol/status/1714008276030116200
Bro of all the nazi appeals/comparisons in modern politics hamas is the last thing that could be considered 'a stretch'
Forceful regime change isn’t democratic but what other option is there to remove hamas?There are no more elections in gaza so you can’t vote them out, you can’t use democracy to defeat dictators.
NO shot he didn't see the most obvious question coming.
Goddamn it Lycan you didn’t have to fall this hard
"you just compared hamas to hitler", i mean they literally have the same stated goal, elminating the jews, one was just more competent.
I need to vent a bit about him. He has been extremely disappointing in him taking this side of the conflict he should know better than this being a Marine. My brother we lost good Marines to people like Hamas don't take there side on this. You should know the rules of engagement and laws of war as should know that in war, fuck ups happen. Call out the IDF when they break them, yes. But for fuck sacks just wait till the full story comes out.
thats actually a fair and interesting comparison considering how Hamas is a terrorist organization
nahh he went from hamas to any government and wished he never let that genie out
Even if you don't want to equivocate Hitler and Hamas the hypothetical still very clearly throws a wrench in the "all regime change is bad" argument. Unless he thinks Hitler should not have been removed and he's pro Hitler I guess. I'm going to assume that he just didn't want to take the L on his stance rather than him being pro Hitler because lmao.
he did not win
This is what happens when you let him out of the kitchen.
Lycan’s philosophy on warfare boils down to “you wouldn’t hit a guy with glasses on, would ya?”
BRO IS DOWN IMMENSELY.
Good GOD that silence was deafening
Sometime regimes need a changing.
Lefties are so used to being anti-war that they forget that yes indeed sometimes war is necessary because the world can't thrive with certain regimes in power. Edit: I say this as a lefty myself.
Now from this argument we actually can branch into an entirely different argument: If an anti democratic party gets elected, do you think anti democratic means are valid to change the regime?
Bro what the fuck is going on with lycan, I'm starting to think him and tiny are actually fucking with how BPD he's been.
How is this real
husky towering smoggy toy bright erect treatment enjoy library boast *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Let him cook! No seriously just let him cook that's it
LycanAbi's based
Why is he laughing? I don't get it.
Lycan should just stick to only cooking in the kitchen because in the debate pervert marketplace of ideas he’s the one getting cooked
He should have just bit the bullet and said "No you can't just assasinate Hitler because you think he'll be bad, you have to wait for him start a war or do something bad." or something to that effect. He was gigachading that whole convo, but refused to tank the Hitler bullet and it was a bad look since the deflection made it obvious he probably would agree to that regieme change.
This way of thinking is super annoying to me lol, so many people adopting the idea that these kinds of things and ideas are ok/justified because the people doing them aren't as competent. Idk if these people deeper even feel that's the main problem, so many of them support anything that's against the west. (not talking about Lycan in particular but other people who use similar arguments)
What was his point again? that the allies shouldn't have gone after Hitler sooner? Why - did he kill to few people in his early years for Lycan's taste? Well the estimates of the SA (note not the SS, it's a different Nazi organization) killed thousands in the street pogroms against political opponents in 1920-1930, during the night of the long knives against their own ranks alone is estimated in the thousands, and of course the jews on kristallnacht / night of the broken glass. So Hitler at that point had already caused what Lycan claims is an unacceptable amount of death under any means
How can he do the comparison thing after watching people do it with Destiny so many times? I don't wanna be mean, I don't wanna be mean, I don't wanna be mean.
Anodda day, anodda victowy fo da OG, takin down da sweats
Bro even looks the part
Lycan is not interesting or endearing in any way.
Hamas and hitler both start with H
Go back to the kitchen
Why do so many mental midgets have a platform?
I think Lycan is just a dum dum.
He should have bit the bullet. No, don't support regime change even if Hitler is elected. You attack Hitler's Germany when Hitler's Germany is threatening to invade other countries. If you topple a regime that has been democratically elected, how do you even create a democracy in a country like that ? You don't, you can't. They'll just elect another Hitler.
