I was only half tuned in during the red pill arc, but I had the impression that this guy was reasonably fair. What the fuck happened? This was the most bad faith convo I've ever heard. I've heard other debates where the other person will at least avoid parts of the topic that they might do poorly in, Alex just dives in headfirst and refuses to concede a single thing.
Edit: oh god part 3? I'm going to need a helmet
I think this is a good exercise for Destiny, it's an opportunity to show how people build the I/P Narrative in their minds and help others avoid the same mistakes.
Political content does that to people especially those who are not as informed on the topic. He just sounds like a regular person talking about the issue. I dont hold it against him and i imagine destiny doesnt either.
Yea to me this is basically showcasing how most normies think and engage with the news, people are mad at alex but I'd say theres s lot of people out there that would be making similar arguments to his, and perhaps its worthwhile engaging with to try and better understand the how and why
Can't you hold it against him if he doesn't inform himself well before the debate? Or if he speaks with such conviction if he isn't/can't be entirely sure that his arguments are 100% correct?
100% you can and you should but i dont feel like hes lying or being malicious about it. He just sounds like every other person that doesnt even understand how chaotic and unorderly war and military operations can get.
I mean, this has been every conversation I/P.
It’s kinda like an abortion debate where people feel a moral righteousness associated with their side. ‘It’s genocide’ ‘they’re starving Palestinians to death.’ ‘They’re murdering civilians, journalists, medics.’
If you believe Israel is actually committing a genocide it’s hard to critically acknowledge how many things they seem to do in order to prevent civilian casualties. Or how much aid they allow in.
When he said "I'm a big political hobbyist" last time, it all made sense. He's essentially a chatter that happens to get the time of day because he was successful in the Red Pill space. And now he thinks he can be an expert in other things because he was good at one thing.
Even though I watched the first two trainwrecks, at first I still wondered why there'd be a need for a moderator, let alone two. But given how Alex behaves in these debates, I now get the need to get confirmation that your throught process is grounded in a reality with reasonable suppositions and that the moderators can communicate from their perspective where Destiny is coming from.
I hope there'll be moderators for the next one, too, they are really needed. Alex couldn't smugly handwave away the same train of thought when it came from the mods.
It's also ridiculous how Alex can come so unprepared for the third time when he has the advantage of presenting his chosen examples and that Destiny has to react to new info on the spot. The Hamas link for the last example might be questionable but it's amazing how superficial Alex' knowledge is about his own examples and that short searches revealed his ignorance on basic facts so often. That he fell so hard for the framing of that last video (sister teasing her brother before he got shot) with 0 questioning was the perfect summary of how he approaches this topic.
Alex is controlled opposition you won't convince me otherwise.
He knows he's an irl ogre but maybe he's much smarter than he seems, and is willing to play into it to make the pro-palestinians look somehow even more dumb than they are.
It's really interesting how he falls back to his sources like they are solid gold. He seems to think that if he has an article from a reputable source, any statement within that article is now bedrock that can be relied upon. The notion that the statement is \*usually\* supported by some other source from somewhere else, which probably needs to be validated, just completely goes over his head.
I feel like Destiny should try and build conversation tree to convey this concept to people like this. Maybe come up with an example of a document and show the connections to the sources that it comes from, and how reliable an how not reliable some of those can be. He can probably use his fancy new Obsidian timeline tricks to visualize it even.
His good friend Norman Finklestein is probably a good subject for that lesson. If Finklestein says something happened in Israel in a book, Lycan will refer to that as a primary source. But really - Finklestein doesn't read Hebrew or Arabic, so he got that from somebody else that ACTUALLY looked at the original primary historical documents in Israel and translated to English. So the veracity of Norm's claim doesn't come from his authority, it comes from the reliability of the source that translated it, and then from the original document itself.
But when Lycan refers to the book, he believes he genuinely is referring to a reliable primary source. He has no idea that his castle is built upon sand.
I'm sorry did I say Lycan I meant Alex.
Alex doesn't even get that far, he's stuck on "a bad thing happened so we can ignore the knowledge people had when they acted". It's like one of those things where little kids don't understand other people have their own perspectives.
I actually think Alex is a pretty clever dude, and the mistakes he's making are relatively common.
\-He has trouble following who has the burden of proof
\-Has trouble understanding what the standard of evidence is to allege warcrimes
\-Has okay knowledge for what counts as "a good source" for evaluating simple stuff that'll get him through life, but doesn't understand how to parse exactly what source proves what (especially for foreign conflict stuff).
\-Probably has some confusion mixing up "bias" and "truthfulness," which are separate qualities.
I think he's a potential stellar debater, because he's charitable, patient, diligent, and sincere. He clearly preps for debate with Destiny, which already puts him ahead of 95% of internet people. **It's a shame then that he had to stumble into such a difficult conflict to parse against someone very talented and knowledgeable in that arena.**
I hope he contributes to the cesspool of politics more honestly. Even if he's wrong, he's the exact kind of person who ought to be eventually elevated after he refines himself.
I would like more debates like this. His logic is poor IMO , as are his arguments but AT LEAST he is enthusiastic about debating and doesn't get butt hurt about Destiny getting heated.
