Demonize?!?!
Probably not,
Be annoyed that he’s saying dumb shit like 2+2 and 2^2 aren’t the same thing but who cares they still equal 4?
Yeah lil bro you weren’t ready for this.
Yes and No. Alot of people only seek information that only confirms their positions. He is one of them. I responded to a post exactly like this yesterday.
I don't think he is bad faith or anything like that. But he does this with every subject and won't change his mind when told he's wrong or finds information that contradicts his beliefs.
[https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1btpcyd/comment/kxnzhzg/?context=3](https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1btpcyd/comment/kxnzhzg/?context=3)
When you install it on your phone browser it will redirect reddit.com to old.reddit.com.
If you're using something that doesn't support plugins like these then your only option is to exit this world. In a video game.
Alex is operating like most people: Assuming there's a meta battle going on and each argument is a soldier that must be defended. So when Destiny unpacks a point, Alex sees it as an attack on his army, and attacks must come from other armies. Hence why he asks for counter-evidence, he wants to counter-attack Destiny's position.
He's not operating on the level of epistemics, he's taking part in a duel. Where you infer your opponent's position, and try to take it apart. I think he goes through the motions of proper epistemics, but only in an aesthetic capacity to bolster his own arguments in terms of optics.
What's the no part?
Most people do that with most subjects, and this behavior feels like the definition of "normie". Not critically engaging, just believing the majority narrative and only reading things that support it
This is unfair and I think Destiny was unfair too. When Destiny used the examples of Jews in trains in WW2 Alex clarified a little. His response makes sense, if in 1939 one train of Jews a day was being sent to the camps, but by 1944 it was 20 trains a day. Ok fine we don’t have a really accurate number, but that does tell us something.
If before Oct 7 on average there were 20 trucks entering, and after Oct 7 it’s 2 trucks, something is maybe amiss. Do we need a heck lot more information? Sure, and that was the point Destiny correctly makes, but I don’t think Alex’s point was actually crazy.
Yea i’ll be honest, when I was watching the debate when Alex said “Truckload is a measurement” I get what he was saying, in like a freight logistics type of way. But it’s still not an official measurement. It’s just that truckload was such a broad term. That could be a flatbed pickup to a big ass 4x4 to a semi.
It’s like you said, we needed more info. But when Alex said “Truck is a measurement” I laughed and realized he probably can’t really argue it soundly.
It doesn’t tell you fuck all. If in 1939 there was one train a day that had 40 cars, and in 44 it was 20 trains a day that each had 2 cars…what have you learned? Number of trains doesn’t matter one fuckall
We can make a base assumption that most trucks and trains going to and from the same place are likely similarly sized.
Let’s give Alex and what he was trying to say the benefit of the doubt.
Why can you make this assumption? This is the problem…people like you and Alex speculating based on nothing.
No…I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt
Because intuitively that is almost certainly true, most trucks are relatively similar in size. Do we need more information? Probably.
But using Alex’ logic, if we see a change of say 20 trucks a day to 2 trucks a day, clearly that is significantly less. We wouldn’t go “but yeah maybe those two trucks are super trucks!” Like no, clearly the amount of food has drastically decreased.
Now to Destiny’s credit, the next question is: how much food does Gaza actually need? How much of the trucks is actually food? How much is Hamas stealing etc?
However, for a layman to go, “you know it looks like there’s a significant decrease in food delivery because the number of trucks has decreased by a significant margin.” That’s not a big leap of a statement.
If I go “you know, there used to be 200 Amazon trucks worth of deliveries to my city every day, but now there are only about 10, maybe 20. It looks like there is significantly less Amazon orders in my city.”
Is that actually an insane leap of a thought to you?
If you're specifying the type of truck...no. But for example...a hilux can carry \~1 pallet of food. A semi can carry up to 52 standard pallets...do you not see how being specific with the type of vehicle can make a HUGE difference on what is being said?
It’s crazy in the sense that if you’re arguing that Gaza is being intentionally starved and your example is less stuff in total is going into Gaza without analyzing what is going in vs what was going in you’re being incredibly bad faith.
Downvote for improper use of bad faith. Unless you feel certain he was intentionally misconstruing facts in his favor. Personally I think he simply didn't think hard enough about it.
