Norman Finkelstein on His Debate with "that thing called" Destiny

ITT:

David Pakman.

https://lemmy.ml/u/vincentmario@feddit.uk

Can't see this user's post history on hexbear but they have a bunch of posts defending Kamala and Biden and NATO. "If I can’t have no genocide, I’d rather some genocide than more genocide. Is this really that controversial?" They seem to think that Gaza is the trolley problem. I'm not sure how someone types "I'd rather some genocide" without feeling shame.

There is no such thing as 'some genocide'. Genocide doesn't exist on a fucking gradient. It's a binary concept.
"If I can't have no genocide..."
"Actually here's the "no genocide" candidate, you'd just have to vote for somebody other than the dems."
"I'm not going to do that and here's why that actually makes you the real genocide supporter."
They're on the exact same level as the "actually you pointing out racism is the real racism" magats
I can excuse a little genocide, but not a lot of genocide

You can excuse genocide?
lol of course an anglo genocidal dweeb also looks up to disgusting shitstain like mr. fettucini/sexpestiny.
- There is no "less vs more" genocide in this equation. The US supplies the arms, Israel does the genocide. If the US keeps sending the necessary arms for the genocide, then the genocide is still there. The "less vs more" narrative is a lie liberals tell themselves to morally justify siding with genocide, rather than abandoning the establishment and going third-party and/or joining revolutionary worker organizations.
  As for NATO, it's a terrorist alliance of Imperialist countries. The only reason it exists is to cement the process by which the Global North extracts and subjugates the Global South. It's a "defensive alliance" in the same way the Mafia provides "protection" for itself. Without NATO, Imperialism would be weakened, and countries in the Global South would not be terrorized for trying to develop and establish sovereignty over their own resources and industry, like what the Sahel States are doing right now in kicking out France.
  
  It's all said and done now, but less vs more genocide is a false concept to begin with. Genocide is a binary concept. There's either a genocide or not a genocide.
  
  I agree. My point was more for the liberals that believe there is literally a lever between "X killed" and "X + 1 killed" and that they are therefore doing harm reduction by picking "X killed" as a binary option. The lie doesn't really start at saying the choice is binary, ie third party voting and revolutionary organization exist too. The lie starts at the premise of those choices even being on the table, as both parties do their damndest to provide "Israel" with as much as it needs to continue the genocide.
  At a moral and technical level, the scale of genocide doesn't change if it's genocide or not, correct, but even using the logic of liberalism it falls under its own contradictions.
  
  I agree

This is why 'debates' are pointless. People who don't know anything think Destiny 'held his own', when he couldn't even get basic timelines correct.

Finkelstein didn't even bother to engage with him because what is the point of having to literally educate him on basic aspects of the topic. What he is telling him, and you, is to actually read the fucking books the Wikipedia page is citing to make sure the citations are correct, and to actually become knowledge on the topic so you can have an informed opinion that is worth debating. The reason why this is the correct thing to do is because even if you were to do a point by point refutation of Destiny, there is nothing stopping him from just making up more shit or citing more crap from an unverified online source.

If a person comes to you as a student and wants to learn, you educate them. If a person comes to you as a competing expert and doesn't know basic aspects of what they are supposed to know, you ridicule them.

