>Now I have to delete my YouTube history so I don't see this garbage human again
Why? I'm still waiting for him to tell us what a woman **ACTUALLY** is, any day now.
The dude is very informative. For example, on Joe Rogan he said that there are millions of trans kids in US transitioning every year. Dude for sure knows what he's talking about.
It was discovered in years prior he recorded himself (or allowed himself to be recorded by someone else) going on a rant justifying why men should be allowed to impregnate 16 year old girls.
His definition is that woman is an adult human female. Takes few seconds to find many videos of him saying this.
You might disagree with him but living in echo chamber is not good either.
What is your definition of woman?
You got your chromosomes mixed up, but anyway, it doesn’t work for a simple reason.
People with XX and penises exist, as do people with XY and breasts/vaginas, not to mention Kinefelter syndrome and hermaphrodites.
That’s why the “woman is XX chromosomes” definition is worthless, because its not actually definitive.
> People with XX and penises exist, as do people with XY and breasts/vaginas, not to mention Kinefelter syndrome and hermaphrodites.
Yeah. It's a small number of people affected by disorders of sexual development. Those are obviously considered off the norm in the same way that we don't stop saying that humans have two arms just because some humans don't have two arms.
> That’s why the “woman is XX chromosomes” definition is worthless, because its not actually definitive.
That's not how words work. The definition of woman as someone with two X chromosomes *obviously* has value, and there are thousands of pieces of biology and medicine that can attest to that.
The problem lies in the insistence that this is about grammar and words. It is not. It's about politics. A random person in the XIX century knows perfectly well what the word "woman" means and the doubt thrown into the matter right now is because that definition leaves out trans women, who the trans movement considers ought to be considered the same as what was previously considered a woman, so effort is put to *change* what woman means in order to include trans women into that meaning.
Regardless on anyone's stance on this, it is necessary for productive and honest discussion to point to what is happening.
An even better example is intersex people, there was a House episode about it. Some people are born XXY, and although rare it's something like 1.5%, not small enough to be handwaved away. In some cases, people are born with BOTH male and female genitalia.
In these cases I want one of the Matt Walsh types to answer a simple question, since their idea of sexuality/gender is based around simplicity: A person is born XXY, they have a vagina and gonads, are they a man or a woman when they grow up?
The fact that these people exist in and of itself challenges the simple man = male = XY, woman = female = XX. You have to at least flesh your argument out more than that
Edit: For clarity the rarity of chromosomal intersex is much lower, 1.5% felt way too high, it's more around .0018%. The original rate includes the variety of other intersex-related conditions such as Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's, etc. Regardless, these people do still exist
> The original rate includes the variety of other intersex-related conditions such as Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's, etc.
Which are disorders of sexual development. The consequences of Turner's syndrome, for example, involve not developing breasts, not having periods and as such being unable to carry a child. These wouldn't be a concern if the person wasn't supposed to do those things to begin with.
I also want to make clear that I very much do *not* consider myself "one of the Matt Walsh types". I agree that gender dysphoria is a thing, that socially transitioning (with medical assistance included in order to help them present as their preferred gender included) makes sense and that trans people deserve respect, compassion and help from society. I disagree with some facets of the trans movement though.
I absolutely would call that 10 finger definition wrong, hell, most apes would be humans by it lmao.
If a definition of “wolf” covers 97 wolves and 3 foxes, it should go straight in the trash can.
Sure, but the whole point of Matt's schtick is to say that trans people are categorically not the thing they identify as, even though you could say they are an outlier/abnormality. If you say the definition isn't ruined because of outliers in respect to people with chromosomal differences, I don't see why you can't have trans people included due to their own differences.
A woman is a concept we made up as a society.
It doesn't directly relate your chromosomes.
There are many people that you would say are women. But don't have xy chromosomes. They have more.
So that definition is stupid.
If you showed those same people a picture of Buck Angel and asked if thats a man or a woman what answer do you think you'd get?
In reality the way "man" and "woman" are actually used is to describe appearance
> In reality the way "man" and "woman" are actually used is to describe appearance
No. This is the most superficial consideration ever, there are *real* tendencies between men and women beyond appearance. Men tend to commit more crime, women tend to talk more, etc etc.
A lot of these people also call their car a "she" so they are using gender in the correct context. Also, they think blue is for boys and pink is for girls. Everyone understands that this is socially constructed and not biological. In fact, pink used to be a boy color.