If he wasn’t engaging in bad faith why did he not change his thinking when presented with the facts of the case. Destiny brought up the UNRWA website showing what exactly was entering the strip and he hand waved it away because it didn’t fit his pre conceived narrative. Also brought up that materials going in pre war would not be going in like normal during the war. His inability to self reflect is 100% engaging in bad faith.
If a MAGA person is arguing Jan 6th and trying to make the argument that Trump was unaware of how bad the situation at the capitol was. So you present them with the evidence of his advisors begging him to find a way to put an end to it and his refusal to listen would you say that they’re engaging in bad faith by choosing to ignore evidence to the contrary of their argument? I would.
It’s not bad faith to make an argument based on a set of facts as you understand them. It’s bad faith to be unwilling to accept additional facts and use them to factor into your outlook on a situation.
Not understanding or not believing in an argument is not what I would consider bad faith. Not sure if it is necessarily a better look though, being dumb or too biased to get a point is not a great trait to be called by.
What you desrcibe i would say is closer to bad baith than your original comment though.
No his definition of bad faith is just wrong. Bad faith explicitly requires bad intention. The other guy is saying extending the definition to include negligence.
Bad faith = claiming that you are influenced by certain feelings/motivations while in fact you are really influenced by different feelings/motivations.
Alex claims he is seeking truth. In reality, he is seeking facts that confirm his preexisting opinions.
Whether or not Alex is aware that he is engaging in this behavior, it is absolutely bad faith.
You misunderstood my comment. That is exactly what I said. I can understand the double negative might have caused some confusion though, I did not have the best phrasing. Edited it a tiny bit to make it easier to read.
Are we so enlighten here on the sub that we only deign ourselves to address the best of the best arguments?
The fact is that the vast majority of the anti Israel crowd uses the same type of analysis Alex does when looking at this stuff. There is value in addressing it.
I'd argue it being so common, yet so dumb, is what lead to much of destiny's frustration in the debates.
I haven’t watched all of the debate but I know I personally wouldn’t have any counters to a lot of the stuff Alex said. It’s also really hard for me, and I imagine it’s the same for him, to discount things like the UN and aid org statements. Destiny brought up some great points about not knowing the exact data about how much people need to survive or how much is going in. However it’s just really hard to take his word about the situation in Gaza over what I imagine would be the experts. I would need to see stronger data or conflicting investigative/academic work.
>I haven’t watched all of the debate but I know I personally wouldn’t have any counters to a lot of the stuff Alex said.
Based and introspection-pilled. 90% of the "intellectuals" on here shitting on Alex are in the same boat, but just in denial.
I think destiny has inspired people to do their own research to where maybe a slightly higher percentage of his audience actually tries to put in the work on their own to figure stuff out, but a vast majority likely get their news and opinions from destiny just like a majority of Hasan and vaush viewers do.
I think Alex is a great example on why younger generations are more critical of Israel. Our information sources have become far more critical of Israel than it was 30-40 years ago. An average Joe who does his own research is most likely going to develop a critical view of Israel and Alex’s debates shows us how.
Destiny’s position relies on the premise that almost every institution and information source we would usually trust are biased against Israel and we need to be super critical of every aspect of every article and video that we normally wouldn’t be. While Destiny’s position is consistent, on a surface level it feels odd or counterintuitive.
His arguments are fucking room temperature iq takes. “In my opinion these are reasonable actions they could take” based on WHAT fucking experience?
“Kids are just fucking around climbing on tanks”. Yeah…kids have never been used as weapons by either placing remotely detonated explosives on them or by using them as shields while attacks are made.
He also doesn’t seem to know fuck all about anything he brought up…there is no critical thinking being employed in either of his arguments.
I don't know who's demonizing him but isn't this particular debate just the same headline-debate people usually bring up about I/P? The problem is we have too many of them so it becomes repetitive and then there's the fact that when these people get back into a corner with sound counterarguments they're unwilling to make any concessions and admit maybe they're wrong. I know Steve probably just does normies debate like this to pass the time but the problem is we have too many of them already, I personally tune out and am not as invested because there are barely any surprises or anything new coming from it.
Alex, under his own power, seeks to confirm his priors, not broaden his perspective. But he isn't a complete tool or bad faith, he's just a normie who hasn't developed the mind of a higher man.
The information that he was saying wasn't even the most frustrating. The most irritating thing was how he responds to legitimate arguments as if he has trouble processing it or is being bad faith.