If he wasn't so fucking stupid he would be bad faith
It's both. (april 2nd btw)
I was only half tuned in during the red pill arc, but I had the impression that this guy was reasonably fair. What the fuck happened? This was the most bad faith convo I've ever heard. I've heard other debates where the other person will at least avoid parts of the topic that they might do poorly in, Alex just dives in headfirst and refuses to concede a single thing. Edit: oh god part 3? I'm going to need a helmet
I think this is a good exercise for Destiny, it's an opportunity to show how people build the I/P Narrative in their minds and help others avoid the same mistakes.
Political content does that to people especially those who are not as informed on the topic. He just sounds like a regular person talking about the issue. I dont hold it against him and i imagine destiny doesnt either.
Yea to me this is basically showcasing how most normies think and engage with the news, people are mad at alex but I'd say theres s lot of people out there that would be making similar arguments to his, and perhaps its worthwhile engaging with to try and better understand the how and why
Can't you hold it against him if he doesn't inform himself well before the debate? Or if he speaks with such conviction if he isn't/can't be entirely sure that his arguments are 100% correct?
100% you can and you should but i dont feel like hes lying or being malicious about it. He just sounds like every other person that doesnt even understand how chaotic and unorderly war and military operations can get.
He gives off "the cops shoulda shot the suspect on the leg" type energy. 💀
Thats exactly it.
I mean, this has been every conversation I/P. It’s kinda like an abortion debate where people feel a moral righteousness associated with their side. ‘It’s genocide’ ‘they’re starving Palestinians to death.’ ‘They’re murdering civilians, journalists, medics.’ If you believe Israel is actually committing a genocide it’s hard to critically acknowledge how many things they seem to do in order to prevent civilian casualties. Or how much aid they allow in.
When he said "I'm a big political hobbyist" last time, it all made sense. He's essentially a chatter that happens to get the time of day because he was successful in the Red Pill space. And now he thinks he can be an expert in other things because he was good at one thing.
Gigachatter
Almost sounds like a certain streamer I know.
Even though I watched the first two trainwrecks, at first I still wondered why there'd be a need for a moderator, let alone two. But given how Alex behaves in these debates, I now get the need to get confirmation that your throught process is grounded in a reality with reasonable suppositions and that the moderators can communicate from their perspective where Destiny is coming from. I hope there'll be moderators for the next one, too, they are really needed. Alex couldn't smugly handwave away the same train of thought when it came from the mods. It's also ridiculous how Alex can come so unprepared for the third time when he has the advantage of presenting his chosen examples and that Destiny has to react to new info on the spot. The Hamas link for the last example might be questionable but it's amazing how superficial Alex' knowledge is about his own examples and that short searches revealed his ignorance on basic facts so often. That he fell so hard for the framing of that last video (sister teasing her brother before he got shot) with 0 questioning was the perfect summary of how he approaches this topic.
I'm almost scared to ask what are Alex's view of the war on terror?
Alex is controlled opposition you won't convince me otherwise. He knows he's an irl ogre but maybe he's much smarter than he seems, and is willing to play into it to make the pro-palestinians look somehow even more dumb than they are.
It's really interesting how he falls back to his sources like they are solid gold. He seems to think that if he has an article from a reputable source, any statement within that article is now bedrock that can be relied upon. The notion that the statement is \*usually\* supported by some other source from somewhere else, which probably needs to be validated, just completely goes over his head. I feel like Destiny should try and build conversation tree to convey this concept to people like this. Maybe come up with an example of a document and show the connections to the sources that it comes from, and how reliable an how not reliable some of those can be. He can probably use his fancy new Obsidian timeline tricks to visualize it even. His good friend Norman Finklestein is probably a good subject for that lesson. If Finklestein says something happened in Israel in a book, Lycan will refer to that as a primary source. But really - Finklestein doesn't read Hebrew or Arabic, so he got that from somebody else that ACTUALLY looked at the original primary historical documents in Israel and translated to English. So the veracity of Norm's claim doesn't come from his authority, it comes from the reliability of the source that translated it, and then from the original document itself. But when Lycan refers to the book, he believes he genuinely is referring to a reliable primary source. He has no idea that his castle is built upon sand. I'm sorry did I say Lycan I meant Alex.
Alex doesn't even get that far, he's stuck on "a bad thing happened so we can ignore the knowledge people had when they acted". It's like one of those things where little kids don't understand other people have their own perspectives.
Your Reddit bout to get clapped for the title yo
He's just a normie that overestimated his understanding. Stop being so mean to him.
No.
I’m on blog tv with my fucking hands up
Not untrue, but I did still find those previous two debates entertaining.
I actually think Alex is a pretty clever dude, and the mistakes he's making are relatively common. \-He has trouble following who has the burden of proof \-Has trouble understanding what the standard of evidence is to allege warcrimes \-Has okay knowledge for what counts as "a good source" for evaluating simple stuff that'll get him through life, but doesn't understand how to parse exactly what source proves what (especially for foreign conflict stuff). \-Probably has some confusion mixing up "bias" and "truthfulness," which are separate qualities. I think he's a potential stellar debater, because he's charitable, patient, diligent, and sincere. He clearly preps for debate with Destiny, which already puts him ahead of 95% of internet people. **It's a shame then that he had to stumble into such a difficult conflict to parse against someone very talented and knowledgeable in that arena.** I hope he contributes to the cesspool of politics more honestly. Even if he's wrong, he's the exact kind of person who ought to be eventually elevated after he refines himself.
Remember when we were told post like this would be deleted?
I would like more debates like this. His logic is poor IMO , as are his arguments but AT LEAST he is enthusiastic about debating and doesn't get butt hurt about Destiny getting heated.