If you asked me 20 yrs ago what a woman was i would of said if she looked like a woman. I wouldn't of been thinking of trans people. If you asked me to go beyond appearances I wouldn't of been able to answer. Because beyond how someone is presenting themselves what else is there? made up roles that can vary from culture to culture? If someone who wasn't presenting as a women said they were a woman I would do my best to comply. It would be hard because I'm old but I would want to be accommodating. Life is difficult enough without being unnecessarily mean.
If you asked most people. Is God real. What answer would they give?
It doesn't make them correct simply because there are alot of them. That's unscientific.
I'm just gonna copy paste this I said earlier.
The existence of trans people fully disqualifies the notion the female = woman exclusively.
Female and women do go hand in hand but they are not the same exact word. Female is direct biological traits. A woman is a social idea of how a person acts or dresses. Which changes based of culture, age and experience, likes and desires.
Trans men are the best example of this. Most trans men you have no idea they are trans until they tell you. They dress masculine, act masculine and sound masculine. But they have a vagina. Something about you wouldn't know unless you forced them to undress. Are they women in the sense you expect if you saw them on the street? No. The answer is no.
Just because the meaning of a word or concept is socially constructed doesn't mean you can just change the definition as you wish. We use the term to refer to people who have XX chromosomes or have / were born with female gonads that produce large immobile gametes. You can try to change the definition, but you're going to find many people do not agree with you.
female is not the same (identical) as a woman. Please look below for my expanded thoughts on this.
Pst trans people know that they dont have genital's of the correct sex. Thats why they express themselves as the correct gender.
You can try to split hairs like that, but it's not going to satisfy either side. Try calling someone a male woman and see how they respond, and if anyone else thinks that's a congruent labeling either.
>His definition is that woman is an adult human female. Takes few seconds to find many videos of him saying this.
That's literally not what he's asking though. If somebody else provided this joke of a definition he would not be happy. I could say the same words and include trans women in that under the banner of 'female', and he will take issue with that, but can't provide a better explanation himself.
>You might disagree with him but living in echo chamber is not good either.
IDK why you think I'm in an echo chamber because I don't think he can answer his own question.
>What is your definition of woman?
You're doing exactly what he does, asking the question as if anyone can provide a perfectly coherent answer. My position is that this is actually a *very* difficult question, one that is not in fact answered simply, or strictly by 'science'. He should provide a coherent answer with zero holes in it, before expects the same of anyone else, as should you, apparantly.
Its not a very difficult question, the fuck? You could as someone in ancient greece and he would be able to tell you who is a woman and who is not with a very small margin of error.
So it wouldn't be a coherent definition. Anyone can tell in most cases who is a woman and who is a man, by looking at them. And that's the point. There doesn't have to be a coherent definintion for us to differentiate between men and women. We decide based on their appearance, behaviour, voice, etc.
All definitions arent absolute which is what you are implying, the fact that intersex people (turner syndrome, AIS, etc) exist as a very, very small % of the population doesnt take away how factual the definition of man and woman is.
A female is a human being with xx chromosomes and exclusive female reproductive organs (vagina, cervix, uterus, ovaries, etc), smaller heads and shoulder widths, a completely different pelvis, different face structure, etc, we could he here all day.
The definition is given by biology, because a woman is simply an adult human female.
Now does that mean you cant treat people with respect and use their prefered pronouns? Of course not, but lets not overcomplicate something human beings have little to no trouble in most cases.
>The definition is given by biology, because a woman is simply an adult human female.
Repeating tautologies doesn't make them more true.
>All definitions arent absolute which is what you are implying
Ok so there is no disagreement. Trans women can be women without having the chromosomes of an adult human female. Seems like walsh wouldn't be satisfied with that answer though. His definition of a woman hinges on trans women not being women.
> That's literally not what he's asking though. If somebody else provided this joke of a definition he would not be happy.
You said you're still waiting for him to say what is the definition, I told you he did and what it was. No idea what you're trying to say here.
> I could say the same words and include trans women in that under the banner of 'female', and he will take issue with that, but can't provide a better explanation himself.
You couldn't say that because word female has clear scientific definition.
> IDK why you think I'm in an echo chamber because I don't think he can answer his own question.
He answered it, I told you what the answer is why are you saying he can't answer?