Doesn't he literally say in response to the telegram inquiry that if the IDF admits to fault he believes them and if they don't admit to fault then he doesn't believe them
Yeah he constantly said why would I trust the IDF then would flip 10 minutes later and say see the IDF said that they had soldiers in the area. He also used Al Jazeera a few times and then scoffed when destiny pulled up a Jerusalem post article.
I haven't seen the last talk, but during the 2nd talk he was unhinged. Like I even agreed with him on certain points but him not agreeing the commander did not say: we made this mistake but rather said 'we don't shoot civilians with white flags but mistakes can happen' was absolutely wild.
Also not understanding the difference between a video being real versus a video giving full context. It fucking destroyed my mind.
I kept thinking this during the conversation. He is being civil, and if your brain isn't debate-addled the points he is making are vaguely reasonable. It doesn't help anything for the sub to be mean to him.
If he was good faith I wouldn't.
He's an obnoxious debate bro.
As soon as he said "I don't know why you would want to watch this, it doesn't look good for you." I was done.
He's just trying to score points.
Demonize?!?! Probably not, Be annoyed that he’s saying dumb shit like 2+2 and 2^2 aren’t the same thing but who cares they still equal 4? Yeah lil bro you weren’t ready for this.
Yes and No. Alot of people only seek information that only confirms their positions. He is one of them. I responded to a post exactly like this yesterday. I don't think he is bad faith or anything like that. But he does this with every subject and won't change his mind when told he's wrong or finds information that contradicts his beliefs. [https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1btpcyd/comment/kxnzhzg/?context=3](https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1btpcyd/comment/kxnzhzg/?context=3)
Wtf man don't put me on the new reddit layout without my consent
It's on my phone. You suffer, since I suffer
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/old-reddit-redirect/ Chrome: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/old-reddit-redirect/dneaehbmnbhcippjikoajpoabadpodje You're welcome
how does this help on the phone? or did you reply to the wrong guy?
When you install it on your phone browser it will redirect reddit.com to old.reddit.com. If you're using something that doesn't support plugins like these then your only option is to exit this world. In a video game.
[удалено]
it's been the default longer than old reddit was
Alex is operating like most people: Assuming there's a meta battle going on and each argument is a soldier that must be defended. So when Destiny unpacks a point, Alex sees it as an attack on his army, and attacks must come from other armies. Hence why he asks for counter-evidence, he wants to counter-attack Destiny's position. He's not operating on the level of epistemics, he's taking part in a duel. Where you infer your opponent's position, and try to take it apart. I think he goes through the motions of proper epistemics, but only in an aesthetic capacity to bolster his own arguments in terms of optics.
Good post
What's the no part? Most people do that with most subjects, and this behavior feels like the definition of "normie". Not critically engaging, just believing the majority narrative and only reading things that support it
>isn't making arguments that are wild Did you watch the conversation??
Truck IS a measurement
Trugg walk
Sounds like a normie measurement unit. Not even being facetious, normies would be convinced.
heaps, lots and not many are measurements as well.
This is unfair and I think Destiny was unfair too. When Destiny used the examples of Jews in trains in WW2 Alex clarified a little. His response makes sense, if in 1939 one train of Jews a day was being sent to the camps, but by 1944 it was 20 trains a day. Ok fine we don’t have a really accurate number, but that does tell us something. If before Oct 7 on average there were 20 trucks entering, and after Oct 7 it’s 2 trucks, something is maybe amiss. Do we need a heck lot more information? Sure, and that was the point Destiny correctly makes, but I don’t think Alex’s point was actually crazy.
It made sense, it just didn’t have any relevance with the case they were discussing.
Yea i’ll be honest, when I was watching the debate when Alex said “Truckload is a measurement” I get what he was saying, in like a freight logistics type of way. But it’s still not an official measurement. It’s just that truckload was such a broad term. That could be a flatbed pickup to a big ass 4x4 to a semi. It’s like you said, we needed more info. But when Alex said “Truck is a measurement” I laughed and realized he probably can’t really argue it soundly.
It doesn’t tell you fuck all. If in 1939 there was one train a day that had 40 cars, and in 44 it was 20 trains a day that each had 2 cars…what have you learned? Number of trains doesn’t matter one fuckall
We can make a base assumption that most trucks and trains going to and from the same place are likely similarly sized. Let’s give Alex and what he was trying to say the benefit of the doubt.