- The problem is that Destiny fundamentally lacked the required knowledge to engage in any kind of meaningfully relevant discussion beyond himself conceding immediate defeat. There's no "debate" to be had of any value, Destiny could never hope to add value as he lacked sufficient knowledge. Despite this, he still tried to argue against Finklestein, who does know about the subject to a far greater degree.
  Among Communists, there is a saying:
  No investigation, no right to speak.
  It is far better to hold your tongue on matters you do not know until you have done the necessary legwork to learn. Otherwise, you contribute to a cacophany of misinformation.
  Debates as the modern liberal bloodsport are based on "owning" the other party. Winning the argument matters more than coming to a higher understanding, ergo it's a space dominated by the most annoying types of people (like Destiny). "Holding his own" doesn't matter in the slightest unless you value winning the argument over being correct.
  If you want to be more educated on a subject, it's far more effective to spend that time reading. Books exist for a reason. Debates are for entertainment, not education, unless they are held among principled comrades wishing to come to a unified consensus on matters key to principle.
  Side note, liberalism is a bad thing. This is a Leftist community, Destiny is rightfully hated here as a genocidal zionist liberal. Just a heads-up.
- Calling Destiny a competing expert with Norm Finklestein is like throwing a pebble into the pool in an Olympic swimming match and saying it's a competitor
- "because what is the point of having to literally educate him on basic aspects of the topic." Isn't this a good idea?
  If Destiny started that discussion by saying that he was ignorant on the topic, and willing to learn, there's nothing wrong with educating him.
  That's not what he did. He went into that debate, with men who have been studying this issue since before he was born, like an arrogant streaming jackass. He thought being able to speak quickly and paraphrase Wikipedia meant he was the intellectual equal, if not the superior, of people who have forgotten more about Palestine than he will ever know. He thought that memorizing Israeli State Department talking points was the same as lived experience, he thought that skimming a couple Wikipedia articles was the same as scholarly research, he thought that pontificating on the stream where he grooms Young girls, was the same as writing dozens of books. He thought that arguing with his twitch chat prepared him to go against intellectual Giants.
  Anyone who watched that debate and thinks destiny did anything besides embarrass himself, is a faux intellectual.
  Edit: the exact same way that Charlie Kirk thinks that he's an intellectual giant because he can shout down 19-year-olds, but ends up getting his ass handed to him by anyone who actually finished their degree, destiny walked into that debate like he was going to be arguing with 15-year-olds in his chat, and he got smacked down accordingly. He has not earned the right to be treated as Finkelstein's intellectual equal. Benny Morris, monster that he is, has earned that.

Destiny isn't owed attention, he has to first earn it. Since he didn't earn it, he came into the debate as lil bro to Benny Morris, who was a historian and thus worthy of a debate with Norm.

That and the "just Google it" response from Destiny cemented the L and made it evident that Destiny wasn't to be taken seriously from then on. This happened only a couple minutes into the debate.

He failed the vibe check from the start and spiraled from there, talking too fast to get his points across. He didn't even have charisma since all attacks came off as awkwardness stemming from misreading the social situation.

I don't like debates normally for this reason, they become charisma contests and truth becomes a second class citizen. Luckily this debate was a massive failure for Destiny. Your posting is the first I've heard from him for a while.

We did get funny soundbites from this, though.

mistah bonerelli

Wasn't Destiny worthy of the debate when Finkelstein accepted the debate? I really don't understand. Why are we talking about worthiness.
I'm not able to check the example you sent yet (Thank you, btw!!) but if you'll allow me to extrapolate, I feel like "Just Google it" means "This statement I made is correct, and is easily provable with a quick search". If he didn't cite anything, that would be kind of weird I think. I think it would depend. If I forget to come back to this I'll cry in real life
- Mr brocolini is worthy of getting his pedo nazi face stomped in
- Iirc norm didn’t agree to debate with destiny, he agreed to debate Benny morris
- Making shit up instead of accepting criticism and dealing with it head on is perfectly on brand.
- Why are we talking about worthiness.
  If I disagreed with the theory of relativity, I would first read Wikipedia to see if I had the right idea, sure. But if I wanted to come to rebuke the theory altogether and be convincing to intellectuals I would have to do a lot more work. Poke holes in the theory either through critiquing the method used to prove the theory in the first place or by running my own more convincing tests, and then get published somewhere credible. Not easy.
  Destiny didn't do anything even close to this and instead attached his brand to Benny Morris, an actual historian like I said. But I'm not Norm,he had his reasons for accepting and everything worked out it seems.
  What Bonerelli was saying to google BTW, was an IDF shooting of 4 innocent children coming out of a fisherman's shack in 2014. At the time IDF and apparently Destiny thought it was a Hamas base, it wasn't.
  Basic Wikipedia tells me it wasn't and only a self-investigation of the IDF absovled them in the end. From there the debate turned into shit show.

didn’t really engage with Destiny much on many points he brought up, if at all

lmao, that's because his 'points' were willfully misunderstood citations from wikipedia, sourced from books that Finkelstein either actually read or he himself wrote.

Destiny did not 'hold his own', he got absolutely humiliated.