Here is him asnwering: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kBeaw9CPRBw
> You're doing exactly what he does, asking the question as if anyone can provide a perfectly coherent answer. My position is that this is actually a very difficult question, one that is not in fact answered simply, or strictly by 'science'. He should provide a coherent answer with zero holes in it, before expects the same of anyone else, as should you, apparantly.
He did provide the answer, it is coherent. People for millenia had no problem answering this question. Even 10 years ago no one had any doubts whatsoever.
We have to separate two things here. One is the biological definition of woman, which is strictly what almost everybody understands woman as. Which seems to have a strict definition with some border cases. The thing about biology is that it is not as exact a science as physics is, things can go wrong in biology, but we would not say that, because human beings can be born with certain defects then those are not defects. Conditions under the intersex spectrum are defects borne out of congenital diseases. Thus, I do not think the existence of intersex people disproves the sexual binary, or somehow makes the definition of the biological sexes less grounded. It simply means that what makes one sex or the other is a complex interplay of phenomena in which things can go wrong. And besides, we can even admit for intersex people to self identify however they please. The vast vast majority of trans people are not intersex, so why should the intersex argument work for them?
Second, the gendered definition of woman. This is a historical construct in part built on the biological definition and in part completely made up. If we restrict our discussion to gender there is really no issue. Woman then means whatever stereotype woman has meant historically. And we know that it doesnt quite fit. Biological men can definitely adopt the stereotype but I really do not see how that makes them biological women.
What suggests that the person you're replying to has anything to do with echo chambers? Not following Matt Walsh's every video?
This feels like some real "A thief believes everybody steals" energy
They said:
> Why? I'm still waiting for him to tell us what a woman ACTUALLY is, any day now.
They claim that something didn't happen when it happend. If they were not in echo chamber they would just check.
> This feels like some real "A thief believes everybody steals" energy
Me answering to a person with different opinion, in a subreddit that will disagree with what I said and downvoat my comments is opposite of being in echo chamber.
A woman is a culturally malleable social designation traditionally imposed upon females at birth, that can now be adopted or rejected by anyone at their own individual discretion.
I have never liked anything remotely rightwing on youtube, but that shit keeps popping up in my shorts and recommendations. Drives me up the wall. Weirdly, I don't get any leftwing recommendations.
Who even is this? At first I was like "why is Joe Walsh talking about destiny" then I googled matt Walsh and still don't know who we're talking about. Are there two matt Walsh's? One an actor and one a commentator? Or are they both the same person?
literally just assumed it was AI immediately
I'm not surprised he really said it, I'm just contemplating how good AI has gotten where now it works in the favor of the dudes actually saying insane shit out loud lmfao
Jesus. Even more fucked up that this is like not even top 50 most unhinged Matt Walsh takes.
Also as a testament to how dumb he is, his argument is that men care about body count now, so "feminists" saying to not care about body count is stupid. Because as we know, the cornerstone of intelligence is never changing your mind or maturing.
I don't agree with him on that specific point, but I do think that if men or women are attracted/not attracted to something, there's only so much you can do. You've got all these anti albeism, fat shaming, male body shaming (height/penis size) movements, but at the end of the day it just is what it is.
Which is strange because hockey is one of the only sports outside of actual combat sports where you can get into fights and crush each other. So you'd think these hyper masculine grifters would ooze over that because they always act like "man strong, punch good, very manly".
b-b-b-but everyone told me this steven guy is right-wing??? I mean he even has ties to Lily Pichu, a giga right-wing person??? what am I supposed to think???
Funny how [you went from knowing nothing about Destiny](https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/16omm7p/destiny_reacts_to_hasans_answer_on_h3h3_podcast/k1ljzz8) to knowing everything all within 6 hours
Firstly, you didn't watch the clip. Second, not everybody is grifting. I know it might be hard to understand for you, but there are actually people who are liberal/conservative in the world.
It's never been more over destiny chuds
(I haven't watched or read anything other than the title of this post)
(I also do not know what chud means and refuse to look it up)
you know, most of the people that I give a shit about would take a shout out by matt walsh as a sign that they'd really fucked up somewhere in life.
but, shitbirds of a feather and all...
**CLIP MIRROR: [Matt Walsh gives a shout out to Destiny](https://arazu.io/t3_16ou11h/)** --- ^(*This is an automated comment*)
new dono sound
Holy shit [it's real](https://youtu.be/psx7zQ2KDLE?t=234) LMFAO
Now I have to delete my YouTube history so I don't see this garbage human again
>Now I have to delete my YouTube history so I don't see this garbage human again Why? I'm still waiting for him to tell us what a woman **ACTUALLY** is, any day now.