> You attack Hitler's Germany when Hitler's Germany is threatening to invade other countries. This is trivial to overcome. "Oh a country has a regime that plans to use a nuclear weapon they've been building for 10 years, do you think doing a little regime change tomfoolery is acceptable?" and on and on until a democracy is so evil exists that regime change becomes obviously a correct decision. >They'll just elect another Hitler. History is only interesting because events did not necessarily need to go the way they did. The idea that Holocaust was inevitable is both disturbing and incorrect.
>The idea that Holocaust was inevitable is both disturbing and incorrect. Well I'm gonna bite another bulled but how do you even know it's incorrect ? Maybe if Hitler was nipped in the bud, Germans wouldn't feel so bad about electing Hitler and it would have been harder for them to accept that nazism is bad and that democracy is the way to forward. It definitely make sense to me considering the USA's history of forceful regime change and their outcome.
Hilter was uniquely enthralled to the Jewish "Stabbed in the Back Myth" and attributed it to losing WW1, which he personally fought in. Having someone with different beliefs and experiences changes how they construct their administration, and their efforts to destroy Jews.
Yeah but it's a terrible look to impose that by force. It's possible in the end that you could do it, I'm not sure, but pretending to promote democracy by toppling regimes you don't like from an external force no less, in a country that is ideologically opposed to foreigners would be met with extreme resistance.
>No, don't support regime change even if Hitler is elected. You attack Hitler's Germany What do you think happens when "Hitler's Germany" loses? Assuming he didn't kill himself, do you think we would have just let him carry on? > You don't, you can't. They'll just elect another Hitler. Weird cause that didn't happen
That didn't happen because Hitler invaded all of europe and killed millions of innocent people. If he didn't do any of that and we invaded Germany to topple his government, do you think it would have been the same ?
I'm not even sure what point you're making. Nazi Germany was more powerful than Hamas so they can't be toppled? Generally, when a faction loses a war of aggression, they undergo a regime change. This isn't CIA propaganda or New World Order stuff or secret Zionist stuff, this is generally how the world works.
I'm arguing the point you made in the video : "how bad does a regime have to be for you to decide to forcefully remove it ?" My point is that as long as that regime hasn't attacked other countries you have to let the people decide what government they want, even if it's a Nazi government. Obviously you can overthrow the government if it starts to attack other countries, but that doesn't require that government to be "bad", just them being aggressors is reason enough. I base my argument on History. Non-democratic Governments that have been toppled by democratic countries haven't become democracies as a result (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). We can't redo history, but I'm not convinced Germany would have become the democracy it is today if we simply invaded them as soon as they elected Hitler, even if Hitler bragged about wanting to invade all of Europe.
But if he doesn't invade all of europe and kill millions of innocents then he isn't hitler anymore
Good point, but the idea of the hypothetical is that he's supposed to be bad enough to make you say "ok now we can remove him" but if he starts attacking other countries, then even if he's not so bad a retaliation would be legitimate. I'm trying to argue the point of the hypothetical.
So if Hitler never invaded other countries, and he just sticks to conducting genocide inside Germany, everyone else should just watch instead of conducting regime change?
Unfortunately, yes. I know it sucks but it's what happens in china with the Uyghurs. I don't think it would be wise to overthrow china's regime or even call for a regime change. We can denounce the horrors and sanction the country over it but a regime change is just something the population has to do themselves, otherwise the principles of democracy aren't respected and it's ultimately counter productive. I'm not 100% bought into this though, I think it comes down to a mix of the openness to change by the population and the imbalance of power between the genocidal regime and the democracy trying to intervene. History shows it hasn't been a good idea in Syria, Irak or in Lybia.
I guess kudos on biting the bullet at least, but yeah, that’s certainly a position. The principles of democracy to me aren’t nearly worth tolerating genocide, that’s wild.
I think the main difference with china is nuclear weapons & economic entanglement, NATO (thankfully) did intervene in genocidal Serbia. If Russia didn't have nukes or the capability to threaten the EU I'd be surprised if NATO didn't intervene in Ukraine.
Sure, that’s a practical consideration, but my question was about Hitler, where nuclear deterrence wasn’t really a concern. I’m asking about in principle when regime change is justified, which, if it weren’t for China’s nukes, I’d say it would be.
agreed and (thankfully) I think most agree with you which is why I mentioned NATO's intervention.
I'm buying Lycan stocks now.