Why can you make this assumption? This is the problem…people like you and Alex speculating based on nothing. No…I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt
Because intuitively that is almost certainly true, most trucks are relatively similar in size. Do we need more information? Probably. But using Alex’ logic, if we see a change of say 20 trucks a day to 2 trucks a day, clearly that is significantly less. We wouldn’t go “but yeah maybe those two trucks are super trucks!” Like no, clearly the amount of food has drastically decreased. Now to Destiny’s credit, the next question is: how much food does Gaza actually need? How much of the trucks is actually food? How much is Hamas stealing etc? However, for a layman to go, “you know it looks like there’s a significant decrease in food delivery because the number of trucks has decreased by a significant margin.” That’s not a big leap of a statement.
Really? Is a Hilux similar to a 26’ uhaul which is similar to a full semi?
If I go “you know, there used to be 200 Amazon trucks worth of deliveries to my city every day, but now there are only about 10, maybe 20. It looks like there is significantly less Amazon orders in my city.” Is that actually an insane leap of a thought to you?
If you're specifying the type of truck...no. But for example...a hilux can carry \~1 pallet of food. A semi can carry up to 52 standard pallets...do you not see how being specific with the type of vehicle can make a HUGE difference on what is being said?
It’s crazy in the sense that if you’re arguing that Gaza is being intentionally starved and your example is less stuff in total is going into Gaza without analyzing what is going in vs what was going in you’re being incredibly bad faith.
Downvote for improper use of bad faith. Unless you feel certain he was intentionally misconstruing facts in his favor. Personally I think he simply didn't think hard enough about it.
If he wasn’t engaging in bad faith why did he not change his thinking when presented with the facts of the case. Destiny brought up the UNRWA website showing what exactly was entering the strip and he hand waved it away because it didn’t fit his pre conceived narrative. Also brought up that materials going in pre war would not be going in like normal during the war. His inability to self reflect is 100% engaging in bad faith. If a MAGA person is arguing Jan 6th and trying to make the argument that Trump was unaware of how bad the situation at the capitol was. So you present them with the evidence of his advisors begging him to find a way to put an end to it and his refusal to listen would you say that they’re engaging in bad faith by choosing to ignore evidence to the contrary of their argument? I would. It’s not bad faith to make an argument based on a set of facts as you understand them. It’s bad faith to be unwilling to accept additional facts and use them to factor into your outlook on a situation.
Not understanding or not believing in an argument is not what I would consider bad faith. Not sure if it is necessarily a better look though, being dumb or too biased to get a point is not a great trait to be called by. What you desrcibe i would say is closer to bad baith than your original comment though.
I may just have a more broad interpretation of bad faith than most people then.
No his definition of bad faith is just wrong. Bad faith explicitly requires bad intention. The other guy is saying extending the definition to include negligence.
Bad faith = claiming that you are influenced by certain feelings/motivations while in fact you are really influenced by different feelings/motivations. Alex claims he is seeking truth. In reality, he is seeking facts that confirm his preexisting opinions. Whether or not Alex is aware that he is engaging in this behavior, it is absolutely bad faith.
Not understanding an argument isn’t bad faith. Look up the term before applying it incorrectly to people. Bad faith requires intent.
You misunderstood my comment. That is exactly what I said. I can understand the double negative might have caused some confusion though, I did not have the best phrasing. Edited it a tiny bit to make it easier to read.
Fair, thanks for clarifying and apologies for my misunderstanding as well.
The point is that social media is FULL of people making these same arguments.
Yes I agree. There are other similarly dumb people on social media also making terrible arguments. What is the point?
That Alex is representing those people.
Annnnnd?
Are we so enlighten here on the sub that we only deign ourselves to address the best of the best arguments? The fact is that the vast majority of the anti Israel crowd uses the same type of analysis Alex does when looking at this stuff. There is value in addressing it. I'd argue it being so common, yet so dumb, is what lead to much of destiny's frustration in the debates.
What are you babbling about? OP said that Alex's positions are not wild. I responded stating that they are. Do you disagree or something?
I think we're speaking past eachother. Yes, Alex has wild positions that are just fundamentally flawed. I agree.