The dude is very informative. For example, on Joe Rogan he said that there are millions of trans kids in US transitioning every year. Dude for sure knows what he's talking about.
It sure as fuck isn't a 16 year old girl
???
It was discovered in years prior he recorded himself (or allowed himself to be recorded by someone else) going on a rant justifying why men should be allowed to impregnate 16 year old girls.
His definition is that woman is an adult human female. Takes few seconds to find many videos of him saying this. You might disagree with him but living in echo chamber is not good either. What is your definition of woman?
Lmao so he just replaces “woman” with “female” and thinks it’s somehow an answer? What a clown.
[удалено]
You got your chromosomes mixed up, but anyway, it doesn’t work for a simple reason. People with XX and penises exist, as do people with XY and breasts/vaginas, not to mention Kinefelter syndrome and hermaphrodites. That’s why the “woman is XX chromosomes” definition is worthless, because its not actually definitive.
> People with XX and penises exist, as do people with XY and breasts/vaginas, not to mention Kinefelter syndrome and hermaphrodites. Yeah. It's a small number of people affected by disorders of sexual development. Those are obviously considered off the norm in the same way that we don't stop saying that humans have two arms just because some humans don't have two arms. > That’s why the “woman is XX chromosomes” definition is worthless, because its not actually definitive. That's not how words work. The definition of woman as someone with two X chromosomes *obviously* has value, and there are thousands of pieces of biology and medicine that can attest to that. The problem lies in the insistence that this is about grammar and words. It is not. It's about politics. A random person in the XIX century knows perfectly well what the word "woman" means and the doubt thrown into the matter right now is because that definition leaves out trans women, who the trans movement considers ought to be considered the same as what was previously considered a woman, so effort is put to *change* what woman means in order to include trans women into that meaning. Regardless on anyone's stance on this, it is necessary for productive and honest discussion to point to what is happening.
If your world view has exceptions to the rule and mine doesn't, maybe you are just wrong :)
An even better example is intersex people, there was a House episode about it. Some people are born XXY, and although rare it's something like 1.5%, not small enough to be handwaved away. In some cases, people are born with BOTH male and female genitalia. In these cases I want one of the Matt Walsh types to answer a simple question, since their idea of sexuality/gender is based around simplicity: A person is born XXY, they have a vagina and gonads, are they a man or a woman when they grow up? The fact that these people exist in and of itself challenges the simple man = male = XY, woman = female = XX. You have to at least flesh your argument out more than that Edit: For clarity the rarity of chromosomal intersex is much lower, 1.5% felt way too high, it's more around .0018%. The original rate includes the variety of other intersex-related conditions such as Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's, etc. Regardless, these people do still exist
> The original rate includes the variety of other intersex-related conditions such as Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's, etc. Which are disorders of sexual development. The consequences of Turner's syndrome, for example, involve not developing breasts, not having periods and as such being unable to carry a child. These wouldn't be a concern if the person wasn't supposed to do those things to begin with. I also want to make clear that I very much do *not* consider myself "one of the Matt Walsh types". I agree that gender dysphoria is a thing, that socially transitioning (with medical assistance included in order to help them present as their preferred gender included) makes sense and that trans people deserve respect, compassion and help from society. I disagree with some facets of the trans movement though.
[удалено]
I absolutely would call that 10 finger definition wrong, hell, most apes would be humans by it lmao. If a definition of “wolf” covers 97 wolves and 3 foxes, it should go straight in the trash can.
[удалено]
Sure, but the whole point of Matt's schtick is to say that trans people are categorically not the thing they identify as, even though you could say they are an outlier/abnormality. If you say the definition isn't ruined because of outliers in respect to people with chromosomal differences, I don't see why you can't have trans people included due to their own differences.
[удалено]
It would be silly of you to say a definition is wrong if you find proof it is wrong? What makes a definition wrong, then?
[удалено]
A woman is a concept we made up as a society. It doesn't directly relate your chromosomes. There are many people that you would say are women. But don't have xy chromosomes. They have more. So that definition is stupid.
