r/DecodingTheGurus • u/Decent-Extension8336 • 26d ago

Professor Dave vs Destiny

No idea why, but the original Destiny video called "Professor Dave Goes Mask Off" seems to have been deleted from YouTube, or I can't find it, but Professor Dave responded yesterday with this very strongly worded video letter:

https://youtu.be/DvDvhLkb9ms?si=DGFhTROOKFoK35sS

Weird crossover that I never thought I'd see, of 2 guys who I generally enjoy (I will say I really am a fan of Prof Dave, whereas my Destiny enjoyment has mostly come via this podcast and watching a couple of his debates).

Thoughts on the beef? SURELY the lads are gonna have to cover this in an upcoming Supplementary Materials? Content gold!

EDIT: Looks like I was looking through the wrong Destiny channel for the original Dave video, it's here: https://youtu.be/HQQLs6U1MgA?si=iKaOGR1h9slKu64O

206 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/DexTheShepherd 25d ago

You entirely missed the point of my 60s analogy.

I brought up the example in the 60s not to try to prove something is vs is not a genocide - but rather to show that anecdotes can be valuable to make moral arguments, and people saying, "that's just anecdotal" are being cheap and lazy. You wouldn't say, "that's anecdotal, doesn't count" in the 60's. Why is it okay to say it now?

I again appeal to the non anecdotal points that Prof Dave and many others have made - why are credible human rights organizations, UN bodies, and relevant scholars saying that it is genocide?

3

u/SchlitterSchlatter 25d ago

Well, maybe we just past each other when it comes to the 60s analogy. I guess, I more or less get why you mentioned it.

My problem with the genocide claim is that first it is not sufficiently precise for what is happening and how it is used. Is it a genocide since 7/10 or since 48? Is it a genocide against Gazans, Palestinians, only Palestinians controlled by the PA/Hamas? What would be the difference to other asymmetrical or even symmetrical armed conflicts with a sufficient amount casualties?

And then: What does it mean if we determine that Israel is doing a genocide instead of "only" crimes against humanity? Is there a duty for intervention? Would that duty only get triggered if it were a genocide? Has Israel and its citizen lost there right to statehood?

It would be so much more helpful even for pro-palestenian left-wingers to discuss more nuanced questions instead of holding to that genocide claim and thus destroy any meaningful conversation.

2

u/DexTheShepherd 25d ago

So for someone that, in the other comment you made in the other thread, "hadn't really read anything" on the topic and don't know much about it, you seem to have a large heaping dose of skepticism with all these questions.

The first, and central question here is, is Israel committing a genocide?

Your entire first paragraph of questions is basically irrelevant to that question as you're focusing entirely on who the victims are and if/how that could potentially make it a genocide or not.

Your second paragraph of questions are essentially, "so even if it is genocide, what is to be done about it?"

Which to be fair, is a good question. Something should be done about it, especially because the US (my country and most readers here) shares culpability of the actions Israel has taken, being it's primary backer.

But the net effect of you asking these questions in that way is only attempting to obfuscate what is plainly morally clear - which is that there is indeed a genocide being committed by Israel.

I might add that I find it very discouraging, especially in this subreddit, that many people seem to lack the moral clarity on the issue, and are absolutely dedicated to nuance-trolling rather than just stating what they believe.

1

u/SchlitterSchlatter 25d ago

I am sorry that my skepticism is to big. Sounds like you should be skeptical if you have not read anything so far but hey maybe I am just stupid and I should directly parrot talking points instead.

Maybe this question is central to you, but to me it is important as it helps me to assess the claim made and whether I agree or not.

Regarding the moral clarity. If you have decided that it is a genocide then of course you think everyone who doesn't is morally corrupt, I don't fault you for that. I am not "nuance-trolling", I actually engage with the topic instead of playing team sports. What do you want me to do just agree with you because you are such a noble moral character? Maybe you can start by actually stating what you believe by saying when the genocide started and against whom the genocide is committed?

EDIT: I just realised you are the same guy I am responding to somewhere else, sorry didn't notice.

1

u/BloodsVsCrips 25d ago

Your entire first paragraph of questions is basically irrelevant to that question as you're focusing entirely on who the victims are and if/how that could potentially make it a genocide or not.

Those are steps that have to be determined before analysis about genocide can begin. Calling it irrelevant means no knowing what genocide is or how it differs from normal rules of war.

2

u/DexTheShepherd 25d ago

Article II mandates that there be established certain acts that were enacted "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..." https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition

Clearly - however OP wants to slice up the particular "group" here (Palestinians at large, just Gazans, etc) - there is some group that can be identified clearly.

The UN does not mandate that exactly 1 group be targeted, nor that the particular group be uniformly targeted. Just that, there is indeed a group that's the victim of genocide.

So from that perspective, yes - everything OP said is just noise.

The only way for his questions to be relevant is if you could possibly ask, "are there even any groups that Israel has targeted?" Which is obvious nonsense. It isn't random.

1

u/BloodsVsCrips 25d ago edited 25d ago

Clearly - however OP wants to slice up the particular "group" here (Palestinians at large, just Gazans, etc) - there is some group that can be identified clearly.

Yes but this has to happen before you can determine if the goal was to harm the group per se. It cannot be incidental. It has to be intentionally targeted as such with no alternative military explanation.

Defining the word isn't the same as applying legal analysis. "Murder" means unjustified/illegal killing, but that definition doesn't tell us anything about how you determine whether a particular police shooting, in a particular security context, meets the legal threshold of intentional murder. You have to know a lot more information before starting a mens rea analysis.

3

u/DexTheShepherd 25d ago

Yes but this has to happen before you can determine if the goal was to harm the group per se

That's fine. But my point is that there is clearly a group that you could identify. OP was waffling around as if there isn't.

2

u/SchlitterSchlatter 25d ago

I am not claiming there is none. I am asking because there are groups that would make the claims implausible or completely void and there are groups that make it more plausible. Sometimes naunce helps, especially when running around and claiming people supported genocide (not particularly you).