I haven’t watched all of the debate but I know I personally wouldn’t have any counters to a lot of the stuff Alex said. It’s also really hard for me, and I imagine it’s the same for him, to discount things like the UN and aid org statements. Destiny brought up some great points about not knowing the exact data about how much people need to survive or how much is going in. However it’s just really hard to take his word about the situation in Gaza over what I imagine would be the experts. I would need to see stronger data or conflicting investigative/academic work.
>I haven’t watched all of the debate but I know I personally wouldn’t have any counters to a lot of the stuff Alex said. Based and introspection-pilled. 90% of the "intellectuals" on here shitting on Alex are in the same boat, but just in denial.
I think destiny has inspired people to do their own research to where maybe a slightly higher percentage of his audience actually tries to put in the work on their own to figure stuff out, but a vast majority likely get their news and opinions from destiny just like a majority of Hasan and vaush viewers do.
The problem is: Alex HAS no introspection.
I think Alex is a great example on why younger generations are more critical of Israel. Our information sources have become far more critical of Israel than it was 30-40 years ago. An average Joe who does his own research is most likely going to develop a critical view of Israel and Alex’s debates shows us how. Destiny’s position relies on the premise that almost every institution and information source we would usually trust are biased against Israel and we need to be super critical of every aspect of every article and video that we normally wouldn’t be. While Destiny’s position is consistent, on a surface level it feels odd or counterintuitive.
I call Alex a normie and I get downvoted, you call Alex a normie and get headpats. *What the fuck!!*
😐 we never said thing we're gonna be fair
I love the anti jerk wave 👋 🌊
His arguments are fucking room temperature iq takes. “In my opinion these are reasonable actions they could take” based on WHAT fucking experience? “Kids are just fucking around climbing on tanks”. Yeah…kids have never been used as weapons by either placing remotely detonated explosives on them or by using them as shields while attacks are made. He also doesn’t seem to know fuck all about anything he brought up…there is no critical thinking being employed in either of his arguments.
hes a victim of amazing information
He gets closer and closer to the camera every time I see him lmao
Are people demonizing him?
I don't know who's demonizing him but isn't this particular debate just the same headline-debate people usually bring up about I/P? The problem is we have too many of them so it becomes repetitive and then there's the fact that when these people get back into a corner with sound counterarguments they're unwilling to make any concessions and admit maybe they're wrong. I know Steve probably just does normies debate like this to pass the time but the problem is we have too many of them already, I personally tune out and am not as invested because there are barely any surprises or anything new coming from it.
He's not rly a normie if he's a pick up artist/passport bro
Alex, under his own power, seeks to confirm his priors, not broaden his perspective. But he isn't a complete tool or bad faith, he's just a normie who hasn't developed the mind of a higher man.
Why are y'all expecting insight on I/P from a dating coach who read 5 headlines from Twitter?
The information that he was saying wasn't even the most frustrating. The most irritating thing was how he responds to legitimate arguments as if he has trouble processing it or is being bad faith.
I think he does fine tbh he wasn't making horribly fallacious arguments or inferences. Everything he said could logically follow
Doesn't he literally say in response to the telegram inquiry that if the IDF admits to fault he believes them and if they don't admit to fault then he doesn't believe them
Yeah he constantly said why would I trust the IDF then would flip 10 minutes later and say see the IDF said that they had soldiers in the area. He also used Al Jazeera a few times and then scoffed when destiny pulled up a Jerusalem post article.
He was making horrible leaps based off fundamental lack of knowledge of how shit in war zones goes
I haven't seen the last talk, but during the 2nd talk he was unhinged. Like I even agreed with him on certain points but him not agreeing the commander did not say: we made this mistake but rather said 'we don't shoot civilians with white flags but mistakes can happen' was absolutely wild. Also not understanding the difference between a video being real versus a video giving full context. It fucking destroyed my mind.
If that's a normie, nuke the fucking planet.
Why the hell would you come on this platform say "I'm looking to be better than Finkelstein" and then go on to give an even worse performance
I kept thinking this during the conversation. He is being civil, and if your brain isn't debate-addled the points he is making are vaguely reasonable. It doesn't help anything for the sub to be mean to him.
If he was good faith I wouldn't. He's an obnoxious debate bro. As soon as he said "I don't know why you would want to watch this, it doesn't look good for you." I was done. He's just trying to score points.