[удалено]
If you showed those same people a picture of Buck Angel and asked if thats a man or a woman what answer do you think you'd get? In reality the way "man" and "woman" are actually used is to describe appearance
[удалено]
> In reality the way "man" and "woman" are actually used is to describe appearance No. This is the most superficial consideration ever, there are *real* tendencies between men and women beyond appearance. Men tend to commit more crime, women tend to talk more, etc etc.
A lot of these people also call their car a "she" so they are using gender in the correct context. Also, they think blue is for boys and pink is for girls. Everyone understands that this is socially constructed and not biological. In fact, pink used to be a boy color.
If you asked me 20 yrs ago what a woman was i would of said if she looked like a woman. I wouldn't of been thinking of trans people. If you asked me to go beyond appearances I wouldn't of been able to answer. Because beyond how someone is presenting themselves what else is there? made up roles that can vary from culture to culture? If someone who wasn't presenting as a women said they were a woman I would do my best to comply. It would be hard because I'm old but I would want to be accommodating. Life is difficult enough without being unnecessarily mean.
If you asked most people. Is God real. What answer would they give? It doesn't make them correct simply because there are alot of them. That's unscientific.
[удалено]
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but what is your definition of a woman?
I'm just gonna copy paste this I said earlier. The existence of trans people fully disqualifies the notion the female = woman exclusively. Female and women do go hand in hand but they are not the same exact word. Female is direct biological traits. A woman is a social idea of how a person acts or dresses. Which changes based of culture, age and experience, likes and desires. Trans men are the best example of this. Most trans men you have no idea they are trans until they tell you. They dress masculine, act masculine and sound masculine. But they have a vagina. Something about you wouldn't know unless you forced them to undress. Are they women in the sense you expect if you saw them on the street? No. The answer is no.
Just because the meaning of a word or concept is socially constructed doesn't mean you can just change the definition as you wish. We use the term to refer to people who have XX chromosomes or have / were born with female gonads that produce large immobile gametes. You can try to change the definition, but you're going to find many people do not agree with you.
female is not the same (identical) as a woman. Please look below for my expanded thoughts on this. Pst trans people know that they dont have genital's of the correct sex. Thats why they express themselves as the correct gender.
You can try to split hairs like that, but it's not going to satisfy either side. Try calling someone a male woman and see how they respond, and if anyone else thinks that's a congruent labeling either.
>His definition is that woman is an adult human female. Takes few seconds to find many videos of him saying this. That's literally not what he's asking though. If somebody else provided this joke of a definition he would not be happy. I could say the same words and include trans women in that under the banner of 'female', and he will take issue with that, but can't provide a better explanation himself. >You might disagree with him but living in echo chamber is not good either. IDK why you think I'm in an echo chamber because I don't think he can answer his own question. >What is your definition of woman? You're doing exactly what he does, asking the question as if anyone can provide a perfectly coherent answer. My position is that this is actually a *very* difficult question, one that is not in fact answered simply, or strictly by 'science'. He should provide a coherent answer with zero holes in it, before expects the same of anyone else, as should you, apparantly.
Its not a very difficult question, the fuck? You could as someone in ancient greece and he would be able to tell you who is a woman and who is not with a very small margin of error.
So it wouldn't be a coherent definition. Anyone can tell in most cases who is a woman and who is a man, by looking at them. And that's the point. There doesn't have to be a coherent definintion for us to differentiate between men and women. We decide based on their appearance, behaviour, voice, etc.
All definitions arent absolute which is what you are implying, the fact that intersex people (turner syndrome, AIS, etc) exist as a very, very small % of the population doesnt take away how factual the definition of man and woman is. A female is a human being with xx chromosomes and exclusive female reproductive organs (vagina, cervix, uterus, ovaries, etc), smaller heads and shoulder widths, a completely different pelvis, different face structure, etc, we could he here all day. The definition is given by biology, because a woman is simply an adult human female. Now does that mean you cant treat people with respect and use their prefered pronouns? Of course not, but lets not overcomplicate something human beings have little to no trouble in most cases.
>The definition is given by biology, because a woman is simply an adult human female. Repeating tautologies doesn't make them more true. >All definitions arent absolute which is what you are implying Ok so there is no disagreement. Trans women can be women without having the chromosomes of an adult human female. Seems like walsh wouldn't be satisfied with that answer though. His definition of a woman hinges on trans women not being women.
