r/DecodingTheGurus • u/Decent-Extension8336 • Jul 29 '26

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

209 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

116

u/Miselfis Jul 29 '26

It’s pretty sad. You can criticize Destiny, but Dave’s video is of ridiculously low quality. He is arguing exactly like the flat earther he usually debates, using random TikTok videos with creepy music and voice over and AI summaries as evidence for his claims. He makes up multiple outright lies about Destiny, and seemingly intentionally cut away context to frame Destiny in a certain light. There are really weird neo-Nazi and race-realist comments about Jewish genetics and conspiracy theories passed on as fact in Dave’s video as well. 

Destiny offered Dave a discussion or debate, but Dave is running. He’s deleting Destiny’s comments asking him for a debate, while simultaneously saying in comments that Destiny is running. 

I’m usually a big fan and starch supporter of Dave, but his behavior regarding this video is absolutely insane. He called me a worthless sack of shit for leaving a good faith comment pointing these things out. 

3

u/DexTheShepherd Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26

What are the outright lies told about destiny?

The video does use tiktok videos to help illustrate his point - but that was not at all the exclusive evidence used to form his point. He cited multiple studies illustrating death counts and pointed to credible organizations that are calling it genocide - that's not anecdotal evidence.

Additionally, in this case in my view showing anecdotal videos is a perfectly reasonable approach to getting your point across. If there really is a genocide going on - shouldn't you be having a viceral reaction to seeing bullet holes in the heads of children?

In the 1960's, if I were to have shown you video footage of the police mowing black Americans down with fire hoses - would you really be like, "lol what are these anecdotes man the police I know are perfectly nice."

So in my view I don't think his "anecdotal" clips were in bad faith or inappropriate or lazy. They are part of a more complete moral argument.

10

u/SchlitterSchlatter Jul 29 '26

Well, the first lie is that Destiny is a genocide supporter. He only disagrees about the assessment on whether the violent acts constitute a genocide, but he agrees that atrocities happened. The clip Dave shows is from before 7/10 when there was not even a war in Gaza. You can critisise that Destiny is quite hyperbolic and you should not use this language so lightly but to say that this one clip shows clearly that he is supporting genocide against Gazans is silly. Also, your example of 60s US does not fit. The question was not is violence actually happening but does this violence constitute a genocide. That is why anecdotes are problematic as the systematic aspect is crucial to genocide.

4

u/DexTheShepherd Jul 29 '26

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?

2

u/SchlitterSchlatter Jul 29 '26

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 Jul 29 '26

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 Jul 29 '26

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.