- How do you know?
  How? Even just a passive viewing of that debate shows how little he understands the citations he's using. He couldn't defend any of his sources beyond reading select quotes that just happen to be available on wikipedia - any time Finkelstein engaged the substance of whatever it was he was resting his case on Mr Bonnelli couldn't hang.
  This is why this kind of exchange is pointless - Finkelstein is an actual scholar on the issue and can engage with substance far deeper than most average BA's could, let alone a college drop-out slop-tuber. The distance between them in terms of subject matter knowledge is just too great - they might as well be speaking different languages.
  
  Please correct me if i'm misunderstanding your point, but I interpreted this response as you admitting you enjoy dunking your head into toilet bowls and think most people operate this way.
  "Having subject matter expertise is the same as vibes" is pretty much pestiny's entire brand.

I don't think you or I for that matter can appreciate the difference in education on the subject between Finkelstein and Destiny. Finkelstein didn't just read every book on the subject multiple times, he wrote a whole number of them. He is one of the premier scholars on the subject in the entire world. Does that mean he is infallible and can't be questioned by someone? No, but there is a certain audacity in believing that you are in any position to debate this man after you educated yourself by reading wikipedia articles for a few days in advance, wikipedia articles which are probably in no small part based on Finkelstein's own work.

- It was because his points were factually incorrect, which is what Finkelstein was pointing out. If you are saying that 'as long as the argument sound good it good', then you are willfully ignorant. He never made a better argument than Finkelstein.
  
  He tried to portray the great march of return as violent when it was overwhelmingly non violent. Of 30,000 demonstrators, 2 were seen to carry weapons. It was by and large peaceful while Israeli snipers deliberately incapacitated people hundreds of meters away from the fence. Destiny was wrong on this, but tried to used single instances of violence to “debunk” the fact that it was nearly entirely non-violent.
  
  I'm not going to rewatch the video, but I recall he literally doesn't believe European Jews coming in is settler colonialism, nor that Israel is part of the British project of Palestinian partition, which directly contradicts the UN history of the matter, despite citing the same document for support of other points.
  Besides the point that he absolutely believes the current slaughter is justified.
- I didn't watch the debate but I've heard them both argue about the topic in different contexts. Destiny is good at debating and he can "hold his own" in any debate, regardless of how wrong he is on a subject, by litigating technicalities, deviating and distracting from the core issue at hand. I'm sure his arguments sound great if you know absolutely nothing about the subject matter.
  
  The dude stands on the side of genocide. Yes he absolutely is wrong, evidently so
  
  You're assuming the destiny doesn't reuse the same arguments over and over again, or that everything about his viewpoint can't be gleaned by the gleeful pro genocide rhetoric that he uses, he's constant dehumanization of palestinians.
  I don't think it's necessary to read mein Kampf cover to cover, to disregard Hitler's ideology or point out the very obvious contradictions. I don't think it's necessary to watch every Mussolini speech, to disregard his ideology. I don't think it's necessary to watch a 3-hour debate and provide time stamps, to disregard a twitch streamer with an over inflated ego.
  And that's before we get into the very real and very disturbing sexual misconduct, which does not directly imply he's wrong on this issue, but definitely means you should not take anything he says at face value. Someone can be correct on a topic, while being an unrepentant sexual monster, but people should still think twice and probably spend less time defending his honor.

Still, pretty awesome a game streamer can do all this and hold his own

IP正确

- It's Chinese for 'IP checks out', i.e. you're from a .uk instance, and one with a poor reputation for political literacy. ~~But, to your credit, at least you're seemingly hoping to learn~~. I hope that similarly to how you were able stop being an 'anti-liberal'* transphobe from watching debates, you'll continue to mature and watch and read from sources wider than online debate streamers, like, actually reading scholarly writing other. You'll quickly come to realise how out-of-depth Destiny is.
  we have different understandings of this phrase, but you ain't ready for that yet
  
  Lmao I have no idea why people are seriously engaging this simpleton, he’s either beyond stupid or playing like it (distinction without a difference)
  
  I realize now they’re probably trolling. We’re just too good faith on HB, assuming people who ask questions may genuinely want to learn
  
  I gave him the benefit of the doubt until about 3 comments in.
  
  Understandable
  
  Good to see a lemme.ee with agreeable takes. You gonna join hexbear or stay a secret agent?
  