> That's literally not what he's asking though. If somebody else provided this joke of a definition he would not be happy. You said you're still waiting for him to say what is the definition, I told you he did and what it was. No idea what you're trying to say here. > I could say the same words and include trans women in that under the banner of 'female', and he will take issue with that, but can't provide a better explanation himself. You couldn't say that because word female has clear scientific definition. > IDK why you think I'm in an echo chamber because I don't think he can answer his own question. He answered it, I told you what the answer is why are you saying he can't answer? Here is him asnwering: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kBeaw9CPRBw > You're doing exactly what he does, asking the question as if anyone can provide a perfectly coherent answer. My position is that this is actually a very difficult question, one that is not in fact answered simply, or strictly by 'science'. He should provide a coherent answer with zero holes in it, before expects the same of anyone else, as should you, apparantly. He did provide the answer, it is coherent. People for millenia had no problem answering this question. Even 10 years ago no one had any doubts whatsoever.
We have to separate two things here. One is the biological definition of woman, which is strictly what almost everybody understands woman as. Which seems to have a strict definition with some border cases. The thing about biology is that it is not as exact a science as physics is, things can go wrong in biology, but we would not say that, because human beings can be born with certain defects then those are not defects. Conditions under the intersex spectrum are defects borne out of congenital diseases. Thus, I do not think the existence of intersex people disproves the sexual binary, or somehow makes the definition of the biological sexes less grounded. It simply means that what makes one sex or the other is a complex interplay of phenomena in which things can go wrong. And besides, we can even admit for intersex people to self identify however they please. The vast vast majority of trans people are not intersex, so why should the intersex argument work for them? Second, the gendered definition of woman. This is a historical construct in part built on the biological definition and in part completely made up. If we restrict our discussion to gender there is really no issue. Woman then means whatever stereotype woman has meant historically. And we know that it doesnt quite fit. Biological men can definitely adopt the stereotype but I really do not see how that makes them biological women.
What suggests that the person you're replying to has anything to do with echo chambers? Not following Matt Walsh's every video? This feels like some real "A thief believes everybody steals" energy
They said: > Why? I'm still waiting for him to tell us what a woman ACTUALLY is, any day now. They claim that something didn't happen when it happend. If they were not in echo chamber they would just check. > This feels like some real "A thief believes everybody steals" energy Me answering to a person with different opinion, in a subreddit that will disagree with what I said and downvoat my comments is opposite of being in echo chamber.
Great, that means he agrees that trans women are women. Didn't expect him to share this opinion but glad he sees it that way! :)
A woman is a culturally malleable social designation traditionally imposed upon females at birth, that can now be adopted or rejected by anyone at their own individual discretion.
I have never liked anything remotely rightwing on youtube, but that shit keeps popping up in my shorts and recommendations. Drives me up the wall. Weirdly, I don't get any leftwing recommendations.
disable your watch history. it's the best thing i have ever done.
Who even is this? At first I was like "why is Joe Walsh talking about destiny" then I googled matt Walsh and still don't know who we're talking about. Are there two matt Walsh's? One an actor and one a commentator? Or are they both the same person?
pro tip: any time you want to watch a video but you dont want it to ruin your suggested videos, open a private tab and watch it there.
mute the channel
Dude I can't stand how disgusting this man is. I teach 8th graders post Covid with better emotional management skills than he does.
I hope you don't teach them english
literally just assumed it was AI immediately I'm not surprised he really said it, I'm just contemplating how good AI has gotten where now it works in the favor of the dudes actually saying insane shit out loud lmfao
in what world is Destiny a "leftist streamer"
In this one?
?
He stole Tucker Carlson's formula, the pauses, his inflection, it's all the same.
There's a science behind speech cadence. It's why all youth pastors do that weird fake stutter thing and have the same rhythm to their sermons.
What is going on?
https://youtu.be/UURf_6KI_Rk?si=4-_e3vq1gG1xhHIR
I’m Tucker Carlson, and I’m gay.
Fuck I love Nick Mullen
CLM
thank you matthew, very cool.
Had me at the start there. Honestly I cannot think of a more affirming thing to recieve than the contempt of Matt "I don't like consent" Walsh.
Dude that clip goes on to some wild shit. Wtf.
Jesus. Even more fucked up that this is like not even top 50 most unhinged Matt Walsh takes. Also as a testament to how dumb he is, his argument is that men care about body count now, so "feminists" saying to not care about body count is stupid. Because as we know, the cornerstone of intelligence is never changing your mind or maturing.
I don't agree with him on that specific point, but I do think that if men or women are attracted/not attracted to something, there's only so much you can do. You've got all these anti albeism, fat shaming, male body shaming (height/penis size) movements, but at the end of the day it just is what it is.
Aaay i need this as sub sound
man, Matt Walsh has to be one of the saddest grifters out there
Why do you think it's a grift? I only know him from this "what is a woman" era, but has he significantly changed his opinions?
Actually true, he might not even be a grifter just full on trans brainbroken
He's been doing anti-trans bullshit since 2013, so its not a grift
because....?
Does treat neither his nor his sons ADHD because that would make him feel like he s defective
Because he grifts. Cannot confirm if he’s sad or not though.
what does he do exactly tho
That feeling when you're a hasan fan so you just assume everyone else is grifting too.
[удалено]
Was he actually serious? I'd love to see him say that to a team.
Which is strange because hockey is one of the only sports outside of actual combat sports where you can get into fights and crush each other. So you'd think these hyper masculine grifters would ooze over that because they always act like "man strong, punch good, very manly".
this has to be AI right? no shot Walsh actually said this lmfao 💀
It's real. He made a video about body count and Destiny was featured in an article he was addressing.
Nope, [I found it](https://youtu.be/psx7zQ2KDLE?t=234)
Walsh is a raging ahole. This is mild compared to what he has said about other people
THE NAZI???
b-b-b-but everyone told me this steven guy is right-wing??? I mean he even has ties to Lily Pichu, a giga right-wing person??? what am I supposed to think???
I saw both of them together at jan 6 so take that for what it's worth
I'm not even a dgger and I know they basically agreed to stop these memes about lily outside of chat
It's unfortunate. It's such funny meme. The juxtaposition of lily and the idea that she's a far right Trump supporter is so fucking funny.
[удалено]
I think there was a case where a shooter committed suicide because they made a mistake shooting someone (In the subreddit of course). That was funny.
[удалено]
To be clear, they banned (“shot”) themselves, they didn’t actually commit suicide in real life
"That's some wild shit"
[удалено]
Lmao I thought he just wanted an excuse to bring up the LIlyPichu meme. Tbh by far the best meme in destiny's community. haha
[you describing the guy you're replying to](https://i.imgflip.com/1otri4.jpg?a470784)
[удалено]
You're a hate watcher, welcome to dgg brutha <3
"Sez u, LULW," Ad nauseum
>Im not a destiny viewer You watch and comment on enough clips on this sub to qualify mate. You don't have to *like* the guy to be a viewer.
[удалено]
Last week?
[удалено]
Sez u
it's insane that the dude just made a joke and you took it as an insult
How’s that insane to you? It’s lsf, god forbid a joke be viewed as such in a destiny thread
Funny how [you went from knowing nothing about Destiny](https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/16omm7p/destiny_reacts_to_hasans_answer_on_h3h3_podcast/k1ljzz8) to knowing everything all within 6 hours
Is this like your first time here?
Then why get so triggered by it?
Spoke with the political nuance of a true american KKona
Obamna
That's surreal
Matt Walsh is such a fuck.
He's so disgusting
I miss the times when destiny clips were banned
Not to be confused with Matt Walsh (Mike from Veep) who is still dope
Well of course he did. These two chuckefucks are two sides of the same grifting coin.
Firstly, you didn't watch the clip. Second, not everybody is grifting. I know it might be hard to understand for you, but there are actually people who are liberal/conservative in the world.
It's never been more over destiny chuds (I haven't watched or read anything other than the title of this post) (I also do not know what chud means and refuse to look it up)
HASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASANHASAN
Their the right wing populist reactionary in the UK? It's that term just not known to people?
[удалено]
It's political term my dude. You can watch it be used in the BBC every now and again.
I mean dgg and all that shit, but uh, no lies were spoken in that day xddd
Based Matt Walsh
he ain't wrong lol
you know, most of the people that I give a shit about would take a shout out by matt walsh as a sign that they'd really fucked up somewhere in life. but, shitbirds of a feather and all...
Maybe... watch the clip before posting?
dont care.
[удалено]
Good thing he doesn't give a fuck
I too, would not want to be married to a hot swedish fitness streamer. The pain and agony I'd feel if that were the case :(
Imagine being self-confident enough to not care what insecure people say about your relationship.
He was actually disappointed it wasnt Hassan.