  I just make a new account whenever i get banned (a lot because I hate libertarian computer toucher idiots and love to tell them this) and lemm.ee is the easiest/quickest I’ve found
  
  o7
  Keep up the good fight
  
  Hey, this is totally irrelevant to the thrust of your comment, but do you have reason to believe vincentmario uses he/him pronouns, and if not, would you mind changing the pronouns in your comments to be gender neutral? It's good practice to not assume that everyone on the internet is a man.
  
  Man stfu
  
  You’re sea lioning for a sex criminal, you’re not going to find a ton of sympathy here
  
  Honestly if you want to learn more on the subject, debates are not a good way. It may seem engaging but on a topic with extensive history and sensitivity such as this these its best to seek other means. Especially when it involves that sex pest destiny
  
  I agree kind of :) They're absolutely not a replacement for actual research, but I think videos like these can inspire interesting questions which encourage further reading. Most people as well probably aren't willing to critically and factually research a given subject, so well structured and fact based debates I think could be helpful for helping inform a wider audience maybe
  
  Do you have an example of what you believe is a “well structured and fact based debate?”
  
  The Michael Brooks vs Destiny debate.
  We learn that sometimes destiny is wrong, and sometimes Michael is right.
  
  Tbh very rarely are debates you find on youtube well structured and really fact based. A lot of times its more about arguing semantics or finding logical traps in the others rhethoric more so than spreading knowledge on the subject. And very rarely does it change minds. Maybe it did for you but believe me when I say that is an exception. Generally vast majority of the audience just comes to affirm their believes through a vehicle or a mouthpiece. Its unfortunate but it is what it is.
  
  UI didn't say anything against your educational background, I was explaining what IP正确 meant. Also like, i only half wrote that sentence it shoulda been something like 'and other materials on the subject' bit i was making toast and didn't proofread. I guess you're right that the debate wasn't enlightening, I found it a waste of time too, so I'm wondering why you're saying destiny held his own when you're capable of seeing that he wasn't.
  You ain't ready for that yet
  Because this instance is anti-liberal, but we use the term differently from how you used it. So if I said "we're also actually anti-liberal" without further context then 99.99% certain you'll say we're right-wingers and dismiss us out-of-hand. I say this as a former 'liberal' myself. We don't use liberal as shorthand for 'democrat', we understand it in the lockian sense
  that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Stanford encyclopaedia on John locke
  Particularly around the modern capitalist state and defence of private property. On this, both 'sides' of politics agree and are in essence liberals.
  We are very prickly, yes. But this thread is relatively tame.
  Edit: rip bozo
- Destiny is a little openly genocide loving freak and only deserved to be mocked and ridiculed by an expert. Norm couldn't do much more than make fun of him for trying to defend a genocide using Wikipedia, while the real complexities were gone over with the Zionist scholar destiny brought with him.
  Only an anglo could find a gamer defending a genocide "awesome"
  
  Hey you're being kind of mean towards me. I haven't said anything about the conflict in this entire thread. I don't think I even said anything about Destiny being correct. Do you think I'm in favour of Destiny's arguments because I think he was the better debater?
  
  I am being mean, because there is no neutrality on a moving train. The debate was, essentially, about whether Israel's genocide against the Palestinians was justified, and destiny was defending for the justness of the side committing a genocide.
  This isn't a hypothetical, it's not funny, whenever people ask themselves what they would have done during the Holocaust it's exactly what they're doing now; because we're seeing a mass campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Gaza strip.
  I think even treating the debate in a supposedly neutral way is to take the side of those committing an industrial scale ethnic cleansing with the assistance of drones, AI, and other modern technologies with the financial backing of the US. I've seen too many dismembered children to be nice about this over the internet.
  
  I haven't said anything about the conflict in this entire thread.
  Yeah, that (and calling it "a conflict") says more than enough, fucking freak.
  
  Do you think destiny is wrong on genocide and the apartheid state of Israel? You spent this entire thread caping for him, so of course people will assume you’re a D rider
  
  Care to be explicit about the genocide and the apartheid state or are we still living in vibe land? Do you realize how you come off to genuine interlocutors?
  
  Hes repeatedly supported genocidal rhethoric on his social media and videos.
  
  This is the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm not touching you" but for supporting genocide
  You're a spineless nazi slug and I genuinely wish you'd kill yourself